Greater Canyonlands National Monument???

[Sandstone Addiction]

I just heard on KSL radio that environmental groups are requesting that Pres Obama use his powers to create a new national monument adjacent to CNP? I can't find anything on their website.

Has anyone heard anything about this?

[Kuya]

Gah! :angryfire:

[tallsteve]

SUWA- no big surprise there. http://www.suwa.org/protect-greater-canyonlands/

[hike.higher]

More here: http://www.pitchengine.com/blackdiamondequipment%C2%AE/outdoor-industry-assoc-100-outdoor-businesses-urge-president-obama-to-proclaim-greater-canyonlands-national-monument

[Sandstone Addiction]

I looked at the map on the link and am stunned at the area involved! If I'm looking at it correctly, it basically stretches from Hanksville on the west to Moab on the east and from UT 95 on the south to 15 miles south of Green River on the north.

This is insane.

[Sandstone Addiction]

More here: http://www.pitchengine.com/blackdiamondequipment%C2%AE/outdoor-industry-assoc-100-outdoor-businesses-urge-president-obama-to-proclaim-greater-canyonlands-national-monument


I guess I've bought my last Chinese made POS from BD.

[stefan]

i never mind seeing threads like this up here in general discussion, especially since more folks are likely to see them, but threads like this on bogley are typically discussed in/routed to the environmental issues subforum.

[Iceaxe]

Here is the map:

61151

At the moment it looks more like this is just SUWA making noise more than anything else.

The area included contains some of the best canyoneering on the planet. I can hardly wait to stand in more permit lines, deal with more red tape and be forced into long hikes to access because of road closures.... I vote NYET!

:cool2:

[stefan]

The area included contains some of the best canyoneering on the planet. I can hardly wait to stand in more permit lines, deal with more red tape and be forced into long hikes to access because of road closures.


escalante has few of the problems you speak of ...

[Iceaxe]

escalante has few of the problems you speak of ...

How do you figure? Maybe not as bad as some National Parks but it has red tape.... it's also not a National Park, but only a monument so the red tape is less as the management is less strict.

Free backcountry permits for backpacking are already required in escalante, free backcountry permits is how it all began in Zion.
And we won't even go into what the ATV crowd, mining and oil think of Escalante.

[stefan]

How do you figure? Maybe not as bad as some National Parks but it has red tape.... it's also not a National Park, but only a monument so the red tape is less as the management is less strict.


what is being discussed is a national monument, not a national park. personally i would rather wilderness designations so it doesn't place such a large bullseye on the area, but that's another issue ...




Free backcountry permits for backpacking are already required in escalante, free backcountry permits is how it all began in Zion.


it's not clear escalante is going to become the next zion. but if you're gonna assume the worst, then we should flip the issue and assume the worst if the region doesn't get more protection.





And we won't even go into what the ATV crowd, mining and oil think of Escalante.


road closures affecting the OHV crowd is one thing. not sure how mining and oil are relevant to your comment about recreational access.

[Iceaxe]

I'd rather they just leave things as they are.... it's a known from a canyoneering perspective and it would be pretty hard to improve on what canyoneers currently have. We currently have few rules, no permits, no other people. I don't see how creating a huge ass monument is going to benefit us in any way.... more rules, more crowds, more permits.... I say no thank you...

Sent using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

Proposal for Canyonlands monument draws fire
Outdoors • Utah’s Congress delegation, governor say retailers’ proposal is a bad idea.
By brett prettyman - The Salt Lake Tribune


As a former Canyonlands National Park ranger, Audrey Graham understands the value of expanding protection on the 1.4 million acres of federal lands surrounding the remote southeastern Utah park. As a current Grand County Council member, she also sees the benefits for the large number of businesses in Moab that depend on outdoor-related recreation.
But, as a realist, she understands not all Utahns will agree with her on both accounts.
Despite guaranteed serious opposition, more than 100 outdoor recreation-related businesses and the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) sent a letter Tuesday to President Barack Obama asking him to create the Greater Canyonlands National Monument.
Leaders of the group say continued and increasing threats to the 1.4 million acres of federal wildlands around the park forced their hands to go the unpopular route — particularly in Utah — of asking the president for the designation.
Push-back from at least two members of Utah’s congressional delegation was swift.
“This is clearly a process that’s trying to do an end run around what is good for Utah,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who leads the House subcommittee on public lands.
He and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, whose congressional district includes much of the proposed monument, are drafting a letter to Obama outlining their opposition to creating a new national monument using the Antiquities Act, a process that makes Republican leaders in the state irate.
A national monument is similar to a national park but can be established by the president without congressional approval. President Bill Clinton used that power to create the 1.9 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah in 1996, outraging many Beehive State politicians.
Bishop notes the outdoors groups are not talking with Utah officials about how those lands should be managed and says this is one reason state leaders are fighting with the federal government for more control over these federally managed lands.
“If there was ever a poster child for why Utah needs to have a greater voice in its future,” Bishop said, “this kind of proposal is it.”
The congressman said a national monument designation would give the outdoor retailers “an economic monopoly” in the area to the detriment of ranchers, miners and ATV enthusiasts, among others.
Ashley Korenblat, president of Western Spirit Cycling in Moab, indicated in an OIA conference call with news media Tuesday that a legislative route toward protection for the Greater Canyonlands has seemed out of reach.
“Congress has not passed any land-protection bills or are working on any anywhere in the country, and the legislative option does not present things in a timely manner. We really do have threats happening,” she said. “One of the most powerful and quickest-moving tools is the national monument. We are open to other suggestions, but we are working toward that designation.”
Scott Groene, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, welcomes the outdoor industry to the cause and says he is not surprised that the group went right to the president for help.
“Utah politicians have been begging for this,” Groene said. “Governor [Gary] Herbert launched his attack on our public lands by demanding the federal government give him 30 million acres of land and by filing over 20 lawsuits about roads. That is not a way to invite discussion. People’s favorite places and their businesses are threatened, and that triggers a reaction to seek protection”.
A Herbert spokeswoman said the governor’s office was not contacted by anyone seeking the national monument designation and would oppose its creation by the president.
“We certainly hope we don’t have another Bill Clinton approach to creating a monument,” Ally Isom said. “Canyonlands was established by statute and any expansion ought to be rightly created by statute as well.”
Leaders of the group that crafted the letter to the president said in a conference call Tuesday that they don’t plan on massive changes should Greater Canyonlands National Monument become a reality.
“Most [changes] would have to do with resource extraction,” Korenblat said. “The way the leasing system now works for oil and gas is that there are no specifics of where a drill pad and a road will go. Specifics are important. How do we make sure the recreation economy can continue and don’t kill the golden goose laying the golden eggs?”
Bruce Adams, chairman of the San Juan County Commission, was not familiar with the monument proposal, but said he doesn’t see the need.
“I’m surprised. I didn’t know there was this terrible problem,” he said. “We work closely with the Bureau of Land Management to keep ATV [all-terrain vehicle] people from going pell-mell across the land. There have been no extraction leases offered in that area for tens of years. Why do we need another layer of public land control for the residents of San Juan County?”
The OIA, international, national and local businesses that signed the letter to the newly re-elected president maintain now is a good time to pursue the designation with the Obama administration.
“This is not a sprint; probably more like an ultra-marathon,” said Utah’s Black Diamond Equipment President Peter Metcalf, one of the letter’s signers. “For the next four years we feel we have an administration open to this idea.”
He likened the issue to urban zoning that determines land adjacent to a residential community is incompatible with an oil refinery.
“It is incompatible to build bars or porn shops near a school or build a Wal-Martcq near the temple,” he said. “It doesn’t mean we are against those things, it just means there is a place for all those things. I am not against the extractive industries. We all use the results.”
Other signers of the OIA letter include Backcountry.com, Petzl, Rim Tours, Moab Cliffs and Canyons and Canyon Voyages Adventure Co. More than 40 Utah companies are on the list.
Studies by the Outdoor Industry Association — which holds annual winter and summer market outdoor retailer conventions in Salt Lake City bringing in $42.5 million to the local economy — show the outdoor industry generated $646 billion in national sales and services in 2011 and provided 6.1 million jobs.
A 2006 report from the Outdoor Industry Foundation showed that the outdoor recreation industry contributes $5.8 billion to Utah’s economy and supports 65,000 jobs in the state. Additionally, nearly $300 million in annual sales tax revenues are collected from the industry and $4 billion is produced annually in retail sales and services.
The idea of protecting the Greater Canyonlands area — which includes parts of San Juan, Grand, Wayne and Garfield counties — is not new. In fact, the area was considered for protection during National Park Service surveys in the 1930s. Proposals to incorporate the Greater Canyonlands into National Park Service management have come and gone through the years.
The most recent came in March 2011, when conservation groups — including the Southern Utah Wilderness Association, Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association, Great Old Broads for Wilderness and the Natural Resources Defense Council — sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar requesting protection from “rampant off-road-vehicle abuse, proposed uranium and tar sand mining, and oil and gas development.”

[Scott Card]

Where is the list of businesses?

[Dman]

Yeah I would love to see the list of people I will never purchase from again.

[Sandstone Addiction]

List of businesses:

Outdoor Industry Association--Boulder, CO--Frank Hugelmeyer
Black Diamond Equipment--Salt Lake City, UT--Peter Metcalf
Backcountry.com--Park City, UT--Jill Layfield
Eastern Mountain Sports--Peterborough, NH--Will Manzer
Petzl--Clearfield, UT--Roody Rasmussen
Western Spirit Cycling--Moab, UT--Ashley Korenblat
Patagonia--Ventura, CA--Casey Sheahan
PROBAR LLC--Salt Lake City, UT--Jules Lambert
Gregory Mountain Products--Salt Lake City, UT--Billy Kulczycki
Mountain Hardwear--Richmond, CA--Topher Gaylord
Canyon Voyages Adventure-Company--Moab, UT--Don and Denise Oblak
Rim Tours--Moab, UT--Kirstin Peterson
Teva--Goleta, CA--Joel Heath
Moki Mac--Green River, UT--Bob Quist
Moab Cliffs and Canyons--Moab, UT--Brett Sutteer
Jansport--Morland, KS--Skip Yowell
Lost River Clothing—Company--Moab, UT--Dave Knowles
Skinny Tire Events ----Road Cycling in Moab--Moab, UT--Beth Logan
Red Wing Shoes--Red Wing, MN--Bill Sweasy
Canyonlands Field Institute--Moab, UT--Karla VanderZanden
Miguel’s Baja Grill--Moab, UT--Dave Bodner
Camelbak--Petaluma, CA--Sally McCoy
Magpie Adventures--Moab, UT--Maggie Wilson
Ekletica [B]Caf

[chromehead58]

Save it before the state buys it....you act as though that will save it. Bishop says this is a poster child for getting the federal government out of the lands in Utah...I could not agree with him more, only to me it is why we need them. The state is trying to do a large land grab and these lands are part of the land grab. Now before you go and think that is a good idea, Go try and fish Ogden Canyon now and see how state control effects areas. As for a longer hike to the canyons, right on, less people...as for me and my family we will use the above list as a guide of who to purchase out outdoor goods from...
But what do I know...I am just a average Joe that does not know shit about shit...

[oldno7]

Yep--I will boycott these business' including Imlay Canyon Gear!!!

Wear out the old stuff and replace with other vendors.............

[Scott Card]

I guess for me (and I will tone down my opinion substantually) I have little belief that the federal government can do anything better than the state government. BTW, I sure like the non US business on the list. Glad they have an opinion on our land. :roll:

[Sandstone Addiction]

I don't really see why we need to change anything...

I don't mind seeing a few oil wells near Island in the Sky...in fact, my kids think they are cool. I'm sure that when they are finished pumping, the area will be restored.

Mining was another reason for all this, again minimal impact. Is there any mining in this region besides the Potash Plant near Moab? After all, we can thank the miners for the history and many of roads we have come to love and appreciate.

As far as OHV's go...it's too bad a very small percentage of people ruin it for the rest of us. I teach my boys and others we ride with to stay on the trail and minimize the impact. I don't think I'm the only one teaching this as there less and less off trail riding every year. Take Devil's Racetrack for instance, you can see the scars from riding on the hills, but they are slowly fading and it won't be long until they will be unrecognizable. Education is the key, but it will take some time.

IMHO, of course.

[Scott P]

Take Devil's Racetrack for instance, you can see the scars from riding on the hills, but they are slowly fading and it won't be long until they will be unrecognizable.

When we started hiking it a few decades ago, Devils Racetrack was barely a visible cowtrail. Someone else posted that decades ago (1940's) someone drove a bulldozer along it and a farm tractor has apparently been down it, but in the 1980's and even early 1990's it was pretty much a faded cow trail.

Devils Racetrack aside, many of the OHV trails were simply created by driving off trail in the first place. I used to have a thread pointing out several of them (complete with maps and photographs), but can't find it anymore. Here is a similar one though:

http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?31295-New-Tracks-amp-Closed-Routes

[Iceaxe]

After all, we can thank the miners for the history and many of roads we have come to love and appreciate.

I wake up every morning and look out my window at the most beautiful mountain in Utah....

61177

And anyone that doesn't understand this is either from out-of-state or completely clueless as to the economic benefits mining has on the state of Utah.

:cool2:

[oldno7]

I certainly appreciate and respect Tom's decision and maybe, obligation to back this debacle with his consumer based company,
Just as I suspect, he'll appreciate and respect a lot of us who now make an equally deep decision/obligation not to use his consumer based company.

There--that was easy now wasn't it................

[Scott P]

And anyone that doesn't understand this is either from out-of-state or completely clueless as to the economic benefits mining has on the state of Utah.

Shane, you are correct that mining is very important. To me both mining and wilderness are very important. Here's what I wrote several years ago:

I’ve seen the edges of many roadless areas already disappearing bit by bit and seldom is it by large scale damage or development. Usually, it’s a new track here and a new track there, but after a few years they really add up. We will always need roads and they are a good thing, but I think we also need the roadless areas as well.

Both are very important and I don't see any reason why both can't exist in Utah. It seems that many people hate all wilderness in Utah. Personally, I'd like to see some of the lands on the map become wilderness rather than a monument.


Just as I suspect, he'll appreciate and respect a lot of us who now make an equally deep decision/obligation not to use his consumer based company.

"A lot of us"? Whom does that refer to? Out of curiosity, how many others are planning on boycotting Imlay Canyon Gear because Tom likes the monument? (PS, I'm not against anyone's right to boycott any business; I was just curious).

[oldno7]

Shane, you are correct that mining is very important. To me both mining and wilderness are very important. Here's what I wrote several years ago:

I’ve seen the edges of many roadless areas already disappearing bit by bit and seldom is it by large scale damage or development. Usually, it’s a new track here and a new track there, but after a few years they really add up. We will always need roads and they are a good thing, but I think we also need the roadless areas as well.

Both are very important and I don't see any reason why both can't exist in Utah. It seems that many people hate all wilderness in Utah. Personally, I'd like to see some of the lands on the map become wilderness rather than a monument.



"A lot of us"? Whom does that refer to? Out of curiosity, how many others are planning on boycotting Imlay Canyon Gear because Tom likes the monument? (PS, I'm not against anyone's right to boycott any business; I was just curious).

Why that would refer to "A Lot of Canyoneers" who's politics don't align with Tom's.

I canyoneer with many of these.

You see--Tom gets to vote with his company; The rest of us get to vote with our $$$$ towards that company.

There will certainly be some gains as well as some losses.

Tit for Tat:ne_nau: Doesn't matter, I voted.............

[Dman]

I flat out won't support this kind of action by helping these people stay in business. I own my own business and realize that the choices I make professionally and socially have an effect on the way my customers view my moral standards so I can respect that they feel they are doing the right thing. I whole heartedly disagree with Federal involvement on issues with land that lies in the State that I reside and pay taxes, this should be governed at the State level period. I also think that any entity on the list that doesn't operate in this State, employ people and pay taxes here let alone those not in this Country have absolutely no say in the matter and should not be considered. I half way wonder knowing how the Sierra Club operates that if all of the companies on the list even are aware of their involvement.

[Scott P]

I whole heartedly disagree with Federal involvement on issues with land that lies in the State that I reside and pay taxes, this should be governed at the State level period.

I hope this isn't too off topic, but perhaps some are curious as to how the US citizens own so much Federal Land in the United States. I've heard a lot of incorrect theories out there, so I wrote an editorial/letter based on reference research in the library. If anyone is curious, here's an excerpt of what I wrote. Regardless of anyone's position on Monuments, Wilderness, or mining, perhaps some will find it interesting.


================================================== =========================

The roots of the Public Lands go back to the time of our founding fathers. Some of the most important early ordinances were the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (which was signed by George Washington). That is the root of it, but the creation of the BLM actually happened much later (Forest Service was earlier). Because the history between the late 1700’s and the creation of the BLM (which I assume is your primary concern since it is the primary public land holder in Moffat County) is long, I’ll start there, but you can read more on the zip drive and from other references.

I’ve heard people on forums, editorials and speaking in person assume that the reasons behind the BLM public lands were because of Johnston’s Army, polygamy, Roosevelt preservation (which several of the National Parks did come from), or now as you theorize, because of energy resources, etc., but here is the actual history of what happened. It is actually quite interesting when you study it; let me know if you want to borrow any of our books or a list of reference books available at various libraries and I will be happy to provide them.

Those lands weren’t taken away from the states, they were given to them by the states. In today’s terms, it would be coined as a bailout.

The BLM lands were created in 1946 after the Taylor Grazing Act and when the local, state and federal governments were trying to decide what to do with all the “unwanted lands” (which actually is the exact term used in historical documents). The Federal Government under the Truman Administration offered to turn the land to the states and the states refused.
The exact statement from three western governors, namely Hebert Maw (Utah), Sidney Osborn (Arizona), and Vail Pitmann (Nevada) was “We already have enough desert”. That is an exact quote.

The states wanted the Federal Government to take the land, because they considered them too big to manage for what they considered needed government services (firefighting, road building, range improvement, etc.). It was then (under under the wishes of the Western States) that the Department of the Interior and the BLM were created.


The above is the straight History, which isn't disputed (as far as I know). The below is just my opinion, so stop here if you don't want to read an opinion.

My view:

Those lands were and are supported by all taxpayers, including those living in every state far away from those lands. The states were “bailed out” with Federal money to provide all those “services” with taxpayer money, so it is really fair to expect nothing in return? Should the states or whoever you say is the sole owner really receive those lands for free when the American taxpayers are the ones that have been paying for them for many decades under the own request of the states themselves? Is this really capitalism? To me it’s sort of like GM and Chrysler (of which bailouts I was strongly against, by the way) demanding that we turn back the companies, all their assets, etc. back to them with no payment back on the loans.

More land might be sold to private individual, but personally, I have no problem with protecting pieces of those lands for future generations, while providing other uses as well (such as energy development). A reasonable amount of wilderness land is then most fiscally responsible way to assure places with clean air, clean water, education, wildlife study etc.

[stefan]

BTW, I sure like the non US business on the list. Glad they have an opinion on our land. :roll:

yeah, it's not like there are many european visiting utah and supporting the tourism economy in utah.

one thing europeans i've talked to are impressed with in southern utah is the lack of development and manipulation of the land. i think some 'round the western US take that for granted.

[Sombeech]

yeah, it's not like there are many european visiting utah and supporting the tourism economy in utah.


So let's ignore the voices of the locals because of the Europeans that will visit once in their lifetime.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Bluff-Canyoneer]

Here in Bluff, the Europeans are an important source of revenue for the local businesses.

Last time I was at the Grand Canyon, there seemed to be more people speaking French and German than English.

Many Americans are too fat and lazy to get out. They want to watch it on TV.

[IntrepidXJ]

Devils Racetrack aside, many of the OHV trails were simply created by driving off trail in the first place.


Which was allowed at the time.

[Bluff-Canyoneer]

I also think that any entity on the list that doesn't ... pay taxes here ... have absolutely no say in the matter and should not be considered.

I could not agree more. Since you neither live in, nor pay taxes in, any of the affected counties, you should have no say in this issue.

You "foreigners" from SLC and St. George should butt out. This is a "counties" rights issue, not a "states" rights issue. If you don't live and pay taxes within the proposed monument counties, shut up! We don't like your type around here.

[Iceaxe]

Just be careful of what you wish for....

With a national monument comes a lot of other problems like permits, quota's, stricter regulations.... as a recreationalist just make sure you are not swapping one set of problems for a set that is worse. From a canyoneering viewpoint I think we lose more than we gain.


Sent using Tapatalk

[Dman]

[QUOTE=Dman;517674] I also think that any entity on the list that doesn't ... pay taxes here ... have absolutely no say in the matter and should not be considered. /QUOTE]

I could not agree more. Since you neither live in, nor pay taxes in, any of the affected counties, you should have no say in this issue.

You "foreigners" from SLC and St. George should butt out. This is a "counties" rights issue, not a "states" rights issue. If you don't live and pay taxes within the proposed monument counties, shut up! We don't like your type around here.

That seemed rather personal. Panties bunched up much?

I never said I wouldn't welcome anyone to our state to enjoy it, I just don't think we need the Federal Government telling us how to manage it.

