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
D'ya think there just might be a chance that some of those "urbanites," seeking some quiet solitude in a place of refuge from the travails of urban life might actually WANT some places without development?
Sure Lee, some might want that. Far more want amenities. What is the count of backcountry permits vs developed overnight stays in Yellowstone?
Once again it is all about balance. Those of us that accept front country development aren't out to eliminate backcountry experiences.(The same can't be said for the purist like Gary) We just recognize that we need the parks to appeal to a broad range of potential visitiors not just the purists if we are to expect the American public to continue to support the parks concept. We can have our frontcountry development without destoying the backcountry experiences.
I also believe there could be geothermal energy installations that can be implemented without negative impacts on the geothermal features of Yellowstone. Are we talking about a 10,000 megawatt electric facility - no. But small geothermal radiant systems could be a clean, unabtrusive way to leverage the area's energy. Again its an issue of balance and ALL things should be considered.
It's probably worth mentioning that Haynes has almost no chance of getting the Republican nomination. The incumbent governor is reasonably popular, and Haynes has to contend with a second challenger joining him to Mead's right. Worrying about any proposal from Haynes is only slightly more profitable intellectually than worrying about what I would do if I were elected governor of Wyoming. His chances are only marginaly better than mine.
Taking action based on a wild arsed guess that harnessing geothermal in Yellowstone could be done in a leave-no-footprints manner is definitely advocating to allow the camel's nose to slip under the tent flap. Generally I appreciate a sense of balance in things, but advocating for 'balance' in this is to me symantically identical to advocating 'balance' in the evolution vs creationism discussion ----- i.e., has no scientific basis.
Am I an "elitist" for wanting wilderness to be wilderness? You can call me that. You can call me orange, or a warthog with equal validity. The point is, I don't really care what you call me.
And of course noone is calling for that. Try another strawman.
There can be no discussion with purists, because anything short of absolute perfect purity is anathema and cannot be even discussed. BTW, I have no idea as to whether geothermal would be a good or bad idea for Yellowstone. I'm just amused by the blinders displayed here.
Gary, enjoy your trip. Sounds like a blast.
A banker would call geothermal development on a popular thermal feature progress and "balance", a conservationist would call it a travesty and destruction. And the best thing about "beliefs" is that it can be tested via the scientific method. And with all the scientific data accumulated at various thermal fields around the world, i'm pretty sure the EIA would be strongly against it in a National Park. On BLM scablands, well that's a different story.
Once again the strawman. Nobody is calling for that.
There are tens of thousands of geothermal installations, some of which have been operating for a hundred years without incident. It is hard for me to believe that there aren't opportunities to utilize Yellowstones thermal assets in a safe and non-destructive manner. At the very least it is worth examining.