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
Ah, mercy.
No point in arguing with voices coming from under the bridge.
There have been countless geologic studies and observable results of geothermal projects elsewhere to have provided more than adequate evidence for a host of experts to reject similar ideas for the Yellowstone area. Google it.
As I said a few days ago, it's pointless trying to reason with the unreasonable. Even if God Herself was to present the truth engraved on stone tablets, you'd find a way to twist and twiggle and keep on arguing.
Thanks for the entertainment, though.
And we can look at installations in Iceland and New Zealand and even California and find installations with fantastic results.
But, just so I am clear - you want to write off the entire geothermal industry or just when a conservative proposes it? Your environmentalist friends and I would like to know.
BTW - I did a google search on geothermal energy in Yellowstone. I didn't find any experts testifying that Yellowstone could never provide feasable geothermal energy for any project. Perhaps you could provide the link to one.
EC, they can still have those accomodations, but they should be done outside of the National Parks, not inside of them. There are quite a few large national parks in the system that are mostly wilderness and undeveloped.
And just for the record, I have worked for a company (over 8 long years) that did geothermal design and development, and yes, it scars the land, and alters the area. It also requires ahem... FRACKING and injecting chemical agents down into the ground. Not that I expect some to understand the science behind it all. Once again, I think the best solution is to minimize the amount of development by not easily providing accomodations just because people can't "survive" in yellowstone without hot showers, electricity, cell phones, sewage systems, and the whole plethora of development that civilization requires.
EC, we really don't know what Haynes is for when it comes to Yellowstone. First he says he would open all federal lands in Wyoming to drilling, grazing, multiple-use, whatever, then he says "I just wanted to catch your attention so I could question" a long-decided plan to upgrade (not build completely new) facilities that have been in the park since the 1950s.
And, as I pointed out earlier and which you must have missed, the latest position he takes on energy development in Yellowstone is opposing "traditional" drilling. How does he define traditional? Does horizontal drilling meet his definition?
Of course, that would likely be moot due to the apparent lack of recoverable reserves in the park.
And now he brings up tapping the park's geothermal reserves in a way that will both "heat and power all facilities in the park" somehow less intrusively than upgrading those 1950s-era facilities.
There have in the past been proposals to use geothermal energy nearby the park to power buildings -- it was from the Church Universal and Triumphant that no longer exists just to the north of Mammoth -- and there were serious concerns that drilling for geothermal would disrupt Yellowstone's plumbing.
Some past topics on tapping geothermal in/around Yellowstone:
* /2014/04/human-footprint-strangling-old-faithful-yellowstone-national-park24940
* /2007/08/are-yellowstones-geysers-risk-blms-leasing-proposals
* http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/17/us/feud-over-geothermal-water-rights-p...
* http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1991/4052/report.pdf
Now, of course, Dr. Haynes maintains surface water could be used to "heat and power all facilities in the park." I'd like to see a proposal for that.
There you go again. Trying to put words into other people's mouths.
There are some geothermal projects that have been highly successful. Others could be. Some, however, have had terribly destructive results. Have you ever heard of Rotarura?
Didn't think so.
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/geothermal-energy/page-5
Risking a similar fate for Yellowstone would be insane. And I'd oppose it no matter who proposed it.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19790627&id=UdBaAAAAIBAJ&s...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEIQ...
http://blogs.idahostatesman.com/protecting-island-park-caldera-protects-...
You certainly didn't look very carefully when you Googled. Articles like the ones above jam the internet. Is it lack of reading comprehension or simply carefully selective reading at work there?
I do have to give you credit for one thing, though. You deserve a trophy for stubborn persistence. Kinda reminds me of my two year old grand daughter.
As for me, I'm not really an environmentalist. I'm a conservationist. WISE use of resources is what I push for. But I guess that loving the little ball of water and rock and air we call home and wanting to keep it in good shape for the future is somehow foolish if I don't seek to grab every dollar from it that I can.
You go for your dollars.
I'll go for things that are far, far more valuable. But you wouldn't understand that . . . .
And you have shown nothing that indicates that could not be the case at Yellowstone. The fact there may have been unfavorable results in some instances certainly isn't proof they it can never be successful. And, despite your claim saying "experts" have totally dismissed a successful process in Yellowstone, you haven't provided a single "expert" that has said that.
Gee, my local schools failed me in understanding that statement. Perhaps you could explain where my "dollars" come in to play anywhere here.
Yes we do, he stated it quite clearly. You can choose not to believe him, but I have no reason to do so.