@ 2 bits: Thanks for setting me straight. I thought all
libertarians were cowboys. I think its great that you have enough money to pay
for a cabin and a hunting club and all that expensive stuff. When lands we
recreate on are privately owned, we usually need to pay to use them. That also
goes for state and national parks btw. For someone like me: poor, no resources
to buy myself a sweet acre of nature with a cabin and a 4-wheeler, I utilize my
birthright: forest service land, wilderness and BLM land where there is no
charge. Unfortunately for me, I can't afford to be a libertarian.
Do it President Obama! Do it now!. Rob Bishop would ruin these sacred spots for
I think Obama should ignore calls to not create a monument.
Teach a man to fish, and Utah will block his access to the water. We know how
Utah will give away the land to developers, ranchers and oil and mining
companies. The area needs to be preserved. That's not Utah's way of
doing things. Let it become a park for future generations.
Anyone who think that "the state" should manage these pristine lands
should look to the south west side of the valley. That ugly scar in the
mountains? Yeah, that wasn't there when Brigham Young came here. "The
state" turned that mountain over to a "responsible" company who
"gave us jobs." No we have a permanently scarred mountain. Thanks!"Just because the Feds WANT to own all beautiful land in Utah...
doesn't mean they already do."I would love for this to
happen. I would personally walk President Obama through south end of the valley
where the prison now lies. Then watch the legislature's desire to relocate
the prison melt away! And watch all the conservatives here complain.We need more cheap outlet stores and an overpriced cookie cutter housing like
Daybreak where the prison now lies like southern Utah needs another Mike Lee
government shutdown. The valley is already too crowded and too polluted. Until then, wouldn't it be cool for the Feds to take that land and
make a national monument on that land? Beautiful way to enter the valley!
C'mon Barry! More monuments!
@ patriotHi, we are from big dirty fuel and we are here to help...
Destroy your public lands for a few temporary jobs so we can sell coal and oil
to China. Don't worry, you have google, right? Your kids and grand kids can
look up pictures of what used to be beautiful canyon lands!@ 2
bitsHilarious! I challenge you to visit some more state parks. I
hike Provo, Spanish fork, and American fork canyons all the time. Many have
state parks in them . I'm continuously amazed at how poorly maintained they
are. Garbage cans overflowing, fire pits damaged, grass dead, and dirty
restrooms. I visit federal land and national parks, and I'm always amazed
at how clean and well kept the lands are. Clearly, the federal government has
proven to be better keepers of the land than state. In fact, making more state
parks makes as much sense as deregulating Wall Street and giving the richies all
the tax breaks.Sorry repubs, for 8 years i watched you guy do stuff
I didn't want. Now you have to sit and watch my guy do stuff you don't
like. Elections have consequences.
"The president should ignore calls to create monuments"In
other words, "listen to us, not them".I think there has been
PLENTY of discussion from a wide array of parties about the topic, so this is
not at all like Escalante / Grand Staircase, and those comparisons are not just
wrong, but completely ingenuous.Ultimately, the President is
"The Decider". Elections have consequences.
Hi - we are from the federal government and we are here to help - our selves!!!
@Beaver Native - All of the taxes and potential jobs created would be temporary.
@Spangs,Are there no beautiful lands that AREN'T Federally
owned???I know there are many beautiful places that aren't
owned by the Federal Government (YET).I camp/hunt/fish/hike on land
that isn't Federally owned all the time. State Parks are one good example.
Private land and wildlife preserves are another. A huge area by my cabin is
owned and protected by a private hunting group for their members. Huge parts of
Montana and Wyoming are privately owned... preserved... and beautiful... The
Rockefellers bought a bunch and protected it, Tedd Turner did too...What I'm saying is... all land that doesn't have houses on it
isn't owned by the Federal Government. I think some city folks get that
impression because it's that way in the cities.=====Just because the Feds WANT to own all beautiful land in Utah... doesn't
mean they already do.All libertarians are NOT cowboys/cowgirls BTW.
Try getting your view of life from something other than a bumper-sticker, or a
stereotypes of the people you write about.Most libertarians I know
have never ridden a horse into the sunset (That's TV)
Virtually all Utahns love our state because of its proximity to beautiful public
lands. I don't know a tea-party libertarian conservative (and I know a lot)
who doesn't go out and camp/hunt/fish/ski/hike. I also see this issue
pulling them apart! On one shoulder, they LOVE these pristine lands and the
great quality of life they provide. On the other shoulder is their general
ubiquitous disdain for the federal government which stewards these lands. Maybe the ultra-conservative libertarians should concentrate on
something else they actually don't like, such as high taxes, gun laws, food
stamps and healthcare? If they scream too much, these cowboys might lose the
range they ride off into the sunset in.
2 Bits nailed it when he wrote: "Maybe we should just make ALL Utah a
national preserve... to protect it from the Utahns who currently infest this
land."No one could have stated it better.
"The letters reads as if people in Utah had never considered such things or
were unaware of their existence. Quite the opposite is true, but there is much
more to the story."The letters reads???Proofreading
pays!"Quite the opposite is true" ???? Sources???
citations???No, from what I see, most Utahns don't really care
about endangered species or any other environmental concerns that we
"liberals" have.Unbridled use of land for any selfish
purpose seems to be the attitude.Please "liberal" senators,
keep up the good work protecting Utah from Utah's "leadership"!
Continued from above."It can also be considered a Federal land
grab because there are state school trust lands within the proposed
boundaries."Ah yes, when all else fails bring in the
"Somebody think about the children" excuse. If we want to really help
education, let's get rid of the tax exemptions for 2 or more kids.
Let's have big families actually contribute to financing education. Slap
some skin into education instead of receiving handouts. If we want to care about
children, let's preserve these lands for them! Not destroy them.The funny thing about the drill baby drill crowd is that they're never
satisfied. We've already given them Texas and the Dakotas to exploit and
plunder. Yet, that's not enough! It's never enough. Utahns need to ask
themselves, is creating a few temporary jobs so that we can sell oil and coal to
china really worth the health costs? Is it really worth us forking out millions
to clean up? Is it worth destroying beautiful lands forever?Has
anyone ever regretted preserving lands? Has anyone not regretted pillaging them?
@ Beaver Native"You are forgetting about the jobs that would be
created and the increase to the tax base. That's pumping money into
Utah's economy."You're forgetting about the costs to
taxpayers to clean up the messes that these extractors leave behind. "It actually costs the government much more to administer these lands than
the revenue that is brought in."False. Tourism brings millions
to our state. Or was 18 million lost during Mike Lee's temper tantrum just
imaginary? Serious question, have you spoken with any of our southern Utah
brothers and sisters about that? Tourism provides thousands of Utahns good clean
jobs. Unlike oil and coal extraction that is an finite resource, Tourism is an
infinite resource. It will be here for our children and grandchildren to
enjoy... Unless republicans decide to a shut down the government again!To be continued...
Beaver Native said:@Gary O: It can also be considered a Federal land
grab because there are state school trust lands within the proposed boundaries.
These lands would then be unavailable to Utah for development. This is still an
issue from whenn the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was created.They were traded, NOT lost, as I'm sure would happen here, by the
way the school trust lands have been cut in have since there inception, being
sold off to Utah developers for a one time profit, by the Trustees, so
there's yet another example of shortsighted Utah Politicians.Grand Staircase has not been developed as a tourist attraction...yet.Tourism continues to rise in the state, while depleting natural resources is a
one time deal.
@mcdugall, You are forgetting about the jobs that would be created and the
increase to the tax base. That's pumping money into Utah's economy.
@marxist, It's also a fallacy that the creation of another
National Monument would bring increased revenue. There was not significant
increase in tourism with the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National
Monument and the land is similar. It actually costs the government much more to
administer these lands than the revenue that is brought in. @Gary
O: It can also be considered a Federal land grab because there are state school
trust lands within the proposed boundaries. These lands would then be
unavailable to Utah for development. This is still an issue from whenn the
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was created.I am not
necessarily proposing support one way or the other because I am not familiar
with all of the environmental impacts. But let's keep our facts straight,
and if there is a National Monument created, do a land trade for the State lands
within the boundaries.
The media and politicians are trying to make this a state's rights issue,
when it simply is not. The terms of the agreement for Utah becoming a state
included a large transfer of land to the Federal government. This property is
owned by the citizens of the United States. Also, this land needs to be
protected from short term exploitation. Additionally, the whole idea that if
this land was open for oil and gas extraction would benefit Utahn's is
quite silly (long run). Over 2,750 barrels of oil each day are shipped by rail
from the Uintah basin to California, completely bypassing Utah motorists, we
live an international energy market, nothing is quite "local" anymore.
Maybe we should just make ALL Utah a national preserve... to protect it from the
Utahns who currently infest this land.Driving home this week I was
listening to an interview with a leader in the Escalante area. I can't
remember if he was the Mayor or what (I was driving so I wasn't totally
listening until it got interesting). They were talking about discussions they
had with the Congressman from back East who graced us with a visit from his
excellency.He said the Congressman was shocked when he pointed out
that the 3 county area they were in was the size of Connecticut, had a
population of 20,000, and not one stop light.He mentioned that over
80% of his county was owned by the Government. But he felt sorry for 2 of his
neighbor counties where over 90% of the land was owned by the Government.I wonder how political leaders in Connecticut would feel if 80-90% of
their State was owned and controlled by people out West.Utah is like
any other State. We want freedom to control the land in our State.
