Why don't we want a new national monument? Is this just another
anti-government kind of thing or is there some legitimate reason for being in a
tizzy about this? I'm sincere in my question, but admittedly skeptical
whenever Republicans get in a dither about things anymore.
Yes, but does not the monument proposal have merit? Does it not have merit for
the entire population of the Unite States? You know this is not Deseret. We
are part of the United States and the needs and rights of our entire population
must be considered. Your position is provincial to say the least.
Please Feds: Save Utah from Utah's "leadership"....We've all
seen what can happen and Utah would look like a moonscape in decades if left to
the greed and corrupt cronyism that is prevalent in Utah politics.
“Keep (your) mitts off Utah.”No Utah. Keep YOUR Mitts
off our Federal Lands.“’It was very offensive then, and
we hope it doesn't happen again,’ Hatch told the Deseret
News.”So Utah, your senior Senator is offended by the fact
that decent public servants seek to protect our Federal lands from
indiscriminate exploitation and depredation.Well then, Senator Hatch
might as well get used to being offended.The decent and honorable
people of this nation will NOT let their land be despoiled at the will of the
Mighty Orrin, just because HE commands it.Forget about it Senator
Hatch. You’re JUST a Senator. You are NOT the right hand of God. The
Constitution is the preeminent law of the land. We the people
don’t think much the Commandments issued by the Great Orrin. Get used to
it.We the people of the United States own that Federal Land, and if
you ask us VERY nicely, we might hear you out.But DON’T even
try to order us around. What Utah needs to realize is that Federal
Land belong to us, the people of the United States, not Utah.
I'm glad to see Orin sticking up for the people who put him in office!Of course that would be the petroleum and mining corporations, the ones
that Utah would sell the formerly public lands to if they can wrestle them away
from the feds.Just wait until Royal Dutch Shell, and the
British/Australian Rio Tinto, get their Mitts on Utah land. The "No
Trespassing" signs will be sprouting up like sage bush!
What does Utah expect from a Democratic President anyway? You don't vote
for him. Many in the state are openly hostile to him. The elected
representatives are not particularly respectful of him. And the general
populace of Utah does not like and rarely elects Democrats for even dog
catcher.When the general populace of a state or city goes all in, in
opposition to one political philosophy, and seemingly enforces that orthodoxy
through its dominant religious institutions, is it any wonder those in power of
another party will turn a deaf ear to their requests? I know I
would. And the President and other members of his party are no saints (as
pointed out loudly and repeatedly by the populace of Utah and their elected
representatives). Why would they?
Ever so slight nuance: Utah, it's not your land. This DesNews
"opinion" is the functional equivalent of "keep your government
hands off my Medicare!"
Short sighted local politicians, who still incorrectly believe they own the land
because they live near it. Proximity is not ownership. This "Bundy"
I'm owed mentality, because I've lived here a while, is nonsense. Set
aside another Park. Utah can be a destination for ALL Americans to come and see.
I consider myself already lucky that I don't have to travel from some
population dense privately held, state back east. We're lucky
to live in such an awe inspiring place, let's not sell it to the lowest
common denominator, who will contribute the most cash to a local politician.
Wonder - this proposal is to turn nearly two million acres into a national
monument in the Canyonlands area. Much of this area is currently being drilled
for oil and gases which brings economy to the state and helps in funding public
education through the School Land Trust. Hope that helps some.
What's wrong with another monument?It sounds like the oil and
gas boys have bought off our governor! Either that, or it's another
"righteous indignation" crying about autonomy.What's
funny is that our legislature never hesitates to exert authority and trample all
over city and school district rights. Hypocrisy much?
The elite tax exempt foundations that fund and support all the wilderness
alliance/sierra club phoney activist organizations are continuing their assault
on United States natural resourcesHaving the resources of the US
closed for development is part of the over-all plan to make the US LESS
self-reliant and strip her of the ability to pay off national debt and therefore
more easily merged into their planned socialist world government.
The federal government has every right to do with its land what it determines
best in the interests of the whole of the country. It's pretty simple.
Your attitude is like if I'm a local government official and I
tell the state it can't do what it wishes with state owned land unless I
say so, just because I live near it. What sense does that make?You
do know that Utah is only a state because the federal government said it could
be a state, right?
@Jeppson: Using "This is not Deseret" as a reason to preserve Utah
rather than sell it cheap to out-of-state or multinational extractive companies
is ironic.In the long run, it is the people of Utah- and perhaps in
particular those of us who have some of that vision of Deseret- who should be
most interested in conservation.Brigham Young knew this well.He told the people that pure air, pure soil, and pure water were among
their greatest and most treasured assets. He warned us of Gentile industrialists
who would come to this Territory to rob us of those assets and pollute the land.
