The media does us a disservice in not fully explaining the pros and cons of the president’s decision to proclaim two new national monuments in the west. The public has a right to know the pros and cons of such a designation. An informed public is important, and no public policy is ever totally good or bad.

What does a national monument mean? Will the land forever be locked up as wilderness? What conventional multiple uses of these federal lands will be prohibited going forward. Do these changes make sense? What do the current users of the land currently think of the change? How does it impact the local community?

I don’t buy the argument that without a national monument designation the land will be turned into suburban subdivisions or intensive oil and gas development. I think that’s far from the truth, and I think the public dialogue would be moved forward if we had a full telling of the facts to see which side is right or wrong.

I’ve not made up my mind, but I would like to learn the full truth of the matter.