Concocted rhetoric...
Aug 08, 2013 | 1734 views | 0 0 comments | 9 9 recommendations | email to a friend | print
It was with great concern that I read in the T-I two related items concerning a visit from two Congressional delegates and the status of the public lands contained within the area.

Why concern? Because of the intentionally misleading numbers supplied by Rep. Bishop and the over-the-top propaganda supplied by the Sagebrush Coalition.

First: Bishop failed to include USDA/USFS oil and gas production in his numbers. He also failed to mention that oil and gas is produced on private land, state School and Institutional Trust Lands land, Native American Reservations, and yes, even land administered by the National Park Service in Utah. In fact, the Bureau of Land Management land that he mentions doesn’t even produce half the oil and gas in our state--which significantly repudiates his duplicitous conclusion.

Now for the sagebrush people: Their ad appears to be a monument to irony and/or hypocrisy. Closing with an admonition against engaging “groups that promote and serve an ideology fueled by fear” while at the same time crying about actions that will somehow cause “economic suffering” that’s “irrevocably detrimental,” they counsel against “conflict instead of solutions” (like their boycott proposal?), against “emotion instead of science” (and yet there is no scientific support offered anywhere in their ad) all while decrying “losing more State land” (as if a trade for more valuable land is “losing”). They denigrate “compromise” – apparently their own “solution” to our public land management issues should exclusively be rammed down our throats.

The sagebrush folks also warn “every few years the BLM creates more WSAs and the like,” despite the fact that the BLM hasn’t been allowed to do so since the Leavitt/Norton compact of 2003. The ad makes me think that the Sagebrush Coalition is the group that ought not to take part in the discussion for the very reasons they list.

Rob Bishop starts off with deceitful numbers, the Sagebrush Coalition offers nothing but similarly concocted rhetoric and hyperbole – and this is to be the “better framework” for addressing such an important issue?

We do indeed need to have an honest and rational conversation about our public lands. These folks have clearly shown that they have no intention of doing so – and we should be questioning why.

Fact, science and history all support protecting our land – for environmental, economic, and quality-of-life reasons – and we should all be working to do just that.

—Mike Coronella


Copyright 2013 The Times-Independent. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

report abuse...

Express yourself:

We're glad to give readers a forum to express their points of view on issues important to this community. That forum is the “Letters to the Editor.” Letters to the editor may be submitted directly to The Times-Independent through this link and will be published in the print edition of the newspaper. All letters must be the original work of the letter writer – form letters will not be accepted. All letters must include the actual first and last name of the letter writer, the writer’s address, city and state and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted.

Letters may not exceed 400 words in length, must be regarding issues of general interest to the community, and may not include personal attacks, offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or attacks on personal or religious beliefs. Letters should focus on a single issue. Letters that proselytize or focus on theological debates will not be published. During political campaigns, The Times-Independent will not publish letters supporting or opposing any local candidate. Thank you letters are generally not accepted for publication unless the letter has a public purpose. Thank you letters dealing with private matters that compliment or complain about a business or individual will not be published. Nor will letters listing the names of individuals and/or businesses that supported a cause or event. Thank you letters about good Samaritan acts will be considered at the discretion of the newspaper.