Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Protect Canyonlands

Comments

Return To Article
  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    July 5, 2014 1:22 a.m.

    "There is a better approach to protecting Utah tourism."

    There is more to Utah than tourism. The US needs energy independence and Utah needs high-paying jobs. Jobs created through tourism are often seasonal and too often low-paying.

  • Utahhikerdad TOOELE, UT
    July 5, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    The sooner, the better! We need to protect Greater Canyons NOW!

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    July 5, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    Actually, no one, pillaging these lands for filthy fuel is a finite source of income while tourism is an infinite source. Tourism will always earn more than dirty fuel. For once the dirty fuel is gone, then what? Where will you get your jobs and precious source of income? Government clean up projects? Tourism? It will still be here in 10, 100, and 1,000 years.

    As far as them being low paying and seasonal, try telling that to those who lost billions in southern Utah when Mike Lee selfishly shut down the government.

    Finally, want to know what Utah needs? Utah needs long term energy planning. There's no reason why surrounding states are producing 3-4 times as much wind and solar energy as we are. We need politicians to stop drinking the dirty fuel Kool-aid and stop allowing 19th century ideology to get in the way of progress. Low information voters need to get their information from more reliable sources. The Koch bros affiliated think tanks are proving to be woefully inadequate.

    Protect these lands. Develop green technology.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    July 5, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    Obama needs to designate Canyonlands as a national monument before it's too late.

    By the way, plume is spelled P-L-U-M-E.

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    July 5, 2014 2:55 p.m.

    Developing natural resources in a responsible way is basic to the strength and security of any nation. Just because there's a bit of temporary visual inconvenience does not justify prohibiting resource development in SE Utah or anywhere else. You may as well complain about the highways, campgrounds, and tourist vehicles that are more visually disruptive than the small wells -- and of course, you wouldn't prohibit them even though they will continue to grow long after the wells are closed and gone.

  • elgreco grand junction, CO
    July 8, 2014 5:04 p.m.

    As a former ranger and resident of the Canyonlands, I heartily concur. These lands are all interconnected and in dire need of protection.