PDA

View Full Version : new issues for moab


nuclearlemon
11-14-2012, 06:36 PM
a petition to make it a national monument
http://www.delalbright.com/Access/Canyonlands%20letter.pdf

remember this when you go to plunk money down for some new redwing shoes or a patagonia jacket...you're funding our opposition. anyone know a product equal to nikwax.

local companies supporting the anti access movement include
la sportiva - boulder
scarpa - boulder
gthi - boulder
stohlquist water ware - alamosa
veterans expeditions - boulder
american alpine club - golden
stoneware designs - louisville
the access fund - boulder
outdoor adventure film school - boulder
fishpond inc - denver
new belgium brewing - ft collins
neptune mountaineering - boulder
venture snowboards - silverton
open sky therapy - durango
verde pr and consulting - durango
kling mountain guides - durango
4 corners riversports - durango
mountain waters rafting and adventure - durango
deer hill expedition - mancos
pine needle mountaineering - durango
white water west - grand junction
loki outerwear - grand junction
ute mountaineer - aspen
aspen ski company - aspen
backbone media - carbondale
american recreation products - boulder
bergans usa - longmont
adventure bound river expeditions - grand junction

Caribou Sandstorm
11-14-2012, 08:51 PM
hmm..

My opinion is that this letter is self serving to the industries that supported the letter, as they would benefit from the closure.. "Well you can't get back there anymore, but we can take you back there.."

Peeling the onion back, Utah government is mostly Republican and while they would probably support drilling near the general area, they aren't about to drill oil within Glen Canyon or Canyonlands. There is a boat load of waist land out there though and I say drill it.

Anyway, I should do more research on the area that Utah wants to get back from the feds before I pass judgement but to me the letter is weak and extreme..

Inukshuk
11-14-2012, 10:25 PM
My opinion is that this letter is self serving to the industries that supported the letter, as they would benefit from the closure.. "Well you can't get back there anymore, but we can take you back there.."

Exactly. It gives them more marketing appeal, gets more press. Imagine you tell your buddies back east you went to a beautiful are near green River. Eh. But to a National Monument. Ohhhh.

Just more rules. Ugh.

sleeoffroad
11-15-2012, 08:13 AM
Great, supported by backpacking related companies and guide companies. Guess what, you can not dive here, but you can walk here if we take you. Also nice to point out how much money is in the market, but I wonder what money is in the 4x4 market and how many jobs the whole 4x4 market generates. Why built Jeeps at all and help those companies? We don't need no 4x4's.

euroford
11-15-2012, 09:17 AM
thanks for posting that. owners/board members of several of those companies are friends.

nakman
11-15-2012, 09:37 AM
Agreed on the money thing- seems logical the OHV's would make up a good portion of that, so silly to use that as your argument when your intent is to shut it down?

And just thinking out loud here, but if you could spot a few oil pumps on the way to the Doll House, would that really be so bad? I'm not even sure that area's worth drilling... just trying to come up with an extreme example.

DaveInDenver
11-15-2012, 10:36 AM
They are advocating for monument status, which is less restrictive than other designations as far as roads go (it's not automatically roadless). It's a power given to the president and is the only unilateral designation the president can invoke (and revoke FWIW) at will. It only specifically excludes mining, drilling, grazing and commercial development. Probably should acknowledge that the majority of recreational roads were put there for mining and lumber access, especially around Moab.

The hitch is that the designation can be given with stipulations, such as Clinton often did when he designation monuments that excluded motorized use. He did not exclude bicycles, which is why IMBA supported its use and made it tolerable to most of the outdoor industry (cycling and skiing are pretty major financial drivers). Congress can later make the designation permanent or reassign a new level, such as wilderness or National Park. It's also up to Congress to ultimately direct funding and management.

Might be wise to figure out how to work with these companies to keep trails you think are important open. They are not going to advocate a shut down of access roads, you have laid out why dirt roads are necessary to their businesses. They certainly might push for motorized restrictions on jeep roads and unmaintained trails, though. There would be no change within the Canyonlands NP itself without Congressional action.

I suspect one reason the manufacturers don't help more is they are busy enough lobbying the government for favorable EPA, NHTA, DOT rules just to be allowed to make 4x4s at all. Also I bet it's a marketing issue, the last thing Toyota and Jeep want is to be seen as anti-environment and so they sell vehicles and let the consumers deal with what to do with them. In reality they could care less if anyone actually takes their trucks on dirt and would be happy to sell mall queens.

euroford
11-15-2012, 01:12 PM
Feedback from my Buddy Malcom Daly, he posted publicly on facebook in response.

