Wilderness Acreage in Utah

[robert j. yates]

Who's this Karen Budd-Falen? A Wyoming lawyer specializing property rights cases and dealing with Federal agencies. She worked for the BLM in the Regan years.

http://freedom21.org/conf/speakers01.html

http://www.hcn.org/issues/304/15717
She has also represented a Wyoming rancher who was suing BLM. The case centered on [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] public (recreational) access to the South Fork Owl Creek Road which runs across his ranch.[/FONT]

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2006/12/BuddFalentoargueinna.htm

She also appears to have represented the private land owners in a RS2477 related suit regarding access to Surprise Canyon in the Death Valley area.
http://www.cyberwest.com/california/death-valley-national-park-offroad-ruling.shtml

You would be correct and I am in fact one of the property owners at the top of Surprise Canyon (which was actually a paved road and heavily mined) that has been locked out of my supposed cherry stemmed access to my property.

Must have struck a nerve with that post. The double standard being preached here by some would be rather hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

 

[teotwaki]

You would be correct and I am in fact one of the property owners at the top of Surprise Canyon (which was actually a paved road and heavily mined) that has been locked out of my supposed cherry stemmed access to my property.

Must have struck a nerve with that post. The double standard being preached here by some would be rather hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

Dang! I never knew exactly who was involved in that suit but you get very high marks for throwing the tactics of the Wilderness Mafia right back at them. :wings: Too bad the judge was lacking spinal rigidity....

 

[paulj]

Here's an interesting article in High Country News about the litigation surround the Clinton era Roadless Rule, with particular focus on the Wyoming judge who has issued injunctions against it. Relevance to Utah is limited, since I believe the rule applied more to Forest Service land, as opposed to BLM.

http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.19/roadless-less

 

[Skylinerider]

I haven't been following too much, anyone answer this question yet?

....why don't you spend a minute answering this:

How you so easily discount your impacts on trails like this? If driving on a trail that has existed for 50+ years has some level of impact in your mind, some impact that must be eliminated in order to protect this land for the future generations. How do you drive off-road anywhere and not feel your impact has the same net result albeit in a different location?

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I haven't been following too much, anyone answer this question yet?

They are too busy lol :cow:

 

[Wonderland]

They just can't figure ut who to sue to make some money is all.......


Taxpayers foot the bill for environmental lawsuits November 5, 2009


“If you just look at the raw number and say ‘why in the world is the United States paying a million dollars bankrolling them to sue us,' well that's what congress set up through EAJA.

Yeah, you'll never see Mother Earth on trial. The largest cause of World wide destruction know to man that is not from outer space.

Funny how "they" use our tax dollars to shut the tax paying public out of their public lands. I know all too well on how they use EAJA. We just need some down and dirty lawyers like the environmentalist use.:snorkel::coffeedrink::chef::Wow1: :elkgrin: :victory::ylsmoke::smiley_drive:

 

[paulj]

A Dispute Over Utah Land Intensifies

Published: March 15, 2008
..
Mr. Noel, who has clashed with SUWA over wilderness issues before, said that disagreements with the environmental group were an impetus for the letter.
...
“Two of its board members were engaged in fraudulent activities that stole millions of dollars from credit unions,” said State Representative Aaron Tilton, Republican of Springville, who signed the letter, “and we want to know if any of that money made its way into SUWA.”

Mr. Tilton is vice chairman of Americans for American Energy, which advocates energy development. The Web site for a campaign the group sponsors, www.stoputahlandgrab.org, ties SUWA’s and Representative Hinchey’s support for wilderness protection to increased dependence on foreign oil and to aid to terrorists.

I looked up these two state reps.

AAE is a lobbying group, pushing for things like more Peace River development in Wyoming (more generally energy projects in the USA). They don't have to reveal their money sources. Tilton is no longer a Representative. Instead he is prominent in a company seeking to build a nuclear power plant near Green River (Transition Power, LLC, now Blue Castle).

As far as I can tell land isn't an issue for such a plant, but it requires a lot cooling water. So they are trying to buy water rights from several counties, including San Juan and Kane. The counties have rights to Lake Powell, though the power plant would draw the water from Green River before reaching the lake. Rep. Noel is the executive director of the Kane County Water Conservancy District.

Rep Noel was a BLM employee in the 1990s and was working on an environmental impact statement for a coal mine on the Kaiparowits Plateau south of Escalante. That mine would have trucked the coal to Cedar City (via hwy 12?) (and created lots of jobs in the county). Establishment of the GSENM contributed to the collapse of that project. Apparently that's how Kane Cty got the water rights they want to sell. At one time there was talk of a big coal fired power plant on the Plateau.

Noel was angry enough over this that he retired, and went into politics (from a favorable profile on Rep. Noel in High Country News).

http://www.heraldextra.com/business/article_1bf1f899-74c8-52b9-8a52-a57070396f6d.html

This is more critical view
http://uraniumwatch.org/bluecastle.htm

 

[teotwaki]

I looked up these two state reps.

