I'm with CJDillon on this one. It's ridiculous to name winter storms.
But a friend of mine in Pennsylvania's been posting photos of the almost three feet of snow that fell at her house, and so I am not at all surprised that so many parks are closed.
"Winter Storm Jonas?' Ugh. Naming winter storms is strictly a Weather Channel affectation. The National Weather Service does not name storms other than hurricanes and many media outlets like the New York Times does not use the names the Weather Channel picks.
A Territory is under the direct governance of the Federal government, not itself, so it can't "own" land. The governor is appointed by the President of the United States, not elected by the residents. When a Territory becomes a State, it becomes a totally different type of entity.
(and never had)
Please show me where they conceded that.
For Lee - if they didn't own the land as a Territory why was it necessary to put a clause in the Constitution that they where then disclaiming ownership?
Asleep again in class, I see EC. As a formality, every territory, on achieving statehood, was required to concede that it did not own (and never had) the public domain reserved to the American people at large. The one state that escaped this requirement was Texas--which entered the Union as a republic and not a territory. Texas fought for its own independence in 1836.
Alfred Runte, thank you for an excellent post. I appreciate Kurt's efforts and your comments. Speaking of compromises, it has been interesting to watch the Republican Party elected representatives in Congress the last 8 years. I do not think there is much hope in making the compromises necessary to the Bishop Bill with the mindset of the current Congress.
You finally got someting right, ec. Yup, 99% of us have very little or no say in our government because we are not among the top 1% who can afford massive political contributions to purchase the services of our "representatives."
EC, you just can't make history up--but you try. You're right that the original states, under the Confederation, relinquished their land claims to the central government--which then became the U.S. government. But never were the public lands under state ownership after that. The "appropriated" public lands refers to homesteaders, railroads, and the like.
Last I heard the U.S. population was nearing 319 million.
Ha Ha. And 318.99 million of them have no say in how it is run. If they "owned it", they could sell it. If they "owned" it, they could do what they want with it. They pay for it but they don't "own" anything.
EC, "massive protection of public lands"?
Yes, the bill under discussion covers a massive area of public lands in Utah. In fact a massive area (35%) of all lands in Utah. And re: 2.3%, tell me any other use by a single owner that covers 2.3% of the lower 48?
EC, "massive protection of public lands"?As I noted in the editorial, just 2.3 percent of the Lower 48, aka coterminous U.S., is official wilderness. The "absolutists" lost out a long time ago. We're fighting over table scraps now.
Lee, you must have taken law classes with Alfred. That phrase references the "unappropriated lands" existing at the time of the formation of the state. There is nothing that would prohibit lands being giving to the state as they would then be appropriated.
Kurt fell into a trap set by Bishop, Chafetz and our legislators. They constantly holler about "taking federal lands back," and many of us in Utah fall prey to that phrase because we hear it so often.
Whether or not it is permitted without an amendment of the Utah State Constitution is questionable because ARTICLE III of the Constitution contains this:
Jan 25th - 13:35pm |
Though the draft Utah PLI bill has numerous shortcomings (as noted by many in the conservation community), I still believe it's worth engaging the sponsors of this bill to try to improve the weaknesses before throwing in the towel. The fact that possibly the most conservative delegation in the nation would propose as much wilderness and other protections (even wild and scenic river) is so
Kurt, I have a small issue:
"Utah politicians long have been at the forefront of efforts to force the federal government to cede public lands back to the state..."
Use of the word "back" implies that the state owned the public lands at some earlier point and the federal government took it.
Otherwise, great write up!
Someone exolains to me how a steel structure is considered "nature"? I thought the whole concept of national parks was in order to protect nature. It seems that some authorities have a strange view indeed of what is natural ....
Barbara and Ray were among the NPS people I admired most in Alaska. Their contributions to making the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) as successful as it has been cannot be overstated. Now it is up to the next generation to continue their work to preserve the vast Alaskan wilderness. Thanks, Barbara and Ray. (I'm not sure that Barbara was an empl
What a terrible crime to change the name of the hotel. My dad recuperated there after his injuries in the Pacific. We have an Ansel Adams photo of sailors receiving gifts on the stage there by the Christmas tree. End of an era :(. Black eye for Delaware North.
My heart soars when I see pictures like this...I think indeed it recognizes and connects with the matter we're made from.
I regret I didn't find Big Bend sooner when I could have actually physically enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing.
Jan 25th - 09:25am |
I hae an interest to come to the park for the night sky adventure and see everything i can see, thanks for your insight and information.
You are conflating copyright law and trademark law. Trademarks can and are renewed indefinitely. As for greed, Aramark is the guilty party. Delaware North is merely to trying to get what it is legally and fairly owned. They were requried by the park service to buy the trademarks associated with concessions and Yosemite.
If you believe that the trademarks associated with a $100 million + per year business are only worth $3.5 million then I have a mountain in a national park to sell you. That amount of money is far less than what Delaware North was forced to pay back in 1993 before even adjusting for inflation. The park service is doing the bidding of Aramark.
Increased visitation is a challenge for many national parks including Zion, but we established a shuttle bus system to transport visitors up the canyon eliminating the car jams in the canyon, also consider driving to the Kolb Canyon section and north on I 15, lesser visited and a spectacular landscape with even more vivid red cliffs.
Jan 23rd - 09:08am |
We created the National Park Trust because the problem of inholdings is throughout the park system. There are ways to deal with the land values of these unique properties. There just needs to be the will.
Here's a link to an article from this week's Southern Utah News out of Kanab. This is an area where dislike of Federal lands is a genetic trait. Maybe things like this might slowly help turn some of that around.
Jan 23rd - 15:30pm |
Great job. I am so glad that you are a part of this wonderful experience for kids
I am disappointed to hear about the proposed wind farm in Searchlight. I was stationed at Cottonwood Cove on Lake Mojave from 1974 to 1977 and had the pleasure of observing Golden Eagles at a nearby nesting site. They are incredible to watch, especially when they stoop from great heights before landing on their nest. I hate to think that these birds might be in peril due to the turbine blades.