Quantcast

Comments about ‘Steven M. Thiese: We must protect our public lands’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 26 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Furry1993
Ogden, UT

Well said.

one old man
Ogden, UT

An excellent letter. But it's sure gonna make the folks who covet the dollars angry.

KDave
Moab, UT

The arguments seem to be based on if Utah has control of the Public lands they will no longer be Public. A fallicy . The monument designation has one purpose, to ban those deemed to be of a lower class. Why do theY despise the elderly and the handicapped? Why do you want to see our forests burn every summer, as they are under Federal mis-management. We can do better.

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Thanks, Mr. Thiese, for a well-written, thoughtful commentary.

Emajor
Ogden, UT

KDave,
The elderly and handicapped rarely use Jeep trails. Especially the latter. National Parks and Monuments with their paved or graded roads, restrooms, visitor centers, and other conveniences have done far more to get those two demographic groups into our public lands than USA-ALL. Ever look at a map of the Canyonlands NP backcountry? Lots of 4WD trails in beautiful country out there. And that's in a National Park. So your entire "banning access" argument goes out the window.

Our forest fire problem was started by rampant fire suppression to appease logging interests that didn't want to see board-feet go up in flames. Now the forests are choked. And environmental groups don't want to just log it out. So you're only half-right there.

An unknown portion of public lands will no longer be public if turned over to state control. Once an area is leased for logging, oil drilling, mining, etc., your access is gone. The state owns it, but private companies control the access. So that argument too goes out the window.

So why do you despise everyone except corporate interests?

Utes Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

"Evidently, the Legislature cannot be depended upon to consider the broader constituency of Utahns."

I agree. Remember a few years ago when the Utah Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the stream access issue in favor of the public accessing Utah's rivers and streams. Part of that ruling was based on the fact that the public owns the rivers.

However, the state Legislature and governor caved in to private, wealthy, special interests lobbying behind closed doors and overruled that unanimous Supreme Court ruling. The ruling acknowledged the "public's trust" in matters of rivers and streams. But the Legislature certainly betrayed the "public's trust" in this matter and, as the author of this opinion says, did not "consider the broader constituency of Utahns".

Thus, we have first-hand evidence that the Legislature will NOT consider the people of Utah in this matter of public lands, and will cave in to the wealthy few and thus Utah's public lands would be in jeopardy for the public to use and enjoy.

Winglish
Lehi, UT

I agree 100%. The legislature needs to leave well enough alone. Most Utahns love the outdoors and the wonderful natural treasures that our state houses. Some places are best left undeveloped so that they can be enjoyed by the masses.

Demo Dave
Holladay, UT

Thank you for a wonderful letter. If the current generation doesn't develop a love for nature by spending time in it, they won't care what happens to it. With the Republican attack on federal lands and our state's penchant for developing everything, the children of the future may never know the world as it was meant to be - natural and unspoiled. We need nature but nature doesn't need us, and the world is perfect as it is. We've messed most of it up already. Let's leave the rest alone.

JohnH
Cedar City, UT

Which is better protected: public housing or private housing?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments