SALIDA — The fear of change is a curious thing. If not altogether universal, it is certainly inescapable. Yet, change is what the world does best.
With millions of years of evolution and a couple thousand recorded on the calendar, you’d think we’d be used to it by now. We cope daily with changes in the weather, the seasons and a million other things beyond our control. So maybe it’s not actual change we fear. Perhaps the real fear is lack of control.
My hunch is that’s when it comes to the current for President Barack Obama to use his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish Browns Canyon of the Arkansas River as Colorado’s newest national monument. Why else he would go to such lengths to oppose a plan that has seen so much support for so long is otherwise a mystery.
Lamborn, a Republican representing Colorado’s 5th Congressional District, cites the concerns of “multitudes of locals” over grazing rights, outdoor recreation and the ability to fight wildfires in the proposed 22,000-acre monument. He describes national monuments created by executive order as “orphans stranded outside the National Park Service.” Use of the Antiquities Act, he says, “robs the American people of a fair and open process” in the decision, even though he knows the claims are unfounded. If he doesn’t, he’s unqualified for the job.
Unlike Rep. Lamborn, I attended last Saturday’s open-house meeting hosted by Colorado U.S. Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, whose legislation outlining the proposed Browns Canyon National Monument has failed to reach the floor for discussion for consecutive years. Theirs is but the latest in a 23-year process that includes similar legislative efforts by both parties failing to be “considered in an open and public congressional setting,” as Lamborn suggests.
The reality is that the setting in Salida was as open and public as any meeting could be, with dozens of the 500-plus attendees given the opportunity to speak their minds. The overwhelming majority spoke in favor of establishing Browns Canyon as a national monument.
The Republican Party’s platform calling for the privatization of public lands is a poorly kept secret that directly conflicts with this proposed preservation of public lands, the majority of which are already managed by the federal government. And calling the long-established ability of the president (and 15 of his predecessors) to designate national monuments “an abuse of executive privilege” amounts to nothing more than political sour grapes. It’s been used more than 100 times, including the Grand Canyon and the Statue of Liberty.
There is nothing second class about national monument status, which is the preference of sportsmen in order to preserve hunting access and recreational flexibility. Yet, the layer of protection provided through monument designation will go so far as to prevent additional mining claims from being filed on this , as occurred during in protection in 2013.
Those opposed to the plan were given equal opportunity to speak their dissent last Saturday, and a relative few of them did. The primary argument came from ranchers fearing a potential loss of grazing and water rights, citing a frank distrust of those government officials who don’t always tell the truth. Hard to blame them for that.
But the irony in the upheaval is that the fundamental point of monument designation is to keep Browns Canyon just the way it is. In other words, to prevent change. Is that so scary?
Scott Willoughby: swilloughby @denverpost.com or twitter.com/ swilloughby