The President must act quickly to create this monument. I simply do NOT trust
Rob Bishop to preserve this beautiful land. I have no problem with
bonafide input to such decisions, but the Bishop process is not trustworthy. You
can't have a "negotiation process" with pillagers and pirates for
whom all value resides in their wallets.
The people of Utah want this. This just shows how out of touch our
representatives are.What's wrong with protecting our lands so
all may enjoy them? Don't oil companies have enough ugly lands in Texas and
North Dakota to exploit? Those are ugly states.
Why do you think Congressman Bishop and the GOP is finally acknowledging the
people's desire for more protection? It's because of BO and the
antiquities act. If a credible proposal is not offered by Bishop that
designates millions of acres of protection then BO will use his pen. BO is
currently saying little but is carrying one big stick!
"One gets all stakeholders involved in solutions."Guess what
. . . EVERY American is a stakeholder in our Federal Lands . . . NOT just the
state of Utah. And a lot of us do NOT want to see Utah indiscriminately despoil
and pillage our Public Lands. "The other breeds resentment
and makes people feel powerless."So be resentful Utah. Have a
hissy fit. Who cares if you feel powerless that you cannot have your way with
OUR land?You have no more right to that land then any other state.
It doesn't matter that it lies within your borders. We the people of the
United States OWN that land, and if you want some power over that land, then you
have to ask OUR permission first. BTW . . . tantrums, crying, whining, and
stamping your feet don't impress us much. If you want the
land, then let's see a realistic offer. You don't expect us to just
give it to you . . . do you?That would be socialism. Besides, Utah
already accepts far too much charity from the Federal Government. Let’s
see some pride for a change.
Do it President Obama!Utahns will dislike you no matter what you do!
So why not do the right thing and expand these monuments? Anything that bishop
is for, I'm against! Anything he's against, all of us should be
for!I just wish President Obama could declare the south end of the
Salt Lake Valley a monument or park. I really don't feel like paying for a
prison relocation because a certain number of legislators want to make a lot of
money (at my expense).
I am sure President Obama will have advisors and staff closely study the issue,
take feedback from varied interests, and make a rational and reasoned decision.
And that is how it is supposed to happen, and it is the President's role to
do exactly that with land owned and managed by the Federal government. My
interest doesn't lie with mining and other business interests who want to
exploit the land for short term gain. I have other interests. Utah as a whole
will be fine if these lands are designated, and maybe better off in the long
This newspaper has supported the President and has standing to order him around.
Or disparage him daily if he follows the national interest.
These are lands owned by the federal government; they are NOT "Utah
lands" as some people try to call them. They should be evaluated to
determine if they meet the requirements for monument designation. If they meet
the requirements, designate them as a monument. If they do not meet the
requirements for monument designation, do not so designate them. End of
Only time will tell whether the president is wise enough to shun the path
President Bill Clinton took in creating the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument.
Have to disagree completely! This was a forward thinking move,
one that plans for the future for many generations to come. Alternatively Rob
and his merry band of developers, oil, gas and mineral extractors, whom pay him
well to see that land as being wasted if they can't destroy it, want to
lock it up, sell it off and "dig for riches" instead of the renewable
tourism which continues to rise.Proximity is NOT ownership, We all
own this land, all Americans. This xenophobia of easterners is childish, their
taxes pay to not only maintain, but extinguish fires, and clean up after the
extractors leave Supersite Clean-ups.I really Hope Obama does this,
for all American's instead of Utah politicians who stand to make the most
after their sponsors "clean up."
In other words:"Utahans are powerless to stop President Obama
from designating a new monument, but if he does, we are going to be really
"...but they [monuments via the Antiquities Act} have profoundly negative
effects on the very meaning of representative government in this end of the
country."Well actually that is not the case. These are public
lands and Senator Durbin has as much right to weigh in as Representative
Bishop.Now as to the creation of the monument, there are a number of
issues which must be considered. I agree that local economies must receive
prime consideration. So let's consider the components of the economy in
the area. Number one is tourism, and the monument will help that. Number two
is natural resource recovery. This can be a prime source of well paid local
jobs so it can't be blown off. The monument will of course hurt this. The
deciding factor for resource recovery is the potential for environmental damage.
If there is to be a lot of fracking that is a big negative because fracking
endangers dwindling water supplies. Number three is agriculture, which is
increasingly unviable as the southwest literally dries out via global
warming.On balance I lean to the formation of the monument to
support tourism. Others of course see this differently.