Bluff, your welcome to come to St George anytime and I will welcome you with open arms and a like minded appreciation of the outdoors I don't see you as a foreigner but as a fellow Utahn from another side of my home state. I think everyone should get to enjoy the land in a responsible manner weather it be by foot, horse back, jeep, atv, or any other manner that allows you to visit the wonderful place we call home. Go for a walk bud, you'll feel better.

[stefan]

I just don't think we need the Federal Government telling us how to manage it.


the large majority of that land is currently managed by the federal gov't

[Bluff-Canyoneer]

I was trying (it seems I failed) to use humor and sarcasm to show why the "if you don't pay taxes here, your opinion doesn't count" and state's right argument (Dman's) is weak. It is, after all, federal land, not state land. It is the property of all American's, not just those living in Utah.

We all love and want the best for Utah, otherwise we'd go elsewhere. The "foreigner" nonsense came from Sombeech's line about local voices being more important that foreigner's (they are, in my opinion). However, a place like Bluff can't ignore the desires of one of its most important revenue sources. They are business people, not fanatics.

The truth be told, I don't really support the Monument designation for such a large area. There are a few spots I'd like to see better protected, but there may be better approaches. I think many of us need better info to make informed choices.

My wife is a card carrying member of SUWA and the Old Broad's environmental network, I'm not. We don't agree on everything, but I don't assume that her voice doesn't count. I'm willing to have (sometimes heated) discussions, and occasionally accept the fact that I'm wrong. That's the problem with extreme views on either side, they're never wrong, it always the other person.

I actually enjoy driving around the back roads in my truck and riding my mountain bike, neither of which might happen with the Monument designation. However, I'm willing to give up some of what I like to better preserve for future generations. It's a balance. Finding the right point will take time and thoughtful discussion by all parties.

Final note: of course SUWA is going to ask for more than they expect to get in the end. That's how politics works. The Tea Party tried the "no compromise" approach, and you see where that got them in the election. If SUWA isn't careful, they'll get the same.

[Iceaxe]

If SUWA isn't careful, they'll get the same.

From where I'm sitting it's already too late for SUWA....... they are so hated in Utah that anything they support will be rejected by a large number Utah residents just because SUWA supports it. SUWA has just burned too many bridges...

[reverse_dyno]

All the SUWA needs to do is buy time. Utah will go the way Colorado has gone. Liberals will come into the Salt Lake Valley and in a a few decades we will outnumber the local Republicans. It has already happened in many areas of Salt Lake City. Ebay is expanding, Adobe has a new facility, etc.

It is only a matter of time. The only way the local Republicans can prevent this is by destroying Utah's wilderness. Utah's wilderness is the primary reason why Liberals, and Liberal Hi-tech businesses are moving to Utah.

Don't believe me? Take a look at a few want adds for high paying egghead positions. Skiing and hiking are always mentioned.

The times are a changing. :naughty:

[Iceaxe]

All the SUWA needs to do is buy time.

The human race will be extinct from global warming long before that happens....

[clikrf8]

I am not a Utahn but love your state. I am a 5th generation Puget Sounder with web feet and moss for hair mixed with seaweed. I enjoy traveling around Utah because it is SO different from my corner of the world. The only connection is that my late father-in-law was born in SLC of Mormon parents in 1919.

You have the most incredible geology in the world that my camera loves. We just returned from 3 weeks driving from where I70 enters from CO to where I15 exits into AZ/NV. Yes, we hit the national parks, especially Zion at peak color. Yes, we bought fuel, food, overnighted at campgrounds, dropped some extra money in some BLM places we stayed. But, we also went on backroads around Moab, Goblin Valley, San Rafael Swell and GSENM. As much as I love our national parks, we probably won't return to them. Overcrowded with the most rude bucket-listers, folks who want to do the Grand Circle Tour in 5 days????, point and shooters who stop mid-road, doors flying open for a photo op into overblown highlights/dense blacks that even PS couldn't rescue. However, they have just as much right as I do to be there so we forgive them and find less crowded spots.

