San Rafael Reef UT I-70 (1798)

This is one of the most stunning sights I've seen anywhere along the interstate highway system. I really can't think of any other spot that looks nearly as dramatic.

And its construction was _highly_ controversial. The Sierra Club fought tooth and nail to keep the interstate from crossing the San Rafael swell--one of their actions that did _not_ endear them to the locals!

From what I can tell much of the population of Utah, particularly rural, hasn't changed and still thinks preservation is an evil out to deny them their "proper" riches.

Well, if you're used to thinking of it as your back yard and suddenly all these outsiders come in telling you what to do-- It's a common phenomenon all over the West, and the psychology seems pretty straightforward. Have you read William Kittredge's stuff? He's an English (I think) prof at Missoula (I think) who grew up on a ranch by the south Warners, in SE Oregon, and he is good at presenting the rural West's point of view--altho, btw, he doesn't have much sympathy with it at this point.

Though it wasn't as specific as in the West, due to the large amount of uninhabitable swamp and scrub in the Florida of my childhood, there was lots of open space and nobody knew who owned it (I guess the state). People felt that you could do what you want with it (I had a brother who built moonshine stills).

It seems that the anger (both in the West and elsewhere) isn't over land that is converted into some commercial use, but over land that is preserved or protected for an environmental use. When I was a teen there was anger over the setting aside of large tracts of land for Ft. Caroline and Kingsley Plantation National Monument. And it my memory is correct, limits on land use around efforts to control damage around Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades generated lots of anger. Similarly, I just read yesterday that residents of upstate NY are angry over state government intervention that is limiting petroleum exploration in their areas. But, it seems that nobody gets upset when the land is converted to sprawling suburbs (in Florida, or in Southwest Utah).

Despite how much our culture pushes "think of the children," if something will generate $$ now, we're willing to leave our 'children' with a f**ked up environment and no history!

That's probably part of it. But if you and your ancestors been grazing your cattle or sheep for decades on what were technically public lands, but felt like "yours" (and in part was regarded so for tax purposes), and then suddenly the rules all change and you can't carry on as you have been--well, it's not surprising there's resentment! And, of course, there's often an economic hit to boot. Kittredge comments ironically that Western ranchers are finding themselves in the position of the Native Americans--their lifestyle is archaic, they're being displaced with no or inadequate compensation--and nobody cares.

The other big issue is the loss of access as land is "locked up," and that's not necessarily just due to government action. There is lots of resentment in places like Montana where (largely) California money has come in, bought up big ranches, and them shut them off completely. Yes, it was technically "private" before, but the local culture did not fence things off with the equivalent of the Berlin wall and deny all access even with permission! In Nevada, there's still a lot of resentment out in the cow counties about wilderness and roadless areas, where access paths open since there have been cars have been shut off to vehicle travel. (I, personally, think there's some middle ground between allowing the ATVs to run everywhere and completely shutting off wheeled travel--including bicycles--but that's evidently a minority view. Yeah, even though bicycles are non-motorized, you can't use one in a wilderness area! A bit silly, IMHO.)

Much of my photography is about honoring and acknowledging the past, and hoping that it will even encourage learning from the past. I'm not one, though, that believes that we should entirely preserve the past -- nor entirely overwrite it. We are not a culture known for trying to find a balance, though admittedly I don't know how good other cultures are at finding a balance. We do know, just from following the photos of others on Ipernity, that there is quite a bit of frustration with the consequences of urban sprawl across much of Europe and in the Far East.

The actions of wealthy Californians waltzing into the wilderness (including desert) and gating it for themselves are broadly anger inducing, including to many less wealthy Californians. Boston/coastal Maine, NYC/south Florida, London/Cornwall coast, seem to be variations on the same phenomenon.

As long as I'm beating a dead horse ;): One of the attractions of "commercial" use of local lands is the prospect of high-paying jobs for the locals, and therefore a certain amount of economic security. Withdrawing lands for "preservation" is commonly perceived as merely creating large public parks for those who have the resources to travel to them, with the locals relegated to the status of a service class catering to the whims of these travelers. I'm not saying this perception is correct--but I am saying it's a widespread perception!

Aren't we all service class in this economy :)