# More blaming the Feds from rural Utah



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/86...s-worry-schools-will-close-due-to-6326271.php

I feel bad for the area and yet I feel this is just more PR for the land exchange and pressuring the opinion of the transfer. The problem does not lie within the monument that was created, the problem lies within the fact that our world and generations are different now. Most youth don't care to stay in rural areas anymore and want to go to bigger places. The fact Panguich school has lost enrollment has a lot of aspects to it and blaming more federal overreach is not the real issue IMO here. I would be okay to see logging in the area to keep forests in better condition, but I also think that it's a changing world and you have to somewhat change with it rather than try to go against the grain or continue to rely on only boom and bust industries.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Perhaps the biggest shift is that in all resource industries - logging, farming, ranching, and mining - are now working in a global marketplace. And the efficiency of location for the best possible places to grow/cut/extract comes into much stronger play. Garfield County timber operations must compete with Russian, Canadian, and Alaskan operations, not to mention South American. Same with cattle. Heck, no place in Utah can even begin to compete with grazing lands in Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas, let alone internationally. And digging up substandard coal that is so deep that even in the best of conditions wouldn't be economically feasible - especially in a global energy situation that is pushing away from coal just doesn't make sense. But to those that seldom cross the Payson-Dixon line, let alone the state boundaries, it is not comprehendable. 

I love the many small towns like Panguitch. I grew up in an Idaho version of Panguitch. These are amazing places. But if they want to survive, they are going to have to re-define themselves away from what Grandpa did. Because what Grandpa did isn't going to cut it in a global economy. And that doesn't mean that Grandpa isn't awesome or a hard worker or one of the best men you'll ever meet. Just means that if we don't adapt, then someone will have to turn off the lights after Grandpa dies.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> Perhaps the biggest shift is that in all resource industries - logging, farming, ranching, and mining - are now working in a global marketplace. And the efficiency of location for the best possible places to grow/cut/extract comes into much stronger play. Garfield County timber operations must compete with Russian, Canadian, and Alaskan operations, not to mention South American. Same with cattle. Heck, no place in Utah can even begin to compete with grazing lands in Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas, let alone internationally. And digging up substandard coal that is so deep that even in the best of conditions wouldn't be economically feasible - especially in a global energy situation that is pushing away from coal just doesn't make sense. But to those that seldom cross the Payson-Dixon line, let alone the state boundaries, it is not comprehendable.
> 
> I love the many small towns like Panguitch. I grew up in an Idaho version of Panguitch. These are amazing places. But if they want to survive, they are going to have to re-define themselves away from what Grandpa did. Because what Grandpa did isn't going to cut it in a global economy. And that doesn't mean that Grandpa isn't awesome or a hard worker or one of the best men you'll ever meet. Just means that if we don't adapt, then someone will have to turn off the lights after Grandpa dies.


Wow... that pretty much sums it up. Those areas have a tough row to hoe. It's going to take some brilliant, and creative, people to keep those areas alive.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Here's the latest on this issue

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=35194908&ni...ter-declining-school-enrollment&s_cid=queue-3

Great, so we get to waste more taxpayer money on a useless study we already know the answer to again by the same idiotic Utah crooks in office. Your county population isn't going down because of federal lands that have always exhausted in the county, they've gone down because very few want to live there. It's not a complicated answer, lets start facing truths instead of always blamin a fake boogie man.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Having grown up just outside of Yellowstone I would bet money that Cody would be a bigger town if Yellowstone were open to mining, logging and other means to make money. It does very well during tourist season but that affects far fewer people than most realize. Either way it is what it is and I have never heard complaints from the locals up there complaining about Yellowstone being protected land.

Money is the ONLY issue with any complaints with regards to Garfield County and the townships. Fact is though the money that *might* have been lost there has moved somewhere else.

I would love to live in Garfield County if I could make a living there. That doesn't mean that I would like to see Bryce Canyon turn into a sand and gravel pit though either.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Having grown up just outside of Yellowstone I would bet money that Cody would be a bigger town if Yellowstone were open to mining, logging and other means to make money. It does very well during tourist season but that affects far fewer people than most realize. Either way it is what it is and I have never heard complaints from the locals up there complaining about Yellowstone being protected land.
> 
> Money is the ONLY issue with any complaints with regards to Garfield County and the townships. Fact is though the money that *might* have been lost there has moved somewhere else.
> 
> I would love to live in Garfield County if I could make a living there. That doesn't mean that I would like to see Bryce Canyon turn into a sand and gravel pit though either.


