@marxist "We also need a serious discussion about governance of land Native
Americans believe sacred, e.g. Bears Ears, which in the case of Bears Ears was
their possession a mere 150 YEARS AGO!"If it's federal
government property but it's sacred to Native Americans, that creates quite
the "separation of church and state" quandary for people who believe in
such things. I'm not sure Liberals want to go there.
"Zion's" National Park? Really? I always thought it was just
"Zion National Park." But then, I don't work for the Deseret News.
Since most of you aren't addressing this issue, let me repeat:We also need a serious discussion about governance of land Native Americans
believe sacred, e.g. Bears Ears, which in the case of Bears Ears was their
possession a mere 150 YEARS AGO!Governance was an important part of
the Bears Ears monument.
I am 100% against a new national park. That is worse than the
"monument." All it does is lock up the land and fill it up with cops and
deny the people of utah the right to use the land for ATV riding, camping, and
even coal mining or oil drilling. I vote we keep the land for use by the people
who live near by and kick the federal government out! They can take their fees,
picknick tables, rules, restrooms, & visitor centers to kentucky or
california. We already have too much of that here.
A National Park is the right answer. If the nation thinks that the beauty needs
to be preserved the right answer is to transfer the land to the US Park Service,
or Indian reservation land, and fund it.Monuments are presidential
decrees that are worth less then the paper that created them or reduced them.
It doesn’t allow a cent of federal dollars to do anything to protect, or
maintain it. The Park Service has to be funded to support a new Park.The land under Obama’s and Clinton declaration is still all BLM land
there was never a change in ownership. Don’t worry, the Federal
Government still owns 2/3 of the land in Utah. That is a topic that should be
argued in a real discussion. Monument creation reduction just makes
the President’s party feel better without requiring the courage to
discuss/obtain ANY federal funds.
Too many Utahns see Utah's supreme natural beauty as a curse because it
means less mining and grazing. If Utah really wants to make investments in
itself and create jobs that can never be exported then embrace what this state
is: a tourism Mecca.Yes Utah needs more National Parks and it
blatantly obvious to everyone who visits here, eventually locals will figure it
I find the State take over of Hole in the Rock to be particularly questionable.
"... what the nation needs is a serious discussion about its natural wonders
and how best to cherish and preserve them."We also need a
serious discussion about governance of land Native Americans believe sacred,
e.g. Bears Ears, which in the case of Bears Ears was their possession a mere 150
YEARS AGO!For Native Americans Bears Ears was in part an attempt to
regain some control over what had been stolen from them, a universal experience
for aboriginal populations the world over.
When did affordability ever enter into any question before the US Congress?
Certainly not in my life time or that of my late grandfather, who was born in
1889. Why start now?
True story. Can you imagine Calf Creek, Horse Canyon, and Coyote Gulch within a
new national park? These places would be full of tourists and the Hole in the
Rock road would be paved. The towns of Escalante and Boulder would become
gateways like Springdale. The important thing is to preserve the wilderness
character of these areas, and those on Cedar Mesa with so many Anasazi ruins. A
new national park would be counterproductive.