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
Or "best run," "conservative," "Republican" Utah.
As you said, Dr. Runte, labels don't mean much.
Crooks are crooks no matter what.
Maybe we need to elect all our lawmakers from the ranks of those earning less than $75,000 per year.
That would certainly include me!
Mr Runte, you sound a reasonable man. Mayhaps you would take a look at this link and see what you think about the historicity (if not the validitiy) of the Transfer of Public Lands.
Why the difference?
http://americanlandscouncil.or/..
Also, a reasonable look at the information that has come out since the release of the article in the National Parks Traveler might give some pause for thought. (The following can be verified at Haynes for Governor FB page.) I was not aware of the comment period on the infrastructure plans at the park, were you?
Haynes Plans for Yellowstone
As Governor of Wyoming, I have no plans for traditional drilling for
oil and gas development, or any other activity within the Park beyond
its present uses. My comments about Yellowstone have been twisted and made to imply otherwise.
I have worked to draw attention to the Park due to the current plans of
the National Park Service to upgrade the electrical and information
technology services there, which includes the installation of equipment
buildings, back-up power generators, propane fuel tanks, metal lattice
towers, and more.
The fact that less intrusive geothermal
driven units were not considered for this upgrade, is in my view a gross
oversight because of the need to preserve and jealously guard the
pristine nature of the park. This could be accomplished by the use of
multiple small geothermal power units. There are ZERO emissions from
these units. The hot water required to drive these systems is already
available at the surface in the park, thus minimal disturbance to
install the necessary tubing. They can both heat and power all
facilities in the park.
We should strive to preserve the park and operate it in a much more dependable and natural state than the present practice.
Since the 1930s, geothermal energy has grown to heat 90% of the homes
in Iceland and produce 30% of the countries electric energy. This
inventive and eco-friendly energy system has been overlooked by the NPS
in its plans for Yellowstone, and we should ask why.
My intent
in attracting attention to activities in Yellowstone is to raise public
awareness and have people participate in more significant numbers than
the eleven (11) who commented during the thirty-day public comment
period that was allowed prior to approving this monumental project.
As your Governor, I will insist on the best technology for operating and maintaining this unrivaled treasure. (end of Dr Haynes proposal)
Your thoughts?
Susan
Bitter experience has shown time and again that trying to tap into or alter Yellowstone's thermal features can, and usually do, produce some very adverse consequences.
We have already messed the park up. With so little real understanding of the dynamics and geologic structure of underground thermal structures, why take a chance on doing anything more that might destroy them.
Your nom de plume is Keep Yellowstone Pristine. Let's do that and not start fooling around with things we don't fully understand.
So Susan, notice that Lee totally ignores the whole point, i.e. Haynes doesn't have any intention of drilling for oil and gas in Yellowstone. Then he goes on to suggest that " the installation of equipment buildings, back-up power generators, propane fuel tanks, metal lattice towers, and more" is more "pristine" than a geothermal facility.
This is what you get when someone's guiding principle is attaching conservatives regardless of the merit of their idea.
EC, I think you misread Lee's comment. He's not endorsing above ground infrastructure in lieu of geothermal. He's simply focused on opposing Haynes' geothermal idea.
And, frankly, without more details, that idea seems just as disruptive as the infrastructure he opposes. After all, some sort of pumping system -- with its requisite power system and piping -- would have to be constructed. To "heat and power all facilities" in Yellowstone would not be simply done.
Also, as a post-script, Haynes on his website says he opposes "traditional drilling for oil and gas development.." not outright opposition. (emphasis added)
http://www.haynesforgovernor.com/news/dr_haynes_plans_for_yellowstone
I think the easier solution in yellowstone is to quit kowtowing to the urbanites that can't stay in a place that doesn't have heated cabins, cell phone towers, and breakfast cafes. This is another reason why the wilderness act is important in national parks. Yellowstone is "managed as wilderness" but not quite protected as wilderness via the wilderness act. I just read the latest scoop on what is happening in Yosemite, and that just makes me shake my head too. So, of course, you see all this sort of development going on there (cell phone towers, new posh cabins with amentities like showers and bathrooms, etc). If people want those things, they should stay outside of the park boundaries to have them. They haven't built a road into the bechler and thorofare YET - but give it time, and i'm sure that will be a battle to fight in the coming decades.