|Paper||Canyon Country Zephyr|
|Rights||In Copyright (InC)|
|Rights Holder||Tonya Auden Stiles, Moab, Utah|
|Publisher||Digitized by J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah|
|Paper||Canyon Country Zephyr|
* "a minimum of government regulations (and personnel) to contend with. Having said that, I think we need to get back to providing better funding to the various governmental agencies that manage these lands, so they don’t think they have to manage them as commercial enterprises and try to gouge the public with such ridiculously high fees. They also need to review their regulations and keep only those that really make sense. Its time they realize that they work for us, the American people, and their job is to help us enjoy ‘the resource’ while giving it a reasonable amount of protection as well. If that doesn’t work, then bag the idea of National Parks and turn the land over to the BLM or Forest Service who could manage it with far fewer regulations and personnel. From my personal experience, I’ve been generally much happier dealing with the BLM, than with the 2 Dear Jim Stiles, Just another letter here in reference to your "Rules of the Road” comments in the Aug/Sept Zephyr about slow-moving vehicles. I won’t get lengthy and cover all points which I agree with you as valid. I write in regard to your quote, "It’s the Law." In my experience, a "posted speed" is usually referred to as the "Speed LIMIT." That means: On the road you may travel UP to a speed of XX miles per hour. It is not a demand that you travel that speed only. Some roads, whatever their designation, but usually Interstate Highways, also set a "minimum speed." So the posted speed is usually the : e . > maximum allowable speed, and not the only speed. Is it different in Utah? Siecaes National Park Service (I’d rate the Forest Service somewhere between the two in this regard). In conclusion, I'd like to thank Owen for articulating feelings similar to those I’ve been having for years and would like to encourage him to keep up the good work. Thanks. Steve Dowling | Albuquerque, NM Good suet iin. Your editorial suggests that the defenders of Lake Powell are only houseboaters and Panale a hs Tessas Dost ae 2S 8 PWC fanatics. That in itself is a remarkable generality. There are others, you know, who deeply appreciate its beauty and its mystery. And you then take the moral high ground, insisting that a select group of the annointed 4s 1G age : fe i Note: Yes it IS “different in Utah,” but that's terminology, you're absolutely right and I am I’ve been pulled over by the Dove Creek cops a help if you pulled out in front of me and whizzing 8 ; another story. As for your observations on livid that you pointed it out. On the other twice in the last three years for speeding, did the posted speed, next time you ae ae speed limit hand, since it might be my GMC through Bean Town...]S es Dear Editor, : Kudos to Owen Severance for his ‘They Want to do What?’ article in the Aug-Sept issue of The Zephyr. I’ve become increasingly irritated over the years with increasing regulations and costs at our National Parks. Its gotten to the point where they’ve about priced themselves out the market as far as I’m concerned. Its bad enough to pay the exorbitant entrance fees, but when they want to charge user fees for dayhiking, mountain biking, etc. derstand best what is the appropriate and humane program for the Colorado River--a ae : s WO ; eeareukaie peeeion framan — ae re — = _ gees . is arguably one of the most beautiful lakes in the country—an obvious enough fact for those sensitive enough to acknowledge it and visit its exquisite canyons and gaze wistfully into sgsnoaatighs Sohatecea Perhaps you might consider focusing on the problems near to Moab--you do have a few, do you not?--that beg for ecological remedies. By the way, might I also recommend that you consider a worthy campaign or two of another complexion--drain the TVA. drain the Grand Coulee. drain Boulder dam. restore Mt. St. Helens. on top of this, that’s where I draw the line. I’ve noticed at Craters of the Moon National replenish the Las Angeles River. Monument a few years ago a common theme in the commentary on the park signs. The common theme is essentially that ‘man is bad’ and everything needs to be protected from stop turning Utah into a massive nuclear dump. clean up the pollution in the Salt Lake City area (it is horrible). him. Its like our only reason for being on earth is to mess everything up. I too, like Owen, was originally a big supporter of the idea of National Parks. When I first started going to them, it was to relatively obscure, lightly-visited, remote parks like Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. The rangers there were generally helpful and genuinely seemed interested in helping us have a good time. As time progressed, I started visiting more popular parks such as the Grand Canyon and Yosemite, where I noticed the attitude of the rangers was more of one concerned with ‘protecting the resource’, than set up more ice cream stands in Moab (those you have are great, but you need 23 more). stop selling fossils for $ (encourages theft of natural sites). sinecrely., Matts Djos Professor of English Mesa State College helping us enjoy our visit. They generally acted like they regarded our mere presence as a nuisance, hoping we would leave as soon as possible. If they feel that ‘the resource’ needs protection from the uncivilized hoards, maybe they should get rid of the National Park status that attracts them in the first place. Many of these places I’d never heard of before they became National Parks. Chances are that some of these areas might have remained relatively unknown had they not been flagged with National Park status. Editor's note: I really can't find anything “mysterious” about a reservoir, and I don’t think that makes me an elitist. I would bet the same argument was made against abolitionists more than a century ago ("Who ARE these elitists, telling us we can’t have slaves?!"). As for your alternate concerns, I agree completely with all of them. But one Quixotic Quest at a time, please...JS While I’m generally for protecting areas with outstanding scenic and wilderness characteristics, I can’t ignore the fact that sometimes the very act of designating areas as parks or wilderness areas actually draws in more crowds after they are flagged as such. Perhaps in some cases, it might be better to leave well enough alone and let these areas Dear Stiles: Just read your latest diatribe (Take It or Leave It) regarding Utah Chapter of the See-Error Club and related events associated with same. What a crock! And I thought Alabama was bad. Now we hear that the National Club has come out in favor of grazing dwell in the relative obscurity they’ve always enjoyed rather than ‘saving’ them by on the Public Lands......hahahaha..... I bet ole John Muir would be tossing the bastards out designating them as Parks or Wilderness areas. of the Temple if he was around, eh? I know this would give the professional environmentalists and other self-proclaimed saviors of wildlands little to fight for, but I’m sure they could find other causes and/or professions if they looked hard enough. Ifa wild area was genuinely being threatened with unnecessary development, fine, then save it as a wilderness area, but if its not in any immediate danger then I say leave it as it is, with [ Seems as if the paradigm of propitiation and compromise has generally infected the last of the Big Ten Eco-groups. This calls for some serious remedial action. Perchance, the Glen Canyon Group should consider legal action under the General Charter of the See-Error Club..... or take a look at having Utah’s Attorney General yank the Club’s State charter for AND CHECH QUT THE WILDEST WED SITE ON THE INTERNET. www. lynnsparadisecafe.com HAPPY MI-LYNN-IUM days a wee, from everyone at the PARADISE CAFE' Next time, Colonel, the cheese grits ‘i are onme. 984 Barret Avenue LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY! 502.583.EGGS "Still only 1531 miles from Moab." AND Now SERVING YOU...Moab's ALLISON KENNEDY!