Comments about ‘Letter: Proclaiming monuments’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, May 31 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Friday, May 30 2014 8:35 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

The national parks and monuments system, the national forests, and the BLM are means of securing rights of city folk like me to outdoor recreation and wilderness experiences.

The drive for Utah to gain title to federally owned land is the first step in the wholesale privitization of these lands. Should such happen city people would have to pay to access degraded land. The wilderness experience would be completely lost. My family recently spent some time in Yellowstone, that wonderful place. On the way home we passed through Island Park much of which doesn't look a whole lot better than State Street. I made and make the comment that a privitized Yellowstone would look like Island Park.

I know the writer was addressing the monument system mainly, but we should beware of federal departure from our public lands. It will be the beginning of the end for outdoor recreation for millions.

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

We may need presidents who act with vision, but we don’t need presidents who act with arrogance and political calculation in order to shore up support from one special interest or another.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

It is best to leave as many preservation, and environmental decisions to the feds as possible.

Our great countries' clean air, clean water, and wild areas are just too important for future generations to leave in the hands of local control.

State and local governments lack the resources to regulate big oil, mining companies, real estate developers, or anyone else who wants to make a quick buck off of our national treasures.

And, as witnessed by some of the archeological treasures pillaged in rural Utah, locals are often times the last people we want as stewards for our national treasures.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

Agreed!

Thanks for the letter!
From myself [also a 5th generation Utahan]
and from my posterity.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Completely agree. Future generations will appreciate this forward thinking, as much as most Utahans do now.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

The act allowing Dictator BO to do this needs amending. The POTUS should be able to name an area, then either congressional approval or reversal within 18 months (or some reasonable time period) should be required - thus restoring the balance of power the founders intended.

Marxist,
OK, how bout BO names your downtown condo a national monument - after all, us suburbanites and the rural folk need the opportunity to experience urban living. Buy your own condo, you say? OK, buy your own 40 acre spread out in the sticks for your outdoor recreational and wilderness experience!

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

The real message Utah is sending by striving to usurp Federal control of public lands is for the rest of America to stay out. The best thing we offer the rest of the union is our natural resources which also have translated into economic resources. Prediction, for every take over, Utah's hand will ever stretch closer to the trough in D.C. for maintenance cash with the perpetual whine. It's either that or the sale at rock bottom prices.

Demosthenes
Rexburg, ID

While the goal of monuments to preserve scenic lands is noble, it is easy to overlook some of the unintended consequences. For example, many Americans are not capable of hiking or backpacking because of age, physical disabilities, having small children, etc. What about them? Closing roads to create a monument shuts them out of their public lands. Having road access for vehicles makes public lands accessible to more Americans. We want to be "inclusive," right?

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

Lost in DC: Apparently lost on you is the distinction that the president can designate a national monument on federally-owned land, but not on private land (like a condo). To take private property, he would have to comply with the 5th Amendment (which requires just compensation for taking private property). I don't think anyone is proposing that the government condemn private property for national monuments.

Demosthenes: Believe it or not, but national monuments and parks actually have roads. You can enjoy much of their scenic beauty from the comfort of your own vehicle. The problem is, you want to build more roads and eliminate or ruin the back-country experience for everyone just so you won't have to take the trouble to use your legs.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Demosthenes " We want to be "inclusive," right?" Absolutely. The crown jewel of the national park system, Yellowstone, has many varieties of access. People need access to the natural world. That is my point. Everyone needs such access.

Kora
Cedar Hills, UT

Why is it the President is not proclaiming monuments in the Eastern US? Why are all the lands the Feds are so eager to protect always in the West? Why did the Federal Govt let the State of NY control Niagara Falls? Isn't that too much for a State to control?
I would be less upset if they proclaimed a proportional amount of land in the East as they do in the West, but they won't because they want to use their land however they want. They want control of their resources while restricting the use by us out here. They are hypocrites and selfish.

care4usa
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Curmudgeon,
Precedent and case law has proved over and over again that the federal government can and will take private land without just compensation. Rural land is most at risk. The abuses of private property rights across the country are astounding

Demo Dave
Holladay, UT

I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this letter in the Deseret News. Was the editor sick that day? Congratulations to the author.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments