Reader comments
My view: Help preserve the Wasatch Canyons

7 comments   |   Read story

Bear Rug | 10:56 a.m. May 11, 2009
Awesome Mayor!!! I would start by putting a moratorium, or a permanent ban on anymore cabin/mansion-building. The landscape has really gotten cluttered with huge "cabins" that poke out of the forest canopy, in an almost obscene way. Let's also ban the resorts from anymore expansion--at least in the Cottonwood canyons. They DO bring commerce into our State, but at what expense. They stip trees, plants off of slopes, that are needed to stop erosion. Let us leave our canyons--or what remains of them--as sanctuaries for animals, man-powered activities (hiking, fishing, X-C skiing, etc.) It's a terrible experience to hike to a secluded spot, thinking that very few people have seen it, only to be gazing into the backyard of a 7,000 square foot "cabin."
Private Rights | 11:11 a.m. May 11, 2009
Lets not as a public get caught up in tampleing the existing private propert rights of canyon property owners. Even if a majority wants something, the private property must be respected. If the land is to become public, the exercise of emminent domain must be exercised correctly and private property owners reimbursed.

I have seen many areas where the private property owners have done a much better job at preservation than public entities. This preserves high quality drinking water etc.
Watershed? | 11:12 a.m. May 11, 2009
Why do we allow riparian seeking dangerous moose to roam freely and defecate in our water supply?

Preserve the watershed-eradicate the moose!
Comments continue below
Moratorium | 11:29 a.m. May 11, 2009
The canyons would be much better preserved by banning all backcountry camping, hiking, skiing, etc. If it is outside of a developed area with proper restroom facilities, it should be banned to protect the watershed. Cabins with 1 or 2 people that are hooked up to the sewer line are far better than the hoards of people urinating/defecating in my watershed!
Red Smith | 12:24 p.m. May 11, 2009
50% of Big and Little Cottonwood Creek water runs to waste every year.

100% of Millcreek is not treated.

More humans and less animal infestation in the canyons would protect the watershed more than banning humans.

Moose,deer, and elk herds are in. Humans are out.

SLC provides "surplus" water for 4 ski resorts, and over 1,000 hotel rooms. Out-of-state residents are allowed in the canyons. Residents are kicked out and harassed.

SLC oversells Big Cottonwood Creek to the extent that 3 miles of the creek are de-watered. 1.5 miles of Little Cottonwood Creek is de-watered by overselling.


Moose,deer, and elk herds are in. Humans are out.

This policy is anti-people and pro-animals to the point of polluting drinking water.

SLC provides "surplus" water for 4 ski resorts, and over 1,000 hotel rooms. Out-of-state residents are allowed in the canyons. Residents are kicked out and harassed.

SLC oversells Big Cottonwood Creek to the extent that 3 miles of the creek are de-watered. 1.5 miles of Little Cottonwood Creek is de-watered by overselling.

1 more cabin per 100 acres could not harm any watershed.
Black Betty | 5:19 p.m. May 11, 2009
The single biggest threat to any canyon development is Randy Horiuchi, county rep "at Large." Pony up anything to his re-election campaign and POOF, any and all development is instantly approved. I've seen it countless times and have no idea how he gets away with it, but it's the truth...I'm ashamed he is a democrat.
Vestalou | 9:30 p.m. May 14, 2009
I am concerned about the office buildings that are being allowed to be built in the Millcreek Business area. A 12 story one is on the drawing books, it is time that we kept the views of these wonderful mountains free of cement eye sores, too many sound walls 20 feet tall or more, our visitors to our beautiful state cannot even see the mountains from the freeway's and streets. Also too many of these gungho health nuts that use the mountains to climb and hike and come unprepared and then have to be rescued, putting our rescue people at risk, and who pays the bill for this? Us I am sure. They should be required to buy insurance for these fun and games, which is available to be purchased. If they hike and climb they should be required to carry out their refuse and waste.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

previousnext

Latest comments

I've never registered for either party, but have voted the way I wanted to....

Thanks for the second by second analysis. The channel, which I watched, went...

Darts shake off rust for win

Pre season shows who's best in the state 3 of 5 of Davis starters had one...

Hall doesnt' deserve this award and he won't win it. He definitely deserves...

the whole area is ugly!!

Plan would open HOV lanes

The "HOV" lanes have created unsafe road rage conditions during off peak...

Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan

Re: USU Whatever... What was the score last time Utah State played in the...

Jazz outrun Pacers

At this point we need to be honest and question whether Miles even deserves a...

Bennett seeks to stall N-waste bill

It is unbelievable that a Bob Bennett, who is supposed to be representing the...

Imagine if every father and mother would just live faithfully in their...

Advertisements