In taking three years to craft their blueprint for how public lands should be managed across a large portion of Utah, U.S. Reps. Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz have produced a smoke-and-mirrors view of conservation, one that uses the right language but disguises their true goals in obfuscation and fine print.
But then, the two Republicans from Utah hinted, during a public unveiling of the plan last week, at their true motivations. Rep. Bishop, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee that will surely pass through the bill on a strict party-line vote, admitted that he was "never a fan of creating more wilderness in the first place," while Rep. Chaffetz mentioned his love for off-road vehicles.
Thus it can be understood why the 41 proposed wilderness areas touted in the 65-page "discussion draft" would be open to state agencies using aircraft and "mechanized equipment" in managing wildlife and fisheries, and that the continued use of "fences, line cabins, water wells and pipelines, stock tanks and ponds" would be OK.
So, apparently, it would be alright for the state to use aircraft to shoot predators in a bid to bolster populations of prey for human hunters, as does Alaska's Department of Fish and Game. The difference, of course, is that this legislation would allow the practice to be used over wilderness areas, not only on lands adjacent to them.
Too, the politicians wrote that these wilderness areas, if officially designated, would not be off-limits for the construction "of new improvements or replacement of deteriorated facilities," nor the "use of motorized equipment for emergency purposes such as rescuing sick animals or the placement of feed in emergency situations is permissible."
Motorized access to these proposed wilderness areas would be permissable under certain, open-ended, restrictions:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit motorized access and road maintenance by local municipalities and other water right holders for those maintenance activities necessary to guarantee the continued viability of water resource facilities that currently exist or which may be necessary in the future to prevent the degradation of the water supply in wilderness areas...
In other words, Reps. Bishop and Chaffetz would rewrite The Wilderness Act, which interprets official wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
They also would block future wilderness designation in the state by "releasing" other Bureau of Land Management acreage that had been placed under study for official wilderness designation.
Utah politicians long have been at the forefront of efforts to force the federal government to cede public lands back to the state, and while that effort is continuing, Reps. Bishop and Chaffetz aim to help move it along by turning over tens of thousands of acres of federal lands to the state through their legislation.
The measure would require the BLM, "without consideration," to transfer nearly 10,000 acres of land it manages to the state of Utah for addition to Goblin Valley State Park. Another land transfer from the BLM to the state would help create the Price Canyon State Forest, the first state forest in Utah. Another 21 land conveyances from the federal government to the state of Utah, without any consideration in return, also are called for by the legislation. Those range from just 1 acre at the resort town of Park City to 15,379 acres at the Dugout Ranch northwest of Monticello to Utah State University.
It shouldn't go unnoticed that this legislation came but a week after the release of a poll of 2,800 people across Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Montana that concluded that Westerners value conservation and see economic returns from national parks, national forests, and national monuments in their states, and don't believe it's in their best interests to have federal lands transferred to the states.
"The (Public Lands Initiative) furthers the land grab agenda by giving away federal lands. As drafted, the PLI grants thousands of miles of rights-of-way to the state and counties to convert cow trails, footpaths, and seldom-used dirt tracks into highways," states the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in denouncing the Bishop-Chaffetz plan. "The PLI then allows the counties and the states to seek, through litigation, additional right-of-way claims in the wilderness areas it designates. The PLI includes a land exchange where the state gives up land with low market values in exchange for more land with a higher market value—yes, you read that right, the state would make out like a bandit. The PLI also gives away tens of thousands of acres of federal land to the state and counties for all kinds of pet projects."
And the loopholes and giveaways continue throughout the legislation:
* The creation of National Conservation Areas under the legislation does not guarantee water rights for those NCAs, and grazing could continue, and possibly increase, in these areas under the bill's provisions.
* No doubt with an eye toward Utah's energy sector, which has generated high ozone levels in some areas of the state, most notably in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah, the proposed wilderness areas (including those proposed for Arches and Canyonlands national parks and Dinosaur National Monument) would not be designated as Class 1 airsheds, as nearly 160 other wilderness areas across the country are, to protect the viewsheds. "As currently drafted, the PLI would actually weaken airshed protections for nearly all of Arches and Canyonlands national park," notes SUWA officials
* The measure tosses out an oil and gas leasing reform plan adopted by the BLM in 2010.
This legislation is the new face of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and '80s, a political maneuver with a bottomline: handcuff the federal government from properly managing its domain if the land can't be transferred to the states.