He decried those among the Saints who showed disrespect for the community and
the building up of Zion, for Creation, and for the Creator by monopolizing and
abusing canyons and other natural resources for their own shortsighted
profit.His environmental ethic of stewardship was a point of
contention with prevailing American attitudes about the West.If you
look back in time you will find the environmental editorial positions of the
Trib and the DN swapped places between his era and the unfortunate James Watt
era that lives on today.
I also need to mention that the President of the United States receives
directives from these same elite tax-exempt foundations when it comes to making
Herbert should clarify what he meant:"Feds, get your mitts off
federal land so we can resale it at cheap prices so people like the Koch bros
and Ken Ivory may get their mitts on it!"Every mountain should
have a drill and every square mile an oil pump! Parks and monuments are for
How sad is it that today, Brigham Young would be labeled a bleeding heart
liberal environmentalist today for his valuing of our lands and refusal to led
industrialists pillage Utah lands? My oh my how we've changed. Time for us
to repent. If a prophet felt like our lands were worth preserving then who are
we to defy him?
The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the
fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our National
life. We must maintain for our civilization the adequate material basis without
which that civilization cannot exist. We must show foresight, we must look
ahead. As a nation we not only enjoy a wonderful measure of present prosperity
but if this prosperity is used aright it is an earnest of future success such as
no other nation will have. The reward of foresight for this Nation is great and
easily foretold. But there must be the look ahead, there must be a realization
of the fact that to waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and
exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will
result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we
ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.-Theodore Roosevelt, State of the Union Address (1907)Words to
Utah is critical that the 14 Senators backing the National Monument has not
visited Utah, or the site. I suggest that the majority of Utah's political
leaders have never visited the area of question. Helicopters and fly overs not
included, as they do not classify as a visit. I suggest they could make the
entire state a National Monument except for the I-15 corridor and 95% of Utahns
would not be affected. Before any points fingers at political leaders outside
of Utah not visiting or understanding Utah, Utah's political leaders and
residents in general need to look in the mirror, as the vast majority have no
understanding or comprehension of Utah other than the I-15 corridor.
Americans love their National Parks and Monuments, but I wonder if a local
politician has ever lobbied to create a National Park in their own state? If
that has ever happened I bet it's been over 50 years. Face it,
state politicians hate giving away state lands to the Federal government even
when it is in the state's best interest to do so.
Thanks to Cliven Bundy for inspiring our political leaders
Once again, commenters throwing barbs back and forth at each other, assuming
much about each other and seeking to understand little.The reality
is, we all have a different perspective on the issue, but until we follow the
example of Representatives Chaffetz and Cummings and respectfully seek to
understand each other's situation, the fighting will never end. It is sad,
but it doesn't have to be that way. It just takes some effort, and putting
down our own shields and weapons (literally and figuratively).
There was at least some preliminary data out of Utah State authored by Ryan Yonk
regarding the economic impacts of the GSENM designation. Their results showed no
statistically significant difference in the before and after. So now
that the economic argument is off the table, what is the Deseret News so
"offended" by? I understand if it is lack of input from the Utah
congressional delegation or the Deseret News itself. This input, which is to not
ever designate any new national monuments in Utah (as this article reaffirms)
only reflect the views of a slim majority, if that. The rest of us Utahns would
be delighted and relieved that these lands were kept as pristine as they are now
for future generations to enjoy. The Deseret News does not speak for
half of Utah and neither do our gerrymandered congressional leaders. I welcome
the President to speak for the rest of us by designating a new monument, and
because of this editorial, I will write him a letter encouraging him to do so.
The public land in Utah belongs to all of the people in America, it does not
belong to just Utahans, Utah government, the LDS church or Utah ranchers. And
especially it does not belong to Utah politicians representing Utah businessmen.
The sad part is, that all the people of America are represented by
businessmen and they may be the ones who will decide the fate of the public
land. Our salvation may be in the fact that there is still some competition
between businessmen that holds them still.
byronbca, it's very unusual for parks or monuments to be created from
non-federal lands. Most are already federally owned so local politicians are
not giving away anything.
So far, the only quote I can find from Brigham Young referencing nature is the
following: As the Saints first settled in the Great Basin, Brigham
Young admonished them, "You are here commencing anew. The soil, the air, the
water are all pure and healthy. Do not suffer them to become polluted with
wickedness. Strive to preserve the elements from being contaminated by the
filthy, wicked conduct and sayings of those who pervert the intelligence God has
bestowed upon the human family."
