OCR Text |
Show Comments from our readers . . . Dear Sam: During the past several months I have noted that several of your correspondents correspond-ents in this column have inferred or stated that there are no "No Trespassing" signs on public lands, in particular National Park, National Forest For-est and National Recreational lands. It is true that few, if any signs stated in these words are posted on the public lands (we will exlude military reservations res-ervations and other such areas ar-eas where they are definitely posted). However, this does not mean that it is not done. The standard ploy is to use a euphemism ie., such terms as "No Admittance" "Restricted Area," "Service Area," etc. The above overt postings do not include the much larger de facto postings that may not apply uniformly to everyone, but nevertheless do restrict or eliminate access to the public lands to the majority of the people. Examples of this type of posting would include the designation "Wilderness Area" (which is posted as such) which may be read, "Keep out if you don't fall into that class of citizen in good physical health and able to hike for miles with a heavy pack over steep and rugged terrain." This is not to be taken that we should not have any wilderness wild-erness areas. However, in deciding on the amount and the location of these restricted restrict-ed access areas we should keep clearly in mind that they are defacto keep out decisions and do deny the right of access to the enjoyment of such lands to a large segment of the citizenry of our country. It is my contention that we should not designate as wilderness wild-erness any areas that could be developed without seriously degrading their scenic values. If we used our imaginations, technical skills, and artistic abilities, I believe that we, as a country, have the ability to develop our scenic areas without with-out degrading that scenic value, the wildlife habitat, or cultural values while at the same time increasing the a-vailability a-vailability of these areas to our citizens and guests. We can make our country more beautiful, more accessible, more profitable (ie., jobs for the poor) and more enjoyable for present and future generations. gen-erations. All that we need to do is decide to do it and then get busy in a constructive manner. Preservation for preservation's sake is waste. Edwin J. Garrison Dear Sam: I very much appreciate your sending me the articles on CANYONLANDS from the DENVER POST. They do indeed document the diet of nonsense and lies so long fed to the people of Utah. Please continue to keep me informed. Let me know what steps we ought to take next. Sincerely, Jake Garn Dear Sam: To the many fine people in Moab we want to say "Thank You" for all their prayers and thought during the 13 dnys our precious Brcnda Sue fought for her life. To Dr. Murray, who was on top of the situation from -the start, we can't express our appreciation enough. He fought as hard as Itrenda did to make sure sho lived. So much dedication and caring not only makes him a fine-doctor, fine-doctor, but one great man. To Kayo Clum and Hetty Dravngo who went in the Delivery Itoom with mo, many thanks for helping me to stay calm so I could havo a breathing baby. To Linda Sue, who cried with mo when Itrenda gavo her kitten cry at birth and to I'ntty who showed show-ed her love for mo and my baby when sho came on duty. To the friends and members of the L.D.S. Second Ward who offered prayers and brought food after our loss, no words can say enough. To our friends all over town many many thanks for all you did. Truly we can say, our tiny Brenda had a purpose for living. She is with our Lord now; but all the love and kindness we were shown made her presence on this earth with us a very special blessing from God. As we always say, the finest people in the world live in Moab. Thank you with Love. Leon and Sheila Max field Tamara and Rachel Dear Sam: This is to the tax payers of Grand County who do not favor the Mill Creek Bond Election, especially Mr. John 0. Stevens. Since Mr. Stevens does have a business in the Moab valley, and he may or may not use the town water supply, but he never knows when he may have to. There are other County tax paid facilities such as the Hospital. Another; the roads out in the County which some require many miles of travel by the Road Crews and equipment equip-ment before they can maintain main-tain these roads. Since the largest portion of our tax dollars goes to support sup-port the schools-what if these citizens said. Since we have no children in the school why should we support schools with our tax dollar." And there are buses furnished andor transportation monies paid to bus the children to school. This names just a few of the many 'goodies' paid for with our taxes, and many citizens do not directly benefit from ti;m. Don't let any water get awa from Grand County for it is life sustaining. And give the Mill Creek Bond Election moro thought. Sincerely, Jim Mcl'horson Dear Sam, Recently a trial was held in Moab City Court which ri1 quired three citizens to testify agninst their neighbor for having maintained a public nuisance, I.e., barking dogs. The