03-24-2008, 12:47 PM
03-24-2008, 12:55 PM
thanks for the article. . . .but why is protecting the rivers bad? fishing wont be affected will it ? or is it just the federal thing that bad ???
sm
[signature]
sm
[signature]
03-24-2008, 01:08 PM
In my opinion I dont think it is a bad thing. I just think it kind of sucks how these "tree huggers" can sign some sort of petition and right away get it reviewed. Why doesnt everyone in the U.S. sign a petition about how high our freakin gas prices are and get it reviewed right away??? Back to the river subject though......I do think with all the people that Utah is attracting (people moving here) we are going to need some more reservoirs for water storage and they are not built and filled up by wishing on a star!!
]
TS
[signature]
] TS
[signature]
03-24-2008, 01:16 PM
I agree with TS. In my opinion, protecting rivers is not at all bad; it's the way they go about it that I don't like. A few people make a loud enough fuss that they get legislation passed that affects the majority.
The article says "Opponents to federal designation, including San Juan County commissioners, say it will stifle development and endanger water rights around listed rivers." Local leaders, those who are closer to the areas in question and actually have enough information to make proper decisions on a case-by-case basis should be the ones, if any, making such laws.
I don't think that environmentalists, to be blatantly sterotypical, care that much about whether or not something is best for a community as long as their own personal agenda is upheld. Laws should represent the people at large, not just those with the biggest mouths.
I hope that people would have enough sense to look into the issues and make decisions that allow for progress but remain environmentally friendly at the same time, which can actually happen! It's when the tree-huggers and other minorities effect blanket-sweep legislation that I get upset.
[signature]
The article says "Opponents to federal designation, including San Juan County commissioners, say it will stifle development and endanger water rights around listed rivers." Local leaders, those who are closer to the areas in question and actually have enough information to make proper decisions on a case-by-case basis should be the ones, if any, making such laws.
I don't think that environmentalists, to be blatantly sterotypical, care that much about whether or not something is best for a community as long as their own personal agenda is upheld. Laws should represent the people at large, not just those with the biggest mouths.
I hope that people would have enough sense to look into the issues and make decisions that allow for progress but remain environmentally friendly at the same time, which can actually happen! It's when the tree-huggers and other minorities effect blanket-sweep legislation that I get upset.
[signature]
03-24-2008, 02:35 PM
[reply]
Local leaders, those who are closer to the areas in question and actually have enough information to make proper decisions on a case-by-case basis should be the ones, if any, making such laws. [/reply]
There are times that I agree with this, and other times I don't. Unfortunately, just because you are a local "leader" doesn't mean you have the correct information.
Ayone from Wayne County here? How would you like to have free access to the Red River Ranch section of the Fremont River? Wouldn't that be nice? Thanks to local county commissioners, you don't. A number of years ago a private land owner approached the DWR with a land sale. The DWR was interested in purchasing that stretch of river. They would have done some restoration work, and opened the land up for public use forever. They also offered to pay the county fees in lieu of taxes, to keep the county from losing any potential tax revenue. Unfortunately, the commissioners stepped in and didn't allow the sale. Now, the land has been further privatized, and public access will never be allowed.
Some of these rural counties have more land owned by the state and federal governments than by county and private individuals. They feel very threatened by any potential to lose more land (Garfield County is a good example with the Grand Staircase -- now, any time a potential sale comes up (Sevier River...) they are completely against selling it to the government).
So when a group comes in wanting further protection to, with potential impacts to water rights and land use -- of course rural counties will be against it. It doesn't mean that they have "enough information to make proper decision"
FWIW -- my grandfather-in-law is a county commissioner in one of Utah's rural counties. He's an educated man, and a very smart man. I hold a lot of respect for him. I know first hand that some of the decisions they make have nothing to do with "information to make the proper decisions". Many times it has more to do with "let's stick it to those bastards along the Wasatch Front".
With rural Utah, it's not just the "tree huggers" that they are against -- its also you sorry saps along the Wasatch Front...
[signature]
Local leaders, those who are closer to the areas in question and actually have enough information to make proper decisions on a case-by-case basis should be the ones, if any, making such laws. [/reply]
There are times that I agree with this, and other times I don't. Unfortunately, just because you are a local "leader" doesn't mean you have the correct information.
Ayone from Wayne County here? How would you like to have free access to the Red River Ranch section of the Fremont River? Wouldn't that be nice? Thanks to local county commissioners, you don't. A number of years ago a private land owner approached the DWR with a land sale. The DWR was interested in purchasing that stretch of river. They would have done some restoration work, and opened the land up for public use forever. They also offered to pay the county fees in lieu of taxes, to keep the county from losing any potential tax revenue. Unfortunately, the commissioners stepped in and didn't allow the sale. Now, the land has been further privatized, and public access will never be allowed.
Some of these rural counties have more land owned by the state and federal governments than by county and private individuals. They feel very threatened by any potential to lose more land (Garfield County is a good example with the Grand Staircase -- now, any time a potential sale comes up (Sevier River...) they are completely against selling it to the government).
