The Narrows are closed

Don't like ads? Become a BCP Supporting Member and kiss them all goodbye. Click here for more info.

Carcass

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
208
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.
 

Don't like ads? Become a BCP Supporting Member and kiss them all goodbye. Click here for more info.

fossana

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
295
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.
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:

Wanderlust073

Member
.
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
572
.
 
Last edited:

Carcass

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
208
Im act
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.
I'm actually glad Utah isnt too high on the "green" list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob

Brendan S

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
302
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.
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.
 

Bob

Trailmaster
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,244
People are the biggest environmental impact...... Hordes of them accessing everything, leaving nothing untouched
 

wsp_scott

Member
.
Joined
May 16, 2016
Messages
553
While I believe extraction industries have a bigger, more negative environmental impact, I can agree that too many humans suck. Stop making babies!!!

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 :)
 

Bob

Trailmaster
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,244
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......
 

Don't like ads? Become a BCP Supporting Member and kiss them all goodbye. Click here for more info.

wsp_scott

Member
.
Joined
May 16, 2016
Messages
553
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 :)
 

Bob

Trailmaster
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,244
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.......
 

Kmatjhwy

Wilderness Wanderer
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
323
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!
 

Don't like ads? Become a BCP Supporting Member and kiss them all goodbye. Click here for more info.

Similar threads

Don't like ads? Become a BCP Supporting Member and kiss them all goodbye. Click here for more info.

Top