What is the Harm in Designating the Area a National Monument?

   As the stories on the Bear Ears National Monument pass before me, I search them, looking for reason as to why we are better off without the monument than with it. Frankly, I don't see them. How will the monument designation hurt the land, or hurt Utah? For all the opposition the monument has, it seems someone should be articulating why Utah is better off without it. Now, I'm not looking for someone to tell me the Antiquities Act is overused. Nor, am I looking for someone to tell me Obama was wrong to wait until the final moment to make the designation. And, I'm I looking for someone to say Utah could better manage the land. Those are fine points, each in their own right, but they do not address what harm will come to Utah now that the land has been designated a national monument. Could someone tell me? I'll post this question in a few groups on Facebook, and wait for the replies.