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
Here's a description of the project that drew Mr. Hayne's ire:
Perhaps there were only 11 individuals who commented because the project really isn't as "monumental" as the doctor seems to believe. In some cases existing buildings would suffice, in others the new buildings would measure about 12' by 20' and be located in existing disturbed areas.
It certainly would seem after reviewing the EA that his proposal to power the park's facilities would be much more "monumental" in terms of construction impacts.
No he is simply opposing Haynes.
Haynes proposal is to "consider". There is nothing monumental about that.
While I wouldn't phrase it the same way Gary, I in theory would agree with you. But theory and reality don't always match. I recognize that the parks need those "urbanites" that you so disdain. Without their support the parks won't exist at all.
I did consider it, EC, and to do what he would like to see would indeed be monumental in terms of impacts, certainly not an approach to "preserve and jealously guard the pristine nature of the park."
And, really, he invokes a measure or two of hyperbole in describing the work being done. He makes it sounds like they're starting from scratch.
No? "The installation of equipment....." is what Haynes opposes. You oppose Haynes' suggesting an alternative should be considered. How could we draw any other conclusion than you support the NPS proposal- i.e."the installation of equipment..."?
Oh for merciful goodness, ec! Please, please don't try to attach me to any conservatives!
And then you claim : "Then he goes on to suggest that " the installation of equipment buildings, back-up power generators, propane fuel tanks, metal lattice towers, and more" is more "pristine" than a geothermal facility."
Not from me, buddy.
Then you claim that I'm opposing Haynes. Well, yeah. He's a candidate for office. Kinda hard to oppose his wacky schemes without opposing him. So you got that right at least. "Considering" too often turns into doing. Best time to prevent the fire is before the match has been struck.
Ah, back to your personal attacks - clearly you see you are losing.
The only ones that have misrepresented what was said were Haynes' critics, and you still won't admit that. Haynes never was for oil and gas drilling or mining in Yellowstone. Why don't you first admit your attack on him for that was unfounded.
Then, read his statement again. His objection is that geothermal wasn't even considered. You say you are happy to support a reasonable alternative but reject geothermal without seeing any analysis of its potential - positive or negative - in Yellowstone. You have no clue if it is reasonable or not. You reject even consideration of another plan. Again, how can anyone conclude anything but you are for the existing NPS plan. Please, tell me how that is a misrepresentation of your stance.
ec, surely there must be some adult education programs in your area where you might be able to get some help with reading comprehension. Unless, that is, you are deliberately misrepresenting what you read. I can only interpret such jumps as that of my saying that we have "already messed the park up" and should be careful not make it worse, to somehow supporting Haynes' plans to do exactly that as either poor reading skills or deliberate distortion.
I would be happy to support a reasonable alternative. But none of those have been heard or seen here.
We need look no further than geothermal installations in geyser areas of Iceland and New Zealand -- and even California -- to see the disastrous results that could ensue.