AAE is a lobbying group, pushing for things like more Peace River development in Wyoming (more generally energy projects in the USA). They don't have to reveal their money sources. Tilton is no longer a Representative. Instead he is prominent in a company seeking to build a nuclear power plant near Green River (Transition Power, LLC, now Blue Castle).

As far as I can tell land isn't an issue for such a plant, but it requires a lot cooling water. So they are trying to buy water rights from several counties, including San Juan and Kane. The counties have rights to Lake Powell, though the power plant would draw the water from Green River before reaching the lake. Rep. Noel is the executive director of the Kane County Water Conservancy District.

Rep Noel was a BLM employee in the 1990s and was working on an environmental impact statement for a coal mine on the Kaiparowits Plateau south of Escalante. That mine would have trucked the coal to Cedar City (via hwy 12?) (and created lots of jobs in the county). Establishment of the GSENM contributed to the collapse of that project. Apparently that's how Kane Cty got the water rights they want to sell. At one time there was talk of a big coal fired power plant on the Plateau.

Noel was angry enough over this that he retired, and went into politics (from a favorable profile on Rep. Noel in High Country News).

http://www.heraldextra.com/business/article_1bf1f899-74c8-52b9-8a52-a57070396f6d.html

Unlike the SUWA folks, these guys are not in jail for criminal activity.... :Wow1:

 

[robert j. yates]

Dang! I never knew exactly who was involved in that suit but you get very high marks for throwing the tactics of the Wilderness Mafia right back at them. :wings: Too bad the judge was lacking spinal rigidity....

Thanx. There are actually 50 of us with an ownership share in a 5 acre parcel in Panamint City. There is another group that has a share in a neighboring parcel. We have proved that the cherrystem is a complete waste of time because the extremists will line up and take it anyways.

So that we are clear.... Surprise Canyon has not been wilderness for over 100 years. It was heavily mined, paved and supported a community of several thousand people. It is shown as a road on maps dating well over 100 years old and yet here we are..... locked out. This after the congressional action that established the monument specifically cherrystemed out the canyon as a road.

The basic point here is that the extremists will not ever compromise...ever. The hypocracy by some here is truely amazing. They own and recreate with vehicles yet they are at the forefront of the shouting to shut everything down. I cannot fathom the reason why they even recreate with vehicles if they loath them and their 4 wheeling compatriots so much.

None of us is a yay-hoo and I think most responsible adults who use vehicles to access lands consider themselves conservationists... I know I do and I have put my money and my time behind my words.

I wonder about some of the folks here yakking about needing existing roads and trails, some 100 years old closed...how many adopt a trails have they worked on, how many lbs of trash have the cleaned up, do they interact with BLM and NF OHV Rangers and have they ever really done anything that was conservation oriented other than send their money to anti access groups? Please enlighten me at how much better you are than me or anybody else who fights for open responsible access.

 

[paulj]

My conclusion, based on various descriptions of the lawsuits and motions, is that battle over Surprise Canyon is not about its (lack of) wilderness status (and/or character). The 2000 suit was based on the Endangered Species Act (and to a lesser degree, water quality). The counter motion claimed that BLM did not have jurisdiction based on a RS-2477 claim.

I also suspect that there are unresolved legal issues related to RS-2477. For example, is a RS-2477 claim by an individual or group of individuals the same as such a claim by a county (e.g. Inyo)? If the owners have RS-2477 access, does that mean that it is also open to the general public? And is ownership for the purpose of gaining recreational use of the access route the same as ownership for the purpose of mining or other activity on the property itself?

---------------

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=20&ved=0CCgQFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blm.gov%2Fpgdata%2Fetc%2Fmedialib%2F%2Fblm%2Fca%2Fpdf%2Fpdfs%2Fcdd_pdfs.Par.7394dff0.File.pdf%2Fsurpcanyon_ea_052301.pdf&ei=avgES_HWNoXSsQPnp_S3Cg&usg=AFQjCNEAIIAFjZdtrOW9TbC9_WkfQGnYfg&sig2=Xbi6ORkD_w0_o5h8Tm1w_g

2001 Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Interim Closure of Surprise Canyon Route P 71

 

[robert j. yates]

My conclusion, based on various descriptions of the lawsuits and motions, is that battle over Surprise Canyon is not about its (lack of) wilderness status (and/or character). The 2000 suit was based on the Endangered Species Act (and to a lesser degree, water quality). The counter motion claimed that BLM did not have jurisdiction based on a RS-2477 claim.

I also suspect that there are unresolved legal issues related to RS-2477. For example, is a RS-2477 claim by an individual or group of individuals the same as such a claim by a county (e.g. Inyo)? If the owners have RS-2477 access, does that mean that it is also open to the general public? And is ownership for the purpose of gaining recreational use of the access route the same as ownership for the purpose of mining or other activity on the property itself?

Nice try but wrong. It was all about getting off road vehicle use out of there and the extremists used any reason they could latch on to in order to make it happen. Do you want to know who we outbid for the property in Panamint Springs? The National Park Conservancy is who..... and they are still all butt hurt about it. They are now claiming that the stream is a wild and scenic river. Please.... it was a road and has been for over 100 years. It was also mined and heavily at that. The tailing piles are still there.... habitat loss by vehicles is the last thing that will happen there.