While Utah Gov. Gary Herbert praised the bill as the "fourth largest conservation bill in history," that's a misnomer. It's a bait-and-switch to take protections for land, water and wildlife long provided by The Wilderness Act and Environmental Protection Agency down a notch or two. It would give away federal lands owned by all Americans. It would deny outright potential wilderness designations without having a fair public hearing before the owners of those lands -- the American public. For Rep. Rob Bishop, who long has accused presidents of wielding the Antiquities Act without involving the public, these measures smack of hypocrisy.
Across the nation just 5 percent of the landscape is protected as official wilderness, according to Wilderness.net, and 2.7 percent of that total is in Alaska. This legislation, along with watering down the meaning of "wilderness designation,'" would toss away thousands of acres of spectacular landscapes that should be preserved for future generations to marvel at, fuel energy development regardless of associated emissions, and hamstring federal agencies in managing the federal domain for all.
Is this true "conservation"?
Manifest Destiny long ago swept across the West, to the extreme in many places. What is needed is a truer interpretation, and determination, for conservation, a resolve that protects and preserves our waning wilderness quality lands, which better stewards our national parks. This bill falls short on all points.
Comments
Crazy. These politico's from utah are delusional, and to think that any land can be designated wilderness with cattle grazing in a FREAKING DESERT is just pure stupidity. Lee, I've lived in both the west and east, and when I lived in the deserts of the great basin, it baffled my mind that cows were given such a free range and that the political environments of places like Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana were basically ran by the cattle cartels to whre you couldn't say much against this system, because it was so embedded. Idaho's political system in general is laughable, just like Utah's. But when bills like this pop up, it does irk me that they want to erode the envrionment for non-native species like Cattle. Bison didn't even exist in southeastern Utah, but here's the cluelessness of mankind thinking that they are going to sustain an industry that is destroying the landscape and eventually will make it unsuitable for centuries. Half of Utah is already a wasteland thanks to cattle. When Utah has a drought that lasts more than a few years, what's the first thing you see? Dried out cow carcasses all over the landscape. In all my years that i've lived in the East, i've never seen anything remotely like that, and there are about 3x more cattle in the east than in the west where moisture is a lot more abundant.. It's absolute stupidity, but what's to be expected when basically the society was formed by renegade outcasts that had to settle the most inhospitable region of this country, because they had nowhere else to go. And honestly, what else is a person to do in those areas? There's not enough water to create factories, and vast industries, so I guess that's the best most of them can do. Seems like the only way to make a living in southern Utah is either through cattle ranch, drilling for Uranium, or fixing mountain bikes.
While I consider southern Utah one of the most beautiful and scenic areas in the country, the influence from the Salt Lake cult is too much of a constant threat.
Best way to change it, is to skip beef on the dinner plate.
I like beef, and grass fed is much healthier for you than corn fed. Having a steak tonight.
You must think I care what you do. I don't. I rarely come on this board, because Kurt let's you have free range to inflame and constantly incite on this board. Most cattle are sent off to holding pens in feedlots before they are slaughtered, where they are fed gen modified feed, and steroids regardless if they grew up on the range or not. Don't forget all the hormones and other chemicals they are injected with. So enjoy!
Gary, remember that cattle raised on most western BLM grazing leases -- particularly those on rangeland in dry areas like Utah and southern Idaho -- are NOT grass fed. Native grasses in these dry lands are long gone. These poor critters have to walk a mile for a blade of grass. As a result, they easily overgraze the land and wind up foraging on whatever they can manage to find. From here they go to the huge feedlots where they are fed good grass and grain before becoming beef.
On the other hand, cattle raised on private ranches in greener parts of the state where ranchers raise and feed hay, require much less extra feeding to make their meat more palatable. Those ranchers, too, are not subsidized by our taxes (and theirs, too, for that matter). Trouble is, many of them either don't understand the story behind truth -- or simply refuse to see it as they seek to blame all their troubles on regulations that affect their brethren.
Here's some history compiled by Utah Public Radio: http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/l/LIVESTOCK_INDUSTRY.html
It's an incredibly complex maze of ignorance and greed.
As far as water is concerned, all that's needed is a big pipeline from Lake Powell to southwestern Utah to support burgeoning human population. It'll cost only four billion taxpayer dollars, but will provide a few developers with a few million dollars profit. Republican Socialism at work.
