OCR Text |
Show A2 Opinion and Commentary Wednesday December 17. 2003 PUBLIC FORUM LETTERS TO THE EDITOR What is your opinion7 The Express welcomes letters from its readers concerning any subject pertinent to the Uintah Basin. There are no restrictions as to contents, if not libelous or vindictive and of reasonable length (two typewritten double spaced pages). Letters must be submitted exclusively to the Express and bear the writers full name, signature, phone number and address Letters for the sole purpose of expressing thanks to individuals or groups will not be printed in the forum. Letters may at be mailed, faxed at 789 8690 or through editor vernal com The name or names of those submitting letters must appear on all published letters. All letters are subject to condensation. Letters express the opinion of the writer and are not necessarily the opinion of the Express Editor. DWR Wolf Plan Dear Editor, As predicted by in. my western rural people, wolves reintroduced to the northern Rockies are spreading and g killing wildlile, domestic stork and pets Just as such as states is the vicious cycle facing Wyoming. Idaho and Montana, which now must grapple with the prospect of managing animals they never wanted They know that the environmentalists have won again Wolf supporters in both private and state government are requiimg mote public land for the rapidly growing woll population Ihese public lands will be set aside as woll wilderness areas. These wilderness areas will he lor seiutity and protection of the Canadian Gray Wolf and will limit human activities in these areas Wyoming has decided to allow hunters to take these wolves m wilderness areas as trophy animals only In the lower public lands within the state, the wolf trou-b'in- will be listed as a predator The DWKs in these states have admitted that they expect the wolf population to I grow One of the people with whom was talking related the fact that the only two ways you see a wolf is when he is on Ins way to kill something" or when he is returning from just killing something." They are full time killers The I'S I ish and Wildlife in 1994 developed a plan for the I IS which projected that wolf population in Idaho, Montana and Yellowstone by the end of 2(X)2 would reach 129. but has increased in 2(X)2 to 660 wolves and KO packs, at the end of 2002, their habitat exceeded KKf.000 square miles. They estimated that they would kill 57 sheep a year, but in just a few months have killed 90 sheep (Sheep Industry News, November 2(XH Volume 7. Issue II). and Utah will follow this same pattern under a Utah wolf plan. Who will pay this cost of wolf maintenance when turned I he over to the stale taxpayers. It has cost the American taxpayer S25.757 for each wolf. They represent a bureaucratic and financial nightmare for most rural states The western states have become a predator pit lor beats, coyotes, mountain lions and wolves, which has unbalanced our historical ecological system. Biologists and the env iionmentalisls have destroyed the good wildlile for man and have brought in the bad predator wildlife to the riiiul west. Observers report seeing fewer and (ewer species ol wildlife when wolves are present Government biologists blame fewer wildlife on (he result ol the drought in the West. It was decided a long time ago. by our grandparents, that predators and prey on the same range was not a good thing I In reviewing the Vernal Express article on the wolf, find that DWR is pioiosmg meetings in groups across the state, lor input on a woll plan. A plan, a plan, a plan - why does ITah need a woll plan when the wolf is a predator and should be classified as a predator and left at that Utah is not in the woll recovery area as is Wyoming, Idaho and Montana ThercTore. we shouldn't need a plan I II bet Minnesota wishes that they never developed a woll plan Utah needs to review what has hap-KMi- there in Minnesota beloie accepting any wolf plan fiom the Utah DWR. You don't see any hunting movies on the Wildlile Channel conducted in Minnesota with their wildlife because there is no wildlile to hunt You can't even dnve a car through or upon lands where the wolf habitat exists. The feds" haven't unlisted the wolf yet in Minnesota after ten or fifteen yeais of woll hell. Once it's listed, it never gets unlisted One may laugh at this, but remember that environmentalists always win when they get their foot in the door such as in Montana. Idaho and Wyoming Utah DWR wants a plan because they can see federal dollars and the selling of trophy license permits for money Yes. the state ol Utah and county governments are giving up the sovereignty to the lederal government when forcing the woll issue Uxn the rural people of Utah and we ate not even a state m which the wolf was to be reestablished TTns act of the Utah government would be a denial of our basic and fundamental constitutional rights of the state of Utah and county governments. Utah elected officials have lost their abillity to be accountable to the majority of the rural areas of Utah, which in turn denies the people ol Utah their constitu- - i VERNAL (ISSN 0892-109- Pubf'Shed eve-- y WpUnes'lay (or $24 pei year m shopping area and $36 pei year out of show ng area within state and $39 per year out ot state within US A by the Vernal E ptess Publishing Company, 54 North Vernal Avenue Vemal Utah 64078 Penodcais postage paid at Vernal. Utah 84070 POSTMASTER Send address changes to VERNAL EXPRESS. PO Bon toco Vernal Utah 84078 Steven R Wallis Virgin,a Hamngton Maureen Spencer Maori Oaks Coudney M'llecam Jacgue Hobbs Vanessa Gnmshaw Tern Black Tasha J Robmson . . Eddnr and Publisher . Guest Wnter . .. Feature Wnter .. Feature Wnter Pubhc Notices . . . . . ... . . Circulation $ Advertising Phone 435 789 3Mt FAX Webs7e www vernal come-mai- t Advertising Advertising Ads ...Classified and Layout 435-788690 editor 8 vemal com NEW DEADLINES News Osptey Axjvet A'jve'i Putc Nces MonJay 12 noon Mcxxtey Monday Monday 2pm 2pm 2pm tional and civil rights. When the federal government exercises territorial authority on federal land within a sovereign state or county, it is acting as the federal, state and county governments, which discriminates against the rights of individuals. It is true that depriving persons of state processes on the federal lands of the United States is a deprivation of individual rights