trail wrote:
windschatten wrote:
Looks like in California the issue is taken care of, as all the public land goes up in flames.
Cute, but strangely the fires don't seem to care much whether they're burning public or private land. You'd better go properly indoctrinate them in your ideology.
to me, this one is a pretty good case for whether people can have a civil discussion. if one of the parties had in its platform whether puppies should or shouldn't be subject to cruelty and abuse, could a discussion of this necessarily result in reflexive partisanship?
here we have a pretty simple question: should we have the freedom to roam? is this an inherent right? in the scandinavian countries there is an inherent right to roam. the "freedom to roam", "right to roam", "everyman's right" is a well established point of discussion and, to me, sits right up there with the freedom of expression. why isn't this in our bill of rights? probably because our founding fathers never contemplated a day when this would be an issue. you want to roam? turn left. plenty of roaming that way.
there are many things we can disagree on, as men and women of goodwill, and we can still be friends, neighbors, brothers in sport. there is really only one thing on which we must agree: the freedom to roam. this is a bedrock ethic on which we must agree. if you (not the "you" to whom i'm addressing, but whomever you are) can't agree with me on this, then, yes, you should read elsewhere. slowtwitch isn't your place. we are always going to be pushing, leaning forward on the freedom to roam platform and you'll simply be frustrated if you remain here.
now, then, how to ensure this freedom to roam? scandinavia ensures this, without the need to create public lands, as we do here. the UK is wrestling with this. other countries do this well or less well. but here his what it comes down to:
1. you as a private citizen can own vast tracts of land, but you must allow access across it. by law. those who pass through it must honor your land in various ways. note: hunting is very likely not something you are allowed to do on someone else's private land. so, if you're a hunter, think twice before you choose this option. this is scandinavia.
2. lands held in the public trust. this is model the U.S. has chosen. so, how do you do this?
we ought to be able to have a discussion about this. what i am adamant about are the three Ps: Protection, Preservation, Public access. i am convinced - there is over-flipping-whelming evidence! - that rolling back Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante is all about the one E - Extraction - and not about the 3 Ps.
if anyone thinks this is a states rights case, fine. show me the way the state of utah should do this. if you can, then i'll support it wholeheartedly. i don't see that as of today. but i'm eager to see it.
in just the southwest parks - bryce and zion - visitors fork over more than $500 million annually, supporting directly about 7,500 jobs. this is less than the grand canyon's total. this does not include the southeast's parks: capital reef, arches, canyonlands. utah rocks. or, utah's rocks rock. california is where my heart is; but utah is where my imagination is. many utahns felt likewise during the establishment of their existing parks back in the early 1900s.
tell me YOUR plan (whomever you are) to keep burr trail road, and hole in the rock road, looking exactly the way they do now, with access remaining open, and let's talk about that plan, if it's something other than a natl monument designation. is there enough elasticity in your mind (whomever you are) to have this discussion? because there's enough elasticity in mine.
Dan Empfield
aka Slowman