What if conservation opponents had their way 100 years ago?
By Lilly Bock-Brownstein
October 2024
Introduction
America’s national parks and monuments are overwhelmingly popular across the political spectrum and protect wildlife, ecosystems, and cultural sites. The National Park System attracts millions of visitors each year to connect with nature and enjoy outdoor recreation, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and supporting the economies of nearby towns and regions.
Despite their popularity, proposals for new national parks and monuments almost always face vehement opposition from small but vocal minorities. The opposition often comes from those who prefer America’s public lands be used for development and extraction rather than protected for their recreational and cultural values.
These criticisms are nothing new. For over a century, parks and monuments that protect our country’s proudest landscapes have been established despite heated—sometimes violent—opposition. Even the most celebrated parks once faced the same tired objections as today’s national monument proposals.
If presidents and congressional leaders in the past had listened to these opposing voices, iconic landscapes like Grand Teton, Rocky Mountain, and Joshua Tree National Parks might have been marred by mining and logging operations. This report explores the history of opposition to eight national parks and monuments and envisions what could have been if these places hadn’t been protected.
This report follows a report released by the Center for Western Priorities in 2016 which explored the opposition faced by another set of parks and monuments. Although eight years have passed since the original report, the same issues remain
Case Studies: Then
Rocky Mountain National Park
Click and drag the slider to see what Rocky Mountain National Park might have looked like if it weren’t protected
Photo: Karen Blaha, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Photo illustration by Center for Western Priorities using generative AI tools.
1915
THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
“Once dedicated as a national park the land and all its resources are forever locked up from use to all classes of citizens, except for the sole benefit which may be derived by traveling thru such area under the strictest supervision… Can it be possible that the highest and best possible use of this vast strategical area is scenery? Or that it is so valuable for this purpose it is necessary to condemn all the other valuable resources to everlasting pent up idleness?”
—Joseph E. Painter, Denver resident, The Rocky Mountain News, 1915
In the early 1900s, Enos Mills, a local guide and lodge owner, led the movement to establish Rocky Mountain National Park. The initial proposal for the park was over 1000 square miles, and extended from the Wyoming border in the north down to where I-70 runs today in the south, and from the town of Lyons in the east to the Never Summer Mountains in the west. Mills and other conservationists saw the region’s potential as a preserve to be spared from the impacts of grazing and logging while being enjoyed by the people. Other advocates for the park believed it would enhance the reputation of the area and boost the local economy by drawing in tourists. Despite the broad support for the park, there was strong opposition from those who believed the land was better suited for mining, logging, and ranching. After five years of debate, the size was considerably reduced to around 360 square miles, and President Woodrow Wilson signed the Rocky Mountain National Park Act to establish the park in 1915.
2024
Today, Rocky Mountain National Park is known for its diverse wildlife, alpine ecosystems, and rugged outdoor recreation opportunities. In 2023, it was the fifth most visited national park in the country, contributed $569 million in visitor spending in local gateway regions, and created 7,830 jobs. As the population of Colorado’s Front Range has grown substantially in recent years, Rocky Mountain National Park is an invaluable resource for Denver’s growing metropolitan area to access the outdoors.
“To see the wildlife, to experience Ouzel Lake on a perfectly clear day, to look out on the top of Estes Cone in a 360-degree view, or to hike up here, there’s really nothing quite like it. It’s what serves us as humanity and makes us better citizens of this country.”
Death Valley National Park
Click and drag the slider to see what Death Valley National Park might have looked like if it weren’t protected
Photo: Cheryl Strahl, CC BY-NC 2.0. Photo illustration by Center for Western Priorities using generative AI tools.
1933-1994
THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
“Is it good federal land policy to de facto restrict enjoyment of so much of the public lands from so much of the public?”
Death Valley National Monument was officially established in 1933 by President Herbert Hoover using his authority under the Antiquities Act (it later became a national park through the passage of legislation). Before becoming a national monument, the area was known primarily for borax mining, in addition to a short-lived gold rush. With increased car ownership in the 1920s, the area began to attract tourists from Los Angeles to visit its unique geologic features, and a movement began to protect the area and also draw tourists to boost the local economy. While the proposal initially faced opposition from mining and prospecting interests, these concerns were appeased by a promise to seek a legislative provision that allowed for continued mineral extraction in the national monument. Conservationists hoped this legislation could be repealed in the future when mining interest in the area declined. With that promise, Pacific Coast Borax Company saw the opportunity to transform its many inactive mining facilities into hotels and tourist attractions and was the primary proponent of the national monument proposal. The legislation eventually passed, but public outcry over the exploitation of the area continued for many years. The federal government through the National Park Service did not formally acknowledge the Timbisha Shoshone peoples’ seasonal presence in Death Valley for decades after the National Monument was established. Eventually, the federal government provided a place for them to live within their ancestral homeland starting in 2000.
