Wyoming long has had an independent streak in its right-leaning politics, but a position on federal lands staked out by a Republican gubernatorial candidate still might cause some in the state to catch their breath: Taylor Haynes would open Yellowstone National Park to mining and grazing.
Mr. Haynes, whose diverse background includes degrees in urology and mechanical engineering and time spent ranching, said if elected one of his first tasks would be to send letters to the federal land-management agencies telling them to turn their lands over to the state and get their operations out of Wyoming.
“Then, in whichever county they attempt to have any official activity, they will be arrested for impersonating a law enforcement officer in Wyoming,” he told the Casper Star-Tribune last week.
The 68-year-old Republican bases his plan on the grounds that the U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to own just 10 miles of land, in Washington, D.C., for offices and operations, and that the state could do a much better job of managing the federal lands.
How successful would Mr. Haynes' proposal be in terms of the state's tourism industry? Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks likely would fare well for their iconic status. But other park units in the state? Do you remember Shoshone Cavern National Monument? The site outside Cody, Wyoming, was designated in 1909 by presidential proclamation, and given to Cody in 1954. Have you heard of it?
Before Mr. Haynes can put his plan to work, he has to win the GOP gubernatorial nomination next month (current Gov. Matt Mead, a Republican, is seeking re-election), and then the general election in November.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Kurt,
Now you try to twist "last on the list" to an intent? Lets be real. Everything is on the list. if circumstances called for it, Congress would open Yellowstone for mineral leasing. It might be last on their list but it would be on the list. Would it be fair for me to write an article that says "Congress could allow the draining of Yellowstone Lake and building a nuclear power plant there". The statement would be true, as they have the power to do so, but it would be totally misleading as they have no intent to do so. It would be the last thing on their list.
Eric, he did state that he wants to put the federal lands into the hands of the state! That would mean Yellowstone. That would entail the Absarokas, the Gros Ventre, the Washakie, the Wind Rivers, etc. All places that the federal government has done a fairly good job in preserving in my opinion. I've seen many sagebrushers over the years want to see Lamar Valley turned into another cattle pit. They've also wanted to see the park manage the wildlife to become basically a game farm for hunting elk so that the cattle ranchers that run outfitting businesses can make more of a profit.
I think any of us that has lived in both the east and west, can attribute that turning the public lands of the west over to state hands would be a bad move. It would lead quickly to privitization of a vast amount of that terrain, and then those lands would be carved over and developed like the vast marjority of the eastern US. If anything, the call should be to create more public lands in the East. I've lived around some Sagebrushers, and a majority of them have never lived anywhere else then the same spot they grew up. They haven't a clue what it would be like living in a sea of privatized land. IF they want that, they should spend a few years living in the Eastern US, or Europe for that matter, and then deciding if their philosophical views are what they want.
Relax, boys and girls. There is nothing in Yellowstone worth mining. It's all volcanic rock. The timber burned out 20 years ago. As for grazing, sure, a few cows could live there, but again, most of Yellowstone is "worthless" land. This is hype straight out of the 1940s when Congressman Frank Barrett got a bill through Congress to abolish Jackson Hole National Monument. FDR didn't sign it, so it died. The fact of the matter remains that neither Yellowstone nor Jackson Hole were ever prime commercial lands. Haynes has his nose out of joint because he lives in Wyoming and really believes there is "something there." Gold! Silver! Copper! Well, if that had been true, there would no Yellowstone Park. Last I heard, the caldera is more than 40 miles across and bubbling up through the roads. Boom! Good-bye Wyoming. Seriously, where do we find these idiots, and why do we even give them the time of day?
Dr. Runte, there is hydrothermal energy available to be exploited. That has been proposed a few times by some of these folks.
And ec, for goodness sakes even if God Herself brought it to you carved on stone tablets, you'd still try to troll her wouldn't you?
But hey, keep it up. You can be very entertaining sometimes.
Apologists net out to be supporters, no matter how they try to twist the words.
This guy Haynes is a mouthbreather just showing how desperate he is in his election effort. Congrats to him for being silly enough to get his 15 minutes of fame.
http://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/establishment-grand-teton-nationa...
The Real Wyoming State Government: Lest We Forget !
Ranchers Hated the idea of a Grand Teton National Monument
A national monument, armed ranchers and a movie actor
In 1942, Rockefeller advised U. S. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes that he was unwilling to hold the land much longer. Since there appeared little possibility of getting a bill through Congress, in 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order, which created Jackson Hole National Monument and contained the Rockefeller lands. This was, perhaps, the single most controversial action in the history of the park.
Wyoming Gov. Lester Hunt threatened to remove "any federal official who attempts to assume authority in the monument area," although he never did. Cowboy actor Wallace Beery joined a group of armed ranchers, including future Wyoming Gov. and U.S. Sen. Cliff Hansen, who protested by trailing their cattle without a permit across the grounds of the monument. The Park Service ignored the trespass.
National media picked up the story, Time Magazine reported the ride, and the nationally syndicated conservative newspaper columnist Westbrook Pegler compared Roosevelt's action to Hitler’s annexation of Austria. The reaction of many local residents was expressed in a quote reported years later by Murie in his Wapiti Wilderness: "We gave them the Tetons! What more do they want?"
Congress quickly passed a bill abolishing Jackson Hole National Monument. Roosevelt vetoed it, and three more congressional attempts to abolish the monument never made it out of committee. The state of Wyoming filed suit against the monument superintendent (State of Wyoming v. Franke) to prove that Jackson Hole could not legally be preserved as a national monument because the region was of no particular scientific or historic interest. Evidence to the contrary presented at the trial was convincing, however; and the case was dismissed on a technicality.
No disagreement there
Maybe but not necessarily. Other calls for the transfer of federal lands have been more narrowly focused. It would be interesting to here from him exactly what he does and does not want included. But then, since it isn't even a campaign issue on his website, I'm guessing it is far from a priority.
Well I have live in both the east and west and I don't think it is necessarily a bad move.
People make them up to have a strawman to attack.