Moab and more closing?

[cruiseroutfit]

no problem, but I would like to see Jim1960's response to

So you'll only back up your statements if some guy I have no affiliation with first answers your question?

 

[roadkill]

The PBS National Parks program really puts it all in persective and educates folks about many of the 'whys' behind some of these decisions. As a nation, we are done with the big push westward. These laws don't have much relevance these days.

which laws? would you mind elaborating for those of us who happened to miss that program?

 

[paulj]

which laws? would you mind elaborating for those of us who happened to miss that program?

I think he had in mind, generally speaking, the 4 that I listed. However most of the current conflicts involving these laws and their consequences apply more to forest service and BLM lands. They are mostly settled in National Parks, except maybe in parks like Death Valley.

In the years before Grand Canyon was established as a Park, one tourism promoter (exploiter?), Ralph Cameron, filed hundreds of mining claims in and around the canyon. Most were disallowed by courts because they had no mineral prospects. Later when the county took possession of the Bright Angel Trail, he got the franchise to run it - he was also county commissioner. He was also county sheriff. He did all he could to block the creation of the park. Apparently as Arizona senator he continued to give the new Park headaches (though I didn't catch those details).

On the other hand, some railroads pushed for the establishment of parks, as tourist destinations that would give them business.

The connection between railroads and Canadian National Parks is even stronger. A couple of weeks ago I was camping in Banff, Jasper and Yoho, often within earshot of trains. The history notes talked about how railroads built hotels and tea houses, and hired Swiss guides. There were even coalmines within the parks, supplying fuel to the railroads. One campground in Jasper is on the location of the town creating by a Virginia coal mining company, Pochahantas.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I quoted Paul's list in my post. RS 2477 and the General Mining Act of 1872 are two big jokes in the OHV argument. I find it entertaining that the BRC can complain that the Wilderness Act is outdated, yet fall back on pieces of legislation like these to defend modern access arguments. Does anyone else see the irony here?

I find it entertaining that your yet to back up any of your anti-BRC statements.

I think its fair to say that BRC would rather see things enforced by the original Wilderness Act? Read the original Wilderness Act and I think you would agree.

Again, I'd love you to back up your statements and define how you can rationalize the impact in your corner of the world yet condemn the purported impact in mine. Hypocrisy outranks the irony you pin to BRC. And is it not 100% true that the radical WAG groups use the same irony in regards to many arguments? The constitution is out-dated too, how many changes do you want to see made to that?

 

[Scott Brady]

As I posted in the other thread, the loss of some of these classic and beautiful routes in Southern and Eastern Utah would be devastating to me personally. I find Utah to be the most beautiful and enjoyable places I travel and I also find off-trail damage and liter to be the lowest of any of the places I travel. Curt, I will give you a call.

Many of these roads are ancient, predating the car even. To not be able to travel along Butler Wash, the Swell, etc. would be tragic for this community.

This place is magical, and 20 miles from the nearest road. There is no trash here or wildcat trails. I just brought a 70 year old friend here a few weeks ago. It would be crime to keep that veteran and patriot from this place.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...Here are a just a handful of the more benign public examples...

I guess its all about perception, I don't find any of those articles offensive as a Wilderness proponent myself. I find them spot on in many cases. They do offer alternatives to Wilderness, and in many cases I believe a designation such as Back Country. We can agree to disagree there.

A few of my favorite lines from those articles:

"So we had different types of land to explore, and I was shown and taught how to care for and protect where we would go and learned that the land came first."

"I do not want anything new, no new trails, no new areas. I just want to preserve the access to what I have."

"Conservation can take place without locking up large parcels of land. If the public does not benefit from enjoying the land (and I mean not just the hikers), then why are we conserving the land? Who are we protecting the land for? If the land is locked up, not even future generations will get to enjoy it."

