In taking three years to craft their blueprint for how public lands should be managed across a large portion of Utah, U.S. Reps. Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz have produced a smoke-and-mirrors view of conservation, one that uses the right language but disguises their true goals in obfuscation and fine print.
But then, the two Republicans from Utah hinted, during a public unveiling of the plan last week, at their true motivations. Rep. Bishop, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee that will surely pass through the bill on a strict party-line vote, admitted that he was "never a fan of creating more wilderness in the first place," while Rep. Chaffetz mentioned his love for off-road vehicles.
Thus it can be understood why the 41 proposed wilderness areas touted in the 65-page "discussion draft" would be open to state agencies using aircraft and "mechanized equipment" in managing wildlife and fisheries, and that the continued use of "fences, line cabins, water wells and pipelines, stock tanks and ponds" would be OK.
So, apparently, it would be alright for the state to use aircraft to shoot predators in a bid to bolster populations of prey for human hunters, as does Alaska's Department of Fish and Game. The difference, of course, is that this legislation would allow the practice to be used over wilderness areas, not only on lands adjacent to them.
Too, the politicians wrote that these wilderness areas, if officially designated, would not be off-limits for the construction "of new improvements or replacement of deteriorated facilities," nor the "use of motorized equipment for emergency purposes such as rescuing sick animals or the placement of feed in emergency situations is permissible."
Motorized access to these proposed wilderness areas would be permissable under certain, open-ended, restrictions:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit motorized access and road maintenance by local municipalities and other water right holders for those maintenance activities necessary to guarantee the continued viability of water resource facilities that currently exist or which may be necessary in the future to prevent the degradation of the water supply in wilderness areas...
In other words, Reps. Bishop and Chaffetz would rewrite The Wilderness Act, which interprets official wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
They also would block future wilderness designation in the state by "releasing" other Bureau of Land Management acreage that had been placed under study for official wilderness designation.
Utah politicians long have been at the forefront of efforts to force the federal government to cede public lands back to the state, and while that effort is continuing, Reps. Bishop and Chaffetz aim to help move it along by turning over tens of thousands of acres of federal lands to the state through their legislation.
The measure would require the BLM, "without consideration," to transfer nearly 10,000 acres of land it manages to the state of Utah for addition to Goblin Valley State Park. Another land transfer from the BLM to the state would help create the Price Canyon State Forest, the first state forest in Utah. Another 21 land conveyances from the federal government to the state of Utah, without any consideration in return, also are called for by the legislation. Those range from just 1 acre at the resort town of Park City to 15,379 acres at the Dugout Ranch northwest of Monticello to Utah State University.
It shouldn't go unnoticed that this legislation came but a week after the release of a poll of 2,800 people across Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, and Montana that concluded that Westerners value conservation and see economic returns from national parks, national forests, and national monuments in their states, and don't believe it's in their best interests to have federal lands transferred to the states.
"The (Public Lands Initiative) furthers the land grab agenda by giving away federal lands. As drafted, the PLI grants thousands of miles of rights-of-way to the state and counties to convert cow trails, footpaths, and seldom-used dirt tracks into highways," states the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in denouncing the Bishop-Chaffetz plan. "The PLI then allows the counties and the states to seek, through litigation, additional right-of-way claims in the wilderness areas it designates. The PLI includes a land exchange where the state gives up land with low market values in exchange for more land with a higher market value—yes, you read that right, the state would make out like a bandit. The PLI also gives away tens of thousands of acres of federal land to the state and counties for all kinds of pet projects."
And the loopholes and giveaways continue throughout the legislation:
* The creation of National Conservation Areas under the legislation does not guarantee water rights for those NCAs, and grazing could continue, and possibly increase, in these areas under the bill's provisions.
* No doubt with an eye toward Utah's energy sector, which has generated high ozone levels in some areas of the state, most notably in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah, the proposed wilderness areas (including those proposed for Arches and Canyonlands national parks and Dinosaur National Monument) would not be designated as Class 1 airsheds, as nearly 160 other wilderness areas across the country are, to protect the viewsheds. "As currently drafted, the PLI would actually weaken airshed protections for nearly all of Arches and Canyonlands national park," notes SUWA officials
* The measure tosses out an oil and gas leasing reform plan adopted by the BLM in 2010.
This legislation is the new face of the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and '80s, a political maneuver with a bottomline: handcuff the federal government from properly managing its domain if the land can't be transferred to the states.
While Utah Gov. Gary Herbert praised the bill as the "fourth largest conservation bill in history," that's a misnomer. It's a bait-and-switch to take protections for land, water and wildlife long provided by The Wilderness Act and Environmental Protection Agency down a notch or two. It would give away federal lands owned by all Americans. It would deny outright potential wilderness designations without having a fair public hearing before the owners of those lands -- the American public. For Rep. Rob Bishop, who long has accused presidents of wielding the Antiquities Act without involving the public, these measures smack of hypocrisy.
