Moab and more closing?

[paulj]

Here is the blog entry from Rep. Hinchey regarding Red Rocks

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc...d,ID=091001_3549,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml

 

[Ruffin' It]

The post office can save us

I am for a Post Office-style system. Require vehicles using public land for off-roading to purchase a permit (sort of like the "green sticker" system in CA but actually effective) and set the price according to the previous year's maintenance costs for trail/land repair and up keep. The revenues generated will fund a self-sustaining department – like the Post Office. This will fund education programs, the repair of destruction caused by the yahoos (helping to dilute the arguments in favor of closing land because of degradation) AND create strong peer pressure amongst off roaders to condemn irresponsible behavior. If you get a bunch of neckless hicks (gross over-generalization for fun – mostly because I grew up around neckless hicks and know they usually can take a little joking) who just had to shell out $200 for the chance to take their quads out for the year, you can bet they are going to have a talk with the ************** that is cutting trails and running up their tab. Now, say what you want about neckless hicks, but they have always seemed fairly persuasive to me. If the cost of recreation is carried by the people doing it, they are going to have a much stronger incentive to behave responsibly and, consequently, minimize that cost. As irresponsible practices become more looked down upon, cost of up keep would fall and so could the price of a permit.
Yes, it will cost more than the current system. However, I just don’t see things continuing the way they are now. The money for enforcement isn’t there and won’t be. The off-road community is asking people who never will even see the trails we use (99% of the public) to pay for much of their up keep. There is no incentive for the public to do so. We need to minimize the burden to others – tax payers and environmentalists alike – if we are going to continue to be able to use the land. We need to be self-supporting. If everyone heading off-road was shucking out an extra couple hundred dollars a year for the privilege, it could go a long way towards keeping off-roading alive and well.
Sure, there are quite a few ways the government can screw up programs like this, but I really think it has the potential to be a very effective means of keeping land open and, with an organized and engaged off-road community, focused public over-sight would be totally feasible. I just can’t think of any other way that is sustainable. I’d pay it and I am broke.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I am for a Post Office-style system. Require vehicles using public land for off-roading to purchase a permit (sort of like the "green sticker" system in CA but actually effective) and set the price according to the previous year's maintenance costs for trail/land repair and up keep. The revenues generated will fund a self-sustaining department – like the Post Office. This will fund education programs, the repair of destruction caused by the yahoos (helping to dilute the arguments in favor of closing land because of degradation) AND create strong peer pressure amongst off roaders to condemn irresponsible behavior. If you get a bunch of neckless hicks (gross over-generalization for fun – mostly because I grew up around neckless hicks and know they usually can take a little joking) who just had to shell out $200 for the chance to take their quads out for the year, you can bet they are going to have a talk with the ************** that is cutting trails and running up their tab. Now, say what you want about neckless hicks, but they have always seemed fairly persuasive to me. If the cost of recreation is carried by the people doing it, they are going to have a much stronger incentive to behave responsibly and, consequently, minimize that cost. As irresponsible practices become more looked down upon, cost of up keep would fall and so could the price of a permit.
Yes, it will cost more than the current system. However, I just don’t see things continuing the way they are now. The money for enforcement isn’t there and won’t be. The off-road community is asking people who never will even see the trails we use (99% of the public) to pay for much of their up keep. There is no incentive for the public to do so. We need to minimize the burden to others – tax payers and environmentalists alike – if we are going to continue to be able to use the land. We need to be self-supporting. If everyone heading off-road was shucking out an extra couple hundred dollars a year for the privilege, it could go a long way towards keeping off-roading alive and well.
Sure, there are quite a few ways the government can screw up programs like this, but I really think it has the potential to be a very effective means of keeping land open and, with an organized and engaged off-road community, focused public over-sight would be totally feasible. I just can’t think of any other way that is sustainable. I’d pay it and I am broke.

:Wow1:

With hundreds of thousands of motorized users in the state of Utah alone, the size of such a program would be insane. While this big brother system might work well for those that do one or two or even five trips a year, those of use that are out on public lands nearly every weekend would suffer the consequences of a slow bureaucratic system, cost burdens to public land we are already being taxed for and the mental consequences of sticking to the cities and suburbs because there were no permits available for x weekend. And all this is assuming their is the 'great problem' that the radical WAG's would have your believe. Which I don't, I think I deserve the right to make judgment in Utah as much as anyone, last year I spent 55+ days recreating in a vehicle on public lands and a dozen more hiking or biking. I don't see the problem, nor do most. Is there 'a' problem that needs addressing, you bet... but a radical move such as yours is insane. I think the fact they have been able to continually add eligible Wilderness to their proposal at the same time OHV use has exploded is telling enough, the problem doesn't exist to a fraction they would have you believe. Honestly this is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard from either side of the Wilderness debate.