action taken by these concerned citizens is an cxer-ciso cxer-ciso in self assertion and citizen citi-zen renKnsilility which we may enjoy under our form of government. A very small percentage of our citizens exercise these rights and responsibilities, re-sponsibilities, whether it be for calling a person to account for an injury to an individual or against a larger segment of our society. Citizen awareness and responsibility re-sponsibility are like anything else, you fail to exercise them and they cease to function, or people forget how they work, or someone decides that since it isn't being used you don't need it... A little less food available for the tree of liberty! liber-ty! My hat is off to those concerned citizens with the guts to stand up and be heard. Statistics indicate they are a vanishing breed. Jim Wiseman Dear Sam: Thanks for the Times Independent Inde-pendent and Denver articles. I completely agree with you that some of these environmentalists' environ-mentalists' attitudes have gone beyond reason. When they talk about preserving things for future generations you begin to get the feeling that the present generation is not supposed to enjoy them. There has got to be a happy medium and we will do what we can. Please keep in touch and give us your feelings and attitudes about how things are going along and we will trv to check back. We have to have roads and accessibility for other than the hardy hikers such as individuals with handicaps, the aged, children, and others. We will see what we can do. Sincerely Gunn McKay 3 Dear Editor: 3 In August we held our 1 annual family reunion and as ' our meeting place we chose 3 Moab because of the scenery. ' We have families coming from several different states. 3 Some travel for as much as a thousand miles. Some of us have campers, some trailers, and some stay in motels. We spend a week-end or longer when we meet. This year we met every day in the Lions Club park. Some of us parked above the club in our trailers. Some of us stayed stay-ed in the Slick Rock Camp area, some of us stayed in United Campgrounds and some stayed at the Inca Inn. We enjoyed your nice city and the wonderful scenery and tours. There were 33 of us there for the reunion. The Lions Club park was certainly a nice place to meet in the shade close to the river and see the river boat leave every evening and come back again among the many other things. We especially want to thank Mr. W.D. McArthur for the hospitality shown us while we were there on behalf of the Lions Club. He is the one to whom I corresponded with to set up the time for the reunion for us. We enjoyed our reunion there and will tell other people about your city, the Lions Club Park and the hospitality shown us while there. Thanking you, Mrs. A.W. Morton Dear Editor: For the past few weeks your newspaper has been fostering a controversy dealing deal-ing with the so-called non-development of Canyonlands National Park. Many conclusions conclu-sions can be drawn from these articles. Your forthright opinions, opin-ions, which undeniably bias the information found in the articles, is one of the first conclusions an objective person per-son would become aware of. But I am not writing to argue about your ethics, my main concern is the future of the park and the self -serving opinions opin-ions of a bloc of people living in Utah who assume the park was created for their- own economic gain. On the surface they are vociferously for easier and increased access into the park for the average cithen. I have no idea who they consider the average citizen, but they seem to know the needs and wants of that amorphous figure. fig-ure. Behind the facade of concern for easier access is the dollar sign. Tourism brings money to the locals- takes advantage of all your fellow citizens-exploiting the park which acts as the magnet. mag-net. Was Canyonlands National Park created soley for the economic growth of the people surrounding it? Is this the purpose of all our National Parks-to bolster a few small town economies that otherwise other-wise would stagnate? Is this the only reason the people and congressmen of Utah , f along with the idea of cr!""'1 the park, to cash , natural landscape they had ' fll innate right to recede thing from except De ,1 enjoyment? ""' National parks are not ated to enrich anyone '. tari. although fcSSjj To use economics as a ntZ'', for more development of ! 