By Umph!
Feb 27, 2012
| What encompasses the "Greater Canyonlands" area? Also, what constitutes "off road vehicles?"
Access to most of the climbing areas in what I imagine is the Greater Canyonlands area does require travel on BLM roads/routes. Look into it before you send your letter or make your call. . . it will likely be a detriment to desert climbers in general.
When organizations lump "drilling" and "off road use" into the same category (detrimental and must be stopped) you can fairly see their agenda. If you want to close access to motorized travel. . . well, have fun on your (looong) walks I guess.
| 
FLAG |
By Andrew Gram
Administrator
From Salt Lake City, UT
Feb 27, 2012
| I'd be worried about how this would affect fixed anchors. The no fixed anchor rule in Canyonlands(not even bail slings) is completely ridiculous, and I would hate to see that extended to more of the desert. |
FLAG |
By Umph!
Feb 27, 2012
| And for river runners. . . the put-in and take-out points. |
FLAG |
By BackCountry
From West Point, UT
Feb 27, 2012
| I can help show the Greater Canyonlands area.
| Greater Canyonlands Area.
Submitted By: BackCountry on Feb 27, 2012
| |
FLAG |
By BackCountry
From West Point, UT
Feb 27, 2012
| The idea isn't to kill access to any already accessible roads or points of interest, but instead to fend off any new roads or mining operations.
Maintain the status quo vs. pillaging and plundering.
Think President Clinton's bold move on Grand Staircase Escalante. |
FLAG |
By Mike McMahon
From Vernal, Utah
Feb 27, 2012
| Coloradans may want another national monument, but it seems the people of Utah think a little differently: le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillenr/hcr017.pdf
Here are a few exerts:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, express their opposition to the presidential creation of any large area national monument, as an abuse and violation of the Antiquities Act's smallest-area-compatible mandate."
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature and the Governor express strong opposition to presidential or congressional action that would unnecessarily restrict and reduce public access to federal lands." |
FLAG |
By BackCountry
From West Point, UT
Feb 27, 2012
| You're right Mike, and therein lies the problem. Utah's governor and legislature would love, love, LOVE to take ownership of the BLM land in Utah, pass it down the highest bidder for pillaging, plundering and development... all in the name of short-term, and short-sighted, economic gains. There was a bill just passed in the Utah legislature that will waste millions of Utah tax payer dollars to fight the federal government over control of Utah's BLM land. Making matters worse, the majority of Utahns (Utards as many of us like to say) are from the same "flock" as the leaders and have been indoctrinated against free thought and dissension. Luckily for all of us the federal government controls Utah's BLM land has done a decent job of managing/protecting it.
So, as Dave Ensign claims, "Coloradans can help protect Greater Canyonlands." |
FLAG |
By camhead
From The Old Northwest
Feb 27, 2012
| Not a lot of time to respond to this, even though it's a topic I'm pretty passionate about. The article is fairly simplistic in its assumption that federal protection is an end-all for lands, and the attitude that a bunch of Colorado recreationalists will somehow cause isolated rural areas to thrive is patronizing at best.
Check this article for a more nuanced view of SoUTwilderness topics. Required reading for anyone interested in the region.
www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/oldzephyr/june-july2005/gtw.htm |
FLAG |
By BackCountry
From West Point, UT
Feb 27, 2012
| Great piece camhead. Thanks |
FLAG |
By Ben F
From Benfield, Kolorado
Feb 27, 2012
| "Think President Clinton's bold move on Grand Staircase Escalante."
That's not thinking. |
FLAG |
By BackCountry
From West Point, UT
Feb 27, 2012
| Thank you for that awesomely constructive insight Ben F. |
FLAG |
By Umph!
Feb 27, 2012
| BC Sortor wrote: The idea isn't to kill access to any already accessible roads or points of interest, but instead to fend off any new roads or mining operations. Maintain the status quo vs. pillaging and plundering.
This is just untrue. . . if it were to occur, many, many roads and trails would be completely shut down. That is (partly) the intention.
Why do you suppose there are access roads to some of your favorite climbing and camping sites way out in the desert? It's called mining and ranching. I'm thankful for these roads/routes, because I can't walk my gear and supplies twenty miles thru the desert heat (or cold).
