What Happened?

[rockgremlin]

I was posting to that ORV/Escalante thread and all the sudden it said that post doesn't exist anymore. :ne_nau:


Was it getting that out of hand? Maybe we can start over with a more civil approach?

[gonzo]

There was a lot of name calling going on the in thread, but no more so than your typical land use thread in Environmental Issues would generate.

I don't know who asked in the original thread (Carpey Biggs?) but I would also like to see the actual plan, or press release, or whatever from the Escalante about opening up more OHV areas.

[rockgremlin]

Sooooooo........is it possible to switch off the emotions when we talk about this kinda stuff, and have an objective discussion....instead of a mudsling?

[CarpeyBiggs]

I won't be able to turn off my emotions so long as people are calling me a "forest fairy." :lol8:

[hesse15]

no was getting differents point of view and not just one-side
apparently people cannot stand that.

that is why because of people like that a lot of good enviromentalist causes went lost. :ne_nau:



I was posting to that ORV/Escalante thread and all the sudden it said that post doesn't exist anymore. :ne_nau:


Was it getting that out of hand? Maybe we can start over with a more civil approach?

[rockgremlin]

http://www.solcomhouse.com/rodking.jpg

"Can't we all just get along?"

[hesse15]

so basically the tread was started by stefan, and poor Scott jump in with a strange rant about evil people calling and here are the posts




Sooooooo........is it possible to switch off the emotions when we talk about this kinda stuff, and have an objective discussion....instead of a mudsling?

[hesse15]

this is Stefan original post:

(from Canyons Group)

On Jun 20, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Steven D. Allen wrote:

> Dear fellow canyoneers,
>
> One of our worst nightmares may come to pass, unless we get your
> help! We
> have all hiked in and around the Escalante area of Utah for many
> years.
> It has been a quiet oasis in the midst of an onslaught by Off-road
> vehicles (ORVs) in other favorite areas. Unfortunately, while the town
> has been making money off us backpackers, canyoneers, mountain bikers,
> bird watchers, fishermen, river runners, rock art hunters, and
> horsepackers for years, they now want to change course and make the
> town
> of Escalante into the ORV capitol of Utah.
>
> Their immediate goal is to get a $50,000+- grant from the State of
> Utah
> to turn the downtown park into a formalized ORV staging area. This
> will
> then become the focal point for ORV rallies much like we now see
> with the
> Jeep Jamboree in Moab, with thousands of participants tearing up the
> terrain.
>
> What would it mean to us, the quiet recreationists? We've lost the San
> Rafael Swell, Tenmile Country, much of Lake Country, the Upper
> Paria and
> many other areas to the ORV crowd. The Escalante has truly been the
> last
> bastion of quiet Wilderness in the State. If Escalante does become
> an ORV
> oasis, the peaceful ambience of the area will be gone; ORVs will
> dominate
> the landscape, with their noise, pollution, and of course, their
> endless
> trails and tracks that go absolutely everywhere.
>
> What can you do?
>
> Right now sit down and write a short letter to the contact person
> below.
> In one or two paragraphs tell about your experiences in the
> Escalante as
> a backpacker or canyoneer. Tell Mary Tullius that you do NOT want the
> Esclante area to become just another area trashed and ruined by the
> ORV
> crowd. Tell Mary Tullius that you spend a lot of money while in the
> area
> and that the quiet recreationists will not come back to the area if
> it is
> over-run by ORVs. Tell Mary Tullius that you object to the state
> granting
> the $50,000 to the town of Escalante for the ORV staging area.
>
> The letter should be short and concise and to the point. The
> letters need
> to be to Mary Tullius by June 29, so write now. This is very important
> and time is of the essence.
>
> Please write:
> Ms. Mary Tullius - Director
> Utah State Parks and Recreation
> 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 116
> Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-6001
>

[gonzo]

I won't be able to turn off my emotions so long as people are calling me a "forest fairy." :lol8:

Mountain Maiden. :popcorn:

[Sombeech]

I didn't see the thread, but let me guess who started throwing bombs. :lol8:

[hesse15]

I didn't see the thread, but let me guess who started throwing bombs. :lol8:

here is scott patterson comment:Re: [from Canyons Group] Escalante on the brink if Disaster!!


POST DELETED: PLEASE DO NOT REPOST
moderated by stefan

[rockgremlin]

OK, I think if people want to post their side of the story, that's great, but I don't think they need to be derided for it (ie, name-calling -- using words like "poor" or "evil")

It would also be handy if someone would post the original proposal.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Here is the best I can find:

Editorial from SLTrib: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6124009

Article from SLTrib: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6111930

Travel Brochure calling Garfield county the "OHV Headquarters" : http://www.utah-trails.com/937322_TrailsBrochure12.05.pdf

Now, let's all be civil, shall we?

[hesse15]

ok rock , i can remove "poor" but unlikely i cannot get back the post of scott calling atv people and people in uutah evil!!!

by the way i do not like preaching enviromentalism from somebody that drill dinosaur national park!!!
:nono:
and that want to use violence to prove his idea ["kick butt"]


OK, I think if people want to post their side of the story, that's great, but I don't think they need to be derided for it (ie, name-calling -- using words like "poor" or "evil")

It would also be handy if someone would post the original proposal.

[Scott P]

by the way i do not like preaching enviromentalism from somebody that drill dinosaur national park!!!

Hesse, what are you talking about? :ne_nau:

[rockgremlin]

by the way i do not like preaching enviromentalism from somebody that drill dinosaur national park!!!

Hesse, what are you talking about? :ne_nau:

Ya, seriously. Scott is a civil engineer (I think), not an oil driller...
:ne_nau:

[hesse15]

by the way i do not like preaching enviromentalism from somebody that drill dinosaur national park!!!

Hesse, what are you talking about? :ne_nau:

sorry my bad , i was thinking you were involved with that stuff.
but if you are not sorry about my comment , my apologies
still try to shut down business that feed family is not a very nice thing
and kick somebody also is not a nice thing to do scott :roll:

[stefan]

and that want to use violence to prove his idea ["kick butt"]


i don't mean to be rude, but perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions about the literal vs. idiomatic meaning of his statement.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Ok, there was clearly some emotionally-loaded responses earlier. No sense pointing the fingers at each with the he-said she-said nonsense or calling each other hypocrites. That is exactly why the first post was removed. The original post is now gone, but I'd still be interested to hear what both sides of the argument have to say, so let's try and be a little more civil.

As far as I can tell, the Garfield Trails Committee is simply petitioning for some state money ($43,500) to build a staging area for OHVs. Now it seems to me this will be a convenience for the OHV users, but won't necessarily stimulate more OHV use or abuse. They aren't talking about tearing up new trail, I assume. Will it really dramatically change the current situation down there?

[jumar]

Scott Said:

POST DELETED: PLEASE DON'T REPOST!!moderated by stefan

Was this why the thread was deleted? Because Scott warned Stefan about posting such things to uutah?

What makes your viewpoint the right one, and why would those that support OHV proposals automatically evil and foolish? I haven't decided on a stance on this issue yet, but it concerns me that you'd want to sneak it by without allowing people (even evil ohv people) an opportunity to see the facts and voice their opinion. Why are you trying to not allow people with opposing viewpoints to voice their opinion? Oh that's right, you don't think there is any other valid opinion.

Scott said:

POST DELETED: PLEASE DON'T REPOST!!moderated by stefan

[rockgremlin]

Whew!! All of that aside, now on to the meat of the matter...

OK, so 44,000 dollars was proposed to make a section of Escalante city park a staging area. The posted articles don't say how those funds will be used. What does a "staging area" entail? Could it possibly be to provide the ATV users with a place to load/unload, so that they don't have to do that on the outskirts of town, thereby creating more disturbance?

Let's get some thoughts/ideas going here...

