What Happened?

[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.

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

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

[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.