Robert Bennett: Resolving Utah's wilderness conflict


Return To Article
  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 25, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    @lex loci

    I was in the Uintas last week and the only fences I saw were those belonging to the homeowners and ranchers. I didn't see ONE fence keeping you out of the beautiful and protected outdoors.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 25, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    lex loci: Lace up some hiking boots. No place is "locked up". Not. One. Place.

    If you want to see all the wonderful places truly "locked up" from the public, see what happens if Gary Herbert gets control of the land.

  • lex loci Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    SUWA is the enemy. They want to take the land and lock it up so no one can use it. I supported this organization and others like it when I thought they wanted to "preserve the land" for generations. What I've found is they want to restrict any reasonable use of the land. No bicycles, cars, trucks, motorcycles, or anything else. Especially resource development.

    These groups are way too extreme and most are not even from Utah. Utah is not a playground for Dick Durbin or the rest of the country. This should be a local decision made based on the Fed's (if it's their land) guiding principles and the extreme groups should not be included in the discussion.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 24, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    Re: ". . . [Bishop] opposes any and all efforts to preserve our natural heritage for future generations."

    No, that's SUWA, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, etc.

    The radical "greenies" in those organizations view humans as an introduced, invasive species, that must be fenced away from "nature" to "preserve" it for future generations of wildlife, not of humans.

    How quickly they forget that Utah is only attactive to them as land to be fenced away from us because its inhabitants have been good stewards of that land, at least since the end of the last ice age.

    The best way to resolve Utah's wilderness conflict would be to remove uninvolved, politically-motivated, absentee federal landlords from the process.

    Next best is to ignore the tiny cabal of radical "greenies," who represent no real Utahns.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 24, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    It's amazing to me that in a state which ranks dead last in per pupil spending that somehow the legislature finds enough time and money to waste on frivileous lawsuits against the federal government over the land. Folks, couldn't this money be better spent? On education perhaps? Oh I know I know, the money just doesn't exist! Yet, we seem to have plenty to waste on these ridiculous lawsuits!

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    June 24, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    Fine and dandy, except we all know where Rob Bishop stands, or sits. He's made it clear for years that he opposes any and all efforts to preserve our natural heritage for future generations. As long as he is in this position, you can bet the process will be long, difficult, and fruitless because will make it so.