recreation vs. extraction
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:42 pm
There's a good article in the Salt Lake City Weekly.
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/ ... -02-05.cfm
It is specifically about the protest that Peter Metcalf of Black Diamond started over the backroom dealt between the state of Utah and the Federal government that would have stripped wilderness protection from about 6 MILLION acres of land. He set up a protest that said, if the government goes ahead with the deal, then the multi-million dollar, twice-a-year Outdoor Retailer trade show would leave Salt Lake City. That economic leverage opened the door to productive negotiations.
One way of looking at the issue is: does the long term benefit of protecting wilderness that drives outdoor recreation outweigh the short term benefits of mineral/oil extraction?
In the article, they make the excellent point that you can't 'offshore' wilderness. From the article: "Nobody in Bangladesh is going to make a cheaper Canyonlands, nobody in China is going to rip off Castleton Tower."
What does this matter to us? Well, in twenty years, all the oil will be out of the ground in the southern region, Chamagne will be out of business and the employees will be out of their jobs, but climbers will probably still be coming to the Red and spending money. Oil is a dying business, but climbing (and outdoor recreation) is a growth industry.
I know that there is a lot of pessimism about the attitudes of local government (and even local law enforcement) that they favor the oil company over climbers because of jobs and money. Isn't there a chance that those attitudes could change?
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/ ... -02-05.cfm
It is specifically about the protest that Peter Metcalf of Black Diamond started over the backroom dealt between the state of Utah and the Federal government that would have stripped wilderness protection from about 6 MILLION acres of land. He set up a protest that said, if the government goes ahead with the deal, then the multi-million dollar, twice-a-year Outdoor Retailer trade show would leave Salt Lake City. That economic leverage opened the door to productive negotiations.
One way of looking at the issue is: does the long term benefit of protecting wilderness that drives outdoor recreation outweigh the short term benefits of mineral/oil extraction?
In the article, they make the excellent point that you can't 'offshore' wilderness. From the article: "Nobody in Bangladesh is going to make a cheaper Canyonlands, nobody in China is going to rip off Castleton Tower."
What does this matter to us? Well, in twenty years, all the oil will be out of the ground in the southern region, Chamagne will be out of business and the employees will be out of their jobs, but climbers will probably still be coming to the Red and spending money. Oil is a dying business, but climbing (and outdoor recreation) is a growth industry.
I know that there is a lot of pessimism about the attitudes of local government (and even local law enforcement) that they favor the oil company over climbers because of jobs and money. Isn't there a chance that those attitudes could change?