4Wheel Parts Partners with BlueRibbon Coalition

[Ursidae69]

Excellent post Martyn, but I want to disagree with your assertion that I bolded below. At least here in New Mexico I think the conscientious users are the minority, a huge minority. I see it everyday.

The folks who do organized trail runs actually do tread lightly and organize trail cleanups, etc., but on any given day, the BLM land near my house is inundated with quads and none of them have the OHV permits required in NM. They make new trails every day. None of these illiterates are online and know what tread lightly means or know that their actions are causing huge tracts of land to close. The nearest BLM office is in Taos 50 miles away and so is their enforcement officer. Head further up into the hills into Forest Service land and you’ll find the woodcutters. Wood cutting and collecting is big business here and if nobody checked to see if you have your 5 dollar tag, how many will actually go get one? The woodcutters make tons of illegal roads to get to the trees they want to harvest. The BLM and FS maps for my area are missing hundreds of miles of illegal roads that are being made all over. I shouldn’t overlook the illegal dumpers. At my bird banding site on BLM land about ten miles from here I have more than 20 illegal dumping sites along the one-mile stretch of road to my site.

How can they fix that problem? The best answer is to have law enforcement, but it is pretty much non-existent. With annual budget cuts and a skeleton staff, what else can land managers do to stop the abuse other than close land?

I’ll err on the side of closing the land rather than see it abused un-checked. I can say that and still drive my fossil fuel burning truck and sleep just fine at night. I wish the “ra-ra I hate the greenie crowd” would at least recognize and admit that there is a problem rather than playing the “horrible elitist greenie” card every time. :smilies27

I believe the reality of the situation is that not all the trails will remain open, and to expect them to remain open is a loosing battle. At the same time to close access to all trails is also not a reality, the direction to move in is a compromise between the two.

Some trails and areas are just too environmentally fragile to remain open to vehicle access, or they have suffered so much degradation that they need to be closed.

Other areas need to be set aside as wilderness areas to retain their pristine beauty.

From personal experience what I see in the back country is a majority that respect the environment that they are surrounded by, and a minority who abuse it. It's the minority who get all the attention, but that's the away it is.


I wish that there was an organization to support that had a belief structure closer to my own, but they all seem to polarized.

We aren't getting very far here hurtling abuse at agavelvr. It just displays how divided the community is.

If we want to move ahead and keep what is open still open we need to take responsibility for policing the people who are destroying the land we love.

 

[Wonderland]

I believe the reality of the situation is that not all the trails will remain open, and to expect them to remain open is a loosing battle. At the same time to close access to all trails is also not a reality, the direction to move in is a compromise between the two.

Some trails and areas are just too environmentally fragile to remain open to vehicle access, or they have suffered so much degradation that they need to be closed.

Other areas need to be set aside as wilderness areas to retain their pristine beauty.

From personal experience what I see in the back country is a majority that respect the environment that they are surrounded by, and a minority who abuse it. It's the minority who get all the attention, but that's the away it is.


I wish that there was an organization to support that had a belief structure closer to my own, but they all seem to polarized.

We aren't getting very far here hurtling abuse at agavelvr. It just displays how divided the community is.

If we want to move ahead and keep what is open still open we need to take responsibility for policing the people who are destroying the land we love.

Good points Martyn.

What it boils down to is, I think a lot of us are fed up with fighting with the environmentalist, which they have far more fire power than the Pro-Access groups, especially now since it is trendy to be "Green".

How many of the anti's actually go out and use the back country? My whole point of saying that it is BS to save the land for our children of tomorrow. What about us that want to use it now, and to have our children use it now? If I had children I would take them to the remote spots that very few people actually get to see in person. Wether it be by vehicle, hoof, foot, bicycle, or motorbike. There needs to be all options available, not just to the elitists.

The money used to fight one another, millions (billions?) could go to enforcement, education, management, and maintenance of the land, not to lock it up. What is the point of having something if you aren't going to use it. It is like the museum piece of furniture that a grandmum has that your not allowed to sit in.

 

[Wonderland]

For what it is worth, I'm kind of tired of fighting extreme environmentalists and extreme access folks. It's mind numbing to work on public projects where these polarized factions play tug of war. That's why I advocate a moderate approach. Wilderness and Access, Conservation and Economic Development, Environmental Protection and Resource Management. These things have to work together. If not, closure is the only viable option. The environment doesn't recover from a bad haircut quite as fast as we do:sombrero:

For the record, I've supported copper mines, rail lines, dams, power lines, etc... You can be green and pro development. You can be pro-wilderness and pro-access. Heck, you can even own a taco and a disco if you really want to be mix it up : )

Yep, that is why I said we need to "share" a couple posts back.

But no one likes to play nice anymore, it seems like it is all or nothing from both camps. Such is the nature of Man, to fight one another.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I believe the reality of the situation is that not all the trails will remain open, and to expect them to remain open is a loosing battle. At the same time to close access to all trails is also not a reality, the direction to move in is a compromise between the two.

Some trails and areas are just too environmentally fragile to remain open to vehicle access, or they have suffered so much degradation that they need to be closed.

Agreed, but realize this has and is happening here in Utah. Just last year the BLM identified thousands (yes thousands) of miles of routes that needed to be closed, be it for environmental concerns with the trails themselves or the areas they were in, concerns with wildlife, or trails that were user created and should never have existed. With the signing of the RMP's those routes were closed. At the same time hundreds of thousands of acres moved from 'open cross country' to 'limited to designated routes', all with the environment and impact in mind. Additionally the GESNM & other National Parks in Utah have closed hundreds of miles of trails, Salt Wash, spurs on White Rim, spurs on Elephant Hill, spurs in the Maze, all to reduce impact. I can absolutely see the logic behind identifying fragile trails and closing them or working to mitigate the damage, but the BLM & FS are already doing that without the need for overboard Wilderness bills. I can't emphasize enough that the BLM has already implemented their own preferred travel management plans here in Utah, those plans worked to protect the lands they identified in their 1999 Wilderness Inventory.

I think you will find few here that don't want Wilderness. I want Wilderness and if the BLM could get their identified 2.6 million acres on the table tomorrow, I would put my support behind it. I would like to think the majority of Utah would. 9.7 million is too much (speaking of actual wilderness quality land on the ground) and when your dealing with the group that has been overwhelmingly unwilling to compromise both in voice and actions, the only feasible option is to oppose their bill 100%. The lesser of two evils I suppose. I'd like to see the day Congress tells the ARWA to get lost and asks for the BLM to revise and resubmit their 1999 Wilderness Inventory. Keep in mind SUWA and ARWA cohorts were the ones that halted the 2.6 million from being protected in the first place, had they supported the issue we would have had Wilderness lands in those areas 10 years ago. Instead their number continues to grow and the public sediment is turning on them.

Many will say "why not propose your own Wilderness Proposal... that protects land and access when possible". BRC's Brian Hawthorne did just that years ago during his tenor at Usa-All. It just won't happen when groups like SUWA are pushing their ARWA, to them it is all or nothing and after 20 years we have nothing but the Wilderness the State of Utah cooperatively worked on with outside groups (Cedar Mountain & Washington County for example).

From personal experience what I see in the back country is a majority that respect the environment that they are surrounded by, and a minority who abuse it. It's the minority who get all the attention, but that's the away it is.

Agreed there. Unfortunately a Wilderness or trail closure won't stop that 5%. Peer pressure, increased enforcement and stiffer fines might curve the problem but given the scope of users and vast tracts of land it might never be solved.

...If we want to move ahead and keep what is open still open we need to take responsibility for policing the people who are destroying the land we love.

I fully agree. I recommend everyone get involved with Tread Lightly, Right Rider and Trail Patrol programs in their local areas.

I apologize for getting stirred up when I discuss these issue. Its an issue I have vested hundreds of hours of my own personal time into and to see it written off necessity just boils me. Worse yet is when I read someone say that they support ARWA and its plans to close 'x' road yet will continue enjoying 'x' road until that day comes. That hypocrisy I cannot ignore.

 

[robert j. yates]

Excellent post Martyn, but I want to disagree with your assertion that I bolded below. At least here in New Mexico I think the conscientious users are the minority, a huge minority. I see it everyday.

The folks who do organized trail runs actually do tread lightly and organize trail cleanups, etc., but on any given day, the BLM land near my house is inundated with quads and none of them have the OHV permits required in NM. They make new trails every day. None of these illiterates are online and know what tread lightly means or know that their actions are causing huge tracts of land to close. The nearest BLM office is in Taos 50 miles away and so is their enforcement officer. Head further up into the hills into Forest Service land and you’ll find the woodcutters. Wood cutting and collecting is big business here and if nobody checked to see if you have your 5 dollar tag, how many will actually go get one? The woodcutters make tons of illegal roads to get to the trees they want to harvest. The BLM and FS maps for my area are missing hundreds of miles of illegal roads that are being made all over. I shouldn’t overlook the illegal dumpers. At my bird banding site on BLM land about ten miles from here I have more than 20 illegal dumping sites along the one-mile stretch of road to my site.

How can they fix that problem? The best answer is to have law enforcement, but it is pretty much non-existent. With annual budget cuts and a skeleton staff, what else can land managers do to stop the abuse other than close land?

