Comments about ‘Another stab at wilderness’

I started exploring Southern Utah just a few years ago, now I spend a huge portion of my spare time there. It is incredible beautiful. Future generations of Americans should be able to enjoy the area in as pristine condition as possible. Put it away now, before it is too late.

The problem many have with 'Wilderness designation" is that it is too restrictive. It effectively bans most people from using it. Which is what the enviros want. Loosen the rules to allow controlled access and it will have overwellming support.

@ Dave I have a bum knee and have dragged through many wilderness areas. I have rafted through much of the rest, any argument about access or lack of is short for " let me go in my atv". Keep the machines out!

Anyone who can walk can enter a wilderness. Admittedly, that's not everyone, but it's about the most egalitarian requirement I can think of. Even those of us who are mobility challenged can still appreciate the beauty of a view across the canyonlands from the road systems that enevitably circle them. "Controlled access" is what has brought us to the ecosystem-ravaged desert lands you see in large areas of Utah today.

I'm 67, and I can still walk 3 or 4 miles into the wild country and back out. That's enough to get into the heart of most areas proposed in the Red Rock Wilderness bill, because they are generally not big areas like the mountain wilderness in Wyoming and Idaho. These superb areas are being visited more than anybody could have imagined 30 years ago, when a few BLM managers foolishly claimed they didn't have outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation.

If this land use bill and future land use bills could be broken into smaller units, I believe that both sides could agree on a lot of the land in question. But both extreme sides of these groups seem unwilling to do this. My fear is that after new wilderness are settled that the new issue will be scenic vistas which will impact vast amounts of area along side the wilderness.

. . . I just can't stand back east and left coast elites telling me what to do there.

Your editorial bemoans that, "it becomes a case of environmentalists and outsiders trying to tie up valuable land. . . ."

Yeah.

That's the problem. We, the people, know how to tie up valuable land if we want to, without radical environmentalists and clueless outsiders telling us how to do it.

The fact we have not done so doesn't mean we don't know how. It's just we just don't see the need. And, since we're much closer to the issue than the clueless, leftist elites, why not leave the decision to us?

Like they do back east and on the left coast.

SUWA could care less about the views. All they want to do is prevent anyone, be it a private rancher or some oil company or mining co. from making a penny from public lands. Lets have the Feds. make these nice views into parks and scienic areas with paved roads so everyone could see them not just a small number of backpackers and hikers. If you don't want ATVs aroung then ban them.

it's everyone's land.

i know that's a tough concept for people to get their heads around sometimes, but the way i look at it, is the public lands we are talking about here belong as much to the great grandchildren of my cousin in new york as they do to me. and the great grandchildren aren't born yet.

other states have state vehicular recreation areas. hundreds of acres apeice; plenty of room for motorcross & 4-wheelers. the pristine lands should be preserved.

a shift to solar, geothermal and wind energy would help displace jobs in oil and coal mining, and would benefit everyone as well.

The enviros do not have Utahns best interest at heart. In fact they have no heart. Some areas do qualify, those recommended by BLM from FLMA charge. Let's see those designated, the rest is pure greed by the enviros. They are protected now by numerous laws, NEPA & a host of others. They should try to protect things from development in their urban environment where these urbanities live. Enough is enough.