Evaluate Soundness of Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument Proposal

Target: President Obama

Goal: Conduct a study to determine whether potential consequences of granting the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument status outweigh the benefits.

In a proposal put forth by a consortium of conservationist groups, 1.7 million acres of land surrounding the Grand Canyon is being highlighted for National Monument status. The argument for such a proposal involves the preservation of areas that lay bare to the threat of harmful mining, excessive logging and road building, the interruption of endangered ecosystems, and unruly cattle grazing.

Those against or questioning the proposal argue that there are several regulatory systems already in place to forbid imprudent use of the land. One such body, the U.S. Forest Service, even points out the benefits of controlled logging. Uncontrolled forest growth can lead to a higher potential of wildfire, as well as stunt ecosystem growth resulting from an overdeveloped canopy cover. There are more than 90 ranchers currently with permits to graze cattle in Arizona territory that could be taken over by the federal government if the proposal is taken up.

Point being, is the 1.7 million acreage up for National Monument proposal truly in danger of being tarnished as current governing practices stand? Is there a possibility that endowing the title on the area may actually have more negative consequences, not only to economic stakeholders, but to the land as well? There needs to be a study in place taking all these things into consideration, instead of the stale, and ultimately casuist, argument of natural beauty versus money mongering. Sign below to urge President Obama to implement such a study.


Dear President Obama,

The debate over how much land surrounding the Grand Canyon should be endowed as a National Monument has remained unresolved for long enough to justify an in-depth, objective study.

The aims of the study would be to compare the effects of current practices in the watershed area versus the potential effects of the same area if made a National Monument. It seems that there is a strong possibility for a negative effect on the land if old forests are allowed to grow uncontrolled and ranchers kicked off their land. Is it possible that current practices are in proper order already to preserve the nation’s historic landscape? Could the monument title be the onset of conservationist paranoia?

Please appoint the proper authorities to complete a case study in finding whether the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument proposal is a sound model for all parties involved, our land included.


[Your Name Here]

Sign the Petition

  • Only your name will be displayed. By signing, you accept our terms and may receive updates on this and related causes.
FacebookCare2 NewsTwitterEmailShare

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Facebook Comments


69 Signatures

  • Nitzan Steiman
  • Ana Maria Mainhardt Carpes
  • Elizabeth Marino
  • Darlene Roepke
  • Frédérique Pommarat
  • Lynn Juozilaitis
  • Richard Ohlendorf
  • Ann Blank
  • Ann Blank
1 of 7123...7
Skip to toolbar