Monument supporters

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    @Shimlau 6:12 p.m. Aug. 21, 2014

    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.


    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 United States.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 6:12 p.m.

    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.

  • groverite TORREY, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    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.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    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.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    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?"

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 5:52 a.m.

    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 earth?

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    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!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Lilljemalm Gilbert, AZ
    Aug. 15, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    part 2
    The 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 anyway.

  • The Manas Solon, IA
    Aug. 15, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    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!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    Keep your Mitts off Utah so we can mess it up however we want to mess it up!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    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 president.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    Senator Hatch is correct.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    Aug. 15, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    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.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    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."

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    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.

  • SummitHigh Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    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).

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    Thanks to Cliven Bundy for inspiring our political leaders

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    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.

  • woolybruce Idaho Falls, ID
    Aug. 15, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    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.

  • bodgerdlue Kearns, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    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 remember.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    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 Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    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 hippies!

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    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 national monuments.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    @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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    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?

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    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 resources

    Having 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 Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    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?

  • Utah Dem Ogden, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 7:20 a.m.

    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.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Aug. 15, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    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!"

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Aug. 15, 2014 6:51 a.m.

    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?

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Aug. 15, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    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!

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 15, 2014 6:07 a.m.

    “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.

  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 5:01 a.m.

    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.

  • Lew Elton Jeppson Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 1:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 12:56 a.m.

    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.