within that state. Utah state elected officials and their authority over its citizens have denied its citizens of due process and equal protection under the state laws. An individual state or county government cannot give up its sovereignty to the federal government, which Utah DWR is doing by developing a state and federal wolf plan to satisfy the federal government. Our elected officials of the state of Utah, who have taken an oath to uphold and protect the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution, should take the leadership in this fight to defend the rural people of Utah and their constitutional rights as the citizens of the sovereign state of Utah and the counties. The federal and state governments are also taking away the rights of rural people, who own private property in the state of Utah, by not allowing them to govern and protect their private lands and families from economic losses and hardship. The rural lands of Utah are about 30 percent private. This right to protect property is set forth in the Constitution of the United States. We already have a wolf plan and it is called the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Utah which give inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings and will secure the pursuits of happiness for its people and for the people of America. It's the American way. This is a legal question that must be answered before any wolf plan can be developed. area as did Utah didnt buy into a wolf Idaho, Wyoming and Montana. Utah is outside of the area. Idaho, Wyoming and Montana received federal dollars many years ago for the re introduction of the Canadian Gray Woff. It is a gtxid thing that we propose to change the State Wildlife Board to give it to the rural communities of Utah because it is a very critical time for wildlife in the rural history of Utah and the rural communities. This wolf issue should be debated in the 2004 Legislature, and then the rural communities of Utah should write a plan if one is needed. GEEN J. MEC'HAM Dry fork Canyon god-give- n Gins Gems Where id By Virginia Harrington Express Writer Presenting the award are Art Tait, Past Utah Section president; Kurils Robins, Utah Section president; Sherel Goodrich, award recipient and Sam Rowley, Range Excellence chairman Goodrich receives award for range management Ashley National Forest employee Sherel Goodrich recently awarded the Society for Range Management Range Excellence Award for 2(X)3 at the annual Utah section meeting in Provo on Nov. 6. His work spans three decades of vegetative monitoring on the Ashley National Forest. He was recognized for his monitoring of vegetative response to habitat improvements projects on the Bare Top Mountain. Sherd's studies have helped make key management decisions concerning habitat modifications and improvements on Bare Top. He was also recognized for his skills and willingness to teach ecological principles. was Santa... Continued from page 1 Lynn Bigelow won the matching watches; both prizes were donated by Davis Jubilee and Associated Foods. Becky Shipton won the Veetra Mountain Bike from Utah Power and Light and Altitude Cycle. Aaron Stein won the Hulk Hands. Steve Wallis won the Camp Chef, and Tana Caldwell won the baby doll all donated by UBTA-UBEEric Hellberg won the Huffy bike donated by G&H Garbage. Tyler Gross won the family game set donated by Uintah County. Robyn Krizman won the $150 gift certificate to Davis Jubilee. A swag donated by the Petal Shop was also raffled at the drawing. The breakfast was made possible by the donations and volunteer services of several community businesses and organizations. Vemal City, The Wired Cow, Western Family Foods, and the Vemal Elks Lodge were key sponsors this year. More than 25 other organizations made generous product and cash donations to help fund the breakfast. Local media participated generously to help advertise the event. Public service organizations such as Uintah Recreation District, Chamber of Commerce, Prime Time for Kids. Vemal City Police and Firemen, and many others volunteered service time. Annaiee Johnson, one of the chairmen of the committee. reported that the committee plans this event for four months with many individuals help and generosiIt is encouraging and heartwarming to see all these ty. different organizations come together to help plan a free event that is primarily for kids, yet gets everyone excited for Christmas. Its worth all the work and effort when you see how much fun children and parents have while here," she commented. All extra food products from breakfast and donated nonperishable items were taken to the Ashley Valley food pantry. Building collapses last structure that A collapsed Wednesday at the Simplot Phosphate Mine north of Vemal has stopped the shipping of phosphate ore to Rock Springs for nearly a week. It is anticipated the mine will be in full operation this week. The Rock Springs, Wyo. plant has been operating at half capacity. No one was injured when the building collapsed from the weight of the materia! that had collected on top of it. Three local residents apparently are not quite sure where they live, myself included. We three applied for the vacant position on the Uintah School District Board of Education, a position previously held by Dr. James Allen. We were all disqualified at the last minute because we don't live in the appropriate district. Fortunately, two others applied who do live in the appropriate' district. I applaud both of them for their willingness to take on.d difficult assignment. Of those two, Jennifer Foley was the successful applicant and is now a duly sworn member of the school board. My short term candidacy for the position was an interesting experience. Some friends encouraged my attempt because they knew I would vote for what 1 believe would be D Oowef best for the students of Uintah County. Others discouraged me because no matter what stand a board member takes, some individuals and some groups will be unhappy with the decision. That brings us to the main point of todays column: the members of the school board need the support of the community to achieve their goal. That goal, paraphrased from a statement by Allen, is to give the students the best education possible with the resources available. Members of the school board should put the needs of the students first