# Utah Congressmen threaten undo protected acreage.



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Tom Martin asked me to post this on MB. Please write!

Tubby & Tom – I had tried to post this on the River Runners for Wilderness site with no luck and Tubby I am not a member of Utah Rafters. The Bishop Land Initiative in Uintah County is nearing a critical point and letters to the folks below, AND the Congressional delegation of people’s residence are critically important in doing something more than lip service to protect small portions of these rivers. Would you please post this and drum up some letters?

Herm

Around 60 years ago the modern conservation movement began just east of Uintah County over a proposal to build a dam within Dinosaur National Monument at Echo Park. Now we need another similar uprising from people who care about the long term protection of the Green and White Rivers. Congressman Rob Bishop, who serves on the U.S. House Rules Committee and the Natural Resources Committee (CHAIRMAN) has proposed a Public Lands initiative. This initiative is very LOCALLY DRIVEN, and threatens to undo tens of thousands of acres currently protected as Proposed Wilderness. 

WE NEED YOUR HELP - PLEASE TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO READ THIS AND THEN........ WRITE LETTERS!

At present about 200,000 acres of Uintah County’s 2,000,000 acres receive protection because federal agencies must manage proposed Wilderness as de-facto Wilderness until their fate is determined. The current proposal would reduce the protected lands to around 15,000! In addition many of those acres would receive significantly less protection than they currently receive through National Conservation Area or other status. If you want to see how much land is currently drilled go to Google Earth and have a look!

While the Lands initiative concerns de-listing pristine proposed wilderness in the Uintah Mountains and Book Cliffs, I am concentrating on those lands adjacent to the Green and White Rivers. HERE’S WHY:

● There is only one place in the United States where a person can take an extended (over 20 days) river trip - The Grand Canyon; Here one can launch with permits at Flaming Gorge Dam on the Green River and run all the way to Hite on Lake Powell or launch and take out at intermediate points; Likewise one can launch in Rangely, Colorado and do a similar trip.

● There are few places where people can learn to run rivers without excessive regulation and without permits; Commercial use of other areas is at capacity; From Ouray to Sand Wash on the Green and from Rangely to the confluence with the Green River these opportunities still exist (presently 4-5 commercial outfitters have permits for these river segments).

● While the 100 or so miles from Split Mountain to Ouray is developed, mostly agriculture, gravel and oil and gas, the other river segments are still pristine with dramatic scenery, significant wildlife habitat, archeological, Native Peoples and early settlement sites, silence, dark night skies, wonderful river camps and few intrusions. Both the White and Green Rivers are significant to endangered plants and to endangered fishes. Although much of the White River has significant O&G development and visual intrusions it, perhaps has as many if not more pre-dam era qualities than the Yampa River.

● The potential for visual intrusions on the access road to Island Park and the river camps along that segment of river are presently a certainty, having a dramatic effect on a quality river experience.

● Outdoor recreation, and specifically has a significant economic impact upon Uinta County, especially during the “Bust” times like we are currently experiencing. Oil and Gas companies owe their loyalties to their corporate headquarters, stockholders and in some cases foreign governments. When the oil economy sours they can pull up stakes and move away. River outfitters and private river runners cannot do that - there are only a limited number of rivers to run. River runners buy gas, groceries, eat at restaurants and stay at motels, buy souvenirs and make other expenditures that support the county’s economy. 

● River running is low impact, river runners come here, spend money and go home to where they live. It does not produce or use harmful chemicals, foul the air and water.

Currently (see maps attached) the County Commissioners are proposing:

★ ISLAND PARK - No wilderness, even though there is much land worthy of that designation there, instead they are proposing a Conservation Area and they plan to modify the vegetation for sage grouse (soon to be listed - endangered?), open roads for “hunters” and permit other incompatible activities. The purpose of the County’s “concession” on this site is to show they are protecting sage grouse and to allow drilling on all other grouse lands. While much of the viewshed from the river and camps will be protected (see maps & Google) the road into Island Park to the Monument boundary will have no scenic protection, AND drill rigs (this is a prime geological area to drill) on the mountain will be visible. Trading out SITLA lands. 

★ WHITE RIVER - Almost no protection on the White River and reduced acreage protection (White River Wilderness) of the Goblin City area (discovered by Powell’s men in 1872).

★ UPPER DESOLATION CANYON - A very much reduced Upper Desolation Canyon Wilderness around Sand Wash and up-river, a ½ mile river protective zone from near Pariette Wash to Sand Wash and Recreational River status. Closing the road from Sand Wash North to state school section and trading out SITLA lands.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED: (* Belknap Guide mileage; **A Boating Guide to the White River mileage)



❏ Island Park - Preserve the entire Wilderness as proposed by the BLM and Red Rocks Wilderness Proposal in and around Island Park. Trade out SITLA sections. Protect the viewshed along the Island Park access road outside the Monument Boundary. Protect the entire viewshed from the river to the Diamond Mountain road, except for private property, and permit current grazing rights and access. Prohibit drilling on these dedicated lands, but directional drilling from outside the protected areas to access rights should be permitted. Inclusion of the Green River within Dinosaur National Monument as a Wild segment of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; Inclusion of the Green River from its exit of Dinosaur National Monument (mp 198.5*) to Placer Point (mp 196*) as a Scenic River; and from Placer point to the Monument entrance road (mp 187*) as a segment of Scenic or Recreational River; These dedications will not affect water rights or the current rights of adjacent landowners. The Commissioners (supported by the Wilderness Society and NP&CA) are proposing to support Wilderness status of proposed lands WITHIN the boundaries of Dinosaur N.M. but this is a non-starter as those lands are already manages as de-facto Wilderness. This is an example of trading nothing to show support of conservationist’s proposals.

❏ White River - The White River has potential to be a win-win situation for the Oil and Gas Industry, River Runners and outdoor recreationists and government entities by developing a long-term reclamation plan. Here are my recommendations (and I am surprised the Uintah Commissioners have not jumped on this!) Approve, in its entirety, the White River Wilderness proposed by in conservation community’s “Red Rock Wilderness Area” plan. In a 1-2 mile wide zone (depending on visual and sound intrusions) to protect intrusions on the White River from (The Colorado border) mp 22** to mp 68** in a manner similar to the McInnis National Conservation Area near Loma, Colorado. Current drilling, undrilled leases and access would continue. New leases would be required to control (baffle) sound, lighting and directional drill from out of the protected area. When wells are no longer economical the sites and access to them will be reclaimed in a natural condition. Water truck and other access would be reduced. Grazing and stock water sites would continue. Within the wetland/flood plain only closed loop drilling systems would be allowed. Overhead power lines and power poles would eventually be removed and any necessary power lines would eventually be placed underground. (Price, UT. has two entire fields with underground electricity.) Nearby road construction should be mitigated for habitat fragmentation and unnecessary roads should be reclaimed. All pumping within the corridor would be to centralized tank batteries out of the viewshed to also reduce noise and to reduce truck trips in field. Compressors should be located five miles from the river corridor and mitigated to baffle sound. Roads should be gate and locked where possible to reduce traffic disturbance. Out of river intrusion bike and/or ATV trails can be developed. 



❏ Upper Desolation Canyon - Desolation Canyon begins well above the current launch site at Sand Wash, and that area is beautiful. Protecting the river corridor and side canyons from visual, sound, light and other intrusions is critical to successful making this river segment to users. To understand the protections that are required to foster this growth we need to protect more than a token strip of land adjacent to the river. The river corridor, including side canyons need to be off-limits to the visual and other (sound, lights, etc.) intrusions. The Uintah Commissioners proposal for protection of a narrow corridor along the Green River is hardly a concession as the BLM is already managing this area as a Wild and Scenic River segment. There is a pipeline, and utility corridor that crosses the river around mp 107.5, the proposal does not affect access and development of this corridor, except to require “naturalization. Therefore I strongly support the inclusion of the Green River From the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Boat Ramp (mp 142*) to Wild Horse Bench (mp 118*) as a Recreational Segment and from mp 118* to the Uintah County Line (approximately mp 91*) as a Wild segment of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Intrusions presently in place, and drilling leases should remain, but be removed and reclaimed as their production becomes uneconomical or they become unused. Wild and Scenic River designation will continue to permit the continued use of motor boats by commercial outfitters, hunters and those who fish the river. The Upper Desolation Canyon Wilderness proposed by conservation organizations Red Rocks Wilderness Proposal should be approved in its entirety. Road access below Wild Horse bench should be closed. 

❏ All state lands (SITLA) within all of the above recommendations should be exchanged with BLM lands elsewhere to consolidate energy development.

❏ BLM in Uintah County has over 3,500 uncapped, un-reclaimed wells. Abandoned and non-producing uncapped and un-reclaimed wells contribute to air and groundwater pollution. In all above cases abandoned or non-producing wells should be reclaimed, especially as BLM should have imposed a bond to do so upon lease.

❏ Uintah County already has a preponderance of land available for extractive use, now it is time to set aside some land for our grandchildren to determine the use of in the future. The mineral resources in than land will not be any less valuable in the future.... and indeed in times of National crisis even the National parks have been opened to non-compliant use (Yosemite - grazing in WWI and Smokey Mountains for timber harvest in WWII for example) 

A small group of us have been working hard, spending many hours, in meetings with the Uintah Commissioners and state and federal representatives. We have made some progress, BUT several well-funded, very vocal groups (see attachments) have stymied our efforts. I mean WE HAVE STRUGGLED!

OK NOW THAT YOU HAVE STRUGGLED THROUGH THE ABOVE - YOU NEED TO WRITE LETTERS.

▸ Use your own words, include personal experiences

▸ Do not threaten, or be vulgar or insulting - be positive & polite

▸ DO SHARE HOW MUCH TIME (How many times a year and for how many years) AND MONEY YOU SPEND OR IN THE CASE OF CONCESSIONAIRES EARN HERE

▸ Explain what you want and why

▸ send copies to YOUR US CONGRESSMAN; remember regarding Echo Park, when Congressmen from other states began receiving letters the shit began hitting the proverbial fan!

▸ It is probably more important to send letters to the governor’s office and congressional aids below than Uintah Commissioners if you have limited postal $

▸ PLEASE, PLEASE.... write, don’t Email. I know your time is limited and precious... but so are these river segments. If we do not create a ground swell of support these river segments time will be limited too. PASS THIS ON TO OTHER RIVER SUPPORTERS.

Mike McKee and Bill Stringer, Uintah County Commissioners

152 E 100 N

Vernal, Utah 84078

Utah Office of Economic Development

Outdoor Recreation Director - Brad Petersen

60E. S Temple, 3rd Floor

Salt Lake City UT 84111

Cody Stewart Utah Governor Herbert’s Staff

305 N. State Street

Utah State Capitol. Suite 230

Salt Lake City, UT 84114

U. S. Congressman Rob Bishop - Casey Snider

1017 Federal Building

324 25th St

Ogden, UT 84401

U. S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz - Fred Ferguson

2464 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington D.C. 20515


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

Hi

Total BS !

I ride dual sport and dirt bikes.

This has that community up in arms !

They want to shut down significant parts of moab area

here is the link

Note from Clif Koontz about Moab trail access and closures. Help Needed - ADVrider

This is a bad idea ! !

IT DOES NOT HAVE LOCAL SUPPORT

It could eventually shut down acess roads as well.

This is a BAD project for all us....DO NOT SUPPORT THIS !


scott


----------



## riverdoghenry (Nov 18, 2008)

Tom,

I'll write letters, but I already know Jason Chaffetz and Rob Bishop are incapable of opening their minds. Bishop only sees the mighty dollar right now and all Chaffetz cares about is hot button issues, so he can grandstand as a drama queen. A son-in-law of a good friend, worked for Chaffetz and didn't have much good to say.

I'll write everyone in hopes that someone with a greater voice will see the need and try to intervene. 

Good luck!


----------



## Emmielou (May 1, 2007)

Actually, this does have local support in Grand County. Here in Moab, we overhauled our local government in last year's election with progressives who were willing to find a balance between conservation and multi-use recreation. Our county council has worked hard to make sure all interested parties have an opportunity to have their voices heard, and they have worked diligently to keep jeep safari trails and OHV roads open in conjunction with expanding protection of our local watershed and wilderness areas. 

All three recommended proposals put forward by Rep. Bishop drastically decrease protected wilderness and conservation areas while increasing access for oil and gas. It's a mess. This isn't about shutting down all off-road access for dirt bikers, mountain bikers, jeeps, etc or closing existing roads. We are asking our representatives to protect specific areas against additional development for their wilderness and ecological value. 

Please write your representatives and ask for more protection of our rivers!


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Our legislators are an interesting breed. Rumor is our local democratic committee is going to encourage those registered with the party to declare themselves republican and vote in their primaries for moderates. After years of catastrophic losses in our district a new strategy is needed. Wasn't as needed before they gerrymandered our state voting districts.

Phillip


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Yes, if it wasn't for the beauty of this state, we'd probably go live somewhere else. It's a waste of time to vote here, unless you're a teabagger. Bishop And Chaffetz are morons when it comes to public lands. I agree a letter is probably tilting at windmills, but I'm going to write one anyway.

Nothing against jeepers or MC riders. I raced MX and track for a few years when I was younger. Actually trained and worked as a MC mechanic till I got into woodworking. There's enough out there for everyone if they don't sell the state to the extraction industry.


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

tmacc said:


> Nothing against jeepers or MC riders..........There's enough out there for everyone if they don't sell the state to the extraction industry.


Um....how would you feel if 90% of the rivers you enjoyed were closed to your use.

In summit county, golden horsehoe area 90% of our single track trails were closed .

By the way, ...where the hell do you think your gear came from ? .....yep all that wood, plastic, rubber, metal, carbon...100% from extraction industries !  None of us get to boat with out the help of extraction industries ! 

YA... there is enough land to go around if it were all open....but a lot of it is closed, regulated and permitted, and the permints and regulation, only get more restricted ! ... I bet in the next 5-7 years, browns will be permitted! 

The current regulations and closings have been harsh on the ohv community.

OHV use and numbers have grown substantially, at the same time there has been a significant reduction in trails sysytems.....There are no longer is enough trail systems to support the number of users, many of the remaning trail system suffer from over use...From this users group perspectives, there is a shortage of land...it is no longer plentiful.

I feel you're postion as I understand it, is hypocrisy at it's finest .

But, regardless of differing political views....I wish you a fun filled river season !

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## Emmielou (May 1, 2007)

Scott, I don't know the precise details in Uintah County, but in Grand County 97.6% of all trails and dirt roads would stay open under the proposed recommendations to Rep. Bishop, including 100% of jeep safari trails. By comparison, less than 60% of proposed wilderness would be protected. To suggest that this initiative is designed to benefit conservationists over OHV riders is hyperbolic at best and fear mongering at worse. 

There really is more than enough land to go around, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and let our river corridors and wilderness areas go to hell so anyone can ride anything anywhere at any time. Our family loves to enjoy the serenity of the river from our raft, and go dirtbiking and jeeping to places that cars just can't get us. If we all started acting like adults instead of ignorant jerks, we probably could find a balance that works for everyone.

Edit: Also, non-motorized recreation is the largest economic driver in Grand County, much more than motorized recreation and far, far greater than oil and gas. It's in our best interest to protect our wilderness areas in order to stay viable. Instead of preaching from across the divide, maybe you should direct some of your research to what is really happening over here.


----------



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

Emmielou said:


> Scott, I don't know the precise details in Uintah County, but in Grand County 97.6% of all trails and dirt roads would stay open under the proposed recommendations to Rep. Bishop, including 100% of jeep safari trails. By comparison, less than 60% of proposed wilderness would be protected. To suggest that this initiative is designed to benefit conservationists over OHV riders is hyperbolic at best and fear mongering at worse.
> 
> There really is more than enough land to go around, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and let our river corridors and wilderness areas go to hell so anyone can ride anything anywhere at any time. Our family loves to enjoy the serenity of the river from our raft, and go dirtbiking and jeeping to places that cars just can't get us. If we all started acting like adults instead of ignorant jerks, we probably could find a balance that works for everyone.
> 
> Edit: Also, non-motorized recreation is the largest economic driver in Grand County, much more than motorized recreation and far, far greater than oil and gas. It's in our best interest to protect our wilderness areas in order to stay viable. Instead of preaching from across the divide, maybe you should direct some of your research to what is really happening over here.


I'm with Scott on this one. We go to Moab and Green River several times each year for dirt biking. We respect the land and other people's outdoor experiences, and never ride like "jerks". We always avoid jeep and mtn bike weeks and contribute plenty to the local business community. There's really not much left for legal motorized singletrack, mostly roached out jeep roads and sand washes. Meanwhile the BLM and town continue to build and promote new mtn bike singletrack everywhere. It's ironic when you consider most of the Moab trails were pioneered by dirt bikers and jeeps, including the Slickrock Trail, which Velo News so recently infamously declared non-motorized. Now when you ride it, all you get from mtn bikers is an attitude, clearly completely unaware of it's history. 

The stuff that is left is worth the trip, especially to get away from winter weather and enjoy the beauty of Moab. Several of the proposed closures include some of this remaining singletrack. The seasonal closure of Dead Cow and Hey Joe will stop the very rare traffic on a short 5 -6 mile stretch where it runs along the Green River. I really doubt that will dramatically change the "wilderness experience" of that stretch (if one were to be so "unfortunate" as to actually be in the same area when dirt bikes come through - a very rare occurence other than maybe jeep week) , with over 80 additional miles of "serenity" available. If you've ever been there you know what I mean - it's WAY out there and takes local knowledge to even find it and skill to ride it. I doubt it sees more than one or two groups most weeks - and probably most frequently in the spring and fall before the major rafting season. Plus even those serene sections are frequently touched by man, be it ranches or access points such as Mineral Bottom.

These proposed closures are not fear mongering, but fact. And it's important to put it in the dirt biking context, where we've lost huge amounts of access throughout the West. I can't recall a significant victory in the land access issues in the past 10 years.

I'm a mtn biker too, and first rode Moab on a prototype bike by G. Fisher after seeing his stuff in Marin in 1981. Most folks then didn't even know what it was. Lots has changed since then but I'm still willing to share. I'm also a 30+ year kayaker and now a rafter, and fully understand the value of rivers and of wilderness (and very strongly support some of those areas), but am also able to admit that just maybe we've tied up enough land elsewhere with wilderness and roadless designations, and just maybe we should all consider sharing a little more of what's left of what is, after all, everyones' land. It's not yours and it's not mine. It's ours.
- Jon


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Thanks Emmielou.

Scott, don't get your knickers in a knot. Your have completely misread my post. I've got nothing against OHV, with the exception of when they ignore basic courtesies to other trail users. Don't tell me it never happens. It's like ramp hogs, there's jerks among all outdoor recreationists. We have a Xterra Off-Road and occasionally drive the trails around Moab. With two Xterras and a 3/4 ton diesel pick-up, we're not exactly poster children for reduction in the use of fossil fuels. 

Since you don't live in Utah, you're probably not aware of the state law suit against the US gov't to take over control of the millions of US managed acreage. Basically, they (IMO) want to sell all of the incredible wilderness in this state to, yes,....the extraction industries. Maybe you agree with this proposition. If so, we'll just have to agree to disagree. 

If you're on this site, I assume you love the tranquility of wilderness rivers. I'm not totally familiar with what might be proposed around Moab, but if a few miles of OHV trails are restricted to give river runners that tranquility, is it really going F-up your life? I assume this is what you're objecting to. Not the many thousand of acres Bishop and Chaffetz want to lease to extraction industries.

Peace, out.


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Jon,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply to Emmielou, You made some very good points. We're probably close in age and I am aware of the history of Slickrock, thought it was the mid 90s before I MTB'd it for the first time. Being a bit of a motorhead, I appreciate OR riding. Hopefully, more of the trails you love aren't restricted, but I just can't agree with opening up sensitive area to many of the ohv users we too often see on the trails. Just my opinion there.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Part of the problem for me is Chaffetz and Bishop don't come to the table in good faith negotiations. They present symbolic legislation to rally their base and earn votes (happens across the aisle as well but they are relevant in this case). There are plenty of multi-sport users in Utah who want to find an compromise that respects the various stakeholders but these two legislators are not the right people to increase buy-in to the process. 

I am curious about single track....is that an issue with closure or competition from fellow motorized users like Jeeps? In all seriousness it doesn't seem like there is a major problem with motorized access in places like Grand County but more of a specific desire for certain experiences, i.e. single track. Why not work within the existing travel plan to close off 4-wheel traffic to buffer the single track experience? 

Per the conflict issue....as a former forest service employee it is difficult to find appropriate balance when the #s for trail closures often include a large percentage that were not legal according to decades old travel plans. The number of rouge trails, in Utah at least, is astounding. I ran into a ton doing biological surveys and locals had no problem including those when claiming agencies were radically closing them out of access. I have yet to hear any major organization that represents motor use honestly account for that reality (as I said I am more familiar with Utah, including several years living in Moab). 

I would like to point out its not just OHV travel being regulated more heavily through Utah. GSENM travel plan was noticeable restrictive across the board; any motor access through the monument is less than it was in the past and car camping is completely different out there than a decade ago (no fires, etc); backpacking has become more restrictive with year-round fire bans, elimination of bringing dogs into the backcountry in many places, group size limitations, etc. Its the ultimate reality when our resources are well known, advertised to death and visitation increases every year. Just look at the Paria region's extremely restrictive permit system; Zion National Park's canyoneering permit system; and the obvious river permit hoops we all jump through every year. More people = more restriction. 

Hopefully we can see a more collaborative, consensus-based approach then the Utah legislature often promotes. 

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

tmacc said:


> Thanks Emmielou.
> 
> Scott, don't get your knickers in a knot. ...
> 
> ...


To my fellow buzzards

Peace and enjoyable paddle time to all 

I wish to only engage in respectful, non hostile, exchange of differing views with my fellow buzzards.

I am not sure I was understood, and I have questions regarding my fellow buzards post.

So first my views and facts on this subject.

1) Fact .....significant amount of western lands and trails have been closed to OHV use, while at the same time there has been a large growth in the number and types of OHV users.

2) View .......as a result I and many other OHV users feel many of the remaning trails are being subject to over use. We do not feel that there is currently enough land to go around...from our prospective there is a SHORTAGE OF LAND. We feel more than enough land has been set aside as wilderness, or other wise protected...more is not needed or required.

3) Fact.......The vast majority of OHV users are being operated in a responsible manner.....source Colorado State Parks annual reports.

4) View......myself and many OHV users feel persecuted and maligned by groups like the serria club...they portray us uncaring, spoilers, enemies of the environment.....That is not what the vast majority of us are about......This environmental extremists view of OHV use + the lost of significant riding areas, has the community feeling on the defense and hostile.

OK now some questions.


" but if a few miles of OHV trails are restricted to give river runners that tranquility, is it really going F-up your life"

Umm....no ......it would not......but.... would giving up a few miles of river side to OHV use F-up your life ? ....River runners have hundreds if not thousands of miles of fully protected river...

Why is your claim to fun on this land more vaild than mine ?

I see more and more river miles being protected...and more and more land shut down for OHV use.

Quote ' you're probably not aware of the state law suit against the US gov't to take over control of the millions of US managed acreage. If so, we'll just have to agree to disagree.*"

Response....Yes, I am aware of the law suit....I belive it is important to maintain a healthy extraction industry. ...they are not pretty for sure....but they are a nessasary evil of modern life. ..we can not paddle with out them....yes......they need to be regulated, and monitor to insure the environmental impact is mitigated.....but...our lands should not be whole sale closed to them...I feel that there are sufficient set asides already for wilderness, and other areas...we need a healthy extraction industry, that operates in an environmentaly responsible manner.....It can be and is done that way in many not all locations.

Quote " Scott, don't get your knickers in a knot. ."

Response. ...Feeling a little attack here by some not all of the posts here...and defensive on this subject due to reason outlined above.

Again to ALL my fellow buzzards. .....thank you for the opportunity to express my views.

I hope some of you may have gained insite into plight of the OHV user groups...We feel hatred, and keep getting forced onto smaller and smaller chunks of the land.....hum ..does that remind any of you what has happened to any other grou ?...I am told it was done for that groups benfit.....although that group most certainly does not share that view.

Paddle on

Scott






Why


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

restrac2000 said:


> I am curious about single track....is that an issue with closure or competition from fellow motorized users like Jeeps? In all seriousness it doesn't seem like there is a major problem with motorized access in places like Grand County but more of a specific desire for certain experiences, i.e. single track. Why not work within the existing travel plan to close off 4-wheel traffic to buffer the single track experience?
> 
> 
> Phillip


Hi phillp

Thaks for the thoughtful post.

Single track trail ....is a trail that is basically a hiking trail that is open to mtn bikes and sometimes now dirt bikes.....Jeeps do not, nor have they ever used this type of trail.

Trails being closed is the problem 5 years ago there was close 200 miles of single track in the golden horseshoe area near breckenridge. ...now there is less than 20 miles !

Lose of single tract has been devistating to trail riders...they are now forced onto what we call 2 track system, jeep and atv roads ....hence 2 track vs 1 track ...

My views and your views on the subject are different, but I did want you understand what single tract was, and how much has been lost to its users.....keep in mind much of it, like the slickrock trail, was created and maintained by the group, that it has become closed to.

Paddle on

Scott,


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I think there is undoubtedly an inaccurate and hyperbolic portrayal of "all" motorized users, especially from specific and vocal segments of the "environmental" lobby. I would argue a more accurate number of legal versus illegal numbers for the state of Utah, the issue of concern from the OP, would come from the USFS and BLM as that is the land of concern here. I would also argue that despite intent OHV traffic has been shown to be a major detriment to riparian ecosystems in the west. Our riparian systems are in short supply in the region because of historical abuse and degradation. Both of the aforementioned agencies have mandates for conservation and preservation that often trump recreational use. The previously mentioned Hey Joe trail (i have hiked extensively in that region) in Labryinth spends significant time beside and within those ecosystems and that it was of the issues of contention. I believe one of the problems with working with the OHV community is the inability or unwillingness of many stakeholders groups to functionally compromise

You state some fair questions regarding the compromise associated with a "few miles" of river versus trail. Its not black and white and often comes down to competing values instead of objective standards. Both groups have lost considerable access in the last few decades. I also think it fair to call out your own hyperbolic statement regarding the amount and condition of many western rivers. There are relatively few rivers, not "hundreds to thousands of _fully protected_", emphasis on your own choice of words. How many rivers ban motors? Few and far between. How many rivers have functioning, "natural" hydrological regimes not affected by dams? Few, in fact i think its largely limited to the Salmon and Yampa. Its actually relatively difficult to get on a "fully protected" river, hence lotteries and complaints on this very forum. I would expect someone who themselves is experiencing a discrepancy in demand compared to availability to be honest in scale for other user groups.

I would also argue that you highlighted one of the fundamental problems situated firmly in the user group you are a member of, i.e. growth and popularity. We can't expect our sports to grow in popularity and not experience crowding and conflict. Motorized sports are hardly alone in this regard. Rafting is one. As a vocal member of the canyoneering community we all so all it coming in Utah but it didn't stop an increase in websites, magazine ads, etc. All too often we create the very problems we blame on others. It happens in human powered and motorized sports and the outcome is often the same: increased oversight, regulation and even closure when the resource is degraded too much. 

Another caveat, the legislation of concern isn't an expansion of wilderness but the reduction of land preserved decades ago by FLPMA. These two legislators are removing the existing protections of Wilderness Study Areas that have sat in their relatively stagnant state due to politiking on both sides of the aisle. But it is inaccurate to claim this is about "more" wilderness, as they have been held in trust that way for decades.

Extraction in Utah has highlighted very clearly a problematic ethic. Its not about clean, sustainable energy but maximizing profit during boom/bust cycles. The Uranium Mill in Moab is a prime example. They did what was best for their money not impact and local benefit. They sat on a major source of pollution and did what was minimally required until the government stepped in and took control. The oil industry has no problem doing the same. A company sat on years of spillage in Escalante and never reported it until hunters notified authorities. Oil spills have been common across Utah the last decade. The entire plateau west of the Green River shows that the restraint on extraction on public lands is an exaggeration. Coal mines have shown a observable lack of interest in employee health and safety, hence many closures. Few lands in Utah have been "whole sale closed" as you state, its actually a relatively friendly state to extraction hence the fact it, just oil and gas, contributed roughly $500 million in wages in 2013. A state that ranks 10th-11th in US natural gas and oil production is anything but "whole sale closed" by land agencies. So lets use fair language there as well.

It should be obvious from my previous posts that I am a moderate who cares as much about the "how" in legislation/designation as I do outcomes. There is noticeable stakeholder tension in Utah and there is not an easy solution to it. It is possible for groups to reach across the aisle but the two legislators mentioned and their proposals are not a good faith offer. I would expect those within the motorized community to recognize that reality as much as I call-out those in the conservation group. If we can't push our own communities to inventory our biases, exaggerations, and intent than how can we expect those we politically "oppose" to do the same? This extreme us-versus-them mentality, which you yourself highlight, is a cancer to the very process we need to seek healthy compromise.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

shredder-scott said:


> Hi phillp
> 
> Thaks for the thoughtful post.
> 
> ...


I understand the difference between two track versus single track. My thought is that generally "motorized use" in places like Grand County is rather extensive. Since that is the case, hence its national appeal to users, why has the motorized community not worked within itself to find a better balance between users within its own community? Why haven't motorized users intentionally reclaimed two track trails and turned them into single track trails principally for motorbikes?

I am fully aware of the history of Moab trail systems and its economic history. Moab was not originally a human powered recreational town. It was a mining boom town until the late seventies (roughly, ???). I spent plenty of mornings eating at the greasy spoon we called the "Golden Mistake" getting to know old miners and self-proclaimed motor heads, more so than I ever did at the more mountain biking centered Moab Cafe. Grand County is an interesting study in changing (rarely linear) user groups. As a human-powered adventurer I had no qualms lining up to watch the Jeep Safari parades/line-ups as they dispersed to their various routes each morning. I had no problem watching people Jeep around the trails near the Slickrock region. All this while I worked for an organization that took Leave No Trace to an extreme and yet was kicked out of historical guiding locations over the last five years. The motor community is not the only user group losing noticeable access in places like Moab as their popularity outgrows capacity. Every outdoor community I am part of in Utah, though I don't mountain bike, has lost noticeable access in the last decade.

Phillip


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

Scott, 
I don't believe the park service "The vast majority of OHV users are being operated in a responsible manner"…..source Colorado State Parks annual reports. Also would giving up a few miles of river side to OHV use F-up your life ? No but seeing more drilling done in an irresponsible manner would. Cheers


----------



## Mountainsandrivers (Mar 26, 2015)

I am with Shredderscott on this one, at least on the losses to the OHV community. I worry about the crowding on trails, which will then cause more damage and give others a reason to point to on why to close even more. I would like to see a more balanced use. They have opened up a lot of singletrack Moab trails, Captain Ahab and Mag 7 for example, but no pushes for motorized singletrack. I understand the wanting of quiet floating in Labyrinth, but (and I may be mistaken here) aren't motor rigs allowed? I agree that more protections to help the rivers thrive are good, but I think this proposal is too broad sweeping to accommodate all of the various user groups. I also think Moab has lost some it's mtn biking pull that it had, with Fruita trails becoming more popular and the popularity of side by sides. I think the motorized community spends a lot more there than people realize, but I don't know how much of a real study has been done. There are more jeep rental, repair, motorcycle shops, etc if you count them together than the 3 bike shops. Nothing is perfect, but I feel it would hard to get behind these closures for the long run.


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

[Quote " Scott, don't get your knickers in a knot. ."

Response. ...Feeling a little attack here by some not all of the posts here...and defensive on this subject due to reason outlined above.]

Sorry, I felt the same about your two statements below. I'm a moderate on these subject, but perhaps due to my writing skills, I don't come across that way. 



shredder-scott said:


> By the way, ...where the hell do you think your gear came from ? .....yep all that wood, plastic, rubber, metal, carbon...100% from extraction industries !  None of us get to boat with out the help of extraction industries !
> 
> I feel you're postion as I understand it, is hypocrisy at it's finest .
> 
> Scott


 I think Phillip has addressed everything you've said in a far better response than I ever could.


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

swimteam101 said:


> Scott,
> I don't believe the park service "The vast majority OHV users are being operated in a responsible manner"…..source Colorado State Parks annual reports. Also would giving up a few miles of river side to OHV use F-up your life ? No but seeing more drilling done in an irresponsible manner would. Cheers


Hi swimteam.

I am unclear, do you not belive me, when I say it is in the report....easy to check for yourself. ...look for it in the enforcement section of the report.

If you do not agree with how they got there data to support this statement. ...that is your privilege. I would only ask why do you not belive it ?

Again, I must ask would, sharing a few miles river bank with OHV users F-up your day ?

Why does the way you want to play outside, automatically usurp the way I want to play ?

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Thank you Phillip. I may not agree with all of your views but I really appreciate your thoughtful and educated contributions.


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

restrac2000 said:


> I understand the difference between two track versus single track. Why haven't motorized users intentionally reclaimed two track trails and turned them into single track trails principally for motorbikes?
> 
> The motor community is not the only user group losing noticeable access in places like Moab as their popularity outgrows capacity.** Every outdoor community I am part of in Utah, though I don't mountain bike, has lost noticeable access in the last decade.
> 
> Phillip


Hi Phillip

I want to thank you and all my fellow buzzards for joining me in an exchange of views regarding the conflict between user groups, and environmetal extremists group.

It is gratifying to read, that there is a understanding of the OHV users problems, and not just hatred towards us here.

Phillip to quote you " I understand the difference between two track versus single track. Why haven't motorized users intentionally reclaimed two track trails and turned them into single track trails principally for motorbikes? "

I do not think you understand the difference between 2 and single track.

Turning a 2 track trail into a single tract one is very difficult if not impossible. ... it would be kind of like turning a class III rapid into a class V one....also very hard to do.

Also 2 track trails tend to have been created by 4 wheel horse carts, and other 4 wheel ohv's....there is very little to " reclaim".

To quote you once again " The motor community is not the only user group losing noticeable access in places like Moab as their popularity outgrows capacity.** Every outdoor community I am part of in Utah, though I don't mountain bike, has lost noticeable access in the last decade.

There is only user group that I am aware of that has not suffered any loss, and that is the hikers...the amount of land open basically to only them has grown to HUGE amounts....and yet all other groups have suffered.

You're statement is exact support, and example I like...It shows clearly how false the statement made here by other posters, that there is enough land to around is ! 

As for the extraction industry. ....we need them to paddle....they have way more money, than all of the river rats, moto heads, mountain bikers combined could ever raise to fight for their access. ....I will simply agree to dissagree with some on this issue and leave it at that.

Buzzards and OHV users have the same basic problem. ....growing numbers....with no increase play areas....,but .....to be fair....it is hard to make a new river for us to use......what few river miles have been lost to dams....is offset by lakes created to give other growing water sports some space, sailing, fishing, boating ect..

But OHV users have lost significant areas to use ....more are being closed all the time. Try to imagine what it would feel like if only 25% of our rivers were closed ! Thankful that has not occured

We need to work together to find a solutions for both of our sports.

Closing more land to responsible OHV use is no solution. ...it only makes the problem worse !

I wish we could create more river miles to take the stress of over use off the rivers....but we can not....I was sadden when westwater went to permit. ...soon I am sure browns will follow....I hate getting permits ! But for river what other options are there ?.......For the OHV users...over use could be eaisly solved ....gives us back our rivers ! .....Opps....I mean trails !

Please my fellow buzzards, think twice before you support closing more lands to OHV use.....

Thank you all again for letting me express my view on this hot button topic, in such a positive manner !


Ride on....um......paddle on....oh heck just do both !

Scott

ps.....come over and check out advrider.com ....it has a very similar feel to here....just populated with " inmates " instead of " buzzards " .... I think you will find we are kindred spirits on the search for adventures :lol: ...we are not each others worst enemy.

Come on over say hi, learn a little more about OHV users...I can be found hanging out in the "rockies" regional section....come on over !


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

shredder-scott said:


> Hi swimteam.
> 
> I am unclear, do you not belive me, when I say it is in the report....easy to check for yourself. ...look for it in the enforcement section of the report.
> 
> ...


Scott ,
Its the park service I do not believe. They do not have the budget or man power to monitor "The the vast majority of OHV users". I already answered your next question in my first respone "Again, I must ask would, sharing a few miles river bank with OHV users F-up your day ?" but since you missed it or didn't take the time to read it here it is again. No but seeing more drilling done in an irresponsible manner would. Your choice of recreation does not concern me.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

*WOW*

"what few river miles have been lost to dams….is offset by lakes created to give other growing water sports some space, sailing, fishing, boating ect.."

Thats one way to see it. The ocean does cover 71% of the planet. Cheers


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

swimteam101 said:


> Scott ,
> Its the park service I do not believe. They do not have the budget or man power to monitor "The the vast majority of OHV users". I already answered your next question in my first respone "Again, I must ask would, sharing a few miles river bank with OHV users F-up your day ?" but since you missed it or didn't take the time to read it here it is again. No but seeing more drilling done in an irresponsible manner would. Your choice of recreation does not concern me.


Hey swimteam

Thanks for reply....I am sorry I missunderstood you !

As I understand you now....no problem giving up some river side miles to ohv use....just a problem giving it up for a drill rig....I can live and agree with that.

But....I do think you are wrong about state parks report.

The OHV permit fee is $25.25 for a year....by law 100% of that money MUST be used on OHV trails, and enforcement. ...There are postions at that state parks that fully funded by ohv permit fees.

In general I agree, they are a overstressed agency. ....but ...the OHV program is well funded and staffed.

I also tend to put little faith in gov reports, I respect that you are skeptical of the state park reports finding.

paddle on


scott


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

swimteam101 said:


> "what few river miles have been lost to dams….is offset by lakes created to give other growing water sports some space, sailing, fishing, boating ect.."
> 
> Thats one way to see it. The ocean does cover 71% of the planet. Cheers


I do not have the data to support it.....but yes total rivers miles to river miles lost to dams...I I doubt it amounts to even 5%....but I could be wrong....do you have any actual data to support your claim I am wrong ?

To be clear ...I have NO data to support my view, only a feeling from looking at maps, how long rivers are, and how short the dam lakes appear in comparison. 


Scott


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

shredder-scott said:


> I do not think you understand the difference between 2 and single track.
> 
> Turning a 2 track trail into a single tract one is very difficult if not impossible. ... it would be kind of like turning a class III rapid into a class V one....also very hard to do.
> 
> Also 2 track trails tend to have been created by 4 wheel horse carts, and other 4 wheel ohv's....there is very little to " reclaim".


I do understand the fundamental difference and I am not saying the reclamation would be easy. That said, if the goal is trails limited to single track then its a viable option. The reason i say that is many of the hiking trails I have used across the country are reclaimed railroads and roads themselves. We also see biking trails across the country being created the same way. Every year trail crews close off two tracks in Utah to refurbish historical hiking trails that have been used by rogue motor sports enthusiasts, from my experience mostly ATVs but that is limited anecdotally. And not just a few feet but several miles at a time. Locally I have seen it in the Pine Valleys here in SW Utah and worked on several public land days doing so. 

I understand there is perceived difference in quality and that affects the experience but as an avid desert hiker I can tell we deal with the same thing. Much of the access, significantly reduced in places like the Escalante, involve hiking on 2 tracks that are naturally being reclaimed. One of my favorite places to explore now involves roughly five more miles of hiking (one way) of closed road to get to the meat, a noticeable difference for short trips and excludes a lot more people. Hiking roads is largely unpleasant but its what we get in many places. Roughly one third of a hike into the Domelands Wilderness in 2013 required hiking old jeep roads and the PCT itself spends considerable time utilizing their old corridors. Having thru-hiked two major trails involving roughly 2800 miles I can tail you old roads are a common encounter. Its definitely easier back east to reclaim one of the tracks but it is very feasible out west and trail crews spend considerable time doing so.

Its not the same but we are at a point of diminishing returns so we have to use what we have. 

The idea that hiking trails have been expanded is debatable. Look at most old USFS and NPS maps and many have been abandoned or lack maintenance and are largely unusable. Its functionally the same as closure in most forests. On the district I was a biological technician on I would wager roughly half the trails were functionally unusable or reclaimed by wild processes. That only took 15-20 years. Having spent considerable time mapping routes in the La Sals for Primal Quest 2005, I was the manager of the mountain hiking and orienteering portion, I can attest the disarray of trails out there as well. Only cross country, trail less hikers have really prospered up there. A segment of the population that is relatively few.

There is no doubt much of the management policy is focused on the use of motor travel across the West. If you consider a hierarchy of relative impact their is little doubt motor travel has the highest comparable impact in recreational pursuits. This is true from an environmental standpoint to a recreational experience standpoint. Its a viable and enjoyable hobby, I shockingly enjoyed my time exploring my massive range (I was the only biological technician for a forest district that was almost a fifth of Utah forests) on an ATV. The next in line is likely horse traffic, though it can be worse in some places as attested to the massive troughs in our eastern forests that totally alter water regimes. Hiking is one of the lowest impact endeavors you can have but even it has influences more than most people realize (soil impaction, alteration of wildlife behavior and migration patterns, etc). Considering the mandates and laws passed since the 70s it should not be shocking that there are more opportunities for hiking than dirt bike riding single track. The only way to change that is to alter well established laws and its fair to say that is an uphill battle comparable to climbing Everest.

Conversations like this, hopefully happening in legislative bodies and agencies, are definitely key to finding a rough balance in policy and designation. Its likely agencies oscillate around an ideal rather than nailing it on the head each time, or ever. Much of the policy and agency management leading into the late eighties was by default kinder to motorized travel than now. That change is noticeable and is honestly felt by people like yourself. But how else do you implement change that is founded on changing philosophies and sciences like conservation and ecology? Places like Utah were largely a free-for-all through the 70s and abandoned to some of the most destructive and harmful practices known to man. I live in the area of old downwinders, though most of the generation that was exposed died off years ago. I live in a county that still bears the scars of sage brush rebels who bull-dozed miles of "trail" into WSAs, a tension that explains why local BLM carry assault weapons. I pull up satellite images of Utah and its obvious practices leading into the late eighties were anything but low impact and sustainable: mining piles left without recourse, massive timber harvests that bisected critical habitat and recreational corridors (the opposite is also true as our local forest is dying off when a proper timber harvest could have reduced the impact of beetle kill), miles and miles of illegal motor trails just on the Cedar Mountains (active until the last aggressive travel plan), etc. 

The cultural memory for many environmentalist, who are mostly moderates who explore in various different ways including by OHV, still remember those realities vividly. Its only a few decades old and even less in Utah. A drive into Deso reveals why so many people despise oil extraction: its ugly, loud and often done is a rushed way that doesn't leave companies liable for impact (and when they are its pennies on the dollar). There are places with better ethics than Utah but there is still very much its "just a desert wasteland" mentality to the extractive industry here. Hence the noticeable resistance to efforts by Utah legislators to ignore historical policy and open up so much land to commercial interests. And per the extraction side and our need...Utah is a prime example of opening up huge chunks of land over the past decade. How much more do we really need to open considering the vast majority of it is fungible goods that are exported?

Its a complex subject with a myriad of perspectives. Its good to hear multiple sides to better understand how policy and various compromises have affected real people. I have no experience for what happened in Summit County but I do have 12 years of living and working in huge swaths of Utah to give me perspective.

Phillip


----------



## modette (Mar 26, 2015)

swimteam101 said:


> Scott ,
> Its the park service I do not believe. They do not have the budget or man power to monitor "The the vast majority of OHV users".


If they do not have the man power why would you think any new law, rule or signage would be effective? I'm talking about Hey Joe.



> I already answered your next question in my first respone "Again, I must ask would, sharing a few miles river bank with OHV users F-up your day ?" but since you missed it or didn't take the time to read it here it is again.


The same can be asked to you. Would sharing 6 miles really F up your day? And if it does then I'm sorry that out of the whole raft trip the chance encounter with someone that is on the road/trail at the same time bothers you that much. I raft Royal Gorge yearly here in Colorado the roadway next to the river does not bother me, nor does the bridge across it. It takes nothing from the raft trip. What does take from the raft trip is the over used river by the rafting companies. But then again they are there to make a buck, and the population keeps on growing.



> No but seeing more drilling done in an irresponsible manner would.


Wind farms don't bother me either, nor nuke plants, or drilling. With more and more people the resources are needed. That is life as we live now till better technology or new technology comes along.



> Your choice of recreation does not concern me.


That statement is WOW. And rafting does not concern me. The lands are PUBLIC lands and not YOUR's or MINE but OUR's. Maybe I believe all rafting should be banned and a lawsuit filed because you are hurting some fish. People make up stupid stuff about OHV and land all the time, wait till rafting becomes illegal how would you feel? 

I love how people toss out the "Easter Jeep Safari routes won't be touched". Who the F cares! That right there tells me they are trying to say the 100 miles of proposed closures then is alright. No it's NOT. EJS is a permitted event and the routes are what they have permits for to run the event it doe snot mean people don't enjoy those other trails during EJS or before or afterwards. 

Let's do a reality check, we are talking a vast landscape. Who is patrolling this landscape! Closing land on paper or saying off limits from date to a certain date sounds good but no one is going to obey it. And before you jump on me and scream and yell if the river was shut down how many would obey any signs? I bet most here would say F that and raft it anyways and take the chance. I see people of all walks of life and all activities disobey signs all the time. Nothing is done unless they get hurt then the authorities can point to the sign.

All the times I been to Moab and the surrounding area that I have seen a ranger is NONE. I been to White Wash, no ranger in sight so who is goign to monitor Dead Cow Wash, or tenmile, or Hey Joe? The reality is no one. So why then even bother with these new laws, they are unenforceable.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

modette said:


> Who is patrolling this landscape! Closing land on paper or saying off limits from date to a certain date sounds good but no one is going to obey it. And before you jump on me and scream and yell if the river was shut down how many would obey any signs? I bet most here would say F that and raft it anyways and take the chance.
> 
> The reality is no one. So why then even bother with these new laws, they are unenforceable.


So this is the sentiment that flies in the face of the claim that most OHV users are thoughtful. I actually believe the statement and have seen evidence but your comments above are what fuel the ideological battle instead of creating a functional compromise. I would love to see more motorized users call this type of behavior out even if its just online. This is the reason we go from a cooperative framework to compliance based management regime.

To the idea most rafters would ignore such closures I think we only have to point out the October federal lands closure in 2013. Yes, some people claimed they would poach places like Westwater but the vast majority of people, including myself, spoke out against such behavior. There are those who feel entitled to whatever they want no matter the harm to their own community but we have to self-regulate our own groups or its inherently becomes the responsibility of the agencies.

You have a good point about unenforceable laws and policy. There is a fundamental problem there. Agency personnel have been crying foul for years as their funds are decreased and therefor they can't manage their lands effectively. But they are mandated to protect their lands according to law so they are stuck in a negative feedback cycle. Damned if you, damned if you don't. Nonetheless is does mean people who behave within the parameters you define will likely get away with their actions without consequence individually BUT does least to further escalation in management and even more closures. Horrible cycle. 

I have sympathy for motor sports enthusiasts who are experiencing first hand the changes in policy. The rate of change the last fifteen years has been swift and intentional. I actually worry about the rate of change for such groups (I learned such compassion by watching the social and economic shift in GSENM which was largely unfriendly to locals and beneficial to transplants) and get laughed at by friends who think there is no other option. That said, its fair to conclude the national free for all we saw in the seventies and eighties and that continued into Utah through the early oughts is well over with. Its unlikely we will ever see broad swaths of land mostly open to unconstrained motor use (Temple Butte, the road through Muddy Creek in the Swell, the plethora of unsustainable and high impact "roads" in GSENM, etc) throughout Utah. And while I think its fair to seek representation for you stakeholder group I also think its fair to honestly inventory its historical abuse of the landscape (its undeniable in Utah and wasn't the minority leading into the late nineties) and recognize how that plays into contemporary environmental law that was largely bipartisan through the early eighties. (Boaters just saw their own example as Ruby Horsethief went from cooperative to heavily compliance based. It sucks.) In Utah we are still fundamentally arguing over FLPMA which is decades old and nothing remotely new. 

If you want to see the ideological battle continue than support these Utah legislatures policy. If you want to see change then I would recommend investigating other individuals and organizations truly working on building relationships between user groups and mitigating historical tensions. At this point Chaffetz and company are just adding fuels to the smoldering Sage Brush tension that never went away in this region, tension that left innocent federal employees threatened at gun point last year (BLM employees in central Utah).

Phillip


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

modette said:


> If they do not have the man power why would you think any new law, rule or signage would be effective? I'm talking about Hey Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmmm. Just joined and your first post. Scott, is this one of your "inmates" from over at advrider.com?


----------



## Mountainsandrivers (Mar 26, 2015)

Phillip. Great replies, very insightful. I agree that going against the rules is the right thing to do, because of how heavily scrutinized we are. Same with sneaking someone on at Westwater, float by real early so the ranger doesn't see, etc. I know it happens, but it gives them reasons to be even stricter. I do though, mostly agree with the new regs at Horsethief, but I am not a frequent user there. The last trip we did pre-regs, it was a free for all, no one camped in the designated areas, lots of underprepared trips. We had a group of three canoes with a bunch of high school/college age kids who were at our designated camp before we got there. We agreed to share, but it was odd how the only things that supposedly were lost when they supposedly swamped was their fire pan and groover. All their food and beer seemed just fine. They were just an example to me on why it needed to be regulated more because the camps were getting absolutely hammered and it was a free for all. Unfortunately that is sort of the same internal issue we have as mostly consciencious endure type motorcyclists who have been chiming in lately. We know a lot of the closures and things people point out that are bad from our user group comes from ATVs riding where they shouldn't, poor trail etiquette, etc and we strive to police our own better. Like when you guys do river cleanup days, we do a lot of volunteer work to maintain trails, cut trees, stuff that helps all users, but we are under such a watchful eye it is difficult to take at times. 
Anyway, thanks for the good discussion! Let's hope for some more moisture. We are going to have a short season here in the Southwest, so glad we added a shredder a few years ago. It sees more use than my Wing these days!


And yes Tmacc, I also joined because of Shredderscott alerting me to this, but I do have a decent background in boating, having formerly been a guide for 17 years and have boated the west fairly extensively. In case that helps!


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Mountainsandrivers,
The Shredder is one of our favorite boats. I wish I hadn't sold ours a few years ago. We had many great runs down the Upper Gauley & Yough.


----------



## Mountainsandrivers (Mar 26, 2015)

I find it is not as known out here, but I love it. It surfs great, packs small, I can have my young sons paddle one side with me on the other, and living in Southwest Colorado, it sees way more river time than my 14' Wing, which is also another oddball. I guess that says a lot about me!


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Well, if things continue weather wise as they have, it may be the wave of the future out here. Before we bought our 16' cat, we actually did a 4 day late August Lodore trip with it.


----------



## Mountainsandrivers (Mar 26, 2015)

If it keeps up, we might be dirt biking these river corridors, and that honestly is something I don't want to see!


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

No sh!t. The wife and I have kicked around picking up a couple enduro or duosport type bikes, but riding down the river beds doesn't sound very appealing. 

We launch on the GC in a week or so. That could be the most water we see this year.


----------



## bluebtr (May 27, 2011)

I have a novel idea, wadaya say we all concentrate our energy into campaign finance reform and term limits so we can get all those politico whores out of the pockets of big oil,insurance, pharmaceutical,hedge funds, wall st.....etc.....just sayin.....For me I can't wait to blow up my boat and crack a beer....get it while you can!!!!!


----------



## AndTheLab (Mar 19, 2006)

Never trust Bishop or Chaffetz. Period. You want to know what its like to be locked out? Sell public land and make it ptivate. Kiss it all goodbye other than National Parks because "nobody is talking about taking National Parks". No just everything else. Assholes. The state of Utah can't keep its State Parks funded. One of the few State Parks that actually turns a profit will be pretty much closed soon due to them not wanting to pay the upkeep fees. Do you know how they are going to afford the upkeep on OUR land they are trying to steal? Sell it so they don't have to worry about the upkeep. These assholes need to go. The sooner the better.


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

tmacc said:


> Hmmmm. Just joined and your first post. Scott, is this one of your "inmates" from over at advrider.com?


Hi

Yes, he is one of my fellow inmates.

I am upset with his post. He knows better...I have seen him call out riders for the exact activities he was endorsing ! He was wrong to endorse outlaw behavior. ..I feel he spoke out the frustration and anger, that is wide spread among OHV users. restrac2000 was that a clear and loud enough call out for you...I will call him out in adv land as well.

I feel very bad about this, I specifically invited him to speak here.....I expected a more diplomatic outreach.

Modette went to far in what he said....he was wrong to advocate outlaw behavior as a solution..I DO NOT SUPPORT OUTLAW BEHAVIOR, nor do the vast majority of OHV users.

Again thanks to my fellow buzzards for engaging in this exchange of ideas regarding public land use it is a hot issue... I felt many repectfull post were exchanged. :razz:

To restate my view

I am opposed to in general to any changes that result in a reduction of OHV access. 

I oppose the op's request for support...

I hope my fellow buzzards have gained new insite into and will be more sympathetic to the OHV user groups problems with land access.

I have nothing more to add on this.

I wish all my fellow buzzards, and inmates in advland a great season !

Scott




.


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

AndTheLab said:


> Never trust Bishop or Chaffetz. Period. You want to know what its like to be locked out? Sell public land and make it ptivate. Kiss it all goodbye other than National Parks because "nobody is talking about taking National Parks". No just everything else. Assholes. The state of Utah can't keep its State Parks funded. One of the few State Parks that actually turns a profit will be pretty much closed soon due to them not wanting to pay the upkeep fees. Do you know how they are going to afford the upkeep on OUR land they are trying to steal? Sell it so they don't have to worry about the upkeep. These assholes need to go. The sooner the better.


Lab,
I appreciate your understated subtlies there. You pretty much nailed it.


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Scott,
What is it about Herm's letter that relates to OHV other that one sentence related to the White River that has you on the defensive and up in arms? Not trying to poke you with a stick or anything, just asking. Maybe I missed something.

" Roads should be gated and locked where possible to reduce traffic disturbance. Out of river intrusion bike and/or ATV trails can be developed."

So, I'm kinda reading this as OHV traffic/trails should developed be away from the river. I'm not familiar with the area, but are there any OHV trails there now? 

I hope if you've read(re-read maybe) my posts, that you realize I'm not against responsible OHV use or oil to drive my vehicles, but I really don't see what's in Herm's letter that leads one to believe that he wants blanket closures of trails. The thing down in Moab is unrelated to this as far as I can see.

In the MD/VA area that we're from, back in the 90s, several of our favorite MTB trails were closed due to the horse people complaining and since they were in the upper 1-5%ers, the local Gov't listen to them, so I can empathize with your views on trail closure. 

To me this is not about trail closures, it about the Utah Gov't wanting to take our land and sell it to the extraction industries that as Phillip has so eloquently written, doesn't have the best track record in this state. Bishop and Chaffetz are snakes in the grass. They can't be trusted.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

shredder-scott said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> I wish all my fellow buzzards, and inmates in advland a great season !
> ...


Have a great season, sir.

Phillip


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

modette said:


> If they do not have the man power why would you think any new law, rule or signage would be effective? I'm talking about Hey Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for showing us the light brother. I got the 2 more people to write letters after reading your post. Keep up the good work. Cheers


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

tmacc said:


> Scott,
> What is it about Herm's letter that relates to OHV other that one sentence related to the White River that has you on the defensive and up in arms? Not trying to poke you with a stick or anything, just asking. Maybe I missed something.
> 
> " Roads should be gated and locked where possible to reduce traffic disturbance. Out of river intrusion bike and/or ATV trails can be developed."
> ...



Hi

Thank you for your reply.



I am opposed because the plan as I understand it will result in a net loss of ohv trails and or roads.

I feel there has been adquate set asides in wilderness and other protected designation.

As many other posters have pointed....due to increase user demands, and closures there is no longer enough available land....please do not take any more away !

I am unaware of any plans to develop any new trails, as you suggest in your post.

So for me....this is a trail closures issue....I understand you do not see it that way.....I can respect your different view.

I hope I answered your questions

Scott


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

Scott,
Thanks for keeping it civil. I own an Cruiser BJ-40 and sleds. If we had the time and $ we would ride bikes too. Rallying behind the oil and gas industry to keep access is a tough sell for me and the 5% loss of rivers to dams and lakes for boating and sailing is ridiculous. Lakes and ocean cover most of the planet providing plenty of space for those activities. Lake fowell covering Glen Canyon is a crime. It's not mine or yours to give away or destroy. Compromising when it comes to protecting our natural wonders and wilderness is a terrible idea. We will never get it back. Cheers


----------



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

tmacc said:


> We launch on the GC in a week or so. That could be the most water we see this year.


Have fun on the Grand. Hope to get there some day. 

Final comment on dirt biking - I don't agree with poaching closed areas. Our group never does, in fact we're good stewards of the land and have adopted several trail systems here closer to home in CO and NM to maintain and clear every year. 

Best regards to all. Enjoy what water we get this year and hope for more next year. 

- Jon


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

If all the dirt bikers would just grow a pair and get some pedals the outdoors would be such a better place. Motorized recreation is so weak. Get a mountain bike and get some exercise ********!


----------



## Mountainsandrivers (Mar 26, 2015)

Grow a pair? How often do you head out on singletrack with a chainsaw on your back to clear trails? Where I live the mtn bikers and dirt bikers get a long. The dirt bikers are the ones who get all of the trails open. Last year there was a big drift at the top of Calico (a trail above Rico, CO) and people were starting to leave a new trail by going around it. Not just dirt bikers, but the hikers and horses, too. Some of my friends spent two days digging out a 10 ft drift so people would stay on the trail. The local rider groups do way more to help the trail system, but we are always the first under fire when people start talking closures. yes, there are some idiots on motors for sure, but it is not as wide spread. I know way more cases of downhill mtn bikers cutting in illegal trails on public and private land than anything the motorized crowd does. But that is okay, because you are pedal powered right? Laws don't apply since you are quietly breaking the law, right?

By the way, I also pedal. My current bike is a Giant Trance, I ride Phil's World a lot, Boggy Draw, and a lot of Fruita and Moab. I have been biking Slickrock since I was 16 and could drive there in 1990. A lot of my riding friends are also top level mountain bikers. We are not your typical ********. We like singletrack! Sure, mountain biking can be harder at times, but come follow me on a 150 mile day of all the hardest trails in the San Juans, on a dirt bike, and your balls may not seem so big!


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

There is a lot of propaganda being thrown around about this issue. I am on a jeep forum that continually states that every dirt road or trail in southern Utah will be closed if any conservation laws are passed like NCA or national monument designation. Not true but these people actually believe this crap. No wonder they are against it.

Another belief is that poor Moab needs to be surounded by unsightly potash mines, pipelines and oil rigs or the economy will collapse. Never mind that this area is probably in the top one percent of scenic country and there is plenty of oil and gas elsewhere. Meanwhile the state of Utah is actively trying to obtain, exploit and sell all the BLM and NF land and this would screw all users...hiker, biker, horse, atv, jeep etc... This will probably happen if we elect a Republican president in 2 years.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

FrankC said:


> I am on a jeep forum that continually states that *every* dirt road or trail in southern Utah will be closed if any conservation laws are passed like NCA or national monument designation.
> 
> Meanwhile the state of Utah is actively *trying to obtain, exploit and sell all the BLM and NF land* and this would screw all users...hiker, biker, horse, atv, jeep etc... This will probably happen if we elect a Republican president in 2 years.


You do realize the irony of complaining about one side exaggerating the possible outcomes and then doing the exact same thing, correct? If we want to get past political rhetoric than hyperbolic statements have no benefit to the discourse. This type of fear mongering is harmful to finding effective governance and land management.

Just a thought.

Phillip


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

restrac2000 said:


> You do realize the irony of complaining about one side exaggerating the possible outcomes and then doing the exact same thing, correct? If we want to get past political rhetoric than hyperbolic statements have no benefit to the discourse. This type of fear mongering is harmful to finding effective governance and land management.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Phillip


So Phillip, 

Who is going to put the brakes on if the Republicans hold the presidency, the house, the senate and the crazy wing of the Theocrats have control of Utah? Oh, and the Supremes are lost for now too... Seriously! The environment would be at much worse risk than it is now. I shudder to think what would happen to the EPA, established on Nixon's watch as I'm sure you know, and so much more protection that is in place.


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

swimteam101 said:


> Scott,
> Thanks for keeping it civil. I own an Cruiser BJ-40 and sleds. If we had the time and $ we would ride bikes too. Rallying behind the oil and gas industry to keep access is a tough sell for me and the 5% loss of rivers to dams and lakes for boating and sailing is ridiculous. Lakes and ocean cover most of the planet providing plenty of space for those activities. Lake fowell covering Glen Canyon is a crime. It's not mine or yours to give away or destroy. Compromising when it comes to protecting our natural wonders and wilderness is a terrible idea. We will never get it back. Cheers


Hi swimteam

Thanks for noticing my efforts at keeping this very hot topic, cool 

I do not understand a few points in your post, and I want to offer a counter point for you to consider.

The guess-a-mate of 5% loss to rivers from dams, and lake powell, or fowell as you refer to it.

Do you object to this number as being to high, to low, or no objection to it's use as an estimated loss ?

I agree with you the vast majority of the surface of the earth is covered in water sutable for boating, fishing ect.....only a very small % of this water is suitable for our uses.

The problem is unless you live in florida, or Minnesota, or the coast ..there really is not very much inland water for those outdoor activities, 

In utah and colorado, those resources are very rare.

These recreational water users have few options to enjoy water close to their homes. They tend to be good stewards of the water as well....Personally, I am willing to give up a little, share a little, of the limited river resources with our fellow water loving brothers. I am most definitely willing share....it is being closed out that I object to ! 

Calling lake Powell. ..lake Fowell, and claiming it is large scale environmental crime...seems a over reach to me.

Your statements ignores the many benifits to environment that lake powell has provided. 

Have you considered how much lake powell power generation has saved us in terms of a reduction in air pollution? 

Have you considered how much more coal, or oil has not been extracted, because that dam reduces dependence on those engery supplies.

Yes, the ecosystem has changed....but not significantly for the worst, the dam has not made the water toxic, there is no air or noise pollution from the dam, It has expanded recreational opportunities for other water lovers, that have few locations to enjoy the water in the manner they prefer.

To suggest that this beautiful lake, with all the benfits it has and does provided is fowel and criminal seems rather closed minded to me.

Be clear...there have been environmental changes to the area because of the dam, and these changes to river ecosystem both up and down stream, can reasonably be seen as negative...I agree....but .....when all aspects of the dam are considered, I think it has been more postive than negative....I know you feel different, I support your right to an opposing view and to express it !

In regards to " Compromising when it comes to protecting our natural wonders and wilderness is a terrible idea. ".....sure sounds good ! I do not agree with it.

The problem with your statement is that word "Compromissing " and how it is defined. 

Example.

Wilderness act...many feel this is a wonderful " no compromise " way to protect that environment. ....when in fact, I would argue it is not.......The inhabitants of these areas are influenceed by the inhabitants outside of the boundaries. ... and the opposite is also true, these impacts in both direction can have negative effects to both sides !

Wilderness act, prevents environmetal professionals from using best mangement technology and practices, to minimize these harmful effects....so you have in effect...even in the wilderness act.."compremised" on protecting the enivorment because of a to rigid law !

In order to protect our environment. ..compromise is exactly the tool that is need !

And lastly your statement "We will never get it back", is just an urban ledgend, it is false.

There are many examples of where we have gotten it back....let me cite one near by example to you. 

Approximately a 100 years ago in the mountains of colorado there was a well known mining industry, that caused massive environmental damage, .there were entire mountains and valleys strip of every single tree, to support the mines..huge forests were virtually completely wipe out !

Today, there are lush mature alpine forests there again...yep there are a few pockets of remaning YUCK....but the vast majority of the land impacted....we have gotten back ! Heck some of it even has wilderness status now ! This is not a unique example...there are many others.

I am sorry but your statement is simply factually incorrect in my view.

As recreational users of our great outdoors. ...we need emphasis our areas of agreement...we love outdoor adventure  We do not want our outdoors destroyed !  We need to repsect ours is not the only responsible way to enjoy the outdoors..., we need to respect and support other rec users rights !

Shutting out our fellow outdoor enthusiasts, bad mouthing them, or failing to support them is bad policy. We need to be more united... in our fights against .the usurpers, and spoliers of the outdoors we love....We need to acknowledge that some of the worst despoilers come from our ranks ! (Example...scout leader topling rocks in goblin valley )

Divided we are easily defeated...in unity there is strength !

OHV users should care about the problems of river rats....river rats should care about OHV problems...We need to help each other ! 

Lastly, my views on the environment and user confilct come from both my outdoor experinces, and my education as an aquatic biologist. I feel my views are based on science and pragmatism....I know for a fact there are environmental groups that misuse, and missunderstand, environmental sciences....That is a shame...the only thing worse than making a decision out of ignorance. ...is making it on false, distorted, inaccurate data that you mistakenly view as accurate, I think you may the victim of some of this.

Paddle on


Scott


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Thats a more nuanced situation than any of us can predict. My main concern is interacting in an honest fashion amongst stakeholders. We have very little control over long term political elections, or at least I do in my district. We do have control over holding our own community to the same standards when project onto our "opposition". Several posters commented in good fashion here and its unethical to demonize them in the fashion "FrankC" did and then proceed to behave in the same fashion.

I take solace in history in these circumstances. Rarely has one party held complete control of the presidency and the Congress. 

I also think calling them "crazy" is problematic. Many Utahns firmly believe in their worldview and they have representatives that reflect that stance. Chaffetz and Bishop aren't crazy; they are methodical, intentional and logical in their political steps. I fundamentally disagree with their philosophies and believe they prioritize politics over governing effectively. That said calling them all crazy ignores their history, values and myriad of experiences. I don't agree with the substance or outcomes of their goals, and have fought such stances in the past as a DNC delegate, but they do have more substance to their ideas than "crazy" infers. 

I would like to think we can disagree across platforms without demonizing, exaggerating and all together digging deeper trenches. But maybe I am the crazy one.

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

Randaddy said:


> If all the dirt bikers would just grow a pair and get some pedals the outdoors would be such a better place. Motorized recreation is so weak. Get a mountain bike and get some exercise ********!


Hey Randaddy !

I have tried to be civil here...to respect others views...to present my views in a calm and reasonable way.....I will note other users here have noted my efforts.

Since you will not respect my right to play outdoors in responsible manner I enjoy.....and have issue a direct insult at me !


F***K YOU ! !

May the river god rise up in anger at you for you're incivility, and deliver onto you the worst swim of your life this season !

Scott


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Hmmm, Thanks for the response. I suppose your attaching to my use of the word crazy is appropriate in this context. Unfortunately, I don't think control of the gov't the way I described is an unlikely scenario and I don't think there would be a lot of nuance in the way things would proceed. I have lived through quite a few years of one party dominance. It happens. While I do appreciate your perspective, very much so, I have a hard time extending real respect to some members of our society at this point. There are genuine haters in ascendance and exploiters willing to lie and manipulate that have become very powerful and very good at what they do. I truly believe in honest, respectful dialogue with all stakeholders in a system that is fair and people are sane, or "reality based" if you prefer. I've worn a lot of hats. I've been a developer, an eco-activist and sat on a planning board that had permitting power over all development and building in a town. I've been socially active since the mid 60's, starting with civil rights in an east coast inner city. I think this is the worst I've ever seen in terms of a functioning democracy. And part of my disappointed perspective is driven by the broad emergence of anti science true believers. "Crazy" is perhaps clumsy or too broad or inflammatory but a functioning system of respectful dialogue is compromised when fundamentalist religious belief systems are given the same voice in a science based issue as the scientist.


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

shredder-scott said:


> Hi
> 
> Thank you for your reply.
> 
> ...


Thanks Scott. Look, I get your point and it's a fair point, but if I'm reading this right and I just went back and checked, we're not talking about adding additional acreage to wilderness. Bishop and Chffetz want to reduce the 2,000,000 acres already protected to 15,000. OHV isn't losing anything, cause they don't have it now.

I also can't believe that riding on dirt roads past drill/pump pads would be all that exciting. Just my thought there. It's like oaring you boat across Lake Mead to Southpoint. Yeah, I'm on the water, but this is boring as shit.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Randaddy said:


> If all the dirt bikers would just grow a pair and get some pedals the outdoors would be such a better place. Motorized recreation is so weak. Get a mountain bike and get some exercise ********!


Unfortunately, if your goal was to provoke a reaction or derail a civil conversation you have succeeded. Its obvious over the years that you are capable of offering insightful and productive contributions. Sadly the trolling comments like the one above are also anything but uncommon from your account. We had several folks from across platforms and world views actually discussing the subject in a thoughtful way. Doesn't happen often enough compared to the plethora of hateful statements like yours. 

I sincerely don't know how to interact with users like you, Randdaddy. If we just accept it as status quo then we continue to scare off people have thoughtful contributions. If we do call it out it often backfires into ad hominem attacks (aka feeding the trolls) and lobbing insults back and forth. At this point the best I can do is challenge you to read the tone of a thread and not distract it with insults. Fanning the hatred between communities hasn't done much for us the last few decades.

Phillip


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Phil U. said:


> Hmmm, Thanks for the response. I suppose your attaching to my use of the word crazy is appropriate in this context.
> 
> "Crazy" is perhaps clumsy or too broad or inflammatory but a functioning system of respectful dialogue is compromised when fundamentalist religious belief systems are given the same voice in a science based issue as the scientist.


Thanks for responding thoughtfully. I totally understand and our world views likely overlap more than my interactions here indicate (just look back at the derailed snowpack thread and it should be obvious I have no problem challenging verifiable claims). My vocalizations often put me in the crossfire of opposing forces and it understandably drives some people crazy. A lot of my focus, outside standing rather firm on the biological sciences relevant to my previous field, is probably best described as mitigation. I have no problem calling out individuals and their behaviors but I do tend to think generic claims about entire groups of people can be destructive. But that will always be a sloppy balancing act. 

Utah culture/politics is in stark contrast with many values I hold, especially land management. Living here for 12 years now has been noticeably challenging. I will say it has benefited me to be a minority in worldview in a firm conservative base. I really don't know where I fall in political circles but its not the wing of conservativism that I experience locally (RNC is too liberal here). Being immersed here has forced me to better understand how history and experience shapes worldview. I fundamentally disagree with the policy coming out of this state but can understand how they arrived where they are as a group.

Chaffetz and Bishop honestly don't care about functional compromise even if their political roots provide benefit to their constituents. Completely turning over all the vast majority of the lands held as WSA in Utah isn't tenable though the discourse of federal versus state trusts is an important discussion. The WSA issue needs to be resolved but its not going to happen in a meaningful manner with the all or nothing attitude they exhibit. And to be fair, specific environmental groups based around the Utah land policy also need to show greater awareness to the historical roots of Utah's conservative base instead of framing it an objective black and white issue of right and wrong. We have seen functional compromise in the recent past on this issue (the transfer of federal lands to SITLA in exchange for SITLA parcels within critical habitat that could have compromised the integrity of WSA boundaries) so I have hope we can do so again. Not gonna hold my breathe as it could be a while.

It may not always be obvious in these threads but my personal values fall firmly in the human powered recreation and conservation realm. I just don't see that as inherently at odds with bridging gaps between user groups or learning about the why or how those gaps developed. As I stated in the Brown's Canyon thread I care about the how and process almost as much as I do the outcomes as those elements will continue to shape the culture and discourse for generations to come.

Thanks again for the interaction.

Phillip


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

There are tens of thousands of motorized trails across the west. They wreck fragile ecosystems and make way more than their fair share of impact. I hate it. Their camps are littered and trashed. The need for speed trumps caring for the land. A discussion about protecting public lands comes up on a river runner site and people chime in because they're gear heads and want the right to tear up land. I'm not "trolling" - I think you should consider human powered recreation and I support limiting motorized trail access. I have every right to have this strong opinion and voice it here.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Its not a matter of rights. Its a problem of focusing on the person and insulting them and the effect that has on dialog, community and the topic. No one has called you out for holding a different, strong opinion; in fact multiple people are actively disagreeing right now. 

If your goal is not to troll than I think its fair to challenge you to communicate differently, such as your last post highlights in a positive way.

Phillip


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

tmacc said:


> Thanks Scott. Look, I get your point and it's a fair point, but if I'm reading this right and I just went back and checked, we're not talking about adding additional acreage to wilderness. Bishop and Chffetz want to reduce the 2,000,000 acres already protected to 15,000. OHV isn't losing anything, cause they don't have it now.
> 
> I also can't believe that riding on dirt roads past drill/pump pads would be all that exciting. Just my thought there. It's like oaring you boat across Lake Mead to Southpoint. Yeah, I'm on the water, but this is boring as shit.


Hey

Thanks for the reply 

I have to admit I have not read the whole thing....My OHV advocate group has, and they informed me it would result in the loss of OHV trails.

However, since you have taken the time to read more than I....I will now go back and challenge my fellow OHVs to put up or shut up, and provide me with the language that is causing them problems so we can talk more about it.....but to be fair potential OHV loss is not my only problem here.....I am opposed to expanding wilderness lands.....I support strong environmental regulations, and enforcement, on all users to minimize all users inpacts.....Lets be truthful. ....Aspects of river running have a negative inpact on the environment too, our hands are not clean either.

As for riding our bikes past extraction users equipment....If it is 100 years old mine undisposed of mining equipment. ...it is "historic" and should be protected....if it is new it is an eye sore.....go figure ?....The views are an important part of the sport for me...but for a technicallly challenging trail....I can over look crummy views 

A better analogy to your raft one would be having to ride my bike down a dirt road that is maintained to a level a car can eaisly pass.....yep I am on the dirt...but ...you know !

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

Phil U. said:


> . And part of my disappointed perspective is driven by the broad emergence of anti science true believers. "Crazy" is perhaps clumsy or too broad or inflammatory but a functioning system of respectful dialogue is compromised when fundamentalist religious belief systems are given the same voice in a science based issue as the scientist.


Hi

Got to agree with you in principle but not in detail 

As a biologist I find those folks views on science to be silly.

But, it is not accurate to state that their silly views carry that much weight.

There is a federal case where the judge specifically rulled that "intelligent design " was NOT science. Those folks have lost big time in our courts.

Paddle on

Scott


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

shredder-scott said:


> Hi
> 
> Got to agree with you in principle but not in detail
> 
> ...


I wish I agreed with you. They vote. Their lawmakers make laws or block them. They are growing in numbers, hence power. 

Also, I'd just like to say, in the context of this thread, I'm a human powered guy, mostly, but my position isn't anti motorized things though I probably have a much more conservative point of view about access than my more motorized friends.


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

Phil U. said:


> I, I'm a human powered guy, mostly, but my position isn't anti motorized things though I probably have a much more conservative point of view about access than my more motorized friends.


Hey

Great love to have you as friend in the OHV cause and hear you are not 100% anti moto....good starting point....and for the records I do belive there are places that should be closed to motos.....our views may not be that far apart !

Lets work together to help all responsible outdoor users, have opportunities to enjoy the outdoors, lets not close good folks out, cause they enjoy the outdoors in a different manner.

Paddle on 

scott


----------



## Daryl (Apr 16, 2013)

So many moving pieces, with every action there becomes an equally strong reaction. The same applies to the emotions herein. Rather than try to paint with broad strokes or pick a winner (industry vs. outdoor enthusiasts) can there be a middle ground where we skin the cat so everyone benefits and losses to/of habitat are minimized? 


Perhaps the feds/states allow extractors access to low risk entry points for their rigs, not every hole drilled is "wet" but they have a pretty good idea where the odds are better. No need to carpet bomb the SW with drill rigs all at once. They drill, extract and pay a price per unit of extracted product and the proceeds are distributed to multiple agencies and taxpayers. The surrounding land remains public domain and once the extraction process is complete the majority of the drill site is given back to nature and the well head remains behind a fenced containment area.


Something along these lines would eliminate one-sided intent/benefit/pandering/exclusion/influence. 


I don't know the intricacies of the oil and gas game but public land is not theirs to take with the stroke of a pen. Just trying to find middle ground where we as Americans gain the benefits of extraction, contain environmental risk and still have access to public lands.


And knuckleheads will be knuckleheads. There will always be a small percentage of participants in any segment, activity, team, family or government that will go low IQ and give the rule minding majority a bad name. 


Moderation, it isn't super sexy and doesn't line wallets but works...most of the time. Probably keeps decent people from being elected to public office as well.


C'mon April showers!


----------



## synergyboater (Jan 5, 2008)

I am a bit confused with the infomercial stream! I participate in a wide variety of both non-motorized and motorized outdoor activities including farming a commercial cherry orchard with CO river water, placing not only myself but a large chunk of you buzzards as hypocrites! I feel the real point of the conversation should be directed at what are we leaving for our kids and grandkids. We have all benefited from giants that came before like Brower and Litton that not only made sacrifices but had forward thinking ideas which has benefited the outdoor community for many years. How about we drop the "me" and entertain ideas so future generations have the opportunity to also experience the outdoor opportunities we have had.


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

synergcpper said:


> I feel the real point of the conversation should be directed at what are we leaving for our kids and grandkids........ How about we drop the "me" and entertain ideas so future generations have the opportunity to also experience the outdoor opportunities we have had.


Hi.

Well said.

What kind of opportunity is there when the trails are all closed, and all the rivers require permints ?

I oppose the closure of OHV routes, the creation of more wilderness, and more permits...not just for me...but for future generations as well.

I support rules and regulation that allow for a sustainable use of lands.

paddle on


Scott


----------



## Emmielou (May 1, 2007)

Going back to the original post, even if you support a grand bargain that keeps more land open for OHV and other motorized use, the Bishop's land bill as it exists is not the right solution. The issue is far deeper set than simply, "do we need more wilderness protection or not?"

Utah has found itself as Ground Zero in the debate over state vs. federal rights specifically related to land use. While other states are currently trying to initiate a grab of federal lands, and controversies related to this issue have taken place elsewhere (such as the Bundy ranch extravaganza in Nevada) *Rep. Bishop has emerged as one of the most vocal proponents behind forcing the federal government to turn over public lands to the state for management (or mis-management), specifically for the purpose of leasing or selling that land to the extraction industry*. His record points to that as fact.

His claims that he is trying to work to secure local interests are a charade and total BS. Make no mistake, his goal is to remove as much public land from wilderness designation or any sort of protected state as he possibly can. That includes existing trails! Imagine if you showed up to ride into Hey Joe only to find concrete rigs expanding it to a multi-lane thoroughfare for a Halliburton project. While groups like SUWA and the Grand Canyon Institute are certainly invested in protecting our open spaces as wilderness, they have conceded a lot of literal space in this debate to protecting existing roads and trails for all types of use. That is a far better compromise than giving the butchers of public space like Rep. Bishop free reign to exploit and divide our public spaces as they see fit.

It is possible to support OHV and motorized recreation and still be a steward of the land. It is possible to enjoy the serenity of a wilderness stretch of river and also enjoy a long weekend with your family on Lake Powell.

Asking Rep. Bishop to support more protected open space as part of his proposal does not mean giving up your right to access OHV trails, even if you don't support some of the more extreme requests in the other direction to close off existing trails. If you refer to the original post, these open spaces are already treated as designated wilderness under federal law until their ultimate state is determined. *This would merely continue the status-quo, not expand its reach AND would permit current access and grazing rights.*

I implore you to see the compromise here, and to realize that there is no perfect solution to this dilemma that will make everyone happy. All interest groups will be making a sacrifice in the face of increased use, but, though I cringe at the reality, I would far rather we had *a few less* wilderness rivers stretches, OHV trails, nature parks, single track routes, etc. than to give them all up to a faceless bureaucracy that owes their souls to Halliburton and company.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Thank you for that, Emmielou.


----------



## modette (Mar 26, 2015)

First off sorry I came across as if I ignore signs. Not true and people that know me would say otherwise. I was just stating what I believe is fact that if you give some people the excuse to say "hey I drove 100 miles to get here and it's closed"...I've seen this in my backyard with some kids and I told them "hey the trail is closed" but deep down I could not fault them as I knew what I would do when I was 20 and I drove for hours to get to a place. Most people don't go on forums - I make it a point to stop and talk to people it's what I do and 95% of the time I would say they are like ADVRider WHO!!! 2% "I heard of that" and 3% "I've read a story once there but I don't post". I kid you not I asked one guy after I found out he rode a sportbike if he was on the Colorado Sport Bike Forum and I got a shocking reply "Oh, no man I don't join gangs". With more talking to him he really did think I was talking about a gang. So from my experience most don't read forums, or check out Government websites they simply head out to do an activity they love. 

We for sure need to work together, because some would have it that access for ALL should be closed down. I've heard this before from people. 

My main concern was Hey Joe, if it's a drill issue then let's have them get wording in a bill that bans all drilling operations from that area. I don't think we need to jump to Wilderness or a National Monument statues to stop drilling. Maybe that is the easier way but I don't think it is the right way to go about it. If it's a noise issue on 6 miles of road way up high by the river, lets talk about it! Maybe get rangers to do sound checks and issue tickets around Moab if that is an issue. 

Emmielou - Great write up. Probably a lot more here then most, including myself realize which is making some jump to the drastic measure of calling for more Wilderness.

Something like Tenmile I don't see the issue with it being opened, but I also would not be sad to see it go. For a motorcycle it's not the best trail unless you love sand. I think most OHV users are just ticked that every time we turn around someone is proposing to close this or that and hence they won't listen to anything.

If a good argument was made to close a certain trail with the condition that "hey we will build a new one over here" people would be open to it from all walks of recreation. Sadly that is not what happens, nor is the public's input really allowed. The BLM, USFS and others rely on outdated methods to engage the public to get their responses. Everything from holding a meeting on a Wednesday in a far away town at 4pm (most people still at work) to making the comment period very short. 

One thing you all seemed to get on me thinking I somehow am telling people to ride illegally which I am not but you don't admit a large percentage of MTB'ers seem to create and poach trails. They then get rewarded a lot of the times by the BLM which then says; "it's now legal". That is just not right. 

Anyways peace out...not sure how me saying some meant ME. I fight for our right to trails and advocate Stay the Trail. We do need to work together.

Paddle On.


----------



## adgeiser (May 26, 2009)

Emmielou said:


> Going back to the original post, even if you support a grand bargain that keeps more land open for OHV and other motorized use, the Bishop's land bill as it exists is not the right solution. The issue is far deeper set than simply, "do we need more wilderness protection or not?"
> 
> Utah has found itself as Ground Zero in the debate over state vs. federal rights specifically related to land use. While other states are currently trying to initiate a grab of federal lands, and controversies related to this issue have taken place elsewhere (such as the Bundy ranch extravaganza in Nevada) *Rep. Bishop has emerged as one of the most vocal proponents behind forcing the federal government to turn over public lands to the state for management (or mis-management), specifically for the purpose of leasing or selling that land to the extraction industry*. His record points to that as fact.
> 
> ...


I also am pro OHV and pro river, I spend about 70 days a year on the river. It is my major addiction. I also ride and do about 30,000 miles a year on my motorcycle.
...all that said, I believe that both groups are merely pawns in the political game here. 
As with most things political today $$$ is the driving issue here everything else is political smoke and mirrors to distract from the money at hand.

to view this as a defeatist attitude is to miss the point. 
"our" politicians do not represent the majority of us. (i will admit that they are slightly closer at he state level) At the federal level 99% of them are millionaires (per a .gov site on congress and senate a few years ago) they make on average 243K year (starting first year is 172K,while the average american makes 53K, if they serve 5 years they qualify for a pension, does anybody you know get that?

How do we expect them to represent us if they are not us.

the only way we will truly be represented is demand major changes to the system.

Cut their pay.
Limit their terms.
Manage their benefits.


Not trying to change the subject, that's just how i see the issue


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Thanks Emmielou. Very well written.


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

This is an interesting thread w/ good points being raised. 



Phil U. said:


> I have a hard time extending real respect to some members of our society at this point. There are genuine haters in ascendance and exploiters willing to lie and manipulate that have become very powerful and very good at what they do. I truly believe in honest, respectful dialogue with all stakeholders in a system that is fair and people are sane, or "reality based" if you prefer. I think this is the worst I've ever seen in terms of a functioning democracy. And part of my disappointed perspective is driven by the broad emergence of anti science true believers. "Crazy" is perhaps clumsy or too broad or inflammatory but a functioning system of respectful dialogue is compromised when fundamentalist religious belief systems are given the same voice in a science based issue as the scientist.


Well said, Phil. Reality based is probably the correct thing to say here. The people we have an urge to call "crazy" are most often just rigid ideologues. The problem when you become a rigid ideologue, of whatever stripe, is that you often have to emancipate yourself from certain realities. Ideologues delude themselves into believing that their respective ideology can explain all the secrets of the past, the intricacies of the present and the uncertainties of the future. They believe that if people just followed along with the tenets of their ideology that the world would be a glorious place.

The problem is that reality does not work that way; the reality of our world is that it is extremely fortuitous. But people need consistency, and they often can't face the overwhelming diversity, and the chaotic and coincidental conditions of our world. So they seek an explanation that will give them consistency. Ideologies give them a consistent and digestible explanation. This is also why conspiracy theories are so prevalent in our society. (i.e., it is not just the chaotic and complex reality of geopolitics that resulted in X and Z, but a small group of men in a smoke filled back room controlling the world.) 

And this is pretty much what we are seeing with the people who think climate change is a hoax. They have convinced themselves that it is some grand Democrat conspiracy where 96% of the world's climate scientists are all in collusion with them. In other words, the scientific realities of climate change are intruding on their ideological worldview, so they write off this science as a hoax, or junk science. Many of them do believe in other aspects of science, but just not climate science. However, the climate-change denialism is now, unfortunately, beginning to wrap around a nationalist, religious based, movement. And we should all be concerned about this movement's rise to power.

And, Phil, I'm with you when you mentioned having a hard time giving these people respect. I often lapse into wanting to throw verbal stones at them. There really are people who are consciously being dishonest, but there are many more that are simply unconsciously being dishonest (i.e., they whole-heartedly believe in their ideological worldview, and that they are telling the truth.) The only method I have found that might possibly work to get through to them is using the Platonic method; keep asking them questions that lead them to their own contradictions, and then hope that this seed later sprouts into something positive. When I am frustrated with these kinds of people I also try to remember a wise point that President Lincoln once wrote:

_"When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a “drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.” So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first, convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great high road to his reason, and which once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really be a just one. On the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all avenues to his head and his heart; and tho’ your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and tho’ you throw it with Herculean force and precision, you shall no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw. Such is man, and so must he be understood by those who would lead him, even to his own best interest.” _ 

However, it is worth mentioning that Lincoln's wisdom did not work to persuade the southern slave owners to end slavery. We all know what was required to finally end the evils of slavery. And, quite honestly, I'm deeply troubled by the fact that we are currently dealing with many world-wide problems of this magnitude.

I guess in the end... reality will always win. And hopefully that happens before we have completely destroyed the very thing that sustains our lives. The other thing in regard to the rise of the ideologues into power (like these UT politicians, and also the ones making grounds in CO state level politics) is that these Koch fueled ideologues are their own worst enemies, and are horrible at governing. They might fuck up a lot of things in the process but eventually people will tire of them, and seek to replace them.

Cheers!


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

marko said:


> using the Platonic method



***Edit*** Oops, the Socratic method.



Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

To suggest that this beautiful lake, with all the benefits it has and does provided is fowel and criminal seems rather closed minded to me.

Scott loves lake powell and would love your support too.

Troll


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

swimteam101 said:


> To suggest that this beautiful lake, with all the benefits it has and does provided is fowel and criminal seems rather closed minded to me.
> 
> Scott loves lake powell and would love your support too.
> 
> Troll


Hummm swimteam

Why the need for the personal attack ?

I stand by my statement, and reasons and facts for it as previously stated in this thread.

How exactly have I been a troll in this thread ?

Also you misstated my views...

love your support .....accurate 

Love lake powell. ....no....seldom go there...does not provide the type of recreational activities I enjoy....I do think it is a senic lake, to me it is a beautiful lake.

What exactly have I done, besides dissagree with you ?

Why am I a troll ?

Scott


----------

