Moab and more closing?

[ttora4runner]

Bringing this over from another forum since I didn't see anything about this post here. Unless, it's buried in another thread.

Anyways

Got this from another board I'm on. Any info?

S. 799 America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009 will close the doors on Utah recreation



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Todd Ockert
E-mail: landuse@ufwda.org
Tulare, Ca. 11 May 2009

S. 799 America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009 will close the doors on Utah recreation!

The wilderness bills keep rolling along in Washington DC. They are after 9.5 million acres in Utah and the Red Rock area this time. The Omnibus bill was not enough, so now they want to surround Moab Utah with Wilderness!
Here are the areas they are attempting to make into wilderness in this bill.

Great Basin wilderness area – 2,239,700 acres
Zion and Mojave desert Wilderness area – 375,500 acres
Grand Staircase-Escalante Wilderness area – 1,729,540 acres
Moab-LA Sal Canyons Wilderness area – 296,800 acres
Henry Mountains Wilderness area – 434,300 acres
Glen Canyon Wilderness area – 902,000 acres
San Juan-Anasazi Wilderness area – 531,300 acres
Canyonlands Basin Wilderness area – 725,700 acres
San Rafael Swell Wilderness area – 1,106,900 acres
Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin Wilderness area – 1,168,800 acres

This bill was introduced by Sen Durbin of Illinois.
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 4/2/2009
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] - 4/2/2009
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 4/2/2009
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 4/2/2009
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 4/2/2009
Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 4/2/2009
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 4/2/2009
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 4/2/2009
Sen Udall, Mark [CO] - 5/6/2009
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 4/2/2009

Please take the time to write to your elected representatives, and tell them enough is enough! Most of these lands do not meet the original intent of the Wilderness Act of 1964 “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
If we want to have anyplace left in Utah to recreate, we need to stop this land grab again NOW!


****

United Four Wheel Drive Associations (UFWDA) is the leading representative for four wheel drive enthusiasts. UFWDA is a group of individuals, clubs, state, regional, provincial and national associations and businesses in the United States and around the world; our members span the globe from the U.S. and Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, Japan, South Africa, and Iceland. If you would like more information on how you can be a part of this effort contact United Four Wheel Drive Associations today at 14525 SW Millikan Way #22622, Beaverton, OR 97005-2343, 1-800-448-3932 or visit www.ufwda.org.

The actual bill:

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

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Nothing new, forms of it have been in the works for the better of a decade, each time growing and growing. Despite the rapid increase in purported off-road vehicle use damage and the extractive industries, more Wilderness is being found lol

The reality is that 90% of this Wilderness bill would be great imo. Its the 10% that closes trails, camping areas and back-country access that causes so much polarity across the sides. Which both sides representing so many different interests, neither seems able or willing to comprimise.

 

[spressomon]

I've got an idea. How about we all go together and form a mining company?! The Guberment always seems to let mining issues do what ever they want with whatever land they want.

After 2 appeals the State of Nevada just approved the first open pit gold mine for Barrick Gold Corp. north of Elko NV in something like 50-years (under protest of course). It will be 2,000 feet deep and open pit in design. And they haven't started cleaning up the prior sites...what's a little mercury and arsenic between friends eh?!

Let the waste begin. But God help us if we just want to traverse existing roads and camp a bit.

Rant over.

 

[paulj]

From the bill's text, here is the list of proposed wilderness areas in the Moab - LaSal area. Is anyone familiar with these? Are they existing wilderness study areas, or popular 4x4 driving areas?

(1) Arches Adjacent (approximately 12,000 acres).
(2) Beaver Creek (approximately 41,000 acres).
(3) Behind the Rocks and Hunters Canyon (approximately 22,000 acres).
(4) Big Triangle (approximately 20,000 acres).
(5) Coyote Wash (approximately 28,000 acres)
(6) Dome Plateau-Professor Valley (approximately 35,000 acres).
(7) Fisher Towers (approximately 18,000 acres).
(8) Goldbar Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).
(9) Granite Creek (approximately 5,000 acres).
(10) Mary Jane Canyon (approximately 25,000 acres).
(11) Mill Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).
(12) Porcupine Rim and Morning Glory (approximately 20,000 acres).
(13) Renegade Point (approximately 6,600 acres).
(14) Westwater Canyon (approximately 37,000 acres).
(15) Yellow Bird (approximately 4,200 acres).

In the Canyonlands area:

(1) Bridger Jack Mesa (approximately 33,000 acres).
(2) Butler Wash (approximately 27,000 acres).
(3) Dead Horse Cliffs (approximately 5,300 acres).
(4) Demon's Playground (approximately 3,700 acres).
(5) Duma Point (approximately 14,000 acres).
(6) Gooseneck (approximately 9,000 acres).
(7) Hatch Point Canyons/Lockhart Basin (approximately 149,000 acres).
(8) Horsethief Point (approximately 15,000 acres).
(9) Indian Creek (approximately 28,000 acres).
(10) Labyrinth Canyon (approximately 150,000 acres).
(11) San Rafael River (approximately 101,000 acres).
(12) Shay Mountain (approximately 14,000 acres).
(13) Sweetwater Reef (approximately 69,000 acres).
(14) Upper Horseshoe Canyon (approximately 60,000 acres).

I'm guessing #3, Dead Horse Cliffs is area adjacent to the Utah park of the same name. Are there any spurs off the Potash Trail that lead up to the base of these cliffs?

The bill has the usual provisions regarding setbacks from existing roads. As with many components of the March bill, the details regarding what roads and trails are excluded or closed are to be found on the maps, not the text.

 

[Pskhaat]

Many of these areas are accessible today and are fantastic areas. I have no idea about lockhardt, but that would be a one-of-a-kind road to close. Bridger Jack Mesa has many campsites. Behind the rocks is popular as well as goldbar, porcupine rim...the whole thing really.

If this were to occur it would have a material effect on the region's 4WD community.

Sorry everyone, but I can almost certainly say these closures stem from Quad activity, the Quads are killing the area, literally.

 

[paulj]

http://www.suwa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=work_arwa

has a history of this bill, originally introduced in 1989, and links to maps

Maps and details can be found here
http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html

 

[motoexplorer]

Sorry everyone, but I can almost certainly say these closures stem from Quad activity, the Quads are killing the area, literally.

Interestingly, Jeeps seem to take center stage in the anti-ORV photos shown in the materials at the suwa.org weblink in paulj's post...

 

[Pskhaat]

That's fine, but take a look at the roads and the cryptobiotic soil in any Utah NP where quads are not allowed; you might actually have to get out of your Jeep and go look for the designated and NP-improved trail as the impact is relatively low yet use is moderate.

Go to any lower-use trail behind the rocks or up by the airport and 25 yards on each side of the road is circled with small wheelbase machines that have destroyed the area both in terms soil but as well in scenery (okay that last one's subjective but important).

Sorry but I've been driving nearly every backroad surrounding Moab for 100s of miles on a regular and exploratory basis since 1989 and I can say I've never been as depressed as I am in the last 3-5 years with the yahoo'ness and the evidence of these machines and what they're destroying.

I know I'm passing argument and judgment down to these things, but something has to be done about them. I know this is the same argument used by those wanting to close it, but I'm just playing my part at narrowing blame :O

 

[sami]

That's fine, but take a look at the roads and the cryptobiotic soil in any Utah NP where quads are not allowed; you might actually have to get out of your Jeep and go look for the designated and NP-improved trail as the impact is relatively low yet use is moderate.

Go to any lower-use trail behind the rocks or up by the airport and 25 yards on each side of the road is circled with small wheelbase machines that have destroyed the area both in terms soil but as well in scenery (okay that last one's subjective but important).

Sorry but I've been driving nearly every backroad surrounding Moab for 100s of miles on a regular and exploratory basis since 1989 and I can say I've never been as depressed as I am in the last 3-5 years with the yahoo'ness and the evidence of these machines and what they're destroying.

I know I'm passing argument and judgment down to these things, but something has to be done about them. I know this is the same argument used by those wanting to close it, but I'm just playing my part at narrowing blame :O

Problem is, if you zero in on the ATV/bike crowd you'll take the fullsize users down too.. Big wakes and ripples will be seen if each group tries to go after eachother.

Can't just shoot first and ask questions later. More now than ever, our community needs to smarten up on how we can police our own OHV brethren and help educate the un-educated.

 

[Pskhaat]

I know, I know! We collectively need to come up with a way to educate and enforce instead of removing access. I have ideas but they are Orwellian and it goes against my grain to think that way... I am open to thoughts.

 

[ttora4runner]

Educating people can only go so far. Think driver's ed in highschool before we all got our drivers lisence. We went though the class, drove around with the instrutor and passed the writen/driving test and were good drivers for about a month. Then boom we joined the rest of yahoo's out there driving like mad men only focussed on getting to out destination. This is just a generalization of course.


I would be open to keeping those area's open to travel but on a permit/pass system. If it would mean paying a small fee to keep those area's open I'd be willing to do so but maybe that's just me.

 

[Rando]

I had a similarly depressing experience in the San Rafael Swell this weekend. While doing Farnsworth Canyon and the Jug Arches Rap route I encountered 6 motor bikes IN Farnsworth Canyon which is part of a Wilderness Study area. They had driven around a barrier, then past the Wilderness sign and down the water course. While hiking out on a designated motorbike route we encountered two more bikes cutting a switch back and heading straight up the side of a ridge. Pretty much every single switchback on the trail had obviously been cut on a regular basis. It is pretty depressing that fully HALF the motorized users we saw were breaking the rules.

I straddle the fence on Wilderness issues. I believe that wilderness plays a very important role, and with less than 3% of the lower 48 being designated as wilderness (less than 10% of all public lands) it is not exactly over abundant. However at the same I own a 4x4 and like to explore. Of the Wilderness lands proposed in UT I have no problem with most of it. It represents a small area compared to those areas still open to motorized travel. Some of the areas around Moab I disagree with as they already have been significantly degraded and would no longer be what I consider Wilderness. However in areas such as the San Rafael a buffer needs to be established around the truly pristine areas, as my experience this weekend shows, a road running next to a WSA leads to people tearing up the WSA.

From a lobbying point of view organizations such as the BRC really shoot themselves in the foot with stupid rhetoric like "land grabs" and by opposing ALL wilderness designations. I think if they came out and supported some wilderness designations they would have more of a leg to stand on when it comes to the areas they really want to keep open to motorized travel. A very small fraction of society opposes all wilderness.

That's fine, but take a look at the roads and the cryptobiotic soil in any Utah NP where quads are not allowed; you might actually have to get out of your Jeep and go look for the designated and NP-improved trail as the impact is relatively low yet use is moderate.

Go to any lower-use trail behind the rocks or up by the airport and 25 yards on each side of the road is circled with small wheelbase machines that have destroyed the area both in terms soil but as well in scenery (okay that last one's subjective but important).

Sorry but I've been driving nearly every backroad surrounding Moab for 100s of miles on a regular and exploratory basis since 1989 and I can say I've never been as depressed as I am in the last 3-5 years with the yahoo'ness and the evidence of these machines and what they're destroying.

I know I'm passing argument and judgment down to these things, but something has to be done about them. I know this is the same argument used by those wanting to close it, but I'm just playing my part at narrowing blame :O

 

[Pskhaat]

...6 motor bikes IN Farnsworth Canyon which is part of a Wilderness Study area

To counter a little to what I said earlier, I was in CANY/Needles recently and the perfect silence broken with dual-sports coming our way. A smile came over my face as I saw their nice BMW equipment and they looked like they were to stop and chat. Might have even broken out a teapot should I have had a Rover nearby.

As they got closer all 4 of them roared off into the desert orthogonal to the road, made a 1/8 mile radius or so turn and then continued along their way, no respect to the soil or that it was a National Park nor that it was disallowed and generally just a "bad thing."

Regardless, NP roads are some of the most pristine. Why wilderness in some of these cases, why not annex Lockhardt keeping primary travel routes and extend CANY?

Licensure
I also agree that designated paid State and Federal endorsements both in terms of vehicles and drivers are an answer though it really is a questionable practice of allowing a gov't to grant and revoke access to public lands based upon political or social terms. Florida does this at a County-level and the non-resident price is shockingly high. I would fear what a yearly out-of-State Utah backroad pass would cost, but more to the point how would this be enforced?

 

[ttora4runner]

We have similar problems like that here around Yuma and have had some recent trails closed due to it. Our group down here is going to start attending some of the BLM meetings to help out.

I can see the out of states fees/permits being ridiculous high but if they were honest with the money from the permits then that could go to hiring additional personal to help enforce the regulations/rules.

This is just my 2 cents.

 

[cnynrat]

(1) Bridger Jack Mesa (approximately 33,000 acres).
(2) Butler Wash (approximately 27,000 acres).
(3) Dead Horse Cliffs (approximately 5,300 acres).
(4) Demon’s Playground (approximately 3,700 acres).
(5) Duma Point (approximately 14,000 acres).
(6) Gooseneck (approximately 9,000 acres).
(7) Hatch Point Canyons/Lockhart Basin (approximately 149,000 acres).
(8) Horsethief Point (approximately 15,000 acres).
(9) Indian Creek (approximately 28,000 acres).
(10) Labyrinth Canyon (approximately 150,000 acres).
(11) San Rafael River (approximately 101,000 acres).
(12) Shay Mountain (approximately 14,000 acres).
(13) Sweetwater Reef (approximately 69,000 acres).
(14) Upper Horseshoe Canyon (approximately 60,000 acres).

Butler Wash runs along the eastern side of Comb Ridge. There is a well maintained dirt road that runs from Rt 95 at the northern end to Rt 161 at the southern end. Comb Ridge itself is about 80 miles long, so this road provides access to points of interest along Comb Ridge. Without it, much of Comb Ridge would be inaccessible without a serious backpacking journey.

The text of the bill is vague with respect to existing roads that may be in these areas. There are provisions defining right of way for roads, but the bill doesn't seem to state which roads might still be open, and which would be closed.

I see Comb Ridge itself is also up for wilderness designation in the bill. Also, some of the more popular canyons in the Cedar Mesa/Grand Gulch area. That's all probably a good idea, although many dirt roads are used for access to those canyons as well. Hopefully those would remain open.

I guess I need more info.