The Narrows are closed

No environmental catastrophe at all if the State takes over. You say it like it is a fact, when it isn't.

Unlike the federal govt direct role in the mine waste dump into the Animas River.

There are no mineable assets in the Chamberlain Ranch area. The only "environmental catastrophe" I saw hiking the Narrows were the discarded drug needles and human waste.
 
Carcass said:
No environmental catastrophe at all if the State takes over. You say it like it is a fact, when it isn't.

Unlike the federal govt direct role in the mine waste dump into the Animas River.

There are no mineable assets in the Chamberlain Ranch area. The only "environmental catastrophe" I saw hiking the Narrows were the discarded drug needles and human waste.
Click to expand...

1, Please enlighten me about how UT will pay for public land management and how this won't result in an inevitable sell-off and loss of public access. It can barely fund its schools.

2. Animas was due to human error. Sure it was a f' up, but not a consistent, systematic chipping away of environmental protections (current WH admin aside) as would happen with UT oversight. Look at the state's role in monument downsizing to push fossil fuel & mineral extraction. This is not an anomaly.

Hatch confirmed the administration’s priorities, saying President Trump plans to modify the boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante to open up access to coal mining in the Kaiparowits Plateau. “I’d like to see us have access to that,” Senator Hatch told the Utah Senate. Not to mention the boundary rerouting for mining and oil reserves. [source]

3. As one of the least green states, UT ranks #39 out of 50 (1 being the most green). Furthermore it ranked as the third-most toxin releasing state in 2016. If that doesn't demonstrate the state's lack of commitment to the environment, I don't what else does.
 
Last edited:
.
 
Last edited:
Im act
fossana said:
1, Please enlighten me about how UT will pay for public land management and how this won't result in an inevitable sell-off and loss of public access. It can barely fund its schools.

2. Animas was due to human error. Sure it was a f' up, but not a consistent, systematic chipping away of environmental protections (current WH admin aside) as would happen with UT oversight. Look at the state's role in monument downsizing to push fossil fuel & mineral extraction. This is not an anomaly.

Hatch confirmed the administration’s priorities, saying President Trump plans to modify the boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante to open up access to coal mining in the Kaiparowits Plateau. “I’d like to see us have access to that,” Senator Hatch told the Utah Senate. Not to mention the boundary rerouting for mining and oil reserves. [source]

3. As one of the least green states, UT ranks #39 out of 50 (1 being the most green). Furthermore it ranked as the third-most toxin releasing state in 2016. If that doesn't demonstrate the state's lack of commitment to the environment, I don't what else does.
Click to expand...
I'm actually glad Utah isnt too high on the "green" list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob
Carcass said:
No environmental catastrophe at all if the State takes over. You say it like it is a fact, when it isn't.

Unlike the federal govt direct role in the mine waste dump into the Animas River.

There are no mineable assets in the Chamberlain Ranch area. The only "environmental catastrophe" I saw hiking the Narrows were the discarded drug needles and human waste.
Click to expand...
Even if you don’t care at all about any environmental impacts etc, the bottom line is that the state of Utah controlling public land would mean losing it. All you have to do is look at what they do with the land they already own (for example auctioning off a parcel in comb ridge).

I can understand disliking how public lands are managed, federal hands in local issues etc but if you like hiking, hunting, fishing, etc, then accepting the bad with the good of federal management is the only realistic way to keep what we have.
 
People are the biggest environmental impact...... Hordes of them accessing everything, leaving nothing untouched
 
Nick said:
While I believe extraction industries have a bigger, more negative environmental impact, I can agree that too many humans suck. Stop making babies!!!
Click to expand...


Hey now, my kids are not going causing problems and I am training them to pick up after all the other people in the world. My oldest doesn't blink when I tell her to pick up someone else's trash. So, let's just say too many of the WRONG humans suck (like the asshats destroying Joshua Trees in the NP), some humans are ok

Not to mention, making babies is fun :)
 
That may be true ..... On the other side..... You are walking there, disturbing nature, leaving prints and other stuff. How do you get there? We wear boots carry packs take pictures eat specialized food, call your friends to tell them, etc. All that stuff comes from materials made from stuff from extracted from the earth. More of us going ....means more manufacturing meaning more extraction from the earth..... And a lot of what is made is a waste. My 2c......
 
I don't want to derail this thread too much, already did a bit with my joking response above.

Unless everyone on Earth stops having children (not going to happen) the population will continue to grow. What everyone here should hope for is "good" people reproduce and "bad" people don't. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine what good vs bad people mean. The economist in me says there are costs and benefits to every decision. So one definition of "good" is more social benefits vs social costs. In the long run, I believe my kids will add value to the world that more than makes up for their carbon (and other) impacts. Maybe I'm delusional and blinded by my love, I'll update this thread in 20 years when they have been adults for a while :)
 
Lol...... Many many factors at play ...... More so than people realize. A lot of contradicts on both sides of the issue, more than some will admit.......
 
Now have been mainly lurking as of late. Yes many issues at play as said above by Bob. One thing I remember my parents saying ....
"It take two to argue and it takes two to fight". Hope this is resolved soon and things go back to somewhat normal.

Wishing Everyone the Best!
 
Here's an update: https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2019/12/18/historic-deal-will-keep/

Historic deal will keep southern Utah’s Zion Narrows open to hikers forever

No one will ever see “no trespassing” signs in Zion Narrows, thanks to a complicated land deal tapping money from myriad federal, state and private sources that will keep a historic property in a farming family’s hands, while preserving public access to one of the nation’s finest hiking destinations.

The famed 16-mile trail, which can be hiked by permit only, starts outside Zion National Park’s eastern border and passes through an 880-acre parcel, long owned by the Bulloch family, before entering the park and continuing to Zion Canyon.

For decades, the family allowed hikers to pass through the property known as Simon Gulch, but it posted “for sale” signs last year after the federal government lowballed the land’s value for a potential public acquisition. The impasse has now been broken with easements that shield the land from development and guarantee access to the Narrows forever, under agreements announced late Tuesday by The Trust for Public Land, which orchestrated the $1.5 million deal...
 
LarryBoy said:
Strawmen like this aren't particularly helpful when it comes to healing the partisan divide. Even the most radical proposals (read: the crazy lawsuit UT filed against the feds to turn over almost everything to the state) exempted national parks. As everyone knows, the NPS runs in the red, but it's a huge boon for local economies.
Click to expand...
Curious to how you see the “partisan divide” being healed? Can you picture the major players in the extraction industries backing off and returning the billions in federal subsidies they’ve been gifted so that NPS don’t operate in the red? I can’t imagine the radical right conceding anything as it stands and feel personally that the sooner we give up on this idea of bi-partisanship the better.
The super wealthy are not and never will be on our side.
LarryBoy said:
Strawmen like this aren't particularly helpful when it comes to healing the partisan divide. Even the most radical proposals (read: the crazy lawsuit UT filed against the feds to turn over almost everything to the state) exempted national parks. As everyone knows, the NPS runs in the red, but it's a huge boon for local economies.
Click to expand...
I’m curious how you see the partisan divide being “healed”. Do you see the major extraction industries backing off and returning their billions in subsidies so that our NPS aren’t running in the red? These are folks who are committed and have vast wealth to achieve their goals.
for example. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/...html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage
 
Pianomover said:
Curious to how you see the “partisan divide” being healed? Can you picture the major players in the extraction industries backing off and returning the billions in federal subsidies they’ve been gifted so that NPS don’t operate in the red? I can’t imagine the radical right conceding anything as it stands and feel personally that the sooner we give up on this idea of bi-partisanship the better.
The super wealthy are not and never will be on our side.

I’m curious how you see the partisan divide being “healed”. Do you see the major extraction industries backing off and returning their billions in subsidies so that our NPS aren’t running in the red? These are folks who are committed and have vast wealth to achieve their goals.
for example. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/...html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage
Click to expand...
1. Partisan divide is inherent to the yucky part of human nature. I'll leave it at that lest we veer down a rabbit hole of philosophy and religion.
2. Partisan divide can be exacerbated by inflammatory rhetoric that seeks to paint the opposition in the worst possible light instead of treating their (often valid) arguments with charity. When we use words like "all" and "every" and paint the opposition as a monolithic bloc of robotic evil, we're only making it harder to achieve the healing that we need to actually get stuff done. Remember, the more fractured we are as a body politic, the easier it is for any one big player (say, Murray Energy in your example) to drown out everybody else. Thus for both moral and practical reasons, it makes sense to treat others and their arguments with respect, even if we stridently disagree. There are people on this very board (I have a few in mind) who love wild places just as much as you do, but disagree with you on the way that specific parts of our public lands should be designated, used, and/or protected. If you vote all these people off your island, it's gonna be a pretty lonely island - and you'll be no match for the small number of truly rotten powerful players you've mentioned.

And to the extent that you give up on bipartisanship, compromise, and advocate the tyranny of the majority, you've booted me from your side too. But at this point, I'm straying pretty far from discussions of the backcountry itself, so I'll leave it at that. Cheers :D
 
Pianomover said:
Curious to how you see the “partisan divide” being healed? Can you picture the major players in the extraction industries backing off and returning the billions in federal subsidies they’ve been gifted so that NPS don’t operate in the red? I can’t imagine the radical right conceding anything as it stands and feel personally that the sooner we give up on this idea of bi-partisanship the better.
The super wealthy are not and never will be on our side.

I’m curious how you see the partisan divide being “healed”. DThese are folks who are committed and have vast wealth to achieve their goals.
for example. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/...html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage
Click to expand...
LarryBoy said:
1. Partisan divide is inherent to the yucky part of human nature. I'll leave it at that lest we veer down a rabbit hole of philosophy and religion.
2. Partisan divide can be exacerbated by inflammatory rhetoric that seeks to paint the opposition in the worst possible light instead of treating their (often valid) arguments with charity. When we use words like "all" and "every" and paint the opposition as a monolithic bloc of robotic evil, we're only making it harder to achieve the healing that we need to actually get stuff done. Remember, the more fractured we are as a body politic, the easier it is for any one big player (say, Murray Energy in your example) to drown out everybody else. Thus for both moral and practical reasons, it makes sense to treat others and their arguments with respect, even if we stridently disagree. There are people on this very board (I have a few in mind) who love wild places just as much as you do, but disagree with you on the way that specific parts of our public lands should be designated, used, and/or protected. If you vote all these people off your island, it's gonna be a pretty lonely island - and you'll be no match for the small number of truly rotten powerful players you've mentioned.

And to the extent that you give up on bipartisanship, compromise, and advocate the tyranny of the majority, you've booted me from your side too. But at this point, I'm straying pretty far from discussions of the backcountry itself, so I'll leave it at that. Cheers :D
Click to expand...
I think that the right is constantly asking for the left to compromise but has shown zero willingness to compromise themselves.
When ALEC and other organizations such as they are allowed to dictate talking points and legislation on a national and local government the possibility for compromise and agreement becomes narrowed.
The battle for for open/backcountry spaces free from the hand of man is vital and as history has shown once those places are gone they are gone for good.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top