- Location
- Riverton, UT
It should be noted that Bill Barrett Corp. made a deal about Nine Mile Canyon that they would put up gates and close roads to their sites. So it looks like we need to watch them too.
Opposing the Potential Designation of a Greater Canyonland National Monument
- Thread starter Stephen
- Start date
It should be noted that Bill Barrett Corp. made a deal about Nine Mile Canyon that they would put up gates and close roads to their sites. So it looks like we need to watch them too.
- Location
- Orange County, CA
I can rationalize closing spurs and weaves but why do under-used and/or un-used routes have to be closed when nature takes them back on it's on?
Why do we have to have discussion in terms of negotiating which trails to close? It seems like we're having to negotiate from a defensive posture!
How about making the discussion about which trails to open and have them negotiate with us from a defensive posture? "You want to close spurs, weaves etc., then you have to open this other trail(s) over here"! Or "We're looking at opening/re-opening a trail here so in exchange for your support/help we'll close these spurs and weaves?"
If they took all of this time to drive around, research, and take pictures then can we use as much their study against them?
If we want to have control then we have to follow the money! Expose the companies that are anti-access. Find out which alternatives support access and support them instead! Many anti-access companies will question their position when exposed and affected! This will shake anti-access groups at their core and they will be forced to negotiate on our terms!
Why do we have to have discussion in terms of negotiating which trails to close? It seems like we're having to negotiate from a defensive posture!
How about making the discussion about which trails to open and have them negotiate with us from a defensive posture? "You want to close spurs, weaves etc., then you have to open this other trail(s) over here"! Or "We're looking at opening/re-opening a trail here so in exchange for your support/help we'll close these spurs and weaves?"
If they took all of this time to drive around, research, and take pictures then can we use as much their study against them?
If we want to have control then we have to follow the money! Expose the companies that are anti-access. Find out which alternatives support access and support them instead! Many anti-access companies will question their position when exposed and affected! This will shake anti-access groups at their core and they will be forced to negotiate on our terms!
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
Last edited:
I fully agree with what Olaf is saying. It's BS that we are always on the defensive end of this argument.
Oh another note, there are businesses here in Utah Valley that are starting a petition to send to the President to drop the consideration for proposed monument. They are looking for other businesses, especially in the Moab area, to join the petition. It is very similar to the one for individuals already posted on this thread. If you know of any businesses willing to put their name out there, please let me know.
Oh another note, there are businesses here in Utah Valley that are starting a petition to send to the President to drop the consideration for proposed monument. They are looking for other businesses, especially in the Moab area, to join the petition. It is very similar to the one for individuals already posted on this thread. If you know of any businesses willing to put their name out there, please let me know.
anderson750
I'm working on it Rose
- Location
- Price, Utah
How do I put my business on that petition since it also operates in Moab?
- Location
- Orange County, CA
I apologize if I come across naive about the land use war but It may be that I'm not familiar enough with dealing with the Utah anti-access groups to know what can and can't be achieved. However, I see the same approach and results over and over so I feel strongly that we need to follow the money.
- Location
- Riverton, UT
You are not naive at all, keep asking questions and posting. I lived in Cypress, what part of Orange County are you from?
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
I'm by no means saying they should, could or are going to, only reporting what their proposal calls for. Don't shoot the messenger
Quite frankly, unfortunately we are in the defensive posture. We don't have a massively researched, industry-supported, law-maker backed proposal sitting on the Presidents desk nor a back-history of pulling off projects like this (reference GSENM, WSA's, RMP suits, etc). We are have been on the defense for 10+ years and only continue to re-act to their proposals. It does give us some re-assurance in that despite their massive budget and major head start, land grabs like the RRWA have never passed (thankfully).
Call them and see if they are willing to negotiate in that manner, I've got my bets as to what they will reply with
(fwiw they don't have the power to open a trail, only the money to get them closed ) The GSENM should be a lesson to us, this stuff can and could get rammed down or throats. We can play the "I'll never have a fire" card or we can have a fire extinguisher handy. We can all wish their was a fire extinguisher for the trails that are now closing under the GSENM debacle but hind-site is 20/20 and so many were blindsided by GSENM, we could have another blindsiding coming If you do get SUWA to agree to a negotiation meeting, I'd gladly join you but fwiw I had a guy (RME member fwiw) tell me he "lost any respect he might have had for me" (despite having never met me) because I was willing to sit down with SUWA (keep in mind I was invited by a major motorized industry player) and hear out their proposal. I've continued the occasional dialogue with SUWA and we've since met a couple more times with Utah's environmental policy director and the state of Utah's BLM director, if nothing else its great networking an opportunity to have a working relationship. It did present me with the opportunity to ask the BLM & Utah to urge counties NOT to pave historic routes that they are gaining access to under RS2477. In some cases I'd take a closed route over a paved route (Burr Trail for example).Unfortunately its directly related to the apathy within the the motorized community. We should be on the offense, we should be putting massive industry supported proposals on the Presidents desk asking for areas re-opened to motorized traffic, we could be taking trail closure cases to court. However despite the fact we have vastly more members throughout Utah and the US, it doesn't hold a candle to the special interests that work on equal but opposite ventures and obviously it shows in the way we re-act and not act. I long for the day we get to play some offense.
- Location
- Orange County, CA
Thanks for addressing my questions. Kurt, you're very much more well versed about all of the land use war and history than I am! I have a lot to learn.
This may sound like pie in the sky and I don't have the all of the answers but here's a rough sketch about elevating the game from grass roots....
In short, rally corporate/foundation support on our side with funding, PR and political contacts, and what I call getting in their hands dirty! Takes A LOT of time and effort!
Seek out and hit the anti access companies so hard that they will remember us and it'll create pause in their decision making. Social media didn't exist as well 10 years ago but now this will work to our benefit! This also means contacting your political representatives at their office and fb pages(because they all have one). The messages must be well thought out and can't be read as hate mail or spam because even though it may be what we really want to say, they won't take it seriously!
We need to find connections through larger organizations that have PR companies to connect us with media support. I will contact some of our sponsors about this. There have to be some off roaders who have political connections...Larry Miller in Utah, anyone else??? I know he's an avid Toyota guy and probably doesn't want to see his Jeep sales decline either because people don't have a place to go...I have some indirect connection to him but if anyone is closer to him then we need to talk.
I will continue to inform, and try to rally our AreaBFE sponsors. I'm not a member of SEMA but many of our companies are. They've told me that SEMA does some land use stuff. I have no idea what but perhaps you've had dealings with them???
We really need to keep up and increase contacting the companies on the "list". I want them to ask the same questions that I've been asking about the OIA letter? The companies that are against fair and equal access MUST be made known! We need to make these companies take a position so that we can introduce an entirely different set of parameters when the national ohv community buys camping/accessory/clothing equipment/beer etc. I'm a firm believer that people and companies only listen when it hurts their pocket book.
Additionally and perhaps most important strategy to tip the scale... we need to encourage people, groups etc around the country to buy land make private land open for public use! If anything, AreaBFE can be used as an example, model or template. One idea...How about land use organizations raise dues to fund land acquisition accounts and purchase land in the form of a cooperative?! Second idea....There's a lot of private land and perhaps we can talk to those owners about opening their land for private use...I know some ranchers in Texas; what about Roger Norman in Nevada? These environmental/preservationist groups will have a harder time fighting against private land! They also tend to be concerned more about "Public" land and may enjoy the fact that we divert off roading away from "Public" land.
I've noticed across different forums and on fb, that there are many inflammatory, and unfiltered comments. I don't necessarily disagree with the comments, but I encourage everyone to be cordial and intelligent whenever dealing with the other side because it will get us farther. It's harder for them to fight you if they think you're a nice person! However, we must Beat them with a feather, and Kill'em with kindness!
This might sound sound demoralizing but we're in a tough fight that will NEVER End and I don't think we'll ever be able to claim a complete victory. Why? in my experience, they have been more passionate, better organized, better funded and relentess!!! I have probably met less than 75 off roaders who compare in the passion, organization, and relentlessness.
These are really broad strokes so please tear my plan/ideas apart because the environmentalist/preservationists will try to!
This may sound like pie in the sky and I don't have the all of the answers but here's a rough sketch about elevating the game from grass roots....
In short, rally corporate/foundation support on our side with funding, PR and political contacts, and what I call getting in their hands dirty! Takes A LOT of time and effort!
Seek out and hit the anti access companies so hard that they will remember us and it'll create pause in their decision making. Social media didn't exist as well 10 years ago but now this will work to our benefit! This also means contacting your political representatives at their office and fb pages(because they all have one). The messages must be well thought out and can't be read as hate mail or spam because even though it may be what we really want to say, they won't take it seriously!
We need to find connections through larger organizations that have PR companies to connect us with media support. I will contact some of our sponsors about this. There have to be some off roaders who have political connections...Larry Miller in Utah, anyone else??? I know he's an avid Toyota guy and probably doesn't want to see his Jeep sales decline either because people don't have a place to go...I have some indirect connection to him but if anyone is closer to him then we need to talk.
I will continue to inform, and try to rally our AreaBFE sponsors. I'm not a member of SEMA but many of our companies are. They've told me that SEMA does some land use stuff. I have no idea what but perhaps you've had dealings with them???
We really need to keep up and increase contacting the companies on the "list". I want them to ask the same questions that I've been asking about the OIA letter? The companies that are against fair and equal access MUST be made known! We need to make these companies take a position so that we can introduce an entirely different set of parameters when the national ohv community buys camping/accessory/clothing equipment/beer etc. I'm a firm believer that people and companies only listen when it hurts their pocket book.
Additionally and perhaps most important strategy to tip the scale... we need to encourage people, groups etc around the country to buy land make private land open for public use! If anything, AreaBFE can be used as an example, model or template. One idea...How about land use organizations raise dues to fund land acquisition accounts and purchase land in the form of a cooperative?! Second idea....There's a lot of private land and perhaps we can talk to those owners about opening their land for private use...I know some ranchers in Texas; what about Roger Norman in Nevada? These environmental/preservationist groups will have a harder time fighting against private land! They also tend to be concerned more about "Public" land and may enjoy the fact that we divert off roading away from "Public" land.
I've noticed across different forums and on fb, that there are many inflammatory, and unfiltered comments. I don't necessarily disagree with the comments, but I encourage everyone to be cordial and intelligent whenever dealing with the other side because it will get us farther. It's harder for them to fight you if they think you're a nice person! However, we must Beat them with a feather, and Kill'em with kindness!
This might sound sound demoralizing but we're in a tough fight that will NEVER End and I don't think we'll ever be able to claim a complete victory. Why? in my experience, they have been more passionate, better organized, better funded and relentess!!! I have probably met less than 75 off roaders who compare in the passion, organization, and relentlessness.
These are really broad strokes so please tear my plan/ideas apart because the environmentalist/preservationists will try to!
Send me your email address and I'll send the petition and then sign it and send it back. They are trying to get actual signatures on the petitions.
jacobsba@uvu.edu
- Location
- Orange County, CA
I have been in contact with AreaBFE corporate sponsors. They have forwarded this to Steve McDonald, SEMA's head of legislative affairs, I've requested a connection to PR agencies, I have been called by a journalist at Utah State who is writing an article on the issue, I have initiated getting in contact with Larry Miller, and I have some of our Sponsors calling to ask what I would like them to do.
I told all of our sponsors to comment on the Jeep Safari permit, and asked them to formulate a letter against a NM, and OIA letter.
I have also asked the Moab Area Chamber of Commerce for their position. They haven't responded with a position.
I have asked for a position from RR4W and asked if they have contacted all of the companies on the list. They have a meeting tomorrow, December 3rd, so lets see what comes of that.
I was contacted the Public Affairs person, David, from the OIA. That was an interesting conversation and cordial conversation. Apparently, the letter was formulated by SUWA and never crossed David's desk as all letters should. He admittedly understood why I was questioning it, and apologized for the situation. I told him that I appreciated his apology but that it really doesn't do any good. I told him that the OIA needs to withdraw, or amend the letter. Until that time, they including the companies signed on are considered enemies of off road vehicle recreation. He said they can't withdraw the letter, but that he would appreciate an open line of communication so I told him that the could call me anytime.
I was also called by Ashley Korenblat, the owner of Western Spirit Cycling, who explained that Peter Metcalf (CEO Black Diamond) was the catalyst for the OIA letter because he is angry with the governor of Utah for wanting to take the lands back from the federal government. Apparently, he believes that the governor is in cahoots with resource companies. I told that this issue really is split into two segments 1) the OIA letter and 2) What to do or not do about the area in question.
I told her that she has to deal with #1 before she can expect us to talk about #2. She admitted that the OIA letter was ill conceived but she wants to avoid discussing #1. She also doesn't want to withdraw support from the letter. She feels that resource extraction is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that we all need to worry about. She feels that the POTUS will pay little or no attention to the letter and that the letter was simply a show of strength from Peter Metcalf against the Governor of UT. I asked her then why not remove your support from the letter if it carries no weight and she stated that she couldn't because doesn't want to go against Peter.
I told her that I will do my best to find out the position of each company on the list and those who don't support off highway vehicle recreation will exposed. There will become a new set of parameters on where the ohv community will spend money!
She also asked for an open line of communication and I told her that I welcomed communication.
I told all of our sponsors to comment on the Jeep Safari permit, and asked them to formulate a letter against a NM, and OIA letter.
I have also asked the Moab Area Chamber of Commerce for their position. They haven't responded with a position.
I have asked for a position from RR4W and asked if they have contacted all of the companies on the list. They have a meeting tomorrow, December 3rd, so lets see what comes of that.
I was contacted the Public Affairs person, David, from the OIA. That was an interesting conversation and cordial conversation. Apparently, the letter was formulated by SUWA and never crossed David's desk as all letters should. He admittedly understood why I was questioning it, and apologized for the situation. I told him that I appreciated his apology but that it really doesn't do any good. I told him that the OIA needs to withdraw, or amend the letter. Until that time, they including the companies signed on are considered enemies of off road vehicle recreation. He said they can't withdraw the letter, but that he would appreciate an open line of communication so I told him that the could call me anytime.
I was also called by Ashley Korenblat, the owner of Western Spirit Cycling, who explained that Peter Metcalf (CEO Black Diamond) was the catalyst for the OIA letter because he is angry with the governor of Utah for wanting to take the lands back from the federal government. Apparently, he believes that the governor is in cahoots with resource companies. I told that this issue really is split into two segments 1) the OIA letter and 2) What to do or not do about the area in question.
I told her that she has to deal with #1 before she can expect us to talk about #2. She admitted that the OIA letter was ill conceived but she wants to avoid discussing #1. She also doesn't want to withdraw support from the letter. She feels that resource extraction is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that we all need to worry about. She feels that the POTUS will pay little or no attention to the letter and that the letter was simply a show of strength from Peter Metcalf against the Governor of UT. I asked her then why not remove your support from the letter if it carries no weight and she stated that she couldn't because doesn't want to go against Peter.
I told her that I will do my best to find out the position of each company on the list and those who don't support off highway vehicle recreation will exposed. There will become a new set of parameters on where the ohv community will spend money!
She also asked for an open line of communication and I told her that I welcomed communication.
Last edited:
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
Olaf, Larry H. Miller passed away in 2009. His oldest son Greg Miller is now the CEO of the company and is very rooted in all their ventures. Greg is the Land Cruiser aficionado you mentioned and does spend a lot of time in Utah's outdoors including Canyonlands. He is aware of this issue as it was he that invited me to sit in on the meeting with the SUWA reps when this was first proposed last year. Its my understanding that SUWA requested the meeting with Greg after the Larry H. Miller Group & Miller Motorsports Park sponsored the 'Ride-On' campaign (initiated by Utah State Trust Lands & the Utah DNR) which was aimed at educating Utah's youth on responsible OHV use on public lands. They debuted the program and contest at the MMP in 2010 or early 2011? I invited me to sit in on these meetings and he knew I had some back ground with the land-use in Utah. I can't speak for anyone but myself but it is my understanding that the Miller Group chooses to focus their efforts on pro-active educational efforts rather than political stances that will inevitably alienate one side or the other. The way I look at it, they have customers from every side of every fence, they have thousands of employees that count on them to make the right decisions and take the stances that alienate the fewest so pushing for education and stewardship is a far better approach than taking a stance that could certainly impact their business. See you and I can take polarized approaches as our business rely solely on the existence of OHV enthusiasts in the future. It was at those meetings that I formed what I'll call a working relationship with Heidi and Ray from SUWA, both are very smart individuals equally passionate about their 'side of the story' if you will. In that first meeting it was quickly realized that we were not going able to solve the GCNM so instead we should look at things we could work on. We started small and met with the BLM and Utah State on the paving of the historic Burr Trail (and the precedence it sets), it just so happens SUWA and I believe the motorized community (the groups I work with) didn't want the route paved and there was no reason we shouldn't put that in front of the right people. Some have said we should never 'side' with SUWA or work with them on anything, I personally disagree. That doesn't mean I support any or all of their other efforts but in this case we had a reason to present the same opinion to the same people. If/when the same opportunity presents itself, I'll do the same. (tangent to the current situation I know).