 

[Ruffin' It]

It wasn't a per use permit system idea, it was an annual permit system (as in those that are already in use for boat and OHV in much of the country), but modified to help off-set issues off-roaders create. I'm not sure why it came across as a per use or even a limited permit system. While I am not lucky enough to be able to spend 55+ days a year out, it seems I do see a lot more negative impact from irresponsible use than you do out here. That may be my insanity talking though. What I see as certain to fail is continuning to rely on a small, fragmented, disorganized minority (the off-road community) stepping up in a meaningful way instead of treating it like anyone interested in conservation is a nazi (not you or people on this board for the most part, but I hear it enough from other sources) before a whole lot of land is lost to us.
Thanks for your input though. I guess I'll call my lawmakers and tell them to forget it.

:Wow1:

With hundreds of thousands of motorized users in the state of Utah alone, the size of such a program would be insane. While this big brother system might work well for those that do one or two or even five trips a year, those of use that are out on public lands nearly every weekend would suffer the consequences of a slow bureaucratic system, cost burdens to public land we are already being taxed for and the mental consequences of sticking to the cities and suburbs because there were no permits available for x weekend. And all this is assuming their is the 'great problem' that the radical WAG's would have your believe. Which I don't, I think I deserve the right to make judgment in Utah as much as anyone, last year I spent 55+ days recreating in a vehicle on public lands and a dozen more hiking or biking. I don't see the problem, nor do most. Is there 'a' problem that needs addressing, you bet... but a radical move such as yours is insane. I think the fact they have been able to continually add eligible Wilderness to their proposal at the same time OHV use has exploded is telling enough, the problem doesn't exist to a fraction they would have you believe. Honestly this is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard from either side of the Wilderness debate.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

It wasn't a per use permit system idea, it was an annual permit system (as in those that are already in use for boat and OHV in much of the country), but modified to help off-set issues off-roaders create. I'm not sure why it came across as a per use or even a limited permit system. While I am not lucky enough to be able to spend 55+ days a year out, it seems I do see a lot more negative impact from irresponsible use than you do out here. That may be my insanity talking though. What I see as certain to fail is continuning to rely on a small, fragmented, disorganized minority (the off-road community) stepping up in a meaningful way instead of treating it like anyone interested in conservation is a nazi (not you or people on this board for the most part, but I hear it enough from other sources) before a whole lot of land is lost to us.
Thanks for your input though. I guess I'll call my lawmakers and tell them to forget it.

Yearly, maybe. But we already pay user fees for recreation. We have fee demo areas all over the state, permits and entry fees for State and National Parks and part of our OHV registrations goes towards trail management and education. I would be more OK with a yearly annual fee... but still feel that it would end up being hard to manage. The only feasible way would be to attach it to our OHV registrations (all OHV's have to have a yearly registration tag on their machines on any public land), and we already get taxed on those registrations.

We actually have very organized OHV groups here in Utah, both ATV and 4x4 with nearly 50 organized clubs. For example on National Public Lands Day last month we had nearly all of those organized clubs working on public lands projects all over the state, Moab, Kanab, Kamas, West Desert, etc. These were all projects with the BLM & FS. Hence why I might be a bit tainted towards the actual impact users are having on the ground in every way but shear numbers. There are fringe radical groups on both sides as we have discussed over and over, sadly they get far more press time than those working to mitigate these situations on the ground in pro-active non-litigious situations.

What I see as a bigger threat is corralling a growing number of users and tourists to smaller and smaller available trails. I believe the land has a threshold it can with stand and reasonable recover from on a yearly basis and dispersed use is far more responsible than 'writing-off' an area with over-use.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I agree, pay to play. Ruffin' has it right, the fee could fund solutions to the problem. This is no different than how lots of public property is funded (roads, national parks, forests, lakes, hunting, etc...) Those who dodge the fee and/or tear up the land could be fined huge amounts and have their rigs taken away. Areas with heavy traffic could operate on a permit based system. This is done with hikers in Paria Canyon, Grand Canyon, Bryce, etc... Less trafficed areas wouldn't need a daily use permit to limit traffic, they could just access via thier annual pass.