in all their decisions. However, they must not neglect the needs of the district administration, the faculty, the staff and the parents. They must also consider die needs of businesses and government agencies, colleges and universities, so that graduating students are fully prepared to assume positions in these entities. Students must be prepared not only academically, but socially as well. That requires spreading limited resources over a vast area and demands difficult decisions from the school board. As a community, we have a responsibility to the school board. The board as a whole needs information to make the best decisions possible. Individual members need input from their constituents in order to represent their districts. Possibly most important of all, once a decision has been made, the board needs the support and cooperation of the community to carry out that decision. Congratulations, Jennifer Foley. You are now one vote of five on behalf of Uintah County youths. Listen to all sides of an issue, speak your mind and vote your conscience. No community can ask more of its school board members. Proposed grazing rule is step forward of Land The Bureau Management's proposed grazing rule announced today is a major step forward for ranchers in Utah and those in other western public lands states. Utah Farm Bureau (UFBF) officials are pleased that the proposal embraces the multiple use concept in particular, increasing grazing opportunities for the ranching community. This announcement by Interior Secretary Gale Norton demonstrates this administrations commitment to effective public land management and recognizes the social and economic contributions of our states ranchers, said Randy N. Parker, UFBF chief executive officer. It is significant that todays announcement ensures that grazing will continue to be one of the legitimate uses of public lands into the future, he pointed out. Utah Farm Bureau, the states largest agriculture organization with over 21,500 family members, has argued that balanced administration of the public land resource is important to the economic future of Utah. Livestock production is the foundation of the state's agriculture industry, contributing nearly 80 percent of the $i billion in farm gate sales. This contribution is significant in rural Utah where livestock sales have a far reaching ripple effect that is considerably more important to the aggregate economy of the stale. Rural businesses rely on the new wealth that is generated by agriculture, timber and mining. This is welcome news to many rural Utah communities that have been suffering from the effects of a prolonged drought, low agricultural prices and the uncertainly of continued access to public lands. The public lands offer a forage resource that is annually renewable and livestock grazing is the best way to harvest it. Grazing pros ides a benefit from die public lands that benefits all Americans. Parker said. The Utah Farm Bureau Federation applauds the grazing rule changes that will improve BLM relationships with permittees and stewardship of lands critical to open space, wildlife habitat and quality of life in the rapidly growing American West. In addition, the proposed rules will: Consider and document social, and economic consequences of grazing decisions. Allow a grazing permittee to share title in certain permanent range improvements, i.e., fencing, wells, pipelines, if constructed under the Cooperative Range Improvement Agreement which had existed prior to 1995. A phase in of decreases (and increases) in grazing of more than 10 percent over a five-yeperiod, unless a quicker phase in is agreed to by the permittee or necessary to protect the resource to minimize economic impacts. Expand the definition of grazto include an ing preference amount of forage on public lands attached to a ranchers private base property, which can be land or water, similar to one that existed prior to 1995. The proposed rule will help ranchers be better stewards of the land through: 1) An improved assessment and monitoring process that evaluates rangeland health. 2) Extending the for making deadline to remedial changes allowing adequate time to determine appropriate actions. 3) Removing the current of limit on temporary non-us- e a grazing permit and allowing temof a grazing permit porary non-us- e for up to one year at a time whether for conservation or business purposes. Farm Bureau supports BLM in addressing numerous legal challenges which will enhance the agency's efficiency a. d interaction with permit holders. These include: Compliance with the federal court (Public Lands Council v. cultural ar Babbitt) in eliminating the longterm conservation use permits upholding the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. Clarify how the BLM will authorize grazing if a decision affecting a grazing permit is stayed pending appeal to provide continuity while under appeal. Clarify that if a livestock operator is convicted of a federal, state or other law, such acts are only subject to BLM sanctions when the acts affect the permittees allotment. Improve efficiency of BLM management by reducing the occasions when BLM is mandated to involve the interested public. BLM could, but would not be required to, seek public input on grazing administration, but would continue to do so on major planning decisions. Remove the 1995 mandate that BLM will seek sole ownership of livestock water rights. This will provide flexibility in negotiating construction of watering facilities, consistent with state laws. Clarify that a biological assessment of the BLM, prepared in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, is not an agency decision, therefore, not subject to appeals and protests. An increase in certain grazing fees to reflect more accurately the cost of grazing administration. It is apparent that the BLM is seeking to clarify the place of livestock grazing on the federal lands. In my professional experience, it is clear that the former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt was hostile to livestock grazing on the public lands. No other conclusion could be reached through a review of his rule making, Parker pointed out. Farm Bureau believes it is time to recognize the economic and social contribution a healthy livestock industry makes in these western public lands states." day-to-d- 4 ; |