Best of our public lands

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    Mountanman: "There should be a few wild places on the earth that you have to walk to get to not drive! If you are too lazy to walk to get there, go to the millions of other places you can drive to."

    I find myself in rare agreement with the man from Hayden Lake. It shows that there are no clean lines in this discussion. Bravo.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    Aug. 25, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    There are thousands of places in the world I'd like to visit, but even if I had the money, I wouldn't live long enough. I take comfort in knowing that these places exist and that I can enjoy them through photographs and the experiences of those who are fortunate enough to see them firsthand.

    No one can go everywhere, and society doesn’t have to accommodate every person’s disability and impediment. What part of this concept does the ATV crowd not understand?

    If there had been a road to the Wave years ago, Mr. Huck and his throttle-happy friends would have destroyed it way back then. Why not build a freeway?

    How sad that Mr. Huck would exploit the deaths of three good people to further his own subversive, anti-wilderness, pro-ATV agenda.

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Aug. 24, 2013 9:24 p.m.

    The Americans With Disabilities Act could logically be extended to attractions on public lands. The letter writer makes a powerful point that many Americans are excluded from public lands because of their physical limitations. It's plainly not fair.

    This isn't a cry for "paving everything," and mocking this letter by pushing it to the extreme fails to address the valid points. The "reverse" logic above doesn't stand, either, because it compares apples to oranges (roads to wilderness). This letter ought to be taken seriously.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 24, 2013 6:34 p.m.

    Moabmom is right, pave it! Pave it all!
    I hate the thought of having to walk anywhere. And I especially hate the thought of being someplace where I can't hear and smell ATVs and lots and lots of other people. If an ATV can't go someplace then I certainly don't want to be there.

  • Martin Blank Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    I wonder if Mr. Huck has a plan to pay for the paving and maintenance of the roads he'd like to have crisscross every wilderness area in Utah. And, Mr. Huck, I've been in wilderness areas, and I've been in areas where ATVs and other vehicles are allowed, and there's no comparison; the immense silence of a wilderness area is much more preferable than listening to an ATV run amuck.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 24, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    There should be a few wild places on the earth that you have to walk to get to not drive! If you are too lazy to walk to get there, go to the millions of other places you can drive to.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    Rainer Huck, lobbyist for the off road vehicle industry and hater of anything that resembles protecting the natural environment. 'Nuff said.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    A novel argument, to be sure, but like all arguments that relay on cleverness rather than thought to make a point, it can easily be reversed to turn against you. The pages of this paper carry stories every day of fatalities on our roads. If only those people had been walking in a wilderness area instead of driving on a highway. Think of all the lives that could be saved. Many, many more than three.

    As to sharing the land, there are thousands of acres of federal land in Utah reserved for the sole, singular purpose of automobile use. In fact, a pedestrian can be arrested for setting foot on these public lands. Surely Mr. Huck would have no objections to opening these locked up lands to multiple use and allowing hikers and cyclists onto the interstate highway system. It's all about sharing and equal access to public land for all to benefit, right? The car and truck occupants would have no problem seeing a pedestrian in the passing lane. It wouldn't detract from their enjoyment of the highway experience. What harm could come from such a selfless move?

  • Fyodor Mikhailovich Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    Rainer Huck never saw a road he didn't like or an area that he does not want to pave a road to (there is no road of any sort to the wave now.) This is a delicate natural wonder, and only 20 people per day are allowed to go and you need to apply for a permit to go. Pave a road there and you would ruin it in a year. You've got your choice--ruin the area or keep it pristine. Huck is opposed keeping anything pristine.

  • Moabmom Moab, UT
    Aug. 24, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    I would love to see the Wave but under the currant style of 'land management' will never be able to. Limiting access and entrance to these beautiful places to only those who are physically capable is not right. Having an access road to the Wave would harm nothing and would allow handicapped people and families with children to enjoy the area also. The lottery system for permits also has contributed to the deaths this summer. People unfamiliar with the area don't want to have to wait and lose their allotted time slot to see the Wave, so they go irregardless of the weather/heat conditions. You shouldn't have to get a permit to see our public lands. I don't agree with 'wilderness designation' of areas outside of national or state parks either. They serve no purpose except to lock people out of our public lands. If no one can see them or use them, they are a waste of money and manpower and serve only environmental groups and politicians who use them as tools for political grandstanding and 'fundraising'. Public lands belong to the public, not environmentalists and NGO's.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 24, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    I don't know about that... left wingers tend to hate developing anything in parks. They're the ones who most strongly disagree with Skilink for instance.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 24, 2013 3:19 a.m.

    LOL, the lack of roads is no problem. People enter the wilderness at risk and the government is misrepresenting the role of governement as baby sitters and parental oversight in affair that don't concern them.

    We can abolish recsue squads first before we destroy the internment with more roads and people going into the wilderness unprepared.

    The spokesman here is another left winger dependent who fears his own existence. People die, get over it. Life is not about government oversight, life is about risk and if you don't like risk then stay home with your teddy bears.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 24, 2013 3:07 a.m.

    Let's pave it. Then we can drain the Colorado River so we can pave roads all over the Grand Canyon. After that we could plug up all those pesky hot pots in Yellowstone so we can pave it as well.
    Mt Everest can be next! After Everest we could drain the Ocean so I can drive to Hawaii or even the Mariana's trench.
    Let's pave everything.