In the 1980s, conservationists advocated for increased protection of California desert ecosystems, including Death Valley. In response, California Senators Alan Cranston, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer championed the California Desert Protection Act, which would add new wilderness areas and national park units, including establishing national park status for Death Valley National Monument. The act faced strong opposition from mining interests in the area, as well as arguments that a national park would restrict public recreation access. After many years of advocacy, the act passed and was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, expanding Death Valley National Monument by 1.3 million acres and re-designating it as Death Valley National Park.
2024
Death Valley National Park is now over 3.4 million acres and is the largest national park in the contiguous United States. It is the lowest elevation place in North America and protects unique desert ecosystems, important historic and cultural sites to the Timbisha Shoshone people, and endangered plant and animal species. About 1.1 million people visited Death Valley National Park in 2023, spending $103 million in local gateway regions, and adding 1,200 jobs. The National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management are now working in collaboration with the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe to preserve and manage the land.
“Few Presidents have the opportunity to preserve so valuable a piece of this Nation’s heritage. I exercise this opportunity with enthusiasm and gratitude… The broad vistas, the rugged mountain ranges, and the evidence of the human past are treasures that merit protection on behalf of the American people.”
—President Bill Clinton Statement on Signing California Desert Protection Act
Joshua Tree National Park
Click and drag the slider to see what Joshua Tree National Park might have looked like if it weren’t protected
Photo: Steve Rider, CC BY-NC 2.0. Photo illustration by Center for Western Priorities using generative AI tools
1936
THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
“The proposed Mojave National Park, and the expanded Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks, would lock up billions of dollars in future mineral wealth.”
—Robert Sanregret, Executive Director of the National Association of Mining Districts (NAMD)
Like Death Valley, Joshua Tree National Park started as a national monument. It was designated under the Antiquities Act by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936, then expanded and given national park status in 1994 by the California Desert Protection Act. The support for Joshua Tree National Monument was sparked by Minerva Hoyt, a Pasadena resident and desert plant enthusiast. Hoyt became concerned about removing cacti and other flora from the ecosystem for use in gardens and landscaping. At the time, desert ecosystems were seen as a barren wasteland, but Hoyt understood the importance of protecting the unique and diverse flora, particularly the Joshua tree. The area that would become Joshua Tree National Park was used primarily for gold mining, and the campaign to protect it faced opposition from those who believed the area was only valuable for the sake of mineral extraction. Pushback from the mining industry and others led to the final boundaries of the monument being significantly smaller than the area proposed by conservationists including Hoyt, 825,000 acres instead of the proposed one million acres. In 1950, Congress transferred 289,500 acres out of the monument for mining and grazing. That area has since been returned to the park, thanks to conservation advocates and the passage of the California Desert Protection Act in 1994.
2024
Joshua Tree National Park is known for its diverse desert flora and fauna, geological formations and fossils, and stunning night skies. Its namesake, the Joshua tree, is highly threatened by climate change, and the habitat protected by Joshua Tree National Park is important for its survival. In 2023, nearly 3.3 million visitors spent $186 million in gateway regions surrounding the park, and the park generated 2,200 jobs. California Tribal members, lawmakers, and community leaders are calling on President Joe Biden to expand Joshua Tree National Park by 17,000 acres and to designate the proposed Chuckwalla National Monument, located just south of Joshua Tree National Park.
“The park’s open spaces, unique vistas, deep skies, and wilderness values provide increasingly rare opportunities for personal challenge, health and well-being, artistic expression, personal reflection, and a connection to the vastness of the larger world…In a land characterized by extremes-—heat, dryness, and intensity of light—the desert holds an astonishing array of life. California’s deserts are recognized as a biodiversity hotspot, a place where the inventiveness, creativity, and unbowed determination of life to exist never ceases to amaze.”
Dinosaur National Monument
Click and drag the slider to see what Dinosaur National Monument might have looked like if it weren’t protected
Photo: National Park Service/Nicolle Anderson. Photo illustration by Center for Western Priorities using generative AI tools.
