OCR Text |
Show From our readers . . . Dear Sam, Your letter this week in Community Comments was very interesting indeed. in-deed. My wife and I wholeheartedly whole-heartedly agree with your viewpoint on the BLM's usurping of the "Public's" "Pub-lic's" land. It appears as if they own it, or think they do considering all the restrictions they are con-tinally con-tinally proposing, j You mentioned the I senseless chaining of vast acreages of land; Sage-I Sage-I brush, Pinion and Cedar mesas and ridges making mak-ing the claim that it was to improve grazing conditions. condi-tions. True, they did scatter some grass seed, but the result was without with-out sufficient rainfall I grass "CAN'T" grow but June grass and tumble-weeds tumble-weeds can thrive on the small amount of moisture our area gets. No kind of animal can thrive, or even live long on these weeds i nor can useful grass and other browse that both , game and livestock' de-i' de-i' pend on compete or survive where June grass 1 and tumbleweeds have taken over, i If Mother Nature, or God, or the "Great Spirit" , had wanted grass where trees or sagebrush grow .' naturally then that is how she or he would have planned it. When I first saw Lisbon Valley, the deer and cattle 1 in "communion with each other" I thought it was 1 one of the most beautiful ; sights I'd ever seen. Last Sunday Sept. 3, Leona and I went for a j 1 drive down through Lis-J Lis-J ' bon. We remarked to each li other what a dry, lonely, vacant looking place it had i i become. I could mention j ; other areas but I'll not x take the time or space j ; here. t One final remark, I though-, the BLM with the !; help of "Drought" is j! putting the livestock in-j'J in-j'J dustry out of business .. slowly but surely. 1. Frank D. Lemon ii' . . !? Dear Sam, j. I simply cannot believe c some of the comments and r name calling that you put j in last weeks editorial. i. You stated that a lot of the problems in Spanish Valley were the result of ' , "Bone-headed brainless i planning by the BLM." ,; Really Sam, how can you 1 say that. The BLM gave away that land to help with the development of ' the area. If the residents of the area cared about :( what happened to that , land they should have " passed zoning laws and building codes after the ' land was transferred to private ownership. But no ' we all sat back for 20 years and let these problems develop. Let's not blame the BLM for something that was our fault. And I would like to comment on that land that you call "A park by any other name." You state that this land has remained remain-ed in pretty good shape all these years because multiple multi-ple users have a strong ecological conscience. But Sam, take a good look at that land. There were no minerals so no one dug the place up. There were no trees so no one ever came in cutting the place up. The BLM owned all the land so no one ever put up a housing development. develop-ment. The only thing the land was good for was grazing and if you look at the land you will see that is mostly sagebrush and prickly pear cactus. These are not signs of an ecological conscience. These are signs of overgrazing. over-grazing. I trust that you saw Gunn McKay's newsletter news-letter this week in which he stated that 75 percent of the land in this area has been overgrazed and has deteriorated to only a fair or poor condition. If multiple users have such an ecological conscience how did this develop. It's because your basic argument argu-ment is not true. Tennants of the land just do not take care of the land like some one who owns the land. Sam, for years I always felt that you took a very reasonable approach to the problems that we face here in the West but after reading last weeks editorial editor-ial I'm afraid that you have become just as polarized as the rest of us. Glen J. Lathrop Dear Sam, I want to compliment you on last week's editorial. editor-ial. I was surprised at your comments in the recent Sunday Tribune article which indicated relations with the BLM have improved. I haven't noticed notic-ed any improvement and events of the last weeks would indicate that things are going from bad to worse. I would like to cite some examples, such as the reaction of Gene Day, Moab District BLM Manager, Man-ager, to the Negro Bill Canyon road. Mr. Day, in his letter to you last week, takes the arrogant attitude that since he personally feels that the Mining Law of 1872 is "antiquated" he is at liberty to disregard it. I feel it is up to the Congress to pass and repeal laws and it is Mr. Day's duty, as it is for any other citizen, to obey those laws. Mr. Day stated that his objection to the mining law was based in part on the provision which allows a miner to lock up part of the public land for his own gain and exclude other uses. It seems to me that most all of this part of the West was in fact opened up by the miners and to a lesser extent livestock-men. livestock-men. Most of the "locking up" and "exclusion of others" has been and will be done by the U.S. Department of Interior. I cite as examples all of the parks, monuments, recreation rec-reation areas with the clean air requirements surrounding them; the restrictions on off-road vehicles, boating, camping, camp-ing, arrowheads, proposed propos-ed wilderness areas, grazing graz-ing cuts and closures, etc., etc., etc. As another example of BLM problems, I cite their continued stalling on issuing issu-ing a permit to proceed with the Mill Creek water project which we despar-ately despar-ately need. I also have personal experience with problems of lesser importance to the area, but of vital nature to my ranch operations. The BLM's over reaction to last year's drought cost us nearly $100,000 in forced sales of livestock on a depressed market and now there was a piece in last week's paper reminding remind-ing us it hasn't rained all summer, as if we didn't know. They don't give us any credit for having a knowledge of range management mana-gement and would have us believe that were it not for their valiant efforts, we would destroy the range resource upon which our livelihood depends. This letter is getting too long, but I feel I need to briefly describe one of the most graphic examples of bureaucratic interferan-ces. interferan-ces. I applied for a permit for a right-of-way for that portion of our irrigation ditch in Fisher Valley which extends onto BLM administered land. After 4 years, much hassle, over $1,000 in expense and a new start because of the Organic Act, I was finally issued a permit this summer. The permit was followed closely by an arrogant registered letter requiring an additional payment of $140 to cover "supervision of construction, construc-tion, operation and rehabilitation" rehab-ilitation" of said ditch. I have refused to pay this since the ditch is already constructed and I feel competent to operate it, and the only reason it would need rehabilitation is if I am forced by the BLM to abandon it. I have been advised that my long-awaited permit is now to be cancelled. I don't know what happens then. The point of all this is that we do have a serious problem and the future of our area is in jeopardy, regardless of whether it is dependent on minerals, tourism or grazing, or some combination of the above. As you said in your editorial of two weeks ago, we need to work together with the land administering administer-ing agencies, but I think we have reached a point where we need to see some indication that those agencies, especially the BLM, that they are willing to work with us. I don't enjoy this adversary position posi-tion we are in and would be willing to make another try to solve our land problems in a cooperative way. I was raised to try to see both sides of an issue and be willing to compromise, and if that fails, to turn the other cheek, but frankly, Sam, I have about run out of cheeks to turn. D. L. Taylor To the Editor: I found your editorial response to Gene Day's calm and reasoned letter to be overreactive and irrelevant to the question at hand. It's too bad Spanish Valley is such a mess and it's nice you think the area between Moab and Monticello has been well treated by man, but what do these things have to do with Negro Bill Canyon? The question is whether one person should be allowed to tear up an area that is used and enjoyed by so many others in an attempt to fatten his own bankroll. Must everything in this country be reduced to economics? Does a place like Negro Bill Canyon have value only so long as it puts a few dollars into someone's pocket? Shouldn't other laws besides those on the books govern our conduct, or is everything permitted in quest of the Big Grab. Americans make up only 6 per cent of the world's population and yet we have more automobiles, automobil-es, televisions, electric toothbrushes, trash compactors, com-pactors, and just about any other piece of junk you can name than nearly everyone else put together. toge-ther. How long cun this insane consumerism keep expanding before the whole thing explodes in our fares? Speaking as one who has lived in parts of the country where virtually all land is privately owned (Keep Out, No Trespassing), Trespas-sing), as well as a foreign country where individual liberties were si'vi-ielv curtailed (Spain), I find ail this bellyaching over government gov-ernment control to be somewhat naive. I can't think of another region of the civilized world where people have the fredom of land usage that we enjoy in Utah. I believe this freedom to be a privilege, not a right. In a democracy, democ-racy, freedom means tempering tem-pering one's will with respect for the rights of others and in this case, a respect for the land. Plowing up a place like Negro Bill Canyon shows a lack of respect for both. While I realize your paper finds itself in the delicate position of being wedged between two radically rad-ically opposing points of view, it seems to me you are usually quick to criticize excesses on the part of the government and environmentalists. Why can't you condemn this action in Negro Bill Canyon for the act of vandalism it is? Jeff Scott Dear Sam, Some of the implications implicat-ions of BLM's Mr. Geen Day's letter to the T-I of last week are so unreasonable unreason-able and incorrect that this must be addressed. He refers to the Mining Law of 1872 as "antiquated" "antiqua-ted" and implies that miners deny the use of the land to others. Any intelligent study of our mining law shows it to be the most modern and - - - - effective mining law ever devised. Proposals to replace re-place it would put us back in the dark ages with feudal lords, such as the BLM, ruling the land. Except for very isolated cases miners have not only provided access to the public land but they have been of great assistance assis-tance to people who get into trouble in remote places. It is obvious that conflicts con-flicts between land users are being invented by very misinformed people who pay more attention to once a year transient backpackers backpack-ers than they do permanent perman-ent land users who live here and depend on the land and its resources and have a land ethic based upon respect and experience. exper-ience. Mr. Day implied that roads somehow rape the land. That is foolishness because, as we all know, roads and development are a great strength of our country and our ability to protect our environment. It would be wonderful if our land managing agencies agen-cies would cooperate with us and assist us. Joe Stocks Dear Editor, A few weeks ago my family and I had the occasion to visit in your town. We were very impressed with the friendliness friend-liness and cleanliness of Moab, and thoroughly enjoyed our stay there. The highlight of our I visit was our attendance of the melodrama performance perfor-mance of the Moab Community Theatre. This group put on a very , polished production with ' their talents in directing, acting, staging, and sets ' most evident. We were so pleased to be so beautifully beautif-ully entertained in a town that one month ago we had never heard of, but now will never forget. We commend your community for supporting such a fine group. Good Luck to all in Moab, particularly the Moab Theatre Group. Thank you, Marcia R. Schwarz Dear Editor: In the Salt Lake Tribune September 1, 1978, page B-4 is an article about illegal use of highway rights of way regarding political advertisements. The Utah Highway Beautification Act of 1967 and the National Highway Beautification Act of 1965 state that no political signs of any kind can be allowed within the state I right-of-way, which I means fences, telephone j poles, trees or existing I official signs. These polit-I polit-I ical signs are supposed to be picked up and discarded discard-ed immediately by the I Utah Department of Tran- sportation. I This article states that I signs cannot be erected I except in commerical or industrial areas and even then, owners must first grant a permit before I signs may legally be erected. I I notice one of our local I candidates has his posters on telephone poles in our area, and I would like the local highway department I made aware of this infrac- tion and appropriate action ac-tion taken. Respectfully yours, ' (Name withheld) |