The DJT Utah National Parks Highway

[Ben]

I feel like peeing on it would be the most appropriate thing.

Haha

I see your point, but wouldn't DJT like that?

Hahahahaha

 

[MikeM]

Nick, my apologies, you are right, I deleted this message...

 

[Nick]

In the spirit of keeping BCP a place welcoming of all political persuasions, let's try our hardest not to get unnecessarily political. Especially now that the road naming is off the table (for now).

 

[Nick]

Well look at that. Mike Noel is retiring. Maybe this really is dead.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politic...t-says/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[WasatchWill]

Well look at that. Mike Noel is retiring. Maybe this really is dead.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politic...t-says/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Happy Dance!

Now watch someone even more anti-wilderness take his place...if such a person can exist.

 

[JulieKT]

Well look at that. Mike Noel is retiring. Maybe this really is dead.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politic...t-says/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Happy Dance!

Now watch someone even more anti-wilderness take his place...if such a person can exist.

One indeed does exist. The charming Phil Lyman of San Juan County wants to take Noel's place. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politic...ep-mike-noel-says-rural-utah-is-under-attack/

Lyman is absolutely no friend of wilderness, for those unfamiliar with him. He has a very checkered past in that area.

 

[WasatchWill]

One indeed does exist. The charming Phil Lyman of San Juan County wants to take Noel's place. https://www.sltrib.com/news/politic...ep-mike-noel-says-rural-utah-is-under-attack/

Lyman is absolutely no friend of wilderness, for those unfamiliar with him. He has a very checkered past in that area.

Boo...This is the kind of thing I was afraid of, and as one who isn't a resident of District 73, I have no vote there. People like Lyman seem to be of the type that believe public land is only accessible when anyone can ride their ATV wherever they want among other uses of public land, despite the fact that there are still so many roads and routes favorable to ATV use and other uses. They don't want to respect that there are so many other stakeholders out there that want to preserve and protect what's left of our nation's wild wilderness as both a state and national heritage, especially areas that are rich in archeological, geological, and ecological diversity, to ensure that these areas remain remote enough for one to wander into and enjoy its serenity without the sound of noisy motors, land where they can really connect with the earth and enjoy true tranquility and natural ambience, only interrupted and disturbed by the occasional airliner passing overhead. Nor do they believe in preserving land as a place where one can roam and experience what it was like to be a native, an explorer, a mountain man, a frontiersman, a pioneer, where it was just vastly untouched land before them.

Unfortunately these types of politicians don't seem to believe in protecting wilderness for the sake of preserving natural beauty as a heritage. They don't want to acknowledge the voices of greater America. They seem to believe that all public land should be open to all uses, no matter the impact and how it may affect others who also have other interests in the land. They're all about making it into a commercial and for-profit operation. They want to generate as much revenue and industry as they can for their local communities, or so they say, despite so many now residing in those communities who cherish the quiet, laid back feel that comes with those small towns. It's like they think they can keep their cake (beautiful lands out their back door, small town atmosphere) while eating it too (mining, logging, drilling, riding ATVs wherever they please, population growth with industry growth, etc).

For the record, I'm not against the logging industry, the mining industry, oil drilling, or even ATV use. We all benefit from the former industries, and the latter is a fun and viable form of recreation and accessing the backcountry, especially for those who are getting older or otherwise disabled and don't have healthy legs, feet, and knees to support the more natural mode of transportation into the backcountry we call hiking. I just prefer the resource extraction industry try to limit their operations at the edges of established communities (e.g. copper mine in Salt Lake Valley, coal mines at the edges of towns like Price, Helper, Castle Dale, Huntingon, oil pads along already existing roads, etc) and not being put where they can become an eyesore in what is otherwise a pristine and beautiful viewshed. I prefer ATV use be limited to established roads and routes already in existence that are favorable to ATV use and resistant to erosion, which are plentiful and provide access to numerous points of interest and beauty, both archeological and geological. I also support well-managed and ecologically sound hunting in national forests and other such areas.

These types of state reps are also the kind that will seek to take established dirt roads and trails, that ironically, had been hospitable to ATV recreation, and pave them followed up with modern amenities all for the sake of making the land "more accessible" and "user friendly" to larger groups, only to turn around and take away the free access such lands had by turning around and making a park out of it where they can charge a fee to enter and use the land and its amenities and further develop profitable operations.

I'm usually in favor of reasonable compromise between all stakeholders over a given interest for the sake of mutual respect and affection for all. I'm just not sure where else good compromise can be made in the preservation and protection of what's left of our primitive public lands, to keep the wild in our wild spaces.

These reps cry out about unlawful federal land grabs, when they ought to look at themselves in the mirror because as I see it, the only land grabbing being done appears to be these same select state, district, and county reps seeking to grab land that has long been held by the federal government and its agencies and by extension, all U.S. citizens, all while disregarding Utah's very own constitution that states in its Article III:

The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.

But I digress. Maybe I'm grossly misinterpreting that clause. At any rate, I'm preaching to the choir here. This response yet again only echoes much of what's already been said in many other threads on the forum here.

 

[JulieKT]

You said exactly my thoughts, @WasatchWill, except in more kindly terms than I'd be able to phrase it. I'm a resident of District 73. I've been teeth-gnashingly aware of Lyman's antics over the years. His actions generally are beyond the ken. Hope the news of his running spurs someone far more protective of our wild places to also toss their hat in the ring.

And if anyone missed this, Ryan Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy, has plans to run for governor of Nevada. Seems like it's open season on running for office in the Western states right now. At least we're not going to have a Trump Highway anytime soon. I hope.