OPINION
By Don Amador
July 15, 2026
BEARS EARS NATIONAL MONUMENT – BEYOND THE HEADLINES
President Trump's recent Executive Order modifying the
boundaries of the Bears Ears National Monument has reignited a familiar debate
across the West. Depending on which headlines or social media posts you read,
the action is either being celebrated as a major victory for public access or
condemned as an unprecedented attack on conservation and Tribal interests. As
is often the case with public land issues, the reality is considerably more complex.
After reviewing the Executive Order, the recently
approved Bears Ears Resource Management Plan, and the initial reactions from
recreation, conservation, and Tribal organizations, I believe there is value in
stepping back from the political rhetoric to look at what the Order actually
does—and just as importantly—what it does not do.
For the off-highway vehicle community, the Executive
Order does not immediately reopen trails or create new riding opportunities. It
reduces the monument boundaries and restores those lands to traditional Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service multiple-use management.
Existing travel management decisions, designated route systems, and resource
management plans generally remain in place until they are modified through
future planning processes. In other words, this is not an "opening"
of public lands. It is the beginning of another planning process.
That distinction is important. Future decisions regarding
motorized recreation will still require compliance with the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other
applicable federal laws. Public involvement, environmental analysis, and
collaboration among stakeholders will remain essential components of any future
travel management decisions.
For those of us who have spent decades working on travel
management plans throughout the West, this is familiar territory. Executive
Orders can establish policy direction, but they do not replace the detailed
work of inventorying routes, evaluating resource conditions, balancing
competing uses, and engaging the public in developing sustainable travel
management plans.
Ironically, one fact that received relatively little
attention during the previous Bears Ears planning effort was that the Bureau of
Land Management estimated that approximately 98 percent of previously
designated motorized routes would remain available for public use, even under
the recently approved monument management plan.
While many in the OHV community understandably focused on the proposed
closures, the broader story was that the vast majority of designated routes
remained open. That illustrates how public perception and the actual details of
land management decisions are not always the same.
From my perspective, however, the most significant issue
is not the number of miles that may eventually open or close. It is the
continuing instability in public land management.
Bears Ears has now experienced multiple major policy
reversals under successive presidential administrations. Each change has
required agencies to begin new planning efforts, redirect limited staff
resources, revisit previous decisions, and prepare for the inevitable legal
challenges. Local communities, Tribes, counties, recreation groups,
conservation organizations, and agency personnel are once again left wondering
what the next administration may decide.
Throughout my career, I have learned that durable public
land management is rarely achieved through political victories alone. It is
built through collaboration.
One of the reasons I publicly supported the expansion of
California's Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument was because the process
brought together Tribes, conservation organizations, local governments, and the
OHV community in meaningful discussions about the future of those public lands.
Designated motorized recreation remained part of the conversation, not because
everyone agreed on every issue, but because participants were willing to work
toward practical solutions that balanced conservation with public access.
My impression has been that the Bears Ears process never
achieved that same level of trust among all interested stakeholders. Whether
that perception is entirely accurate is almost beside the point; rebuilding
trust should now become a priority regardless of one's position on the
Executive Order.
The motorized recreation community also has an
opportunity to demonstrate leadership. Rather than viewing this Executive Order
solely as a political victory, we should continue advocating for what has
consistently produced successful outcomes across the West: sustainable
recreation on designated routes, protection of archaeological and cultural
resources, respect for Tribal history and traditions, science-based travel
management, and meaningful collaboration with other public land interests.
Likewise, the conservation community has an opportunity
to recognize that many responsible OHV organizations have spent decades
promoting route designation, resource protection, volunteer stewardship,
restoration projects, wildfire recovery, and partnerships with public land
managers. Managed motorized recreation and conservation are not mutually
exclusive. In many places across the West, they have become complementary
objectives supported by strong local partnerships.
The greatest challenge facing public lands today is not
simply deciding where people can ride, hike, hunt, mountain bike, or camp. It
is developing management strategies that can endure beyond the next election
cycle. Constant policy reversals consume agency resources, discourage
stakeholder investment, and make it increasingly difficult to build the trust
necessary for successful long-term stewardship.
Whether one supports or opposes President Trump's
Executive Order, we should all recognize that the future of Bears Ears—and
countless other public lands—will ultimately be determined not by headlines or
executive actions alone, but by the quality of the planning and collaboration
that follows.
For those of us who care deeply about America's public lands,
that should remain the common ground.
# # #
Don Amador is a longtime public lands advocate with over
34 years of experience in recreation policy, trail stewardship, and
collaborative land management and former Chair of the CA State Parks OHMVR
Commission
No comments:
Post a Comment