Rob Bishop: Changing the dialogue on public lands from 'the problem' to 'our problem'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 3, 2018 3:31 p.m.

    "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?

  • Swiss Price, UT
    Feb. 2, 2018 6:42 p.m.

    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.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2018 1:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Jeff R 1988 UA, 00
    Feb. 2, 2018 12:29 p.m.

    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 interests.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Feb. 2, 2018 12:01 p.m.

    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, please explain.

  • Spoc Ogden, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 11:20 p.m.

    "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 10.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 8:46 p.m.

    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.

  • kolob1 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 12:03 p.m.

    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.

  • SMcloud Sandy, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 11:21 a.m.

    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.

  • SMcloud Sandy, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 11:20 a.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 11:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 10:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Thomas Jefferson Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 10:36 a.m.

    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 opportunity.

  • Erk Logan, Utah
    Feb. 1, 2018 10:23 a.m.

    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 money.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 10:10 a.m.

    The real problem is Bishop. We need to remember this at election time and begin to actually drain the swamp by draining him.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 9:33 a.m.

    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.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 8:37 a.m.

    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.

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    Feb. 1, 2018 7:52 a.m.

    Mr. Bishop won't be happy until they sell off our outdoor heritage.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 7:48 a.m.

    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 travesty.

  • Utah Girl Chronicles Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 7:41 a.m.

    @ Irony guy

    Great questions but those are Bishop voters, the great slice of humanity he represents.

  • Freiheit Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 7:41 a.m.

    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.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 1, 2018 7:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 7:09 a.m.

    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 his family.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 1, 2018 6:57 a.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 1, 2018 4:21 a.m.

    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?