I agree that going the legislative route would preserve all historic utilitarian use because there is no legislative route to a Brown’s Canyon National Monument. The “legislative route” will result in no National Monument. If that is the goal in the first place, just say so. I stand by my statement the procedural argument is without merit and disingenuous.
The problems with utilitarian use in the Grand Staircase have nothing to do with the procedure used to protect Brown’s Canyon. I agree the issues around grazing and mining there (GSENM) have merit. I do not agree that the GSE and Browns are comparable especially in terms of historic utilitarian use.
The process that has come to urging executive order for Browns has been open, transparent, and has considered and accommodated historic utilitarian use. Some of the same parties who were present Saturday and lined up on the side of procedural objection originally supported the Monument.
If anyone is interested in why there is no legislative route, just ask and I’ll hold forth. Or do some homework. It is out in paperback now. http://www.amazon.com/When-Party-Cam...8043839&sr=1-1