7 park is completely wronjt Tv park was created to preW the natural features of tk ' land and its ecosystem Z makes it unique on this earth To me it is just as sacred a, . Cathedral or Temple, L . those that would seek'.. materially from iuJJ' than blasphemers. Parks are also created fo, ' the enjoyment of the peopw A place to escape from th; tensions encountered in dvjjj zation. Should these s.m..? tensions be brought to the park by developing nois. ' roads into the middle of a wflj '' landscape that still enjoy, ' relatively pure silence? ' There are also, hopefully ' many future generations that S have the right to enjoy our parks. Should this present generation invade the heart of ' this wild, pristine park, irrev.'' ocably scarring it with a strip 5 of asphalt and an incongruous "' bridge that may be obsolete ' by the next century because ; of an absence of gasoline? Is a paved road to the'' Confluence the only way the : "average citizen" can truly'-appreciate truly'-appreciate the reason the land is preserved as a park? Seems your answer would be yes to all the above, and mine the opposite. There is plenty of good access to all points in the park right now, if people are willing will-ing to use those two lower appendages they put then-shoes then-shoes on. Spend money os educating the people to appreciate ap-preciate the park as a whole, not as a selected group of scenic attractions with blank land in between. It is a complex natural landscape with many ecological interactions interac-tions going on. The park is I whole lot to be appreciated, not a set number of scenic anomalies to be checked off on a list, or set as goals to be photographed. There is much to be seen besides these well publicized, arbitrary landmarks. land-marks. What you want to do, Mr. Taylor, is simply reifr (Continued on page B2) fcAAAAAAAO .wore comments ana opinions from our readers 'i (Continued from page A2) force the mistaken thinking of the tourist business everywhere every-where in the world, when dealing with natural wonders. In nature, that stunted cotton-wood cotton-wood in the wash is just as important as Angel Arch, the Confluence, or any other "attractions". "at-tractions". What it all amounts to is a group of people in Utah desperately trying to breathe life into a dead boondoggle. One last comment, and that has to do with the maudlin editorial cartoon in the Sept. 22 edition of your paper. It seems you will use any means whatsoever to get your point across.. Why is the cartoon labeled silent majority? Have you asked any disabled veterans veter-ans their feelings about wilderness wild-erness and parks and access to them? Do incapacited people peo-ple feel a pristine area should be asphalted so they can enjoy what's left, or do they live realistically within their limitations? Or should we have roads and put in elevat ors to all remote areas, ruining ruin-ing their natural integrity for a small minority? Most informed in-formed and reasonable handicapped handi-capped people would probably disagree with you, but I can not speak for them, and neither can you, unless you have taken the time to go to that silent majority and find out the truth. As for the park (I assume that is Canyonlands caricatured) caricatur-ed) being a rich man's playground, play-ground, I heartily disagree. I've been to many parks and I am far from being rich. Many of my friends have enjoyed our parks and they are not rich. The only thing you need to be rich in is time, and anyone if they really want to, can afford that. Sincerely yours, Michael Salamacha Dear Sam, We would like to take time to thank all the members of our community who gave so generously to the Ambulance Association fund drive over the last few weeks. We found it extremely gratifying to find such support and generosity from local merchants and individual citizens for our organization. We have been striving to afford the citizens of our community with a highly skilled and professionally profession-ally trained group of volun-titrs volun-titrs to serve those in need in nmes of crisis. This fund raising drive showed us that our efforts have not been in vain. As we have been trying to update and improve our skills as EMT's, we have often been faced with the problem of replacing wornout or outdated outdat-ed equipment and, as a county sponsored ambulance, we have had to turn many times to the support of our local community and each time they have overwhelmed us with their generosity. We hope that these funds will help us provide our service area with the best emergency care our skills can provide. Again, our many thanks to all the local merchants who donated to our Association drive and to those who gave their donations at the Jay-cees' Jay-cees' sponsored dance. Sincerely, Members of the Grand County Ambulance Assn. Jim Phillips President LETTER... To the Editor: I submitted the questions below to the water conser- vancy district on Sept. 16, to 1 be answered in the newspaper ! column devoted to the Mill Creek project. On October 3, 1 was told that these questions 1 would not be answered in the colunm because they had all been covered in the column already. I'm grateful to Sam Taylor for the opportunity to publish my questions so that ! the readers can judge for themselves whether or not they have been adequately answered. I believe that the project's benefits have been overstated and the project's costs have been minimized or ignored. For instance, elsewhere in this paper, the district states that if the project is not built, "we would continue to lose almost a half-million dollars worth of water every year." The project's own feasibility report (p. 37) states the annual market value of the water developed by the project proj-ect at $153,000, less costs of $26,400 annually for operation, opera-tion, maintenance and repair. This yields a net value of $126,400 quite a bit short of a half-million dollars. John 0. Stevens Mr. Stevens' Questions to Water Conservancy District on Mill Creek Project: 1) You have told me that the reason for including the entire county in the special service district is that the project would be excessively expensive if it had to be paid for by taxing the area that would actually be served by it. However, when I asked about this, you had no figures either for the amount of assessed valuation within the service area, or for the mill levy that would be required if the service area were to finance the project. I would like to know these figures. 