OCR Text |
Show If jHht A6 5Itmeg-3tt&fpgnbe- t nirnlfrryTy'Ttii) IT Hf Thursday, Oct. 23, 1997 ni, Community Comments by Sam Taylor As has been mentioned by others on this page the past couple of weeks, I did something I have long wanted to do, and in the process took an entire week off on a solo vacation not accompanied by any family members. Its not that I have any problem vacationing with my loved ones, its just that this was a private desire, and when Adrien said that she was going to spend a couple of weeks in New England traveling with a sister and atspinning convergence, I tending a week-lon- g and tour archaeologiweek a decided to take Corners. Four cal sites in the I joined a small group from the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center in Cortez on the week-lon- g journey. The trip was led by Miranda Warburton, Navajo Nation Archaeology Dept, of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, and Richard Begay, an official of the Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Dept, from Window Rock. Richard, in addition to being a graduate of Dartmouth University in New Hampshire, is also a dedicated representative of his people and a Navajo We spent two days on the beautiful and mellow San Juan River, where the biggest challenge was setting up my tent. I had a chance to walk part-waup San Juan Hill at Comb Mormon pioneers obstacle Ridge the final Bluff after their challenges faced in reaching Healer-in-Trainin- g. y at Hole In The Rock. That was place I had long wanted to see. We visited Anasazi sites along the San Juan, then later in the week at Canyon De Chelly, Chaco Canyon, and then in the mystical country east of Farmington, N.M., where the earliest Navajo archaeology is scattered along a vast canyon complex along with thousands of operating oil and gas wells. I didnt go seeking a lot of answers to the longstanding question about what happened to the Anasazi culture. I did go seeking a better understanding of our Navajo neighbors to the south. In summary, I probably returned with more unanswered questions than I started out with. Its good to be back. Its not a week I want to repeat any time soon. It will be even better when my partner returns this weekend and I can quit trying to figure out the complexities of the washerdryer combo down on the farm. sjt I can't remember a local election I have faced with such a lack of consternation. As I view the field of candidates for mayor and city council, I can't see a loser in the bunch. We're fortunate that people of this caliber are willing to serve their community. If any message was sent by voters in the Primary election, it was that they want a degree of civility and cooperation we haven't always enjoyed in our diverse community. That can only bode well for the next few years. fi Statewide Perspective 7 by Robert Wamick You've got to be kidding by Robert Wamick Utah State Representative Mel Brown (Midvale) obviously has a sense of humor. He even uses his position as Speaker of the House to get a few laughs. His recent suggestion that legislative sessions be extended from 45 to 90 days each year had to be tongue in cheek; however, it did evoke immediate reaction from newspapers and other legislators. A Deseret News editorial stated: Talk of longer legislative sessions should not be taken further. Veteran legislator Byron Harward (Provo) said, Im very much against it, well change the nature of who can serve. Since he couldnt possibly be serious. Im sure the Speaker enjoyed a gotcha. The primary reason Im so confident his proposal was not genuine is that the 2002 Olympics entered into his reasoning. He suggested that with a longer session the legislature could recess during the Olympics. have time to act as hosts at some of the events and, of course, have an opportunity to study legislation in depth before voting. Who could possibly believe that a few athletes coming to Utah to compete for a couple of weeks would cause public officials to adjust schedules. That would be as ludicrous as suggesting they should disrupt business, tourism and the lives of everyone venturing into traffic in Salt Lake County for five years in order for the state to improve its image on television for a few hours. If Utahs elected officials were foolish enough to tear up the entire freeway system and most of the collector roads accessing Salt Lake County and spend millions of dollars expanding stadiums and building ski jumps, luge runs and biathlon tracks, then you might take Speaker Brown seriously. Of course, none of these things would ever happen. However, lets not dismiss the possibility without some conjecture. Lets assume all of those things did happen, then imagining elected officials would double the length of their legislative session is not so far fetched. Speaker Brown and those who support his suggestion must believe that legislative sessions are tive laws, tax increases, and hearing of the ridiculous legislation filed every year. I have yet to realize any enhancement in my lifestyle by knowing the Dutch oven is the state cooking pot and the cherry is the state fruit. These momentous decisions were made this year. Last year I was nearly overcome with excitement during the debate over which species of trout should be the state fish. Consider the possibility of the legislature expanding to 90 days each year to coi sider such meaningful legislation. I get quite excited thinking about the legisintervals. For lative sessions going to example, if they met in 1998 and considered nothing but a budget we would be protected from frivolous and special interest legislation and tax increases until 2003. They could then meet again after the Olympics and after the devastation to the state is repaired. The governor and state officials have assured us there will be no need for public money for the Olympics. Legislative leaders have promised us that taxes have already been increased enough to complete the freeway reconstruction. Once