"Top-down Soviet-style centralized bureaucracies are known to fail. "That sounds descriptive of the organization of the Church. And yet it
doesn't seem to be tottering. Why should the Federal
Government be any different?
Logomorph you live on the Wasatch Front not on federal lands. I have lived in
Price for thirty years before that NM and Washington. I have worked for USGS
Geologic Division, USFS, USGS Conservation Division, Minerals Management
Division, and mostly for the successor to the General Land Office the Bureau of
Lots of Meetings. I have even probably signed some of your authorizations
coming out of Price with 32 years of service under my belt I thoroughly disagree
with you.Having spent the first 19 years years of my life east of the
hundredth meridian where my father could say buy land they aren't making
any more of it and be right. West of the hundredth meridian in the 11 Western
Colonies and West Texas as John Wesly Powell tried to point out land without
water is worthless. That is why stock raising homesteads had to be created
giving perpetual grazing rights on 160 acres if you had water. Water belongs to
the States until it hits 180 degrees at which point it is a leaseable. Enough
cool H2o and you could fence and improve surrounding lands for other uses from
the federal surfacenter managing agencies but you didn't own any minerals
not even humates or sand and gravel.
Spoc wrote:"But since this is a federal property and it belongs to
everyone, I may elect representatives who vote against the repairs from here in
Utah because I see it as a waste of tax money. "You realize the
irony here don't you? When has a Utah representative ever strongly
supported an increase in the Interior's budget? Arguably, the only folks
keeping the lights on at Arches National Park are East Coast big city Democrats.
Rob Bishop wants to allow oil, gas and mining companies to destroy these places,
and leave Americans to deal with the cleanup. It should surprise no
one that Rob Bishop has received tens of thousands of dollars from fossil fuel
Re: "Public lands belong to the public; they don’t belong to
Washington, D.C. . . . "Actually, public lands belong to us, the
people of the United States.Public lands don't belong
exclusively to slick thieves in Utah.. . . Or am I wrong? If so,
"But what Bishop seems to be pushing for is a multi-tiered type of public
ownership where locals get a bigger say than a remote city dweller."Spangs, that is an excellent idea! Let's see how that
would work. I have never been next door to Devil's Tower, Wyoming but Iets
say that with some additional investment, the washrooms in the Belle Fourche
River Campground could be repaired so they don't leak into the river.
Downstream 10 miles away in Hulett, the residents are afraid of a polluted river
and want changes made to clean it up because their kids are affected by this
every day.But since this is a federal property and it belongs to
everyone, I may elect representatives who vote against the repairs from here in
Utah because I see it as a waste of tax money. Most of the rest of the country
also never sees the problem and also elect representatives who vote against it.
Since the locals cannot get enough support nationally, it doesn't happen.
Aint federal control grand?But with local authority, local residents
staff local office, understand and solve the local problem.Local news at
Thomas Jefferson had it right? “The government closest to the people
serves the people best.Using America as my example, I see the
Federal Government and founding documents as the government that provides and
secures the people's rights and freedoms and the distributed governments,
State, County, city and town, progressively less concerned about freedom and
rights for all the people and more dedicated to the rich and powerful. If Thomas Jefferson was right, I would expect to see the better
govenment in the downtown of our cities and towns.
Ron Bishop has big donors in the oil and gas industry ($150K in 2016} and the
energy and natural resources sector ($250K in 2016). Bishop has no more shares
in his portfolio to sell. It's all been purchased by the special interests
that are targeting the natural resources of Utah.
Rob Bishop only cares about his re-election coffers.I guarantee you
if the Sierra Club had the same amount of buying power as big gas and oil, he
would be singing a different tune.
If I trusted our state legislators not to be in bed with special interests I
would feel a lot more comfortable turning over control to the state.As it stands now, Utah has an abysmal record of protecting land and the
environment over short term economic gain.
Rep. Bishop says, "It puts decision-makers into communities where these
issues matter immensely and increases their interaction with residents and the
field-level employees who will implement those decisions. I sincerely believe
these reforms will help change the dialogue from “the problem” to
“our problem.”"While I don't agree with your premise
I have serious reservations of you and other federal employees, for we the
people, actually listening to locals. You don't back up your rhetoric with
your actions. Take your congressional, public lands bill you introduced prior
to the creation of Bears Ears. You did not have ONE, local public meeting
along the Wasatch Front. In fact you excluded anyone from the Wasatch Front
from attending meetings you held in the rural communities. In essence you would
have little to no interaction with Utah residents or Indian Tribes that opposed
much of what you were trying to ram thru legislation on.
Bishop wants the Interior to be closer and more responsible to those that are
closest to the land in question. Who is to say who that is? If you
ask Rob Bishop, its the property owners directly adjacent to that land, as long
as you exclude the Native Americans. But this just isn't right. Public
land is EVERYONES. Its not just land to be used by the rancher who leases it
for their cattle, for the driller who obtains mineral rights, or for the
4-wheeler/hunter/hiker/biker who lives just down the road. This land
is for all of us. But what Bishop seems to be pushing for is a multi-tiered
type of public ownership where locals get a bigger say than a remote city
dweller. Public lands are ours as Americans. Just because you
wear a cowboy hat and ride to work in a 3/4 ton dualie, doesn't mean you
have a better claim than a 12-year-old black kid in Chicago whose never set foot
outside her neighborhood.
