Opposing the Potential Designation of a Greater Canyonland National Monument

[Jonathan]

Excellent. I look forward to seeing a response.

 

[Stephen]

I'm not on Pirate, but has anyone posted stuff up there? I'd think that the people on Pirate, so eager to flame a company for selling the wrong size bolt in a kit, would be a light with people hitting these companies hard on FB.

 

[BCGPER]

Indeed, the word is out.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/land-use-issues/1103042-urgent-bad-news-utah.html

 

[toyota crawlin]

Here is the other bigger link.. http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/general-chit-chat/1103224-heres-your-list.html

 

[Bart]

Excellent information and petition Stephen. Thanks for putting this together.

 

[jentzschman]

Any way we can use this to help our cause: http://www.rme4x4.com/showthread.ph...r-28-29th-2012&p=875665&viewfull=1#post875665

 

[sixstringsteve]

while that video definitely helps promote us as responsible recreators, the issue isn't that these companies think that 4x4/ohvs are bad (even though the doc they signed says that). The issue is that the Outdoor Industry Association secretly does have an issue with 4x4/ohv use. They deceived their members into thinking this letter was all about preventing oil companies from destroying the canyonlands area, yet they include a sentence that attacks 4x4/ohv users. Most companies didn't catch that sentence and they still don't realize that they're inviting Obama to shut it down with a provision to close routes as well.

The OIA and SUWA appear tightly connected, even though the companies that belong to the OIA may not support SUWA. Dirty tactics if you ask me.

 

[Stephen]

My comment to OIA:

You know what else will be devastating to your industry? The added finacial burden levied on consumers with the designation of a national monument around Canyonlands. Why are you pushing for such a thing? Why are you activly pushing to increase the cost of recreation in the state of Utah?

Their response:

Stephen, a monument designation would protect the area's outstanding recreational values and ensure it remains an outdoor destination for hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. On a national scale, outdoor recreation contributes $646 billion in direct spending to the U.S. economy each year and supports 6.1 million jobs. In addition, studies have shown that quality outdoor recreation opportunities are a boon to local economies. Check out this Headwaters Economics interactive map, which shows the economic benefits communities experienced after gaining a national monument designation.
http://headwaterseconomics.org/interactive/national-monuments

I haven't crafted an appropriate reply yet.

 

[sixstringsteve]

Funny how the crux of their argument is dollars, not "preservation."

 

[frieed]

Funny, I see zero change from before to after the designation date on in any of the trends

 

[sixstringsteve]

These people need to understand trend lines and realize that their NM designation has zero impact on their profits.

 

[thenag]

I am pissed at myself for not seeing the connection (direct or not) with SUWA. This whole thing is only an issue because the state is claiming that they are going to "re-claim" "their land" from the federal gov so they can "manage" (lease to oil/gas) as they see fit.

It may have slid right through with thunderous applause if people didn't catch on.

Thanks everyone for keeping our hobby legal

Nathan

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Yowzers! Quite the thread here. I have not had a chance to fully read it but I'll try to sort through it over the next few days and comment where I can. I am pretty familiar with the Greater Canyonlands proposal, I met with SUWA about the proposal earlier this year and have spent a fair amount of time researching the route closures they are proposing via data they were able to provide me. I will say that Ray (SUWA's field inventory guy) spent months in the area driving all the routes in his Tacoma and while they don't hide they fact they want routes closed, they contend (again they) that the "majority" of these routes are weaves, spurs or un-used or under-used routes. With an infinite time and budget I would love to see the motorized community (i.e. those that don't traditionally want anything closed to motorized access) complete a similar inventory and then compare notes with SUWA's proposal... see where the heartache really exists. We (Utah 4 Wheel Drive Association) basically did just this (using the fabulous local 4x4 member intel) with the BLM RMP revisions and overall the final decision resulted in very favorable results to the OHV community and while it did in fact close routes, those with major quality character were retained and I'd personally consider it a 95% win for the OHV community.