2) If the project is too expensive to be financed by the area to be served by it even when it will have 1V million in interest-free loan from the State and an outright out-right grant of $600,000 how can the project be economically econom-ically justified? 3) In the cost-benefit analysis an-alysis of the project it shows that irrigation's share of the project cannot pay for itself unless the assumption is made that Vs of the land will be put into apple orchards, (p. 35) Both in the report (p. 33 & 34) and in conversations with your office, the assumption is made that much of this water will be converted to culinary use in the future. Since apple orchards are a long-term crop, requiring both a large initial investment and little or no return for the first ten years, it seems unlikely that people will in fact, plant apple orchards. What committments do you have from landowners regarding regard-ing acreage to be planted in apple orchards? 4) If you do not have such committments, then the analysis an-alysis (p. 35) of the report shows that irrigation's share of the project cannot be justified. Please respond. 5) The project is to develop approximately 4600 acre foot of irrigation water, to be sold at $15 per ac. ft., yielding an income of $69,000. (p. 37). On page 35 in the Costbenefit analysis, the primary irrigation irriga-tion benefit to farmers is shown at $146,000. The difference differ-ence between these figures, $77,000, is the additional income in-come farmers will receive as a result of the project, but not have to pay for. How do you justify this giveaway to those who are least in need of it? 6) On page 24 the cost estimate includes an item Vm "On Farm Portable Aluminum Pipe" 755 Acres at $100 per acre or $75,500. So the project report planned to buy irrigation irriga-tion pipe for the farmers, an additional subsidy to those who need it least! I understand under-stand that this item has now been deleted. I would like to know what other operating costs normally borne by farmers farm-ers are, or were, to be paid for by the project. I would also like to know of any other changes that have been made since the April 1977 feasibility report. 7) In the costbenefit analyses an-alyses (p. 29, 32-35) there are many sizeable items ($50,600 on p. 32) that reflect additional addition-al income resulting from overall over-all increased business due to the development resulting from the project. Increased development always results in increased social costs and services which are reflected in increased needs for police, schools, and other social services, ser-vices, which are paid for through taxation. Please explain ex-plain why not a penny for these costs are included in the costbenefit analysis. John O. Stevens Dear Sam: Let it never be said that we are unwilling to step on a sacred cow when the need arises; but perhaps it is justified this time in view of the propensity of the subject of this letter to do the same. Regarding Ed Abbey's letter let-ter in last week's T-I, a number of us who have long been avid fans of Mr. Abbey's arid, but normally literate, wit are curious, if not a little dismayed to see his nom de plume following the letter in question. Do we detect a change in his style? Is Ed exploring the "see-spot-run" satire of Vonnegut's Breakfast Break-fast of Champions? Usually Vonnegut's points are cleverly clever-ly implied by naive understatements. under-statements. If that was Ed's intention, we fail to read his points. Unless But of course!. . his treatise on the "God given rights" of rocks is just that, a simpleton parody of what we've been hearing from the Wilderness Society... Can it be that Ed Abbey is really on our side? Here are some facts relating relat-ing to the Wilderness Prescr vation issue: a. The Harris Poll alluded to in the letter asked the polled public if they favored wilderness wilder-ness (uncapitalized, not Wilderness Wil-derness Classification of public pub-lic lands under the Wilderness Preservation Act. We feel certain that a public, properly informed of the factual vicissitudes vicis-situdes of that act and the "roadless area" inventory provision pro-vision of the "Organic Act" would not ! supportive. b. It is not the intent of congress that 60 or more of the public domain be locked up for up to 15 years as "Roadless Areas to be managed man-aged as wilderness pending examination." c. It is concern over the continuing viability of the nation's economy, and preservation preser-vation of the general public's right of access in the style of their choice, not petty local interests, as Mr. Abbey alleges, al-leges, that motivates our opposition op-position to