9.4 mil acres in Southern Utah

[OverlandZJ]

Saw this elsewhere.. :Wow1:

http://durbin.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=272633

DURBIN TO REINTRODUCE BILL TO PROTECT AMERICA'S RED ROCK WILDERNESS

Wednesday, April 18, 2007


[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said today that he will introduce legislation in the Senate this week to protect America's Red Rock Wilderness, approximately 9.4 million acres of spectacular and rare wilderness in southern Utah. Currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the agency is not prohibited from selling, leasing or building roads in parts of this publicly held land. An identical bill was introduced in the House by U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) today.

"Sunday is Earth Day and it is a fitting opportunity for all Americans to rededicate themselves to protecting our nation's natural resources," Durbin said. "I encourage the Senate to do its part as well by supporting the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, critical legislation that will preserve a national treasure for future generations of Americans."

Durbin's bill would designate 9.4 millions acres in Utah as wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act. The bill provides wilderness protection for wildlands, which include steep red rock canyons, enormous arches and towering cliffs with spectacular vistas of unmatched sandstone landscapes. Hidden within this expansive setting are world-renowned archeological sites and habitat for rare plant and animal species. These areas are a haven for those seeking solace in nature, including hikers, backpackers and recreationists.

The lands designated as wilderness in Durbin and Hinchey's legislation were primarily identified through a detailed and extensive public inventory of BLM lands conducted by volunteers from the Utah Wilderness Coalition. By designating certain areas as wilderness, the bill protects them from new commercial enterprise/development, oil and gas exploration, motorized/mechanized vehicles, and road building. Non-consumptive uses such as hunting, fishing, camping, backpacking, hiking, and horseback riding are permitted under the legislation.

"I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that these fragile lands of magnificent beauty, which already belong to the public, do not fall victim to oil, gas and mining interests, increased commercial development, and proposals to construct roads, utility lines, and dams. We are the stewards of these creations and our legislation will help achieve this important goal," Durbin concluded.

Contact Senator Durbin:
http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm#contact

[crawler#976]

I don't even know where to begin...

But I'll say I'm 100% opposed to it.

[cruiseroutfit]

This has been a long drawn out proposal... each time they find more "wilderness" in the state... mind you most of the "inventories" were done by slightly biased volunteers ;) That made it a bit easier to forget that there were roads, homesteads, ranches, mines, etc... right in the middle of their "wilderness".

This proposal gains a bit of steam each time the Demo's get power in office. Utah's are against it... you can see where the congressional support comes from. Get real!!

[Grim Reaper]

This has been a long drawn out proposal... each time they find more "wilderness" in the state... mind you most of the "inventories" were done by slightly biased volunteers ;) That made it a bit easier to forget that there were roads, homesteads, ranches, mines, etc... right in the middle of their "wilderness".

This proposal gains a bit of steam each time the Demo's get power in office. Utah's are against it... you can see where the congressional support comes from. Get real!!
They flat out manufactured it. The main part of what it requires to be "wilderness" is no roads in a specified area.

To meet that criteria The FS and BLM just decided "Roads" are not "Roads" they are "trails". Doesn't matter that they are on maps that predate the FS they just changed their classifications so they could loop hole the terminology of "roadless" in the requirement. Then to rub it in they name it the "roadless Initiative".

[calamaridog]

It just burns me when people are so clueless:


Hidden within this expansive setting are world-renowned archeological sites and habitat for rare plant and animal species. These areas are a haven for those seeking solace in nature, including hikers, backpackers and recreationists.

What the hell are we? I hate to be marginalized like this. I'm willing to bet I've logged more miles on foot than most people, but frankly, I don't 3 months every summer to hike anymore.

My off ROAD vehicle allows me to enjoy nature. How hard is that to understand?

[DesertRose]

Just have to voice an opposing view - we've been there, and it's beautiful and does qualify as Wilderness (some roads can exist in Wilderness areas, and can be used to fight fires and manage infrastructure for grazing).

I am not opposed to Wilderness at all, in fact applaud it. We need to act now, not wait til we're sorry later.

That's my view! This is the Conservation section, after all.

[Jonathan Hanson]

"Marginalized?" Please take no offense, but who has been "marginalized" by wilderness in the United States? No one.

The U.S. comprises two and a quarter billion acres of land. About 107 million acres of that is designated wilderness - less than five percent. That's one out of 20 acres in the country left in anything resembling the state it was when the Vikings landed. The rest - 19 out of every 20 acres - is open to varying degrees of exploitation, development, and road building. If we designated ten new wilderness areas the size of the entire proposed Utah legislation we still wouldn't reach ten percent wilderness in the country.

There is a very good reason for maintaining federal control over much land in the country, and that is to prevent short-term profit taking by one state from permanently destroying a national asset. And "federal" control just means every citizen in the country has a say. Federal land is owned by all of us, not the government. If enough of us don't like the way it's being run, we can change it. And every poll in the country indicates strong majority support for protecting more land. That's democracy.

And who says you need "three months" to enjoy a wilderness? Park your car at the edge, walk in for 20 minutes, and enjoy.

There is a more important philosophy at work here, too. Our country has agreed that for the bits of land we set aside as wilderness and wildlife refuge, the well-being of the habitat and the animals that live there takes precedence over our own urge to sit on our butts and let internal combustion take us everywhere.

I think that speaks highly of our country.

[crawler#976]

I am a motorized hiker for lack of a better term. Due to serious injuries in my mis-spent youth, I can no longer access roadless areas. The areas included in the proposal are currently open to travel - I've been thru parts of it myself. Large portions of the area are already protected under the Grand Staircase/Escalante NM.

here's some info on what's being proposed for inclusion:

http://www.wilderness.org/WhereWeWork/Utah/wilderness.cfm

I've highlighted a few passages.






Consistent with the Wilderness Act of 1964, the Act would prohibit construction of new roads and structures, and the use of motorized vehicles in wilderness areas except in emergency situations. Among the storied places that America's Red Rock Wilderness Act would protect are:

The Kaiparowits Plateau. This is an immense, mysterious, unforgiving land shaped by eons of nature's most powerful elements. Much of it is now within the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, though Utah politicians have sought to remove it to allow coal mining. Serpentine canyons, panoramic vistas, and wondrous silence have, so far, characterized this landscape. Pronghorn and desert bighorn sheep feed in sage-dotted valleys; thousand-year-old pinyon and juniper trees punctuate dazzling rock formations; and deer, bears, cougars, coyotes, foxes, badgers, and bobcats range.

The Book Cliffs. North of Green River, Utah, a 2,000-foot high escarpment marks the southern perimeter of this million-acre wilderness of exceptional geographic and biological diversity. Abundant wildlife and rugged beauty have made the Book Cliffs wilderness one of Utah's most popular backcountry destinations, beloved of hunters and hikers alike. Recent oil and gas development proposals in the Book Cliffs Region threaten the remaining roadless areas that are becoming increasingly crucial for wildlife, as critical summer and winter habitat already has fallen to oil and gas development.

The Bureau of Land Management is now reviewing a proposal to drill over 400 gas wells and to bulldoze hundreds of miles of roads throughout an 80,000-acre project area that includes two proposed wilderness areas-White River and Lower Bitter Creek. If this exploration continues, roads, pipelines, drilling pads, production wells, and pumping stations will scar one of the wildest places in Utah.

The San Rafael Swell. This area contains spectacular slot canyons, colorful rock formations, and abundant wildlife. The area supports Utah's largest population of bighorn sheep, a wide variety of migratory songbirds, pronghorns, mule deer, peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and the endangered San Rafael cactus. In addition, the Swell's vulnerable and unique watercourses are critical for survival of this diversity of native wildlife.

Over the years, the eerie beauty of the Swell has prompted a number of proposals for its protection in a variety of ways. Most recently, in late 2002, the Governor of Utah abandoned his effort to find consensus on a national monument proposal after citizens in Emery County, Utah, voted the idea down.

The Swell, as well as other parts of Utah's roadless country, continues to suffer damage from off-road vehicle (ORV) use. In early 2003 -- and after a decade of delay -- the BLM finally released a travel management plan for the Swell. It announced the closure of 468 miles of routes dirt-bikers and other off-road vehicle (ORV) users have created through use over the years. But it leaves open 677 miles of ORV trails. Added to the 1300 miles of state, county and federal roads, this means that nearly 2000 miles of road remain open through the Swell's million acres. As a practical matter, the number may, in fact, get bigger quickly: ORV operators refuse to remain on approved routes; the BLM refuses to do much of anything about it.

Wilderness designation would protect the Swell from the steady encroachment of dirt bikes, all-terrain vehicles, and other ORVs.

[pwc]

The main part of what it requires to be "wilderness" is no roads in a specified area.

That's simply not true. Take the Boulder River Wilderness in Washington state, for example. You start out walking on an old railroad grade that was turned into a road when the mining stopped. It was a road to harvest the timber decades ago. It was then turned into a wilderness and is mostly older second growth forest with some great recreation.

Are people opposed to it because it'll stop them from driving in there? Are you looking out for your interest or what's best for the country? Is it really bad if there's more of this country that people have to walk/ski/dog sled into? or should EVERYTHING be open to moto-bikes, snowmobiles, mining, logging, etc...?

[kcowyo]

Is it really bad if there's more of this country that people have to walk/ski/dog sled into? or should EVERYTHING be open to moto-bikes, snowmobiles, mining, logging, etc...?

It's only bad when one group of users tries to dictate and push their own agenda onto another group, regarding how our public lands should be used.

I'm not advocating EVERYTHING being open. I'm an advocate for equal access.

I think the first hiker who slips and breaks a leg will be happy when a motorized rescue vehicle comes to their aid. A LOT happier than say if they had to wait for a first-aid hiking team.....

[Kermit]

Wilderness should be deffined: NO humans.

Now, if it was deffined in such a way, do you think the hikers would push their ideals?

That is the one of things that really chaps my hide, you can have hikers and equestrians on 1500lbs. horses with metal shod shoes, tromping through the "wilderness", but, I can't ride a human powered mountain bike?

What makes them the exception???

I do believe we need to set aside some pure wilderness....meaning no humans what so ever, but, there has to be a balance.

[pwc]

But the wilderness act is all about "one" group pushing their agenda on others. that "one" is the government, saying you can't go driving or mining or whatever else in this area. It's democracy

[calamaridog]

"Marginalized?" Please take no offense, but who has been "marginalized" by wilderness in the United States? No one.

You missed the point completely.

Motorized OHV users are also recreationists, not just hikers. Not being considered as such is being marginalized.

None of the politicians in Utah even want this. This is not popular in Utah with the people who live there. How about some local input?

[kcowyo]

But the wilderness act is all about "one" group pushing their agenda on others. that "one" is the government, saying you can't go driving or mining or whatever else in this area. It's democracy

And who tells the government what to do? You know those fatcats didn't come up with this of their own volition.

Should a person with disabilities in a Tank Chair (http://www.tankchair.com/default.htm)not be allowed to enjoy the wilderness because they require motorized assistance?

I support protecting wilderness areas from logging and mining, but would prefer there not be definitive legislation limiting recreation opportunities. Too many variables involved to make this Bill an absolute.

[Jonathan Hanson]

Given that 95 percent of the country is non-wilderness, I'd say the motorized users have been considerably more successful pushing their agenda than the other way around. There's not a chance in hell that the designated wilderness area in the United States will grow by more than another one or two percent as a fraction of the whole. There is neither the land, the money, nor the political will power to make it happen. So what we get in the next decade or so will be it, forever. Our legacy to future generations. "No, we thought one out of 20 acres was enough to protect; we wanted to ride our ATVs over the rest."

There is no reason to exclude humans from wilderness, as long as we hold to the ideals of putting our own convenience second to the welfare of the landscape and wildlife. It's not hard, really. It's an honorable thing.

The horse versus bike debate is a fair one. I'd be more likely to vote out horses than vote in bikes.

But motorized access: Do we want paved roads suitable for wheelchair-equipped vans reaching every square mile of the country? Does anyone here honestly believe that if there is a place you aren't capable of (or don't feel like) walking to, it doesn't deserve to be protected? Actually I hear it all the time: "Well, I'll never go there." Sad that this has become the determining factor for so many people.

[calamaridog]

Just have to voice an opposing view - we've been there, and it's beautiful and does qualify as Wilderness (some roads can exist in Wilderness areas, and can be used to fight fires and manage infrastructure for grazing).

I am not opposed to Wilderness at all, in fact applaud it. We need to act now, not wait til we're sorry later.

That's my view! This is the Conservation section, after all.


HR 233 - Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act included provisions to incorporate existing multiple use, including motorized users, into the protected land. Enough people were happy with the compromise to actually make it happen, whereas this Utah legislation will fall on its face.

For the most part, if people would work together to protect all interests, then many victories would be achieved for the enjoyment and protection of our natural resources.

Certainly not all Wilderness areas should be open to motorized recreation, but areas that are currently open to such use should incorporate aspects of that use in the new management plan.

I think the issue is that your view, does not neccessarily have to be "opposing", but can be analogous to mine, and allow for forward progress.