[stefan]

sorry my bad , i was thinking you were involved with that stuff.
but if you are not sorry about my comment , my apologies

may i suggest asking scott about this before jumping to conclusions? this seems like very inciteful behavior to me.



still try to shut down business that feed family is not a very nice thing

your pulling on pathos here for your argument ... but there is a much grander scope to this issue which must be taken into account and not everyone wins in the end, but that is the way of things.

[rockgremlin]

Scott Said:


POST DELETED: PLEASE DON'T REPOST!!moderated by stefan

Was this why the thread was deleted? Because Scott warned Stefan about posting such things to uutah?

What makes your viewpoint the right one, and why would those that support OHV proposals automatically evil and foolish? I haven't decided on a stance on this issue yet, but it concerns me that you'd want to sneak it by without allowing people (even evil ohv people) an opportunity to see the facts and voice their opinion. Why are you trying to not allow people with opposing viewpoints to voice their opinion? Oh that's right, you don't think there is any other valid opinion.

Scott said:

POST DELETED: PLEASE DON'T REPOST!!moderated by stefan


Eaaaasssyy!! Let's not get this thread deleted twice.

[jumar]

Wow, I haven't even taken a stance yet and I was moderated. :lol8:
Alright, I'll settle myself down and focus on the issue and make my own decision. But I certainly think people should have equal opportunity to know the facts, and that no one should be intentionally excluded from knowing what's going on. And that includes both sides of the issue.

[Scott P]

i was thinking you were involved with that stuff.

Why? Where are you getting these ideas?


What makes your viewpoint the right one, and why would those that support OHV proposals automatically evil and foolish?

Jumar, my comments refered specifically to turning Escalante into another Jeep Safari such as in Moab. That's what the original post said. I do't know if the original post is accurate, but if it was I do believe it is the wrong thing to do.

I'm not against some ATVing, but I do think that that it's not OK to turn another place like Escalante into a Jeep Safari.

Anyway, I admit my post was abrasive and that I suggestion the green crowd shouldn't shop at the local stores supporting the measure, however someone from the thread sent me a death threat and extremely nasty message. This was not warranted. I don't think anything I said was bad enough to recieve a death threat. Thank you very much whoever you are. You were successful and you win. I don't need this stuff and won't be posting my opinion here anymore. You won. If your death threat was serious, note that I'm reporting it to the police, joke or not.

[Sombeech]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/SmugsUK/hogan0mf.gif

[jumar]

I do believe it is the wrong thing to do. I'm not against some ATVing, but I do think that that it's not OK to turn another place into a Jeep Safari.

I have no problem with you having an opinion on the matter. As long as you allow others their opinions. :2thumbs:


however someone from the thread sent me a death threat and extremely nasty message. This was not warranted.
Agreed, that's ridiculous to take it to that level.

And now on with our regularly scheduled discussion :five:

[stefan]

however someone from the thread sent me a death threat and extremely nasty message. This was not warranted.
Agreed, that's ridiculous to take it to that level.



ridiculous? it's unacceptable and contemptible

[rockgremlin]

Ahem....getting back to the topic at hand...


I don't think Escalante could ever be another Jeep-safari type tourist destination. The infrastructure just couldn't support it IMHO. Moab population: 5500 Escalante population: ~950

I think the 43,000 is going towards making a convenience for the ATV crowds, but I agree it would be nice to see equal (or at least somewhat equal) funding for other recreation in the area. I would be curious to see numbers for other funding by the city/county. Perhaps the 43,000 is normal?

[jumar]

ridiculous? it's unacceptable and contemptible
Agreed

[Iceaxe]

WTF!!!

I'd like to know who deleted the ORV/Escalante thread and why?

I don't think deleting threads is a hot idea.... kinda like sticking your head in the sand. Perhaps locking the thread is a much more appropriate measure?

:popcorn:

[hesse15]

Stefan,
been a moderator gave you power to delet threads and comments, but here seems your personal point of view is involved in your jugment
and i found a little out of topic to moderate another moderator
perhaps we have to repost in the atv and 4-weeling sections where you do not have that power?


the planets is made by people with different opinions and views.
I usually do not like atv and i did several service day to go in the swell with the blm map to check no trepassing sign and replace them.

i am a very good friend of the director of conservation both wasatch mountain club and both sierra club.
and they are nice balanced people

here i just saw only rants and very low information and a lot of alarmism for not much.


i already apologied with scott, what else?
scott called uutah people "evil"and "foolish" is that "inciteful behaviour " as you accuse me or not?




sorry my bad , i was thinking you were involved with that stuff.
but if you are not sorry about my comment , my apologies

may i suggest asking scott about this before jumping to conclusions? this seems like very inciteful behavior to me.



still try to shut down business that feed family is not a very nice thing

your pulling on pathos here for your argument ... but there is a much grander scope to this issue which must be taken into account and not everyone wins in the end, but that is the way of things.

[hesse15]

shane are you having here little clones of the egroup censorship? :frustrated:
i was thinking here everybody can espress his opinion freely
apparently i was wrong :roll:


WTF!!!

I'd like to know who deleted the ORV/Escalante thread and why?

I don't think deleting threads is a hot idea.... kinda like sticking your head in the sand. Perhaps locking the thread is a much more appropriate measure?

:popcorn:

[Iceaxe]

I have no clue who deleted the orginal thread and I'm working on getting it back up....

:2thumbs:

[Iceaxe]

Here is the orgianl thread.... and someone better have a damn good reason for deleting it to begin with.....

http://www.climb-utah.com/temp/OHV%20Thread.htm

If Acca or Sombeech can insert this back into a normal thread that's even better....

:popcorn:

[hesse15]

are you kidding about the thread i hope,
come on
if is real yes contact police
but i doubt somebody can ever think of something like that and in an email.
:ne_nau:
by the way was not me
but you have to realize that acting your way beside you right or wrong , that can lead people to get the impression you are violent and aggressive and support the wrong cause, identifying all the enviromentalist with your behaviour.

peace :hippy: :feelgood:





i was thinking you were involved with that stuff.

Why? Where are you getting these ideas?


What makes your viewpoint the right one, and why would those that support OHV proposals automatically evil and foolish?

Jumar, my comments refered specifically to turning Escalante into another Jeep Safari such as in Moab. That's what the original post said. I do't know if the original post is accurate, but if it was I do believe it is the wrong thing to do.

I'm not against some ATVing, but I do think that that it's not OK to turn another place like Escalante into a Jeep Safari.

Anyway, I admit my post was abrasive and that I suggestion the green crowd shouldn't shop at the local stores supporting the measure, however someone from the thread sent me a death threat and extremely nasty message. This was not warranted. I don't think anything I said was bad enough to recieve a death threat. Thank you very much whoever you are. You were successful and you win. I don't need this stuff and won't be posting my opinion here anymore. You won. If your death threat was serious, note that I'm reporting it to the police, joke or not.

[Sombeech]

If the $43k is for a loading area, isn't that better than creating acres of free-willed unregulated environmental damage?

If they give the ORV riders a place to go, they won't need to park in the sage brush. It seems pretty environmentally friendly to me. :2thumbs:

[rockgremlin]

If the $43k is for a loading area, isn't that better than creating acres of free-willed unregulated environmental damage?

If they give the ORV riders a place to go, they won't need to park in the sage brush. It seems pretty environmentally friendly to me. :2thumbs:

That's kind of my reasoning as well.

[scoutabout]

What's the problem? The city wants to build an OHV unloading area? What's wrong with embracing all forms of recreation? The SP&R OHV grant program is designed to provide money for this exact purpose. The money comes from OHV fines and OHV registrations.

Good to see at least some of the people here can have a balanced discussion without deleting threads and editing posts that they don't agree with.

