Off-Road Vehicles out!

[waynehartwig]

I agree with this... But historically speaking, SUWA is trying to rid land of vehicles. Granted, they are only asking for 92% - this time! Next year it will be another 92% and etc. Eventually there won't be any land available for anyone but hikers. That's how they get their own way. They ask for small amounts each time, and people think it's a valid request and grant it - or don't even fight over it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, they are very sneaky people. If they were in your company and you were at war, you would not want one of them getting your back. I'd be afraid of them shooting me!

 

[UtahFire]

I agree with this... But historically speaking, SUWA is trying to rid land of vehicles. Granted, they are only asking for 92% - this time! Next year it will be another 92% and etc. Eventually there won't be any land available for anyone but hikers. That's how they get their own way. They ask for small amounts each time, and people think it's a valid request and grant it - or don't even fight over it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, they are very sneaky people. If they were in your company and you were at war, you would not want one of them getting your back. I'd be afraid of them shooting me!

Be carefull here folks. This is the same "song and dance" that SUWA has been spouting lately. SUWA has been using this pie example recently. The problem is the pie is not the same quality. The part of the 23 million acres of BLM land included in the "wilderness" proposal is the very best part of the pie. Sure they will conceed the uninteresting, featurless areas to motorized off-road travel. The areas with limited recreational value.

 

[Clutch]

All right, I'm jumping on this bandwagon.
1st, SUWA has a 100%, No compromise, agenda.
Unlike the recent events of the Serria Club on the Legacy Hwy, SUWA Does want all OHV banded. I'm surprised to see anyone representing SUWA that would take an 8% cut of anything. It pisses them off now that we won't budge. I would concider that a tactic, not a compromise.

2nd. NO SYMPATHY for the enemy, you give them one inch and they will take 10 million. The fact that they want 10 million acres of OUR land is not exceptable. This public land is YOUR land, not there's.

3rd. SUWA will try and do everything in there power to stop anyone from accessing OUR land. I really don't understand why we can be on the same roads, the same trails, the same area....and because we are WHEELER's, we are bad. A large group of us were heading to Swazey's Cabin in the San Raf.
We can upon a 4rnr with two, very bitter women, because we were on the same road they where. They would move off the trail, forcing us around them, off trail because they did'nt like us out there???????????????

4th They are sneaky bastards!hey! Ever had them come to your door? Ask if you would like to protect the environment? Wouldn't you like to see Utah's treasures preserved? Leading questions that the masses would all answer yes too. They get their signatures and then say they have signatures from concerned citizens.

Do not be fouled by their tactic's. Until they have reasonable representation that understands what we really want, nothing will be resolved?

 

[67ster]

I was dicussing the ORV issue with a Moab relative that works for the Park Service patrolling the river during the summer and the BLM on the trails . He states that they (BLM) have few problems with ORV clubs and organized events , in fact they have become an allies against privateers and people that abuse our public lands . --- Has anyone found who funds SUWA ?

 

[scoutabout]

SUWA gets the bulk of their war chest from average citizens who donate $30 to "protect wilderness". They brought in more than $3 million dollars last year.

Why can't we get 1000 OHV supporters to donate $10 each?

Fight back! Join U4WDA today by clicking here and using our secure online form to become a member.

Then join USA-ALL here.

Fight SUWA's big, out-of-state money!

 

[UtahFire]

I was dicussing the ORV issue with a Moab relative that works for the Park Service patrolling the river during the summer and the BLM on the trails . He states that they (BLM) have few problems with ORV clubs and organized events , in fact they have become an allies against privateers and people that abuse our public lands . --- Has anyone found who funds SUWA ?

SUWA gets a lot of East Coast money. SUWA's chairman of the board is Hansjorg Wyss from Paoli, PA. Most of the sponsors of the America's Redrock Wilderness Act are East Coast Democrats. The Eastern part of the US has almost zero public lands. There is absolutely no political risk for Eastern politicians to promote "wilderness" in the West. SUWA knows that if they compromise they will loose funding. SUWA uses unethical tactics to promote their agenda.

 

[jlowry]

Option B is a reduced route proposal. The routes that would not be permitted is listed below. These are also some of the routes which would be closed if the America's Redrock Wilderness Act is passed.

The following routes or portions of routes would not be authorized for permitted use:
1) Arch Canyon (entire route). Conflict: the density of cultural sites along this route
2) The portion of Hey Joe Canyon along the Green River (8.8 miles).
Conflict: the presence of the route within the Green River floodplain, and the potential
impacts to threatened and endangered fish in that river.
3) Hotel Rock (entire route).
Conflict: the density of cultural sites along this route.
4) Kane Creek Canyon from the Hurrah Pass Road to U.S. Highway 191 (17.9 miles).
Conflict: potential erosion, sedimentation and degradation of riparian resources, as well
as potential hydrocarbon emission from vehicle use in Kane Creek.
5) Pritchett Canyon (entire route).
Conflict: potential degradation to riparian vegetation and increased erosion.
6) The easternmost portion of Tusher/Bartlett Wash near Highway 191 (3.6 miles of 3-D Route).
Conflict: potential destabilization of floodplains and damage to riparian vegetation.
7) The riparian portion of Tusher Canyon (a 2.4 mile section of Sevenmile Rim).
Conflict: potential degradation of riparian vegetation and loss of wetland functioning.

Option C:

They go hug a tree and eat a granola bar somewhere else. Moab is for all to enjoy, hence the phrase "Public Land". I don't remember hearing of any wheelers complianing when they see em smokin pot and rock climbing trying to "become one with the universe".

If we are being responsible and staying on the designated trail route and not leaving any trash, Whats the problem?

I hate those bastards!

 

[pELYgroso]

I agree with this... But historically speaking, SUWA is trying to rid land of vehicles. Granted, they are only asking for 92% - this time! Next year it will be another 92% and etc. Eventually there won't be any land available for anyone but hikers. That's how they get their own way. They ask for small amounts each time, and people think it's a valid request and grant it - or don't even fight over it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, they are very sneaky people. If they were in your company and you were at war, you would not want one of them getting your back. I'd be afraid of them shooting me!

that's exactly right....they take 8% this year and lead people on to believe that their work is done. wrong!! right after that 8% is theirs, they start working on the next 8% then the next.....they suck.

 

[wayfarerUT]

Option C:



If we are being responsible and staying on the designated trail route and not leaving any trash, Whats the problem?


The problem is that not everybody stays on the trails, and a lot of people feel entitled to go wherever the hell they want, cross country. There needs to be a campaign among ORVers for more responsibility among the ranks, because a few scofflaws can ruin it for the rest. The people out there cutting trees and illegally creating new routes are the ones bringing atention to the issue, not the people peacefully cruising trails.