Remember what I mentioned in regards to BRC's Brian Hawthorne (then of Usa-All) working on their own Wilderness proposal, SUWA rejected it. In a live debate years later the orator asked both parties why they couldn't work together since they seemed to both want Utah's back country protected. The answer was that each represented too many other groups to make a decision on their own.

 

[roadkill]

Here's an organization I know nothing about.
http://www.responsibletrails.org/get-the-facts.html

Do you see the problem?

from the BRC about RTA http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?id=1632

and yes I see the problem. while I do not know of the BRC trying to front as a pro wilderness group I see a pro wilderness group fronting as a pro access group. I really think a lot of the issues regarding access can be resolved with a designation other than Wilderness. why do the groups that set out on protecting our lands want to designate everything Wilderness? one size fits all solutions never actually fit all, so why does land management have to be any different? regarding mining and oil and gas exploration why can't they lobby Congress to restrict only that and leave all other access open?

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I can agree it's a matter of perception. My fear is that the tactics used by radicalized pro-access groups will not appeal to middle America and lead to true loss of access. Right now, the vast majority of posts I see by pro-access folks on Expo are lacking key information documenting proposed closures and their real impact on access.

Replace 'radicalized pro-access' with 'radicalized anti-motorized' and the rest of your comments are 100% the same. While its easy to identify the 'radical' on both sides of the equations, the middle sitters are harder to find. In Utah we do have middle ground groups. But if any middle ground is actually going to be achieved, you can't start in the middle. Its my belief that radical groups are needed so long as there is an equal radical group on the other side of the issue. A dumbed down explanation but historically its proven to hold merit.

Take the recent BLM RMP's. The SUWA (aka pro-Wilderness) proposal would have shut down 75%+ of the routes in a given district. The pro-motorized proposal said don't close a single thing. Where did the decision go? Right down the middle, taking elements of both proposals and incorporating them into each plan. From the OHV standpoint, we lost a lot of access, but as a group of users (Utah 4 Wheel Drive Association) we supported the BLM preferred alternative that seemed to represent the best mix. In the end that alternative was the winner, some access was lost and areas were given Wilderness like protection for future inclusion into a Wilderness designation. SUWA (ARWA chief) was never going to settle with what that. In fact they had threatened to sue before the decisions were even made. They didn't care what the users thought, they didn't care what they counties thought, they didn't care what the state thought, they didn't even care what the BLM itself thought... if it wasn't their proposal, they were going to take it to court. Those RMP's are now in litigation as SUWA doesn't feel that the BLM is doing enough to protect the lands they feel qualify as 'Wilderness', meanwhile the BLM contends that the lands do NOT qualify and legally they could not have falsely designated them as having wilderness characteristics.

In the ideal world we wouldn't have radical groups on either side, we would all be willing to compromise, work together proactively to solve issues before and after they arise. But so long as one group is willing to push the agenda past reasonable levels, a tug-o-war will ensue.

Upon close inspection, the fears are typically unwarranted. In the areas I have researched, it appears as if access will be provided along corridors and cherrystems. The language of the proposed laws and relavant supporting documents and reports are very clear. Perhaps this is why the radicallized pro-access folks do not typically post links to the reports, misinterpret the laws they say are flawed, and disappear when questioned on these oversights.

What supporting documents have you found that represent what will be included and what roads will be lost? To my knowledge even SUWA doesn't have detailed information prepared on that level but in areas they consider 'roadless' we will lose routes. I keep harping about "What is a road", SUWA and the BLM have very different definitions. SUWA does not consider a well used two-track over a mesa as a trail, and they will use all sorts of qualifier words to make it sound like it doesn't meet the definition of a road. This is a hot-button issue here in Utah and several Utah counties are in Federal Court debating what roads are roads, etc. So to use the road qualifications found in the Wilderness proposal as ruling for what will happen... would be a gross misrepresentation of the issue. Routes will be closed, not one, not two, dozens and dozens.

Just like you, I like taking my truck out into the wild and exploring. Just like you, I fear losing access to places that would be intersting to see. I hope the BRC doesn't screw it up for all of us.