It's definetly a tough issue, but these lands have always been federal lands, although they have had some strickter regulations put on them. I believe they are having enrollment problems, but it also seems to me another attack on the Grand Staircase monument. Is it coicidence that it's the same monument the state wants back in their land transfer that is being talked about here? Is it coicidence that the one monument they want turned back over has coal under it? No. The coal under that monument is exactly what they want, and I would hate to see the landscape down their shredded over an industry going out of style. Looking from the outside it's actually nice that much of the area is protected, and it would be nice to see it stay that way. Bottom line is yes, they could have a better economy if they could tear into the natural resources of the area, but they have many problems they face in our world today not just that.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The monument proclimation allowed for extraction of the coal. The monument isn't the problem there. The problem is one of supply and demand, and expenses required to get to the coal. There are dozens of coal mines in full operation, that are already in full production, and already have rail lines and highways serving them. In other words, places that don't have to spend any more money getting to the coal, or getting the coal to market. And many producing coal operations are cutting back production because places like the City of Salt Lake are converting their coal fired power plants to run on natural gas because it is so much cleaner and cheaper when you can get the fuel delivered in a pipeline instead of by railroads and trucks. Demand for coal is dropping, and will continue to drop. And when that is the case, costs required for extracting from a not yet developed site like the Kaiparowitz are what will prohibit going after it.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> The monument proclimation allowed for extraction of the coal. The monument isn't the problem there. The problem is one of supply and demand, and expenses required to get to the coal. There are dozens of coal mines in full operation, that are already in full production, and already have rail lines and highways serving them. In other words, places that don't have to spend any more money getting to the coal, or getting the coal to market. And many producing coal operations are cutting back production because places like the City of Salt Lake are converting their coal fired power plants to run on natural gas because it is so much cleaner and cheaper when you can get the fuel delivered in a pipeline instead of by railroads and trucks. Demand for coal is dropping, and will continue to drop. And when that is the case, costs required for extracting from a not yet developed site like the Kaiparowitz are what will prohibit going after it.


I didn't know the coal was still available under the status of the monument. In that case I don't really see what their gripe is? Or what they expect? I don't think this called for a state of emergency call. This is a failure of local governments not federal governments that enrollment has dropped signifigantly.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

As a proud graduate of Escalante High School (Go Moquis!) it's really sad to see the community dwindle. I was in high school when the monument was created, I remember getting interviewed by channel 2 news in 1996 and they asked what we thought about it and what the future would hold for the area. We were skeptical but had some optimism with tourist dollars coming in but as we can see that didn't really pan out. I left the area a couple days out of high school and my parents a few years after that. 

The saw mill was a large employer in town but I heard that shut down a few years ago. It was one of the main employers in the town and they were getting most of their timber from the forest service (boulder mtn) off of the monument from what I understand so can we really blame the monument? 

I think Garyfish hit the nail on the head. This is probably more of a macro economical thing then the feds coming in and shutting stuff down. I don't have the details or a perfect understanding of the situation but I am sure its multi faceted and more complicated than just hating on the feds.

I loved going to school in Escalante and I wouldn't trade those memories for anything but I wouldn't live there now being an adult, even with natural resources extraction going at full speed. It's a wonderful area and I hope it survives but this has more to do with market forces than politics in my opinion.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

There are thousands of boom and bust towns scattered across this great land. All of the bust towns had the same issue. Whatever was driving the jobs to keep people there dwindled and people moved on. It's really not rocket science but I guess to a politician doling out my hard earned tax dollars it is a mystery....and yes they are on both sides of the isle, (D) as well as (R) are guilty.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> There are thousands of boom and bust towns scattered across this great land. All of the bust towns had the same issue. Whatever was driving the jobs to keep people there dwindled and people moved on. It's really not rocket science but I guess to a politician doling out my hard earned tax dollars it is a mystery....and yes they are on both sides of the isle, (D) as well as (R) are guilty.


Part of the problem lies with those in charge, and the generational problems of staying stuck in the past, wandering through current days thinking that the past will somehow, someday return. There's plenty that towns like Kanab/Panguitch/etc. could survive off of. They are all too focused on the past to see the present or to even begin looking towards the future. I live in Sevier County and I can attest passing through the area several times a year local people in the area are not welcoming or friendly, I can't imagine what it's like to be a real outsider in their eyes. Kanab had opportunities for film making, but were too afraid of "those kind of people" ending up here. Too many people from these small towns cherish their small towns and are not welcoming to new ideas or new people. Utah plays some pretty terrible political gains and costs itself a lot because of it. Small towns in Utah also play the political game, and are stuck in the past which is even worse. The problem is they could move forward. There's renewable energy, they have great tourism , great natural resource aspects, and yet are stuck complaining about how they need to pound the landscape into dust to make a living. I don't know, they don't want to see outsiders come in, and yet expect growth and economic stability? You either have our small town box where the rest of the world doesn't enter, or you let them in and have a more successful economy, squandering in the past hasn't moved you forward, so try the other option. I live in an area similar, and elected officials in this area are still somewhat of the old mindset as well, but the area is doing okay. There's ways these small areas in Utah can improve, but the path they are taking here is not going to improve anything. It's just another push for the land exchange in my book, although it does bring up a problem in this state that we need to wake up to.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Perhaps the biggest shift is that in all resource industries - logging, farming, ranching, and mining - are now working in a global marketplace. And the efficiency of location for the best possible places to grow/cut/extract comes into much stronger play. Garfield County timber operations must compete with Russian, Canadian, and Alaskan operations, not to mention South American. Same with cattle. Heck, no place in Utah can even begin to compete with grazing lands in Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas, let alone internationally. And digging up substandard coal that is so deep that even in the best of conditions wouldn't be economically feasible - especially in a global energy situation that is pushing away from coal just doesn't make sense. But to those that seldom cross the Payson-Dixon line, let alone the state boundaries, it is not comprehendable.
> 
> I love the many small towns like Panguitch. I grew up in an Idaho version of Panguitch. These are amazing places. But if they want to survive, they are going to have to re-define themselves away from what Grandpa did. Because what Grandpa did isn't going to cut it in a global economy. And that doesn't mean that Grandpa isn't awesome or a hard worker or one of the best men you'll ever meet. Just means that if we don't adapt, then someone will have to turn off the lights after Grandpa dies.


Very well written and on point. And I agree that the solution is not easily obtained for these communities. As I travel around the state and remember how things were before I moved out of state for 15 years, I can't help but think that Moab has a winning formula of embracing a modern (read tourist) economy. They have grown into a vibrant, diverse community, have a "destination" reputation for visitors enjoying a variety of activities, and yet still have a bit of that small town feel. They also have 2 National Parks, some of the best mountain biking trails, and the Colorado river on their laps. I'm not sure very many locations can match Moab.

I also recognize that it isn't easy to pull of a successful transition. Last week, I took the family to Lehman caves (Great Basin NP). I hadn't been there since I was a teenager and my family never has. It really is an awesome place. Since it wasn't a National Park when I previously there, I was curious if the NP designation changed the nearby communities of Baker NV and Garrison UT. Surprising to me, both of these towns were still very podunk and the variety of services outside the park were quite small. For dinner Saturday, we ate an enjoyable dinner at the "Snake Valley festival". In our brief interaction, it was apparent that the residents out there are still struggling to maintain their way of life, and they are very worried about Las Vegas stealing all their water. They weren't rolling in prosperity from a National Park in their back yard.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Having grown up just outside of Yellowstone I would bet money that Cody would be a bigger town if Yellowstone were open to mining, logging and other means to make money. It does very well during tourist season but that affects far fewer people than most realize. Either way it is what it is and I have never heard complaints from the locals up there complaining about Yellowstone being protected land.
> 
> Money is the ONLY issue with any complaints with regards to Garfield County and the townships. Fact is though the money that *might* have been lost there has moved somewhere else.
> 
> I would love to live in Garfield County if I could make a living there. That doesn't mean that I would like to see Bryce Canyon turn into a sand and gravel pit though either.


Yep then Cody would be like those other glorious resource towns in Wyoming; Rock Springs, Casper, Evanston.

Best thing for southern Utah in the last 25 years was Grand Staircase. Hopefully Obama pulls the trigger on Greater Canyonlands.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

The Garfield County scenario is a societal issue that has faced many many places in the United States. From the steel mills of Pennsylvania to West Virginia mining to the family farm in Iowa, Panguitch in order to survive will need to reinvent itself. Some places have, others haven't. The problem with the Garfield County leaders is they are somewhat lazy and short sighted. It is much easier to blame 'the dems and the guvmint'.


----------