Unfortunately (or fortunately?) its not a cut & dry, a versus b type issue. There is so much overlap its scary. Take Camelbak, they support the GCNM proposal, yet Rocky Mountain ATV is a large retailer of their products and RMATV is/has been very proactive with funding and supporting motorized recreation in Utah, like more so than any other single business I can think of here in Utah. So should users boycott RMATV for refusing to drop Camelbak as a brand? What about Toyota? They have funded major projects with the Sierra club whom is a major supporter of the Red Rock Wilderness Bill which if passed would be far more damning to motorized recreation than the the GCNM would be. On the flip side Toyota has also been a major supporter and sponsor of the National Public Lands Day which many motorized users participate in all over the state. Those NPLD projects have created relationships with public land managers all over the state that undoubtedly have benefited the motorized community. How about our own U4WDA, they (myself included) have for many years used the Lazy Lizard Hostel in Moab as their base of action for their fundraising efforts at the EJS event each year, renting two entire houses for their volunteers to stay, that funding used exclusively to keep the wheels turning and "keep public land public". Also happens that the LLH is a supporter of SUWA but also gives U4 a discount for lodging, so U4 collects donations and some (admittedly a really small amount) of it goes back to a hostel that in turns gives some of it to the same group U4WDA is working against on a level?. Oil companies, as has been mentioned they have been pretty quick to dismiss the OHV contingency in terms of their purchases, deals, gates and access... not to mention selling land to the BLM so that a parcel could later become Wilderness. Do we boycott oil and the jobs they creates for Utahns? How about SITLA, they close down State Trust lands to OHV use because those OHV users are detracting from the "future real estate value of the land", furthermore they sell land with zero intention or willingness to convey legal right-of-ways to the motorized community (close to home for you my friend).
What about clubs that participate in stewardship with their local land managers in projects that involve closing trails to OHV users, I mean isn't that worse then 'negotiating' for trail mortality? What about the Outdoor Industry Association and their monumental (pun intended) letter, while not all their members signed it, all of their members pay money to the OIA to work on projects like this, why would we not boycott the money that gives the OIA a voice which is 90% of the outdoor products we all use? What about people who like the OIA & Utah Wilderness (SUWA) on FB? (cough-cough Olaf/Area BFE
), do we boycott friends who support these people? Do I boycott Outdoor Retailers show? The management of the show has threatened to pull out of Utah because of its stance on Wilderness, they and their members make it no secret. Should we start letter-writing all the companies that belong to their association? I could go on and on with the many grey are overlaps in these situations and my point isn't to air dirty laundry (I don't consider it that) rather just point out that it is impossibles to form an 'easy' answer or solution in how to approach these issues with the corporate world. In my opinion those tasked having money behind the checks they send home with their employees are likely wiser to stay clear of all this an focus on staying profitable in this troubled economy then stepping into a quagmire of hurt feelings and alienated user groups. Personally I think the best approach is the work towards an OHV freindly list, i.e. groups and companies that are willing to support responsible OHV recreation rather than try and week through the intricacies of those that may or may not support OHV use or at a minimum are not sure what they are supporting
Furthermore, they need something to support and that should be a proposal put forth by the OHV interests that asks for route protection, budget for education, enforcement, etc. The best defense is an offense right? We put that on the the desk of the POTUS!
Last edited:
- Location
- Orange County, CA
You pose great questions!!!
Sorry, I meant Larry H. Miller group rather than he himself. It would seem that if Larry H. Miller group has customers on every side then they would promote fair and equal access, right??? Are we asking for anything else? What type of pro-active education do they teach that doesn't have to do with fairness/equality?
This situation can be very complicated and every company and individual must think carefully about their stance!!!!
However, it's like asking if we should support or do business with a country that doesn't support fairness/equal rights for all and in addition funds our enemies. We know that country has very large direct and indirect investments in the US so how do we handle that?
Additionally, should we dislike all people from that country simply because that's their nationality or ethnicity? I say no and you treat everyone on their own merits.
I understand that it can be complicated and you must make your mind on where you draw the line. Let me tell you where I stand, I'm against Camelback because they are clearly against ohv and I would be for Rocky Mtn Atv because they probably believe in fair and equal access.
I believe that organizations like SUWA have their place. However, this entire issue is about fair and equal recreational access and that's what AreaBFE and I stand for. If someone or some entity only believes that off road vehicles have the right to access land then I'm against them too!