Across the nation just 5 percent of the landscape is protected as official wilderness, according to Wilderness.net, and 2.7 percent of that total is in Alaska. This legislation, along with watering down the meaning of "wilderness designation,'" would toss away thousands of acres of spectacular landscapes that should be preserved for future generations to marvel at, fuel energy development regardless of associated emissions, and hamstring federal agencies in managing the federal domain for all.
Is this true "conservation"?
Manifest Destiny long ago swept across the West, to the extreme in many places. What is needed is a truer interpretation, and determination, for conservation, a resolve that protects and preserves our waning wilderness quality lands, which better stewards our national parks. This bill falls short on all points.
Comments
It doesn't? Is it a fact or not that Utah was not an original state? Is it fact or not that the Federal government was formed long before Utah became a state? Is it fact or not that the Territory of Utah owned the land before becoming a state? Is if fact or not that Utah ceded the unappropriated land when it became a state? Those are the facts, no hubris involved.
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. Watch the movie with Billy Bob Thornton and Dennis Quaid. Now THAT is a movie I would assign in class.
Even Texas, however, recognized the advantages of statehood--until, of course, the Civil War. Why did Texas join the Confederacy? They wanted to keep slavery, yes, but they also wanted the first transcontinental railroad built along a Southern route. In short, they wanted the commerce the federal government would ensure--as it has been ensuring that commerce these past 240 years.
All Representative Bishop wants is another freebie at the expense of the collective taxpayers. What do we get out it? Nothing. But he makes it sound as if we are selfish. The American people, in Congress assembled, gladly parted with 1.4 billion acres for homesteading, railroad land grants, and the like. They wanted to keep 600 million for themselves--for the future of their country. Part with that and what is our future? Well, the good Congressman is showing you that. Some people will never be satisfied until they own the last stick of everything, or, as John Muir put it, "The last tree on earth will have a lawyer and a logger standing underneath it."
I am all for the responsible development of our public lands. Likely private entities have a good many ideas of how to accomplish that without parting with the lands themselves. When I did the national forests centennial (1891-1991), that was indeed our theme. You may disagree with how the Forest Service manages the land, but you cannot disagree with the wonder of all of us owning it. That book, by the way, is called PUBLIC LANDS, PUBLIC HERITAGE: THE NATIONAL FOREST IDEA.
Like the national park idea, our public lands rest on the wonder of public ownership. When they are leased, the people still get a royalty. Why should we be forced to part with our royalties just because someone wants it all for free?
In Burns, Oregon, even the most conservative residents are getting tired of those "patriots" prancing around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Why? Because tourist season is around the corner, and Burns now depends on tourists. My in-laws grew up in Burns, where the Hines Lumber Company, promising to cut on a 75-year cycle, stepped up the cut instead. My in-laws were forced to move. It wasn't the guv'mint that cost Burns those jobs; it was the company. And now these so-called patriots want to cost Burns what little economy it has left.
I only wish Theodore Roosevelt were still in the White House. He would know what to do. So would Donald Trump. If you want to cross a New Yorker, watch out. We were the original Revolution--the real one. And yes, we teach American history the right way--that this is still a country and not a free-for-all. The public lands stay where they are.
This argument has devolved into pure silliness. Especially because there seem to be some serious problems with reading comprehension and vocabulary. At no time did Dr. Runte say or even imply that Utah was one of the "original states." It was not and it's Constitution acknowledges that fact. May I also suggest that before one may make baseless claims about interpretations of history or the word "cede," one should actually understand the history and the word's definition. Lands that had not been "appropriated" prior to statehood were then declared "unappropriated." The state of Utah never owned them. When the first settlers arrived the land was owned by Mexico. When it became a territory of the United States, all the land belonged to the United States because the state did not exist. Upon attaining statehood, any unclaimed lands reverted to federal stewardship and ownership. In fact, at the time, the new State acknowledged that it could not provide stewardship of those lands and that is why they agreed to leave them in federal hands. That fact is reflected in the State Constitution.
Using incorrect understanding of the written word and then claiming to defend "facts" is nonsensical. If it is done deliberately, it's even worse.
Let's quit playing silly word games and get back to the issue at hand. There's a close analogy here to the "crisis" at the Oregon game refuge. If the media would go away and ignore those clowns, they'd pack up and be gone in a very short time. That could also happen here.
I acknowledge that I'm not a historian and so I invite Dr. Runte or anyone else who is qualified to do so to correct any mistatements I might make. But I know that a person qualified to do so will also explain to me why I may have been wrong. Others could learn a lot by adopting the same attitude.
Alfred Runte, again a another thank you, and thanks for writing/commenting for the Traveler. I understand you may have another book coming out on Yosemite, please keep us posted.
(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?
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. Thus the disclaimer clause - it's there for insurance that the State will not make future claim to the lands that the Federal government retained, for whatever purpose or reason, under the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution. And it's not just the State constitution, but also the legislation creating the State that contains that language.
Thank you Mike.
Dittos Mike, thank you.