Salazar directs BLM to designate 'wild' lands

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 24, 2010 9:00 a.m.

    Public property such a court houses, schools, public work department building, even city parks, are publically owned. So to this Country's public lands to be enjoyed by everyone, not just the wealthy individual property owners who can afford their own piece of America. How such public propety is to be used however is up to America's political representatives echoing the American people decide. Nevertheless, until they do, to develop public property irresponsibly would be to destroy natural resources and wildlife they may never be able to be brought back, if Congress decides to preserve it. It is much more practical to preserve than to develop, then to attempt to develop and then go back and try to preserve something that one has destroyed.

  • FreeMan Heber City, UT
    Dec. 24, 2010 8:20 a.m.

    So sad to see the disintegration of our constitution. But, oh well. I've got some good football games to watch.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 24, 2010 7:34 a.m.

    How typical of the Communists now in power in our country. Rule by fiat. Congress is irrelevant.

  • fanUVU Orem, UT
    Dec. 24, 2010 6:58 a.m.

    Clinton took our coal lands, (clean burning coal) and put the lands into a national park. If the Federal Government can get their hands on all our Shale oil lands what a prize. We can then buy our oil from Brazil.

  • fanUVU Orem, UT
    Dec. 24, 2010 6:52 a.m.

    Clinton put hundreds of our good clean coal acres into a national park. Now if the government can get their hands on all our (Utah, Whyoming, etc. )shale oil (we have as much oil as Sadia Arabia) they can stop us from using it for our country. Instead of using that oil we would have to use Sorose oil of

  • Mithrandir Tupelo, MS
    Dec. 23, 2010 7:20 p.m.

    Can you see now why Republicanism is so irrelevant? The article does not indicate that either Hatch or Herbert actually disagrees with the BLM wielding power over public lands. Neither does it indicate that either actually opposes the ridiculous notion of public land. And of a truth, neither does.

    Republican dissent is forever simply a matter of degree. In other words, they agree with the very fundamentals of the overt socialists (the democrats) including the notion of public property.

    The private nature of property is paramount to human liberty. The Republicans should not worry about all the so called "good will" they have built up. Instead they should brazenly stand up for freedom and they should not worry about whose feelings get hurt in the process. The power play by Salazar should be exposed not for its degree of evil, but for its fundamental evil premise: public property. Let the property be acquired by the highest bidder or settled by the fasted claimer ala 19th century Oklahoma. But the land does not belong to the public and cannot and should not be managed by a bunch of haggling, plotting, side-winding politicians whether elected or appointed, state or federal.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 23, 2010 3:11 p.m.

    Part of the Obama administration's scheme to implement by executive orders and regulation the radical actions that they will not be able to get passed by Congress.

    We need Sen. Hatch to lead a campaign to actually stop this abuse of power by inserting language in funding bills which prohibits use of any funds to gather, analyze, or take action to designate any lands as "wild" or "wilderness" without specific approval by Congress. This is a fairly routing congressional trick, and if Hatch wants to prove his conservative power, here is a chance to do so.

    Otherwise, Hatch is just another politician trying to have it both ways.

    No more "wilderness" in Utah!