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
Seriously, you take the cake in clownishness. "It's a strawman!... no one is saying that we should develop geothermal on popular thermal features...BUT, we should consider it! If someone of my fellow tea partiers said it, it's gotta be worth looking into".
Do you follow? Good luck with your reading comprehension classes.
Not what I said at all. Of course you know that.
Noone is proposing that we develope geothermal on a popular thermal feature. Nowone is calling for pipes in Old Faithful or drilling in West Thumb Geyser Basin. But that doesn't mean we should not consider geothermal in areas of Yellowstone where "popular thermal features" are not prevelant but geothermal technology could still be used.
Ah, the old power plant argument again! We tried it at Niagara Falls. Canada gladly joined in. It works beautifully, and the tourists barely notice that the falls no longer run at night. After all, they're off in the bars sipping cocktails or in the wax museum meeting Richard Nixon. When the falls become a trickle after midnight to feed the gigantic reservoir that feeds the penstocks, everyone is sleeping off their hangover, until magicially, the falls are turned on again at daylight. Wow! Why didn't we make a national park of THAT?
Because the falls had been destroyed. Granted, they're still "there" performing for the seven million tourists annually who don't mind that the "show" is false. Why would anyone want that for Yellowstone? No, thanks, our forebears said. But do WE know better? I sometimes wonder if we do.
Ah, the old power plant argument again!
Alfred- joining the strawman club I see. Noone here has proposed a Niagra Falls like power plant. But then, you knew that.
How is that show false? Because only 100,000 cfs flow instead of the average 200,000 cfs? Or maybe you'd rather have another coal plant to replace the 2.5 GW it produces?
Well, EC, at Niagara Falls it all started with the "small" power plant, too. Just a small diversion to run the first grist mill--and then another, and another, and another. . . Then finally came the "big" diversions, gobbling up Niagara by thousands of cubic feet per second. It's not about being a strawman; it is rather about knowing history. Once you start with a "small" development, where do you stop? And don't tell me you know when to stop, because no one ever does. Conservative that you are, have you ever read Garrett Hardin's classic essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons?" You apply Hardin's thesis to our southern borders, certainly, but never to the national parks. The thesis is unforgiving of human nature, and you--like Hardin a conserative thinker--should be consistent in your belief that human nature wins out over restraint every time.
So, I keep wondering when your conservative side will finally appear! A true conservative believes in restraint EVERY TIME. After all, that is what it means to be a conservative. One should move slowly, deliberately, and carefully to ensure that human nature does not run amok. From history, I believe that should geothermal power ever be developed in Yellowstone--even just to run the general store--it will be the end of Yellowstone as we know it. Call it straw, again, I call it history. Now, using history prove me wrong.
Hence Niagra Falls is not a National Park, just like Alfred stated. Yellowstone is a National Park and was preserved in the manner it was in spite of places like Niagra Falls. Many conservationists back in the 1800s wanted the public parks in the west to preserve the landscape and wildlife and keep out the development that they saw at Niagra Falls. I think some of you forget the history. Ferdinand Heydan, who Heydan valley is named after was one such guy, and he lobbied congress to protect Yellowstone from becoming another national embarassment like Niagra Falls. Heydan Valley to this day is a largely trailless and beautiful wilderness still like the days he and a group of scientists set foot in it.
After midnight, the flow is 25,000 cubic feet per second, as I said, something totally false.