Many people ask what the "BFE" in AreaBFE stands for and we say it stands for Big Family Entertainment and/or Bought For Everyone.
With that said, let me correct you in that AreaBFE does not rely solely on ohv enthusiasts. OHV is why we started, OHV is our biggest group but we are open for hikers, mtn bikers, geocachers, campers, rock climbers, photographers, birders, all types off highway vehicle enthusiasts, people wanting to get married there, people wanting to have a memorial service, music festivals, and anyone else who supports a place that is open to recreation for everyone!
Sorry, I meant Larry H. Miller group rather than he himself. It would seem that if Larry H. Miller group has customers on every side then they would promote fair and equal access, right??? Are we asking for anything else? What type of pro-active education do they teach that doesn't have to do with fairness/equality?
This situation can be very complicated and every company and individual must think carefully about their stance!!!!
However, it's like asking if we should support or do business with a country that doesn't support fairness/equal rights for all and in addition funds our enemies. We know that country has very large direct and indirect investments in the US so how do we handle that?
Additionally, should we dislike all people from that country simply because that's their nationality or ethnicity? I say no and you treat everyone on their own merits.
I understand that it can be complicated and you must make your mind on where you draw the line. Let me tell you where I stand, I'm against Camelback because they are clearly against ohv and I would be for Rocky Mtn Atv because they probably believe in fair and equal access.
I believe that organizations like SUWA have their place. However, this entire issue is about fair and equal recreational access and that's what AreaBFE and I stand for. If someone or some entity only believes that off road vehicles have the right to access land then I'm against them too!
Many people ask what the "BFE" in AreaBFE stands for and we say it stands for Big Family Entertainment and/or Bought For Everyone.
With that said, let me correct you in that AreaBFE does not rely solely on ohv enthusiasts. OHV is why we started, OHV is our biggest group but we are open for hikers, mtn bikers, geocachers, campers, rock climbers, photographers, birders, all types off highway vehicle enthusiasts, people wanting to get married there, people wanting to have a memorial service, music festivals, and anyone else who supports a place that is open to recreation for everyone!
- Location
- Orange County, CA
...How about SITLA, they close down State Trust lands to OHV use because those OHV users are detracting from the "future real estate value of the land", furthermore they sell land with zero intention or willingness to convey legal right-of-ways to the motorized community (close to home for you my friend).
I don't understand the above comment....
What about clubs that participate in stewardship with their local land managers in projects that involve closing trails to OHV users, I mean isn't that worse then 'negotiating' for trail mortality? Can you be more specific?
What about the Outdoor Industry Association and their monumental (pun intended) letter, while not all their members signed it, all of their members pay money to the OIA to work on projects like this, why would we not boycott the money that gives the OIA a voice which is 90% of the outdoor products we all use? I believe we should hold the individual companies on their own merits because those companies may support fair and equal access in which case they may want reassess their membership in the OIA
What about people who like the OIA & Utah Wilderness (SUWA) on FB? (cough-cough Olaf/Area BFE ), do we boycott friends who support these people? Kurt, that would depend on whether they believe in fair/equal access.
Do I boycott Outdoor Retailers show? The management of the show has threatened to pull out of Utah because of its stance on Wilderness, they and their members make it no secret. Yes, I would boycott them!
Should we start letter-writing all the companies that belong to their association? Yes, we should!
...In my opinion those tasked having money behind the checks they send home with their employees are likely wiser to stay clear of all this an focus on staying profitable in this troubled economy then stepping into a quagmire of hurt feelings and alienated user groups. It think this is precisely why and how we can get them to take a position. The ohv dollars spent are just as powerful as the dollars that support SUWA or any organization that doesn't support open access! Why should we be afraid to take a position or ask companies to take a position when the OIA and 114 companies took a position!?
Personally I think the best approach is the work towards an OHV freindly list, i.e. groups and companies that are willing to support responsible OHV recreation...
This is a great idea so that we can have alternatives to the companies not supporting fair/equal access.
The best defense is an offense right? I am on the offense because I'm personally tired of hearing the ohv community scraping!
I don't understand the above comment....
What about clubs that participate in stewardship with their local land managers in projects that involve closing trails to OHV users, I mean isn't that worse then 'negotiating' for trail mortality? Can you be more specific?