OHV's are already paying registration fees in which a portion is diverted to land use applications. Fee demonstration areas exist in many of the major Forest Service areas and that money is already being used to improve the canyons. I'm OK with more Fee Demo areas and definitely with increased fines and enforcement... in fact making the rogue users pay for the enforcement and education is the ideal system.

It would require some thought to make the system work, but that's kind of what's missing right now - no thought on creating sustainable solutions to the problem. Someone pointed out in one of the other threads that these problems will only grow exponentially with population and the growth of OHV recreation.

That is all assuming there is this great 'problem'. I've pointed out that despite the seemingly exponential growth in OHV's, at the same time SUWA was able to continually find more and more eligible Wilderness tracts in the same areas they complain are being destroyed by OHV's? What am I missing there? Sure you recreate on the trails withing 25 mile radius of Moab or Salt Lake City and your going to feel like they are over-run and damaged. I argue they are over-used and the hand was forced by lack of opportunity. Get out in the true wilds of Utah and you'll quickly think you might have been the only one there that month, that week, even that year. The problem doesn't exist as you would be lead to believe.

Something will need to be done at some point, why not develop a solution now that has our best interests in mind?

So the 6 recent RMP's covering this very "Wilderness" area was not enough? They closed hundreds of thousands of acres to travel, they closed hundreds and hundreds of miles of motorized routes. They reduced the limits on groups sizes, tightened camping restrictions, eliminated cross-country travel, reduced user-days, etc. The ink didn't even dry on those RMP's before SUWA was already taking the BLM to court. How much enforcement and education money is tied up in the courts?

 

[Scott Brady]

Kurt,

How are things progressing with this? Anything else we can do to help you with?

 

[paulj]

Only one day of hearings was scheduled, as far as I can tell. By the way, the chairman of the relevant subcommittee is from Arizona - 7th district.

Based on the SUWA I'd say the current land issues around Moab involve BLMs oil and gas leases from last December, which are under judicial review, and the BLM land use plans. You can get the BLM maps from their web site.

 

[paulj]

BLM is deferring or withdrawing 60 of the 77 parcels leased in December 2008 to oil and gas exploration
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2009/october/blm_releases_report.html
These leases where challenged in court, claiming that BLM did not adequately confer with other federal agencies. The biggest stink was over leases on the borders of Arches Nat. Park.

Is this action a loss or gain for Moab and other parts of Utah? When the Utah congressional representatives spoke out against the Red Rocks bill, where they more concerned with the loss of oil-field jobs, or the loss of OHV playgrounds?

Or does it matter since it does not deal directly with OHV travel? Or maybe it does matter. If the gas companies put in their exploration roads on these tracts, then the tracts would no longer qualify for wilderness status. To be honest, I don't know how much overlap there is between the 77 parcels and the proposed wilderness areas.

-----------------------------------------
Courtesy of SUWA here are maps of the Dec 2008 Leases. They also indicate sales canceled by Sec. Salazar. They also show wilderness study areas, and parcels covered in the Red Rocks bill.
http://www.suwa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=December2008_LeaseParcelMaps

 

[Scott Brady]

Thanks for the additional information Paul. Maybe Kurt will have more information on the OHV perspective.

 

[paulj]

The Senate version, S 799 was read and referred to committee on April 1. No further action. That committee also has several bills introduced by Utah senators transferring US property to various Utah counties and municipalities. I think the desire for such a transfer was impetus for developing the Washington Cty wilderness bill that passed as part of the March omnibus.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s799/show

 

[cruiseroutfit]

There is a problem, and it will continue to grow. Coming up with solutions that both solve the problem and preserve our ability to enjoy motorized access is an admirable goal.

Lack of education is the problem and Wilderness will not educate anyone. Its against the law to drive off the trail now in the SR Swell. Will making it a Wilderness area suddenly enforce that? Will it provide money for enforcement? No, it will likely drain money from enforcement.

...The wild claims of being 'locked out' from 9 zillion acres don't do any of us any good...

And likewise the wild claims that 'Wilderness' is the only way to keep this land from being destroyed isn't doing us any good anyways.

Ignoring the lawsuits by both sides, ask yourself what people like you and me have been doing. Community members who favor wilderness preservation in Utah have volunteered a lot of time documenting wild lands over the past decade. What has the OHV community done to document overland routes and justifying access? What have pro access vehicle and toy manufactures contributed to preserving access? What have pro environment gear manufactures done to protect the land? It's pretty easy to figure out who has sway and why.

