@Prometheus Platypus Nice try - but it was environmental extremists who
ran out the clock with Bishop Utah Land Initiative compromise because they knew
they had an ace in the whole with Obama.. Now the intransigence has come back
to bite themAs for you patronizing "He refused to even meet with
"These groups" or locals who were against his promising Our Lands to
highest bidder."That is quite the mischaracterization since the
lands that were proposed for release to being leased were primarily in the
Uinita basin NOT around national parks. Indeed most of the area now not part of
Bears Ears would have been in a conservation district, Dinosaur would have been
a national park, Goblin Valley would have been the recipient of traded out state
lands making the state park larger, the Cleveland quarry in the San Rafael
Swell would have been a national monument and so would have been Bears Ears
(although closer to its existing size)But yes; the fact is that
Obama "set aside less land then Bishop recommended", but the
envirofundamentalist worship of a messianic Obama leads them to "blame the
wrong guy" AND get them less land protection.
PlaytypusDon't forget the inconvenient truth that Pelosi and Reid
declared any public land initiative presented by Bishop as "dead on
arrival." You know the intellectual giants that said things like "pass
it and then we'll read to see what it says", and "sure I lied about
it, but it worked didn't it-President Obama got another 4 years".So you can't drill or explore in national parks/monuments, etc. and
now if you stand somewhere in a park or monument and, using binoculars, you
can't drill or explore as far as you can see because it ruins the landscape
but we put up hundreds of windmills that stand 400' high and they enhance
the landscape. Never understood that thought process.
The perpetual complainers are what local city planners often refer to as CAVEmen
or "Citizens Against Virtually Everything."If these parcels
are "too close" to some sensitive or scenic area, these people would
have a lot more credibility by suggesting alternate locations where they could
support energy development. How far, in which direction do we need to move not
to be too close?If, however, as I suspect is the case, there is no
place that acceptable for energy development, no place where these folks would
support responsible, modern extraction of energy resources, then they should be
honest and stop complaining about various locations being "too close" to
something or another. They should tell us to stop all development.Of
course, that kind of honesty might not sell as well as pretending to only be
concerned about a few locations that are just always and conveniently "too
close" to something.So come on. Those who are opposed to these
leases, what locations in Utah can you support for energy development? Locations
Counter Intelligence said: "If any of these groups would have actually
worked with Rep Bishop on the Utah Public Lands Initiative - instead of relying
on Obama's theatrics - much of that land would be in a conservation area
(or monument or national park or state park - or consciously released by
congress)Nice try, but it was Bishop who ran out the clock while
collecting checks from hydrocarbon and other extractive corporations. He refused to even meet with "These groups" or locals who were against
his promising Our Lands to highest bidder.Obama gave him every
chance but as time ran out, because Bishop dropped the ball, Obama acted, and in
fact set aside less land then Bishop recommended, but the GOP's hatred of
all things Obama they and you blame the wrong guy.
Driven to California many times and some places all I see is windmill destroying
the mountain side and not even producing any energy. Not turning at all.
I would like to see how far wind and solar energy can the environmentalists.
Then we could laugh at such nonsense.
This is why we shouldn't have public lands in Utah.If the land
was private, people could put their money where their mouth is. Don't like
someone drilling for oil? Fine! Just buy the land.That would mean
that the land and resources went to the most valuable people!
To hear the wilderness advocates tell it they will strip mine every scenic spot
and put an oil well right under Delicate Arch. Apparently they have never
seen places where modern energy development has taken place and the permanent
equipment is hardly noticeable, although temporary drilling rig presence can be
ugly for a few weeks. Among the millions of acres being leased there is plenty
of room for energy supplies and human recreation and wildlife habitat to
coexist.Now, get in your coal powered cars and go protest somewhere else.
IronicallyIf any of these groups would have actually worked with Rep
Bishop on the Utah Public Lands Initiative - instead of relying on Obama's
theatrics - much of that land would be in a conservation area (or monument or
national park or state park - or consciously released by congress)These so-called environmental groups have reaped what they sowedenvironmental extremism - like most extremism - facilitates what it claims to
Do those wanting to stop the sales have any environmental impact studies to back
up their assertions? Any scientific study done in SE Utah? Oil & gas wells
are safely located in wildlife refuges, farms, orchards, wetlands, and
neighborhoods all around the country. They're not the boogie man asserted.
Look what's on our License plates! I don't see any oil
wells or coal mines on there! Is that what greed-driven "leaders"
want? Don't answer that.