I'd like to see the evidence behind mcclark's assertion, "Every
National Park has turned out to be good for the local economy." And please,
don't bother me with a couple of examples like Yosemite, and Yellowstone.
I want to see the numbers showing that EVERY National Park has been economically
beneficial, and MORE beneficial than letting states manage the land themselves.
When he sees southern Utah he may just decide it is definitely worth protecting
more of it.
So when is Utah going to pony up for that uranium clean-up, or isn't that
part of Utah's track record too?Your land belongs to you. The
Federal lands belong to US. You manage your's and our representatives at
the federal level will manage ours, because the land belongs to all of us.I live near a city park that i think could be maintained better, does
that make it mine? Can I alter it for my profit or gain? I mean it's public
Utah has a proven track record regarding it's ability to manage it's
own affairs. We are capable of managing our own lands without federal
oversight. Our arguments belong to us ~ so does our land.
The trouble is Chafetz is going to hand select local ringers (see K. Call above)
who believe that proximity is ownership, and that Environmental Protection is
wrong.Those environmental laws are such a hassle, I mean what wrong
with uranium tailings 300 ft from the Colorado that were left for All of America
to Clean-up, after the company profited and left. I believe it's called a
"Supersite" and that's just, well, Super to Chaffetz and Moab
residents I guess. But the rest of the country probably thinks clean
water and or air is a good thing.Tourism and beautiful open space is
the gift that keeps giving,generation after generation. Unlike the dig it up,
suck it out, take the money and run, industries that Chaffetz and other
corporate bought conservatives have to pay back.I'd like to
think, he has higher motives, but his track record is well....what exactly has
Chaffetz done for since 2008?I type Chaffetz in google and it comes
up "Chaffetz Benghazi" as someone else pointed out, he needs to change
directions since that didn't pan out for him.
Good for Jason! Cummings may not change his views on public lands issues but
this is the kind of "reaching across the aisle" that Congress badly
needs. Political polarization is the reason,IMO,that Congress can/will do
nothing of consequence for the American people.
Looks like Mr Chaffetz is trying to show Mr Cummings what Utah really is. Since
Mr Cummings is influential in Congress, it seems to make sense that Chaffetz
would want others to see what they are voting about. Let Mr Cummings see the
land, see the rivers, see Welfare Square and learn that government isn't
the best at providing for the poor. Let him and others in Congress see how
their votes affect people in Utah, that Utah isn't just a
"fly-over" state with one or two people in it. I'm certain Mr
Chaffetz had a few surprises when he saw Baltimore, since it isn't just the
Inner Harbor and "Homicide" reruns.
Can you imagine a river trip, passing strip mining? That's the vision that
the Chaffetz team has for Utah.
Environmental Protection Laws seem to supersede all other laws. It stands to
reason that with such laws on the books it’s not going to matter if all
the stakeholders in Utah agree on a lands initiative or not because the
initiative can just be ignored by using a environmental protection law to
circumvent it.As long as the environmental laws are on the books the
“Grand Bargain” will not be worth the paper it is written on. The
Bishop land initiative needs to overturn the legacy of environmental protection
laws. Without these laws being overturned rural Utah will never get out from
under environmentalism and the federal governments control.
This is the first time every that I've been able to honestly say that
Chafetz seems to be doing something right.
Since bashing the President over Bengahzi hasn't pan out as hoped, now Jason Chaffetz will try showing off Utah's natural beauty as an
example of Presidential over-reach -- you know, the lands the
President is trying to PROTECT!
Im so glad that Chaffetz has enough time to go on vacation in southern Utah to
enjoy the canyon lands.I'm so glad we don't have other
issues like:Illegal immigrationHigher educationHealth
care DebtRegulating Wall StreetInfrastructureUpdating
our energy portfolioSaving the Middle-ClassSo yes, thank you
Chaffetz for tackling the "toughest" issues first. While you're
enjoying your vacation from reality (which seems to be your entire life) the
rest of us will be saddled with the issues above. Thanks!
The reservation system is the reason Indians are poor. No property rights, and
welfare. getting the dole does not help.
I commend what he is doing. Our Junior Senator could benefit from his example.
We need to get past demonizing members of the opposite party and see that we
have some things in common.
I'm glad Chaffetz has done this but for alternative reasons of turning over
the land to state developers and destruction. My hope is that these congressmen
will get a greater understanding of why they should not give Utah any of the
land and to remind the congressmen that this land belongs to all of american
states in preservation.If Utah state government was ever given
contol to scorch the earth it will become a 1,000 mile long and 600 mile wide
sand dune desert mimicking the Sahara of Africa.Its good that these
congressmen can see and appreciate what these lands are and the value they
present as world wide inspirations of the beauty of our natural landscapes. Utah
wants to portray this land and the state a waste land not worth preserving so
they can make some money to feed and expand more government and corporate
profits.Creating 200 jobs is not worth the loss of 500 square miles
of beauty. The corporate plan is to create 50 jobs for oil rig workers, 50 jobs
for demolition corporations, and 100 jobs to bury and coverup the environmental
destruction in ways it cannot be repaired.
I M LD_ 2,if the feds did not own so much of our land, maybe there
would not be as great a need for welfare squareOr do you think
welfare square is something to be ashamed of?
The majority of utah residents live from Provo to Ogden . Public land concerns
is the least of my worries but unfornutley our congressmen give more time to
wild horses and ranchers than the real problems that face us in the metropolitan
I M LDS 2: Good question. I was also wondering how a float trip on
the Colorado relates to federal control of public lands. And how much that will
cost. And who is paying for it. Can you say boondoggle?Maybe
Chaffetz could arrange for Cummings to stay on a luxurious houseboat on Lake
Powell. I've heard that works well in the business of influencing
influential people. Oh wait, that's already been tried.
If this exchange is done in the spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation
across the political aisle, I'm very pleased to read this.
What, exactly, does Welfare Square have to do with the federal control of public
Every National Park has turned out to be good for the local economy.