Deseret News | Selfish use of land

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Selfish use of land

Timj | 5:13 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Explain, please, how they're selfish for wanting to preserve land for future generations.
Isaiah 5:20.

ECR | 5:20 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

"It is difficult for me to understand why the selfish people...are so willing to promote these useless and selfish projects."

Or could it be that those who wish to "use the land" for commercial or recreation purposes are the selfish ones, denying those who seek a natural, uncompromised environment?

Anonymous | 6:56 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

These "selfish" folk already have their stuff. Ask Robert Reford. He owns ski resorts, properties, etc just lkie his other environmental wacko buds. Jusy a bunch of hypocrates who have guilable accomplices. Take care of the land, but don't worship it. Talk to the farmers in San Juaquin valley who can no longer farm thanks to the radical left.

Comments continue below

Who's selfish? | 7:00 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

First of all you're wrong about hunting - you'll still be able to hunt, you'll just have to do it the old fashioned way by either walking or going on horseback.

I hear all the time how selfish environmentalists are - it makes me laugh. Three or four generations from now who do you think they'll be calling selfish - the environmentalists or those who want a road and ATV access to every square inch of land? I think they'll be thanking the environmentalists for allowing them the opportunity to enjoy some of the same pristine landscapes we're able to enjoy.

That's the point......... | 7:21 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

The writer says that in wilderness areas "nothing happens", well, that's the point! Nothing happens to clean water sources, nothing happens to wildlife habitat, nothing happens to pristine viewscapes, nothing happens to the peace and serenity, nothing - at all- happens to entire eco-systems - and that's the beauty of it!

Ride your ATVs where it's appropriate and leave something for the rest of us to enjoy.

Ernest T. Bass | 7:35 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

The selfish group is Redneck Nation who desires to use every inch of land for their own personal playgrounds.
The fact is, well over 90% of Utah is open for anything yet the rednecks want 100%. They can't stand the thought that perhaps there are people out there who respect the land enough not to tear it up and trash it. People who like quiet and solitude, not belly blubber, exhaust and engine noise.
Yeah for redneck nation, too dimwhitted to see the bigger picture.

Woods Walker | 7:46 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

I hunt,and unless specifically closed, wilderness areas are where I like to go. No ATVers, or fewer anyway. I hate ATVs and most of the slobs that ride them. I hate hearing them brag about "putting down tracks" across virgin ground. I call the law on poachers, but they don't enforce against ATVers for some reason. How about we confiscate the machines of the violators? $50 fines ain't nothing when you are paying $12,000 for your toy. Put some folks out there to catch them, and make it hurt. I am sick of seeing tracks across ground that had a trail or road next to it. I am tired of walking up a trail that is marked "NO ATVS" and having to avoid some slob that comes screaming past me, having left his beer cans and other garbage up on the mountain. Just because you bought an obnoxious toy, doesn't mean that society has to give you a place to use it. Tell me one good thing these infernal machines have done for the outdoors?

Anonymous | 7:58 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Selfish? How about you, Russell, who wants to hunt, fish, mine, drill, deface and do whatever you want on the land, oblivious to others and future generations, just to serve your interests. Unbelievable!

Hypocrisy | 8:04 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Russel, you're from Nephi. Believe me, there's plenty of open area for you to ride your 4-wheeler through town, on the outskirts of town, and on the west side of Utah Lake.

Don't worry about it, it's all going to be ok.

Anonymous | 8:12 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

"It is difficult for me to understand" I bet russell says that a lot.

I say | 8:34 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Let's start with Russel's backyard, Mt Nebo, with some strip mining exploration, large quarries, and gas exploration, all on the west face.

Educate yourself, Anon 6:56. The San Joaquin Valley is a desert with it's water pumped in from hundreds of miles away. It's been in an extended drought, yet despite that, farm employment is actually up in the area. All you hear is about one company's water rights fight, and it has nothing to do with liberals, ultimately.

