You really nailed it. You noted the broken promises, the legal challenges, and the unstable victories that unilateral political decisions create. A legislative compromise born out of the tension that you described so eloquently would likely create a permanent boundary that both sides may dislike, but would probably be the best outcome for everyone. Thanks for the even handed analysis! Appreciate your work!
This was never Utah's land. It was federal land before the monument designation, before Utah became a state. Utah has no claim to it, so those arguments fail. While possibly not the smallest possible area to protect the antiquities, I challenge you to name one part of either of these monuments that aren't worthy of protection. I've been to both; both are sacred landscapes, unique and irreplaceable.
You really nailed it. You noted the broken promises, the legal challenges, and the unstable victories that unilateral political decisions create. A legislative compromise born out of the tension that you described so eloquently would likely create a permanent boundary that both sides may dislike, but would probably be the best outcome for everyone. Thanks for the even handed analysis! Appreciate your work!
Thanks for this, Christopher! Hope to bring you more even-handed analysis soon. :)
Quick ask. We run ads to bring new readers to The Plum. Can we quote a couple lines from your comment, with your name on it? Totally fine if not.
Sure. Feel free to quote. I want to support this kind of thoughtful research and journalism.
This was never Utah's land. It was federal land before the monument designation, before Utah became a state. Utah has no claim to it, so those arguments fail. While possibly not the smallest possible area to protect the antiquities, I challenge you to name one part of either of these monuments that aren't worthy of protection. I've been to both; both are sacred landscapes, unique and irreplaceable.