Again replace BRC with SUWA and your comment still reads true imo.

Here's an organization I know nothing about.
http://www.responsibletrails.org/get-the-facts.html

found their site courtesty of a google search for 'radical anti offroad' landing me here.
http://www.dirtmob.com/forums/showthread.php?t=406

Do you see the problem?

Problem? That some random guy on some random web forum take issue with them? You can't hold merit to the comments of a few rogue folks on a few websites, they are just that. Responsibletrails uses photo's from SUWA (Factory Butte), that are grossly taken out of context.

Fwiw, here is another similar site:
http://www.gordonswenson.com/4w4w/

Its been around for a long time. He (not a 4x4 user btw) uses the same logic of "what is a road" to sway others into believing counties are claiming bogus routes.

Here are a couple photos from his site:

Many of you may recognize that as the popular Pritchett Canyon route, it likely gets tens of thousands of visitors per year, driving a route that has been in existence for 30+ years? SUWA and guys like Gordon Swenson dispute that Pritchet could be called a road? They show one picture from the hardest portion of the trail, what they don't show is the easy dirt road on either side of the obstacle, that would be 'middle-ground' but isn't likely to sway others

Another they don't consider a 'road'

Looks like a route to me? Taken just after a wet spring? Sure but I would drive it just like explorers did 30 years ago.

Another non-road:

Looks like a great trail to me. This trail sees hundreds of visitors a year. Is it passable by the family sedan? No, but should that be the qualifier for a "road"?

Another:

Take a picture of a wash bottom after a major flood and it will look like a road was never there, but does that mean a historic access point should be closed to Wilderness? This route has been used by thousands, yet frame it right and you can convince others that this is a pristine wash bottom that has never seen a vehicle and these counties are lying about their historic access.

 

[UnfrozenCaveman]

I just watched a good share of the streaming video from the House committee "hearing".

If that wasn't the most obviously hand picked, one sided, illogical group of lemmings, I don't know what is.

If you folks are planning on wheeling in Utah or elsewhere in the West in the future, you'd be well advised to pay attention to what's going on in your "government".

 

[craig333]

Jeff, talk about dropping a bomb. You used the term "thrillcraft" in another thread. A more polarizing term you could not find. Never seen it? Oh its worth a look.

http://www.stopthrillcraft.org/index.htm

Wilderness is forever. Never has Wilderness had its size reduced. Its protected by Congress. However those corridors, cherry stems etc, have no such protection. They can be taken away at any time. The Sierra Club (and others) have made no secret they'd like cherry stems like Barrett Lake, corridors like Deer Valley, removed. And many many more.

Back when I was a member of the Sierra Club, I thought of it as nice moderate organization. Then I found out better. Did I go by what BRC said? Or any other group? Nope. I looked into them closely. Look at their official policies as okay'd by the board of directors. Not easy to find on their website either. Takes some real digging.

Offroad Vehicles

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/offroad.aspx

Logging

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/forest.aspx

Not all that warm and fuzzy about mountain bikes either

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/mtnbike.aspx

C. Wilderness Opportunities

By law, bicycles are excluded from federal Wilderness areas. Potential for losing opportunities for Wilderness designation should be taken into account when planning bicycle access. Conversely, the potential for losing bicycle opportunities (and replacing such opportunities) should be taken into account when planning Wilderness designation. Sierra Club members are therefore encouraged to work with local off-road bicycle groups when preparing Wilderness proposals.


Interesting they can take mountain bikes into consideration but not motorized vehicles.

Stuff like that and having people like Dave Foreman (founder of earth first and not currently) on the board of directors made me realize they are more extreme than most realize. Where are the middle the road environmental organizations?

 

[off.track]

Are you claiming that private land has been expropriated by the US Government for inclusion in designated Wilderness Areas?

most definitely.


however i appreciate your and agave's effort at some edumacation here. it's needed.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I never said I agreed with radical environmentalists. In fact, if you read my earlier posts, I specifically say that I do not approve of anyone using those tactics.