So when a group comes in wanting further protection to, with potential impacts to water rights and land use -- of course rural counties will be against it. It doesn't mean that they have "enough information to make proper decision"
FWIW -- my grandfather-in-law is a county commissioner in one of Utah's rural counties. He's an educated man, and a very smart man. I hold a lot of respect for him. I know first hand that some of the decisions they make have nothing to do with "information to make the proper decisions". Many times it has more to do with "let's stick it to those bastards along the Wasatch Front".
With rural Utah, it's not just the "tree huggers" that they are against -- its also you sorry saps along the Wasatch Front...
[signature]
03-24-2008, 03:37 PM
I've been fortunate enough to get permission to hunt ducks along that stretch of the Fremont, I'd love to be able to wet a line for some of the monster browns I've seen while hunting. Not gonna happen though, in this case, the public officials dropped the ball.
[signature]
[signature]
03-25-2008, 02:37 AM
I think we should preserve Utahs "Rivers" I should say little tiny creeks that farmers seem to use for irrigation.
If we want to preserve Utahs rivers the farmers would have to give up some water.
Here in Utah the kind of grass grown is Kentucky Bluegrass; and its a water hoggin' kinda grass!
Utah is the 2nd driest state in the nation we should not even have grass on our lawns. None, 'nuff said.
Lets keep our rivers here! Please!
[signature]
03-25-2008, 03:46 AM
You are absolutely right. By 2050 the population of Utah is expectedx to be over 5 million. This begs the questions of how our last pure and valuable places will hold up in the future. Real protection is the only preservation tool, the only one. If things remain as they are, in another 15-20 years, we will be dreaming of what we currently drift, fish, hunt, hike, and everything else outdoors. Not to mention how much more travelling we will have to do to get to the whatever remaining "untouched" places are.
[signature]
[signature]
03-26-2008, 01:42 AM
i personaly would like to see every friggin river in the state damend.makes for much better fisherys, besides you wadder freaks can fish wher the water comes in and out to the next resivor or save up for a boat.
[signature]
[signature]
03-26-2008, 01:58 AM
You know dang well this will probably never happen, and there is not enough water in most of the rivers to make it worth the money and effort to dam them up. In addition, the way our average snowpack is below normal most years, one day most of these rivesrs will be reduced to "creeks" during the summer in another 30-50 years. I would hate for that to happen, but I am powerless to change it.
[signature]
[signature]
03-26-2008, 02:09 AM
theres a beauty of a canyon up by honeyville just waiting for some dozers and concrete. oh but aite we need that water in the great suck lake. go take a look at the jordan just flowing out into that masterpice. if they had any brains they would build the peoplein salt lake a willard bay, ever wonder where alll the snow from alta , snowbird. end up right in the salty sea. why not dam it like willard then dump some? you need to wake up there river dude. ask yerself where all the water off the wasatch front ends up.it sure aint in our uppper dams that you are so against.
[signature]
[signature]
03-26-2008, 03:26 AM
A big part of the Wasatch Mountains water goes to provide water for the citizens like us. If we were to dam up the remains, in a few years, the GSL would start to decrease dramatically. What would happen to Willard Bay and the wetlands along the GSL then? Just look at what happens in late July and August to the Bear River. It is reduced to a trickle in dry years. And yet, there are still plans to build another three dams on it. Two in Idaho and 1 in Utah if a recall correctly. They had an exibit at the Utah Museum of Natural Hisotory about it in December of last year. The dams would also ruin the natural cutthroat fisheries in the rivers too. They would not spawn and would soon disappear and probably be replaced by rainbows or browns. All that is worth daming is damed up already. If you do not beleive me go check out the Burreau of Reclamation site and see that they are currently not building more than five major dams.
[signature]
[signature]
03-26-2008, 03:29 AM
yahoo........
[signature]
[signature]
03-27-2008, 12:00 AM
[font "Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"][black][size 1][font "Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"][black][size 1]Here in Utah the kind of grass grown is Kentucky Bluegrass; and its a water hoggin' kinda grass!
Utah is the 2nd driest state in the nation we should not even have grass on our lawns. None, 'nuff said.
Lets keep our rivers here! Please!
--------------------------------------------------------------
I've been planning my flower garden, and researching native and/or drought tolerant/resistant plants. Partly because yes, we are in a desert... also, I tried to grow a mint garden last year, and always forgot to go water them LOL If I got "dry" flowers, it'll be much easier to take care of!
[/size][/black][/font][/size][/black][/font]
[signature]
Utah is the 2nd driest state in the nation we should not even have grass on our lawns. None, 'nuff said.
Lets keep our rivers here! Please!
--------------------------------------------------------------
I've been planning my flower garden, and researching native and/or drought tolerant/resistant plants. Partly because yes, we are in a desert... also, I tried to grow a mint garden last year, and always forgot to go water them LOL If I got "dry" flowers, it'll be much easier to take care of!
[/size][/black][/font][/size][/black][/font]
[signature]