KF | 8:37 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

So, by your logic, Russell, should be plop a geothermal power plant in the middle of Yellowstone? How about some oil wells in the middle of Zion Canyon? Maybe we could build some ATV trails through Bryce Canyon? How about 4-lane road right up to the base of Kings Peak? Who needs wilderness, anyway? Pave and develop it all!

Grover | 8:48 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Russell is right...sell the land to the highest bidder...and pay Utah teachers more. Then maybe Redford and other Hollywood types will buy it and donate it back to the Feds for a park ala John D. Rockafeller Jr. when Teton National Park was created. That is what you want Russell, right???

Wilderness is GOOD Russell ! | 9:32 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

to Russell Bender: Russell you REALLY have things completely backwards regarding wilderness lands. I am an elk hunter, backpacker, and fly fisherman and I am SO thankful for wilderness designated places like the HIGH UINTA'S where I can go and hunt, fish and backpack in beautiful protected places that AREN'T FENCED OFF by ARCO MINERALS or SHELL OIL or Robert Redford or anyone else who is using the land for THEIR OWN PRIVATE USE at the exclusion of everyone else. I can backpack into the Henry's Fork basin and hunt for elk in Painter Basin without asking for permission of any land owners and the ONLY REASON I can do that is because the land has been designated by the Federal Gov. as a protected wilderness area. What do think the High Uinta's and other mineral rich areas would look like had the government not protected these beautiful places ?? They would be RUINED for all time by logging, mining and drilling as well as being fenced off by private land owners with NO TRESPASS signs everywhere. You need to re-think your comments Russell!

Climb Kings Peak Russell | 9:48 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Russell, do me a favor next summer - take a break from your ATV and get some exercise. Go climb Kings Peak in the High Uinta's wilderness area. Set alone atop the mountain and take a long look around and pay attention to the solitude and beauty of the land. No roads, no ATV noise , no logged out eroded hill sides, no oil wells, no NO TRESSPASS signs posted by Hollywood movie star land owners... just the natural beauty of Gods creations. Look over into Painter Basin and you might get a glimpse of some moose and elk which by the way are open to hunting permits in the fall. Realize for a moment that BECAUSE this land is designated wilderness your kids and grandkids will be able to see the same sights 50 and 100 years from now.

Old Boy Scout | 9:54 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

This tree-hugging liberal wants EVERYONE to enjoy the beauty of God's creation.
PLEASE get out and discover this land.

But, it's my land too.
And your freedom and rights end, when you impede another's.

Just follow one simple rule taught to every 11 year old Boy Scout. "Leave No Trace Behind".
They even have a patch for it.

And if your just to lazy to hike, sell your ATV and buy an airplane.

Alaska remains beautiful and pristine for people from all over the world and always will for future generations.

K2 | 9:54 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

It's not about selfishness, Russell - it's about preservation of wilderness with its wildlife and solitude. You should watch Ken Burns' "Our National Parks" - particularly the portion that deals with the Grand Canyon, wherein Mr. Cameron had to be thrown out of the Canyon by the U.S. Supreme Court as his endeavors were selfishness personified. Non-wilderness advocates come in a thousand different packages and just a few of them can absolutely destroy what they are all about - WILDERNESS !

wallofvoodoo | 9:59 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

There are plenty of places not wilderness to ride ATVs. Don't know why you must ride in wilderness areas?

You can use it | 10:08 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

You can use it just like everyone else. You just can't use it for what you want.

Get off your duff and walk!

Red Neck mentality | 10:09 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

I hunt elk and deer. I fish and backpack but I AM NOT A RED NECK! What is the RED NECK mentality?

1. Red Necks want to ride their ATV or their 4-Wheel drive truck through every square mile of forest land leaving beer cans scattered along the way.
2. Red Necks idea of exercise is climbing up the 48 inch high step into their jacked up Chev Silverauto.
3. Red Necks idea of a wilderness experience is a boom box belching out some honky-tonk cow pie music with a couple of coolers full of beer and the scent of blue smoke ATV exhaust in their nose.
4. Red Necks don't want those smarty pants , know it all, environmentalists snoop'en round their canyons cause they just might set aside more wilderness land like THE HIGH UINTA'S and force em to have to swap their pointy cowboy boots for hiking boots.