I’ll err on the side of closing the land rather than see it abused un-checked. I can say that and still drive my fossil fuel burning truck and sleep just fine at night. I wish the “ra-ra I hate the greenie crowd” would at least recognize and admit that there is a problem rather than playing the “horrible elitist greenie” card every time. :smilies27

I am as concerned over unchecked trashing of my environment as much as you are but I don't agree with that closing it down is the only proper way to solve the problem. I would suspect that if the land management agencies weren't paying millions and millions of dollars out in legal fees, that we could get some rather serious enforcement in place to address the exact issues you raise. I have no problme with enforcement or for that matter, fee permitting.

But nope.... I never see the closure-istas say, hey more LE would solve the problem or hey, lets give the BLM more money to do the job that we just sued them over for not doing. Never hear that in any debate. What I always observe at the hearings are the birkenstock clad granola munchers who have never crept out from behind their computer saying all OHV use is bad and that the land should be closed. We had a steady stream of them at the Surprise Canyon hearings.

People will recreate whether legal or not. Simply closing everything down and making access illegal will not stop folks from using the land. Case in point is Oceano Dunes. I have seen closures basically wittle away access to the point they they now have everyone crammed into a few hundred acres. Yah, that few hundred acres now looks like hell because of all the use and the fact that is has been concentrated. The funny thing is that 10 years ago, the birds were just fine and there was plenty of space for people to use the park and the impact was dispersed so that it was basically a non issue. The dunes have supported motorized recreation for 50 years but now supposedly, its all tore up. The only reason they can point to that statement is due to the concentration of use which the closure-istas themselves advocated for. Logic is certainly not a player in these debates and science certainly has taken a back seat as well. Its all about aesthetics. Case in point... you apparently do not like ATV's which I really think is more along the lines that you do not like the people that are into that aesthetic or form of recreation.

 

[Wonderland]

I would suspect that if the land management agencies weren't paying millions and millions of dollars out in legal fees...

http://www.conservationalliance.com/grants/history_of_grants

 

[Wonderland]

this will probably get me moderated again :sombrero: but I just can't resist.

Now that is funny.

I am neither of those two. :elkgrin:

 

[Desolation]

I am both of those! Damn I look better on screen!

 

[teotwaki]

this will probably get me moderated again :sombrero: but I just can't resist.

Gotta' go out on a limb! :elkgrin:

 

[cruiseroutfit]

this will probably get me moderated again :sombrero: but I just can't resist.

Well played :ylsmoke:

 

[Wonderland]

I used to ride street bikes and road bicycles for recreation. I have come too close to death, because of idiot drivers. I sold them both.

I and people like me need the backcountry to stay open, to escape the madness every once and a while.

Too bad the pro-wilderness groups want and take all of the good stuff.

 

[Ursidae69]

I and people like me need the backcountry to stay open, to escape the madness every once and a while.

Too bad the pro-wilderness groups want and take all of the good stuff.

The other side makes the same argument. Funny how that works.

 

[Wonderland]

The other side makes the same argument. Funny how that works.

Yep, that is why we need to learn to get along and share the land. What is wrong with that?


Ok how about this? For every acre of designated wilderness. An environmentalist must turn their home back into the unmolested wild land before it was built upon. Deal?

Utah for an example 9.6 million acres, would be 9.6 million homes. Turning that land back into its' natural state, how awesome would that be!? Just think if every state adopted that policy. The West alone could return to be wild and open again!

 

[Ursidae69]

Yep, that is why we need to learn to get along and share the land. What is wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that and I agree with you on that, problem is, not everyone is a good steward of the land when they recreate like maybe you and I might be. How do you fix the problem? Law enforcement is the real answer, but there isn't funding for that so land managers must do something and often that involves closing land to vehicles.

This is a bigger argument I'm making than the Utah wilderness bills. Hell, even to me, a lefty, I can see how things like the Utah wilderness designations are overdone and I support the work Kurt and his organization has done and have sent letters to that effect to the land managers seeking compromise. But, in the big picture, there are major problems with land use that the OHV community does not want to admit to or address and that is where I am coming from.

 

[Wonderland]

That is the frustrating thing, Ursidae69.

We see all this money being thrown around from both sides. There is plenty of money for law enforcement and education, and yet....

Wouldn't the money be better spent on those type of jobs? Especially with the state of the economy. We "could" really help out our fellow man and the environment at the same time.

We lobbied for years, and spent a lot of money and time to get a statewide OHV sticker program, to help educate, more law enforcement, maintain trails, better signage, ect..., which went through. Only to have the state sweep the funds, because of the current economy. You can't win for loosing. Even if all of these closures go through, people are still going to use the lands since law enforcement is so low, and there is no funding for it.

I love the outdoors, I love exploring via different modes of transportation from boots, hooves, to wheels. Most of us aren't out there to destroy it, rather to take it all in. I see far more damage from housing tracts than old dirt roads and trails.