I find the Greater Canyonlands proposal to be an interesting one that has both sides in hot contention. We have a 6 acre farm near private forestry zoned land that is currently for sale (3k acres for $10 mil if I remember) that has been partially harvested. It is currently in open space with a carried over agreement from the prior owner to allow public access. Local mountain bikers have carved a maze of trails that attract bikers especially from Seattle. It is also a part of 2 watersheds that empty into a large lake on one side and salt water on the other. And, it is habitat for bear, cougar, raptors, etc. Several creeks run through it, including one through our backyard. It has many uses. Sometimes, I wish some Microsoftie or Amazon bazillionaire would buy it and leave it as is. Other times, I wish a public entity would buy it as a park, also keeping the status quo. There is a 24/7 Fire/rescue department about a mile away and there are well marked pick up points for injured bikers/hikers/loggers. What i am really afraid of is a buyer who will lock it up, appeal to our county to rezone into 5 acre megamansions for weekenders shutting it down for everyone, plus adding traffic and more infrastructure costs to eat up tax dollars. What I like is the multi use aspect of recreation/habitat/watershed protection/sustainable logging. I would like to see this for the Greater Canyonlands area where there is something for everybody. The permit thing is an obstacle but couldn't there be like a register at trailheads or personal responsibility for notification so people will know if someone is overdue?

National monument status for Greater Canyonlands would establish certain parameters to govern the uses with its boundaries. I would like to see something like what the BLM does for GSENM rather than the USPS in the Colorado National Monument. As a photographer, I really can't like the scars that ORVs make and I really think that open pit mines and oil rigs are ugly (and I worked for years in a local refinery). I am not happy that Goldman Sachs and Warren Buffet want to build a BIG coal port near my favorite beach to export millions of tons of coal to China so they can send us back cheap trinkets (piss poor trade off that I can't do much about) and use football sized ships to haul it in containing bunker fuel that if there were an accident would ruin forever the San Juan Islands. Not much we can do against the titans of finance and government subsidized resource extraction interests.

Just throwing out random sometimes incoherent ramblings from someone from another neighborhood. I guess what I am trying to say is that some things need protecting from overuse and greed. This may be one of them. Or, maybe I am an outsider but I do pay federal income taxes so I do have a say. Thanks for listening. I may reread this later and go, omg what was I trying to say? I am a right-brainer so please excuse. Btw, I enjoy reading your trip reports and enjoy the photography especially from IntrepidXJ or similar.

[Scott Card]

Interesting thing is that no one is saying the good stuff shouldn't be protected and preserved are we/they? The issue is the Federal Government vs. State Government and who should own and control the use of the land. To be over-the-top but not too far off base, SUWA and apparently the Sierra Club believe that Utah will just open up the land and it will all be drilled, plowed, grazed, mined, ground up and spit out and all the arches will have swing sets dangling from them. Those are the scare tactics. Those are the essense of the local advertising. Welll.....Ahhh no. We canyoneers, at least many of us believe that if the Feds tighten control, access will be tightened which means red tape and restrictions. I can't believe that anyone appreciates this state more than me. I, like many on this site, have been all over this state. We really don't need to go elsewhere because we have so much here (even though I have been to several countries and states). And so sir Clikrf8, for those of us who are quite tired of the federal red tape and access issues in our own back yard, I say don't sip too much of the SUWA and Sierra Club Kool Aid.

[Scott Card]

BTW, what is the stand of the American Canyoneers on this issue? They are all about access aren't they?

[Iceaxe]

Interesting thing is that no one is saying the good stuff shouldn't be protected and preserved are we/they? The issue is the Federal Government vs. State Government and who should own and control the use of the land.

What Scott said....

Those who have been to this rodeo before know the Feds are great at attracting the windshield tourists with deep pockets and a tick list. They have a habit of making you stand in long lines to get a permit to park your RV in the paved campground before you stand in anther long line to get a permit to hike the trail you desire.... all the while building million dollar visitor centers to pedal cheap "ZIONS" t-shirts from.

[Iceaxe]

BTW, what is the stand of the American Canyoneers on this issue? They are all about access aren't they?

This should be good. :nod:

With the wrong answer AC could lose half their membership and all future support in one swipe. This is the type of question the ACA always fumbled.

:popcorn:

[oldno7]

This should be good. :nod:

With the wrong answer AC could lose half their membership and all future support in one swipe. This is the type of question the ACA always fumbled.

:popcorn:

Yep--will be quite interesting to see their position.

[oldno7]

Heres the Mission, posted on the front page of the website:

MISSION

"American Canyoneers will promote and preserve access to public and private lands by building on a foundation of ACES: Access through Conservation, Education and Safety."

The direction they take on this will likely define the organization along with it's intent.