1949
THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
“If the ‘radical’ conservationist wing had its way many of the natural resources of this nation would never be developed for the benefit of mankind.”
Dinosaur National Monument was designated by President Wilson under the Antiquities Act in 1915 to protect an 80-acre fossil site, which became one of the most significant paleontological discoveries of the 20th century. In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt expanded the monument by 200,000 acres to protect the ecosystems surrounding the Green and Yampa rivers. Controversy did not arise until 1949 when a proposal for Echo Park Dam aimed to create a reservoir in the heart of Dinosaur National Monument. Proponents of the dam argued for its value for hydroelectric power, water for irrigation, and recreation. In response, conservationists across the country fought to protect Dinosaur National Monument for its ecological and paleontological value and feared the development of a dam there would set a precedent for development in other national parks. In 1955, conservationists succeeded in protecting Dinosaur National Monument and a compromise was reached to instead build dams outside of national park land, at Flaming Gorge and Glen Canyon. Following the controversy, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill that prohibited dams within the National Park System.
2024
Dinosaur National Monument saw over 300,000 visitors in 2023, who contributed $24.1 million in spending to the local economy. The monument provided over 300 jobs that year. In addition to protecting 150 million-year-old dinosaur fossils, the monument offers protection for mountain, desert, and river ecosystems, as well as Indigenous cultural sites including petroglyphs. The monument is also a certified International Dark Sky Park. Dark Sky places preserve high-quality nighttime environments for wildlife and access for people to enjoy the night sky free from light pollution.
“Dinosaur National Monument is among the birthplaces of the American conservation movement. It’s where not only the Echo Park battle played out, which was the major catalyst of the [1964] Wilderness Act, it’s been a catalyst for protecting places that tell our collective story, our societal struggles.”
Grand Teton National Park
Click and drag the slider to see what Grand Teton National Park might have looked like if it weren’t protected
Photo: James Holloway, CC BY-NC 2.0. Photo illustration by Center for Western Priorities using generative AI tools.
1929
THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
“The creation of the monument will not add anything more, but will restrict the free use and enjoyment of the area, which has been the privilege of the public since the ‘glacial period’ (or prior). Not only will the public be deprived of their rights and liberties in the valley, but there is another situation confronting the prosperous community, whose homes and livelihood are now threatened.”
—Flier prepared by Jackson Hole residents in opposition to the Jackson Hole National Monument, 1944
Present-day Grand Teton National Park was designated following decades of controversy and animosity over the perceived expansion of government control. The park was originally established by an act of Congress in 1929, largely at the urging of Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Horace Albright. The original park was only 96,000 acres and protected just the Teton Range. Following the designation, the federal government and private landowners (including John D. Rockefeller, American business magnate and philanthropist) began partnering to expand the park, and opposition arose from Jackson Hole residents and Wyoming lawmakers who opposed federal control of the land. For the next decade, efforts to incorporate more land into the park were met with opposition and stalled in Congress despite urging from the National Park Service and conservationists to protect the area from increasing development.
Finally, when Rockefeller threatened to pull out of the land deal, President Roosevelt used his power under the Antiquities Act to designate 221,000 acres adjacent to the park as Jackson Hole National Monument. The monument consisted of federally-managed public land and 35,000 acres of private land donated by Rockefeller. The monument designation was met with outrage and even threats of violence. Wyoming Governor Lester Hunt threatened to remove “any federal official who attempts to assume authority in the monument area,” and a group of armed ranchers, including future Wyoming Governor and Senator Cliff Hansen, protested by bringing their cattle into the monument boundaries without a permit. Newspaper columnist Westbrook Pegler compared Roosevelt’s monument designation to Hitler’s annexation of Austria. In the following years, Congress attempted to abolish the monument with bills that were vetoed by Roosevelt and failed to make it out of committee.
The state of Wyoming filed a lawsuit stating that the region couldn’t legally be designated a national monument due to a lack of scientific or historic interest, but there was strong evidence to the contrary and the case was dismissed on a technicality. Over time, the oppositional rhetoric died down, and in 1950 Congress passed legislation signed by President Harry Truman adding Jackson Hole National Monument to Grand Teton National Park, establishing the modern park boundaries. At that point, there was little opposition either locally or nationally. Governor Hansen, who had illegally brought cattle into the park in protest, was later quoted saying: “I’m glad I lost, Grand Teton National Park is one of the greatest natural heritages of Wyoming and the nation.”
2024
Today, Grand Teton National Park is 310,000 acres of valleys, mountains, alpine lakes, and the iconic Teton Range. It is part of the 22 million-acre Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, one of the largest intact temperate ecosystems in the world, and protects an important migration route for wildlife including mule deer, elk, and pronghorn. In 2023, over three million visitors spent over $700 million in the region, and the park supported over 9,000 jobs.
“A beautiful piece of wild country in which people love to roam, and heart-lifting scenery. And a bit of wild history… something which will never be exhausted.”
Case Studies: Now
Bears Ears National Monument
Click and drag the slider to see what Bears Ears National Monument might have looked like if it weren’t protected
Photo: Bob Wick/BLM. Photo illustration by Center for Western Priorities using generative AI tools.
THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
“You will be sowing the seeds of destruction of the thing that you seek to create now.”
It took decades of advocacy to protect 1.35 million acres of natural scenery and cultural sites in southeastern Utah from looming threats of vandalism, drilling, and mining on lands sacred to the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Zuni Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, and others. When an Indigenous-led campaign to protect the land called on President Barack Obama to designate the monument, opposition arose from pro-extraction and anti-conservation lawmakers and community leaders who believed the sacred land should be used for extraction rather than be protected. Despite the small but loud opposition, President Obama designated the national monument through the Antiquities Act in 2016. The designation was widely celebrated by Tribes with ancestral or contemporary ties to the area, environmental groups, paleontologists, archaeologists, and the majority of Utah voters.
Despite the overwhelming public support, a year later President Donald Trump attempted to undo this progress by illegally reducing the size of Bears Ears National Monument by over 85 percent, largely motivated by oil and gas and uranium interests. This attempt was immediately challenged in court and never succeeded because President Biden restored protections for the monument in 2021. Since this restoration, a move supported by the majority of Utah voters, Tribes and federal land managers have partnered to develop a historic co-management agreement and management plan for the monument.
“Our Tribal lands and resources extend far beyond our current reservation boundaries. Standing in Bears Ears we are surrounded by our sacred places, resources, and waters. We have always lived and traveled through these lands and used our expertise to sustain these resources. The Management Plan is a model for federal agencies to incorporate Tribal knowledge and expertise into land management plans and practices. Tribal knowledge and involvement in managing these lands is needed now more than ever.”
Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument
Click and drag the slider to see what Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument might have looked like if it weren’t protected
Photo: Robb Hannawacker, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Photo illustration by Center for Western Priorities using generative AI tools.
THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
“This has nothing to do with the environment, this doesn’t have anything to do with cultural lands or anything like that. Those are excuses that they’re using to make sure we are beholden to other nations.”
When President Biden designated Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in August 2023, he protected over 900,000 acres of forests and grasslands to the north and south of Grand Canyon National Park, including petroglyphs, pictographs, burial sites, and other cultural resources, along with geological features, intact ecosystems, wildlife, and important Colorado River water sources. The area holds significance to at least 13 Tribes. Baaj nwaavjo means “where Indigenous peoples roam” in Havasupai and i’tah kukveni means “our ancestral footprints” in Hopi. The designation protects the monument from further exploitation by barring new mining claims. Existing mining claims, grazing permits, and hunting and fishing access remain valid.
Despite the monument’s overwhelming popularity among Arizona residents, opposition quickly arose from ranchers and those with uranium mining interests and general anti-government sentiments. Despite the fact that the monument was created only on existing public lands, misinformation spread about the incorporation of private land into the monument. These are the same arguments used by those who opposed iconic protected landscapes like Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National Park, and others. An active lawsuit filed by Arizona lawmakers against the Biden administration argues that the monument negatively impacts the state’s ability to generate revenue by blocking future uranium mines, ignoring the significant revenue brought into the state by visitors to the monument and surrounding area. The lawsuit is just another attempt to undermine the Antiquities Act, which is settled law that has been challenged in court many times to no avail.
“Designating areas like Red Butte [a feature within the monument] as a national monument will help protect them from contamination, destruction, exploitation, and the other harmful effects of mining. The threat of contaminating our water is real and current. The pure water that flows through Supai Village is under constant attack by uranium mining. We know the threat is real, but with these protections, our suffering from the harmful effects of mining is lessened.”
