Op-ed: On the contrary, monuments are examples of multiple-use lands

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Wyo2ut Monroe, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 8:30 a.m.

    NoNamesAccepted, I am trying to figure out which "areas larger than some States are shut down to everything but backpacking." The Grand Staircase is not only open to hunting but also cattle grazing and ATV and off road vehicle use. Don't believe all the negative propaganda you are being sold. I am personally an outdoor enthusiast who loves hunting, fishing, and camping, and I own my own ATV that I often use on the GS. I live in Southern Utah and agree totally with the article. Don Peay's primary pursuit in terms of hunting is the almighty dollar. Like Theodore Roosevelt once said, "The professional market hunter who kills game for the hide or for the feathers or for the meat or to sell antlers and other trophies;....and the rich who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own exertions--these are the men who are the real enemies of the game." Don Peay would love nothing more than to put dollar tags on big game animals and turn big game hunting loose into the "market."

  • Utah Navajo Montezuma Creek, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 8:12 a.m.

    These "rebuttal" Op-Eds are a SNOOZER. National Monument was reduced for good reason. If your asking why, at this stage of the game? Then your better off researching more on the issue because most of Utah pushed the administration to reduce the monument

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 8:04 a.m.

    NoNamesAccepted said: "So basically, the authors dislike hunting, ATVs, ranching, and mineral extraction and are pleased to lock out such activities."

    Propaganda, More grazing permits exist in GSENM than are being used.

    Hunting is still legal and controlled by the state.

    ATV are restricted to the road, and marked trails, thousands, and thousands, of miles of trails. Sorry the "if I can drive there, I should be able to," crowd feels shorted.

    Mineral extraction, now there you found the difference, as BLM it can be exploited, as a monument it is protected for ALL Americans, not just corporate America.

    I guess some folks still think of the Rio Tinto hole as a multi use?
    Or maybe the Uranium tailings in Moab, why don't people want to ride their ATV's on those?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 6:47 a.m.

    Is it not true that when a monument is declared more land restrictions materialize?

    If a monument is just multiple use, why not just establish a monument?

  • Soren Simonsen Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 6:28 a.m.

    Bravo, Kirk and Alison. Keep speaking for the people, and for the future of all living things.

  • Nichol Draper West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 5:54 a.m.

    The monument designations By Clinton and Obama have nothing to do with the land. Neither one actually cares a lick about Utah. They didn't even visit our state when they made the designations. Their statement was just like James Buchanan, also a Democrat president, who sent Johnson's army to Utah to harass the Mormons. The way they designated the monuments was intended to insult the citizens of Utah. Their statement is that they can do what they want in our state and by extension to us. For those who continue to argue that the monuments designated by Democrats is about land preservation, realize that you sound just like the white supremacists who argue that the confederate flag is about history and not racism.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Dec. 19, 2017 10:42 p.m.

    So basically, the authors dislike hunting, ATVs, ranching, and mineral extraction and are pleased to lock out such activities. That is a valid position. But it isnt multiple use. Especially not over millions of acres. A few square miles, a few thousands acres, is a monument where preventing these activities might be appropriately considered part of a larger multi-use landscape.

    But when areas larger than some States are shut down to everything but backpacking, there is no landscape of multi use. It is just locking most people out of public lands in favor of a very narrow use of that land.

    That should require more than a unilateral, partisan, political stunt.

    Local rural residents depend on the promises of the federal government that public lands would remain true multi-use. Breaking those promises--including RS 2477 laws--is as dishonorable as violating treaties with the Indians.

    Don't try to characterize it as anything else.