Tony Grove

[sBowers]

This is worth a read. It explains the polarity of land use issues. I just wish people would negotiate in good faith.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_4812095

[scoutabout]

Way to go BH!

[Scott P]

Brian Hawthorne is hardly a trustworthy person or source when it comes to land issues, and I'm not just saying that because I disagree with him. He is a very dishonest person.

[scoutabout]

Brian Hawthorne is hardly a trustworthy person or source when it comes to land issues, and I'm not just saying that because I disagree with him. He is a very dishonest person.

You can't make a statement like that without some kind of backup. Let's hear it. Otherwise, retract.

[Scott P]

You can't make a statement like that without some kind of backup. Let's hear it. Otherwise, retract.

Be happy to back it up. I've even heard him speak in person.

The below is not an opinion, but a fact. One thing Brian Hawthore prepetuates the LIE (not difference in opinion, but I lie) in his speaches as pointd out below. You are welcome to read it since it was before you joined. Such statements made by Brian Hawthorne aren't a difference in opinion, but plain dishonest. Make sure to read the link below.

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php...ilderness+lock

Several Brian hawthorne articles have said things to the same effect. I'll point out a few:

http://www.wildwilderness.org/news/r...f-with-me.html

Direct cut and paste from Brian's own words:

And the last thing they want is for Americans to actually view and enjoy these lands.

Bold face lie. Most Wilderness advocates want a portion of land to be closed to vehicles, not to people. Most people can visit the wilderness if they choose to.

Other mythes, lies (not differences in opinion), etc perpetuated by Brian Hawthorne and other BRC article writers are outlined below:

http://www.summitpost.org/article/18...-Everyone.html

Every single myth, printed in bold in my article above came from a BRC article (or more than one). Every one. They are not mere differences in opinion, but many are bold face lies. I don't take issue with valid views and differences, but not dishonest ones.

I do believe everyone has a titlement to their own opinion, but you should always be honest. I also believe that some people on the "other side" are probably not honest either. Clinton was an environmentalist, but a liar as well, so I do not trust him despite agreeing with some of his policies. No matter which side or opinion you are on though, it isn't right to be dishonest or lie. Express your opinion, but tell the truth. That is why I made the comment that Brian Hawthorne is not trustworthy. These are just a few examples I pulled of in a few seconds. If you wanted more, I can show you.

[RedMan]

Scott,

Are you saying that because you don't like/trust him, that the article in question in this post is somehow suspect? This post was not about Brians credibility.

I read the article, it was fairly straight forward.

What did you think of the article posted?

[Scott P]

Are you saying that because you don't like/trust him, that the article in question in this post is somehow suspect? This post was not about Brians credibility.

Change don't like/trust to just trust because whether or not I like someone doesn't mean they are honest or dishonest.

I read the article, it was fairly straight forward.

What did you think of the article posted?

Because I don't trust Brian, I don't know if what he says in the article is true or not. It may be true, but I can't say so because he has lied in the past.

In this case, how do I know that for example the following is true:

They challenged the agreement for not having enough analysis or public input, even though they were full participants

It may be 100% true, but I can't trust it since he has lied in the past. Same goes for those on the other side. If Bill Clinton came here and rattled a lot of facts off about wilderness designation. I would not trust him either because he had lied in the past. It all comes down to credibility. As I said, no matter which side you are on, always tell the truth. Just because I find someone I agree with politically does not mean they are an honest person, and the cice versa applies.

[scoutabout]

The below is not an opinion, but a fact. One thing Brian Hawthore prepetuates the LIE (not difference in opinion, but I lie) in his speaches as pointd out below. You are welcome to read it since it was before you joined. Such statements made by Brian Hawthorne aren't a difference in opinion, but plain dishonest. Make sure to read the link below.

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php...ilderness+lock

This is what you're referring to I assume:

"The very old, the very young and anyone else who was not fit enough for a grueling two-day backpacking trip just had one of America's National Treasures stolen from them. Locked away, forever reserved for the exclusive use of those the extreme environmentalists deem 'worthy' to view and enjoy America's backcountry. "

Add "Most of" to the beginning of that sentence and it becomes absolutely true. As it is written, it is mostly true or a generalization. Certainly not a lie or dishonest as you have stated.

Other mythes, lies (not differences in opinion), etc perpetuated by Brian Hawthorne and other BRC article writers are outlined below:

http://www.summitpost.org/article/18...-Everyone.html

Every single myth, printed in bold in my article above came from a BRC article (or more than one). Every one. They are not mere differences in opinion, but many are bold face lies. I don't take issue with valid views and differences, but not dishonest ones.

There aren't any BH quotes in there, only generalizations about what someone thinks the pro-motorized access community thinks. Where do these "myths and lies" come from? Those certainly aren't the position of any pro-motorized access groups I'm affiliated with (U4WDA, UFWDA, BRC, USA-ALL). Everything sounds great. Would you be open minded about seeing a similarly themed article written from the opposite perspective?

Let's parse Heidi Macintosh's words, and see how she stands on the truth detector. They are both paid to advocate for their side.

You said this in another post:

The motor crowd likes to complain when a road is closed, but they have no qualms making new ones.

That's not true. By your examples, this would be a lie. Are you a liar, or were you making a generalization while posting a comment on a web forum?

I pose the same question about this comment:

Once the road is opened to motorized travel it will drive everyone else out.

Again, a false statement. Change "will" to "could" and it becomes 100% true. It doesn't mean you are a liar. It means Motorized and foot access are not always mutually exclusive. Often? Yes. Always? No.

[Scott P]

"The very old, the very young and anyone else who was not fit enough for a grueling two-day backpacking trip just had one of America's National Treasures stolen from them. Locked away, forever reserved for the exclusive use of those the extreme environmentalists deem 'worthy' to view and enjoy America's backcountry. "

Add "Most of" to the beginning of that sentence and it becomes absolutely true. As it is written, it is mostly true or a generalization. Certainly not a lie or dishonest as you have stated.

We strongly disagree and in fact I will emphasize strongly. Double underline strongly. Most people get locked out because they choose to be. Also, the words mostly were not added, which implies all. I am 100% serious when I say two year olds could hike to Angel Arch and I

[sBowers]

The ethicacy of one person was not the issue I was posting about. Or maybe it is. I was attempting to illustrate how negotiations in good faith are hammered out and then ignored.

It seems to me that when issues like this are resolved, or at least compromised on it's not good enough. This was not a battle to open new areas up, the options presented were close it or figure out how to manage it better.

So they argue it out, then sue?

Why can't we agree to minimize the effects and still allow people to enjoy these areas how they want to. Not just close them.

[Scott P]

So they argue it out, then sue?

You do have a very good point there. It is too bad that "progress" on either side is all rooted in law suits. Often it's a waste of money. Too bad some groups (on either side) can't come up with a better way of accomplishing this.

[Rev. Coyote]

The BRC are whiners of the first order who wallow in victimhood. Hawthorne would do well to get his fat butt into some boots and hike the areas he claims to love.

[scoutabout]

The BRC are whiners of the first order who wallow in victimhood. Hawthorne would do well to get his fat butt into some boots and hike the areas he claims to love.

Haha! I can't believe you're calling BRC a bunch of whiners. I just saw you praise SUWA in another thread! This site makes me laugh.

[scoutabout]

[quote="Scott Patterson"]

[quote=Scott Patterson]
*Let's explore the meaning of the word

[Scott P]

[quote]*Let's explore the meaning of the word