[clikrf8]

I'm a m'am so no sir to sir. I don't like too much federal, state or county control, thank-you. I want to explore the outdoors without too much red tape. Already, because of too much publicity, you have to have permits for Coyote Buttes on a lottery basis. While I don't want to see special places overrun, otoh, I don't like limits. because Coyote Buttes (the Wave) is so fragile, I understand the reasoning. I think if the people who love the wild or not not so wild places take good care of it, they should last for our kids and generations to come. Pack it in, pack it out. Not everyone will be able to access the wilderness and that is a good thing. IE, I could never do canyoneering but sure as hell respect those that do and think they should be able to go as far as their abilities allow. I just want a few protections so we don't get the places mucked up from overuse and vandalism.

[Iceaxe]

I just want a few protections so we don't get the places mucked up from overuse and vandalism.

It would be nice if they would just enforced the rules they already have in place. That would cure 99% of the problem.

And thanks for posting on Bogley. :2thumbs:

[Dman]

Thanks Scott for saying what I was not so eloquent to say. You spoke it as I see it.

[Scott P]

Interesting thing is that no one is saying the good stuff shouldn't be protected and preserved are we/they?

Actually, many people are saying that. It's not limited to Utah either. Even in Colorado (overall one of the more pro-wilderness states in the Rockies), the county commissioners in the county I live in are saying exactly that.

[stefan]

Interesting thing is that no one is saying the good stuff shouldn't be protected and preserved are we/they?


actually, scott, i wouldn't make such a statement so casually.

i'm not sure what you think is the "good stuff" but it sounds like setting the bar pretty low on protecting the great landscapes of utah, and, of course, the word "protect" can mean different things to different people.

the most recent final proposals for the BLM resource management plans in southern utah, both in general and specifically for the area we're talking about, made it clear that only a small percentage of land that the BLM recognized as having wilderness characteristics (and not currently being protected) would actually be managed to preserve those wilderness characteristics. this reveals that the BLM wasn't strongly interested in protecting all of these lands and their management plans do allow for varying degrees of potential development on or nearby these lands.



The issue is the Federal Government vs. State Government and who should own and control the use of the land.


some might cast that as the issue, but underlying it is the assumption that the state will have the opportunity to acquire the land. since it's predominantly federal land the "issue" seems to be more how specifically it will be managed by the federal government and how much input the state of utah has in the matter.

[stefan]

Actually, many people are saying that. It's not limited to Utah either. Even in Colorado (overall one of the more pro-wilderness states in the Rockies), the county commissioners in the county I live in are saying exactly that.

indeed. many utah politicians make this rather clear

[Sandstone Addiction]

I must take a moment to thank all those who have shared, and continue to share, their opinions and insight in a very civil and polite manner. As stefan noted, this should've been moved down below, but I'm glad it has remained in General Discussion because this is a vital issue to all those of us who love the Colorado Plateau.

Now, if only our elected officials had their own version of Bogley. :haha:

[IntrepidXJ]

It would be nice if they would just enforced the rules they already have in place. That would cure 99% of the problem.


Completely agree with this. I don't want to see Utah in control of these lands, but I also don't want to see it become a National Monument where I have to go get a permit if I want to camp there (even if it's free). I like to just head out and explore and camp where I end up for the night....usually on BLM or NFS land.

[Scott Card]

I'm a m'am so no sir to sir. :facepalm1::oops: My apologies M'am Clikrf8. We have so few women on this sight that I gambled..... and lost. That, m'am, is the reason I do not frequent Vegas.

Welcome and thanks for adding to the conversation.

[clikrf8]

Scott, you couldn't have known so no apologies necessary. I have always tinkered in non-traditional work (oil refinery/commercial fishing) so have been around guys alot, sometimes too much. I am also a landscape/music photographer which is dominated by men. We usually talk gear and/or locations/concerts so it is gender neutral. I have never had any issues with the guys as we are all passionate about what we do. Lots of camaraderie up front at concerts where we are all trying to do our best for whoever we are shooting for.

One of my favorite moments as a landscape photographer was in the San Rafael Swell on the road to Factory Butte before dawn. It was so quiet, the quietest place I have ever been. Then just before sunrise, the storm clouds over the larger mesa lit up in dramatic pinks. Amazing. It was the closest to a spiritual experience I have had. Other than having Joe Elliot of Def Leppard looking right into my lens. Lol.

Anyway, hope to return next April to the Bluff/Blanding area and further south, maybe Vermillion Cliffs, see if I can snag a permit for the Wave.

Thank-you for sharing your tips and trips. It's always the locals who know their backyards the best.