- Cory MendenhallI've never quite understood why the very people that love to camp, hunt, fish, hike and otherwise enjoy the natural beauty of the outdoors are always the first to shoot down anyone trying to preserve or protect it. Opening beautiful, natural areas to development isn't about jobs for the struggling - it's about money for development lobbyist and the politicians they have in their pockets. I absolutely LOVE visiting family in Southern Utah - it's beyond beautiful. But Southern Utah won't be so beautiful when every square inch is covered with strip malls, countless cookie-cutter homes and neighborhoods, walmarts, oil rigs and coal refineries.
- Tricia Beardall Michler I find myself torn between the Ross & Cory here.... I think the government needs to butt out of things but at the same time, there does need to be some regulation or else things get out of hand. If only someone could make the decisions without worrying about lining their pockets or securing their re-election. Your right, Southern Utah is a beautiful place - when are you visiting again? :)
- Colette WadsworthSorry Cory...wilderness stops camping, fishing, hunting, and many other practices that keep the natural beauty beautiful. Those of us who live in this beautiful area and try to make a living here and protect this beautiful for others to enjoy can not have our hands tied by wilderness and having wolves turned loose on us. Cattle sales bring in 26.5 Million dollars a year in revenue to this area. Hikers bring next to nothing in revenue to help us protect our way of life and the beauty of this area.April 17 at 11:08am · ·
3
- Colette Wadsworth Sorry you are torn Tricia...we ought to talk sometime about what really happens when wilderness is designated in an area. Farmer John can tell you true horror stories....April 17 at 11:11am · ·
- Cory MendenhallThere's never a perfect solution to something like this - there will be people (and locals) on both sides of any issue. My point is that without people making an effort to protect land from unnecessary development, we wouldn't have ZIon Nat'l Park, we wouldn't have the Grand Canyon, or Yosemite or any of these places that Americans take pride in. Go to the Gulf Coast sometime and see what careless, over-development can do to a place. It's disgusting.
- Tyler HirshfeldNo need to create another wilderness area that bans ranching, mining, and development. If you know me, you know that I love being outdoors, and that the backcountries and wilderness is where I spend alot of my free time. I love the solitude. But there is a line. There are ways to develop in an area, without totally ruining its wilderness character. Sure, let the rancher put his cows out there, but make sure he maintains his fence. Let them drill for oil, but make sure the don't tear up the land unnecessarily. Let people recreate on there ATV and Jeeps, but teach them about sticking to the trails. Its really a loose loose, but this God given land is to be used for our honest needs.April 17 at 12:08pm · ·
- Tyler Hirshfeld By the way, 1.8 million acres is seriously 10 times bigger than the entire Las Vegas valley. Thats alot of beneficial resources banned from use FOREVER!April 17 at 12:11pm · ·
- Craig GardinerThe Arizona strip has a few unusual features but most of it is unspectacular if not desert wasteland and completely unworthy of National Monument designation. If the land is so ungodly why do "environmental groups" want it designated as a National Monument? Because they seem to be losing the battle against the Lake Powell pipeline and this would give them the political clout they seek to stop it. They know they have the ear of our President and they have more faith in a tyrant with absolute power to make this happen than in the democratic process. This is a clear abuse of the Interior Department park system if so implemented.April 17 at 12:28pm · ·
- Cory MendenhallSo it's really just a political issue. And if "President Romney" were to propose a Natl Monument, the same people would hail him as a great conservationist and naturalist. If/when this proposal is shut down, and everything is up for grabs for industrial development, the extremely wealthy will be applauding and patting each other on the back, and slowly open lands of the west will become like the crowded cities of the east; I will miss the Utah I love :(
- Craig GardinerSerious? If Romney were to propose a National Monument I would consider him a tyrant and seek his removal from office. This has only been politicized by those who don't trust the democratic process. Everything has been "up for grabs" for the last couple of hundred years with no significant development. Nothing since white man first came to this place has convinced people they would want to live on the strip. A few have tried, most have given up. I see nothing in the next couple of hundred years that would draw people to want to live on the strip. Unless thars gold in them thar hills I don't see anyone getting extremely wealthy from the strip. Even if the pipeline goes through there won't be enough water to populate the strip. The only part that might see development is across the Utah line from the St. George Airport before going down the Virgin River Gorge (hardly a ruination of 1.8 million acres). BTW, I am not necessarily in favor of the pipeline...I just can't stand the notion of "the ends justifies the means". If it is a bad idea then let the democratic process kill it. If a National Monument makes sense then let our elected representatives submit reasonable cause to congress for approval with final consent coming from the President. In other words like the vast majority of our parks and monuments have been created. Also, the "extremely weathly" have already purchased huge sections of land in Southern Utah and are the largest backers of some of these environmental groups because as land is locked up their land soars in value.April 17 at 3:23pm · ·
- Cory Mendenhall I agree with you there - Democratic process should win out; a vote should determine the outcome. Nobody should be surprised, that I will agree with.April 17 at 3:25pm · ·
- Ross Beardall I didn't realize I had so much activity going on here! I will be posting more of my thoughts soon...
