4 ms·

I'm not trying to defend Congressman Bishop here. I certainly didn't vote for him. But as a minor counterpoint to those (pretty biased) articles, it's importan

by smazga 11y ago

I'm not trying to defend Congressman Bishop here. I certainly didn't vote for him. But as a minor counterpoint to those (pretty biased) articles, it's important to understand who he represents. The Federal government owns 66% of Utah. That's a lot of land. Most of that is managed under the BLM, which is very permissive as far as public use, but every once in a while, someone scores a political hit with "we made more National Parks" by carving out a chunk of that and severely restricting access.[1] I have family that live in south/central Utah and from their point of view the only thing that changes when a monument/park is created is that local recreation is limited by people across the country who will likely never even see what they've done. "The common man being oppressed by the suits in their downtown DC ivory towers" is the general feeling. Right or wrong, it's a more complicated matter than simply trying to exploit the lands for money. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Staircase-Escalante_National_Monument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Staircase-Escalante_Nati...

brwnll 11y ago
Read the linked Wikipedia article. Not sure what you're using it to reference "severely restricting access". Under the "Controversy" section, it seems to be referring to two topics: 1. Who owns the roads within the protected area. 2. That a planned Coal mine was prevented from happening in the now protected area. Care to elaborate?
- davidw 11y ago
  Small random point: you can take a rifle into a wilderness area. Or a horse. But not a mountain bike, to say nothing of something like an offroad motorcycle. I wouldn't want to see coal mines on land I enjoy using, and I don't ride dirt bikes, but I do love mountain biking. I can imagine other people have other recreational priorities. The US is a bit weird in how NIMBY it can get over stuff - or going overboard in how much it exploits some natural resources.
  - smazga 11y ago
    > But not a mountain bike, to say nothing of something like an offroad motorcycle. Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. I visited my farmer family, and of course they have a bunch of 4 wheelers. We went on some expeditions to see petroglyphs and things miles into BLM land. Once the park is closed, that's no longer allowed. The locals often know the cool, secret things far off the beaten path. What annoyed my family in particular is that now they can't go enjoy those things in certain areas because someone a thousand miles away decides it should be so.
    - justinator 11y ago
      <em>The locals often know the cool, secret things far off the beaten path. What annoyed my family in particular is that now they can't go enjoy those things in certain areas because someone a thousand miles away decides it should be so. </em> Actually they can, just not on the 4WD Vehicles. They can, say: walk. The Antiquities Act was originally made to protect such things. So, job done, I guess.
      - davidw 11y ago
        > Actually they can, just not on the 4WD Vehicles. They can, say: walk. There are some pretty big distances in many places in the west. That's why people here rode horses rather than, say, walking, once upon a time. In the grand scheme of things, a few off road vehicles are probably not that bad. Something like a coal mine, OTOH, is going to permanently alter the landscape. I wish more policy were aimed at reasonable compromises rather than "no, everything must be absolutely pristine!" on one hand and "let's exploit the crap out of it!" on the other.
        justinator 11y ago
        > There are some pretty big distances in many places in the west. Mountains, too. I know - I live there ;)
    - rch 11y ago
      My understanding is that you can't be more than 10 miles from a road anywhere in the US (other than AK). So what you're complaining about is a half-day walk that will probably help preserve those petroglyphs for decades.
sliverstorm 11y ago
The common man being oppressed by the suits... What can I say, other than I wish they didn't see it like that... The limitations can benefit everyone. Rocky Mountain NP (nearest NPS to me) is phenomenal, beautiful, and draws tourism from around the globe. There is also still tons of BLM and USFS land for more permissive recreation. At least in the Moab area, I suspect Utah is not all that different- Canyonlands & the surrounding areas is a crown jewel that draws desert recreators from hundreds of miles away. I'm an ardent supporter of the NPS though, so I'm biased.
- rconti 11y ago
  Right, but would you not be annoyed if land near you was swallowed up in the name of an expanded national park, and then your ability to use and enjoy the land was severely limited? The person in question might enjoy the National Park AND the BLM land and think both have their place.. but not want one swallowed by the other.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Well, my town has been reliably voting to do just that sort of thing, absorbing public & private land in and around the town into "open spaces" that do put limits on recreation. I'm wholly in favor. At only 30% of the land area vs the BLM, the NPS is hardly about to swallow the BLM whole.
specialist 11y ago
a more complicated matter than simply trying to exploit the lands for money. Every rule change has winners and losers. In this case, ecotourism over mining, ranching, etc. On behalf of all conservationists everywhere, I apologize to the citizens of the proud state of Utah for protecting their long-term tourism revenue at the expense of political campaign contributions from a few of cronies looting the public trust.