I did see a couple notes comparing this to the GSENM and the few road closures in that area, it is true that the OHV community didn't see an immediate loss of routes. However, as recent as last year routes were closed based on decisions made with the original monument creation. This is common I've found with NPS, BLM & NM lands, they don't always have the resources, will power and personal interest to enforce 100% of closures on the ground but history has shown eventually all of those routes will in fact be closed. The process for re-opening routes is available for the BLM RMP closures (look up Coyote Canyon in the Moab RMP which recently re-openend) but those scenarios are VERY limited and I can't think of a single case on NPS or NM where a trail was re-opened. There is a case on NPS land (Rincon Road on the HITR) where the NPS and San Juan County are working to resolve the historic route access issue.

I will say this, I think the 'majority' of OHV users would in fact tolerate or at least stomach a National Monument proposal if/when the route eliminations were vastly scaled back and or eliminated. This isn't to say that all OHV users would because many believe we should be responsibly drilling these areas (drilling is happening in SE Utah i.e. Moab area and has for many years). Now, could these issues be mitigated with the extremes of both sides whereas I believe the majority land in the middle? Hard to say. Its been tried before, like I mentioned I've met with SUWA, the State or Utah, BLM, FS, NPS, etc in the past with similar hopes but with so hands in the pot on these deals it generally ends up being more lop-sided than anything else. You have all heard the old Usa-All Wilderness Proposal versus the SUWA Wiilderness proposal story I always tell... neither side is interested in doing much budging. In the end its lop-sided legal actions that usually push the agenda and in the past it hasn't landed on the side of the 4x4 community

 

[Marsh99]

Yowzers! Quite the thread here. I have not had a chance to fully read it but I'll try to sort through it over the next few days and comment where I can. I am pretty familiar with the Greater Canyonlands proposal, I met with SUWA about the proposal earlier this year and have spent a fair amount of time researching the route closures they are proposing via data they were able to provide me. I will say that Ray (SUWA's field inventory guy) spent months in the area driving all the routes in his Tacoma and while they don't hide they fact they want routes closed, they contend (again they) that the "majority" of these routes are weaves, spurs or un-used or under-used routes. With an infinite time and budget I would love to see the motorized community (i.e. those that don't traditionally want anything closed to motorized access) complete a similar inventory and then compare notes with SUWA's proposal... see where the heartache really exists. We (Utah 4 Wheel Drive Association) basically did just this (using the fabulous local 4x4 member intel) with the BLM RMP revisions and overall the final decision resulted in very favorable results to the OHV community and while it did in fact close routes, those with major quality character were retained and I'd personally consider it a 95% win for the OHV community.

I did see a couple notes comparing this to the GSENM and the few road closures in that area, it is true that the OHV community didn't see an immediate loss of routes. However, as recent as last year routes were closed based on decisions made with the original monument creation. This is common I've found with NPS, BLM & NM lands, they don't always have the resources, will power and personal interest to enforce 100% of closures on the ground but history has shown eventually all of those routes will in fact be closed. The process for re-opening routes is available for the BLM RMP closures (look up Coyote Canyon in the Moab RMP which recently re-openend) but those scenarios are VERY limited and I can't think of a single case on NPS or NM where a trail was re-opened. There is a case on NPS land (Rincon Road on the HITR) where the NPS and San Juan County are working to resolve the historic route access issue.

I will say this, I think the 'majority' of OHV users would in fact tolerate or at least stomach a National Monument proposal if/when the route eliminations were vastly scaled back and or eliminated. This isn't to say that all OHV users would because many believe we should be responsibly drilling these areas (drilling is happening in SE Utah i.e. Moab area and has for many years). Now, could these issues be mitigated with the extremes of both sides whereas I believe the majority land in the middle? Hard to say. Its been tried before, like I mentioned I've met with SUWA, the State or Utah, BLM, FS, NPS, etc in the past with similar hopes but with so hands in the pot on these deals it generally ends up being more lop-sided than anything else. You have all heard the old Usa-All Wilderness Proposal versus the SUWA Wiilderness proposal story I always tell... neither side is interested in doing much budging. In the end its lop-sided legal actions that usually push the agenda and in the past it hasn't landed on the side of the 4x4 community

You always have wise words...

 

[SportSawyer]

To see the routes that SUWA wants closed with this proposal / petition, open http://dev.suwa.org/wp-content/uploads/PetitionWithPhotos_Exhibits_FINAL.pdf and go to Figure 2 on page 7.

The routes in red, "Routes Subject to SUWA Petition March 2011", are the ones that would be closed pending more NEPA, appeals, litigation, more appeals ... to see whether or not they should be re-opened. It's most likely that very few, if any, of these routes will be re-opened after being closed.

SUWA's petition closes 1,050 miles of ORV routes. That is SUWA's number, and those are of the routes that remain after closing HALF the OHV routes in the Moab FO with the RMP.

 

[airforceret]

Thanks for signing.You might like this sponsored petition Done!

 

[Jonathan]

Please see the following FAQ posted by Petzl.


http://www.petzl.com/files/fckfiles/GCNM_FAQ_on letter.pdf


Here is the quoted text. Easier to read the pdf directly.


"Greater Canyonlands National Monument
Letter to the President from Outdoor Companies:
Frequently Asked Questions


What is a national monument?
Only lands already owned by the federal government can be declared national
monuments. National monument designation protects and reserves landmarks,
structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest as authorized by
the Antiquities Act of 1906.


Is motorized access allowed in national monuments?
Yes.


Is the letter from the outdoor companies the same thing as the 2011 SUWA
Petition to the Department of Interior that calls for the closure of over
1000 miles of roads?
No. The letter from the outdoor companies is a general request for a monument
designation. The SUWA petition is an entirely different document.


Do the outdoor companies want the area to become a National Park?
No. The letter asks for a national monument that would continue to be
managed by the BLM.


What are the benefits of a Greater Canyonlands National Monument?
A national monument will attract visitors to the region and protect the
recreation asset that drives the local economy.


Why does Greater Canyonlands need to be protected?
The monument area is surrounded by several million acres that have been
identified for future development of oil and gas, tar sands, potash and other
extractive industries.
Outdoor activities from hiking to jeeping depend on access to the great
outdoors. If Greater Canyonlands is carved up by industrial development, the
recreational experience will be compromised and outdoor enthusiasts will take
their tourism dollars elsewhere.
Why do these companies want it to be protected?
To promote and protect the recreation economy in the area.What activities would be allowed in the national monument?
A management planning process, that includes public input, would follow the
proclamation of the monument and outline specifics for recreation management
including activities such as hiking, rafting, climbing, hunting, off-road vehicle
use, mountain biking, base jumping, etc.


What happens to private or state lands in a national monument?
Designation does not affect private or state land within a national monument.


How might national monument status affect grazing?
Existing authorized permits or leases would continue with terms and conditions
under existing laws and regulations. National monument status allows for
voluntary retirement of grazing permits.

 

[SportSawyer]

Please see the following FAQ posted by Petzl.
....
Is the letter from the outdoor companies the same thing as the 2011 SUWA
Petition to the Department of Interior that calls for the closure of over
1000 miles of roads?
No. The letter from the outdoor companies is a general request for a monument
designation. The SUWA petition is an entirely different document.
....

What a marvelous collection of weasel-words. Of course the "letter" is a different document (they have different filenames or are printed on different pieces of paper). But the fact remains, the "letter" is in support of SUWA's petition, which is the only "Greater Canyonlands" petition / proposal that's been given to the President and DOI. This is word parsing that goes beyond "it depends on what the meaning of is is."

This whole OIA effort stinks of deceit. Petzl and others just make the smell worse when they try to play the opposition as fools who will fall for anything they say.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I've always quipped the best defense would be an offense in this situation.. OHV groups proposing their own monument or wilderness proposal. I truly think that if a 3.x million acre Wilderness bill did pass, comprised of lands undisputed by either side... A second bigger proposal would never gain traction. Same perhaps for a monument, scale it back to the undisputed lands, retain all access and sleep tight.

 

[Stephen]

I've always quipped the best defense would be an offense in this situation.. OHV groups proposing their own monument or wilderness proposal. I truly think that if a 3.x million acre Wilderness bill did pass, comprised of lands undisputed by either side... A second bigger proposal would never gain traction. Same perhaps for a monument, scale it back to the undisputed lands, retain all access and sleep tight.

I've always agreed with this idea, the problem is who has the time to complete the inventory?