I would like to ask, who in the 4x4 community could i put people like Malcom in touch with? He is very influential in the climbing industry and overall a super cool guy (also a toyota owner btw), if he could work with advocates in the 4x4 industry and i'm sure he'd be stoked about that.

his words below:
-------------

I was the guy who went around the trade show and sold this concept to many of the signees to this letter. The great thing about a National Monument through executive order is that it bypasses the national lawmaking process and brings the planning and implementation down to the state and local level.

Southeast Utah depends heavily on all kinds of recreational use for its economic vitality. A National Monument is the best way to protect the recreation economy of SE Utah. Look at the list of signers. Many of them are outfitters that depend on running offroad and 4WD tours for their living. They are just as concerned about losing their beloved lands as the climbers, mountain bikers, photographers and hikers are.

A National Monument designation is the least restrictive way protect these lands from further oil, gas, uranium, tar sands and potash development. We started from the premise that if these areas were degrades by mining, mineral exploration, air pollution, air particulates and noise, they will be removed from contributing to the economic vitality of SE Utah forever.

A GCNM would not lock up lands as "wilderness" but it could close off specific areas for wetlands protection, archeological resource protection or restoration.

A GCNM would not eliminate offroad vehicles, motorcycles and ATV use but it could designate areas where these uses are appropriate and don't interfere with high-priority resource protection. The current proposed map retains over 2,000 miles of 4WD roads and trails open to ORV use.

A GCNM would not eliminate fixed-anchor installation for climbers but it could designate areas where this is appropriate and which areas should remain "traditional".

A GCNM would not eliminate primitive backcountry camping but it could define areas where this is appropriate and where it is not.

A GCNM would not eliminate current mining and resource extraction claims or grazing permits.

All of these issues would be decided at the local and state level, allowing all of the stakeholders to have input.

Certainly an executive order to create a NM feels draconian. When Clinton pen-stroked the Grand Staircase-Escalante NM into existence the locals were outraged. Perhaps rightfully. But surveys of Utah residents made in 2010 (on the 20-year anniversary of the GCNM) come back with a huge majority in support of its existence. People are now moving into the area: St George had 30,000 residents in 1990, now it has over 80,000; and they didn't move there because it was located on the edge of a open-pit tar-sands operation. Salaries are up, employment is up and tourism is up in the towns around and in the GSENM.

Our efforts began with getting the local business community in the region to buy in to this concept and I think we were successful. Look at the list of signees. It includes many Utah-based businesses and tons of local outfitters and business. The process is on-going and it's coming from the inside: the business which are located in the affected area. The mining and oil companies are the outsiders here.

wesintl
11-15-2012, 01:38 PM
yea.. but you can't deny the sentence about failing to address exploding offroad use and implying it's damaging riparian area, cultural sites, soils and solitudes.

It his cause really is the above he should have left that sentence out.

Federal land use plans inappropriately open scenic and undeveloped land to drilling and mining and fail to address exploding off-road vehicle use that is damaging riparian areas, cultural sites, soils and solitude.

DaveInDenver
11-15-2012, 01:48 PM
People are now moving into the area: St George had 30,000 residents in 1990, now it has over 80,000; and they didn't move there because it was located on the edge of a open-pit tar-sands operation. Salaries are up, employment is up and tourism is up in the towns around and in the GSENM.
I thought the two biggest reason for growth were retirees and oil/gas booming. Climbers and cyclists are mostly dirt bags who pinch dimes until two nickels pop out, so I'm surprised they can say the things they with a straight face. I bet the bulk of the money called 'outdoor' comes from families taking vacations to Canyonlands, Bryce and Zion, which I'm not sure is totally legitimate since they might rent a Jeep to drive WRT. If it was just us Moab would be City Market, NAPA, the state liquor store and the breweries.

euroford
11-15-2012, 02:13 PM
Climbers and cyclists are mostly dirt bags who pinch dimes until two nickels pop out

i definitely wouldn't say that. especially not here in boulder.


but at any rate.... the people behind the above posted letter WANT the support of the 4x4 community, and would like to address the concerns of the 4x4 community, but they don't know how and need to be put in touch with the correct people. so who is that? what is the trail advocacy organization covering that area, and who is a good contact within that organization?

DaveInDenver
11-15-2012, 02:51 PM
i definitely wouldn't say that. especially not here in boulder.
LOL, maybe it's just me. :-)
but at any rate.... the people behind the above posted letter WANT the support of the 4x4 community, and would like to address the concerns of the 4x4 community, but they don't know how and need to be put in touch with the correct people. so who is that? what is the trail advocacy organization covering that area, and who is a good contact within that organization?
So take them at their word rather than go straight to attack & boycott. I would think Blue Ribbon Coalition or Utah Shared Access (USA-ALL) would be the points of contact? Maybe SEMA or the AMA should be involved, I dunno.

euroford
11-15-2012, 03:16 PM
so... does anybody personally know anybody at the blue ribbon coalition?

DaveInDenver
11-15-2012, 03:23 PM
http://www.sharetrails.org/about/contact

nuclearlemon
11-15-2012, 04:09 PM
i personally know greg mumm and del and stacie albright from blue ribbon coalition. also, justin lilly who has been involved with cohvco, tread lightly, and has jumped around doing a bunch of land use related work for the last decade or so. if you pm me an email for your friend, i will have them contact him

DaveInDenver
11-15-2012, 04:46 PM
One detail to note, using executive powers to create a monument can only happen on lands managed by the Federal government already. That's not to minimize that our western state governments want (IMHO who knows more than the people who live, work and play here what the right balance is) to control use of our land more locally, but unless a private owner or state sells the land to the Feds a president can only take USFS or BLM land and turn it into a monument. Only Congress can expand Federal lands beyond what they already have.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55262577-78/monument-canyonlands-national-outdoor.html.csp?page=1
"The outdoor industry can’t just sit back and hope the conservation community will take care of it all," said Ashley Korenblat, president of Western Spirit Cycling in Moab. "This really truly is about jobs. If we start taking away pieces of the world-class setting around Moab, it will impact our economy.

"People talk about, ‘How do we make money off of federal land?’ We are already doing that. We are making a living off of federal government holdings, but this whole thing is based on the assumption that the public lands are going to be worth visiting."

The OIA and letter signers cite numbers from the Western Governors’ Association showing that in Western states alone, outdoor recreation spending equals almost $256 billion annually and supports 2.3 million jobs. OIA recently released numbers showing that outdoor recreation generated $646 billion in national sales and services in 2011 and supported 6.1 million jobs.

A national monument is similar to a national park but can be established quickly by the president without congressional approval.

Clinton used that power to create the 1.9 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah in 1996. The creation of the monument caused outrage among many Utah politicians who argued they didn’t have a say in what happened inside their own state.

nakman
11-15-2012, 05:40 PM
EuroTim- the other guy to contact would be Kurt from Cruiseroutfit, either PM here or on his site, expeditionutah.com. I know he's had a lot of direct involvement with USA-ALL and probably knows the current active players.

Hey look, we're a four star club http://www.usaall.org/?supporters.htm

DaveInDenver
11-15-2012, 06:14 PM
Kurt is racing in Baja right now, so it might be a few days before you could get in touch with him.

euroford
11-15-2012, 07:11 PM
Awesome. thanks guys! I just lucked out knowing somebody who was involved in this, Mal and I debated back and forth about this and i think if the right peeps get in touch with the right peeps, the world will be a better place.

okay... now back to searching for some yota axles for my jeep... :p:

Inukshuk
11-15-2012, 11:31 PM
so... does anybody personally know anybody at the blue ribbon coalition?

Another good friend is on the board. I will share this thread with him

jonharis
11-15-2012, 11:57 PM
Hi guys-
As Daniel knows, I've been pretty busy on Facebook and in some other forums the last few hours trying to get the word out with the goal that people educate themselves on the facts and come to their own conclusions. I think one of the most effective things you can do is voice your opposition (or in fairness your support) to this proposal on manufacturers Facebook sites. it will send a clear message.

Here are some links.

The full text of the proposal can be found here. I tried uploading but it's too big.
http://action.suwa.org/site/DocServer/PetitionWithPhotos_FINAL.pdf?docID=11127

The FB page for the proponents is here.
https://www.facebook.com/GreaterCanyonlands

The FB page for the opponents is here.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Southeastern-Utah-Against-Greater-Canyonlands/403396616399117?fref=ts

IH8MUD discussion is here.
http://forum.ih8mud.com/chit-chat/652776-greater-canyonlands-letter-what-businesses-do-you-support.html AND http://forum.ih8mud.com/land-use/652368-another-massive-national-monument-pushed-utah.html

ExPo Discussion is here.
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/88267-Greater-Canyonlands-National-Monument

timmbuck2
11-16-2012, 11:51 AM
very interesting discussion on Facebook on Area BFE's page

Area Bfe TO Red Desert Adventure
Dear Sir and/or Madam,

I have just recently discovered that your business has signed on to a letter that was sent to President Obama to ask him to designate the Greater Canyonlands area a National Monument.