Your welcome to ask me. I spent hundreds of hours each year on pro-access projects, working on the ground with land managers in a pro-active manner as well as working to educate users both on a proper outdoor ethic as well as upcoming land use issues. Want more detail, ask.

Kurt,

How are things progressing with this? Anything else we can do to help you with?

For the time being it is tabled, given the overwhelming lack of support from any Utah politician, the bill got little traction... this time. It will be back and with each introduction it gets stronger, more encompassing and less compromising. The best thing would be to write your local representatives and ask them to continue seeking an alternative to this bill. Be it a handful of smaller Wilderness bills that don't paint with such a broad stroke.

In the meantime hopefully the BLM will have good luck defending their recent RMP revisions against SUWA... its a sorta critical step towards defining which areas meet Wilderness definitions. If those RMP's get tossed out we start another 3+ years of process deliberation in which the tides will likely turn towards OHV use and more land will likely be given a "Land With Wilderness Characteristics" designation after removing OHV access from the public.

Its really warming to see all the support of our public land access and more importantly see the system work, where the voices of users are heard. I'll do my best to keep everyone in the loop as things develop.

BLM is deferring or withdrawing 60 of the 77 parcels leased in December 2008 to oil and gas exploration
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2009/october/blm_releases_report.html
These leases where challenged in court, claiming that BLM did not adequately confer with other federal agencies. The biggest stink was over leases on the borders of Arches Nat. Park.

Is this action a loss or gain for Moab and other parts of Utah? When the Utah congressional representatives spoke out against the Red Rocks bill, where they more concerned with the loss of oil-field jobs, or the loss of OHV playgrounds?

Or does it matter since it does not deal directly with OHV travel? Or maybe it does matter. If the gas companies put in their exploration roads on these tracts, then the tracts would no longer qualify for wilderness status. To be honest, I don't know how much overlap there is between the 77 parcels and the proposed wilderness areas.

-----------------------------------------
Courtesy of SUWA here are maps of the Dec 2008 Leases. They also indicate sales canceled by Sec. Salazar. They also show wilderness study areas, and parcels covered in the Red Rocks bill.
http://www.suwa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=December2008_LeaseParcelMaps

That is an excellent question and at the end of the day will we ever know the true intentions of a politician?

I can tell you there are Utah politicians that are concerned with the impact OHV access has to hunters, bikers, ATV'ers, ranchers and all other forms of recreation on Utah's public lands. Tourism is huge in some of these smaller rural Utah towns to the point they allow ATV's to drive through town and Utah just recently passed a law allowing OHV's to get a license plate for use in smaller towns.

Food for thought, likely 90% of the popular routes in Moab and 50% of the total routes in Utah are remnants of mining, oil & gas. Warms me up on the subject

 

[bigreen505]

This was the response from my representative:

Dear Bill:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding additional Utah wilderness designation. I appreciate the time you have taken to share your views with me.

Congress has a special obligation to protect our remaining wild places. That is one reason why I have cosponsored H.R. 1919, the America's Red Rocks Wilderness Act, introduced by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). This legislation would set aside such treasures as the Great Basin, Zion and Mojave Deserts, and the Grand Staircase. I appreciate the concerns of off-highway vehicle enthusiasts who oppose designating land as protected wilderness because of the restrictions this places on motorized vehicle use. I believe, however, that a balance should be struck between protecting areas from the damage that is sometimes caused by motorized vehicle access and promoting off-highway vehicle recreation.

Again, thank you for letting me know your views. Please feel free to visit my website at www.house.gov/degette. There you can sign up for my e-newsletter to stay up-to-date on current events in Congress. I look forward to our continued communication.

Sincerely,

Diana DeGette
Member of Congress

 

[paulj]

I can tell you there are Utah politicians that are concerned with the impact OHV access has to hunters, bikers, ATV'ers, ranchers and all other forms of recreation on Utah's public lands.

If I recall the details from the SW Idaho portion of the March Omnibus, various concerns lead to its development:
- questions regarding land use by a nearby military base (in the Snake River plane)
- the unsettle status of Wilderness Study Areas
- concerns by area ranchers regarding cross country travel on their lands.

The result was a bill that turned some of the WSA into Wilderness, released some others, and specified that the BLM would designate access routes that would not impact the ranchers. The website for one or more of the Idaho representatives or senators should have the details.

