Off topic, but relevant to the quoted post:
That bill, before the US congress, like every other wilderness bill Utah has
written and attempted to pass, was an odd compromise. In it the Federal
government designated federal land as Wilderness without designating
encompassed State lands also as wilderness (to maintain state sovereignty),
leading to Wilderness Designation by Section ("This square mile will be
wilderness, this one won't"). It had so many grandfathered exceptions that
it's hard to see how the land use might change. For example, cattle grazing
rights continue, lakes and streams continue to be stocked and maintained,
the provision that no roads be included in the wilderness lead to high
fragmentation, and it was even permissible to build a road in the Wilderness
as long as it was made to access non-federal lands. The Bill also
established Wilderness by designation, not adhering to the definitions of
the Wilderness Act (as amended). Some of the areas designated in the Bill
(the San Rafael Swell in particular) had old mines and other man-made
structures in them, giving access-rights lobby a winnable challenge.
Small wonder it failed, really. Didn't even come up for a vote in the House,
was defeated by a democratic filibuster in the Senate (they wanted fewer
grandfathered rights). Great testimony, though.
Back to being on-topic:
In reference to the You Tube video referred to earlier in this thread, I
don't think we do that in Utah--we're just too practical.
Bruce Wilson KF7K