Quantcast
Utah

Rep. Jim Matheson hopes to protect more than 26,000 acres of additional wilderness

He plans to introduce bill to expand Wasatch wilderness areas

Comments

Return To Article
  • Deon Davis-Elangovan,LMT,LCTMB
    April 7, 2010 9:52 a.m.

    You people need to WAKE UP AND SEE WHAT DEVASTATING DECISIONS YOU ARE MAKING THAT HAVE A PERMANENT DAMAGING EFFECT ON UTAH'S EXQUISITE LAND. WHY DO YOU THINK THE PIONEERS CHOSE THIS PLACE IN THE BEGINNING?
    YOU ARE SO BUSY BEING SELFISH GLUTTONS OF PLEASURE, YOU HAVE MANY SKI RESORTS WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO DO YOU RECREATIONAL WHATEVER THAT DOESN'T RUIN THE LAND. LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO BEAUTIFUL PARK CITY? for the love of money you destroyed and put your incredible huge houses when it was great just how GOD made it in the beginning.

    I fought against UTAH POWER AND LIGHT to make them bury the electrical poles when they wanted to build them over the residential homes and elementary school when I (being a nurse) researched and found documentation to prove that this would give our kids LEUKEMIA. GUESS WHAT MY GIRL FRIEND AND I FOUGHT AGAINST ALL OF THE UTAH POWER & LIGHT ATTORNEYS and we WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAYOR DOLAN ASSISTED ME I AM GREATLY DISAPPOINTED THAT HE HAS CHOSEN TO SELL HIS SOLE FOR THIS RIDICULOUS IDEA!!! I will fight this to the death of it. YOU CRAZY SELFISH ILL THINKING, IRRATIONAL PEOPLE!!!!!!

  • rider
    April 6, 2010 12:41 p.m.

    watershed exists only when percipitation percolates into the ground - not runoff from asphalt roads and structures - UT is a tourist state - what person from a busy city wants to come to another busy city and look at the mountains covered with homes out of the price range of most persons. Think of the times that a person has used local, state or federal preserved lands for a minimal cost - UTAH needs to preserve and enhance the open spaces and flora and fauna (live creatures) that exist. If UTAH continues to improve this land use, what a wonderful place to vacation and what an income for the state - which brings us to another subject, the closing of streams and rivers by Gov Herbert - when persons purchse lands w/rivers and stream running through it, they tacitly agree to preserve and protect - sort of like joining the military.

  • Some dude
    April 2, 2010 4:15 p.m.

    This land does need protection. Some of the compromises included in this bill will keep snowbird from expanding its ski resort into white pine, and will keep alta from expanding its resort up flagstaff peak. Either of those activities would have disturbed a lot of land (you don't see it in the winter when the ground is covered, but putting in ski lifts and other facilities really tears up the land), and excluded anyone who does not want to buy a ticket to alta or snowbird. The grandeur peak and mount aire wildnerness was probably only accessible by foot before, so that part is not a huge effect now, but it will insure that we don't see a hotel, ski resort or atv trail up there soon. There is still plenty of developable land in Utah. The central wasatch is very unique for being mountainous wilderness so close to a city. We should preserve it. Develop elsewhere.

  • Jason
    April 2, 2010 1:48 p.m.

    When I saw Matheson is back in his blue shirt and leather jacket, I knew he is back to try to drum up some support. He is also using the phrase "alotta folks" which makes us feel warm and fuzzy.

  • Reason
    April 2, 2010 12:55 p.m.

    Why is this a federal matter? Rep. Matheson, please stick to the narrow scope of issues that the Constitution expressly allows you to deal with.

  • Life's Not Fair...
    April 2, 2010 10:48 a.m.

    "Some of us can only get there with the help of wheels,"
    and some people are blind, but we don't let them touch the works of art at the museum so that they can enjoy them too.
    Life isn't fair I hear it again and again from those claiming health insurance shouldn't be forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions.
    Yet I hear complaining how it's not fair that you can't visit wilderness without motorized wheels.
    Why should you be granted special rights, you have the same rights as the rest of us. Wont your religious or charity group carry you into these places?

  • @ "Ready to give up | 9:16 a.m."
    April 2, 2010 10:18 a.m.

    Ready to give up | 9:16 a.m.

    How will this protect local watershed???

    These areas were in no danger of development anyway, were they?



    To me... this just looks like a politican looking for something to do to impress somebody.


    The main problem I have with this is... What is Matheson doing in MY BACKYARD, Litterally, when I have no ability to vote for/against him?

    He should be doing this in his OWN district! Not trying to regulate land in other districts that have no say in whether he represents them or not!



  • Verification
    April 2, 2010 10:17 a.m.

    Was this an actual Jim Matheson sighting?
    Has it been confirmed?

  • thank you
    April 2, 2010 10:15 a.m.