[Jonathan Hanson]

Incidentally, I've done two articles on handicapped outdoorspeople, one on climbers for Outside, another on paraplegic and quadriplegic hunters for Bugle. Not one of the people I interviewed - not one - advocated restricting wilderness designations or increasing road access for their benefit. On the other hand, every one of them expressed outrage at non-handicapped people who trot out the handicapped banner to achieve their own ends.

[calamaridog]

But motorized access: Do we want paved roads suitable for wheelchair-equipped vans reaching every square mile of the country? Does anyone here honestly believe that if there is a place you aren't capable of (or don't feel like) walking to, it doesn't deserve to be protected? Actually I hear it all the time: "Well, I'll never go there." Sad that this has become the determining factor for so many people.

Not what I'm saying at all. I envision some roads and trails being closed, such as what they did at the Northern California Costal site, and some being left open to managed motorized recreation.


BTW, only if the vans look like this:D

[DesertRose]

Ultimately the voters will decide - and that's who should.

What happens on these debates is it boils down to discussing an ideology rather than protecting something worthwhile and, well, more important than the individual - but somehow Wilderness has become a lightning rod for rancorous debate between different types of recreationists and user-groups.

I feel that the original Wilderness Act was one of the finest examples of Democracy working in this country. A very broad coalition of very diverse user-groups (groups that today hardly speak to each other except to yell at public meetings) worked together, walked the Hill, made the legislation, and got the vote.

Would love to debate more but I'm en route to a meeting in southern California and won't be back next week!

[calamaridog]

I think that is the point exactly. The voters have decided, which is why no Utah politician will touch this issue right now.

Whereas when people work together, then even groups like BRC, will sign on to a modified style of Wilderness, and a consensus forms, and people can all walk away with a satisfied feeling they have done something positive. A broad coalition of people working together, as you say.

[Ridgewalker]

In the early '70s I received my MS and worked for a couple of years in Lake City, CO for the BLM. It was a very frustrating job for my young idealistic attitude. Although it was a very enlightening experience. We had the same issues then that we are discussing today.

No one can have their way or win, but hopefully no one will totally lose.

I now have 4 grand children (9 months to 21 years) I would like to give the opportunities I have had to enjoy wilderness.

Being older I too would still like to enjoy wilderness areas. When I was in my late 30s I soloed 56 miles in 2 days across the Weminuche Wilderness...no more. Through 50 I still backpacked with over 75 multi-day trips under my belt and many many hunting/fishing/13er-14er bagging/day hiking trips.

As long as I can still access the fringes of wilderness and still have 4wd areas my aging body can get me to, I will be elated! I don't have to go everywhere I did in my youth. But I do believe I have the responsibility to give my children and grand children and great grand children the same opportunities I have had. I am willing to sacrifice seeing some of the places I did not go for them.

Thanks for listening to my totally biased opinion.:sunny:

[kcowyo]

.....every one of them expressed outrage at non-handicapped people who trot out the handicapped banner to achieve their own ends.

Fair enough. I could count the number of people with disabilities I know on one hand.

It's the irony of some poor SOB who got his legs blown off in Korea, fighting for the good ol' US of A, not being granted access to his public lands that gets me. Or some retired folks, cruising into their twilight years in the Winnebago, who may not be able physically to hike or bike into pristine areas. Should they be denied access because they are simply, the "previous generation"?

On the flip side, I have bred and currently I am raising, the "next generation." I plan to not only instill in them a love of the outdoors, but how to respect it, preserve it and enjoy it in a responsible manner. I will also teach them to use their right to voice their opinions on how their public lands should be used and limited, not to merely lay down and take what Uncle Sam and certain special interest groups, tell them.

I will be more proud of them if they simply elect to use their voice. More than if they become avid hikers or 4WD enthusiasts.

[goodtimes]

I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, I simply love being in wilderness areas. Miles from my vehicle...and everyone elses too. The only people you see are like minded folks who are enjoying nature as nature intended it. Until the group with the pack horses comes through... and leaves you smelling them for the next 2 hours. I like being able to walk down narrow trails and not having to hear two strokes buzzing along in the distance, or having to jump out of the way of mountain bikes to avoid getting run over.

On the other hand, I like having "non-disneyland~esque" areas to ride my motorcycle, mountain bike, and drive my jeep into. Losing a large chunk of land in such a beautiful area hurts this hand (but helps the other). The problem is that these activities (mechanized) ARE harmful to the environment (I don't like horses in wilderness areas either). While the impact can be minimal if one pays attention and keeps their testosterone in check, there will always be the hiker on the single track right around the blind corner (who either gets hit, is forced to jump out of the way, or the mountain bike/motorcycle leaves the trail to avoid them), there will always be the wild life that is distrupted, there will always be the ya-hoo that thinks it is OK to leave the trail to set up camp 1/4 mile away...right in the middle of the riparian area. Once he does it, so will the next guy, because "someone else already drove over there, so it is OK for me to do it too". Then the next one, and the next one....if you don't believe it, just look at nearly any of the trails in high use areas. The problem will keep getting worse and worse as more and more people turn to motorized outdoor recreation. This is why I believe wilderness areas need to be designated NOW, before they are destroyed.

It is a simple (and painful) fact that while there are alot of people out there who ARE responsible, who DO make an effort to minimize their impact, who DO tread lightly...there are just as many who do not. If we cannot protect the environment from those who do not, then I cannot find a reason to support keeping the land open.

To the side issue of handi-cap access: I have stated in other threads, and will state my opinion again. I believe in every geographic area, there should be some access to those less fortunate than us. This does not mean turn everything into disneyland. It means that there should be a couple of well maintained trails for those who cannot handle the rougher trails in each geographical area. Sabino Canyon near Tucson is a prime example. There are a few level, wide, maintained trails which are accessable...there is even a tram which goes a few miles up the canyon. And then there are a bunch of traditional trails for everyone that prefers that kind of hiking.

[calamaridog]

I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, I simply love being in wilderness areas. Miles from my vehicle...and everyone elses too. The only people you see are like minded folks who are enjoying nature as nature intended it. Until the group with the pack horses comes through... and leaves you smelling them for the next 2 hours. I like being able to walk down narrow trails and not having to hear two strokes buzzing along in the distance, or having to jump out of the way of mountain bikes to avoid getting run over.

What is there to be torn about;)

There are already wilderness areas and hiking only areas to enjoy, and there are already mixed use areas to enjoy:) The best of both worlds! Before you go, you should know which trails you will find total solitude on, and which you will share the experience on.

I've hiked for days in the Sierra's and never seen another soul. It's a nice feeling, I know. And you know what, there are areas in the Sierra's where you can access via 4x4 trails too. And many of those areas see maybe 50 vehicles pass in a year.

My issue is not to lock the gate to multiple use just for the sake of a wilderness designation. Recent events have proven that both ideas can be successfully incorporated into one area by allowing certain popular trails to remain open, closing some others to mitigate existing damage or potential damage to fragile systems, and most of all compromising.

If you don't offer something to both sides then lines will continue to be drawn in the sandbox.

[Kermit]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary.


Wilderness:

Main Entry: wil·der·ness
Pronunciation: 'wil-d&r-n&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from wildern wild, from Old English wilddEoren of wild beasts
1 a (1) : a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2) : an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community b : an empty or pathless area or region <in remote wildernesses of space groups of nebulae are found -- G. W. Gray died 1960> c : a part of a garden devoted to wild growth
2 obsolete : wild or uncultivated state
3 a : a confusing multitude or mass : an indefinitely great number or quantity <I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys -- Shakespeare> b : a bewildering situation <those moral wildernesses of civilized life -- Norman Mailer>



Maybe they shouldn't call it wilderness?

[pwc]

None of the government agencies we talk about have full fundingto really study thier lands and COMPLETELY manage them in the best way. Look at the billions of dollars of backlog the national park service has as an example.

With that in mind, I'm more in favor of erroring on the side of too much conservation NOW to make sure there is something to debate about later. If there's a great tract of land that has some roads on it but we (government agencies) don't know if those roads should remain and don't have the funding to do a full impact assesment, let along the man power, I say close it off and let it just sit. Are there meth labs, illegal grazing or mining going on in those areas now? It's hard to say since you can't check on all the multi-use areas. If an area is that great that we want to preserve it for generations to come, why don't we do that now and let future generations decide when they have some prestine land on their hands, as compared to some overused area we didn't have the time and money to manage?

Does that make sense to anyone? If you don't protect something you can't manage now (and designating as wilderness does a great job of shutting out illegal activity), you might not have it in the future and you can't just grow back most of these areas.

[dieselcruiserhead]

Interesting debate.. Some of you may know that both Kurt & I have been very involved in the wilderness and 4WD advocacy debates.. He is a former President of the U4WDA, I was the land use coordinator for Wasatch Cruisers Land Cruiser club and organized a "thank you Moab" ad campaign after a particularly bad Easter Jeep Safari in that there were fights on Moab Rim it was a generally bad year...

Kurt is more of a traditional land use advocate in that he generally opposed anything that offers restriction to mechanized vehicles, even if it means that it will stop oil and gas drilling and may otherwise change the landscape (correct me if I'm wrong Kurt)...

Whereas I generally have respect and want to preserve the land but I believe certain segments can be used with minimal damage. IE I think vehicles should be able to go in this section at least, I believe the 4WD issue for the strict environmental groups is overstated, and I largely believe it is a cultural issue, in that in the end it still boils down to the same-old left versus right in the end. But I do believe that land should have protection against oil and gas drilling and exploration (unless, possibly, very strict environmental preservation regulations are put into effect), and I think the land should generally be preserved... And that generally the wilderness groups (SUWA at least) is unfortunately close minded and overly narrow about this, not willing to compromise or come up with some sort of scenario that works for 4WD users as well.



As a result here is what I wrote:

Senator Durbin,
I am writing in response to the proposed Wilderness Act that will affect Southern Utah. I wanted to mention that I am generally a Democrat and am Liberal and generally favor land use restrictions, particularly in regards to energy exploration and development. However, I wanted to say that I oppose this bill in its current form because of its land use measures specifically involving 4WD vehicles. Much of this land is incredibly remote and simply cannot be reached without 4WD vehicles. While I am not an avid 4WD enthusiast, I do believe that the current debate with the 4WD vehicles, in many cases, is "mental" from the perspective of the environmental organizations, some of which I personally support. The damage by 4WD vehicles is overstated, and particularly in these rural areas very few people are there regardless. The opposition comes from the fact that most 4WD enthusiasts are Republicans and Conservative, ultimately it is a cultural issue.

In fact most 4WD users, particularly those interested in going to these areas, are environmentalists too, and believe in just as much protection for these lands as the environmental groups. I do not think there should be a ban on 4WD and mechanized vehicles in my opinion. I hope you and/or your staff will revisit this and realistically re-evaluate your stance on it. Furthermore, I am from New York originally; I thought I understood the issues before I moved here, but found that I did not until I got here.

Sincerely,
Andre Shoumatoff
Park City, Utah

[PhulesAU]

[QUOTE=DesertRose]Ultimately the voters will decide - and that's who should.

I have always wanted to take a quote out of context.... If you belive this then, why are you still getting raked over the coals by the IRS????

[cruiseroutfit]

...This is not popular in Utah with the people who live there. How about some local input?

You pretty much summed it up right there...

I typed out a giant reply... computer froze up just as I hit the "post" button... here is my summary. My opinions...

1. Utah has plenty of existing Wilderness and WSA (WSA's are just exploited loopholes that are essentially Wilderness).

2. I don't oppose more Wilderness, nor do many motorized users. But I do oppose 9.4 mil more... especially when we stand to lose HISTORIC access in some of these areas.

3. While I can respect the Wilderness advocates opinion to some degree, I honestly have a really hard time respecting that of the motorized user that wants this 9.4 Wilderness. How can you honestly say that we need Wilderness void of motorized users, and then justify your next trip. What makes these proposed area any less succeptable to the damage YOU think happens? Want your cake and eat it too... I have a hard time seeing how there is a line to walk... either your for Wilderness and anti-mechanized or you against it and think that we should maintain the motorized access we have now.

4. How in the heck is it "environmentally respectful and preserving" to literally funnel the increasing number of mechanized users onto a dwindling amount of land. Talk about two faced... I beleive 100% that public land would be better off as a whole if we had more dispersed use... which doesn't happen when we keep corralling the same amount of users (lets not forget the other users not allowed in Wilderness ie: ranchers, oil, mining, etc.) I posed this exact question to SUWA leader Heidi Macintosh, here response was simple bs. She just wants here big paycheck and the multi-milluin dollar lawsuit machine (aka SUWA) to continue their sting of frivolous legal roadblocks.

5. Interestingly enough the Redrock Bill keeps growing... how do they keep finding more Wilderness? Where was it before? At one time some of the motirzed advocacy groups agreed to the majority of the proposed Wilderness, but they weren't willing to comprimise, why should they? They are making big $$$ touring the US showing the destruction our vehicles are doing.

Enough ranting for me tonight... Thanks!

[calamaridog]

Kurt,

You are correct. Every year there are more motorized recreationists and less acreage to recreate on. This is an incontrovertable statement, and contributes to the self-fulfilling prophecy that motorized recreation is bad. As more and more people attempt to ride and drive on less and less acres, the problems will continue to compound.

In other words, it is not environmentally responsible to do this.

It's not like someone is saying we want to turn this 9 million acres into Wilderness and then we will set aside these several 100k acre tracts for motorized recreation to offset your loss.

The other issue you touch on is the multi-million dollar Anti-Access environmental lobby (business) in the U.S. This is self serving industry, in and of itself.

Compare that to the mostly grass roots lobby of the Pro-Access groups and you are talking David and Goliath.

[goodtimes]

Every year there are more motorized recreationists and less acreage to recreate on. This is an incontrovertable statement, and contributes to the self-fulfilling prophecy that motorized recreation is bad. As more and more people attempt to ride and drive on less and less acres, the problems will continue to compound.

In other words, it is not environmentally responsible to do this.

But is it environmentally responsible to NOT protect some land? As long as the population continues to increase, and our "standard of living" continues to rise, there will be more and more people engaged in every form of recreation (more hikers, more bikers, more OHV'ers, more people on quads, more people in kayaks, more people doing *whatever*). We have a limited amount of land, and it will continue to be squeezed down until there is nothing left. How many off road trails have been lost to urban sprawl, compared to wilderness areas? I have no firm data, but I'd bet we lose 10 trails to sprawl for every trail we lose to wilderness, if you look over the last 50 years.




It's not like someone is saying we want to turn this 9 million acres into Wilderness and then we will set aside these several 100k acre tracts for motorized recreation to offset your loss.

But they are open to motorized recreation right now. If they left several 100K acres open to mechainzed recreation....then what exactly are they doing? Nothing. They would simply be reducing the the size of the protected area. Instead of 9.4 million acres, the wilderness area would then be 8.4 million acres. Who is to say that the original plan did not include 15 million acres, which was later reduced to 9.4 million acres to continue to allow access.
(I don't know if it was, or not...just posing a question)




The other issue you touch on is the multi-million dollar Anti-Access environmental lobby (business) in the U.S. This is self serving industry, in and of itself.

And the OHV lobby is not? Every "lobby" exists for only one reason...to convince politicians to vote in favor of whoever is lining the lobbiests pocket.

crap, I'm sounding like a damn enviromentalist....:o

[goodtimes]

None of the government agencies we talk about have full fundingto really study thier lands and COMPLETELY manage them in the best way. Look at the billions of dollars of backlog the national park service has as an example.

Funding is definately a problem. If the funding was there, enforcement would be improved, and maybe, just maybe, people would think twice about doing something stupid. Maybe. It would be a start.

[cruiseroutfit]

But is it environmentally responsible to NOT protect some land?

So are you saying you beleive that motorized recreation is bad for the land? How can you comprimise which land your "damaging" hobby can take place on. This is the exact mentality I have a hard time understanding. We have set aside Wilderness and WSA's, why do we need to "protect" more from damage many of us don't beleive exists. Southern Utahs eco-system gets more disturbance from a single flash flood than 50 years of vehicle travel. Sure there are areas where human impact has visual disturbed the terrain, but I would argue that they havn't done any "damage" in the big picture of an areas eco-system.

Land can be protected and still keep historic access to motorized travel. Are you a beleiver that National Forests all over the country are NOT being protected because they allow human impact beyond the foot? I think some of our forests are as healthy as they have been in the last 100+ years, and improving!


I have no firm data, but I'd bet we lose 10 trails to sprawl for every trail we lose to wilderness, if you look over the last 50 years.

Not in Utah, not even close... I can only think of a few isntances where "urban sprawl" has lead to a trail closure, and they were questionable and or private trails from day one. While there have been many cases over the years, I would guess they amount to at best 5% of the trails lost to Wilderness & WSA designations.




Who is to say that the original plan did not include 15 million acres, which was later reduced to 9.4 million acres to continue to allow access.

It wasn't, the original plan has continued to grow with each appearance... they make no allowances for continued recreation in their "wilderness inventories" to them it is all or none.... None it shall be.


And the OHV lobby is not? Every "lobby" exists for only one reason...to convince politicians to vote in favor of whoever is lining the lobbiests pocket.

But the OHV community doesn't exploit a problem that doesn't really exist. The Redrock slide show consist of dozens of photos of "damaging" vehicles in the Moab area... what they don't show is the other 99.9% of the area that looks as if it had never been touched by man. They use propoganda to push their agenda. They call us irresponsible, lazy, rednecks, noisy, smelly and "damaging" to the environment... The OHV community just fights for to keep public land public! ;)

[cruiseroutfit]

Funding is definately a problem. If the funding was there, enforcement would be improved, and maybe, just maybe, people would think twice about doing something stupid. Maybe. It would be a start.

Absolutly!!!

I heard a number once from a BLM rep here in Utah... approx. 50% of their annual budget is spent on litigation... It makes me SICK to think of how much good could actually happen on the ground if the WAG's could sit back for a bit and let them enforce their current laws.

[Jonathan Hanson]

It's the irony of some poor SOB who got his legs blown off in Korea, fighting for the good ol' US of A, not being granted access to his public lands that gets me. Or some retired folks, cruising into their twilight years in the Winnebago, who may not be able physically to hike or bike into pristine areas. Should they be denied access because they are simply, the "previous generation"?

KC, I understand your concern, but I still don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that every wilderness area in the country should have a road into it for the use of the elderly and handicapped? What about the Grand Canyon? Should there be a road to the bottom? It's a spectacular piece of public land, and totally unaccessible to Flo and Lester in their motorhome. Denali? The view from the top is great, and utterly unattainable to a big segment of our population.

I don't know of a single type of habitat or scenery in the U.S. that doesn't have motorized access into part of it. That is enough for every handicapped person I know; they have told me so.

And others here are still talking about some sort of mitigation when land is "lost" to wilderness designation. I don't understand what part of five percent you guys don't get! The fight to preserve the last bits of wilderness in the country is mitigation.

You are correct that motorized use of public land is growing. Especially as more and more Americans succumb to flab and spurn hiking shoes for that electric-start ATV. Again, what would you do? Cancel all wilderness designation and build more roads? What's your vision here for the next 50 years? Cover every square mile of public land with ATV trails?

Regarding the claim that more land has been "lost" to wilderness than to sprawl. Not sure where to begin there. I consider "sprawl" to be any increase in land use that cuts that land off from recreational use or eliminates its value as wildlife habitat. But let's compare the 107 million acres of wilderness to other totals of U.S. land use:

80 million acres in the U.S. planted in feeder corn.
75 million acres planted in soybeans.
61 million acres planted in alfala.

About 95 percent of all the crops I just listed go to feed livestock. So we have twice as much land in the U.S. devoted solely to cow food as wilderness. And that doesn't count 780 million acres of grazing land, most of which is at least multiple use.

Total cropland in the U.S. is 350 million acres.

Developed urban and rural residential land totals 139 million acres.

50 million acres of paved roads and parking lots.

In the face of this, I will continue to press to preserve every last square inch of American land that remains in anything even resembling pristine condition.

[Jonathan Hanson]

For those more afraid of wilderness than sprawl, this from the Arizona Daily Star:

Freeways up to 24 lanes wide, new interstate bypasses, commuter rail — none will prevent a quagmire of traffic congestion through the coming Tucson-to-Phoenix "megalopolis."
That's the warning from a longtime Pima County transportation official, who says there's no way officials can find the money or physical space to build a road-and-transit network big enough to handle Arizona's projected growth over the next three decades.
By then, forecasters have predicted wall-to-wall development along the interstate highways serving this "Sun Corridor," which they say will create a megapolitan area all the way from Prescott to Sierra Vista.
By 2040, up to 13.3 million people will live in the corridor — 8 million more than now, and the freeways are already jammed at rush hour.
Ten years from now, driving on the interstates could be an extremely frustrating experience, says Ben Goff, Pima County's deputy transportation director.
There will be no point in looking for an alternative route, he predicts, because it will be no better than the one you're already driving.

Oh, but if we could just stop those whacko environmentalists . . .

[kcowyo]

KC, I understand your concern, but I still don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that every wilderness area in the country should have a road into it for the use of the elderly and handicapped? What about the Grand Canyon? Should there be a road to the bottom? It's a spectacular piece of public land, and totally unaccessible to Flo and Lester in their motorhome. Denali? The view from the top is great, and utterly unattainable to a big segment of our population.

I don't know of a single type of habitat or scenery in the U.S. that doesn't have motorized access into part of it. That is enough for every handicapped person I know; they have told me so.


And I just mentioned to Chuck recently that I stay out of these threads because I feel like I'm walking into a machine-gun fight with a handful of rocks.....:rolleyes:

Well clearly I'm more of an authority of irony than conservation. Perhaps I am projecting my views of the snowmobile vs. no snowmobile in Yellowstone debate, onto this proposed bill in Utah. Basically I am opposed to restricting access of an area to one group of users while allowing others to use it as they wish. FTR, I felt the same way years ago when Augusta National tried to ban women and African-Amercian golfers on their course.

I speak not from a conservationists standpoint, but rather from a sense of what I personally believe is right and wrong. I believe because one group has more funding, PC support or simply whines louder than another, that that group should not be unchallenged in their efforts to restrict usage of public lands.

I don't wish to see the remaining pristine areas of our country overrun with mines, logging trucks, oil rigs, etc. Nor do I wish to see them taken over by rock buggies, mud boggers or white Toyotas with fridges. I don't believe there should be roads built just for those with special needs. I believe in equal access or no access. Unfortunately man's rebellious nature has resulted in damage to certain areas because not everyone will respect equal access or current laws.

Lastly, I have this perverse (childish?) need to point out irony wherever I see it. For instance -


....every one of them expressed outrage at non-handicapped people who trot out the handicapped banner to achieve their own ends.

I can relate. I feel the same way when some DINK families (Double Income No Kids) trot out the "preserve this and that, for future generations," banner. We are not guaranteed a tomorrow. Shouldn't we take advantage of, and make the most of, the opportunities we have today?

I would enjoy reading your take on the dichotomy between the "live your life today" mantra that you & Roseann have encouraged but making preservation and conservation for tomorrow, your life's work.

Respectfully -

[cruiseroutfit]

...Regarding the claim that more land has been "lost" to wilderness than to sprawl...

Apples & Oranges...

We are not talking about farms in the midwest, we are not talking about the suburbs of Arizona... we are talking about the remote regions of Utah where urban sprawl is not and has not been an issue. I can see your reasoning in the "number", but your numbers have literal face value on the situation in Utah. You can't compare the Urban sprawl of metro cities not farmland with the situation in Utah.. no two ways about it.

The motorized advocacy groups are not asking for more or new trails... rather the right to use existing ones... its literally as simple as that. I spent alot of time in areas that would be and have been lost to Wilderness, I live literally less than 5 miles from a Wilderness area, bordering the SLC valley. (Lone Peak Wilderness Area, est. 1977). I see this issue everyday... its not the picture being painted by the WAG's

The numbers I think are important...
Utah total acreage: ~54 million acres (~2% of US total)
Utah Wilderness & WSA: (.8 mil & 3.2 mil repectively)
Utah Forest & BLM Property: (~10 mil & 22.9 mil respec.)

I think we are being "protected" just fine ;)

[Kermit]

That is enough for every handicapped person I know; they have told me so.


...and how many is that?

It would be more scientific, if the survey of the handicap population that you pondered this question with, was in the thousands. Then, I would like to see the percentages.

I have watched my father deteoriate over the years with MS, I have built him contraptions so he can live like a person who can actaully use their legs. Anything from hoists to help him on his electric-start ATV, so he can enjoy his land, raised garden beds, elevators so he can go from each level of his house that he built when he was healthy, etc....so he can pretty much get around on his own without be coddled by me. He is a tough S.O.B. I can tell you story after story what this man has accomplished. I am amazed he is still alive. Refuses to give up the fight.

He would of loved to go to the botton of the Grand Canyon...when he was healthy enough to do it. Too bad, the Tank Chair wasn't around 20 years ago. ;)

Does the trail to the bottom need to be paved...no.

Johathan (I love ya brother! But)...do not give out other people's opinion without first being in their shoes, or wheel chair for that matter.

Does the entire earth need to be accessable....deffinately not.

I stated earlier in this post what true wilderness should be. No humans, period!...Now if that rang true, do think the agenda would change of a certain user group?

We need some sort of balance, not extremes one way or another. Which there are too many people alive today, to have balance. What to do...what to do?...I don't know if I have an answer. I know I am going to fight to keep open existing roads and trail systems. Hey, they are already there, what is it truely hurting?

This battle for land isn't anything new.


This morning Alice and I went for a dirtbike ride in one of my favorite places...saw the survey markers....damn, another great trail lost to the McMansion. There used to be no houses out that way, now right before the trail head, the desert is plowed under...and McMansions...stand it's place. I am sure some green, will move into one of those, and we loose another place to recreate. Ummm...how does grading the land under and putting up a stucco hut, make you better than me???

[goodtimes]

So are you saying you beleive that motorized recreation is bad for the land? How can you comprimise which land your "damaging" hobby can take place on. This is the exact mentality I have a hard time understanding. We have set aside Wilderness and WSA's, why do we need to "protect" more from damage many of us don't beleive exists.

YES!!!! Mechanized travel does indeed damage the land. Of this there is no doubt (where there was once undisturbed flora, there is now a trail, or worse, a paved road--tell me there is no damage while keeping a strait face!). The big question is how much damage are we going to inflict before we decide that it is OK to set some places aside so our kids and grandkids will have somewhere to go to get away from "the city". Wilderness designations protect not only from run-away ya-hoos on ATV's and drunken rednecks in 4x4's (not to be confused with law abiding, environmentally concious explorers--there is a difference...), but it also protects from developement...you can rest assured that there will be no strip mall or Starbucks in the middle of a wilderness area.



Southern Utahs eco-system gets more disturbance from a single flash flood than 50 years of vehicle travel. Sure there are areas where human impact has visual disturbed the terrain, but I would argue that they havn't done any "damage" in the big picture of an areas eco-system.

This is the biggest reason I like BLM land. Washes are open bank to bank, provided you are not running over flora, unless they are marked as closed. At least this is how I understand it. As much impact as a vehicle has, the next big monsoon storm will flood the wash, scour the rocks of any tracks, and remove any plants that were growing. Now if we could just get people to stop leaving their trash in the washes so it doesn't end up downstream. But, this logic only works in washes that have large areas draining into them...thus alot of water running during storms. The same does not hold true for roads along ridge lines, or across large flat plains. There is rarely enough water to scour those areas clean.


Land can be protected and still keep historic access to motorized travel.

I agree, which is why I said I am torn on this subject. I do think we should have mechanized access to historically accessable sites (but not "open" access). Access needs to be managed in some fashion--because the American public is unable to control itself when given the opportunity to explore. You get what we have today--trash all over the place, everything is full of bullet holes, wildcat trails outnumber legal trails, etc. Without the resources to keep things under control, the land management agencies simply cannot do their jobs. Now there is a problem...



Not in Utah, not even close... I can only think of a few isntances where "urban sprawl" has lead to a trail closure, and they were questionable and or private trails from day one. While there have been many cases over the years, I would guess they amount to at best 5% of the trails lost to Wilderness & WSA designations.

I'd be willing to bet if you had aerial photographs of any large city in America dated from ~50 years ago and superimposed a current photograph over it, you would be surprized at how big the cities have gotton. As they grow, the cover more land...mixed use trails get covered up as well. The only trails that don't get covered, are those that are paved, or protected in some fashion.



But the OHV community doesn't exploit a problem that doesn't really exist. The Redrock slide show consist of dozens of photos of "damaging" vehicles in the Moab area... what they don't show is the other 99.9% of the area that looks as if it had never been touched by man.

Unfortunately, the problem DOES exist! The OHV community as a whole has a substantial impact on the environment. I believe that if the OHV community pays attention to what it is doing, and takes steps to mitigate the damage that we are causing, it would be a sustainable activity. Impact will still be there, but it would not be out of control like it is today. But to say that OHV use does not have a negative impact on the environment is simply putting blinders on.



The OHV community just fights for to keep public land public!

The OHV community fights to keep public land open for [I]mechanized recreation. The "other" community fights to keep public land open for non-mechanized recreation. Both sides are fighting for what they believe in (which is what makes America great). Everyone should support the side of the fight they believe in...and both should be ready to realize that reality exists somewhere in between the two.

And I'm still torn on the issue. :snorkel:

[cruiseroutfit]

YES!!!! Mechanized travel does indeed damage the land. Of this there is no doubt (where there was once undisturbed flora, there is now a trail, or worse, a paved road--tell me there is no damage while keeping a strait face!). The big question is how much damage are we going to inflict before we decide that it is OK to set some places aside so our kids and grandkids will have somewhere to go to get away from "the city". Wilderness designations protect not only from run-away ya-hoos on ATV's and drunken rednecks in 4x4's (not to be confused with law abiding, environmentally concious explorers--there is a difference...), but it also protects from developement...you can rest assured that there will be no strip mall or Starbucks in the middle of a wilderness area.

I can say it with a strait face... While I fully agree that we are "impacting" the land, I disagree that legal OHV use is causing significant damage to the worlds eco-system as a whole. Mother nature can evolve, adapt and repair, just as mankind has over the years... Some of the areas included in the RR bill were once great forests with meandering rivers... they are now barren deserts with deep gorges carved over millions of years. Nature adapts to the minimal impact OHVs have.

You must remember that Wilderness nor WSA designations do not stop illegal OHV use, in fact in some cases they just promote it as historic routes are suddenly closed and rouge OHV users assert their rights.

There was a handicapped vet, older gentleman in Utah last summer that rode his ATV a short stretch into a WSA on a now closed route. He was driving a route his ancestors had years before him whole mining in the lower portion of the SR Swell... He politely invited the media and the BLM to come out and watch him assert his rights. To date I don't know what stance the BLM took. Johnathan, don't use your handicap "statistics" for a second in Utah... I can think of a handful of handicap individuals that are PRO-MOTORIZED and anti-Wilderness based on the fact it excludes them from visiting their favorite destinations, just as they had for the past 50 years... We have two BOD members on the U4WDA that are legally handicapped and their love for the outdoors matured into 4wd's with their loss of use. The past president of the local Toyota Tacoma club is parapalegic, his extremely built Tacoma is equipped with a hoist for his wheelchair... I know for a fact he deserves a right to use EXISTING roads. I am by no means saying we should make every place on earth accessible, nobody is... but I am saying we should preserve historic access into these areas, no ifs ands or buts...


This is the biggest reason I like BLM land. Washes are open bank to bank, provided you are not running over flora, unless they are marked as closed. At least this is how I understand it.

This is not true for all BLM land... each area is evaluated by its field office and motorized travel designations are set. In "most" of Utahs BLM land, the are is limited to "existing routes" only, and with each travel plan revision more of those turn to "designated routes" only. The actual area impacted by man is minimal in these areas. Do we need to teach more proper backcountry ethics? Minimal impact? Leave no trace? Sure... but education will always be needed and the hardest to accomplish.



I'd be willing to bet if you had aerial photographs of any large city in America dated from ~50 years ago and superimposed a current photograph over it, you would be surprized at how big the cities have gotton. As they grow, the cover more land...mixed use trails get covered up as well. The only trails that don't get covered, are those that are paved, or protected in some fashion.

I have hundereds of maps of Utah, starting in the 1880's and continuing to this day. We (U4WDA) have collected thousands of pages of WSA & Wilderness documentation, as well as reveiwed GIS & route data from all over the state of Utah. I stand by my assertion that the trails with "qualities" and "recreation value" that we seek... have had little closure from urban sprawl. Take Moab for example... How many trails there have closed on behalf of urban sprawl in the last ten years? Very few (Lower Helldorado & Proving Grounds come to mind.), and those were not established trails, covered by federal and state laws.

Why is Utah so different in this respect?? We have such an abundance of public land, and the majority of our recreation areas exist almost exclusivly on public land (with the occasional State Trust Land). Our closures come at the hand of "environmental damage" most often spurred by lawsuits from the WAG, or Wilderness & WSA procedings.



Unfortunately, the problem DOES exist! The OHV community as a whole has a substantial impact on the environment. I believe that if the OHV community pays attention to what it is doing, and takes steps to mitigate the damage that we are causing, it would be a sustainable activity. Impact will still be there, but it would not be out of control like it is today. But to say that OHV use does not have a negative impact on the environment is simply putting blinders on.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree... I don't think the "problem" as it is called exists like others would have you beleive. I spent 50+ days on the trail last year, almost all in Utah... I can't think of an area that had irrepairable damage and or damage beyond the healing powers of mother nature (fire, flood, snow, etc.)





The OHV community fights to keep public land open for mechanized recreation. The "other" community fights to keep public land open for non-mechanized recreation. Both sides are fighting for what they believe in (which is what makes America great). Everyone should support the side of the fight they believe in...and both should be ready to realize that reality exists somewhere in between the two.

And I'm still torn on the issue. :snorkel:[/QUOTE]

[Kermit]

I know one of the arguments of some environmentalist is errosion.

Doesn't the Earth itself cause the most? If it wasn't for errosion, we wouldn't have the vistas we have now....

We should ban the Earth...."Bad Earth...very.....bad bad bad..." [/sarcasm] :p

[Jonathan Hanson]

Jonathan (I love ya brother! But)...do not give out other people's opinion without first being in their shoes, or wheel chair for that matter.

Sorry, Warren, but that's the wrong challenge to send my way. ;) I've spent a year and a half of my life on crutches, thanks to a congenital knee and foot problem and multiple operations starting when I was 12. The knee is now artificial, so I won't be putting in the backpacking mileage I used to. So do I suddenly want roads built into all the places I used to hike in 20 miles to see? Um, no. Why? Because defending wilderness isn't about me; it's about something bigger.

And as to how many handicapped people I know, can I just guarantee you it's more than the usual pudgy ATV rider who pontificates about handicapped access? I worked with Todd Albaugh and the Physically Challenged Bowhunters of America on the Bugle article; they have about 400 members as I recall. Call 'em up and ask them if they want roads bladed into wilderness areas for their own access.

But we're getting off track with these basic debating tactics (I'm just as guilty).

The simple fact is, wilderness is in danger of disappearing from our world; roads and 4WD trails aren't. That's why I'm on the side of the former.

[cruiseroutfit]

...So do I suddenly want roads built into all the places I used to hike in 20 miles to see?...

...The simple fact is, wilderness is in danger of disappearing from our world; roads and 4WD trails aren't. That's why I'm on the side of the former.


Your painting the motorized argument as something it is NOT... We (only speaking on behalf of those I converse with)... do NOT want new roads... that has never been an arguements. Its the fact that countless existing roads and trails would be lost due to Wilderness classification. Is some cases they have "cherry stemmed" the existing ROW's into the W/WSA, but the WAG's are pushing against that in nearly every case.

[Kermit]

Sorry, Warren, but that's the wrong challenge to send my way. ;) I've spent a year and a half of my life on crutches...



Then I owe you an appology...then, you do know. I did not know that about you. :beer: :)

Your earlier statement struct a cord.

[Jonathan Hanson]

I can relate. I feel the same way when some DINK families (Double Income No Kids) trot out the "preserve this and that, for future generations," banner. We are not guaranteed a tomorrow. Shouldn't we take advantage of, and make the most of, the opportunities we have today?

I would enjoy reading your take on the dichotomy between the "live your life today" mantra that you & Roseann have encouraged but making preservation and conservation for tomorrow, your life's work.

Interesting challenge, KC. Roseann and I comprise a DAINK family (Double Awful Incomes No Kids), yet we never thought that being childless meant we couldn't be concerned about the world being left to the children of our friends and relatives, or to future generations of humanity in general.

I'm sure there are many anti-wilderness 4WD enthusiasts who are genuinely concerned only about handicapped access when they use that argument. But I'll let everyone reading this estimate honestly what percentage that is of the whole, and how many would thus agree to leave controversial routes open only to 4x4s with handicapped plates.

And I don't see the dichotomy you mentioned. It was our growing desire to preserve what we experienced in the natural world that led us to our current lifestyle. We saw that the paradigm of bigger incomes, bigger houses, and bigger SUVs not only wasn't good for the environment, it didn't make its proponents any happier either. Look it up: Every such study ever completed proves that there is no relationship between money and happiness. None. Those who are happiest are those who feel they are doing something useful, whether or not it pays well.

So, we simplified. And doing so automatically gave us more time to "live our lives today."

[DesertRose]

I would enjoy reading your take on the dichotomy between the "live your life today" mantra that you & Roseann have encouraged but making preservation and conservation for tomorrow, your life's work.

Respectfully -

Methinks KC is walking along the cages with a stick, rattling the bars :D Lookout, the door's open!

I'm flummoxed, frankly by your belief that it's a dichotomy at all. I really, really had to think hard to even get what you meant . . .

"Live your life today" is not about just making me happy. It's about living for the moment, while at the same time not just existing for the sake of making oneself happy. It's about making a meaningful life. People mistake simple living and chasing dreams as selfish - but dreams can be about leaving this planet a better place than you came into it.

If I sat down today and asked myself seriously, "If I died tomorrow, can I honestly say that I lived a life that was more than just making money and spending it and being happy . . . or have I made a positive difference to humanity and / or (hopefully both) the Earth, our most precious legacy?"

You asked, KC, you asked! I feel like my choices in life have been such that I am trying to make a difference for both people and the landscape, and the little bit I've done has had some nice victories in preserving open space in populated areas, saving Wilderness, and assisting communities with reaching their own goals in improving their lives in their own way.

So if I checked out tomorrow, I think I can answer Yes to the question above.

How many people who winge about "losing access" and "mitigation" - and don't get me wrong, as snarky as I intended to sound, I think they have a right to want to preserve something that is important to them (access) - are doing something else to help protect, preserve, or improve something bigger than themselves, a part of the whole continuum of earth and humankind?

We live in the richest country on earth, the freest dang brats alive - the fact you even get the chance to debate what happens to the land is totally forgotten, as I think we're probably the only country on the planet where the people have such an extensive say in our land legacy. And as such (being free, special, democracy-laden brats) we owe it to things we can't see, feel, or touch to protect and preserve them even if we never visit them.

I want to know there is Wilderness out there where there are wolves running around eating deer without harassment from humans on wheels; I want to know there is Wilderness out there where a million caribou still flow across the landscape as they have for millenia; I want to know there is Wilderness out there where I can go and recapture where humans came from, because that IS where humans emerged from, and I don't believe for a single solitary moment that humans don't belong in Wilderness - I just think that as populations explode, and we expand and our technology lets us explore - and invade - the farthest reaches of every place - we should make some of it exclusive - yes, exclusive - to un-mechanized, natural travel.

I fear that if humans altogether lose natural (unmechanized) contact with Wilderness, the place we came from, something very precious will disappear from our very fabric of life. Wild things and places are part of who we are, parts of that weft of the fabric; you don't notice it necessarily but it makes us stronger.

Honestly, it truly pains me to hear that people think that those of us who love wild, untrammeled places (trammel means fettered, not trod upon) think it's some total-exclusionary thing, or some elitist thing - like we want it only for ourselves, or want to "keep people out." That could not be farther from the truth. I really believe that humans can and should look to those things that are greater than ourselves - God and nature - and hold tight to them. Or we're lost.


En garde.

The cat's back in her cage.

[Jonathan Hanson]

Your painting the motorized argument as something it is NOT... We (only speaking on behalf of those I converse with)... do NOT want new roads... that has never been an arguements. Its the fact that countless existing roads and trails would be lost due to Wilderness classification. Is some cases they have "cherry stemmed" the existing ROW's into the W/WSA, but the WAG's are pushing against that in nearly every case


Kurt, I know that most motorized users aren't arguing for new roads. But I attended I can't remember how many public meetings when the roadless rule for the National Forests was open for comment. At every meeting there were people who stood at the podium and said, "We don't need fewer roads, we need MORE roads!" So there is a fringe faction out there, just as there is a fringe faction on the other side who would outlaw off-highway traffic altogether. You gotta watch those fringe factions; they can creep up on you.

[goodtimes]

I can say it with a strait face... While I fully agree that we are "impacting" the land, I disagree that legal OHV use is causing significant damage to the worlds eco-system as a whole. Mother nature can evolve, adapt and repair, just as mankind has over the years... Some of the areas included in the RR bill were once great forests with meandering rivers... they are now barren deserts with deep gorges carved over millions of years. Nature adapts to the minimal impact OHVs have.

Well, we could fire off every nuclear device on the planet...and the planet will eventually recover. The human race probably won't...but isn't the point. When you get right down to it, it is pretty much impossible for us to "destroy the planet". That doesn't mean it is a good idea. My point is simply that we (the OHV community) do have a negative impact on the environment, and we should (IMO) be doing everything we can to mitigate the damage while recreating responsibly. Emphasis on the last two words.


You must remember that Wilderness nor WSA designations do not stop illegal OHV use, in fact in some cases they just promote it as historic routes are suddenly closed and rouge OHV users assert their rights.

The last 3 words here are incorrect. They should read "break the law", because that is what they are doing. OHV users have no *right* to drive on routes that have been closed. It doesn't matter if it was open yesterday, or last year, if it is closed, it is closed. We all know illegal OHV use is a problem...in fact the biggest problem IMO. If everyone stayed on the trails and didn't litter, we would all be in a better position. But since people don't take care of the land, I feel compelled to support conservation efforts similar to the one in question here.



This is not true for all BLM land... each area is evaluated by its field office and motorized travel designations are set. In "most" of Utahs BLM land, the are is limited to "existing routes" only, and with each travel plan revision more of those turn to "designated routes" only. The actual area impacted by man is minimal in these areas. Do we need to teach more proper backcountry ethics? Minimal impact? Leave no trace? Sure... but education will always be needed and the hardest to accomplish.

It is possible that the office responsible for the central AZ BLM land is handling things differently than in Utah...or I may have gotton some bad info. But regardless, my point is simply that in certain areas (like the washes that run hard and fast during storms) will repair themselves several times per year, eliminating the environmental damage the OHV group causes *in that location* (ignoring the issue of litter and oil/chemical spills). In those locations, I am much more in support of keeping trails open, and even opening new trails if there is a legitimate reason (something more than "we want to drive over those big rocks"). But in the vast majority of areas (acre for acre), the water does not flow hard enough to accomplish this. The result is a much more permanent impact on the environment. IMO, this calls for a different strategy in order to effectively manage it.




[quote=cruiseroutfit]
I guess we will have to agree to disagree... I don't think the "problem" as it is called exists like others would have you beleive. I spent 50+ days on the trail last year, almost all in Utah... I can't think of an area that had irrepairable damage and or damage beyond the healing powers of mother nature (fire, flood, snow, etc.)[quote]

The damage I see every day on the trail is obvious. Trash laying around, automotive batteries tossed into a creek, tires heaved over the side of cliffs...multiple trails leading around a tree (braiding), Saguaros being used as winch anchors. The problem is more the user than the method of use. If people stayed on the trail, didn't litter, didn't shoot everything they saw, didn't cut down old mining buildings for firewood and generally acted responsibly...there wouldn't be as much need for conservation, IMO. But as long as people act irresponsibly, and there is no enforcement, we, as a country, should do something to protect some of the land.

One last comment, which I probably should have made in my first post. My comments here are not aimed directly at the wilderness area in question. I have not seen the maps, nor do I know of the historic value or extent of the existing access routes. My thoughts here are in more of a general nature...why I support wilderness areas in theory. I like the idea of having wilderness areas...wether or not I support a specific area being designated as a wilderness area should not be assumed. I support access rights, but I also support responsible land use. With that comes support for setting aside some of the land in a manner that will preserve it for the future.

[cruiseroutfit]

...The last 3 words here are incorrect. They should read "break the law", because that is what they are doing. ...

I agree, I had intended to add quote around "assert their rights" as that is the argument many use when the situation is brought to light. I too do not support breaking the law, regardless of how crooked the closure may or maynot be. Sorry for the confusion there.


...The damage I see every day on the trail is obvious. Trash laying around, automotive batteries tossed into a creek, tires heaved over the side of cliffs...multiple trails leading around a tree (braiding), Saguaros being used as winch anchors. The problem is more the user than the method of use. If people stayed on the trail, didn't litter, didn't shoot everything they saw, didn't cut down old mining buildings for firewood and generally acted responsibly...there wouldn't be as much need for conservation, IMO. But as long as people act irresponsibly, and there is no enforcement, we, as a country, should do something to protect some of the land.

But creating Wilderness will NOT stop people from being idiots... their impact will just intesify elsewhere, or they will break the law and continue about their normal pattern. Wilderness doesn't educate people, it doesn't provide an ethical model... it just locks people out of historic access.


...My thoughts here are in more of a general nature...why I support wilderness areas in theory. I like the idea of having wilderness areas...wether or not I support a specific area being designated as a wilderness area should not be assumed. I support access rights, but I also support responsible land use. With that comes support for setting aside some of the land in a manner that will preserve it for the future.

I support wilderness too... when it is truly that, wilderness. Manufactured Wilderness does us zero good, and as I have argued it just funnells the use elsewhere (as it has in other Utah wilderness's). I guess the whole emphasis of my argument is we don't need Wilderness to protect land unlike some would tend to beleive.

[cruiseroutfit]

Kurt, I know that most motorized users aren't arguing for new roads. But I attended I can't remember how many public meetings when the roadless rule for the National Forests was open for comment. At every meeting there were people who stood at the podium and said, "We don't need fewer roads, we need MORE roads!" So there is a fringe faction out there, just as there is a fringe faction on the other side who would outlaw off-highway traffic altogether. You gotta watch those fringe factions; they can creep up on you.

Sure they exist... I've seen them many times too... in some cases I have to agree with them. In the areas in question for the RR Wilderness, I don't necissarily agree.

Sit back and look at it from their perspective... We have a drastically increasing OHV user base, and a dwindling amount of trails. The anti-motorized groups are already preaching "overuse" and "resource damage", yet they want to continue to reduce the legal opportunities. Its a means to an end by their account, likely exactly what they want to happen.

I guess I just can't put myself in your shoes and see how you can justify doing any offroading, inviting any additional folks out, or even advocating the use of OHV's if you truly think the environment needs to be protected from US. Why is the "environment" your OK with traveling in any less precious than the "environment" they seek to protect?

[DesertRose]

I guess I just can't put myself in your shoes and see how you can justify doing any offroading, inviting any additional folks out, or even advocating the use of OHV's if you truly think the environment needs to be protected from US. Why is the "environment" your OK with traveling in any less precious than the "environment" they seek to protect?

Speaking for myself, I'm not seeing it as a "USE" issue. Wilderness in general, to me (well, and it's biologically a fact), is important for wildlife. There really needs to be places where the suite of natural species - deer, mountain lions, bears, raptors, etc - can live unmolested by our mechanicals. Not tiny little parks, but big landscapes.

We DO need to provide for the enormous growing OHV community. We don't deny that. Heavens, no one here is advocating not having great place places to explore, and keeping them open. We're talking about levels of access by vehicles.

Again, again, again - we're getting polarized so that it's only about US, and only about MY ACCESS and USE and "US VS. THEM" and "THEM BAD GREENIES WANT TO LOCK US OUT" blah blah blah.

I just want to see folks try to look at something that's bigger than themselves and their needs and wants, and try to compromise on something that won't leave us with a legacy like, say, Europe, where for the most part every square inch has been severely altered and affected by humans, and no true wild places are left.

Why do we think that when all of us talk about overlanding dream places, it's to Africa and South America, not France?

[Jonathan Hanson]

Then I owe you an appology...then, you do know. I did not know that about you.

No apology needed, Kermit. It was a fair challenge.

[DesertRose]

Let me just clarify as well, what I'm talking about on a theoretical and personal basis, if I can.

South of where we live is about half a million acres of ranchlands, state land, a little BLM land, and a lot of federal (wildlife refuge) land.

It's mixed multiple use - plenty of road access, good hunting, birdwatching, and hiking and biking and overlanding on two and four wheels.

If tomorrow a proposal came up to turn it into Wilderness and leave only a few roads for management, and I could only access it by foot, I'd support it in a heartbeat - even though it's my favorite place in the U.S. to explore with our Land Cruisers or mt bikes and to hunt in.

Why?

Because I believe in putting land and natural legacy ahead of my own wants. And there are 9 million acres of National Forest land in my region, not to mention millions of BLM and state lands, open to me in my region.

That's simply my view. We'd be on opposite sides of the fence, but then this is a democracy.

[Jonathan Hanson]

We have illuminated in this thread, some of us unintentionally, the major difference between the majority of motorized, anti-wilderness advocates and the majority of wilderness advocates.

Admit it or not, arguments against wilderness and for unrestricted motorized access to public lands rely heavily on the personal pronoun. It's always about "me." "My" rights, "my" access, "my" public lands. There is nothing wrong with that, unless one tries to pretend it isn't so, which is where my objections to spurious arguments about handicapped access arise. Please note again what I wrote: There's nothing wrong with arguing for one's personal rights on public land which one pays taxes to maintain. I also want access to lots of public land where I can drive my Land Cruiser and Land Rover.

But those personal rights are the only valid arguments in existence for favoring roaded access over wilderness. You can't argue that roaded areas make better wildlife habitat, because it isn't true. You can't argue that roaded areas are more peaceful or offer a better nature experience. Roaded areas are where a significant majority of serious forest fires start (arguments that roads are needed for fighting fires have been totally disproven by the Forest Service's own studies). Roaded areas result in more erosion than non-roaded areas (and I don't have space to explain why there's a huge difference betwen natural and man-caused erosion).

Those of us who argue for preserving wilderness and even designating new wilderness have a higher goal in mind. Yeah, that sounds like total self-serving BS, but dammit it's true. I want to know there are places where the well-being of the habitat and the wildlife is the highest priority for our land managers. I don't care if I never get to see most of it; I'm satisfied knowing it's there and knowing that humans can still place certain issues above their own immediate desires.

Yes, there is a growing problem with increasing 4WD traffic in many places, especially near urban areas. But that should be a problem we have to deal with, not the wildlife it is our duty to protect and preserve. I don't plan to sit back and accept a Silent Running fate for nature.

I'm happy that the majority of members on Expedition Portal still mean it when they discuss mutliple use and the need to preserve wilderness. I don't mind disagreement on the extent to which we preserve that wilderness, but so far no one has convinced me that five percent of all the land in America is too much or even enough to preserve the legacy of what God put here.

[kcowyo]

Methinks KC is walking along the cages with a stick, rattling the bars :D Lookout, the door's open!


Actually my question and comments were not intended to be a challenge or an attempt at rattling the cages, but rather an opportunity for you two to clarify for those like myself who may not see the correlation. There is a reason I generally stay out of these threads you know......

While there are several members of this board who I enjoy antagonizing, I'm putting my ego aside to ask the question, so I may learn something from two people whose opinions I value and respect. For true intelligence isn't about knowing everything - it's about knowing you don't know everything. If I'm to be guilty of anything in this thread, let it be blatant ignorance and not intentional button-pushing.

And while I enjoyed reading your responses, I think I had my answer before you replied, when I logged onto the Hanson homepage and found this gem -

"Live as if to die tomorrow. Learn as if to live forever." - Mahatma Gandhi

I appreciate your several detailed responses. They have given me something to think about and a little better understanding of how to balance today & tomorrow, debates over access in Wilderness areas and whether it truly is about me and my recreational wants or is it about looking down the road to the bigger picture.

.....and now back to the sidelines :lurk:

[Jonathan Hanson]

You mean we wasted all that time and all we had to do was quote Ghandi?

[articulate]

You mean we wasted all that time and all we had to do was quote Ghandi?
John Lennon's "All you need is love" would have done the trick, too.

[DesertRose]

Is there a barfing emoticon?

[calamaridog]

We have illuminated in this thread, some of us unintentionally, the major difference between the majority of motorized, anti-wilderness advocates and the majority of wilderness advocates.

I think you've heard from a fraction of the players, who happen to participate on this forum, and think surprising similar thoughts, although they may not realize how similar those thoughts are.


Admit it or not, arguments against wilderness and for unrestricted motorized access to public lands rely heavily on the personal pronoun. It's always about "me." "My" rights, "my" access, "my" public lands. There is nothing wrong with that, unless one tries to pretend it isn't so, which is where my objections to spurious arguments about handicapped access arise. Please note again what I wrote: There's nothing wrong with arguing for one's personal rights on public land which one pays taxes to maintain. I also want access to lots of public land where I can drive my Land Cruiser and Land Rover.

Humans are very selfish creatures. Come to think of it, most animals are. I'm still trying to figure out where the "handicapped" arguement fit in. I have never seen this arguement used by a pro-access group.


But those personal rights are the only valid arguments in existence for favoring roaded access over wilderness.

What could be more important than personal rights?


You can't argue that roaded areas make better wildlife habitat, because it isn't true. You can't argue that roaded areas are more peaceful or offer a better nature experience.

The world would be a better place without humans, for sure.


Roaded areas are where a significant majority of serious forest fires start (arguments that roads are needed for fighting fires have been totally disproven by the Forest Service's own studies).

The vast majority of arson occurs right off the main highway. Not sure which firefighter told you they don't need dirt roads in the backcounty? After the largest fire in the history of the United States, the one in my backyard (literally), they graded MORE fire service roads and repaired existing ones to make it easier to move equipment.

Then again, the policies of our government agencies regarding wildfires has vastly altered the natural environment more than all the recreation could ever do.


Roaded areas result in more erosion than non-roaded areas (and I don't have space to explain why there's a huge difference betwen natural and man-caused erosion).

They do, but in the grand scheme of things, the use of a few roads for recreation has a tiny fraction of the impact on the earth compared to mining, development, etc.


Those of us who argue for preserving wilderness and even designating new wilderness have a higher goal in mind. Yeah, that sounds like total self-serving BS, but dammit it's true. I want to know there are places where the well-being of the habitat and the wildlife is the highest priority for our land managers. I don't care if I never get to see most of it; I'm satisfied knowing it's there and knowing that humans can still place certain issues above their own immediate desires.

Ah yes, the higher "goal" arguement:D


Yes, there is a growing problem with increasing 4WD traffic in many places, especially near urban areas. But that should be a problem we have to deal with, not the wildlife it is our duty to protect and preserve. I don't plan to sit back and accept a Silent Running fate for nature.

There should be a cry for managed (did I say funded too?) OHV areas to alleviate the presure near urban centers. 95% of OHV users are content to drive their quads around close to home and never venture too far away.


I'm happy that the majority of members on Expedition Portal still mean it when they discuss mutliple use and the need to preserve wilderness. I don't mind disagreement on the extent to which we preserve that wilderness, but so far no one has convinced me that five percent of all the land in America is too much or even enough to preserve the legacy of what God put here.

I'm happy too:)

[DesertRose]

What could be more important than personal rights?

A higher good - things we cannot see, feel, or touch, the things God made, which do include us, but never intended us to be the arbiter of all. We should be stewards, not destroyers or users.




The world would be a better place without humans, for sure.

I (nor, I think Jonathan) am not anti-human; personally I am awed by the accomplishments of mankind and think we belong here, and that since we came from the Wilderness, we should remember that as our legacy. As the highest (I know, questionable) lifeform with a complex culture, we have an obligation to act on things that mean more than the individual.

[Jonathan Hanson]

The vast majority of arson occurs right off the main highway. Not sure which firefighter told you they don't need dirt roads in the backcounty? After the largest fire in the history of the United States, the one in my backyard (literally), they graded MORE fire service roads and repaired existing ones to make it easier to move equipment.

It wasn't a firefighter, it was a full study by the U.S. Forest Service. I quote from an op-ed I published in the East Valley Tribune:

The Tribune’s claim that roads provide necessary access for fire crews is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. According to the Forest Service’s own studies, large, destructive fires occur much more frequently in roaded and logged areas than in roadless areas. Human-caused fires are almost five times more likely to occur in roaded areas. One need only research recent large fires in Arizona to confirm this. Recent catastrophic fires on public land are the direct result of a century of road-building, narrow-minded logging practices, and misguided fire suppression policies, all of which added up to forests comprising mostly kindling instead of mature, fire-resistant trees.

So your second comment on the causes behind recent catastrophic fires is right on: We caused them with bad policy.


I have never seen this arguement used by a pro-access group.

Um, huh? It's a mainstay of every anti-wilderness platform I've ever seen.


The world would be a better place without humans, for sure.

Do I sense a whiff of sarcasm here? For the record, I believe humans are the only species on earth capable of fulfilling the potential of the very meaning of Life itself: to learn and explore. Does that mean we have to trash everything in our wake?

I'll turn the argument around. We are the highest form of life on the planet, the only species with the potential to reach space and probe the mystery of the universe. We are also the only species that can comprehend the ramifications of the concept of selfishness. Yet many of us embrace selfishness under the banner of "personal rights," thus betraying in actuality a complete ignorance of the term. A right inevitably carries with it responsibility - something unacknowledged by those who only argue for self-fulfillment.


There should be a cry for managed (did I say funded too?) OHV areas to alleviate the presure near urban centers. 95% of OHV users are content to drive their quads around close to home and never venture too far away.

I totally agree.

[calamaridog]

A higher good - things we cannot see, feel, or touch, the things God made, which do include us, but never intended us to be the arbiter of all. We should be stewards, not destroyers or users.

I know where you are going with this but it doesn't get the bill passed committee.


I (nor, I think Jonathan) am not anti-human; personally I am awed by the accomplishments of mankind and think we belong here, and that since we came from the Wilderness, we should remember that as our legacy. As the highest (I know, questionable) lifeform with a complex culture, we have an obligation to act on things that mean more than the individual.

We humans have many complex cultures, most of which are based upon consuming vast resources.


Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree with you in theory, but the scope of the discussion has gone beyond practical application:)

I think the "back to basics" issue is that if you wanted to preserve several million acreas of new wilderness you could do that by creating a consensus amongst all interested parties. The point that I will continue to make is that you can compromise, or you can have status quo, where neither group truely has consensus enough to push their agenda too far.

In the meanwhile, I will continue to support multi-use with my money and my mouth to counter the radical environmental movement and keep the issue somewhere in the center.

[calamaridog]

It wasn't a firefighter, it was a full study by the U.S. Forest Service. I quote from an op-ed I published in the East Valley Tribune:

The Tribune’s claim that roads provide necessary access for fire crews is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. According to the Forest Service’s own studies, large, destructive fires occur much more frequently in roaded and logged areas than in roadless areas. Human-caused fires are almost five times more likely to occur in roaded areas. One need only research recent large fires in Arizona to confirm this. Recent catastrophic fires on public land are the direct result of a century of road-building, narrow-minded logging practices, and misguided fire suppression policies, all of which added up to forests comprising mostly kindling instead of mature, fire-resistant trees.

Fire suppression is mostly done to safeguard property, including assets owned and opporated by the government and most of the roads are mainly for that purpose.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'd be more interested if you quoted the actual study not an article in some paper that may or may not have read the whole study and misquoted it. I can draw different conclusions as to where to lay the blame versus "blame the road".

Regardless of all that, most of the fire service roads near me are closed to unofficial traffic.


So your second comment on the causes behind recent catastrophic fires is right on: We caused them with bad policy.

We continue to cause these problems with bad policy. Frankly, most people, including land managers, have never seen a forest in its natural state after hundreds of years of mismanagement.


Um, huh? It's a mainstay of every anti-wilderness platform I've ever seen.

I'm not really into the anti-wilderness scene I guess;)


Do I sense a whiff of sarcasm here? For the record, I believe humans are the only species on earth capable of fulfilling the potential of the very meaning of Life itself: to learn and explore. Does that mean we have to trash everything in our wake?

More than a whiff:D And no, we shouldn't trash everything in our wake. As a matter of fact, I always leave my campsite cleaner than when I found it.


I'll turn the argument around. We are the highest form of life on the planet, the only species with the potential to reach space and probe the mystery of the universe. We are also the only species that can comprehend the ramifications of the concept of selfishness. Yet many of us embrace selfishness under the banner of "personal rights," thus betraying in actuality a complete ignorance of the term. A right inevitably carries with it responsibility - something unacknowledged by those who only argue for self-fulfillment.

Humans will most likely cause their own extinction so I'm not so sure how highly evolved we are. As far as personal rights, people hold different "rights" to be higher than others.


I totally agree.

OMG:victory:

[cruiseroutfit]

Just rolled in from Southern Utah, enjoying many of the areas I will be "protected" out of if the AWRA gets its way... a sad glimpse of the future at every corner.

I guess I can agree to disagree... I gave it countless hours of thought this weekend, and I have realized I may never understand some of your viewpoints.

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow the trails you were on today might need "protection" from the "damage" that is OK to commit today ;)

[DesertRose]

Just rolled in from Southern Utah, enjoying many of the areas I will be "protected" out of if the AWRA gets its way... a sad glimpse of the future at every corner.

I guess I can agree to disagree... I gave it countless hours of thought this weekend, and I have realized I may never understand some of your viewpoints.

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow the trails you were on today might need "protection" from the "damage" that is OK to commit today ;)

I really do feel bad about your position - where did you go, do you have a map of your route? We've gone there a number of times as well, I bet we've been to the same places - it's truly beautiful. I would like to understand the specifics more.

[dieselcruiserhead]

I thought a lot about it this weekend too.. I did about 550 miles, did a lot of the same route that Kurt actually did... Anyway, it was one of the most spectacular (probably the most spectacular) drive I have ever had. I did Lake Powell to Capital Reef to Grand Stair Case, to Boulder-Dixie Forest (which is a forest that spills into the rock of the desert - literally unreal) to Torrey, Loa, then back through the Swell home.. In Castedale I rounded the corner of one of the most spectacular areas ever (the western side of the Swell) and came across this. Literally in the most serene areas ever.. I suppose these things need to go somewhere, and maybe the desert is the best place for them, but this is the sort of protection I had in mind personally...

(that is the swell in the background)

[cruiseroutfit]

I really do feel bad about your position - where did you go, do you have a map of your route? We've gone there a number of times as well, I bet we've been to the same places - it's truly beautiful. I would like to understand the specifics more.

Now I am even more confused... how can you support something when you don't even know what trails it will potentially doom? I have to admit that I don't know the full implifications of the AWRA, but I do know many of the trails that could be "swallowed" with a Wilderness designation. I think a large portion of the AWRA supporters have no idea the amount of land this will essentially "lock-up" and funnel those motorized users to other land, the "over-impacting" those areas, a means to an end I suppose. I don't know how many of the involved trails will be outright closed, versus "cherry-stemmed" into the Wilderness and then closed at a later point (as has happened soooo many times with other Utah Wilderness & WSA's. I have attempted to get more detailed maps and info from the UWC, to no avail yet.

Trails that are involved:

Moab Area:
Behind the Rocks
Moab Rim
Pritchett Canyon (already borders a WSA and has been petitioned for closure as such numerous times)
Fins/Things
Porcupine Rim
Lockhart Basin Road

South of Moab:
Arch Canyon & Hotel Rock - Arch Canyon would be closed to motorized use, not sure about their plans for Hotel Rock. Arch Canyon gets less "impact" from a years worth of motorized use as it does from a single rainstorm. After spring floods the area has amazingly sparse human "impact" noticibable to the eye. (we ran both of these trails last month as part of the CM07 Pre-Run)
Comb Wash and Butler Wash Trails - Not sure how they are changed other than any & all spur roads would likely be eliminated. (we camped here Thursday, ran the entire trail last month)
Johns Canyon and Johns Canyon Overlook Trail - Both are inside of the Grand Gulch AWRA proposal.
Cottonwood Wash Trail & N/s Elk Ridge Trail - They look "cherry-stemmed" on the map, but any spurs/off trail campsites could be goners.
Burr Trail Spurs ie. Upper Muley Twist Trail - Upper Muley Twist trail specifically looks as if it would be a goner, not sure about the Wolverine Loop Trail that spurs off south of the Burr Trail.

Kanab Area:
Pinnicle Trail
Big Hill Trail
Savage Point Trail (we ran this Saturday)
Toms Canyon Trail
(All these look like they would be completely closed as part of the Vermillion Cliffs AWRA proposal)

San Rafael Swell Area:


[I will continue to update the information as I have time and get answers back from the UWC]

[DesertRose]

Now I am even more confused... how can you support something when you don't even know what trails it will potentially doom? I have to admit that I don't know the full implifications of the AWRA, but I do know many of the trails that could be "swallowed" with a Wilderness designation.

I have been through every map for all the Wilderness proposals currently being put to the legislature for Utah . . . so I do know which areas very specifically, and I've driven a lot of them though certainly not all of them.

But what I didn't understand from your post was what specific area you are talking about being closed that you said you just drove through - it's a big area, southern Utah - and I just wanted to get a specific and personal view since you said "eat drink and be merry" etc.

And when I wrote much of the time about supporting Wilderness, some of us were talking about ideology as well as specifics. Yes, I'm much more likely to support any Wilderness designation than are you, I'm sure.

But I do know the Swell - which is about a million acres total. At least 2000 miles of roads will remain open in the Swell, even if the wilderness legislation goes through. So I'm just not clear on exactly which roads that are your personal favorites are going to be closed.

[And by the way, when we were last at the Swell, it was clear that there was some serious problems caused by ATVs - and not by regular 4x4 and overlanders. I feel that the main problem with the whole push to make new Wilderness is that we are seeing extensive intrusion into previously un-roaded areas by ATVs - quads, buggies - and so areas that used to be wildlife habitat and places to get away from mechanized travel are now open to everybody. There is a fear with the booming ATV market that this will only get worse. We see it ourselves all over southern Arizona.

I'm really sorry that legitimate, conscientious 4x4 recreationists get penalized by the ATV bozos' behaviour, which in general is really quite awful. Every weekend we get them around our place, tearing around, ruining roads, making noise, trespassing, going off road - it's awful.

As we said earlier - the emnity and polarization is making it impossible to compromise, on either side.]

[cruiseroutfit]

I thought a lot about it this weekend too.. I did about 550 miles, did a lot of the same route that Kurt actually did... Anyway, it was one of the most spectacular (probably the most spectacular) drive I have ever had. I did Lake Powell to Capital Reef to Grand Stair Case, to Boulder-Dixie Forest (which is a forest that spills into the rock of the desert - literally unreal) to Torrey, Loa, then back through the Swell home.. In Castedale I rounded the corner of one of the most spectacular areas ever (the western side of the Swell) and came across this. Literally in the most serene areas ever.. I suppose these things need to go somewhere, and maybe the desert is the best place for them, but this is the sort of protection I had in mind personally...

(that is the swell in the background)

Now you need to wheel through the middle of those areas :p Time to convert that van to 4WD ;)

If you think the road north out of Boulder is awesome, go south to Escalante. You travel one of the coolest highways in the state of Utah IMHO. Hells Backbone is a paved road along the ridge of a mountain, shear cliffs on both sides :cool:

I didn't snap any pics of Scenic 12 this time, but from last December when we were in that area:
http://www.cruiseroutfitters.com/images/upload/Paria/Paria-262-Smoky-Collet-2006%20097%20%28Small%29.jpg

[DesertRose]

I thought a lot about it this weekend too.. I did about 550 miles, did a lot of the same route that Kurt actually did... Anyway, it was one of the most spectacular (probably the most spectacular) drive I have ever had. I did Lake Powell to Capital Reef to Grand Stair Case, to Boulder-Dixie Forest (which is a forest that spills into the rock of the desert - literally unreal) to Torrey, Loa, then back through the Swell home.. In Castedale I rounded the corner of one of the most spectacular areas ever (the western side of the Swell) and came across this. Literally in the most serene areas ever.. I suppose these things need to go somewhere, and maybe the desert is the best place for them, but this is the sort of protection I had in mind personally...

(that is the swell in the background)

We've been by that area, too - yes, that's a big monster, and I think one of the major causes of particulate pollution in the National Parks aroudn there, though not sure of that.

[durango_60]

I unfortunately do not have the time to adequately research the subject myself but I would like to chime in with a big "Thank You" to Kurt for all of the time and energy you put into keeping our existing trails open.

While I respect the opinions and appreciate the passion of both sides of this discussion I am bewildered to find such an argument on a site dedicated to Overlanding. Why not spend your resources battling ATV's as it is obvious that they are responsible for the majority of the abuse of the land? Is this issue all that different than the effort that got PWC's(jet skis) banned from many parks?

[cruiseroutfit]

...I'm really sorry that legitimate, conscientious 4x4 recreationists get penalized by the ATV bozos' behaviour, which in general is really quite awful. Every weekend we get them around our place, tearing around, ruining roads, making noise, trespassing, going off road - it's awful...

I agree on many levels that ATV's seem to cause alot of the visible "impact" that we see in these areas. But Wilderness doesn't stop stupidity, nor does it fix the real issue at hand, rather IMHO it increases it.

Utah has huge OHV community, and it is growing faster than you would beleive. I don't have numbers here in front of me, but in the last 5 years alone the number has doubled. And that number is registered OHV's only, so it doesn't take into account any of the full-size (Jeep, LC, pickup, etc) users.

If you were to talk with the ATV groups here in Utah, they seem to think the problem is just as much ours (4x4's) as it is ATV's, while I disagree on many counts, its probably pretty equal proportional to the amount of each user. We have some VERY active ATV and snowmobile associations througout the state... while I agree they are the "majority" of the problem, I don't know that pointing the finger at them will do alot of good in the long run.

Money spent on all this Wilderness effort (both the for and against sides) could have gone alot further by focusing on education and law enforcement. Sadly this doesn't seem to be a priority...

[dieselcruiserhead]

This is going to sound a little cold hearted... But I personally have very little love for ATVs. Especially for quads, unless actually needed on a farm... Using quads recreationally to me is most stupid in my opinion.. Dirt bikes are pretty cool, but man do they tear things up. Of the 10 or so times I have seen times where people were doing things they shouldn't on the trail (IE not on the trail, tearing up cryptobiotic soil) it is usually by dirt bike users. Just Friday one came zooming by us a good 15 feet off the trail, thinking he was being nice by bypassing the trucks on the trail..


I can/do understand how unity helps a lot but these guys and some of the more violent and/or reckless off roaders with bigger engines and who roll a lot, etc, seem to be much more of the problem. I think if these guys didn't exist, things might be a lot more easy for us. Even Edward Abbey & such drove a jeep.. ..and used it..

[cruiseroutfit]

This is going to sound cold hearted but I personally have very little love especially for quads.. Dirt bikes are pretty cool but man do they tear things up. Of the 10 or so times I have seen times where people were doing things they shouldn't on the trail (IE not on the trail, tearing up cryptobiotic soil) it is usually in dirt bikes. I can/do understand how unity helps a lot but these guys and some of the more violent and/or reckless off roaders with bigger engines and who roll a lot, etc, seem to be much more of the problem. I think if these guys didn't exist, things might be a lot more easy for us. Even Edward Abbey & such drove a jeep.. ..and used it..

Don't get me wrong, my views are often synonymous... It’s a hard battle on all sides. I am sure there are pro-Wilderness advocates that don't like the fact they refuse to compromise, I would even consider allot of 4x4 users in that category. But at the end of the day... if it’s not "all right" it’s not "alright"… AWRA must be either buried or heavily revised.

Last year alone I visited the Southern Utah area nearly a dozen times, and this year will eclipse that number... each time I go I find 10 more places I want to check out. The shear beauty and remoteness of the area make both sides so passionate for its well-being albeit with different ideas to "protect" it.

I've seen the damage ATV's can cause offroad, but then again I still think the problem is pretty minor all things considered. In all my travels this last weekend (~200 offroad, 900 on road), there wasn't really one area that stood out as "damaged" by OHV's. Sure some rogue tracks could be seen here or there, but a southern Utah spring can erase alot of stupidity thankfully!

[DesertRose]

I unfortunately do not have the time to adequately research the subject myself but I would like to chime in with a big "Thank You" to Kurt for all of the time and energy you put into keeping our existing trails open.

While I respect the opinions and appreciate the passion of both sides of this discussion I am bewildered to find such an argument on a site dedicated to Overlanding. Why not spend your resources battling ATV's as it is obvious that they are responsible for the majority of the abuse of the land? Is this issue all that different than the effort that got PWC's(jet skis) banned from many parks?

Actually, I do spend more time working on ATV regulatory issues.

And I'm equally baffled why there are forums devoted to 4x4 exploration and overlanding that aren't concerned about preserving places for wildlife and solitude.:o

[DesertRose]

But Wilderness doesn't stop stupidity,

I love that line, can I steal it?



nor does it fix the real issue at hand, rather IMHO it increases it.

I don't follow you here exactly - because, from my perspective, Wilderness is about non-mechanized use, period, and it's for wildlife habitat. But I think I know where you're coming from, that it's education and enforcement that can solve things, too.


while I agree they are the "majority" of the problem, I don't know that pointing the finger at them will do alot of good in the long run.

I guess I'm pointing fingers, from my personal experience with quads here in southern Arizona.

However, I'm also speaking from the knowledge (first-hand - I used to run a very pro-Wilderness non-profit down here) that the pro-Wilderness groups are getting really, really twitchy about ATVs (not overlander 4x4s) and their whole reaction (ie - to make big Wildernesses) is based on a fear that each year these yahoos encroach into unroaded lands. You say you haven't seen that, but I can tell you I have, all over southern Arizona and New Mexico.

Wilderness groups are extremely organized and extremely well-funded, with a lot of volunteers to flesh out the ranks. Our organization had over 700 (seven hundred) very active volunteers out doing road inventories on BLM and Forest Service lands for a massive GPS database - it's hugely powerful. So I can tell you I saw first-hand a huge amount of roads created by quads and bozos.

I know from personal experience that overlander 4x4 explorers don't have the kind of impact that the quad ATVs do - but the pro-Wilderness folks are just absolutely rabid about ATVs and stopping them. Legitimate users get caught in the battle.


Money spent on all this Wilderness effort (both the for and against sides) could have gone alot further by focusing on education and law enforcement. Sadly this doesn't seem to be a priority...

Goodness I agree! That's why I GOT OUT of the non-profit create-Wilderness schtick - my work now is very passionately about consensus, community-based compromise to create a future for people and wildlife.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but I truly appreciate all your hard work, thought, and articulation - I know it's really frustrating, I've been on both sides. But you have remained really thoughtful, and I appreciate that.

No hard feelings, I hope, since I'm way more out in left afield on this issue than you all are (but not a liberal, mind you!) - but you'll likely be getting some orders from me at your biz, as I really must get started fixing up my wonderful new project vehicle, an 84 FJ60 (soon to have an HZ diesel and 5-speed - soon as I find one!). And I just can't bring myself (as a girl) to shop very frequently at a certain supplier that features way too many under-clad, stupendously endowed ladies lolling over the Land Cruisers (don't all those studs and buckles scratch the paint!?).:sombrero:

[Jonathan Hanson]

I remember well our drives through the San Raphael Swell. I remember my disgust, my rage, my sadness at the extensive damage caused by moronic "enthusiasts," mostly of the ATV persuasion. In one formerly beautiful area every hummock that could be effortlessly ridden up by a three-year-old on a tricycle was covered in ATV and 4WD tracks.

The motorized-or-nothing crowd (which I don't believe includes anyone here) can criticize wilderness proponents all they like; at least we do not have a sizeable contingent apparently intent on destroying the thing we claim to love and want to preserve. The enemy in many, if not most, of these land battles in my opinion is not radical enviros, it is self-centered idiots piloting their internal-combustion vehicle of choice anywhere they please. As long as more responsible riders and drivers turn a blind eye to abuse, or try to minimize it, or expect someone else to fight it, so long will we have to struggle to keep open even legitimate 4WD areas on public land - that land that belongs to everyone, not just the "Hold my beer and watch this" crowd.

I'm convinced that scientists are going to discover an emission expelled by ATVs that instantly lowers the IQ of the rider by 50 points.

[cruiseroutfit]

I love that line, can I steal it?

Sure, I use it all the time... its catchy eh? :beer:


No hard feelings, I hope, since I'm way more out in left afield on this issue than you all are (but not a liberal, mind you!) ...

None at all, I hope the same... Good dialogue (and light debate) is very healthy for all sides. I take bits and pieces of the opinons of others into mind everytime I think about Wilderness. I thank you for presenting your opinion on the matter. :victory:

Now in my ideal world... The mechanized and Wildnerness sides could sit down at a "summit" of sorts, controlled by 3rd party arbitrators. Address the issues one by one, agreeing on different sects of Wilderness, and agreeing to disagree on the others. They could agree to fight those ones in the future ;) Seems we ought to get to "protecting" these areas today rather than in another 18 years (the original act was introduced in 1989)

Ideal I know...

[cruiseroutfit]

I remember well our drives through the San Raphael Swell. I remember my disgust, my rage, my sadness at the extensive damage caused by moronic "enthusiasts," mostly of the ATV persuasion. In one formerly beautiful area every hummock that could be effortlessly ridden up by a three-year-old on a tricycle was covered in ATV and 4WD tracks...

I'm not saying you can't find any instances of abuse. I drove hundereds of miles in the SR Swell last year alone, I feel confident the overal "damage" is very seldom in relation to the total amount of trails. Its there, but its minor IMHO...

Keep in mind... it is already illegal to drive an ATV off the designated trail in the SR Swell, what makes you think putting up a Wilderness sign is going to fix the existing problem. Now, if the ARWA passes, and all those ATV users have to use the lesser amount of available trails. Do you think that is going to solve the problem?

[DesertRose]

Keep in mind... it is already illegal to drive an ATV off the designated trail in the SR Swell, what makes you think putting up a Wilderness sign is going to fix the existing problem. Now, if the ARWA passes, and all those ATV users have to use the lesser amount of available trails. Do you think that is going to solve the problem?

I've been thinking about this, and in this particular Wilderness proposal case, I now have to agree especially after looking at all the maps again and seeing the overlays of the proposals. This landscape is so open, and it's so easy to create new roads there.

Having put together a couple Wilderness proposals for AZ, I am also of the opinion now, too, after listening to Kurt, and pouring over the maps, that SUWA is going for broke - they are proposing areas I would not think could possibly be protected from bozos. Many of the areas are bordered by well-used roads. Hmm.

Wilderness as Kurt said is only a designation and comes with no money for enforcement and education, heck probably not even for signs for years and years.

The Wildernesses I worked on here were really isolated already, and identified as core areas for 2 endangered species - Mexican gray wolves, and Jaguars. Two species worth protecting, in my mind! The use issues were mininiscule in comparison to Utah.

Sorry Kurt, it's going to be a long battle - and while I still am a Wilderness proponent at the end of the day, I'm also a pragmatist and feel you're right, everybody should sit down in arbitration and hash it out and find a solution, like what AZ is trying to do - license and tax ATVs so that money can be used on education, enforcement, and trail maintenance.

Unfortunately, a few radical enviros here are even trying to kill that effort because they 'don't think it's tough enough.' Well bugger them, I say, it was a huge effort where people really did sit down and work it out and compromise.

[DesertRose]

This is going to sound a little cold hearted... But I personally have very little love for ATVs. Especially for quads, unless actually needed on a farm... Using quads recreationally to me is most stupid in my opinion.. Dirt bikes are pretty cool, but man do they tear things up. Of the 10 or so times I have seen times where people were doing things they shouldn't on the trail (IE not on the trail, tearing up cryptobiotic soil) it is usually by dirt bike users. Just Friday one came zooming by us a good 15 feet off the trail, thinking he was being nice by bypassing the trucks on the trail..


I can/do understand how unity helps a lot but these guys and some of the more violent and/or reckless off roaders with bigger engines and who roll a lot, etc, seem to be much more of the problem. I think if these guys didn't exist, things might be a lot more easy for us. Even Edward Abbey & such drove a jeep.. ..and used it..

I agree, Andre! but it's not the machine it's the user.

Our home is surrounded by wildlands and a number of roads popular with ATVs and dirt bikes and buggies. We battle these bozos on a weekly basis - going through our fences, past no trespassing signs, tearing up land.

But there are also sane users who are just out exploring. There's an adorable club at a remote RV campground to the south of us that comes by in winter about 1x a week - about 10 quads, putting along, the guys in front, the wives bringing up the rear. I love them. We've had dirt bike clubs come in, but they are pretty good about keeping speed down and being polite. It's the rest that are the problem.

So, it's not the machine - it's how it's used. Unfortunately we're seeing younger and younger users on their mini ones learning how to be bozos . . . Jonathan calls them redneck larva . . . :ylsmoke:

[Jonathan Hanson]

Keep in mind... it is already illegal to drive an ATV off the designated trail in the SR Swell, what makes you think putting up a Wilderness sign is going to fix the existing problem

Kurt, I hear this argument all the time, but it's a total syllogism. It's like saying we shouldn't have laws against murder, since murders happen all the time anyway. Furthermore, you did what I mentioned previously about misdirecting the blame. You tacitly admitted to, and accepted, the abuse that the area suffers, but rather than direct some idea for a solution at the people causing the abuse, your reaction seems to be to not only accept it, but to use it as a reason not to try to protect land from further abuse.

Arguments such as this are an open invitation to every ATV rider in the country to get out and ride all over the landscape. "Well, we can't stop them from riding there anyway, so there's no point in protecting it."

What we need is more funding for enforcement to nail those who flaunt laws and make the rest of us look bad. We also need more backbone among our own community, so when we see someone abusing the land we don't just shake our heads, we go over in a very large group and tell them what jerks they are. I suppose firebombing their machines wouldn't be kosher, but it's tempting.

I don't agree with every wilderness proposal ever made. But I do understand why the people who make the proposals do so.

[Desertdude]

"syllogism" had to hit the dictionary on that one :bowdown:

Quick observation;

Just getting back from a week in SE Utah. I was impressed at how much has not changed in the ten years since our last visit. Many of the remote areas connected to with pavement are still clean and remote. Many of the old mining roads have been abandoned, melting slowly, and disappearing back into the landscape.

We were talking on this trip and wondering what the difference was between a Wilderness Area and a designated Monument Area?

[calamaridog]

I believe Wilderness proposals would be much more successful if they were tied into a larger effort to actually fund and manage federal lands.

Such efforts must include OHV areas and funding for enforcement.

As I've pointed out before, the number of law enforcement officers assigned to BLM and Forest Service lands is perhaps 10% of what they need. These agencies are by far the most underfunded law enforcement agencies in the nation.

I also have no doubt that Wilderness areas can coexist near OHV areas. We have the seldom visited Pine Creek and Hauser Wilderness, approximately 21,000 acres, right next to the Corral Canyon OHV area in San Diego County.

Corral Canyon are is not an "open" riding area, but there are mixed use trails combined with ATV only trails.

[cruiseroutfit]

Kurt, I hear this argument all the time, but it's a total syllogism. It's like saying we shouldn't have laws against murder, since murders happen all the time anyway. Furthermore, you did what I mentioned previously about misdirecting the blame. You tacitly admitted to, and accepted, the abuse that the area suffers, but rather than direct some idea for a solution at the people causing the abuse, your reaction seems to be to not only accept it, but to use it as a reason not to try to protect land from further abuse.

I'm too lazy to look up syllogism...

But, lets compare apples to apples... It would be like creating a NEW law for murder, spending millions and millions of dollars telling everyone why a new law is needed, rather than spending a penny of that money on EDUCATION and ENFORCEMENT of the current laws. There is already a grossly underfunded USFS & BLM enforcement staff here in Utah, I know as I work with them on projects on a regular basis... literally. They will be the first to tell you that a Wilderness designation isn't going to get them more money for education/enforcement.

I have never admitted to any of the "damage", I use quotations in every case of the word "damage" and "impact" as I feel it is all relative to the perspective of the reader. As mentioned I don't beleive our sport has a negligible "impact" on the ecosystem, and "damage" is very minor and easily repaired.

I have never said let it stand as it is... if you read anything I wrote, or knew anything about me, you would know I am all for EDUCATION and ENFORCEMENT. I have spent countless hours doing Trail Patrol, service projects, and just standing at a trailhead handing out information and maps. Please don't paint me as the average apathetic 4x4 users. I spend at least 2 hours promoting responsible 4x4 use, stewardship, advocating for access for every hour I spend on the trail. Keep that in mind when you characterize me.


...What we need is more funding for enforcement to nail those who flaunt laws and make the rest of us look bad.

I've been saying that all along...

"Money spent on all this Wilderness effort (both the for and against sides) could have gone alot further by focusing on education and law enforcement. Sadly this doesn't seem to be a priority..."


...We also need more backbone among our own community, so when we see someone abusing the land we don't just shake our heads, we go over in a very large group and tell them what jerks they are. I suppose firebombing their machines wouldn't be kosher, but it's tempting.

Agreed... its starting to happen here in Utah. There have been several recent cases where users took pictures of illegal 4x4 use, the information was passed onto the USFS and actions were taken. We (the U4WDA) have an "illegal acts" reporting system, where we work with the USFS/BLM to make sure the perps at a minimum get contacted. Last year during a service project we had a rig pull right past 20+ rigs and at least 5 FS rangers, and driving right past a no-travel sign into a lake. The USFS agreed to waive the ticket if the guy joined the U4WDA so he could get EDUCATED.

For kicks... the mission statement of the U4WDA, an organization I spent 150+ hours a year working with.

"The Utah 4 Wheel Drive Association is dedicated to protecting access to public lands through education and stewardship. We promote responsible use of 4x4 vehicles on our public lands, and equal access for all responsible user groups."

[dieselcruiserhead]

Main Entry: syl·lo·gism
Pronunciation: 'si-l&-"ji-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English silogisme, from Anglo-French sillogisme, from Latin syllogismus, from Greek syllogismos, from syllogizesthai to syllogize, from syn- + logizesthai to calculate, from logos reckoning, word -- more at LEGEND
1 : a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion (as in "every virtue is laudable; kindness is a virtue; therefore kindness is laudable")
2 : a subtle, specious, or crafty argument
3 : deductive reasoning

[cruiseroutfit]

... deductive reasoning

Hmmm, I would argue that it wasn't my "deductive reasoning" that was flawed ;)

[DesertRose]

Hmmm, I would argue that it wasn't my "deductive reasoning" that was flawed ;)

Not at all - I'd say you deducted right. In Utah at least, it appears that education and stewardship are what's really needed.

I'm impressed by the Utah 4-Wheel Drive Association - really impressed. Great job, great website, great emphasis on volunteerism, stewardship, action, and just getting out there!

How many individual members do you have, and how many club memberships?

[cruiseroutfit]

...How many individual members do you have, and how many club memberships?

We have ~700 individual members (up from just 65 :yikes: 3 years ago), and ~25 member "clubs" that have 1000's of members in the state of Utah. Things are really rolling for us.... our National Public Lands Day brought out over 300 volunteers last year, all 4x4 enthusiasts, total hours were ~ 2000 for one day :cool: This year we are hoping for 500 volunteers on a single Saturday :D

[durango_60]

I'm impressed by the Utah 4-Wheel Drive Association - really impressed.

I second that. I had never checked out the website before and it is certainly a top notch organization. I sure hope you take out of state members since I just signed up. With all the time I spend wheeling in Utah it's the least I can do.

[cruiseroutfit]

I second that. I had never checked out the website before and it is certainly a top notch organization. I sure hope you take out of state members since I just signed up. With all the time I spend wheeling in Utah it's the least I can do.

Absolutly, we will take members with ANY vested interest in Utahs 4x4 scene! :cool: Thanks! :)

[Jonathan Hanson]

I believe Wilderness proposals would be much more successful if they were tied into a larger effort to actually fund and manage federal lands.

Such efforts must include OHV areas and funding for enforcement.

As I've pointed out before, the number of law enforcement officers assigned to BLM and Forest Service lands is perhaps 10% of what they need. These agencies are by far the most underfunded law enforcement agencies in the nation.

I agree completely.

[GeoRoss]

"syllogism" had to hit the dictionary on that one :bowdown:

Quick observation;

Just getting back from a week in SE Utah. I was impressed at how much has not changed in the ten years since our last visit. Many of the remote areas connected to with pavement are still clean and remote. Many of the old mining roads have been abandoned, melting slowly, and disappearing back into the landscape.

We were talking on this trip and wondering what the difference was between a Wilderness Area and a designated Monument Area?

I too was surprised and happy on this latest trip. The thing that stood out in my mind was the now closed Lion's Back. You could no longer see the tire marks. It has been closed to vehicle traffic for less than six months.

I will say that the majority of the ATV/dirt bikes that I saw stayed on the trails, even with long lines of slow moving trucks. We did what we could to get them by as fast a possible. There were two occasions of some jerk speeding by off trail though :mad:. They were moving too fast to get a tag number unfortunately.

I really wish those plates were readable.

[cruiseroutfit]

I too was surprised and happy on this latest trip. The thing that stood out in my mind was the now closed Lion's Back. You could no longer see the tire marks. It has been closed to vehicle traffic for less than six months.

Seriously... closed in Feb/March and here is the results in April. All part of my "minimal impact perspective" :smilies27

[OverlandZJ]

I learned a tremendous amount from the discussion that followed that link. I thank all those who took the time to type their thoughts and feelings on the subject.

I'm impressed by the membership here, i'v watched threads on Religion, Politics, Environmental issues and snorkels kept to a civil and intelligent discussion. Elsewhere ...not so much.

:safari-rig: