Having just spent some time in Utah - driving through some of the most spectacular (and at the same time desolate) scenery this country has too offer, a few points stick in my mind. Some are relevant to "politics" and may explain some of the Red/Blue divisions seen in Western states.
I don't offer these comments in the sense of being an "expert" in any sense but only as my own observations.
Environmentalism is "good" in most ways but it doesn't feed you. Some view this as a black/white issue. It's not.
Personally, I'm appalled at the huge hole at the edge of Butte Montana. But the jobs lost when the mining there shut down were not readily replaced. The same can be said when the gold mine in Lead SD shut down. Looking at the gray stains of tailings down the side of a canyon (from long abandoned mines) mars a trip on the Yellowstone River and points out the waste and inefficiency of small scale mining but most are horrified at large scale operations.
You need copper and other metals - how do you get them? Do you mine them here or get them from overseas operations where pollution laws are non-existant and wages low?
Logging is a real issue to conservationists. But seeing forests of ponderosa left standing to rot after a major fire makes me thing maybe we should harvest the wood - and put some people back to work in sawmills left unused. Again, there are right ways and wrong ways. But a blanket ban on ANY logging in huge areas seems shortsighted.
It's clear that the Federal Government has never gotten real value from mineral, logging or grazing rights. Far too much money has been wasted on unneeded water projects. So- should MORE money go to the government for such permits - and spend its money in these places more intelligently......
Which brings up another issue - there's simply NOT enough water in some places to support agriculture much less cities - DESPITE BILLIONS spent on dams and water projects. Some places are NOT viable for growing ANYTHING of value. We pay farmers in Ohio NOT to grow crops and spend MILLIONS to grow cattle feed in places like Colorado with irrigation.
Las Vegas is a future ruin in the desert. But there's no rational discussion of whether to limit growth in a place like this.
Some places seem to be good for not much of anything. After an hour of driving through nothingness I was astounded to see trailers - a whole community of temporary residents - in the middle of nowhere. They were motocrossing on dunes of what looked like the leftovers from building the world - piles of gray with NO signs of any life........ not even crypto-biotic soil. Some are appalled at such things. Why? If in a place nobody is ever going to use for anything else, with no real value for ANTHING else..... why not run around jumping hills and such? Not my thing and a "waste" of energy but it's not my right to impose that value on others - and the local town does get an infusion of tourist dollars.
You may be appalled at 4x4's tearing through the desert or rock canyons BUT we were in Moab during Jeep 2006. Never saw so many 4x4's in one place in my life. I'm sure millions went into the local economy. So.... is that BAD?
Agriculture - farming and ranching - are a different issue. An ABSURD amount of government $$ goes to subsidize agriculture - in providing water for places that cannot grow ANYTHING without irrigation. Too many rivers have been dammed at great expense - with little result in the West. There's no rational approach to this in the West - between the Bureeau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers.
Cattle - touchy subject. Lots of little "ranches" - marginal economic operations. Some areas require a ridiculous amount of acreage for each cow. Is this rational?
It SEEMS like some places - large swaths actually are best left in their original state. Give it back to the Buffalo. They're healthier anyway. But can you turn back the clock?
Frankly, much of the picturesque West is simply NOT habitable in the way most of us take for granted. How many of us would drive 2 or 3 hours for groceries? (not unusual). While here in NY you may spend 80 hours a week at work and commuting, is that all too different from those working three jobs to get by in South Dakota?
In many respects the image of the "independent" westerner is a myth. The largest employers in Utah are the military, the fedreal government and the state government..... in many places ther's not much TO DO to earn a living..... so, when you want to limit mining, logging, ranching, etc.... it may be a "rational" decision from an environmental pov or even a cost-benefit pov, but not if YOUR job is lost in the process......
No answers just an observation that most "coasters" see little of this. They don't see that if you're in South Dakota you joined the Reserves for the MONEY - it was one more job. Your waitress in the middle of Utah is also the County Treasurer - in a county with only 3000 people. The guy at the gas station also has a ranch - which he loves - and also works as a welder as work comes up.
and politically...... the Republicans see that people vote their own interests..... no offense but a Mass. Democrat seems not to "get it" - that logging and mining mean jobs in places where there are none..... Making a huge swath of desert a national monument takes it out of any other possible use...... limiting use of public grasslands puts small ranchers out of business (in contrast to agribusiness usage).......
It's a bit absurd but it seems like the BEST job in some places is being the caretaker for a ranch owned by some LA or NY resident who shows up 2 or 3 times a year to hunt or fish..... and isn't THAT a sad dichotomy..... when a whole economy like Jackson Hole or Aspen is based on high $ "tourism" or secong homes ...... that's a recipe for..... well, "envy" or resentment or ........
random thoughts - comments from the more informed welcome.