OHV's aren't creating new roads or "pillaging and plundering" as you like to believe.
Granted, some of the trails were made by motorcycles (legit and otherwise), but many of those mc trails are now closed so that only hikers and/or bicycles can enjoy them.
Motorized use areas have been on the decline, and all without a "National Monument" or "Wilderness" designation.
The only new roads (I've seen) being created or paved out there are on national park/monument lands or by mega-rich developments (as noted in camheads addition), many (most?) of which are supportive of "environmental" movements and policies. BS.
With OHV roads (and trails), the BLM is already shutting down roads and access at a surprising rate throughout this region. Poor economical decisions, but reasonable environmental decisions. . . IF they take care of the damaged and abused land (which they won't and don't and haven't the funding for).
If you want to keep OHV use out (that includes you too) and stop drilling/mining, then support SUWA, and their petitions, et al.
If you'd like to take a more reasonable approach to certain issues that are concerning you, then address those independentkly.
Personally, I can't imagine why I'd want the Feds to become more involved, and do what they do best (in areas like this): charge a fee, pave roads, close access, build structures and play politics.
And, that is not a "Great" article, that is a shallow and bias article.
BS.
Edit: Thanks for providing the map, BC. |
FLAG |
By camhead
From The Old Northwest
Feb 28, 2012
| Umph! wrote: OHV's aren't creating new roads or "pillaging and plundering" as you like to believe.
Uhhh... maybe not as much around the Moab/Indian Creek area, which is where 90% of the Coloradguys here go, but you should check out the Factory Butte/Cane Wash area before making a statement like that.
The problem with the Canyon Country in particular is that, thanks to the Uranium Boom, there are a shitton of old jeep trails; basically everywhere that was possibly accessible to a prospector with a WWII surplus Willies, a pry-bar, and some dynamite has been accessed. There are several canyons in the area, ultra remote, where after hiking for 10 miles through slots and over falls, you'll round a corner to find the rusted carcass of a jeep or even a 1930s Ford Pickup.
This fact alone makes it difficult to designate Wilderness under the 1964 law, because there are plenty of areas that are beautiful, remote, and rugged, and probably even deserving of protection, that nonetheless have "roads" through them. I personally think that these areas need some sort of protection, even if they don't strictly meet the criteria for Wilderness.
Unfortunately, SUWA has gone to the other extreme, by proposing wilderness areas over the top of roads that are often graded gravel and 2wd accessible. County highway departments have confounded it as well, in some cases such as in Negro Bill Canyon, and the Burr Trail, by going in and grading deteriorating jeep tracks precisely so that Wilderness Areas cannot be designated.
It's a complicated and nuanced topic, and unfortunately the original linked article does the topic injustice by implying a simplistic view of wilderness and protection that is simply not accurate. |
FLAG |
By BackCountry
From West Point, UT
Feb 28, 2012
| Umph! wrote: if it were to occur, many, many roads and trails would be completely shut down. That is (partly) the intention. With OHV roads (and trails), the BLM is already shutting down roads and access at a surprising rate throughout this region.
With there being "many, many" please provide an example of just a few. As far as I know these old "roads" limit the land's wilderness characteristics and restrict its designation.
Umph! wrote: If you want to keep OHV use out (that includes you too) and stop drilling/mining, then support SUWA, and their petitions,
Thanks! I'll continue with my generous contributions to SUWA. |
FLAG |
By Umph!
Feb 28, 2012
| BC Sortor wrote: Thanks! I'll continue with my generous contributions to SUWA.
Obviously you need that to feel better. Have fun! |
FLAG |
By BackCountry
From West Point, UT
Feb 28, 2012
| Interesting how you chose to respond to that point and not the other. |
FLAG |
By Umph!
Feb 28, 2012
| camhead wrote: Uhhh... maybe not as much around the Moab/Indian Creek area, which is where 90% of the Coloradguys here go, but you should check out the Factory Butte/Cane Wash area before making a statement like that. .