RED NECKS DON'T RESPECT THE LAND!!!

This land.... | 10:43 a.m. Oct. 1, 2009

I know it's supposed to be "your land" and "my land" from California to the New York island etc.

BUT:

1. Every time I want to walk some mountain trail or explore some new piece of "my land" I'm directed to a few places where I often have to pay a fee to set foot there, or I come up against constant fences and gated communities etc that block my access.

2. I have to know the hunting seasons although I don't hunt in case I'm hit by a stray bullet or some boozing "sportsmen" acting irresponsibly.

3. We can't tap the land's wealth in case we offend environmentalists who want most of the country to be like someone's uncultivated back yard. Most of it is seen and enjoyed by no one.

4. I want a quiet walk in some designated area but the peace is shattered by speeding maniacs on ATV's.

5. I want to swim in Bear lake but my path is crossed and re-crossed by jetskis.

6. If I wanted to walk from Salt Lake to Ogden (joke) the only route is closed to pedestrians.

Thinkin' Man | 12:30 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

I propose that any person who never/rarely goes into remote areas, back country, national forests, or wilderness DOES NOT GET A SAY in wilderness issues. That includes a lot of Washington bureaucrats.

For those like me who use and enjoy the land, the issues are visceral, real, and important. To others it's a philosophical discussion without personal ramifications; it's fantasy, and they should have no say.

We should invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act to open more land to those who can't backpack.

Oh Please | 1:26 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

"Conservatives" conserve nothing. They won't be happy until all of Utah looks like Beck Street.

Reason | 1:58 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Russell: Good letter. There should be a huge dose of local decision-making and local control with these lands. Not bureaucratic dictates from Washington.

Definitions | 2:12 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Environmental rapist:
Someone who wants to scar the natural landscape, by building a big house, in the middle of a big ranch, on a wilderness hillside, paving a road right up to it, so he has a place to get away from it all with his rich friends.

Environmentalist:
Someone who ALREADY scarred the natural landscape, by building a big house, in the middle of a big ranch, on a wilderness hillside, paving a road right up to it, so he has a place to get away from it all with his rich friends.

Dogs and Mangers | 3:48 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

I'm reminded of Aesop's fable about the dog who jealously guarded a manger full of hay that he could not eat and did not have any use for.

Everyone, including environmental extremists, can have that attitude. The federal government has that attitude. The builder of private homes on hillsides (that might easily subside and slide by the way; they didn't think of that)has the same attitude. He / she /they can't use it all.

I think there is room for some give and take here.
Environmentalists: we need energy for fuel and national self sufficiency. We need industry to put food into the mouths of our people.

Government land hogs. Let the people develop their own states in a reasonable and responsible way and ensure the employment of their people. We all want pretty landscapes but there is enough and to spare for that too.

Those who live alone or in small mountainside communities: If nothing else realise that you might fall off your mountain retreat. It only takes a good rainstorm. Many have already fallen victim to storms and naturally-occurring wildfires.

@ "Timj | 5:13 a.m." | 4:29 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Timj | 5:13 a.m.

How does just closing land off to humans "preserve" it?

We preserve and even improve land we use all the time. People use Central Park all the time, but it's still a beautiful place. People go to Yosemite all the time, and it's still beautiful, same with Yellowstone and many other places humans are allowed to trespass on.

Just closing it off doesn't necesarily preserve it.

I dare bet that Yosemite and Yellowstone and other natural places will be there for our kids. AND they will be able to go see them!

Hint:
You don't have to be a radical environmentalist, or put "Keep Out" signs on everything to preserve it for other generations. Stop being so self-reightous.

Mike RIchards | 4:48 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

It seems that most of those who are pro-wilderness want to "enjoy" those areas without worrying about sharing it with others.

What a bunch of elitists! What a bunch of self-centered, ego-centric, buffoons! If the land is "public", then it belongs EQUALLY to every one of us. It is not the private property of the rich elite who can take time off their over-paid jobs to "get away".

If one thing is certain, the liberal left, who support wilderness areas, has too many idle rich people who are just waiting to grab up more perks for themselves at the expense of the citizens of this country.

That land does NOT belong to the Government; it belongs to the CITIZENS of this nation. Those who think that they OWN that land, as their private refuge from civilization, at the expense of every other citizen, had better produce the deed that gives them the right to dictate the terms and conditions of use.

Hint to "Grover | 8:48 a.m." | 4:52 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Grover | 8:48 a.m.

You seem to be confused. Teton National Park wouldn't exist as it does today if it had "Wilderness" designation.

If the Teton are had "Wilderness" designation (like some people are pusing for)...
-Rockefeller could not have built his lodge,
-nor any roads to the lodge,
-nor would Jackson Lake exist (no Moran Dam),
-nor could anyone get to the lake with more than they could carry on their back all the way from Jackson Hole.
-and it could have never become a National Park.

So IF you like anything about Teton Nat. Park... thank God it wasn't designated as "Wilderness", cause you would never get to see it.

Designated "Wilderness" areas and National Parks are completely different things. You know that, right?

Wilderness = no roads, no structures, no vehicle travel allowed, no handicaped access, etc.

Nat Park = Natural beauty, but also a few roads, lodges, bathrooms, rangers to help with education and emergencies, etc. All prohibited in "Wilderness" areas.

We need both.

Nothing new here | 4:56 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Nothing new to see here. It's just the weekly rant that Russel makes against the government.

@Mike Richards | 5:35 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

I am a man of very humble means and I love wilderness areas and actively support the designation of more - it's ridiculous for you to claim they're just for the "rich elite".

Do you realize that much of the area east of the Salt Lake valley is designated wilderness areas (Mount Olympus, Twin Peaks and Lone Peak Wilderness areas)? And, that outside the San Bernadino National Forest, the trail systems within these areas are the second most utilized in the nation? Hardly sounds elitist to me. They're there for the enjoyment of anyone who's willing to make the effort, and tens of thousands of people along the Wasatch Front do just that every year.

And as for your comment about all the idle rich liberals trying to keep you off of your land - I wish there were more. We need them to counterbalance the greedy and selfish conservatives who are relentless in their efforts to exploit them for personal/corporate gain.

re:Mike RIchards | 4:48 p.m. | 5:56 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

We live in America.
I'm a pilot.

And I can fly anywhere I want, anytime I want.
EXCEPT -
SL International Airspace,
Hill AFB
Wendover Bombing range
Tooele Army Depot
...for reasons of safety.

The sky's in the limit because --
No Trace is Left Behind.

Obey the rules, and everybody wins.

But it only takes a few ultra-free 'you can't tell ME what to do' nut-cakes that wanna trash it and spoil it for others, then everyone looses freedom of access.

You STILL don't get it.
Amazing.

Reason | 6:02 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Re: “Hint ..., 4:52”: Great points. Well said.

Not just liberals...... | 6:18 p.m. Oct. 1, 2009

Let us not forget - Utah's third largest wilderness area (Cedar Mountain) was created in 2006 because of the efforts of Utah's own Rob Bishop - who is anything but an elitist liberal!

Most of you are not thingkin | 8:46 p.m. Oct. 2, 2009

Most of you are NOT thinking about how in the world are we going to get EVERYONE- out to see these wonders without some improvements. I myself could hike in, and have done so several times in my life.
How do I take my eleven year old daughter in?? She is confined to her wheelchair, a paraplegic. We can no longer even hire a helicopter to fly over the snow in the back country because it upsets some of these nature lovers. Yes they are selfish--very. They want it just for themselfs with out thinking of the elderly, or handicapped that can never see it short of some development. Under the Americans with Handicapped act, Does not the Government have the duty to open this area up with a road so ALL Americans can enjoy it????

jan | 3:55 p.m. Nov. 8, 2009

Most of the comments have been from the point of view that everyone is able to hike into the beautiful natural areas. I am now 70 years old and cannot hike for days to see things I will only see in magazines or on the internet. Some roads should be built into areas where the handicapped and elderly can enjoy what our taxes are paying for. You will be in the same situation eventually.

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.