Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Conservation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House honors rancher Waldo Wilcox for protecting Range Creek and archaeological resources

Utah House of Representatives · February 10, 2005
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Lawmakers passed House Concurrent Resolution 10 unanimously (74-0) honoring Waldo Wilcox for preserving Range Creek, a site lawmakers described as a unique archaeological resource; speakers also warned that long-term management funding remains a concern.

The Utah House on Feb. 3 passed House Concurrent Resolution 10, honoring Waldo Wilcox for his stewardship of the Range Creek area and the archaeological discoveries associated with it. Representative Brad King presented the resolution and urged colleagues to support the recognition of Wilcox's long-term conservation efforts.

"It is a resource that is unique in the world," Representative King said, urging colleagues to consider Range Creek's scientific value. Several legislators who visited the site described its archaeological significance, the opportunities for doctoral and master's research, and the careful stewardship by Wilcox and his family.

Members repeatedly praised Wilcox's personal character and the preservation of the land. Representative Bigelow said Wilcox was "appropriate to honor not because of his greatness, but simply because he is typical of rural Utahns" who loved and protected the land. Others noted the site's national and international importance in archaeology.

Representative King noted that while there was no fiscal note attached to the resolution, funding for Range Creek management could be at risk and urged members to remember the management needs as priorities are set.

The resolution passed by voice and recorded as 74 yes, 0 no, and will be referred to the Senate for concurrence.