What Happened?

[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.

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.

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?



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

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 . 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....

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.
Note: I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Just trying to point out where some of the perceptions/concerns might have started.

[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....

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.
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?