A possible difference in the area around Moab is that there aren't many ranchers who would benefit from settling the wilderness status of adjacent BLM lands. From a business standpoint, has Moab benefitted more from the national parks (Arches, Canyonlands), or from wheeled recreation on BLM lands. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but there probably is some difference in the demographics.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...A possible difference in the area around Moab is that there aren't many ranchers who would benefit from settling the wilderness status of adjacent BLM lands. From a business standpoint, has Moab benefitted more from the national parks (Arches, Canyonlands), or from wheeled recreation on BLM lands. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but there probably is some difference in the demographics.

Very difficult to say. However if you lump all of the activities prohibited by Wilderness into one category then surely Moab proper has benefited more from the 4x4, OHV, Moto & MTB community over the last 50 years. The Easter Jeep Safari Event is still the #1 profit even for the entire town and literally greases the wheels of the community, money to the BLM, money to the SAR, money to the LEO's, hospital and of course every business in town is raking it in. Add to that the 50+ other motorized events that take place in or around town. Canyonlands and Arches have OHV routes, in fact the two regions of Canyonlands can only be accessed with an OHV. Sorta a hard concept to relate though as the lands encompassed by the National Parks have nothing to do with the Wilderness situation.

Moab still has a very active ranching, mining and oil industry, a good majority of the non-tourist industry jobs are related to the Potash Mining, Atlas Mill project and the energy exploration in the surrounding area.

Speaking of EJS, the city of Moab (CofC) created the Easter Jeep Safari event and it was a city run event until they handed off the reigns to the project in the 80's as it was just too much for them to handle.

The history of the EJS event as it appeared several years ago in the U4WDA Compass Magazine:

"The Yesteryear Chronicles:
The Annual Easter Jeep Safari - What? When? Why?
By Kurt Williams, U4WDA Historian

Now in its 42nd year, the Easter Jeep Safari has literally brought hundreds of thousands off-road enthusiasts face to face with the best trails and terrain the Moab area has to offer. But how did it come about? What was it all about in the beginning? Where will it be in the future? Well, let’s start by covering the basics.

As the Uranium mining boom played out in the mid 60’s, Moab businesses were looking for a new way to draw spenders into the small town. The area was teeming with “jeep trails”, remnants of the mining works and the efforts of ambitious prospectors to reach their claims. The idea of a “Jeep Safari” of sorts was pitched by the Moab Chamber of Commerce, many of which were jeepers and prospectors themselves. The idea was taken well by the locals and planning was soon underway.

The Easter Jeep Safari was officially born in 1967. That year nearly 100 vehicles gathered to take on a single trail, Behind the Rocks. The following year, the Moab Rim Trail was added to the one-day lineup. As an added perk to Safari goers in the early days, a local pilot flew in ice cream packages to the lunch spots along the trail, a welcome treat on a hot dusty trail. The event continued to be a one-day event through the 1982 Easter Jeep Safari. In 1983, a change in the BLM permit process prompted the Chamber of Commerce to approach the newly formed Red Rock 4-Wheelers about running the event.

By 1988, Red Rock 4-Wheelers were running 18 different trails, hosting nearly 700 vehicles during a 7 day event. Throughout the 80’s, the EJS event also included a Sand Hill Climb, with 12 different classes competing on the 400 foot sand hill climb at Courthouse Rock north of town. Fast forward to 2008, this years EJS event will play host to 30 trails and approximately 1800 registered vehicles. In addition to the trail runs, a 4x4 vendor show at the Spanish Trail Arena will draw over 150 4x4 companies from all over the Unites States, showing off their latest and greatest products. The two day vendor show culminates on the Friday before Easter, with a raffle containing over $100,000 worth of products for EJS participants to win. The town’s population of almost 5000 residents will surge to triple that amount as 4x4 enthusiasts from all over the country set their sights on the red rock of Moab. Hotels and campgrounds have all booked since the first of the year, restaurants will be crowded, the gas station pumps will have lines forming. This is Easter Jeep Safari in Moab, still fulfilling it primary purpose some 40+ years later.

What does the future hold for the Easter Jeep Safari event? Time will only tell… but rest assured the event will continue to “grease the wheels” of Moab as it has done since its inception. Each year, the Red Rock 4-Wheelers donate thousands of dollars to local organizations such as the Moab Police Department, Grand County Sherriff and Search and Rescue, the Allen Memorial Hospital and a dozen other local recipients. The BLM user fees collected as part of the event will continue to help fund the required studies as they have done since the permit change in 1983. This fee helps keep the trails open 365 days a year, not just during the Jeep Safari event. The infamous Easter Jeep Safari event will live on for years to come!"