the budget is in place there will be no reason for the legislature to meet again until 2003. (If there are interim problems the UDOT engineers can solve them.) Legislators who can afford it would then have time to stand in line to get tickets for Olympic events and lobbyists could get real jobs. Both groups would have more time to cope with road rage and wouldn't have to spend time sitting in the Capitol building pondering what they can do after 2002 to make our lives better. five-ye- five-ye- ar ar ar High Country News Writers on the Range Hunting: A culture on the brink i by Rocky Barker I started hunting season Labor Day weekend, chasing ruffed and blue grouse around the foothills If Im lucky, Ill still be hunting in January for ducks, geese and chukar. Hunting season is the ritual that returns me to my youth when I first felt natures rhythms. I hunt because my father and my grandfather guided me into the hunting culture. After years of following them into the fields around our farm, I finally got old enough and big enough to carry a gun with them to the adjacent forest preserve. I hope my sons and daughter are able to share this tradition with their children, but it wont be easy. The bustle of my own life has meant that I hunt less than in the past. That means my children haven't had the opportunities I had to develop the intimate connection with the landscape that nurtures the hunter. Beyond that, hunters are an increasingly rare breed. The number of hunters has declined by about 5 percent a decade, according to a study conducted in 1990 by Tom Heberlein, a rural sociologist at the University of Wisconsin. Running that out on the computer, he estimated that there would be no hunters by 2050. This number shocked the hunting world. How ever, Heberlein notes that if he ran out the numbers of the decline in farmers they would hit zero at 2020, unlikely if we are to continue to eat. Still, hunting culture is in trouble. People living in rural areas and skilled blue collar workers are among the groups most likely to hunt, and both groups are declining significantly as a percentage of our population. people are less likely to hunt, but higher income are more likely to College-educate- d hunt. Like most Western states, Idaho has an unusually high number of hunters. Nearly 20 percent of Idahoans held some kind of hunting license in 1994. Nationally, however, hunting is a foreign experience to the majority of Americans. Only fifteen million people bought hunting licenses in 1995, roughly 7 percent of the population. Of that number, about 96 percent were white males. Only 2 percent were e women. percent of hunters lived in rural areas, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey showed. who dont have contact with Many rural America never get it. Some see only huntings barbarity. The reaction of many hunters is to circle Fifty-thre- non-hunte- the Constitution if obedience to it is inconvenient? The Chief Counsel cited State of Ohio v. U.S. Times-Independe- guest editorial nt by Bill Howell In 1993, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, operating on behalf of the U.S Department of Energy, purchased 860 acres of private land near Monticello. Eighty acres of the site was to be used as a dump for uranium mill tailings. Local officials were concerned about more federal ownership of land in a county that is only eight percent privately owned. At a minimum, the county believed that local zoning should continue to apply to the tract. But the county was told that state law and the local zoning authority derived therefrom no longer applied to the purchased land. The land would now be subject to the legislative control of the federal government. San Juan County pursued its concern in a letter toDOE posing the question: Why is it legal for the federal government to purchase private property that has a zoning encumbrance on it and then condemn that zoning even though the purchase was not made in furtherance of one of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States? The county was asking whether the purchase and subsequent exercise of federal sovereign governance over the land was consistent with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Section 8 lists the federal governments specific enumerated powers. Any response from the government to the countys question would have to cite Clause 17 of Section 8, commonly known as the Enclave Clause, because a purchase had been made. The Enclave Clause is the only provision in the Constitution that allows the federal government to purchase and exercise exclusive legislation over land within a state and this can only be done with the consent of the legislature. The Founders intended that state concurrence be obtained as a precondition of federal purchases in order to protect state sovereignty from federal assault. The Enclave Clause must be obeyed if the purchase is to be constitutional. DOEs written attempt to explain its authorto ity purchase land and set aside state sovereignty came from its Office of Chief Counsel. In more than four pages of text no reference whatever is made to the Enclave Clause. A variety of citations and rationalizations were offered, however. The first justification was that the project was being conducted pursuant to section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act or CERCLA. Presumably we are to accept without question that CERCLA exempts the federal government from its duty under the Enclave Clause. The Chief Counsel then notes that because the purchased land is contiguous with the old uranium mill site, EPA considers the purchased land to be onsite and section 121(eXl) of CERCLA was intended by Congress to allow the remedial action to go forward unimpeded by the need to comply with local zoning. Does this mean that we ignore CAN LEAb EXCESSIVE RlblNQ OF MOUNTAIN BIKES TO MALE IMPOTEMCY the wagons. They want to defend every aspect of current hunting practices no matter how repugnant to urban Americans. of the Boise National Forest. a good thing. If I were to list all of the good things that come from a typical legislative session, this column would end here. A case can be made for not having them at all or, at most, every five years. This might be a good time to begin a movement in that direction. Not only would it save a lot of tax dollars, it would also protect us from new, more restric- five-ye- K. E.P.A. which stated, in part, that CERCLA provides for an overarching framework... meant to transcend artificial geographical and legal distinctions.... Actually, state boundaries and state sovereignty are derived from the Constitution. It is troubling that a federal court would refer to these constitutional constructs as artificial. Another cited case refers to federal control over cleanup of radioactive waste as the norm and as such preempts competing municipal ordinances. It is troubling that a bureaucratic norm can be construed as superior to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court case Arizona v. California is cited. This case involves diversion of the Colorado River and federal preemption of state law. This case is properly federal in nature, however, since it involves the Interstate Commerce Clause. In any case, even the Commerce Clause does not exempt the government from its requirement to comply with the Enclave Clause and thus, Arizona is not relevant to the Monticello purchase. Finally, the Chief Counsel cites United States v. City of Chester 1944). This case allowed the government to build housing despite local zoning restrictions and would seem to exonerate the government in the Monticello purchase. The problem with this citation is that, in 1944, the government was operating under the War Powers. We have no official notice that the government has declared war on Utah or San Juan County although evidence seems to be mounting. After more than four pages of text,, the Chief Counsel failed to cite any constitutional basis, for I When Idaho defeated an initiative to limit bear ) hunting in 1996, hunters tried to intimidate the sponsors, even urging the University of Idaho to fire the teaching assistant who started the petition drive. In doing so they play right into the hands of ) t Animal rights advocates have condecline to in hunting, but Heberlein tributed the accurately depicts them as serving the same purpose for hunters that wolves do for elk herds. hunters, They take out the said Heberlein. I think they actually improve the hunting stock. They force us to clean up our act. Hunting is no longer necessary in the utilitarian sense. We can feed ourselves without ever looking our food in the eyes. No need for emotion. If hunting is to survive, hunters must gently, but adamantly present to society the importance of recognizing our natural need to kill to survive, and our ethical restraints that keep us from sinking into savagery. We must preserve for society the relationship between man and the land, humans and our prey, the paradox of life. Hunters, ranchers, loggers, Indians and environmentalists share these cultural ties to nature. Even though they have often been at odds over how to utilize and commune with nature, they have a common bond. Their true enemies are not only animal rights extremists but also the arrogant human chauvinists such as Rush Limbaugh who ignore natures messages. Ted Kerasote, a Jackson, Wyo. outdoor writer gets to this bond in his excellent book, Bloodties.. Wild elk, along with all the other creatures and plants of nature, are what the earth still provides from her initial grace, he writes. They cant be planted or harvested or ranched; they can only be received. Whether the means of receiving them is a spear, a gun, or ones plucking fingers matters less than the state of mind moving hands to action. Hunting in itself should be a form of activism. Its our public statement that man and the land cannot be separated. Rocky Barker is an environmental reporter with the Idaho Statesman and author of Saving All the Parts: Reconciling Economics and the Endangered Species Act. He is a regular contributor to Writers on the Range, a project of High Country News. anti-hunter- s. t i r ed the Monticello purchase and the subsequent setting aside of state sovereignty in the form of local zoning. The Chief Counsels letter does incorporate two statements of supreme irony, however. First, he quotes Chester where it refers to Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution. This Clause provides that the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. The irony in this statement is: If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if the Constitution requires that the state concur in federal purchases, what law made by congress, CERCLA included, can empower a federal agency to purchase land without state concurrence? Perhaps supreme law of the land does not mean what it once did? The second supremely ironic statement in the Chief Counsels response was a remark that courts construe a statutory term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning. If this is the case then why does the Chief Counsel consume more than four pages rationalizing federal action in the Monticello case when a simple citation to the appropriate, constitutionally authorized federal authority, such as Clause 17, would have sufficed? Is this federal action consistent with Clause 17 or is it not? The Chief Counsel does not say. The short answer to these questions is simply that We the People are not vigilant in holding our servant the government and our sworn leaders accountable to their constitutional limits. Yet we persist in holding on to the illusion that we live under constitutional governance. We tolerate vacuous rhetoric and feigned solemnity. The constitutional rule of law recedes as the regulations of men come to the fore. And our ignorance is the source of freedoms greatest peril. i -- ' m,m Jj. - m, -- - - - - |