[GaliWalker]

^ A good point, and something for me (who's always in favor protecting the land from human exploitation) to ponder on. Excuse this following "fly by" comment: It seems to me that an equitable compromise should be struck with the locals who already live and earn a living there, to allow then to continue to do so with minimal disruption to their lives, while also protecting the land and wildlife from additional impact.

[grannyhiker]

It was interesting that when Chaffetz held an open house in his district earlier this year, the media concentrated on those hollering at him to "do your job" in investigating Trump's conflicts of interest. However, photos and TV clips showed nearly everyone carrying signs reading "preserve our public lands." Evidently the Utah politicians also don't care about the local average citizens who make a living from tourists coming from all over the world, the ocal Indian tribes, or even losing the big twice yearly Outdoor Retailer show. It's the cattle interests and the extractive industries who (as mentioned above) pay the big bucks. Nothing new; I grew up in Wyoming and you hear the same messages from the politicians there.

[trestle]

[joker]

[MtnGoat]

[trestle]

Apparently you haven't read Rob Bishop's Public Lands Initiative. Nor paid any attention to the things he has actually done. And you must not be bothered by the appointment of Scott Pruitt to head of EPA (oh here comes the uranium spill canard). Wait a minute...aren't you the guy who has spent 400+ pages arguing about climate change?

[MtnGoat]

[trestle]

It would be just as trivial for me to provide you with what can be so easily found. What bail out are you talking about? You asked for evidence, I referenced. Do you actually need a quote with date, name, and time?

[MtnGoat]

It doesn't exist. They do not want to do the things I mentioned.

[trestle]

Sure. OK. You have a lot of faith in certain politicians.

[trestle]

From the Public Lands Initiative:

[MtnGoat]

[trestle]

I don't have much faith in UT actually reviewing anything once the Initiative is passed.

[MtnGoat]

No worries, allow me to clarify. The fact that my position in the discussion is that I favor less land being locked away as wilderness, leads me to have fewer outright concerns about the section you presented while asking if I saw any concerns. Does that make more sense? I like the desert too, and the natural environment, and value cultural preservation for tribal heritage and concerns as well. And I'd only be OK with extraction which met pretty obvious standards which didn't exist back in the dig profit and run era. Don't use practices which will result in persistent degredation of the site, or foul drainages, put it back as close to how it was as possible when you're done, post bonds sizeable enough to cover these concerns if you fold, etc etc. If only we could come to agreements on how to relate both goals as best we can (extraction/use vs recreation/conservation), I think perhaps designations short of full wilderness but better than no regulation could be useful in the long run to defuse these all or nothing conflicts.

[Malachai Constant]

Now he is taking leave from congress for three weeks to remove a heel spur