Published: Wednesday, Dec. 26 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
An excellent letter. But it's sure gonna make the folks who covet the
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.
Thanks, Mr. Thiese, for a well-written, thoughtful commentary.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
Which is better protected: public housing or private housing?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments