How 4wheelers get a bad name!!!!

[tanya]

I was googling for something for CP and ran across this!

Samuraiman
Sand Pile




Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St George Utah
Posts: 261 Canan Mountain Area Coral Pink Sand Dunes Area

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey for anyone interesed in riding the BLM area around Coral pink Sand dunes on Canan Mountain. Not the dunes themselves, they are open and nice as ever. Be advised the BLM claims that it is a closed area even though Washington County and Kane County said it is an open county road. As it does pass through both counties. Any one in there will be cited a 300.00 dollar fine for being in a closed area. They are staking the area out mainly on the weekends. So take it as a warning or as a chance to open a can of worms to either prove it is open or closed. Definetly believe the USA-all will be getting involved as many of the local people( upstanding respected business owners etcc.. were cited) it will be a fight. So Heads UP

http://www.rockymountainextreme.com/...ad.php?t=11751



This is where they are talking about - Wilderness Study Area

http://www.zionnational-park.com/zio...n-mountain.htm

[Udink]

What makes you automatically jump to the conclusion that ATVers are bad? Couldn't this case just as well show how bad the BLM is? The legal case has been going on for two years and isn't yet resolved.

I don't have all the unbiased facts (most of the info on the 'net regarding this "closed" road comes from the Utah 4-Wheel Drive Association), so I'll reserve judgment for when the case is resolved in a court of law.

[tanya]

The ATV'ers out there ignore the No motor vehicle signs there and drive all over those gorgeous white domes! There are track marks up and down them. How is this uncertain! It's a wilderness study area!!!



Bo and I have seen the tracks, seen a huge line of jeeps out there, seen and heard ATV and picked up lots of their trash.. and yes it was from motor vehicles.. including their users manual.

[Sombeech]

I was googling for something for CP

Ummm, googling for "cp" may have a different meaning.

[GOCK]

Sounds to me like the BLM needs to be corrected again. This "Wilderness Study Area" is a JOKE. Limiting use for a certain type of activity while allowing others to do it is non-sense.
If someone wants seperation of activities then put up different trails. Wilderness study on a State Route is a bit overkill.

[RedMan]

Refusing to roll over when the BLM is wrong hardly makes anyone evil.

If the BLM shut off access to your favorite hiking canyon I would expect you to protest that and I would also expect you to not simply roll over because the BLM made a statement. In fact I would support you continuing to access that canyon until a final ruling is made.

This area is clearly in dispute, the BLM says no access, the state and local say Yes to access?

So is everyone suppose to capitulate to the BLM?

Hardly.

Rockymountainextreme.com is a 4x4 website, not an ATV website?
You seem to be going to great lengths to paint ATVers with this.

BTW you are dredging up a post from 2004. How do you suppose it is a valid argument for 2008? Seems way out of context to me.

[ATVUtah]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not see the word or even a hint of the word ATV mentioned in the quote posted. So I have to ask just how do you get off twisting a 4 year old posts on a Jeep forum into flaming ATVers for this?

It always amazes me how people can read one thing, then twist it into half truths and lies.

The website http://www.zionnational-park.com/zio...n-mountain.htm says the area is a quote "BLM designated wilderness area". #1 the BLM can NOT designate a "wilderness area", that takes an act of Congress. The area is a HIGHLY disputed BLM designated "wilderness STUDY area" which is a huge difference in designation. So until the dispute is settled in court through proper legal channels, what gives the BLM, you or anyone else the right to act as though it's a fact and set in stone the area is a "Wilderness Area"?

If they suddenly declared down town Salt Lake City a "wilderness study area"; would the entire population be expected to vacate until AFTER the dispute is settled? I don't think so. But we as citizens with a right to motorized access to our public lands are expected to simply bend over and take it when this happens to the trails and lands we love as much or more than you do and I will add on lands we already had motorized access to for decades. Which by the way, by definition is contrary to the definition of what is a "wilderness" in the law.

[Bo_Beck]

What makes you automatically jump to the conclusion that ATVers are bad? Couldn't this case just as well show how bad the BLM is? The legal case has been going on for two years and isn't yet resolved.

I don't have all the unbiased facts (most of the info on the 'net regarding this "closed" road comes from the Utah 4-Wheel Drive Association), so I'll reserve judgment for when the case is resolved in a court of law.

The way I see it seems to me plain and simple. It is a proposed wilderness area, and has been posted as a "non-motorized vehicle area"; Whether this is a true law or not is immaterial. If the BLM has posted the signs, then they need to be abided by until someone proves the signs unjust or illegal, (such as the individual is doing in court) and the premise that the BLM has the responsibility to preserve designated wilderness study until it can be declared Wilderness seems pretty logical. Salt Lake City? Ok so it would create a problem if the BLM declared it a WSA and everyone had to leave? Sure it would! Imagine if all the Law Enforcement were to leave SLC? Who would be screaming "Wolf"? Blatant disregard and destruction of the signage and warnings just gives the off-road community a black eye. Sure there are those that are responsible riders, but like any other user group there are the rebels that just make the gap between other user groups that much larger. How would you like it if many hikers, backpackers, and horseback riders all walked down the middle of your favorite track or road that you regularly zoomed down? Wouldn't you feel some resentment? Maybe it isn't a problem to you, but many folks go outdoors for a feeling of solitude, just as you seek areas to ride your ATV or drive your 4wd. I also drive a 4wd and enjoy it immensely, but also realize that when an area has been closed to 4wd (or hiking or climbing or horseback riding)...I will respect that until the courts or individuals deem one way or the other, and will not cross the line just because I feel it is my right. I have fought some battles in the past (and won and lost). I am sore about a local issue right now. I plan to get together with my coalition (and other user organizations), study what legs we have to stand upon, and then present our case to the proper management. I hope we win, but if we don't, then I'll abide by the ruling and try to find other avenues to approach it again.

That said...why not let 4wd's and ATV's go to The Wave. It's BLM.

[hank moon]

Refusing to roll over when the BLM is wrong hardly makes anyone evil.

except when it's SUWA?

[Bo_Beck]

The website http://www.zionnational-park.com/zio...n-mountain.htm says the area is a quote "BLM designated wilderness area". #1 the BLM can NOT designate a "wilderness area", that takes an act of Congress. The area is a HIGHLY disputed BLM designated "wilderness STUDY area" which is a huge difference in designation. So until the dispute is settled in court through proper legal channels, what gives the BLM, you or anyone else the right to act as though it's a fact and set in stone the area is a "Wilderness Area"?

It is a "designated" Wilderness Study Area, and managed by the Utah BLM agencies. Most of it is managed by the Kanab BLM office in Kane County and a small portion managed by St. George BLM in Washington County. It is certainly one of those pieces of land in contention and active with disputes from different user groups. Because it is designated WSA, the BLM has the legal authority and right and responsibility to restrict motorized access until in court it is proved that roads exist and should be legal right of way. I am not saying that the road on top is right or wrong. I am saying that the BLM offices state that roads shouldn't exist, and other authorities and users say that they should exist. Is the BLM right or wrong? I don't know? I do know that the BLM manages the land in dispute and has made their intentions clear and have posted "no motorized vehicles" and until their decision is turned over in court, it is the LAW!

[ExpUt]

Sorry to dig this one back up, but we need some FACTS here:

In the early 1900's a sawmill was built atop Canaan Mountain to harvest the Ponderosa Pine. A steel cable was hauled up to the site via a wagon and strung to the valley below to facilitate transporting the lumber. Today one can still find some of the rigging cable along with foundations and other remnants of the once active sawmill. Around 1925 the sawmill ceased operation and the road leading to the sawmill was left unused except for the occasional rancher or intrepid explorer. In the 1950's the road again saw widespread use, as mineral exploration, recreation and ranching ramped up in the area, the road was seeing thousands of visitors a year.

In 1973 the BLM moved forward with thier Wilderness area into the area, despite the fact a road would preclude it as qualifying as Wilderness per the Congress passed act. There was an immediate public outcry for the BLM to reconsider and potentiall cherry-stem the existing road into the Wilderness area. This didn't stop user from enjoying the road, in fact Washington County has always claimed the road a County right-of-way and used the recently vailidated RS2477 as a justification for their claim, the route still appears on their transportation maps.

Sometime in the late 90's early 2000's the BLM actually started enforcing the closure as they saw it while the county was under the impression that the road was still a legal right-of-way. There will be plenty more about this in the coming months, it was illegally closed, violating the entire premise and definition of Wilderness and WSA's.

It is a sticky situation no doubt. While I do not beleive any user group should be out breaking laws to "prove a point", it took a supposed law to be broken even for this case to be heard.

IMO this is what the entire Wilderness & WSA debate is all about, a few miles of roads here and there, toppled by mounds of politics. I am an avid 4x4 user, at the same time I not only beleive in Wilderness, I beleive Utah deserves more Wilderness. In fact I think that 95% of the AWRA is good Wilderness, its the 5% that neither side will agree on that will prevent all of it from happening. While most pro-motorized advocates "say" they have a problem with alot of the Wilderness, its more like a power struggle, hoping that both extremist sides will meet somewhere in the middle. I hope that can happen, at the same time I hope we don't lose a single inch of currently existing (legal) OHV routes.... the environment can't afford to.

How is it environmentally sane to corral a growing number of OHV users onto a dwindling amount of terrain? I truly beleive over-use and trail conflicts created by different usergroups (hikers, bikers, OHV, equestrian) is far more damaging to the environment than dispersed use on existing trails. Simple as that. Cherry-stem the existing roads into the Wilderness and lets get this stuff protected!

[stefan]

So is everyone suppose to capitulate to the BLM?

Hardly.

hmm ... so, when suwa is involved, you sing a different tune? subversion? i in that case you seemed to suggest that suwa should capitulate.