Comments about ‘Senate OKs lands bills package — again’

It's a good bill that protects southern Utah landscapes we know and love. Thanks to Senators Bennett and Hatch for their good work on it.

Hatch and Bennett are traitors! Hatch has been around Teddy way too long.

BEWARE: This land grab by the federal government will severely curtail public access to our land. The environmental scientists (government elitists) will have access which will be denied to the commoner. Try setting up a trip to the Antarctic; it won't happen unless you "know someone". Fortunately, when Texas became a state we ceded little of our land to the Federal government and (border fencing excepted) have not had to deal with these federal land grabs. Haven't we given up enough of our rights already??

I have been sent over the world to places that treat their land as a commodity and not a valuable resourse. Their landscape and environment has been reduced to barren soil devoid of trees and plant life. We, in the US, continue to miss what can never be replaced if we continue along the path of consumption without understanding of limits and management. The peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo dream of a land like the US has and I've heard it in their words and seen it in their eyes.

A quick reading of the constitution tells us the Federal Government can't own land. Whats up with that?

Thank you Deseret News for explaining how its possible under parliamentary rules for Congress to again revisit and possibly pass this major piece of legislation. Perhaps many readers don't care much about such details, but for those informed members of the public who follow national legislation closely and care about how its conducted, our compliments.

It's a far far better thing for the land to be controlled (not owned) by the federal government than owned by Utards.

Kiss good bye to your access to "public" lands!! Only the rich from the sierra club will be able to be helicoptered in to the wilderness while we poor folk will be outside the fench looking in. Wilderness just means "you can't use the land anymore." I got a great idea to stimulate the economy:shut down the government for a year and give us back our money and freedom.

Chip take another look at the Constitution. The property clause (Article 3, section 2, clause 2) specifically authorizes congress to manage property belonging to the United States.

Mink The Wilderness Act does not prevent public access. It only prohibits roads [and] . . . motorized . . . or mechanical transport. (16 USC 1133(c)). The Sierra Club cannot fly helicopters into Wilderness any more than the BRC can ride their ATVs there but we are ALL free visit Wilderness provided we are willing to leave our cars behind. There is no fence keeping any of us out and poor folks like me who dont own expensive ATVs are on the same footing as the rich.

I beleive the constitution limits the kind of property the feds can own ie military bases federal bldgs. It doesn't seem to include wilderness areas etc.
I guess if your in good health and only want to go on certain controlled paths you can access wilderness, but the goverment wasn't set up to limit who uses what public property.
I don't believe making forests and parks private is good but to make them private for one group of people will have consequences in the future.

Dave, everyone that can walk can access a wilderness area. It's about as egalitarian a requirement as you get. My dad can't walk into a wilderness, but he remembers the times in the past that he could, and he wants his sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters to have that experience. There's lots of land left over that has plenty of roads to take him on.

I happen to agree that wilderness is one of the land uses under the multiple-use concept of public lands.

There are other restrictions placed on different lands, (including private lands) some are natural and some are imposed by society. For instance you can't harvest timber out in the deseret and you should consider whether or not to allow grazing or recreation in certain wildlife refuges. Access or use of areas may be limited because of ownership, fire danger or problems with the watershed that supplies water, a valuable commidity to many citizens.

Land management decisions are not necessiarly simple and without contraversy, and there are both the present and future to be considered.

I do however disagree with putting a who bunch of bills together for a single vote. I would rather see each project voted up or down on its individual merits.

Regarding private vs public land. A study done years ago indicated county taxes would have to be raised if the National Forest land in that county were made all private. That didn't even look at the difficulity of rights-of-way needed to get to all of those private parcels.

wilderness areas are nothing more than museums for the elite who are able bodied enough to walk long distances. Worthless wasteland to the rest of us. We need more recreational land, not less. Stop wilderness now.

We have plenty of wilderness already. These public lands should be accessible to all US citizens. If they are unable to hike on foot or bike, then their only hope is to use a motorized vehicle. We should not close any recreational areas that have existing roads from access to any citizen. That sets aside my (the public's) land for the use of a chosen few. It is not fair!

This is my back yard. Have any of you stepped foot on this land? Do you not understand that our National Parks already border this land and was already set aside for the enviro elite that are never there anyway. I have been on ATV's, in a 4WD, on foot, on mountain bike, and even horseback in this area. There are millions of acres that are already set aside for non-motorized access. The six foot track used by motorized vehicles in no way diminishes the millions of acres already deemed unaccessible by vehicle. Leave it alone. You do not live here. I have never seen any of you out there. You do not use it, and you never will. Stay in your National Park and leave the rest of us alone. The Federal Government is not a State, it was never to own or manage, yes manage, any land belonging to a sovereign State. Apparently us Utards value our land enough to know how to manage it's use on our own. The land is still as pristine and beautiful today as it was 10,000 years ago, even with a 6 foot trail accessing it.