When was the last time a Utah politician has done anything to help the state's tourism and outdoor recreation industry?

I follow this stuff closely and I would be hard-pressed to answer that question.

Whether you are a backpacker, ATV rider, boater, city park user, Sunday driver, national park visitor, state park user, skier, hunter, angler, hiker, mountain bicyclist or tourist, most of Utah's statewide political leaders ignore your needs.

It almost seems as though the money generated by tourism and outdoor recreation doesn't matter or that our politicians view the jobs these industries create as not worthy of support. This attitude could have a negative impact on our state economy.

Consider these numbers:

A 2009 report by the Utah Tourism Industry Coalition revealed that tourism is a $6.23 billion industry in the state. The 19.4 million visitors who come here generate more than 110,000 jobs, reducing the taxes of each household by $703.

The outdoor industry in Utah contributes $4 billion in goods and services and 65,000 jobs. The recent four-day Outdoor Retailer Summer Market held in Salt Lake City brought an estimated $23 million into Salt Lake City.

Yet our politicians often appear to be almost antagonistic toward tourism and outdoor recreation.

Twenty-eight leaders of mostly Utah-owned companies that rely on outdoor recreation recently sent an interesting letter to the state's congressional delegation and governor.

The group wants the delegation to fund the Land and Water Conservation Act instead of drastically cutting its funding. This law uses offshore drilling revenues — not tax dollars — to provide all sorts of benefits for recreation enthusiasts. Many of the state's city, state and national parks, trail systems, recreation complexes and wildlife refuges have received funding from this program.

Outdoor business owners also oppose a bill that would prohibit federal funding to be used to implement Antiquities Act designations, a move supported in the last budget by all of Utah's members of commerce. Since six Democratic and six Republican presidents have used the act to preserve places such as Zion, Bryce, Arches and Capitol Reef national parks and Natural Bridges, Dinosaur, Hovenweep, Rainbow Bridge, Cedar Breaks, Timpanogos Cave, and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, why oppose funding for potential new monuments?

From an economic standpoint — not to mention the preservation of some of the world's finest landscapes — can any Utah politician claim that setting aside these special places has been a bad thing? Even the controversial Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument has helped rural Utah's economy.

The group is also critical of Utah senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee and representatives Jason Chaffetz and Rob Bishop for sponsoring the Wilderness and Roadless Release Act, which is designed to remove existing Wilderness Study Area and Roadless rule protections from 5.1 million acres in Utah and 43 million acres total in the West.

These are just three examples.

Motorized recreation enthusiasts might view banning the creation of more wilderness or new national monument as favorable. I can understand why they would support the delegation's anti-preservationist viewpoint. They are no doubt happy with some of the county lawsuits trying to keep historic dirt tracks open to use. I concede their point.

The reality, though, is that other than being opposed to wilderness and funding some lawsuits with decidedly mixed results, the delegation and governor actually haven't done much to help off-highway vehicle enthusiasts. It's one thing to keep the land open to motorized use but another thing entirely to actually provide trail systems and facilities that protect the long-term values of the land and promote the sport.

Hunters and anglers haven't received much help, either. It seems many Utah hunters think the delegation is somehow pro hunting because it hates gun control laws and wants to kill predators. But the state and federal matching funds used by organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are starting to disappear. Since Jim Hansen left the delegation, what improvements have been made at any of our national wildlife refuges? What has the Utah Legislature, governor or federal delegation done for anglers?

Perhaps a member of the delegation has done something good to help outdoor recreation and I've just missed it. But it mostly seems as though Utah's politicians are, at best, apathetic to the value of tourism or, at worst, openly hostile to any kind of effort to help tourism, wildlife values and outdoor recreation.

That's a sad commentary, especially in a state such as Utah where outdoor opportunities play such a major role in our quality of life.

Tom Wharton is an outdoors and travel columnist. Reach him at wharton@sltrib.com or 257-8909.