Avi Kwa Ame National Monument
Click and drag the slider to see what Avi Kwa Ame National Monument might have looked like if it weren’t protected
Photo: Department of the Interior. Photo illustration by Center for Western Priorities using generative AI tools.
THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
“Upon learning that the president was considering unilateral action, I reached out to the White House to raise several concerns, citing the potential for terminal disruption of rare earth mineral mining projects and long-planned, bipartisan economic development efforts. While I’m still waiting for a response, I’m not surprised. This kind of ‘Washington Knows Best’ policy might win plaudits from unaccountable special interests, but it’s going to cost our state jobs and economic opportunity—all while making land more expensive and more difficult to develop for affordable housing and critical infrastructure projects.”
President Biden designated Avi Kwa Ame National Monument in Southern Nevada in March 2023, encompassing 500,000 acres of desert ecosystem and sacred sites for Indigenous communities across the Southwest. Avi Kwa Ame, also known as “Spirit Mountain,” is considered to be the source of life and place of origin for ten Yuman-speaking Tribes of the Mojave, Hualapai, Yavapai, Havasupai, Quechan, Maricopa, Pai Pai, Halchidhoma, Cocopah, and Kumeyaay.
The monument was not only opposed by critical mineral mining interests but also renewable energy developers, as there were a significant number of solar and wind energy project proposals in the area. It is important to note that conservation and renewable energy development can and must coexist on public lands to address the intertwined climate and biodiversity crises. With renewable energy development on public lands, as with all energy and mining projects, there must be careful and thoughtful planning, including meaningful Tribal consultation and public input, to ensure the projects are sited in appropriate places that avoid impacts to cultural or ecological resources.
“One cannot overstate the importance of the sacred land of Avi Kwa Ame to Southern Nevada’s native Tribes and for the Yuman speakers and the Hopi and Chemehuevi Paiute who place it at the center of all creation, along with every Nevadan who knows the value of our cherished public lands, designating Spirit Mountain as a national monument will protect this treasured space for future generations.”
Conclusion
Criticism of national park and national monument proposals has remained the same for over a century, despite widespread appreciation for these protections after they are established. In retrospect, it’s hard to believe people really thought that there should be mining in Joshua Tree National Park or a reservoir submerging the fossils in Dinosaur National Monument. There is no one standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon wishing there was a uranium mine there.
Today’s proposals for new national monuments like Dolores River Canyons in Colorado, Chuckwalla in California, and Owyhee Canyonlands in Oregon face the same outdated arguments and reactionary anti-government sentiment, compounded by the spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories. Congressional leaders have the opportunity to be on the right side of history by disregarding the hollow, greed-driven claims coming from monument opponents and recognizing the importance and popularity of protecting these places.
Oregon’s Senator Ron Wyden is a prime example of a leader who is facing the choice to either establish a strong conservation legacy, or let a historical conservation opportunity pass him by. Senator Wyden has introduced legislation to protect the Owyhee Canyonlands but has not endorsed a monument proposal for the largest conservation opportunity in the American West, which would safeguard over a million acres of sagebrush, river canyons, and geologic wonders. While Senator Wyden hopes to protect the area with legislation, his current unwillingness to consider alternate pathways like a national monument, combined with congressional gridlock, means the Owyhees are likely to remain unprotected and open to industrial development pressures if Congress fails to act. By asking President Biden to designate Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument, Senator Wyden could help make conservation history and protect a unique landscape to be enjoyed by future generations.
Proposed Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument
Click and drag the slider to see what Owyhee Canyonlands might look like in the future if it isn’t protected
Photo: Bob Wick/BLM, CC BY-NC 2.0. Photo illustration by Center for Western Priorities using generative AI tools.
By failing to act to protect these places, leaders will find themselves on the wrong side of history. Even those who once opposed national monuments have expressed regret, like former Wyoming Governor and Senator Cliff Hansen who was “glad I lost” the fight to protect Grand Teton National Park.
“I’m glad I lost, Grand Teton National Park is one of the greatest natural heritages of Wyoming and the nation.”
Time has proven that the places that we protect as national parks and monuments provide a sustainable economy for gateway regions and protect the nation’s most sensitive and beautiful landscapes for future generations. That’s what makes them so popular that even pro-extraction, anti-conservation leaders like Utah Governor Spencer Cox speak of our national parks as America’s treasures. It’s incumbent on today’s lawmakers to remember the past and recognize that although conservation proposals may face opposition from a vocal minority today, they will be revered as America’s best ideas tomorrow.