Cory, there are 5 states in the US where over 50% of the land is controlled by the federal government. Almost 85% of Nevada and 58% of Utah are controlled by federal bureaucrats in Washington, DC. The majority of these bureaucrats have never been away from the East Coast.
The reason that the people who enjoy camping, fishing and hunting are opposed to the federal government taking swaths of land and turning it into monuments, parks or what not is because of access. When they make monuments, they restrict access to the land except for the "environmentally" acceptable methods of hiking or bicycling.
The government closes down roads that people have used for generations to get to their favorite spot. This in turn makes it so that families of outdoorsmen turn to other activities or look for other places to camp. Once it becomes a national park or monument, hunting is banned.
Generally, they make it impossible to get to the places you enjoy via the method that you traditionally enjoy. Vehicles are usually restricted to where they can go, ATV's are generally banned, and heaven forbid you want to take guns for even target practice.
It is for these reasons that people who love to camp, hunt, ride horses and ATV's get a little defensive when the government starts taking land and making monuments and parks out of it.
Generally, they make it impossible to get to the places you enjoy via the method that you traditionally enjoy. Vehicles are usually restricted to where they can go, ATV's are generally banned, and heaven forbid you want to take guns for even target practice.
It is for these reasons that people who love to camp, hunt, ride horses and ATV's get a little defensive when the government starts taking land and making monuments and parks out of it.
Originally, it was the land owners and outdoorsmen that were the keepers and conservationists of the land. People like John and Collette Wadsworth would intimately know every square foot of the land that they raised their cattle on. Hunters kept a close eye on the land because they wanted to ensure that their children and grandchildren would be able to hunt where they enjoyed hunting.
Government regulations on public land have made it extremely hard for farmers and ranchers to maintain family farms and ranches. The cattle ranchers have less and less public land where they can graze their cattle for a low cost.
Government regulations have failed in maintaining deer and elk herds. They have introduced predators that overkill generally these herds and then move onto surrounding cattle and sheep herds. They allowed numbers to get out of control that made it impossible for land to support wild animal herds. Now, these wild herds are fractional of what they used to be.
The government has since raised fees for hunting and fishing, as mentioned above, they have limited the areas that are available for hunting on, and raised fees and taxes on ammunition. All of these have made it harder for men and women to take their children on hunting trips.
St. George is land locked and limited to the amount of area that can be developed because it is surrounded by federally controlled land. The majority of this land is lava rock, sagebrush and cactus. The majority of this land isn't land that adds to the beauty of this area. The land around St. George will probably never be developed because the federal government designated the land as a desert tortoise reserve.
Unless all the turtles in the area go extinct, there will never be development in these areas. That is what government controlled land does. On a personal note, I haven't seen a desert tortoise since I was a kid. I would love to show one to my kids, but I highly doubt if I go in the reserve, that I would even find one there.
Unfortunately, each political party seems to be friendly to their own set of lobbyists. There are extremes on each side. The problem that we have is that each one tries to sneak stuff in that makes their lobbyists and supporters happy.
Environmentalists seem to move to an area that is scenic and beautiful. They fall in love with the scenery and form environmental protection groups. These groups then petition the government to "protect" the land from development so that no one else can develop. Robert Redford is a wonderful actor, but he is the biggest example I can think of that shows this.
He "discovered" the beauty of the Provo River area. He bought property in the canyon, built a lodge, ski resort and more. Then he "realized" that the area is too beautiful and unique to allow development. So, he used his influence to get the canyon and mountains around his property "protected" from development.
It doesn't matter the political party, federal government needs to stop the land grabbing! They need to turn the land back over to the local governments and open the "public" lands back up to the general population.
True, there are some areas that need to be federally protected, but the federal government should not use that as an excuse to keep taking and taking more and more.
I'm Ross Beardall and I approve of this message...
No comments:
Post a Comment