Rob Bishop

There is a difference in the process in which we are going with this.

Earlier this year, HR146, the Omnibus Public lands package which was signed into law by President Obama, proved to be a much better way to protect our public lands including wilderness values.

I appreciate that, and I also want to tell you, and I think I mentioned this briefly as we talked down there, just to reemphasize how much I appreciate the BLM personnel, the professional staff on the ground in Utah.

The idea that SUWA and its lackey, Mr. Hinchey, represents the voice of rural Utah is like saying King George III represented the American colonists on issues of taxation--it just isn't so!

However, the proposed Red Rock Wilderness bill targeting Utah devastates our local economies even more so during the economic recession.

This is not what we elected President Obama to do. Things in Washington, D.C., are seriously off track.

The idea that SUWA, and its lackey Mr. Hinchey, represents the voice of rural Utah is like saying King George III represented the American colonies on issues of taxation.

An overwhelming majority of Utahans, and Americans for that matter, have rejected the Federal one size fits all approach to wilderness in Utah.

If the end goal is to further inflate the acreage in this bill thus allowing the organizations to exist in perpetuity, then it is going to be a long, rocky road.

We have listened to all interested parties and especially to those stakeholders with the most at stake, as we should, and by collaboration and inclusion, we have had success.

In fact, all of that money and all of that effort has produced exactly zero acres of new wilderness in Utah.

The special interest groups who are behind this bill have raised tens of millions of dollars over the years with the promise to their donors that the money would be spent to protect important tracts of beautiful red rock in Utah.

This proposal turns that principle on its head.

It is wrong that this legislation turns a completely deaf ear to these most significant stakeholders.

I would be surprised if there were many Members of Congress who would not take at least some offense at a proposal to set aside a sixth of their state or district without their consultation or input.

Successful and responsible conservation should and will be achieved when Americans who have the most at stake are listened to and respected and not treated as a nuisance and deemed irrelevant.

We can and should protect America's great natural spaces, yet it should not be done in a dictatorial manner that freezes out and refuses to even consider the views of local citizens and local leaders that would be directly affected.

Clearly, such legislation is being pushed by interests that are out of touch and do not represent the views of those American citizens that would be directly affected by this legislation.

I am deeply troubled by legislation whose sponsors live far from the communities and districts whose legislation they are targeting.

This particular bill is a relic from the past. It has not been successful since the Age of Disco and will not be successful now or in the future.

Our goal should be to empower people, not make mandatory solutions.

What we need to do is go forward with the process that almost every editorial in the State of Utah says: Try to come to local consensus with people coming together where the government agrees with individuals, not having something coming…

This bill, produced without a map so we know exactly where they want to do, has had some research done.

There are four concerns that I have with this piece of legislation.

The economic gains from wilderness recreation appear to be inconsequential and may likely be more than offset by losses associated with the decline in activities incompatible with wilderness.