![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
In December of 2017, President Trump reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante Monuments by 2 million acres. Conservatives rejoiced, and progressives railed. Yet neither side has clearly identified the moral facets of the situation. The crucial moral question is this: How ought public property be regulated to protect landscapes with cultural significance? We offer criteria for determining when something has cultural value and argue that the moral merits of the present case turn on whether the reduction adequately addresses the cultural interests at play.
Notes
1. As quoted in the New York Times December 4, 2017.
2. https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/bear-ears-fact-sheet.pdf In particular, the US Forest Service report notes that ‘the national monument designation will not impact the rights of private landowners…’.
3. The Navajo, the Hopi, the Ute Mountain Ute, the Northern Ute, and the Pueblo of Zuni all were given representation on a commission governing the Bears Ears National Monument.
4. E.g. Barry (Citation1997).
5. E.g. Norton (Citation1989).
6. E.g. Donaldson and Kymlicka (Citation2011).
7. UNEP-WCMC (Citation2018).
8. The World Bank Data (Citation2018).
10. http://insideenergy.org/2017/09/01/oil-gas-eyes-bears-ears-fringes/ In particular, the Associate Director of Oil & Gas at the Utah Division of Natural Resources reports that ‘there are dozens of abandoned oil and gas wells within monument boundaries, but none are active, according to Utah’s Division of Oil, Gas & Mining. The last producing well in the monument was drilled in 1984 and stopped producing in 1992. The cost of getting oil and gas to market from such a remote and rugged area could be prohibitive, and experts say the fossil fuel deposits just aren’t economically recoverable.’