by smazga 11y ago

brwnll 11y ago

Read the linked Wikipedia article. Not sure what you're using it to reference "severely restricting access". Under the "Controversy" section, it seems to be referring to two topics: 1. Who owns the roads within the protected area. 2. That a planned Coal mine was prevented from happening in the now protected area. Care to elaborate?

davidw 11y ago
Small random point: you can take a rifle into a wilderness area. Or a horse. But not a mountain bike, to say nothing of something like an offroad motorcycle. I wouldn't want to see coal mines on land I enjoy using, and I don't ride dirt bikes, but I do love mountain biking. I can imagine other people have other recreational priorities. The US is a bit weird in how NIMBY it can get over stuff - or going overboard in how much it exploits some natural resources.
- smazga 11y ago
  > But not a mountain bike, to say nothing of something like an offroad motorcycle. Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. I visited my farmer family, and of course they have a bunch of 4 wheelers. We went on some expeditions to see petroglyphs and things miles into BLM land. Once the park is closed, that's no longer allowed. The locals often know the cool, secret things far off the beaten path. What annoyed my family in particular is that now they can't go enjoy those things in certain areas because someone a thousand miles away decides it should be so.
  - justinator 11y ago
    <em>The locals often know the cool, secret things far off the beaten path. What annoyed my family in particular is that now they can't go enjoy those things in certain areas because someone a thousand miles away decides it should be so. </em> Actually they can, just not on the 4WD Vehicles. They can, say: walk. The Antiquities Act was originally made to protect such things. So, job done, I guess.
    - davidw 11y ago
      > Actually they can, just not on the 4WD Vehicles. They can, say: walk. There are some pretty big distances in many places in the west. That's why people here rode horses rather than, say, walking, once upon a time. In the grand scheme of things, a few off road vehicles are probably not that bad. Something like a coal mine, OTOH, is going to permanently alter the landscape. I wish more policy were aimed at reasonable compromises rather than "no, everything must be absolutely pristine!" on one hand and "let's exploit the crap out of it!" on the other.
      - justinator 11y ago
        > There are some pretty big distances in many places in the west. Mountains, too. I know - I live there ;)
  - rch 11y ago
    My understanding is that you can't be more than 10 miles from a road anywhere in the US (other than AK). So what you're complaining about is a half-day walk that will probably help preserve those petroglyphs for decades.

sliverstorm 11y ago

The common man being oppressed by the suits... What can I say, other than I wish they didn't see it like that... The limitations can benefit everyone. Rocky Mountain NP (nearest NPS to me) is phenomenal, beautiful, and draws tourism from around the globe. There is also still tons of BLM and USFS land for more permissive recreation. At least in the Moab area, I suspect Utah is not all that different- Canyonlands & the surrounding areas is a crown jewel that draws desert recreators from hundreds of miles away. I'm an ardent supporter of the NPS though, so I'm biased.

rconti 11y ago
Right, but would you not be annoyed if land near you was swallowed up in the name of an expanded national park, and then your ability to use and enjoy the land was severely limited? The person in question might enjoy the National Park AND the BLM land and think both have their place.. but not want one swallowed by the other.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Well, my town has been reliably voting to do just that sort of thing, absorbing public & private land in and around the town into "open spaces" that do put limits on recreation. I'm wholly in favor. At only 30% of the land area vs the BLM, the NPS is hardly about to swallow the BLM whole.

specialist 11y ago

a more complicated matter than simply trying to exploit the lands for money. Every rule change has winners and losers. In this case, ecotourism over mining, ranching, etc. On behalf of all conservationists everywhere, I apologize to the citizens of the proud state of Utah for protecting their long-term tourism revenue at the expense of political campaign contributions from a few of cronies looting the public trust.