The designation as a national monument seeks to protect the status quo, including any recreational or low-intensity commercial use, as long as those are sustain

The designation as a national monument seeks to protect the status quo, including any recreational or low-intensity commercial use, as long as those are sustainable. The states actually have a far worse record on providing public access and use for land owned by them. While the federal government is bound by law to allow, for example, hunting or hiking, states tend to seek avenues for monetising their land, often charging for access or leasing to mining/drilling/farming operations which in turn prohibit public access. Those national monument designations were also, in turn, just a reaction to the "drill, baby, drill" chorus echoing through the last few Republican campaigns. The actual economic impact of exploring the remaining natural resources is uncertain at best, considering the low market prices and the practical reasons why these deposits have remained untouched so far. That creates the impression that this is an emotional subject, meaning that parts of the political spectrum would gladly drill a well and pump oil right into the next Alaskan creek as long as it sufficiently enrages liberals. There's emotion on the other side as well, without a doubt. But those lucky bastards somehow get to trigger their opponents by protecting the Orange Oregonian Owl.