You are here

GOP Gubernatorial Candidate In Wyoming Would Open Yellowstone National Park To Grazing, Mining


Wyoming long has had an independent streak in its right-leaning politics, but a position on federal lands staked out by a Republican gubernatorial candidate still might cause some in the state to catch their breath: Taylor Haynes would open Yellowstone National Park to mining and grazing.

Mr. Haynes, whose diverse background includes degrees in urology and mechanical engineering and time spent ranching, said if elected one of his first tasks would be to send letters to the federal land-management agencies telling them to turn their lands over to the state and get their operations out of Wyoming.

“Then, in whichever county they attempt to have any official activity, they will be arrested for impersonating a law enforcement officer in Wyoming,” he told the Casper Star-Tribune last week.

The 68-year-old Republican bases his plan on the grounds that the U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to own just 10 miles of land, in Washington, D.C., for offices and operations, and that the state could do a much better job of managing the federal lands.

How successful would Mr. Haynes' proposal be in terms of the state's tourism industry? Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks likely would fare well for their iconic status. But other park units in the state? Do you remember Shoshone Cavern National Monument? The site outside Cody, Wyoming, was designated in 1909 by presidential proclamation, and given to Cody in 1954. Have you heard of it?

Before Mr. Haynes can put his plan to work, he has to win the GOP gubernatorial nomination next month (current Gov. Matt Mead, a Republican, is seeking re-election), and then the general election in November.




This isn't a question of whether the development is being done.  It is a question of what technology is going to be used.  Some have suggested that geothermal would be a cleaner, less obtrusive technology.  That may or may not be true.  But what is the harm in considering it?  Why not look at the alternatives and evaluate them.  Such absolutism can only be driven by dogma, not by interest in the facts.

Having worked in and around National parks for going on 50 plus years (that certainly does not make me an expert however), I do think it is important to hold the line on new development in the designated National Parks, and perhaps most of the other NPS areas as well. I think Gary is right about this. The overriding political issue facing every management team I was/am involved with is trying to starve off new development proposals, commercial use permits, etc. It is even more difficult when those interested in a concession contract, energy opportunities, etc. have political clout, as most vary large corporations or well connected citizens do.  Once we cave into the proposal, there is no end to the infrastructure upgradeds, housing for employees, well, you name it.  The Park Supts. are really at the mercy of  corporate interest. I have personally seen fine NPS managers relieved of their positions for fighting off some of these types of developments. I also agree with Alfred Runte's comment attached to the well done "Traveler" article on fees in the Smokies. I also was disappointed that the NPS Director did not couple the importance of the enormous ecological values of the National Parks along with the recreational and economic realities. 

is what I called a wild arsed guess.

You can call it what you want.  You are good at calling things/people names.  But the fact is I am not calling for construction based on my "wild arsed guess".  I am saying Haynes' call for consideration is reasonable.  Whether it makes sense or not is still to be determined - except in your mind without any of the relavant facts. 

Now we all know something about how Mr. Obama must feel when he tries to work in a reasonable fashion with the Clowns of Congress.

See y'all in a week.  Heading for Zion where it's nice and cool.  Maybe it will melt some of the blubber I accumulated last winter.  Big airshow in St. George, too, with the Blue Angels.

Keep smiling everyone.

Thank you Alfred, i think you are right on here. 

Sweetcheeks, your comment "I also believe there could be geothermal energy installations that can be implemented without negative impacts on the geothermal features of Yellowstone," is what I called a wild arsed guess.


You must really consider yourself a noble piccadore here, lancing in and about the various semantic constructions, like when you support the Tea Party talking points but quickly deny that you are a card carrying member.


This would be boring if all of us agreed on everything.  Where would the fun be in an echo chamber?

A quick note from the management: Please be careful in tossing the "troll" appellation around, for it can be attached so more than a few commenters if you accept this definition from Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

If you look through past threads, quite a few people have posted inflammatory comments and off-topic messages.

We're not looking for a homogenous readership, but want to encourage different points of view...delivered in a constructive manner and, preferably, on topic. In his defense, EC does bring different points of view that deepen discussions and merit consideration. As do many others. 

Now, back to our regular programming...


Add comment


This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide

Recent Forum Comments