Make a respectful yet firm statement, or ask a question. Make sure you let Rep. Curtis know you support protection of Bears Ears National Monument and Utah’s public wildlands. Ask him to drop his bill, H.R. 4532.
Bottom line on H.R. 4532:
- It cements President Trump’s unlawful repeal of Bears Ears National Monument, replacing it with two smaller, less protected national monuments (Shash Jáa and Indian Creek).
- It cuts Bears Ears National Monument by 85%, stripping protection from over a million acres of land and tens of thousands of cultural sites, exposing priceless cultural resources to continued threat of destruction and loss. This includes ancient cliff dwellings, rock art, and countless artifacts reflecting thousands of years of human history.
- Curtis drafted his bill without any input from the five sovereign tribes that encouraged President Obama to proclaim Bears Ears National Monument. These tribal nations—Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Zuni Pueblo, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and Ute Indian Tribes—have stated unequivocally that they support the original 1.35 million acre designation and have sued President Trump, challenging his illegal actions. Curtis is dishonoring his federal trust relationship by not reaching out to and listening to the Tribes.
- Curtis’s bill hands over management planning for the two new mini monuments to two separate “Management Councils” that must include local officials (who have historically been hostile to the management and protection of the Bears Ears National Monument). Two spots on each of the councils would be filled by local country commissioners—commissioners who actively opposed the protection of Bears Ears. The tribal representatives on these councils would be tribal members chosen in consultation with the Utah Congressional delegation, but not the tribal governments, thereby undermining tribal sovereignty and diluting tribal input. The bill specifically excludes any representation from the Hopi Tribe, Zuni Pueblo and Ute Indian Tribe. Curtis argues that this hand-picked “local control” is a good thing. His claim that it provides for “Tribal co-management” is false.