What Happened?

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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...ghlight=#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.