"Protection" is good. It makes sure that land is not used in a
destructive way. All uses need limits. Some uses are mutually exclusive.
Protecting Greater Canyonlands is a step in the right direction.
"Protection" is good. It makes sure the land is not used in a
destructive way. All land uses need limits. Some land uses are mutually
exclusive. Protecting Greater Canyonlands is a step in the right direction.
" The wisdom of handing any more land over to the Federal Government? "
I think we the people already own this land under the protection of the Federal
Government. What does " protection " mean and who would have access?
People from all over the world would have access. Cars and motorized vehicles
would have access to most of the popular places they have now, but not all of
the places. Places where people would like to enjoy beauty and quiet would and
should be off limits to motorized vehicles, oil and gas companies, tar sands,
oil shale development, gold and uranium mining, airplanes and helicopters
buzzing around, target and trap shooting, garbage dumping etc. Is it that hard
to figure out?
there is not enough money now to continue operating the national parks. Why
further dilute the Interior's resources by spreading them even thinner?
The Greater Canyonlands National Monument should include all of the Forest
Service Monticello Ranger District so there will be a contiguous swath of
protected wildlife habitat from the alpine tundra of the Abajo Peaks to the
desert. The opponents refusal to even discuss protection for Greater
Canyonlands gives Obama political cover for acting unilaterally if he has the
wisdom to do so.