the current trends in Federal Land Management policies. d. "Serious opposition to the (Wilderness Preservation) concept ..." comes from the residents of communities proximal to the sites of proposed pro-posed designations because they are more intimately a-ware a-ware of the proposals and their impacts than the remainder re-mainder of the public; not because of their own interests in the matter. e. On the average there is greater utilization, in terms of user-access, of developed national na-tional parklands with paved, passenger vehicle access than of primitive areas; a significant signifi-cant indication of the public's preference. f. Pervasive public understandings under-standings of "wilderness value" val-ue" has yet to be demonstrated; demonstrat-ed; however, even Ed Abbey must admit that the public demonstrates astute recognition recog-nition of the value of material wealth (e.g. minerals, timber, etc.). Perhaps if all things recognized as valuable should be "locked up" from potentially potenti-ally adverse effects it would be in the best interests of the American public to advocate the exclusion of Mr. Abbey and his ilk from public lands bearing economic commodities. commodi-ties. It is noteworthy that no serious attempt to do so has as yet materialized from the ranks of selfish "local interests." inter-ests." g. Certainly, wilderness designation can be revoked; and so can the withdrawn status of National Parks. Cecil Andrus could resign if we asked him nicely. Getting back to the realm of finite probabilities; however, the lead-time required to develop mined commodities from wilderness wil-derness in a time a critical national need would involve at least 3 to 5 years. Since revocation of wilderness des ignation of a given area would require congressional action, we ask you when has the Congress or any Federal A-gency A-gency demonstrated sufficient foresight to anticipate commodity com-modity shortages 3 to 5 years in the future? Not in the recent past we think. h. If God ordained our ecological nitch to be exclusive exclu-sive of sometimes destructive interaction with our environment, environ-ment, ours would be unique on earth and surely He would have given us wings and no feet or excretory apparatus so as to preclude our interference' interfer-ence' with the "rights" and dignity of rocks. Since Mr. Abbey's own lifestyle life-style constitutes a pattern of significant "development," not "preservation" of what was once wilderness, it might be advisable fo him to have his gas and electricity disconnected; discon-nected; his $50,000 home dismantled dis-mantled and rendered into pack frames, tent poles, and other "preservationist" para-phrenalia, para-phrenalia, and his cars returned re-turned to rust and replaced into the earthly womb that is its God-given, rightful place in the universe. Or is it that he relishes the way he lives and simply disapproves of the intrusion that others living like him would constitute? Speak to us from a cave on the mountain, Ed, and maybe well consider your words as something more than P.R. for your own particular literary bent. Sincerely, Members of Mineral Resource Development Council Larry Lahusen, Pres. P.S. Would you and your co-believers care to accurately poll the American people on the issue? Come to us and see if we can't construct a polling instrument that will elicit an informed response and distribute distri-bute it to a typical American sample. Well bet you the cost of the project and a plateful of humble pie on the outcome. Dear Sam: Here I am again. My reason ' f for this letter is The Literary i Club members were the first to have a deep interest in this N "Dam business" on Mill Creek. Several years ago we had u guest speakers several men working on the dam on the A creek. Among them were Ken f McDougald and Bob Norman. T There were also about 3 from ' up state. Never did we question who would benefit through all this effort. What does it matter who gets the water? It will i- benefit everyone. The tax levy will not be excessive even to the poor people on the ' P Dolores River. East Bench & will not get any of the dam i water, but we plan to vote yes. This valley, from one end to tithe ti-the other, has been referred -i-to as the most beautiful of all in such a few miles. Can't you . just see this beautiful lake and -II how it will enhance the whole , , country. ' We pay school taxes in (t! Arizona, look who benefits, C. not us, but children in 3 '' counties. i The day the Literary Club ? had their meeting, we asked V the question "why don't you drill out the Sheley Tunnel and build the dam there and '-' name it The Sheley Dam?" - By now we have completed our "This is your Life MOAB." We saw in the "New Memor-ies" Memor-ies" the building of a big dam in Spanish Valley in 1977 or 11 1978, vote yes even if you don't get a drop. The LDS and Community Baptist choirs were very l' good; music is a great part of any performance. It has &1- ' : ways been used in Moab ever ' 5 since 1855 when the Mormons : Came into Moab. We are grateful to all who helped. Enjoy the week ahead ' and go vote yes for the 100 acre lake in Spanish Valley. "-Jack "-Jack and Da Corbin |