02-09-2017, 08:41 AM
Part of my point in bringing this up is to show Bishop and Chaffetz hypocrisy. Every time there is a few thousand dollars worth of oil, gas, or coal somewhere, they're both crying. If there was 50 million or more dollars of oil, gas, or coal somewhere they'd cry so much that they could fill up Utah Lake this year. Beyond the economic losses described in this article, there's evidence that public lands benefit surrounding area economies. Our State government didn't open some of our most popular public lands back in 2012 when the federal government shut down because of their "good hearts". They did it because the surrounding areas literally weren't making any money. I'm tired of people like Chaffetz, Herbert, Bishop,etc. trying to tell me all of these "economic arguments" and then ignoring the economic arguments like these and countless others that I could present you all.
Part of the point of posting this article was about looking at the bigger picture. A couple of you have brought up stuff like well that's not much money per person or that you don't care because you don't buy stuff from Patagonia. Those are irrelevant and insignificant points. First off, no the money isn't evenly distributed on a per person basis based on population. Secondly, you could make that per person based on population argument with literally any economic situation; it's frankly stupid. Third, this isn't about if you personally buy Patagonia gear or not...I don't. This is about overall state benefits(in this case loss state economic benefits) and even how the world views Utah. Less people are going to go on vacations/etc. in Utah when they know Utah's Leadership stance on public lands or hear about how lots of our public lands either get sold off or degraded if Chaffetz and Bishop get their way. Fourth, this is also about hypocrisy like I talked about before. I don't want to hear Chaffetz and Bishop "economic reasons" we should do this and that when they ignore the actually more and stronger economic evidence that I can provide them. I challenge some one you who use economic reasons to defend your oppositions for the way public lands are currently managed to quit dismissing or treating economic evidence contrary to what you want to believe as garbage.
[signature]
Part of the point of posting this article was about looking at the bigger picture. A couple of you have brought up stuff like well that's not much money per person or that you don't care because you don't buy stuff from Patagonia. Those are irrelevant and insignificant points. First off, no the money isn't evenly distributed on a per person basis based on population. Secondly, you could make that per person based on population argument with literally any economic situation; it's frankly stupid. Third, this isn't about if you personally buy Patagonia gear or not...I don't. This is about overall state benefits(in this case loss state economic benefits) and even how the world views Utah. Less people are going to go on vacations/etc. in Utah when they know Utah's Leadership stance on public lands or hear about how lots of our public lands either get sold off or degraded if Chaffetz and Bishop get their way. Fourth, this is also about hypocrisy like I talked about before. I don't want to hear Chaffetz and Bishop "economic reasons" we should do this and that when they ignore the actually more and stronger economic evidence that I can provide them. I challenge some one you who use economic reasons to defend your oppositions for the way public lands are currently managed to quit dismissing or treating economic evidence contrary to what you want to believe as garbage.
[signature]