Let me voice my great disappointment with this fact. As an avid outdoor person, I have chosen to live in Utah because of it's diverse recreation opportunities, some of which involves motorized offroad vehicle use. By designating the Greater Canyonlands area as a National Monument, it would no doubt close this area off to responsible motorized use, and people that would not be able to enjoy the area by any other means would be denied access to the wonders and beauty within the area.

Please understand that I truly respect your position on this matter, but I just wanted to inform you of my position. Additionally, as a corporation in Utah, we cannot, in good conscience, support a business that would knowingly exclude people such as my elderly parents or people with special needs from enjoying what this great land has to offer. In the future, I will look to support businesses and organizations that openly promote inclusive and responsible land use.

Respectfully,

Management
AreaBFE LLC



Red Desert Adventure
I have received many attacks via fb due to signing the letter. Your letter is polite and I thank you for that. I am all for grandfathering in current OHV routes in this area. The letter is about saving this area from energy development. The off road community may feel more threatened than they need to be, maybe someone from the community should step forward and work with this group to secure the access they want.


Area Bfe
Good Morning,
It seems that many of the companies that signed on to this letter are under the same impression. However, if you read the actual letter and then compare it to the SUWA proposal, you'll notice that the verbiage is the same.
Taken from the letter, "Federal land use plans inappropriately open scenic and undeveloped land... and fail to address exploding off-road vehicle use that is damaging riparian areas, cultural sites, soils and solitude."
I'm sorry, but how can the off highway vehicle community get behind this?
Additionally, have you looked at the list of 114 companies behind this letter and asked why not one is related to motorized vehicular recreation?
I believe your impression may be skewed based on how this letter/proposal was presented and perhaps you should do more research into the issue. Please contact me with any questions.
Olaf Kilthau
562-233-6523

jonharis
11-16-2012, 01:02 PM
Letter from several elected officials against the proposal.

http://www.arra-access.com/site/DocServer/UT_Delegation_Letter_Opposing_Canyonlands_Monument_11-14.pdf?docID=542

And another from a host of user groups.
http://www.arra-access.com/site/DocServer/Canyonlands_letter_logos.pdf?docID=541

txanm
11-16-2012, 09:21 PM
As somebody that has sat in litigation with SUWA for a 7 year fight I wish you luck. You will need it and I warn you the odds are against you. They have deep and influential pockets that have been funded for decades by outdoorsmen. I predict they will allow the continuing of some areas being open, in trade of permanent closure of other areas. Be careful they play dirty and in some cases illegally. Google Tim DeChristopher for a good example.

sleeoffroad
11-20-2012, 07:29 AM
This is from the SUWA document posted here http://dev.suwa.org/wp-content/uploads/PetitionWithPhotos_Exhibits_FINAL.pdf

" Unfortunately BLM’s current management strategies as set forth in the RMPs are
a mix of exactly the kinds of actions that would compound the effects of climate
change. This is most notable in the BLM’s overly-expansive network of roads and ORV
trails, which were adopted without analysis of the ramifications of climate change in
combination with ORV use, and failed to discuss the implications of climate change in
the coming years."

What a bunch of crock. How do these people think the spectacle of Moab and surrounds were created? By a climate that has never changed? It is exactly these changes the brought about the deposits of soils and rocks and the subsequent erosion of it. Who are we to thing we can stop nature going it's course in an environment like that?

and then they site this article "Dust, snow make for problematic mix for skiers" (listed in the PDF). So we can't 4wheel so that skiers have more snow? So is all that barren land next to Grand Junction the result of 4wheeling as well. Yeah, those don't contribute to the dust at all.

Man, I should not read these docs. Don't people have common sense anymore? Yes, we should manage it, but it is for all to use, and that unfortunately includes the idiots. What makes one groups passion and hobbies more important than the others. When have it become so politically correct to just sway to any minority and trample on the rest.

Why ask the rich to pay a little more, why doesn't Obama ask these people to pay a little more so that these areas can be managed?

Case and point:

" Theeffect is perhaps felt no where as deeply as in the Greater Canyonlands where hundreds
of thousands of motorized visitors on ATVs, dirt bikes, rock crawlers, and modified jeeps
regularly churn over thousands of miles of rough BLM trails, wash bottoms, riparian
areas and canyon bottoms."

You use the fact that there are hundrers of thousands of people using this area, but you want to limit them. And in order to do so, you quote studies that does not have common sense and site climate change. And then you blame the BLM for not managing the area.

So we are special, only we can use these areas. You guys can go play elsewhere in the sand box.

" Given the
extremely generous ORV riding opportunities on lands outside the Greater Canyonlands
area, restricting ORV access to this remarkable area will not significantly affect
recreational access to various areas."