Comments about ‘In our opinion: Spend for conservation’

Conservation of what makes Utah nice should be the number one conservative idea.
Failing to provide open space in urban areas is NOT conservative.
Irresponsibly selling off and developing our open spaces in rural Utah is NOT conservative
Demanding a take over of federal lands when Utah clearly cannot manage them is NOT conservative.

To "Counter Intelligence" you are wrong. Liberals are not the only protectors of the environment.

Conservatives work on preserving the environment. Look at Sen. Judd Gregg. The media consideres him conservative AND a strong proponent for protecting the environment.

Look at the Boy Scouts. That is a highly conservative organization, and they teach conservation.

Look at the LDS church's camps that they own. The church is conservative, yet is buying up large areas of land to preserve it for future generations to enjoy.

If you bothered to read about the plans for Utah to take control of the federally owned lands in Utah, you would find that they don't plan on doing much different outside of improving management of the lands to make the impacts of wildfires less.

A more accurate statement is that liberals do no recognize conservatives when working side by side.

RedShirt has been bamboozled if he thinks the GOP plan to grab federal lands will mean "not doing much different." All I hear from them is how we will get trillions in royalties and severance taxes from tearing up vast coal surfaces and sucking out every last drop of oil. They won't be satisfied until the whole state looks like Kennecott. That's the whole point of the land grab, isn't it?

The great irony: Conservatives are against conservation.

Redshirt,
You can always find an example of a conservative legislator who believes in conservation. But until the state capitol is populated by them, it does us no good. Having to cite a New Hampshire politician as an example of this rare breed only illustrates why Utah should not have control of these lands.

Inside the wrangling of who is and who isn't for or against conservation, it still makes sense to find a way to get protected land OUT of a conservation pool. The enormity of Utah land that has been taken from economic use by the government in Utah is appalling, and to find ways to protect more land from utility seems against the Constitution's confiscation protection.
If you wish to protect YOUR property against development do so,but don't be an impediment against others thinking differently.

CynicJim
"If you wish to protect YOUR property against development do so"

Did you read the editorial? That's what the McAllister Fund is all about.

Utah pioneers, thoughtful of the environment, set aside wonderful parks and recreation land. Contemporary Utahns should do the same. Once something becomes a strip mall, there is no going back.

For building new freeways in wetlands -- Conservatives.
For CONSERVING those wetlands -- Liberals.

For allowing obnoxious billboards plastered all over the InterStates -- Conservatives.
For CONSERVING Utah's nature beuty -- Liberals.

Question for all you big government liberals who live in Utah. Do you even care or want there to be 50 states in this country. Sounds to me like you trust D.C. government so much that the United "State" of America would be just fine with you. Have you been across Utah? There is so much open space you could transplant New York City here and no one would notice. The state has much beauty that obviously needs to be preserved. However, if you can take a typical flat piece of land out in this vast wilderness, which the U.S.Government owns a lot of, and make a Kennecott mine, dig for coal, or drill for oil, and bring wealth to the state, what's wrong with that?