    Thank you Rep.
    You are doing a good job and the right things.

  • nope
    April 2, 2010 10:13 a.m.

    USGS does not practice zoning or have the power to zone. Where do you get such misinformation?

  • Anonymous
    April 2, 2010 10:07 a.m.

    "Everytime the democrats occupy the White House takes thousands of acres taken away from the little guy."

    That's right, conservatives have been convinced that walking is an elitist activity. Walking doesn't sell expensive toys, gas, repairs or helmets.

  • 2 bits
    April 2, 2010 10:03 a.m.

    Just be carefull of the UNintended consequences... that's all I ask.

    When Politicians start doing stuff like this it's often to please the radical environmentalists... and they are a hard group to please, unless you are willing to go ALL THE WAY and do it all THEIR way.

    Personally, I don't see why the canyons NEED more protection. The areas he is trying to give wilderness designation to are ALREADY protected from development (they are part of the National Forest System). We can ALREADY protect them from development.

    All too often, the quest to protect certain areas, becomes just an effort to limit access to it. To make it harder and harder for PEOPLE to enjoy it. I don't like that.

    The effort to "Protect" also seems to eventually become the quest to keep the rifraf (normal population) out and only allow easy access to the elite people and environmentalist-elite, who can afford time and money required to access it. I don't like that.

    I don't like efforts that focus only on adding RESTRICTIONS.

    Don't focus on Restrictions Matheson. PLEASE!

  • UtHiker
    April 2, 2010 9:48 a.m.

    To Thinkin' Man- I have taken my kids to "closed lands" quite a bit and, amazingly, they lived to tell the tell. They, in fact, enjoy it immensely. If you have ever spent any amount of time actually getting out of your chair and did some hiking you would see that a large amount of people out on the trails are people you would consider "elderly".

    It's pretty obvious within two sentences that people who complain about having land "closed" off to them have no idea what they're talking about.

  • Lincoln Green
    April 2, 2010 9:41 a.m.

    How many more acres of land needs to be protected by the federal government?

    Everytime the democrats occupy the White House takes thousands of acres taken away from the little guy.

  • Larry Tavaci
    April 2, 2010 9:23 a.m.

    Wilderness designation is not partisan. It is taking a look at the bigger picture and not through
    selfish blinders.
    Locking up federal lands is a myth! Slowing or stopping foolish use of diminishing and finite resourses is wise.
    It is a tired argument that children,elderly and the disabled can't use wilderness. Check out a popular backcountry lake on a summer day.
    Where should the line be drawn for our own overuse of oil,gas, and the Forest Service green light approach to ski areas.

  • Ready to give up
    April 2, 2010 9:16 a.m.

    Wow, why not just declare all of Utah a wilderness area, kick us all out, and get it over with. The torture of adding 10,000 acres here, 10,000 acres there, slowly, painfully, is not fun anymore. This is yet another example of losing freedom, thank you Jim Matheson and Obama.

  • Outdoorsman
    April 2, 2010 8:59 a.m.

    Thank you, Representative Matheson, for again showing how to accomplish consensus and do what is right. Protecting local watershed is the right thing to do. Well done.

  • Anonymous
    April 2, 2010 7:52 a.m.

    Matheson is losing his job in. He is now panicking. The republicans are not going to cross over and support him this time so is is trying to hurry up and do something liberal.

  • Thinkin' Man
    April 2, 2010 7:48 a.m.

    I think those lands are perfectly fine the way they are, thank you. Changing designation will only prevent fewer Americans from enjoying their public lands, reserving that right for an anointed few.

    Ever try to visit closed lands with children? With the elderly? With a physical disability? Public lands should be accessible to all.

  • Where's the money?
    April 2, 2010 7:23 a.m.

    This rhetoric has been waved around many times as a political issue until the votes are counted then the first green flag waved in front of their noses changes their minds real fast.

    Zoning laws already exist by the USGS and state to preserve those areas for the very reasons they are quoting now, but the green flag has the power of persuasion that no law can obstruct.

    The green flag has put many lives and families at risk throughout the valley to violate zoning laws, so why will their speech make any difference? To get such laws passed they have to fend off special interest developers that are fellow legislators.

  • Anonymous
    April 2, 2010 6:49 a.m.

    While I support this, I wonder if Matheson got approval from his Republican masters.

  • anon
    April 2, 2010 1:36 a.m.

    Thank you, Representative Matheson. And I mean that very much. As a registered Republican, it's guys like you that change people's minds. Like mine.

  • Where is the editor?
    April 1, 2010 9:38 p.m.

    Wayne Owens was indeed a congressman from Utah, however, he did not die in an ATV accident a couple of years ago....that was Bill Orton...another congressman from Utah. No wonder newspapers are losing readers and credibility. About two seconds of research could have told you this. What a joke...and yet you think we should take you seriously.