Re: byronbca | 11:18 a.m. Feb. 17, 2011 "I think raising taxes
....."You're just not getting the message. We're already
paying far more than our fair share of taxes for everything under the sun as it
is. When we combine everybody's pet projects it would add up to $1,000s. The
time has come to cut muscle and bone from the budget ..... after we're finished
using a chainsaw to do amputations.
Re justamacguy:I think raising taxes to protect our important wilderness
areas is a great idea. If we charged everyone in America $5 a year for parks and
wilderness upkeep America would be a more beautiful place. Riders
also create much more damage than hikers. One dirt bike causes as much erosion
as about 1000 hikers. It makes sense that they should pay more.
" So your solution to get out of this deficit is to sell our
heritage?"National heritage is a subjective statement, just
like "wilderness qualities". I find many of the old mining trails and
logging trails blazed out by our hearty pioneer ancestors, that I used to be
able to travel on, a national heritage. Obviously you don't. If you want it...
Pay for it. Initiate a tax on hiking gear, charge a $500 hiking passport for
wilderness. Riders pay that much over the season to visit Little Sahara, hikers
can't be the money leaches, they must contribute too. Put your
chuckabooted-bermuda shorted money where you mouth is.
Re DN subscriber:So your solution to get out of this deficit is to sell
our heritage? Don't you think that's a little selfish? Your philosophy is to
sell out our future for pennies. Oil companies are not very giving, Utahns are
not going to see much of this drilling moneyI think we should try to
fix the problems that actually got us into this mess. We're not in a deficit
because we have national monuments, we're in a deficit because we let the banks
high jack our country.Clinton built a house of cards and Bush just
watched it fall over.
Rob Bishop is right on this issue (and most others).If we had
unlimited funds, we could debate the merits of preserving scenic views.However, we are broke, deeply in debt, and basically bankrupt. We have no
money. Is a scenic view more important than providing Medicare and Social
Security and national defense? Obviously not, so we must fund the priority
needs, and stop the spending on everything that is not absolutely essential.
And, we will probably have to cut a lot of essential stuff as well.Okay, end the funding for this immediately and keep looking for more stuff we
can cut, because we must cut more!
Bravo! One step closer to the ultimate, proper solution: sell the land to the
highest bidder. Let those who prize the ruins buy it and guard it. Let those
who treasure the fishing buy the land and collect fees if they like from whoever
wants to fish it.
I have been trying searching the web to figure out what this conservation system
mission statement is. It looks like a duplication of other BLM functions, or
another layer of bureaucrats making work for themselves. Axe it will never be
missed except by those who like more red tape to slow down decision making.
According to opensecrets dot org, (they track politician's actions) Bishop gets
most of his campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.Translation: This is about giving access to federally protected lands to oil
companies for drilling. If this passes some special places are going
to disappear forever.
This is an example of what I have always admired with Rob. He is willing to take
a logical look at the issues without being overly influenced by emotions or
Polical Correctness. Go Rob, We appreciate you.
Landscape Conservation has been spending money and confusing management of BLM
administered lands long enough. How can the Government quit spending more money
than it has to spend if it doesn't eliminate duplicate management of the same
land. Even the Monuments are duplicate management that dosen't really do
anything the regular BLM wasn't doing. I say we quit spending government money
without a better reason than duplicate management of the same resource.
Once again Rob Bishop has gotten it right . . . . ALL lands within a state's
sovereign borders, except for those voluntarily and specifically ceded to the
Federal government, are and should be totally under the control of the state
legislature and the people of the state itself and therefore should receive no
federal funding nor interference with by the Federal government or wacko
environmentalist outside the state's borders. The fed has for too long meddled
in matters outside the 19 powers given it by Article 1 Section 8 of the
Constitution and costing the nation hundreds of billions, it's time to trim it
The BLM lands that make big money, like Little Sahara, can nolonger support the
wilderness lands. They can only raise the entrance fees so high before the
people will begin to revolt and not pay. We will find other things to do with
our kids. Not-a-Trace land is just that and it takes a lot of patroling to keep
everyone out. Idle lands cost us all, no grazing, no drilling, no riding, no
hiking is no use to anyone.
Everyone wants to cut the budget but nobody wants to give an inch. This is as
good as any to start. When a business is in finacial trouble it tightens its
belt. Our Government needs this more than ever.thank you Rob
So the environmentalists keep claiming that eco-tourism from wilderness is
supposed to bring in millions of dollars and save Utah's rural economies...
Looks like ecotourism can't even keep all this locked up land running."O'Donnell said... Many of the national monuments on the lands, he added,
already operate on a shoestring budget..."If the parks can't
even collect enough money to run at the gate... And they have to be subsidized
by us who never go there... How do communities survive?
Is this the same Bishop who boasted during his last campaign that he "could
bring home the bacon" for Utah?