Finally, here's a link to a website that frankly puzzles me. It looks like it a site for more responsible livestock producers. Besides reading this article about overgrazing in Capitol Reef National Park (Yes, grazing is permitted in large parts of the park. It was grandfathered when the park's acreage was increased some years ago) spend a little time browzing the site. It's interesting.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/Overgrazing-is-the-topic-of-two...
Okay, I'll post one more tidbit and get out of here. I went browsing and found this article by a writer credited with being a "livestock industry writer." In it he details some interesting stories about LaVoy Finicum. Especially so is the account toward the end of the article that tells of a novel written by Finicum.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/community/contributors/meat-matter-tragic-c...
Every bite.
Thanks, Gary. You get it. Probably because you've actually witnessed it. That's refreshing.
Truth be told, however, there are a LOT of my fellow Utahans who get it, too. We just have to keep trying to spread the word to the rest of the world.
Oh, and I just noticed that the roast beef I had for Sunday dinner is labled "Product of Canada." (Have you heard that Congress recently caved in to the mega international food industry and killed the rules that require point of origin labeling on our food?)
Trust me, Lee, i've seen my share of it over the years. I spent over a decade of my life living in Central Idaho. I used to hike and climb in the Pioneer mountains of Idaho and knew the range extensively, and this was an area that was a wilderness study area. In many areas of that range where cows weren't permitted, they would be found roaming in high alpine fragile meadows, and hanging out in lakes. Some of the places were basically like walking in sewage ponds. Part of what created groups like Western Watersheds was due to the leaders bewilderment that cattle were given such a free pass to destroy and pillage the landscape in that region. I can definitely understand how that organization was born, and now they are perhaps one of the top organizations in striking at least some change to protect watersheds, and try to minimize the damage that cattle do in arid environments. Cattle in arid environments never made much sense, but a lot of what the human race does makes little sense, so it goes with the flow of the human character.
Should cattle be granted grazing rights in National Parks? In my opinion, no they should not. Wilderness areas lack a sense of purity and protection when non-native eurasian cattle are present so this bill makes little sense, and pretty much tosses out decades of science. I must admit, this entire Oregon standoff really has irked me. Here we are again with the giant spidering tentacles of the cattle mafia trying to strongarm, coerce, and purge public lands from all of us for their own greed.
And you're right, without the use of federal dams, and irrigation projects these ranches would not be able to function, yet they hate the federal government and think they can pull this off on their own. Most of Utah's way of life would collapse without taxpayers in places like New York, California, and states with stronger economies funding federal projects to make Utah what it is.
Regardless, bills like this are just the first step, of a larger power grab. If they can, they will gladly usurp iconic utah landscapes like Canyonlands, and Capitol Reef from all of us so they can drill and graze it into oblivion. I"ve been to canyonlands multiple times, and have spent lonely nights out in Cathedral Valley of Captiol Reef where it was just me and the coyotes, and I hope that 50 years from now, it's still like that, because if these republican cultists get their way, then something great that few in this country will wintess (but can if they try) will be lost when they steal it from the rest of us for their own greed.. And you know, that's exactly where many of these types want to head. They would take back Great Basin NP too, and yes, grazing is also allowed there as well, but those allotments should long been retired and left to the bighorns, elk and mule deer instead.
These groups try hard to turn this landscape into a subdivided tame place like Europe, where native wildlife is sacrificed for domesticated ones. NO THANKS! We deserve better.
Lee, perhaps one of the best things to do is toss some donations at Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and keep pounding the pavement at these meetings. It's evident, even in the comment section of most publications based in Utah that these bills are not supported by the majority of citizens in that state. Thankfully there would be a large resistence if they were implemented.
Unfortunately, I can tell you that not many easterners even know what the BLM is. Heck, I can even tell you from my experience living in the eastern USA that many don't know the difference between USFS or NPS lands even when there is a good amount of public lands under those agencies east of the Mississippi. Unless you lived west of the Mississippi, the BLM is one agency few in the East have heard of. In the west, especially the interior west, so many live around the borders of BLM land that most have an idea of what those lands are, and how they are ran. Many in the east (especially where I live now) also fail to understand the importance of what was going down in Oregon. So, there is an uphill battle and a certain level of education on public lands, and civics that is required if we really want people to come together and realize what they could lose if the cattle cartels and other extractive industries run roughshod and dismantle decades of well thought out and orchestrated laws that set out to conserve at least some portions of the American landscape and the biota within them.