Groups blast Bishop over 'gutting' landscape conservation

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 17, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    Re: byronbca | 11:18 a.m. Feb. 17, 2011

    "I think raising taxes ....."

    You're just not getting the message. We're already paying far more than our fair share of taxes for everything under the sun as it is. When we combine everybody's pet projects it would add up to $1,000s. The time has come to cut muscle and bone from the budget ..... after we're finished using a chainsaw to do amputations.

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 11:18 a.m.

    Re justamacguy:
    I think raising taxes to protect our important wilderness areas is a great idea. If we charged everyone in America $5 a year for parks and wilderness upkeep America would be a more beautiful place.

    Riders also create much more damage than hikers. One dirt bike causes as much erosion as about 1000 hikers. It makes sense that they should pay more.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Feb. 17, 2011 9:24 a.m.

    " So your solution to get out of this deficit is to sell our heritage?"

    National heritage is a subjective statement, just like "wilderness qualities". I find many of the old mining trails and logging trails blazed out by our hearty pioneer ancestors, that I used to be able to travel on, a national heritage. Obviously you don't. If you want it... Pay for it. Initiate a tax on hiking gear, charge a $500 hiking passport for wilderness. Riders pay that much over the season to visit Little Sahara, hikers can't be the money leaches, they must contribute too. Put your chuckabooted-bermuda shorted money where you mouth is.

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 16, 2011 11:56 p.m.

    Re DN subscriber:
    So your solution to get out of this deficit is to sell our heritage? Don't you think that's a little selfish? Your philosophy is to sell out our future for pennies. Oil companies are not very giving, Utahns are not going to see much of this drilling money

    I think we should try to fix the problems that actually got us into this mess. We're not in a deficit because we have national monuments, we're in a deficit because we let the banks high jack our country.

    Clinton built a house of cards and Bush just watched it fall over.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 16, 2011 7:49 p.m.

    Rob Bishop is right on this issue (and most others).

    If we had unlimited funds, we could debate the merits of preserving scenic views.

    However, we are broke, deeply in debt, and basically bankrupt. We have no money. Is a scenic view more important than providing Medicare and Social Security and national defense? Obviously not, so we must fund the priority needs, and stop the spending on everything that is not absolutely essential. And, we will probably have to cut a lot of essential stuff as well.

    Okay, end the funding for this immediately and keep looking for more stuff we can cut, because we must cut more!

  • RagnarL4 Tupelo, MS
    Feb. 16, 2011 7:35 p.m.

    Bravo! One step closer to the ultimate, proper solution: sell the land to the highest bidder. Let those who prize the ruins buy it and guard it. Let those who treasure the fishing buy the land and collect fees if they like from whoever wants to fish it.

  • oldasdirt Grantsville, UT
    Feb. 16, 2011 6:59 p.m.

    I have been trying searching the web to figure out what this conservation system mission statement is. It looks like a duplication of other BLM functions, or another layer of bureaucrats making work for themselves. Axe it will never be missed except by those who like more red tape to slow down decision making.

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 16, 2011 6:55 p.m.

    According to opensecrets dot org, (they track politician's actions) Bishop gets most of his campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.

    Translation: This is about giving access to federally protected lands to oil companies for drilling.

    If this passes some special places are going to disappear forever.

  • dave31 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 16, 2011 6:03 p.m.

    This is an example of what I have always admired with Rob. He is willing to take a logical look at the issues without being overly influenced by emotions or Polical Correctness.
    Go Rob, We appreciate you.

  • texas ranger Leeds, Utah
    Feb. 16, 2011 5:43 p.m.

    Landscape Conservation has been spending money and confusing management of BLM administered lands long enough. How can the Government quit spending more money than it has to spend if it doesn't eliminate duplicate management of the same land. Even the Monuments are duplicate management that dosen't really do anything the regular BLM wasn't doing. I say we quit spending government money without a better reason than duplicate management of the same resource.

  • calou84523 Ferron, Utah
    Feb. 16, 2011 5:14 p.m.

    Once again Rob Bishop has gotten it right . . . . ALL lands within a state's sovereign borders, except for those voluntarily and specifically ceded to the Federal government, are and should be totally under the control of the state legislature and the people of the state itself and therefore should receive no federal funding nor interference with by the Federal government or wacko environmentalist outside the state's borders. The fed has for too long meddled in matters outside the 19 powers given it by Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and costing the nation hundreds of billions, it's time to trim it back.

  • county mom Monroe, UT
    Feb. 16, 2011 4:49 p.m.

    The BLM lands that make big money, like Little Sahara, can nolonger support the wilderness lands. They can only raise the entrance fees so high before the people will begin to revolt and not pay. We will find other things to do with our kids. Not-a-Trace land is just that and it takes a lot of patroling to keep everyone out. Idle lands cost us all, no grazing, no drilling, no riding, no hiking is no use to anyone.

  • I_Love_America Murray, UT
    Feb. 16, 2011 4:33 p.m.

    Everyone wants to cut the budget but nobody wants to give an inch. This is as good as any to start. When a business is in finacial trouble it tightens its belt. Our Government needs this more than ever.

    thank you Rob

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Feb. 16, 2011 4:30 p.m.

    So the environmentalists keep claiming that eco-tourism from wilderness is supposed to bring in millions of dollars and save Utah's rural economies... Looks like ecotourism can't even keep all this locked up land running.

    "O'Donnell said... Many of the national monuments on the lands, he added, already operate on a shoestring budget..."

    If the parks can't even collect enough money to run at the gate... And they have to be subsidized by us who never go there... How do communities survive?

  • Dixie Dan Saint George, UT
    Feb. 16, 2011 3:11 p.m.

    Is this the same Bishop who boasted during his last campaign that he "could bring home the bacon" for Utah?