On Monday, December 4th, President Donald Trump announced a reduction of the Bears Ears National Monument by as much as 90%. President Obama protected these mesas, cliffs, and canyons that are home to over 100,000 Native American archaeological and cultural sites. Some of these sites date back 12,000 BCE and the Obama Administration argued they have great aesthetic value. However, Trump argues for the economic value of the area and that President Obama established the monument non-democratically without representing the interests of Utahns.
Even if protecting the Bears Ears National Monument does not represent the opinion of the majority of Utahans, it is still worth it to preserve the aesthetic value of the area. This is because aesthetic value applies to many more people than just Utahans. People all around the world visiting Utah can appreciate the cultural, historic, and aesthetic importance of the area. Without even physically being there, people around the world can also appreciate the aesthetic value of Bears Ears through photographs and stories about the area. Beyond even people alive today, future humans will also be able to appreciate the aesthetic value of the area if preserved. Everyone around the world from today to the future adds up to a significant amount of aesthetic value that the area holds, and with the added value of future Utahans, it could be argued that the preservation of Bears Ears does, in fact, represent the interests of Utahans. As an aside, it could also be argued that preservation of this land is also in favor of Utahans, as the land will be used for fossil fuel extraction, increasing US reliance on fossil fuels and exacerbating climate change effects, such as drought, for Utah.
Yet, the economic value the area holds for current Utahans is also of importance. Depending on the economic need for the state, it could be favorable to use some of the set aside land for development or fossil fuel extraction. However, I do not believe that Utah has demonstrated the significant need to justify the development of this land yet. This exact line where it makes sense to develop the area would be difficult to define and would need to result in a significant benefit to the livelihood of a majority of Utahans. I think is fair to say that Utah is not currently struggling enough to justify this. And if Utah was in significant economic struggle, a compromise could be made between the boundaries defined by Obama and by Trump to represent everyone’s best interests.