[stefan]

Stefan,
been a moderator gave you power to delet threads and comments, but here seems your personal point of view is involved in your jugment
and i found a little out of topic to moderate another moderator
perhaps we have to repost in the atv and 4-weeling sections where you do not have that power?


scott's post was removed for a number of reasons (including the fact that he rescinded it). i moderated the reposting of scott's post. if this is a problem for you, you are certainly welcome to take up matters with the admin.



i already apologied with scott, what else?
scott called uutah people "evil"and "foolish" is that "inciteful behaviour " as you accuse me or not?


it was just a friendly suggestion about forum ediquette. he didn't actually call uutah people "evil" you're transferring evil from "practices" to "people." there is a difference, christina. one is an attack on people one is an attack on the practices of people. your transference changes the meaning of his post.

there is also a difference in the inciteful behavior of yours and scott's. scott has thought a lot about this issue and has come to an opinion about such practices. you on the other hand, out of nowhere decided that scott was drilling for oil as a profession (or whatever you believed) and decided to deride him and his opinions based on something you read in your gut (i.e., without finding out the FACTS).

furthermore scott edited and deleted his post, so the point is moot in his case (unless someone keeps reposting it).



people are free to post on the topic. but no personal attacks/name calling is tolerated on this forum, so say the FORUM RULES (http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5004). also purposeful misrepresentation of other people/people's posts will lead to problems and is not tolerated.

[gonzo]

What's the problem? The city wants to build an OHV unloading area?


I think the problem comes from the Garfield County Trails Committee changing their own rules to silence critics of their program:



In recent months, the Garfield County Commission has set the stage to disarm trails committee critics by changing the committee's bylaws to "guidelines" earlier this year and including "disciplinary action" provisions to muzzle anyone deemed out of line more than once. (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6111930)


From reading over the Salt Lake Tribune articles it sounds like there's a very vocal contingent of Escalante residents that are opposed to the staging area, and are effectively being shut out of the debate.

I'm not necessarily opposed to building a staging area, (I'm not necessarily in favor, either) but I am opposed to politicians preventing both sides of the argument from being heard, and other ideas from being considered.

Edited to correct URL to the Salt Lake Tribune Article --06/19/07 14:14

[CarpeyBiggs]

I think after reading the articles, the real dilemma here isn't how the $44k is going to be used (which I think is being used appropriately.) The real issue is that the Garfield Trails Committee has become polarized, and the ATV crowd is gaining alot more power in these meetings than the green crowd is. The $44k is probably just a bad sign for those on the other side, because it may be a indication of where the power is and an omen for the future.

Who knows though, I'm still kinda unclear what the whole controversy is. It'd be nice to get some input from both sides of the argument. USA-ALL's website is currently down. SUWA doesn't seem to have much info up about it either, though I think it's safe to say Steve Allen can generally speak for them.

[rockgremlin]

What's the problem? The city wants to build an OHV unloading area?


I think the problem comes from the Garfield County Trails Committee changing their own rules to silence critics of their program:



In recent months, the Garfield County Commission has set the stage to disarm trails committee critics by changing the committee's bylaws to "guidelines" earlier this year and including "disciplinary action" provisions to muzzle anyone deemed out of line more than once. (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_6124009)


From reading over the Salt Lake Tribune articles it sounds like there's a very vocal contingent of Escalante residents that are opposed to the staging area, and are effectively being shut out of the debate.

I'm not necessarily opposed to building a staging area, (I'm not necessarily in favor, either) but I am opposed to politicians preventing both sides of the argument from being heard, and other ideas from being considered.

Maybe those residents are being shut out of the debate not because they want to express their opinion, but because they were being hostile. Not unlike what we have already seen in this thread today...

[hesse15]

Stefanos,
ehi this is the 4th message of apologies, do i have to start a thread about or you are going to stop it?

:ne_nau:

by the way also the person mentioned is very opinionated and attack people too.

so going back to the original apparently the money are for regulating atv user and gave them area to park their atv.

that is not bad

i think the initial message that was posted was just false alarmism , with no data or real information to support the statement

do you know more details or you just repost the message at it was whithout either checking was true?

only because somebody put "steve allen" in the name of email?

will be funny if was a scam to see how many people react just out of a spoof :five:





Stefan,
been a moderator gave you power to delet threads and comments, but here seems your personal point of view is involved in your jugment
and i found a little out of topic to moderate another moderator
perhaps we have to repost in the atv and 4-weeling sections where you do not have that power?


scott's post was removed for a number of reasons (including the fact that he rescinded it). i moderated the reposting of scott's post. if this is a problem for you, you are certainly welcome to take up matters with the admin.



i already apologied with scott, what else?
scott called uutah people "evil"and "foolish" is that "inciteful behaviour " as you accuse me or not?


it was just a friendly suggestion about forum ediquette. he didn't actually call uutah people "evil" you're transferring evil from "practices" to "people." there is a difference, christina. one is an attack on people one is an attack on the practices of people. your transference changes the meaning of his post.

there is also a difference in the inciteful behavior of yours and scott's. scott has thought a lot about this issue and has come to an opinion about such practices. you on the other hand, out of nowhere decided that scott was drilling for oil as a profession (or whatever you believed) and decided to deride him and his opinions based on something you read in your gut (i.e., without finding out the FACTS).

furthermore scott edited and deleted his post, so the point is moot in his case (unless someone keeps reposting it).



people are free to post on the topic. but no personal attacks/name calling is tolerated on this forum, so say the FORUM RULES (http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5004). also purposeful misrepresentation of other people/people's posts will lead to problems and is not tolerated.

[scoutabout]

I think after reading the articles, the real dilemma here isn't how the $44k is going to be used (which I think is being used appropriately.) The real issue is that the Garfield Trails Committee has become polarized, and the ATV crowd is gaining alot more power in these meetings than the green crowd is. The $44k is probably just a bad sign for those on the other side, because it may be a indication of where the power is and an omen for the future.


So that's a problem for the green crowd? They don't have the final say, so they're throwing a fit and getting the friends at the Trib to give biased coverage of the issue.

Motorized recreation on public lands is here to stay. The sooner the green-side of the equation accepts the idea of multiple use, the sooner we can move forward and work on fixing the problems rather than just suing and fighting everything that they didn't propose.

[gonzo]

Oops. I linked to the wrong article in my earlier post. I'll go back to correct it.


Maybe those residents are being shut out of the debate not because they want to express their opinion, but because they were being hostile. Not unlike what we have already seen in this thread today...

I would like to believe that the reporter would have included that information in the article. But, it's possible she's not being truly objective.

[jumar]

but no personal attacks/name calling is tolerated on this forum, so say the FORUM RULES . also purposeful misrepresentation of other people/people's posts will lead to problems and is not tolerated.

How do you decide if it's a personal attack? As an example, did you feel my comments were a personal attack?

I certainly didn't 'name call' did I? I didn't misrepresent anyone, I simply posted what they had said (direct copy and paste), and then voiced my opinion.

[CarpeyBiggs]

So that's a problem for the green crowd? They don't have the final say, so they're throwing a fit and getting the friends at the Trib to give biased coverage of the issue.

Motorized recreation on public lands is here to stay. The sooner the green-side of the equation accepts the idea of multiple use, the sooner we can move forward and work on fixing the problems rather than just suing and fighting everything that they didn't propose.

I think this may be an oversimplification, but given the only thing we have to base our discussion on at this point is a single SLTrib article, it sounds like some people are unhappy with the trails committee. Not sure that means they are "throwing a fit" necessarily, as they are just trying to make some noise, to have their message heard.

[KillEmAll]

Here is the orgianl thread.... and someone better have a damn good reason for deleting it to begin with.....

http://www.climb-utah.com/temp/OHV%20Thread.htm

If Acca or Sombeech can insert this back into a normal thread that's even better....

:popcorn:

Thanks for getting the original posts back out there. Pretty damn scary a mod would delete a thread. Time to rethink who we have moderating?

[hank moon]

Thanks for getting the original posts back out there. Pretty damn scary a mod would delete a thread. Time to rethink who we have moderating?

Threads have been deleted before - Shane himself has done it by accident - it happens. I suggest this thread be locked (as Shane proposed) for a few hours to let blood cool down.

[Sombeech]

Which type of people usually have a problem with others accessing a piece of land as well?

Would this suggest that only physically fit (ie: people with good knees, non handicapped) people should be allowed to enjoy these locations as well? That seems to have a bit of prejudice.

On one hand, certain people want illegal immigrants to come into the country freely, but then want all non-hikers locked out of the wilderness.

[rockgremlin]

Which type of people usually have a problem with others accessing a piece of land as well?

Would this suggest that only physically fit (ie: people with good knees, non handicapped) people should be allowed to enjoy these locations as well? That seems to have a bit of prejudice.



This is true, and introduces a very valid point to the discussion: Is wilderness for everybody.....or just those who are physically able to access it on foot?

[KillEmAll]

Threads have been deleted before - Shane himself has done it by accident - it happens. I suggest this thread be locked (as Shane proposed) for a few hours to let blood cool down.

It happens? Like farting when making love? Oopsie! Give me a break, there's no reason to ever intentionally delete an active thread. NONE!

[jumar]

Threads have been deleted before - Shane himself has done it by accident - it happens.

Threads are deleted sometimes. I think what might have been a concern to some is the circumstances behind this particular deletion. The thread was started...someone expressed concern about it being posted to uutah, because ohv people might catch wind of it...then the thread was deleted. Coincidence? Hopefully that's all it was. :ne_nau:
Note: I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Just trying to point out where some of the perceptions/concerns might have started. :bandit:

[scoutabout]

Here is the orgianl thread.... and someone better have a damn good reason for deleting it to begin with.....

http://www.climb-utah.com/temp/OHV%20Thread.htm

If Acca or Sombeech can insert this back into a normal thread that's even better....

:popcorn:

Thanks for getting the original posts back out there. Pretty damn scary a mod would delete a thread. Time to rethink who we have moderating?

Yeah thanks for getting the original posts up. Wow, that's amazing. I knew Scott was biased, but his comments are ridiculous.

[scoutabout]

Threads have been deleted before - Shane himself has done it by accident - it happens.

Threads are deleted sometimes. I think what might have been a concern to some is the circumstances behind this particular deletion. The thread was started...someone expressed concern about it being posted to uutah, because ohv people might catch wind of it...then the thread was deleted. Coincidence? Hopefully that's all it was. :ne_nau:
Note: I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Just trying to point out where some of the perceptions/concerns might have started.

Scott and company shouldn't be so naive as to think that the OHV community wouldn't be aware of this anyway. Besides, if it's what the city, their trails committee, and SP&R want then it's going to happen regardless of how many rabid anti-OHV zealots write letters.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Scott and company shouldn't be so naive as to think that the OHV community wouldn't be aware of this anyway. Besides, if it's what the city, their trails committee, and SP&R want then it's going to happen regardless of how many rabid anti-OHV zealots write letters.

Then again, this is where the controversy lies. It is obvious the trails committee is made up of a diverse group of people from both sides of the argument, as the articles explain the committee themselves had been fighting. Given that fact, and the vocal opposition, I'm not so sure I would say this is what the "city wants." It is clearly what some of the committee wants, but I think the fears of the opposition are warranted as well. I don't think it is as black and white as either party would like to think. Just because Bush sent us to war doesn't mean it was what the "people wanted."

[Scott P]

Would this suggest that only physically fit (ie: people with good knees, non handicapped) people should be allowed to enjoy these locations as well?

(Not meant to be abrasive).

Lake Powell adjacent to and even covers much of the Escalante area next door. They can visit hundreds of inlets or canyone there and the scenery is the same. The Escalante country can also been seen by small raft when the river is high enough and requires no walking.

I seriously feel for the people that can't access and area, but most can. My three and five year old can walk across the Escalante country without any problems and so can the vast majority of us. Some can't. It is them I truely feel sorry for and that are the ones that have a real problem. Perhaps something should be worked out just for them.

Anyway, it's not ATV's or ATV'ers that most "greens" don't like. It's the damage and potential damage that happens or can happen. If it wasn't damaging, I seriously wouldn't care at all if they were there. I don't go lake kayaking or hang gliding for example, but if someone wanted to do that, i wouldn't care because I don't see that it could cause any damage.

I do not pick just ATVers. Here is a post I made to the canyons group:

....no matter the activity (ATV'ing, hiking, backpacking, canyoneering, climbing, camping, river rafting, etc.) you should leave as little behind as possible. Canyoneers should make every effort possible to leave as little behind and leave something temporary if they do.

That is my opinion and I live by it. I apply it to all user groups. It isn't meant to attack anyone personally even if it is strong/abrasive. Although I believe my opinion to be right, I do not make threats or anything like that.

I apologize if I come across as elitist or abrasive, but I do have very strong feelings and opinions on the matter.

[KillEmAll]

The thread was started...someone expressed concern about it being posted to uutah, because ohv people might catch wind of it...then the thread was deleted. Coincidence? Hopefully that's all it was.

Hopefully your right. Funny how this "moderating" has given it far more attention than it probably would have otherwise received.

Now for something actually related to the original thread...

I agree there is definitely a lack of info regarding this issue, but from what I have read I definetly think this would be better than having the OHV crowd down there with no infrastructure in place. With less than $50k I'm not sure they are going to turn this into any "mecca" either.

[hank moon]

This is true, and introduces a very valid point to the discussion: Is wilderness for everybody.....or just those who are physically able to access it on foot?

Wilderness is clearly not for everybody - just as space travel is not for everybody. If wilderness is modified to allow universal access, it ceases to be wilderness. On that, I think we may be able to agree?

[shlingdawg]

I'm just guessing that the lack of a staging area is not going to decrease the amount of ATV pressure, just like the addition of such would increase it.

Equal access - both in the outdoors & in the forum.


Kill Goderation.

[hank moon]

It happens? Like farting when making love? Oopsie! Give me a break, there's no reason to ever intentionally delete an active thread. NONE!

I do not support intentionally deleting an active thread - just pointed out the reality that it does happen.

[Sombeech]

It happens? Like farting when making love? Oopsie!

HA HA HA HA HA

[shlingdawg]

This is true, and introduces a very valid point to the discussion: Is wilderness for everybody.....or just those who are physically able to access it on foot?

Wilderness is clearly not for everybody - just as space travel is not for everybody. If wilderness is modified to allow universal access, it ceases to be wilderness. On that, I think we may be able to agree?

What the hell? Space travel? :roll:

Please tell me: if Wilderness isn't for everybody, then who is it for?

[hank moon]

This is true, and introduces a very valid point to the discussion: Is wilderness for everybody.....or just those who are physically able to access it on foot?

[with current techology...i.e. pre-holodeck...]

Wilderness is clearly not for everybody - just as space travel is not for everybody. If wilderness is modified to allow universal access, it ceases to be wilderness. On that, I think we may be able to agree?

What the hell? Space travel? :roll:

Please tell me: if Wilderness isn't for everybody, then who is it for?


Wilderness is not simply a location in physical space, it is an experience. A prerequisite for such an experience can be a "place" (e.g. a far out spot in Escalante). Not everyone can access the places where the experiences may be had, and even those who can may not be capable of enjoying the experience. Just the facts, ma'am :-)

[shlingdawg]

This is true, and introduces a very valid point to the discussion: Is wilderness for everybody.....or just those who are physically able to access it on foot?

[with current techology...i.e. pre-holodeck...]

Wilderness is clearly not for everybody - just as space travel is not for everybody. If wilderness is modified to allow universal access, it ceases to be wilderness. On that, I think we may be able to agree?

What the hell? Space travel? :roll:

Please tell me: if Wilderness isn't for everybody, then who is it for?


Not everyone can access the places where the experiences may be had, and even those who can may not be capable of enjoying the experience. Just the facts, ma'am :-)

I don't care if everyone CAN access the "place". They should be given an equal chance to do so if they so desire.

[TreeHugger]

This is true, and introduces a very valid point to the discussion: Is wilderness for everybody.....or just those who are physically able to access it on foot?

[with current techology...i.e. pre-holodeck...]

Wilderness is clearly not for everybody - just as space travel is not for everybody. If wilderness is modified to allow universal access, it ceases to be wilderness. On that, I think we may be able to agree?

What the hell? Space travel? :roll:

Please tell me: if Wilderness isn't for everybody, then who is it for?


Not everyone can access the places where the experiences may be had, and even those who can may not be capable of enjoying the experience. Just the facts, ma'am :-)

I don't care if everyone CAN access the "place". They should be given an equal chance to do so if they so desire.

By any means possible???

[Sombeech]

We're clearly not talking about paving a road through the wilderness, so we don't need to jump to these extremes of turning Escalante into a Metropolis.

OHV trails exist, and people can stick to them.

[TreeHugger]

What's the problem? The city wants to build an OHV unloading area? What's wrong with embracing all forms of recreation? The SP&R OHV grant program is designed to provide money for this exact purpose. The money comes from OHV fines and OHV registrations.
.

I'm surprised to read this from you, Scoutabout, do you really believe with all that ATV traffic that they stay on designated roads and trails, all the time, doing no damage? I ask because you had such an "opinion" when the van was "parked on new vegetation" (which was a designated camp spot, I'll remind). I didnt think you were into motorized recreation.

[shlingdawg]

This is true, and introduces a very valid point to the discussion: Is wilderness for everybody.....or just those who are physically able to access it on foot?

[with current techology...i.e. pre-holodeck...]

Wilderness is clearly not for everybody - just as space travel is not for everybody. If wilderness is modified to allow universal access, it ceases to be wilderness. On that, I think we may be able to agree?

What the hell? Space travel? :roll:

Please tell me: if Wilderness isn't for everybody, then who is it for?


Not everyone can access the places where the experiences may be had, and even those who can may not be capable of enjoying the experience. Just the facts, ma'am :-)

I don't care if everyone CAN access the "place". They should be given an equal chance to do so if they so desire.

By any means possible???

Of course not. But if a trail exists, and an ATV can get someone somewhere where they could not otherwise go - who am I to tell them no?

I think that a few irresponsible people have ruined it for everyone. On both sides of the fence.

[stefan]

Equal access - both in the outdoors & in the forum.


equal access doesn't make sense everywhere! our land is and should not a uniform swath, but a montage of different land use types. if one land use type precludes or compromises another, then it clearly doesn't make sense to paint our land a single color!!


the wilderness debate concerns how much and precisely what should be designated for wilderness.

and a related MAJOR issue is degredation of wilderness quality/wilderness designated lands by legally and illegally constructed roads and OHV abuse.

and the degredation continues to increase ... though you'll get different responses from different people based on what their interests are, ontheir tolerance and appreciation of impact, and on their perspective of what the future holds.

however, i do appreciate OHV-access proponents who push "stay on the trails." i don't think this can be stressed enough

[Sombeech]

To those of us who are able bodied, which outdoor areas can we NOT access that others can?

I can't think of many.

Perhaps if we were banned from these areas, not given the chance to experience the "wilderness", we'd have a different opinion.

[scoutabout]

What's the problem? The city wants to build an OHV unloading area? What's wrong with embracing all forms of recreation? The SP&R OHV grant program is designed to provide money for this exact purpose. The money comes from OHV fines and OHV registrations.
.

I'm surprised to read this from you, Scoutabout, do you really believe with all that ATV traffic that they stay on designated roads and trails, all the time, doing no damage? I ask because you had such an "opinion" when the van was "parked on new vegetation" (which was a designated camp spot, I'll remind). I didnt think you were into motorized recreation.

No, I don't believe OHV users are always responsible. But I do believe that it would be better to educate users and work together rather than always try to attack each other.

It wasn't a designated campsite. Maybe a dispersed site, but definitely not designated. The only designated sites in that area are in the paid campgrounds. Additionally, established dispersed site or not, no one should park or drive on vegetation.

[shlingdawg]

Equal access - both in the outdoors & in the forum.


equal access doesn't make sense everywhere! our land is and should not a uniform swath, but a montage of different land use types. if one land use type precludes or compromises another, then it clearly doesn't make sense to paint our land a single color!!


the wilderness debate concerns how much and precisely what should be designated for wilderness.

and a related MAJOR issue is degredation of wilderness quality/wilderness designated lands by legally and illegally constructed roads and OHV abuse.

and the degredation continues to increase ... though you'll get different responses from different people based on what their interests are, ontheir tolerance and appreciation of impact, and on their perspective of what the future holds.

however, i do appreciate OHV-access proponents who push "stay on the trails." i don't think this can be stressed enough

Let's define "equal access".

To me, it means something like...... if I'm in a wheelchair and I want to try to go up the Zion Narrows - I can. Granted, I don't expect a paved wheelchair access trail cut into the side of the mountain, but given tools that allow me to navigate the water (say a kayak with ski poles or something along those lines) I should be able to try.

I don't mean that I should be able to throw a canoe with a motor on the back of it and go up just because I'm a tax paying American. There needs to be structure and protective guildlines to ensure peoples safety AND protection of the planet.

I think that when you begin to preclude anyone from doing anything - you're going to have trouble.

[stefan]

Let's define "equal access".

To me, it means something like...... if I'm in a wheelchair


wheelchairs are not precluded from wilderness. but other forms of mechanized travel are, such as OHVs including bicycles.




I think that when you begin to preclude anyone from doing anything - you're going to have trouble.

wilderness designation precludes mechanized travel, road building, logging, mining, drilling, and many more. it is to protect and preserve the wildest of lands. it's no wonder it's a contentious issue ... but it certainly has a place in southern utah. i would go as far to say that a large part of southern utah should be designated wilderness. the redrock wilderness act proposes 9.5 million acres of utah (west east and south) be designated wilderness.

[scoutabout]

Let's define "equal access".

To me, it means something like...... if I'm in a wheelchair


wheelchairs are not precluded from wilderness. but other forms of mechanized travel are, such as OHVs including bicycles.




I think that when you begin to preclude anyone from doing anything - you're going to have trouble.

wilderness designation precludes mechanized travel, road building, logging, mining, drilling, and many more. it is to protect and preserve the wildest of lands. it's no wonder it's a contentious issue ... but it certainly has a place in southern utah. i would go as far to say that a large part of southern utah should be designated wilderness. the redrock wilderness act proposes 9.5 million acres of utah (west east and south) be designated wilderness.

But large portions of the 9.5 million acres you're talking about already have road building, logging, mining, drilling, and other human activities. That precludes them from Wilderness designation.

But back to the point. How does having an OHV unloading/staging area do anything except help the situation? They aren't adding acreage for riding or miles for trails.

[shlingdawg]

Let's define "equal access".

To me, it means something like...... if I'm in a wheelchair


wheelchairs are not precluded from wilderness. but other forms of mechanized travel are, such as OHVs including bicycles.




I think that when you begin to preclude anyone from doing anything - you're going to have trouble.

wilderness designation precludes mechanized travel, road building, logging, mining, drilling, and many more. it is to protect and preserve the wildest of lands. it's no wonder it's a contentious issue ... but it certainly has a place in southern utah. i would go as far to say that a large part of southern utah should be designated wilderness. the redrock wilderness act proposes 9.5 million acres of utah (west east and south) be designated wilderness.

Protecting the wilderness is fine and dandy. But there are those who would fence up 9.5 million acres, even though there are already roads, trails and routes already in place. I don't understand this.

Escalante has these trails in place. Already there. Take the Slickrock bike trail/Hell's Revenge area in Moab. Put a fence around that and what do you have? A big expanse of slickrock with black marks and dots painted on it that fewer people can now access.

Now take a pristine section of earth that is devoid of tracks from a motorized vehicle. I'm fine with putting a fence (proverbial) around it and protecting it. What do you have? A pristine section of earth for years to come. Good for you. Good for us. What about the ATV people? They have other places to ride their machines. Just don't go taking away what they already have.

Like I said earlier.............there are those who do and will continue to ruin it for everyone.

[gonzo]

But back to the point. How does having an OHV unloading/staging area do anything except help the situation? They aren't adding acreage for riding or miles for trails.

It does potentially add an increased burden on the existing trails since it will become easier for riders to access them. Increased burden on the trails could lead to more destructive behavior (off trail driving, increased litter, etc).

How does Garfield County plan to handle the additional impact? Is there money set aside for regulation, education, and clean-up? The SL Trib article doesn't address this issue.

Just because the OHV community asks for additional infrastructure doesn't mean they should automatically get it.

[oldno7]

And so when a green canyoneer breaks his/her back,heart attack,ruptured appendix,etc,etc. And search and rescue stages their atv's at the new staging area to speed up rescue,said green canyoneer should refuse help because S&R cut hours off recovery time by using atv's and staging at a determined area???

I think I'll welcome the speed

these activities can happen in same general area and effect no-one,benefit all.

And I'm not talking breaking new atv trails down every canyon,I'm talking using existing trails.

[stefan]

How does having an OHV unloading/staging area do anything except help the situation? They aren't adding acreage for riding or miles for trails.

it will draw attention of and welcome OHVers to this area. It will become another OHV hub for use and, naturally, abuse.

sorry scout, i know many of you work to keep OHVers on the trail, but i just don't have a lot of faith in it. i'd prefer taking the preventative approach rather than managing a problem which is currently unmanageable (lack of money and staff as we have discussed time and time again).

there IS a reason the forest service considers OHV abuse one of the 4 most important threats to land!!

http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/

[shlingdawg]

How does having an OHV unloading/staging area do anything except help the situation? They aren't adding acreage for riding or miles for trails.

it will draw attention of and welcome OHVers to this area. It will become another OHV hub for use and, naturally, abuse.


I'm calling bullshit on this one. Naturally? Nice generalization and stereotype. :roll: :roll:

[Sombeech]

The only reason hikers think they should be able to access the wilderness is because they think:
"We never go off the trail, none of us litter, none of us leave a trace. So we should be able to access this area."

Many OHV'ers think this same thing. Both parties are wrong, so why not punish the hikers as well?

Don't give me the "OHV's cause more damage" excuse either.

[oldno7]

How does having an OHV unloading/staging area do anything except help the situation? They aren't adding acreage for riding or miles for trails.

it will draw attention of and welcome OHVers to this area. It will become another OHV hub for use and, naturally, abuse.

sorry scout, i know many of you work to keep OHVers on the trail, but i just don't have a lot of faith in it. i'd prefer taking the preventative approach rather than managing a problem which is currently unmanageable (lack of money and staff as we have discussed time and time again).

there IS a reason the forest service considers OHV abuse one of the 4 most important threats to land!!

http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats/

have you ever hiked down the east fork of virgin??

not many atv trails that"Polluted"

[stefan]

it will draw attention of and welcome OHVers to this area. It will become another OHV hub for use and, naturally, abuse.


I'm calling bullshit on this one. Naturally? Nice generalization and stereotype. :roll: :roll:


oh please ... this is nothing new. it's seen all over the plateau. sure it's a generalization, but that is becuase this is what generally happens. no reason to expect anything different.

roll away if it makes you feel better

[Sombeech]

sure it's a generalization, but that is becuase this is what generally happens. no reason to expect anything different.

roll away if it makes you feel better

What else generally happens is hikers whining about sharing the land.

Now you're starting to sound like Rev.

[shlingdawg]

it will draw attention of and welcome OHVers to this area. It will become another OHV hub for use and, naturally, abuse.


I'm calling bullshit on this one. Naturally? Nice generalization and stereotype. :roll: :roll:


oh please ... this is nothing new. it's seen all over the plateau. sure it's a generalization, but that is becuase this is what generally happens. no reason to expect anything different.

roll away if it makes you feel better


Whatever, pot smoking hippie. :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :mrgreen:

[montanablur]

Just for the record I am not picking a side because I don't live in Escalante or Utah for that matter... Which brings me to, I haven't seen anyone from Escalante post. It seems as though this is a local decision/matter.

How would any of you like people in Idaho or California telling you how to spend your money in Utah? While we are all entitled to our opinions, they are all pretty much moot unless you own property in or around Escalante.

[Iceaxe]

How would any of you like people in Idaho or California telling you how to spend your money in Utah? While we are all entitled to our opinions, they are all pretty much moot unless you own property in or around Escalante.

The logic goes.... its federal land which means it belongs to all US citizens..... and I partly agree with this..... but it seems to me the folks of Utah should get a much bigger vote, and the good folks of Escalante should get an even bigger vote..... otherwise the big population centers back east can just strong-arm the less populated states out west.... which is pretty much how things are currently being handled.

:popcorn:

[scoutabout]

How would any of you like people in Idaho or California telling you how to spend your money in Utah? While we are all entitled to our opinions, they are all pretty much moot unless you own property in or around Escalante.

But the money comes from the State Parks & Rec Dept OHV grant budget. That money is collected through fines and OHV registrations. It doesn't belong to any town or county. It is available for OHV improvement and education projects. If it doesn't get distributed via grants, then it just sits in an account accruing interest for next year.

[montanablur]

How would any of you like people in Idaho or California telling you how to spend your money in Utah? While we are all entitled to our opinions, they are all pretty much moot unless you own property in or around Escalante.

The logic goes.... its federal land which means it belongs to all US citizens..... and I partly agree with this..... but it seems to me the folks of Utah should get a much bigger vote, and the good folks of Escalante should get an even bigger vote..... otherwise the big population centers back east can just strong-arm the less populated states out west.... which is pretty much how things are currently being handled.

:popcorn:

I see what you are saying, if in fact they were talking about building this on federal land, but it is in fact an acre of the Escalante City Park.

I lived in Boulder during the summer of 2003 and personally I can't see many of the residents of Escalante being very excited about it. My friends in Boulder certainly are not.

[Sombeech]

How would any of you like people in Idaho or California telling you how to spend your money in Utah? While we are all entitled to our opinions, they are all pretty much moot unless you own property in or around Escalante.

The logic goes.... its federal land which means it belongs to all US citizens..... and I partly agree with this..... but it seems to me the folks of Utah should get a much bigger vote, and the good folks of Escalante should get an even bigger vote..... otherwise the big population centers back east can just strong-arm the less populated states out west.... which is pretty much how things are currently being handled.

:popcorn:

The attitude is as rockgremlin stated. They think they need to save the land from the locals. It's the elitist attitude.

[montanablur]

Well to further stir the pot, I remember a certain thread a while back where key people that post sites sharing beta felt it was the publics right to have access to our lands.

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64347&highlight=#64347

Again, I am on no side, my point being who is a canyoneer, jerky chewing, hiker, mountain biker, small animal killing, tree hugging, twig eating, forest fairy, OHV driving, good time having, democrat voting, beer swilling, ranching, wolf petting, nra member, granola eating, INDUSTRIAL RECREATIONIST to have any say in what a town of 1000 does with their city park.

Stop having babies if you want space preserved, otherwise STFU and accept the fact that "things" are going to be more regulated and more people will be at your secret spot.

[stefan]

Well to further stir the pot, I remember a certain thread a while back where key people that post sites sharing beta felt it was the publics right to have access to our lands.

Again, I am on no side, my point being who is ... to have any say in what a town of 1000 does with their city park.


it most CERTAINLY is a public right to have access to public land, but how that land is used is a different matter. i don't believe that one is entitled to drive on public land, but one is granted the privilege. that privilege should be respected. while a great many OHVers do respect their privilege to drive on public land, there is a sufficiently (and increasingly) large number who don't and who are degrading our public land. it's a problem because we don't have enough public land efforcement officers, nor the funds, to manage and police the problem. while some hope for the best, others (including myself) don't find this acceptable.

as far as the local town ... when the actions of a local town have effects on surrounding public land, you bet your ass folks will and should feel compelled to influence how that town acts. towns are not isolated islands of consequence. how much control outsiders have on the town is another issue, but on whether they have a place in making suggestion through discourse, i completely disagree with the notion of
'who are outsiders to have any say.' they have every right to attempt to sway the town's decision (within reason).

[Jaxx]

while a great many OHVers do respect their privilege to drive on public land, there is a sufficiently (and increasingly) large number who don't and who are degrading our public land.

the same could be said for hikers. I see alot of spur trails where they dont belong, especially in microbiotic crust. Even my daughters 4 and 6 years old know what it is, and still adults cut trails in it when a trail is already there.

[stefan]

the same could be said for hikers. I see alot of spur trails where they dont belong, especially in microbiotic crust. Even my daughters 4 and 6 years old know what it is, and still adults cut trails in it when a trail is already there.

generally speaking, it's not as cut-and-dry with hiking since the degree of the trail varies and one is permitted to hike off-trail [not to mention whole areas of cryptos are stamped out by cattle]. but i wholeheartedly agree with you, where a well-defined trail exists, hikers should absolutely stick to the trail. and more should be done to stress these issues and heighten awareness.

when trails aren't well-defined, this is a whole other ballgame and very worthy of lengthy discussion within another thread. comparison of off-trail hiking and off-trail riding comes up frequently when off-track OHVers are criticized. the usual "well hikers do it too" comment seems to be the retort. i believe these are separate issues and are meant to be dealt with separately, since motorized and foot travel are two completely different beasts. they are different beasts for two primary reasons, amongst many others: (1) the impact of foot travel is different from motorized travel and (2) off-trail foot travel is generally permitted on public land, whereas off-trail motorized travel is not. however, this is not to say that off-trail hiking shouldn't be subject to scrutiny nor that parallels cannot be drawn between the two types of impact.

they are separate issues, both worthy of discussion, action, and management.

[MY T PIMP]

I have watched this thread and have to tell you I can't take it anymore. From what I see from this proposal no new OHV trails would be constructed. And just like every other law is abused so will OHV laws, those of us who obey can try to thwart abuse as well as enforcement but like all laws, there will always be somebody who disrespects. Take alcoholic beverages, people who abuse these kill more people than anyone else, But their still being sold. I read these controversial threads and I have not contributed because I see you all as my friends and after I post this I am afraid some of you may not feel that way about me any more. I respect all of your opinions and would hope even though I differ from some of yours, we can still have the possibility to be friends with just a difference of opinions. So here gos.
First of all, I hate the fact that because I own an ATV I feel that I am categorized with evils such as strip mining, mineral exploration, over development and simply blatant disrespect for the land, when I am indeed against all of those things. I would not feel so strongly about this if my own father wasn't crippled. I feel he should be able to enjoy southern Utah as close to any of the physically fit are able to.(And contrary to the belief a wheelchair or even a horse just won't work like an ATV) I find it a "ku klux klan"ish type of attitude radiates from those who think differently. I am not saying open everywhere for the disabled, old, and unfit, just don't close what's allready existing.
Second, does not anyone realize the repercussions of taking away Utah's great existence of being a mecca of shared recreation. If something like this proposed wilderness act is passed in southern Utah, I highly doubt that there will be any winners. Reality speaking this could spawn the likes of Eco-terrorism never seen. I don't see shared recreationalists simply admitting their loss and retreating to self anguish and the fetal position in their beds. We and and I say "we" meaning all of us will be lucky if there is an arch left standing in the state a year after a radical proposition like this is passed! This is not a threat, I think it is a very real possibility. The utopia that many extremists' want is unattainable. I think it is very real to take a number of people as big as the one that will be adversely effected by this act and believe a portion of them could react in an extremely destructive manner, and no insult or name calling can ever bring this stuff back Let us hope Utah stays the shared recreation mecca it currently is.

P.S.-I really mean it when I say we can be friends with different opinions.

[UtahFire]

If something like this proposed wilderness act is passed in southern Utah, I highly doubt that there will be any winners.

I disagree with this. The radical eco-crowd will win big time. Hard-core hikers will win big time (except when they need rescue). Many non-Utah politicians will win big time.

Who will loose? Mountain bikers, OHV users, rural communities and energy Independence will take huge hits.

I have said many times that there are certainly areas in Utah which should be set aside as true wilderness. The problem with SUWA's 9.5 million acre proposal is that is includes non-wilderness quality lands including thousands of miles of existing legal roads and trails. The wilderness proposal in the Moab district alone would close 600 miles of legal roads and trails.



Reality speaking this could spawn the likes of Eco-terrorism never seen. I don't see shared recreationalists simply admitting their loss and retreating to self anguish and the fetal position in their beds.

I think most multi-use recreationists will do exactly as you state and go fetal. Look at Factory Butte as an example. The motorized community lost big time at Factory Butte. I see that as the first major victory for the radical-eco crowd. I fear more will follow. Arch Canyon and 10-mile will likely be next. The ARWA is the big prize.



We and and I say "we" meaning all of us will be lucky if there is an arch left standing in the state a year after a radical proposition like this is passed! This is not a threat, I think it is a very real possibility. The utopia that many extremists' want is unattainable. I think it is very real to take a number of people as big as the one that will be adversely effected by this act and believe a portion of them could react in an extremely destructive manner, and no insult or name calling can ever bring this stuff back Let us hope Utah stays the shared recreation mecca it currently is.

I would certainly hope that those who love Utah's back country would not resort to it's destruction in protest. I certainly oppose the 9.5 million acre proposal and will fight to the bitter end for a more reasonable wilderness policy but I would never support destruction.

I believe that when OHV users talk about willful destruction and ignoring the rules, it hurts our cause.

My opinion.

[scoutabout]

If something like this proposed wilderness act is passed in southern Utah, I highly doubt that there will be any winners.

I disagree with this. The radical eco-crowd will win big time. Hard-core hikers will win big time (except when they need rescue). Many non-Utah politicians will win big time.

Who will loose? Mountain bikers, OHV users, rural communities and energy Independence will take huge hits.

I have said many times that there are certainly areas in Utah which should be set aside as true wilderness. The problem with SUWA's 9.5 million acre proposal is that is includes non-wilderness quality lands including thousands of miles of existing legal roads and trails. The wilderness proposal in the Moab district alone would close 600 miles of legal roads and trails.



Reality speaking this could spawn the likes of Eco-terrorism never seen. I don't see shared recreationalists simply admitting their loss and retreating to self anguish and the fetal position in their beds.

I think most multi-use recreationists will do exactly as you state and go fetal. Look at Factory Butte as an example. The motorized community lost big time at Factory Butte. I see that as the first major victory for the radical-eco crowd. I fear more will follow. Arch Canyon and 10-mile will likely be next. The ARWA is the big prize.


The Factory Butte fight isn't over yet. USA-ALL is involved in a suit against the BLM on the illegal closure. We have the facts, the law, and the truth on our side. What we don't have is the money to keep it going for as long as it's going to take. Make sure people know to donate.

[MY T PIMP]

If something like this proposed wilderness act is passed in southern Utah, I highly doubt that there will be any winners.

I disagree with this. The radical eco-crowd will win big time. Hard-core hikers will win big time (except when they need rescue). Many non-Utah politicians will win big time.

Who will loose? Mountain bikers, OHV users, rural communities and energy Independence will take huge hits.

I have said many times that there are certainly areas in Utah which should be set aside as true wilderness. The problem with SUWA's 9.5 million acre proposal is that is includes non-wilderness quality lands including thousands of miles of existing legal roads and trails. The wilderness proposal in the Moab district alone would close 600 miles of legal roads and trails.



Reality speaking this could spawn the likes of Eco-terrorism never seen. I don't see shared recreationalists simply admitting their loss and retreating to self anguish and the fetal position in their beds.

I think most multi-use recreationists will do exactly as you state and go fetal. Look at Factory Butte as an example. The motorized community lost big time at Factory Butte. I see that as the first major victory for the radical-eco crowd. I fear more will follow. Arch Canyon and 10-mile will likely be next. The ARWA is the big prize.



We and and I say "we" meaning all of us will be lucky if there is an arch left standing in the state a year after a radical proposition like this is passed! This is not a threat, I think it is a very real possibility. The utopia that many extremists' want is unattainable. I think it is very real to take a number of people as big as the one that will be adversely effected by this act and believe a portion of them could react in an extremely destructive manner, and no insult or name calling can ever bring this stuff back Let us hope Utah stays the shared recreation mecca it currently is.

I would certainly hope that those who love Utah's back country would not resort to it's destruction in protest. I certainly oppose the 9.5 million acre proposal and will fight to the bitter end for a more reasonable wilderness policy but I would never support destruction.

I believe that when OHV users talk about willful destruction and ignoring the rules, it hurts our cause.

My opinion.

I do agree with most of what you say, however I think a proposition this big will spawn some vengeful destruction if not a lot, this is not a canyon or few thousand acres its much more than that. A proposition like this will ruin businesses, families and communities. Contrary to belief people can not just pack up, leave, or totally reconfigure their selves and create so call ed Eco-friendly business that radicals say they can do and everything will be all right. I would not resort to such tactics however I've heard comments which make me think there are those who would. It is sad how effective terrorism in this world is. I fear it is winning the war in Iraq, and I fear it has set an example for quick and effective retaliation. I do not make these comments in vain I just think that I am being a realist. Escalante holds no candle to this proposition. There are a lot of people who fill "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." People are going to fight!

We place our hands in the aged, and disabled, they need to speak up and fight for the right enjoy the places that have been closed and that they cannot currently access.

[stefan]

by the way also the person mentioned is very opinionated and attack people too.

one thing i do know is that scott patterson has spent many hours (more than almost everybody) on this site in the environmental section, dicussing and debating wilderness protection, roads, and OHV related issues with other OHV users. from time to time EVERYONE makes strong comments, including scott; but generally speaking, scott has been VERY level-headed in discussing/debating these issues in the enviro section --- much more often than not --- and others have acknowledged this. he furthermore has provided copious amounts of hard information about these issues which one can find by delving into the older threads/archives.



i think the initial message that was posted was just false alarmism , with no data or real information to support the statement

do you know more details or you just repost the message at it was whithout either checking was true?

only because somebody put "steve allen" in the name of email?

will be funny if was a scam to see how many people react just out of a spoof

well, it's not false alarmism and never was. before the message was posted there were news articles discussing the matter. i know for a fact that that message was posted directly from steve allen, and i knew that before i posted it.

[UtahFire]

one thing i do know is that scott patterson has spent many hours (more than almost everybody) on this site in the environmental section, dicussing and debating wilderness protection, roads, and OHV related issues with other OHV users. from time to time EVERYONE makes strong comments, including scott; but generally speaking, scott has been VERY level-headed in discussing/debating these issues in the enviro section --- much more often than not --- and others have acknowledged this. he furthermore has provided copious amounts of hard information about these issues which one can find by delving into the older threads/archives.


I disagree with Scott on the amount of public lands in Utah which qualifies as wilderness. Scott and I have debated this issue a number of times on this site. I appreciate Scott's point of view and would not want to see him leave these forums.

[tanya]

I disagree with Scott on the amount of public lands in Utah which qualifies as wilderness. Scott and I have debated this issue a number of times on this site. I appreciate Scott's point of view and would not want to see him leave these forums.


Oh yeah!!!!! Scott MUST stay. He is hot. :2thumbs: :2thumbs:

The man is a hiking GOD!!!!!!

And I can say this even though I am not in the mood for worshiping anyone today. :mrgreen:

[Rev. Coyote]

I disagree with Scott on the amount of public lands in Utah which qualifies as wilderness. Scott and I have debated this issue a number of times on this site. I appreciate Scott's point of view and would not want to see him leave these forums.

I always notice you get you back up over this issue, and I wonder why. ("Why?" I says to myself.)

SO, UtahFire, here is my question to try and get at the heart of the matter: What do you think should be the general plan for management of those public lands you consider non-wilderness? I'm just trying to understand you.

[UtahFire]

I disagree with Scott on the amount of public lands in Utah which qualifies as wilderness. Scott and I have debated this issue a number of times on this site. I appreciate Scott's point of view and would not want to see him leave these forums.

I always notice you get you back up over this issue, and I wonder why. ("Why?" I says to myself.)

SO, UtahFire, here is my question to try and get at the heart of the matter: What do you think should be the general plan for management of those public lands you consider non-wilderness? I'm just trying to understand you.

I believe the non-wilderness Federal lands should be managed via the RMP process. The BLM is required by law to develop an RMP for each management district. As I understand the process, the RMP remains subject to existing land use designations and requires public hearings where comments from all sides are presented. For example, the Escalante National Monument is subject to both the RMP process and the rules set forth as a National Monument. I understand that Wilderness areas are not subject to the RMP process.

There are many land use designations available for non-wilderness areas which prevent development, mineral extraction and in many cases motorized access. But allow for much more flexibility for recreation of various types (via the RMP).

I would favor more National Recreation Areas in Utah. For example, I would not be opposed to making The Swell an NRA. I would also support a recreation Fee for these NRAs to help pay for user education, trail maintenance and law enforcement.

The bottom line for me is this: wilderness is a special land use designation which is by design exceptionally restrictive. By definition wilderness is "roadless". If this is the case, why are we talking about thousands of miles of "roads" which would need to be closed under the ARWA? The reason is because ARWA includes lands which are not "roadless" and therefore don't qualify as wilderness. However, much of these lands are indeed beautiful and could be designated under a variety of other land use designations which would offer far more protection than they are getting now.

The fact that SUWA and UWC have refused to work with the BLM, local land managers, the State of Utah and public land users to achieve a compromise has led to inactivity and ultimately more adverse land impact.

[caverspencer]

I am jumping in this thread really late and I have only skimmed the pages and pages of comments. So if I repeating something that has already been said I apologize.

I lived in Escalante from the age of 5 until I graduated from high school and I just wanted to toss in my 2 cents...

The location of the proposed OHV is an old run down park. The location is a TERRIBLE location for an OHV staging area. There are NO trails that are accessible from here without having to drive on the main highway, or cross the highway and drive through the backstreets of town. But there are plenty of parking areas in all the canyons near here, anyone in their right mind is gong to drive the trailer up the canyon where they going and unload there. This application is nothing more than the city looking to get some money to fix up an old park.

The park used to be a neat place to go, but since about 1990 it has not been maintained.

I really think the application is just a way for them to get some money to fix up the land. It is a neat place and could use some help. However its a bit shady they would apply for an OHV grant when I have NO DOUBT they just want to fix up the park and they see this as a way to get some money to do that. I HIGHLY doubt the area will ever be utilized as an OHV staging area.

I guess I better toss out my 2 cents about the OHV use in the area too. There are a lot of awesome roads both up in the mountains to the north and in the desert to the south of town. If OHV users would just stick to the existing roads and trails it wouldn't be an issue!

I wish for 2 things when it comes to OHV use in the area. 1- They would NOT close any existing roads! 2 - OHV users would not make ANY new trails or roads.

Anyway for those of you arguing about if they should develop an OHV area, don't kid yourself. It will never be used for such a thing, this is nothing more than an application to fix up an old city park.