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
Sorry Alfred. I don't buy that putting in a geothermal heat pump will lead to a megawatt geothermal power plant any more than I believe putting in an electric generator will lead to a massive coal fired electric facility.
Big whooptido.
Dr. Runte and the rest of us -- there's no point in trying to reason with the gentleman. He gets his kicks out of baiting people with endless twisting and turning and flipping and flopping and watching their reactions.
That Ignore User button needs to be pushed more frequently.
Sorry Lee, I haven't engaged in any of the above. The only twisting here was the twisting of Haynes' position and you still won't admit he was falsely accused.
And if trying to engage in a rational discussion is "baiting" then guilty as charged.
Hence, the trolls are definitely not an endangered species, even on this National Park webisphere. Ohhh so that begs to question if a "block" feature should be used instead of a "ignore user" button? And would that ruin the pristine nature of debate in the webisphere? If a troll fires a troll line and no one is around to hear it troll does it make a sound?
A quick note from the management: Please be careful in tossing the "troll" appellation around, for it can be attached so more than a few commenters if you accept this definition from Wikipedia:
If you look through past threads, quite a few people have posted inflammatory comments and off-topic messages.
We're not looking for a homogenous readership, but want to encourage different points of view...delivered in a constructive manner and, preferably, on topic. In his defense, EC does bring different points of view that deepen discussions and merit consideration. As do many others.
Now, back to our regular programming...
This would be boring if all of us agreed on everything. Where would the fun be in an echo chamber?
Sweetcheeks, your comment "I also believe there could be geothermal energy installations that can be implemented without negative impacts on the geothermal features of Yellowstone," is what I called a wild arsed guess.
You must really consider yourself a noble piccadore here, lancing in and about the various semantic constructions, like when you support the Tea Party talking points but quickly deny that you are a card carrying member.