What load this op-ed was. This 'representative' (term used
loosely) is trying to give away OUR public land. This land belongs to all US
citizens, not those who happen to live closest to it. We need to
stop electing these graft artists who are trying to sell our children's
birthright to whoever gives the most to their 'election' fund. All
while pretending its about 'local control'. Rob Bishop
should never have been elected and should be kicked out of office at the soonest
While discussing moving things local, how about we require Bishop's
campaign funding to come from local sources, instead of 80% plus coming from out
of state interests. Maybe that would put him more in touch with his broad
constituency and not just oil and gas sort of interests.These lands,
as is, have been an asset to us all. The balance of opportunities contrasts
lack of access to rivers by private land owners as an example, or over emphasis
of four wheel access in others. Rob Bishop needs to overnight in these areas
and wake up to the site of being surrounded by oil rigs.Rob Bishop
has been a boon to out of state interests and hurtful to the outdoor industry
who have been his constituents. I guess they haven't paid him enough
The real problem is Bishop. We need to remember this at election time and begin
to actually drain the swamp by draining him.
I have managed construction projects on federal lands in Utah for over thirty
years. In every case, the final decision documents came postmarked from Price,
Vernal, Richfield, Cedar City, or Monticello. Not a single one came from
Washington, DC. Every resource specialist signature on an interdisciplinary
team checklist was penned by a resident of those towns, by someone who bought
groceries at Linn’s or City Market, had their kids in the local schools,
went to church there, read the Sun-Advocate or Spectrum, and was intimately
knowledgeable about the local conditions. Rep. Bishop’s characterization
of them as faceless, distant bureaucrats is condescending, at the very least.
What problem? I just don't see it. I see lots of land opened to drilling
and mining, and plenty of oil rigs out East. I see cattle grazing all over the
place in the Uintas and in Southern Utah. I see lots of areas that are closed to
development and only open to hikers and backpackers. I see a good smattering of
national parks and monuments, and still lots of BLM land that allows for
dispersed camping. I see ATV trails all over the place, and some areas closed to
ATV's. From my point of view it looks like we have a fantastic balance on
our public lands and I fail to see the problem. Actually I take that back, I do
see the problem, and the problem is our elected leaders.
Mr. Bishop won't be happy until they sell off our outdoor heritage.
If Rob Bishop had listened, he would have heard that the Native American Nations
that originally requested the establishment of the monuments, together with
approximately 70% of Utahns, wanted the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase
Escalante Monuments to remain with the boundaries as originally designated.
Instead he (and donnie t'rump) listened to the campaign donors and
contributors who originally bought them -- among them the people who wanted
access to the land so they could use and despoil it. The donors won and the
people of Utah lost. And, especially, the land and the artifacts it contains
lost. That is truly sad, and I hope a way can be found to reverse this
@ Irony guyGreat questions but those are Bishop voters, the great
slice of humanity he represents.
In an era of instant communication and relatively easy transportation, Bishops
plea for physical propinquity of federal agencies makes no sense. International
business organizations manage worldwide assets from central headquarters and
there is no reason the federal offices can't do the same. Unless, of
course, Bishop wants certain "local" interests to have even greater
influence than they do now. As for the idea that the closer the government the
better the decisions, one need only look to the local prison relocation fiasco
for a resounding refutation.
Isn’t it interesting that, after Zinke’s original report and
recommendation concerning Monuments and more all around the US, Utah was the
sole target for down-sizing existing Monulments? So now we know what we always
assumed - that this down-sizing was nothing more than a political favor to
Utah’s congressional delegation. Apparently, the cabal is
still not satisfied.
The only economic input Bishop want's is from extraction industries, and
those with big checks for campaigns.He proved this when he failed to
come up with a plan for PLI, he is either incompetent or deliberately stalled
for partisan reasons. It's time for Rob to come home and spend time with
What nonsense. Bishop wants local decisionmaking, but only certain people. This
includes corporate interests whose boards and headquarters are far from federal
lands. He excludes certain local interests if those interests have views
contrary to his. I assure you, Bishop's description of the source of
information and how decisions are made is a complete fiction. Bishop is more of
a bully in all this than the existing process and decision makers because he
works for and takes money from corporate interests who want federal asset for
their own short term benefit.
Who exactly are these locals who are "not being heard"?Would
it be the despoilers of archaeological treasures?The ranchers
getting away with highway robbery grazing their cattle on our land without
paying the fees?Mining and oil companies who want to create big
messes all over the landscape? Yahoos who want to ride their
4-wheelers wherever they gosh-darn please?Just who are these
"angry people out West" that Rob Bishop wants to cater to?