Comments about ‘Hinchey bill harmful to Utah’

"The negative economic impacts will be immense, in mining, farming, energy development, ranching and real estate development."
Interesting that those are the same interests that pay for his campaigns...
And there's no mention of tourism. Maybe the tourism industry needs to start making political contributions too. Maybe then Bishop would change his mind.

It seems that anybody who opposes this bill becomes an expert on wilderness. Mr. Bishop says it contains "large swaths of land that simply do not fit the legal definition of wilderness." Then how come the Bureau of Land Management's wilderness specialists said 7 million acres in the bill do meet the legal definition? For 30 years Utah politicians have tried to make BLM wilderness go away. It's no wonder Utahns are waking up and asking for more wilderness.

Wouldn't it be nice if people would keep their noses out of the business of other states?

TO: hmmm | 7:17 a.m. Sept. 30, 2009

Sorry but the land is the business of other states, it belongs to all Americans, not just you.

Right! Who are we to question some-one from New York?

Again, our state representatives seem to be on another planet. The way Bishop describes things, the areas under consideration are bustling with economic activity and bubbling with crude - and the proposed legislation will shut off the valves! These areas meet wilderness definition and are under consideration because they are relatively pristine lands, free of factories and oil refineries. Utah's current economic output will NOT be hurt one iota if the wilderness legislation passes.

Two thirds of Utah are federally owned. Some of it has to be off limits. I wonder if Utah politicians should be barred from voting on New York (or any other part of the country) centric legislation. I really thought the U.S. was one country. I've seen this before where local officials don't want other legislators pushing legislation about Utah, but then the Utah guys are more than happy to take federal money. This has little to do with the merits of the bill, just the principle that if the entire Congress acts, then Utah must submit.

That's great Bishop - now tell us what exactly have you done to protect Snake Valley water? It's in your district and yet we have heard nary a word from you on this very important issue. perhaps, instead of writing opinion pieces filled with misinformation about wilderness, you should devote more time to protecing the resources in your district that support the livelihoods of the people you're supposed to be representing. But then again, they're not a corporation that can donate large amounts of money to your re-election bid right? For crying out loud man, do SOMETHIG!

To Anonymous | 7:57 - my comment was made very tongue in cheek....

If we deny people in other states any stake in federal lands in Utah, that would mean Utahns have no stake in the Statue of Liberty (a national monument), Gettysburg battlefield (a national park), Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon. The wild canyons in Utah are a national treasure, just like those areas.

A great op-ed by Bishop. I agree with his level-headed analysis and approach to the issue. This bill would not help Utah, it would only hurt.

These issues deserve a huge dose of local input, local decision-making, and local control. Too much of Utah’s land is already under too much federal control. I just hope Matheson has the courage to stay on-board with the rest of the Utah delegation in opposing this nonsense.

How about we go in and remove all of the resources (coal, oil, etc) and then turn the land over to preservation, which almost everyone should support since there will be no reason to fight over it.

All of the state and federal wilderness land in the eastern US was at one time roaded, railroaded, mined, drilled, farmed and/or grazed. Some of these areas still contain permanent structures. You can't even tell that these areas were used by man because mother nature does a wonderful job of reclaiming her land. And yes those uses were supposed to disqualify land from consideration as wilderness but that didn't faze Congress one bit when it came to Wilderness designation.

But, Shouldn't it be UTAHNS and the STATE of UTAH that make the decisions about UTAH'S lands?

Who is is this bureau of land management and WHO gave them power over the states and their lands?

Did WE get to vote it?

Where is their constitutional authority?

How about if I call you uneducated instead?

Article I of the Constitution talks about the powers of Congress - under those powers they have created several agencies including the BLM (which was created in 1946).

Yes - we the people got to vote on it because we the people choose our elected officials.

I looked at article 1, and even tall the admendments,

and guess what?

NO mention of the BLM!

1946? huh? I guess that was another attack by progressives, like fdr, against state rights,

and the building of a bigger stronger central federal state,

incidentally, quite antithetical to liberalism.

These Federally protected lands are America's treasures, protected from damage and exploitation for all of us and for future generations.

Bishop is looking at this in a narrow, self-interested way. I hope wiser heads prevail.

Your facts on BLM recommended wilderness is just wrong. If you take those counties that Red Rock bill would cover (which is a mis-nomer because a lot of the lands don't have Red Rock in them), the BLM's existing Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) which represent BLM's largest amount of proposed wilderness, is only about 3.4 million acres. And Study Areas only mean that -- "Study" areas, that may be suitable, but deserve closer deliberations and may be smaller. No one is against true wilderness that really qualifies and is really worthy of total lock-up. But the term Wilderness is so abused these days by extreme proposals like this one, and take advantage of the public's ignorance of the legal and practical implications of official designation of 9 million acres. A lot of this land is just plan, ordinary wire bush, sage brush lands. Not saying they're not worth preservation, but they're hardly the picture-postcard variety. A lot of this is all about control, and precluding energy development or other economic uses. There is a better way, and that includes ALL stakeholders coming together, not Rahm ing it down Utah's throats

The BLM is an agency, the same as any other government agency. It was created under the same authority as all other agencies.

If there is no Constitutional authority for agencies, we should get rid of all of them - not just the ones we disagree with.

These are federal lands, they have always been federal lands (since before Utah became a state), and the Red Rocks Wilderness Act would designate a portion of these already federal lands for greater protection. These are NOT Utah's lands, they have never been Utah's lands. Prior to being federal lands they belonged to the Nation of Mexico.