Well, we were talking about the "Greater Canyonlands" area as depicted by BC's map. Factory Butte/Cane Wash are quite a bit west of this proposed site - so why even bring it up? Heck, may as well throw in some of the MC riding areas outside of St. George too; I'm sure there are several that bother you, simply due to their existence.
That said, this is also an area similar to the desolate clay/sand landscapes between north G. Junction and the Bookcliffs, which really haven't been used by anyone other than OHV's, and is completely detached from other, more aesthetic (tourist) sites.
All this said, I'm very happy with my statement. And, it's a fact that OHV access areas, trails, roads, etc have been declining (read: closed) in this Greater Canyonlands site, and in general all across the west.
I'm not going to argue with any of you. You'll believe what you want to, regardless of the evidence, and your actions will follow suit. Just know that there's more to your feel-good actions than a signature. . . . |
FLAG |
By Umph!
Feb 28, 2012
| BC Sortor wrote: Interesting how you chose to respond to that point and not the other.
Interesting indeed, BC. . . . The "other" didn't make any connective sense, so I couldn't hardly formulate a response.
You obviously aren't much of a thinker, what with your "Great" articles, lame attempts at deceit, and references to "bold" moves by Clinton during the peak of the 96 elections.
You are what's wrong with the system you'd like to support (SUWA, et al). |
FLAG |
By JLP
From The Internet
Feb 28, 2012
| Umph! wrote: You obviously aren't much of a thinker...
The article provided actual examples. You have provided none. |
FLAG |
By Umph!
Feb 28, 2012
| Here you go camhead:
The Cainville area I beleive you were ref to.
Edit: Don't worry, I'm sure they'll close this area down soon too.
. |
FLAG |
By Peter Stokes
From Them Thar Hills
Feb 28, 2012
| I didn't see much in the way of actual "facts" (policies for specific areas, cost estimates, etc.) in the linked article, but it looked like more of an editorial piece, which typically don't get into details as much. I realize the Factory Butte area isn't part of the proposal, but in general I think Camhead's assessment is a good one. I'll have to base my decision about the Greater Canyonlands proposal on more than what the editorial gave me, though... |
FLAG |
By Umph!
Feb 28, 2012
| Peter Stokes wrote: I didn't see much in the way of actual "facts" (policies for specific areas, cost estimates, etc.) in the linked article, but it looked like more of an editorial piece, which typically don't get into details as much. I realize the Factory Butte area isn't part of the proposal, but in general I think Camhead's assessment is a good one. I'll have to base my decision about the Greater Canyonlands proposal on more than what the editorial gave me, though...
I'd agree with you, in general.
Have a good Spring everyone - caio! |
FLAG |
By Ryko
Feb 28, 2012
| Mike McMahon wrote: Coloradans may want another national monument, but it seems the people of Utah think a little differently: le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillenr/hcr017.pdf Here are a few exerts: "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, express their opposition to the presidential creation of any large area national monument, as an abuse and violation of the Antiquities Act's smallest-area-compatible mandate." "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature and the Governor express strong opposition to presidential or congressional action that would unnecessarily restrict and reduce public access to federal lands."
Interesting background on the Antiquities Act and its inception with President Roosevelt can be found in Douglas Brinkley's The Quiet World: Saving Alaska's Wilderness Kingdom. A very interesting read. |
FLAG |
By BackCountry
From West Point, UT
Feb 28, 2012
| Umph! wrote: You'll believe what you want to, regardless of the evidence,
Whoa now! Throttle back there Evel! I would still like to see what you've shown evidence wise! To help you with the "connective sense," see your comment here:
Umph! wrote: if it were to occur, many, many roads and trails would be completely shut down. That is (partly) the intention.
...now please point us to something that legitimizes this comment. You obviously have some insight into the BLM's intentions, now's you chance to share it...
FYI Umph! - I "think" about this issue often and quite deeply. In fact, my mind isn't completely made up on this particular issue. If you'd take a second to reread the OP you'd notice that I was looking for dissenting point of views. IMO - I think you're having trouble keeping your emotions out of it.
Peter Stokes wrote: I'll have to base my decision about the Greater Canyonlands proposal on more than what the editorial gave me, though...
Me too Peter. Thanks for getting it.
|
FLAG |
|
RSS Feed
