The national parks and monuments system, the national forests, and the BLM are
means of securing rights of city folk like me to outdoor recreation and
wilderness experiences. The drive for Utah to gain title to
federally owned land is the first step in the wholesale privitization of these
lands. Should such happen city people would have to pay to access degraded
land. The wilderness experience would be completely lost. My family recently
spent some time in Yellowstone, that wonderful place. On the way home we passed
through Island Park much of which doesn't look a whole lot better than
State Street. I made and make the comment that a privitized Yellowstone would
look like Island Park. I know the writer was addressing the
monument system mainly, but we should beware of federal departure from our
public lands. It will be the beginning of the end for outdoor recreation for
We may need presidents who act with vision, but we don’t need presidents
who act with arrogance and political calculation in order to shore up support
from one special interest or another.
It is best to leave as many preservation, and environmental decisions to the
feds as possible. Our great countries' clean air, clean water,
and wild areas are just too important for future generations to leave in the
hands of local control.State and local governments lack the
resources to regulate big oil, mining companies, real estate developers, or
anyone else who wants to make a quick buck off of our national treasures. And, as witnessed by some of the archeological treasures pillaged in
rural Utah, locals are often times the last people we want as stewards for our
Agreed!Thanks for the letter!From myself [also a 5th
generation Utahan]and from my posterity.
Completely agree. Future generations will appreciate this forward thinking, as
much as most Utahans do now.
The act allowing Dictator BO to do this needs amending. The POTUS should be
able to name an area, then either congressional approval or reversal within 18
months (or some reasonable time period) should be required - thus restoring the
balance of power the founders intended.Marxist,OK, how bout BO
names your downtown condo a national monument - after all, us suburbanites and
the rural folk need the opportunity to experience urban living. Buy your own
condo, you say? OK, buy your own 40 acre spread out in the sticks for your
outdoor recreational and wilderness experience!
The real message Utah is sending by striving to usurp Federal control of public
lands is for the rest of America to stay out. The best thing we offer the rest
of the union is our natural resources which also have translated into economic
resources. Prediction, for every take over, Utah's hand will ever stretch
closer to the trough in D.C. for maintenance cash with the perpetual whine.
It's either that or the sale at rock bottom prices.
While the goal of monuments to preserve scenic lands is noble, it is easy to
overlook some of the unintended consequences. For example, many Americans are
not capable of hiking or backpacking because of age, physical disabilities,
having small children, etc. What about them? Closing roads to create a
monument shuts them out of their public lands. Having road access for vehicles
makes public lands accessible to more Americans. We want to be
Lost in DC: Apparently lost on you is the distinction that the president can
designate a national monument on federally-owned land, but not on private land
(like a condo). To take private property, he would have to comply with the 5th
Amendment (which requires just compensation for taking private property). I
don't think anyone is proposing that the government condemn private
property for national monuments.Demosthenes: Believe it or not, but
national monuments and parks actually have roads. You can enjoy much of their
scenic beauty from the comfort of your own vehicle. The problem is, you want to
build more roads and eliminate or ruin the back-country experience for everyone
just so you won't have to take the trouble to use your legs.
Re: Demosthenes " We want to be "inclusive," right?"
Absolutely. The crown jewel of the national park system, Yellowstone, has many
varieties of access. People need access to the natural world. That is my
point. Everyone needs such access.
Why is it the President is not proclaiming monuments in the Eastern US? Why are
all the lands the Feds are so eager to protect always in the West? Why did the
Federal Govt let the State of NY control Niagara Falls? Isn't that too much
for a State to control?I would be less upset if they proclaimed a
proportional amount of land in the East as they do in the West, but they
won't because they want to use their land however they want. They want
control of their resources while restricting the use by us out here. They are
hypocrites and selfish.
Curmudgeon,Precedent and case law has proved over and over again that the
federal government can and will take private land without just compensation.
Rural land is most at risk. The abuses of private property rights across the
country are astounding
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this letter in the Deseret News. Was
the editor sick that day? Congratulations to the author.