I know you didn't, I think we actually stand closer to eachother than we do one side or the other, I was just illustrating how equally radical each group can potentially be.

Read the bill, read the travel management plans, view the maps...it's all there isn't it? What are we missing? Where's the 'land grab', were's the 'lockout'.

That is just it. The exact potential losses if passed are not 100% known as they have not said one way or the other what will and will not be cherry-stemmed, grand-fathered, excluded, etc. What we do know is that the BLM is being sued for the very maps you linked too because they do NOT keep OHV's out of the areas this bill would turn into Wilderness. So its an accepted fact by both sides of the bill that existing & legal routes will be lost. Will mainstay county roads be lost? Likely not, but will smaller secluded routes be lost, yes. Even the "Wheelers for Wilderness" acknowledged that some of the popular Moab trails would be lost. Additionally routes that are 'temporarily closed' due to Wilderness Study Area designation would turn into actual Wilderness and be permanently lost (not that I hold much hope we will ever get those back). I would be happy to start naming trails if you would like, Utah has 95 WSA's comprimising 3.2 million acres of public land, plenty of already closed historic routes that I could start naming off. Bump that number to 9 million and the list could grow long, too long. WSA's themselves are quite interesting, the BLM spent thousands of hours searching out all the Wilderness potentials in Utah, they can't designate Wilderness (only Congress can) so they make it a WSA. Is it interesting that they could only find 2.5 million acres, after a major fit by WAG groups they found a bit more and upped the number to 3.2 million acres that met the definition of Wilderness (yet still some of those contain mines, roads, cabins, etc). Following that the ARWA found 5.7 million acres, then nearly 15 years later they managed to find 3.4 million more acres that they had "missed" in their inventories before? Maybe in another 1o years we can just designate all of BLM lands as Wilderness?

 

[cruiseroutfit]

..Access corridors can be protected, that's really what OHV advocacy groups should work on IMHO. Give preservationists their wilderness, but fight for corridor protection thru said wilderness...

This is precisely the thinking that went into the early user Wilderness proposals that SUWA and crew rejected. From the mouth of SUWA's Heidi Macintosh, they have too many groups they work with and represent to logistically work out any type of compromise or amendment, to them it is all or none as has been proven by their track record on concessions. The BLM closes down trails in Southern Utah, SUWA sues them as it was not enough.

 

[Willman]

This might be a repost.....

This is what i got back from my Congressmen here in Utah:

October 2, 2009


Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Red Rock Wilderness Act. At a time when nearly 60% of Utah's land is owned by the federal government, adding another 9.4 million acres to the roll is not prudent policy. I would also like to note that not one member of the Utah delegation is supporting this bill.



There is no doubt portions of Red Rock Country in southern Utah deserve the recognition the National Wilderness Preservation System would give. However, the crafters of this bill are not simply concerned with wilderness preservation, they are using the sanctified wilderness designation as a tool to curb American energy development and motorized outdoor recreation.



Upon passage, 9.4 million acres of Utah land will be off-limits to outdoor enthusiasts, recreation seekers, and energy developers. Off-highway vehicle users are the lifeline for some rural Utah cities and towns, and if this bill passes, those towns will fall deeper and deeper into economic recession. The OHV markets, as well as the energy market provide some of the most dependable and high paying jobs for rural Utahns.



Recently, the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands held a legislative hearing on this bill. I was proud to join with the other four members of Utah's Congressional delegation in voicing our opposition. I will continue to oppose this bill and the out-of-state sponsors who support it.

Sincerely,

Jason Chaffetz
Member of Congress​

 

[paulj]

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the Red Rock Wilderness Act. At a time when nearly 60% of Utah's land is owned by the federal government, adding another 9.4 million acres to the roll is not prudent policy.....

Saying that a wilderness bill will 'add to the government's roll' is like saying 'keep the government's hands off my medicare'.