The reply above represents nothing more than an apologist attitude for extremists getting another closure feather in their cap. Your struggling to find a credible argument (ie now its not wilderness but endangered species) represents everything that is wrong with the wilderness for legal fee movement. There has never been any direct proof that there was habitat destruction and contamination by vehicles and frankly, if the stream is so polluted, how can it now be a wild and scenic river? The EIR that was mandated somehow has never been completed. I wonder why? Maybe its because the BLM ranger who issued the closure order is now part of the CBD.

Your commentary is typical of the wilderness for legal fee crowd.... you have no vested interest in the matter and have not been party to it but from your vantage point, the process has been fair and the route deserves to be closed. You view while you are welcome to it, is flat wrong.

 

[teotwaki]

My conclusion, based on various descriptions of the lawsuits and motions, is that battle over Surprise Canyon is not about its (lack of) wilderness status (and/or character). The 2000 suit was based on the Endangered Species Act (and to a lesser degree, water quality). The counter motion claimed that BLM did not have jurisdiction based on a RS-2477 claim.

I also suspect that there are unresolved legal issues related to RS-2477. For example, is a RS-2477 claim by an individual or group of individuals the same as such a claim by a county (e.g. Inyo)? If the owners have RS-2477 access, does that mean that it is also open to the general public? And is ownership for the purpose of gaining recreational use of the access route the same as ownership for the purpose of mining or other activity on the property itself?

My conclusion is a little different. Please forgive me for offering another equally valid and accurate viewpoint. :ylsmoke:

The California Desert Protection Act of 1994 created a corridor through the Surprise Canyon Wilderness and into Death Valley National Park. The congressionally designated corridor, which encompassed a road known as route P71, was the only vehicular route into the private land inside Death Valley National Park.

First close down a prime outdoors OHV adventure spot by calling it "wilderness" even though heavily touched by man.

Then close down the cherry stemmed route (yes, I know it was not a "road") with different tactics:

In 2000 the Center for Biological Diversity, Public Employees for Envirronmental Responsibility, and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the BLM. As a result, in May 2001, the BLM agreed to perform an emergency closure on the road up to Panamint City and perform an EIS. The closure was the result of an agreement between the BLM and CBD, and did not involve any public comment.

Next to join the pro-Wilderness folks were California Senators Feinstein (D) and Boxer (D). In a letter in December 2005, they requested that the BLM and the Park Service support the permanent closure of Surprise Canyon above Chris Wicht Camp, the terminus of an access road. They pointed out that while the 1994 California Desert Protection Act omitted a narrow “cherry stem” of the canyon from Wilderness des*ignation, it did so to allow potential access to mining claims, not to authorize recreational off-road vehicle use.

Note that when Utah Senators oppose Wilderness they are selling out to "big gas & oil" but when Boxer and Feinstein cater to the land closure advocates, the congress ladies are some sort of heroes.

Close it down to all but people fit enough to hike in there and back in less than a day or be able to haul in packs with the necessary overnite gear.
(random photo, not me)

about 12 miles round trip and 3440' elevation gain.

Pretty much the way that the OHV "frog" is boiled alive by the slow creep of WSAs and cherry-stemming.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...There has never been any direct proof that there was habitat destruction and contamination by vehicles and frankly, if the stream is so polluted, how can it now be a wild and scenic river?...

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. Exact arguement here in Utah.

If the land needs such urgent protection from the 'rampant' OHV destruction and Oil & Gas, how do they keep finding more Wilderness each time they look? Seems to me we ought to leave it the way it is and the whole state might qualify in another 50 years lol.

I applaud you and your partners for your efforts to keep access to your land. I hope you guys prevail in the end.

 

[robert j. yates]

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. Exact arguement here in Utah.

If the land needs such urgent protection from the 'rampant' OHV destruction and Oil & Gas, how do they keep finding more Wilderness each time they look? Seems to me we ought to leave it the way it is and the whole state might qualify in another 50 years lol.

I applaud you and your partners for your efforts to keep access to your land. I hope you guys prevail in the end.

Thanx and back at ya Kurt. Somebody has to standup to such nonsense and I applaud your efforts in Utah as well. I have not been able to get there enough and I fear that routes I want to travel will be closed before I can do so if not for efforts such as yours.

On the stream and the canyon. The paved road was originally washed out by an El Nino flood in 1980 which in fact stripped the lower canyon entirely of anything standing including vegetation. I wonder what will happen if this years El Nino results in a similar canyon flood that wipes out the "habitat" that has supposedly recovered from us dreadful 4 wheelers. Who will the CBD sue then? I suspect that will be the BLM's fault too LOL.

 

[Ursidae69]

There are a lot of environmentalist on this forum I have learned they will more likely throw you under a bus than give a helping hand.

Really??? I'm probably one of the biggest greenies on this site, yet I don't think I threw you under the bus in your recent request for help on finding transport in NZ. Whatevs dood.

It's getting harder and harder to enjoy the debates around here because BOTH sides getting spun up and simply talk trash. That's a bummer.