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.
Comments
Gary, I am inclined to agree with you on this. If you have not read "Soul of Yosemite" by Barbara Moritsch, I think you would find it quite worthwhile. Moritsch lays out the issues quite eloquently weather one is in agreement on all her points or not.
Then why should they give a hoot about the parks? You need to get outside your lala land.
In some instances in the past perhaps. But to totally dismiss its potential now and in the future is foolish, especially relative to the alternatives.
ec, I just heard that Dr. Haynes wants to hire you as his spokesman. He says he needs people with highly creative imaginations to help him find a way to make his ideas at least somewhat believable. He might even make you his lieutenant governor.
Actually, i'm not living in lala land. The following National Parks have the wilderness act applied to them, and have VERY limited development compared to Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon - Rocky Mountain National Park, Olympic National Park, North Cascades National Park, Saguaro, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, Great Sand Dunes, Congaree, and Joshua Tree. You won't find restaurants, heated lodges with showers, etc in those places. You can find those accomodations outside of the park boundaries. The parks in Alaska and Hawaii are also ran this way. Many of these (other than Rocky Mountain and Olympic) were established as a National Park after the 60s. I think Zion is the model for the future. The Smokies (outside of 7 cabins that comprise LeConte lodge which was grandfathered in), has built a tourist economy outside of the park, and has done a good job keeping the hotels, cabins, and even food concessions outside of the park. It's also the largest engine in the National Park system and generates close to a billion dollars a year for these local communities. So, lala land, or what I see everyday?
As for your complete lack of scientific knowledge on a topic like geothermal energy development, which I am very much knowledgable in, since I spent a portion of my career associated with this field, you sound like a typical banker that hasn't a clue on the science. Maybe in the future they can use fairy farts and unicorn horn dust for the chemical injection wells. So, to handle what you and loyal lapdog tea party politicians want, because you think it's not going to have any effect on the land, they are also going to need to pump a lot of water out of adjacent streams to power the turbines. They will have to frack into the crust. Then create a building over the well to run the turbines. So, not only will they be using elements like mercury for the heat injection wells, but they also will need thousands of gallons of water per megawatt hour. Yes, you should consider courses in reading comprehension. While I do think geothermal energy development is great, and has a lot of potential in Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, and California (basically spots outside of National Parks), I think Yellowstone should be kept pristine... I also know a few geothermal engineers that would agree with me. Boy, is there coal fields in Yellowstone too?
Gary, talk about reading comprehension. I didn't say wilderness couldn't be done. My point is that the more you limit access to the parks or disuade the urbanites you seem to dislike, the less support there will be for the parks. In the long run, that means you will have more and more people that don't appreciate them and won't be willing to set aside (or maintain) worthy lands as parks. If you don't understand that, you are living in lala land.
As to Geothermal, you yourself think geothermal energy development is "great" and has potential elsewhere. Can it been done in a more pristine manner than other alternatives in Yellowstone? We will never know if it is never considered. Maybe it can't, but I would like it looked at rather than dismissed at hand.
I disagree with you. As urbanites get further cluttered into a noisy world, they seek out the slower pace that national parks offer. That's why millions go into them every year. While there are about 10 more places in this country i'd like to see upgraded into National Parks, and about 30 places i'd like to see upgraded to official wilderness, there is a lifetime of exploring already available to us, and the key is keeping them that way. Many already travel into these places, by the millions. There are many organization already around the planet, attempting to maintain these places, and keep them in tact.
And no, it can't. Energy development always comes with environmental costs, regardless of what some misguided cheerleaders will say. Some forms of energy development are less intrusive, but all have costs. I know for a fact, that we need energy development world wide. So, i'm not clueless about this subject, or naive to think that we need to sacrifice parts of the planet to maintain a certain standard of living world wide. Solar thermal while less damaging than coal plants comes with costs to wildlife, and still requires land use and a lot of chemicals, and toxic materials that go into the production of the facitlies. Wind farms also affect wildlife, and also require materials in production (which also create toxins to the envrionment). Geothermal also has negative reprucussions to the surrounding lands in which they are built. So, plopping one down on popular thermal features in Yellowstone will have a negative effect on the surrouding thermal areas (which Lee and Kurt have already brought to light in various articles). My suggestion is before you go attempting to debate a subject you know nothing about, get some facts first. Yellowstone should be kept as wilderness. That's my take and my stance. It's a simple stance, actually. Outside of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, it's open to debate, and 9 times out of 10 I think geothermal is better than ripping mountains down for coal, so i'd be in favor of those plants. I also think Hydro is important, and don't want to see the dams removed on the columbia, because the alternative is not prettier. So, the salmon in large portions of the columbia has been sacrificed for energy needs. Just like major mountain tops in West Virginia... While, many mountains in WV are being sacrificed for coal, a good alternative to that is getting the High Allegheny protected as a National Park or more wilderness (which i'm for). Not everything needs to be an all systems go.
Gary wants everyone to enjoy wilderness the way he does. Because only his way is pure enough... Sounds a tad bit elitist to me.
Well, this elitist is planning on spending a few nights in Yellowstone's backcountry in the coming weeks. 50.00 to enter a world not found in most of the rest of the country because it's already been developed, shot out, or cut down. So, cry me a river Zebby. I'm going to enjoy it while I can, before people like you and EC take it from us. Maybe when I stop by a geothermal feature in the backcountry, i'll take a picture of it, so kids in the future will know what they lost in the case Haynes becomes Govna' and decides to plop a geothermal plant on it. I've always wondered what it would be like to see all those herds of buffalo on the Great Plains, other than old dated pictures of piled up skulls. But, hey..