Utah's Governor Herbert needs stop propagating this tired, anti-american
bile. The land belongs to all of us, the people of the United States, not to the
state of Utah and a few real estate developers and drilling interests.Utah will profit more from preserving its unique fragile desert landscape and
inviting tourists to see it than it will from ransacking it for mineral wealth.
Senator Hatch is correct.
It might be better to have a discussion about which areas to put in the
monument. You could probably put 80-90% of it in it while leaving out most of
the key areas Utah is taking issue with. “Keep (your) mitts
off Utah.”This would so be an overused bad pun if Romney were
Keep your Mitts off Utah so we can mess it up however we want to mess it up!
I just visited Utah for the first time this summer and if it means anything,
I'll keep coming back and spending my tourist dollars here so long as it
stays as beautiful as it is now. That said, it would be such a shame to see
Utah go the way of North Dakota. I used to enjoy going up there to visit around
Medora and the grasslands, but it's a snarled, eyesore of a mess now with
all of the fracking.I know I don't live in Utah so you can say I
don't understand and maybe I don't, but you all are really, really
lucky to have such a beautiful, awe-inspiring state. Keep it that way!
part 2The other extreme pushed by a few locals who want to about anything
goes for the miners and OHVers is also very wrong in that it destroys the
resources, pollutes and can permantently damage the lands for future
generations, cutting it off to the general public. Both extremes won't
allow for wise resource extraction (yes, technology is available and developable
to allow some extraction with less damage in certain places).I do think
that there are a lot of acres that should be added to each of Utah's
national parks and that those areas should be properly funded and developed as
park lands. Another monument like Grand Staircase won't add to tourism or
allow large numbers of people to really enjoy the land. I think Chaffetz is on
the right track (which is a surprise). It's a good start anyway.
It's best to take small steps at a time and measure the results as you go
@ byronbca, this isn't about giving away state lands to the Federal
government. Those lands have always belonged to the Federal government since
the deal with Mexico.
Why is it so bad to designate a national monument? It is better than having some
foreign industry come in and destroy the land! Besides, we live in the United
States! The federal lands here do not belong only to people who live in Utah,
but to all Americans. We all have a stake in this land!
Where, in the Constitution of the United States, is it written that all land
belongs to the Federal government? To me we are all stewards of the
land. No, I don't want to see land desecrated; neither do I want to see
another monument to the goddess "Nature". We have enough weeds and
desert and ugly, empty space; we need room to grow. The feds are just people
too; who gave them this right to confiscate and sit alone in the midst of the
Should it not be "keep your mitts off your own land?" I just do not get
it. I thought conservatives in Utah and the Deseret News were fierce defenders
of the rights of property owners, whether state, federal or private. If Utah had
decided in the past what would be done with federal land, would there be a
Bryce, Zion, Capitol Reef, Arches, and Canyonlands? If the state had owned all
of the land, at best they would be small state parks. In recent years Utah has
reduced funding for state parks and even closed some. Just how much of the
current national forest lands would be designated as "state forests?"
Let's hope these 14 senators come to Utah during the winter inversion
months so that they can see first hand what fossil fuels do for our state!... they just may determine that Utah isn't worth preserving.
It is important for Utah citizens and Utah politicians to be involved in this
process. But it is important to remember, in spite of rhetoric to the contrary,
that federal public lands are under the collective ownership of all American
citizen and it is entirely proper for them to be engaged stakeholders in what
happens to them. Such a view is not popular in the west but it is the practical
reality. Just like the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, they are held and
managed for all citizens.
esquire; you are right the federal government has the right to do with it's
land what it will, as long as those things follow the supreme law of the land.
What is the federal government allowed to own, and for what reasons can it be
used? Check out the constitution and then get back with us.
@Shimlau 6:12 p.m. Aug. 21, 2014esquire; you are right the federal
government has the right to do with it's land what it will, as long as
those things follow the supreme law of the land. What is the federal government
allowed to own, and for what reasons can it be used? Check out the constitution
and then get back with us.---------------There is
absolutely nothing in the US Constitution limiting what the federal government
of the United States can own. That the United States CAN own land is implied in
Article IV, Section 3, which states "The Congress shall have Power to
dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory
or other Property belonging to the United States". After Utah became a
state, the US conveyed certain lands to Utah by patent; the lands within the
proposed monuments were not so conveyed, and remained the possessions of the