Bears Ears
This is week-plus old news, the fact that President Obama took a page out of the Clinton handbook and designated a huge chunk of Utah land as a federal monument. Technically it's a "national monument" but the reality is the land is to be controlled by the federal government and not Utah, and Utah doesn't really have any say in how to utilize any of the designated acreage, so it's a federal monument. Another monument to overreaching power.
New Bears Ears Monument for Utah
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=42708529
Normally I would probably post this on a different blog, but the news article got me thinking, could this monument designation actually be a good thing?
It occurred to me as I looked at the area that this is near the areas described by several people as being places of refuge in the four corners area.
And, while there are few towns in the nearby area, a monument designation will essentially ensure little expansion or growth occurs in nearby towns.
In the event of a major catastrophe, disaster, calamity, or similar event, where civilization basically collapses, there will be groups of people who will eventually wander along the various highways and freeways in search of food, supplies, and those who can help.
Because of the monument designation, anyone who might be wandering, looking for a semblance of civilization, would most likely not waste their time going into the monument area. Why would they waste time and resources walking or driving (if roads are still passable, and a vehicle can run) into an area that is expected to only be wilderness?
So, gathering to or near a monument area would be beneficial in that it could reduce those who might come wandering through.
Along the political side, I don't agree with how Obama went about the monument designation. It was basically done with complete disregard for the government and elected officials of Utah.
New Bears Ears Monument for Utah
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=42708529
Normally I would probably post this on a different blog, but the news article got me thinking, could this monument designation actually be a good thing?
It occurred to me as I looked at the area that this is near the areas described by several people as being places of refuge in the four corners area.
And, while there are few towns in the nearby area, a monument designation will essentially ensure little expansion or growth occurs in nearby towns.
In the event of a major catastrophe, disaster, calamity, or similar event, where civilization basically collapses, there will be groups of people who will eventually wander along the various highways and freeways in search of food, supplies, and those who can help.
Because of the monument designation, anyone who might be wandering, looking for a semblance of civilization, would most likely not waste their time going into the monument area. Why would they waste time and resources walking or driving (if roads are still passable, and a vehicle can run) into an area that is expected to only be wilderness?
So, gathering to or near a monument area would be beneficial in that it could reduce those who might come wandering through.
Along the political side, I don't agree with how Obama went about the monument designation. It was basically done with complete disregard for the government and elected officials of Utah.
Comments
Post a Comment