What about the Outdoor Industry Association and their monumental (pun intended) letter, while not all their members signed it, all of their members pay money to the OIA to work on projects like this, why would we not boycott the money that gives the OIA a voice which is 90% of the outdoor products we all use? I believe we should hold the individual companies on their own merits because those companies may support fair and equal access in which case they may want reassess their membership in the OIA
What about people who like the OIA & Utah Wilderness (SUWA) on FB? (cough-cough Olaf/Area BFE ), do we boycott friends who support these people? Kurt, that would depend on whether they believe in fair/equal access.
Do I boycott Outdoor Retailers show? The management of the show has threatened to pull out of Utah because of its stance on Wilderness, they and their members make it no secret. Yes, I would boycott them!
Should we start letter-writing all the companies that belong to their association? Yes, we should!
...In my opinion those tasked having money behind the checks they send home with their employees are likely wiser to stay clear of all this an focus on staying profitable in this troubled economy then stepping into a quagmire of hurt feelings and alienated user groups. It think this is precisely why and how we can get them to take a position. The ohv dollars spent are just as powerful as the dollars that support SUWA or any organization that doesn't support open access! Why should we be afraid to take a position or ask companies to take a position when the OIA and 114 companies took a position!?
Personally I think the best approach is the work towards an OHV freindly list, i.e. groups and companies that are willing to support responsible OHV recreation...
This is a great idea so that we can have alternatives to the companies not supporting fair/equal access.
The best defense is an offense right? I am on the offense because I'm personally tired of hearing the ohv community scraping!
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
Sorry Olaf, I was kinda rambling. SITLA (Utah Trust Lands, a Utah government entity) has closed areas around the state to motorized traffic as in their opinion, motorized traffic (trails and such) are "detracting from the real estate value of the land". I.e. they lock out motorized users because if/when they decide to sell the property (which does fund our school systems so it needs to happen), they don't want to have to deal with OHV activity on the property. Most notably in the Moab area would be the Lions Back/Hells Revenge exit area as well as the Proving Grounds areas.
Furthermore, they have in the past sold properties and had zero interest or intent to ensure any existing and historic right-of-ways or routes on that property remain open to the motorized community. They instead passed the buck onto the motorized community and the new land owner to sort out. I mentioned it was close to home for you as this happened with your next door neighbors at Area BFE. Land owners buy the land from the state at auction and immediately close Lower Helldorado and Strike Ravine. The SITLA office says in so many words they don't care about the routes and RR4W has to spend $20-30k to take the issue to court and force Miller & Rzeczycki to re-open the route as it had a legal right-of-way based on past use. Unfortunately that couldn't be proven for Lower Helldorado (too new) and SITLA didn't convey the rights on the property (not sure how that legally works) so it was lost. Fast forward to the next auction and the adjoining properties were for sale, it was know that Upper Helldorado and the other routes across the property would be again lost if it didn't end up in the right hands, and now we have Area BFE
NPLD projects, individual club projects, etc often involve clubs working with the land managers (BLM, FS, etc) to close routes they (the land managers) deem should be closed. Examples would be the trail marking and fence building projects in American Fork Canyon, Five Mile Pass, Little Sahara Sand Dunes, Moab Area. I look at it this way, the land managers are closing the trails one way or the other, may as well promote stewardship and help right? Others however think we shouldn't help with any closures and in fact should 'boycott' the land managers working on such closures. I personally helped build a fence on the Pitsburgh Lake Trail in American Fork Canyon, it was a historic mining route, later turned 4x4 recreation route that was closed by the FS citing safety concerns, user conflicts, etc. I'd love to drive it one day but they have it closed and the fence build was part of a NPLD project that the U4WDA and local clubs were sponsoring. Let me know if that makes sense.
Again, the grey area I'm talking about. You surely seem to promote fair & equal access yet are 'friends' (whatever that mean on Facebook these days) with the OIA (authors of the GCNM letter) and Utah Wilderness (SUWA, the proposer of the GCNM) on Facebook. How am I to interpret that?
Again, not trying to air dirty laundry, just pointing out the grey areas that exist, I'm not familiar with any of the OIA's other legislation but I'm sure they have done some that the motorized community in fact benefits from so perhaps you supported them then because of that? The Utah Wilderness page however you'll have to expand on Who are we punishing? There are hundreds of companies there that do in fact promote fair & equal access and obviously some that are proud to say they are OK with losses to the motorized community. I'm not going to skip supporting company A because they are at the same show as company B hosted by association C that happens to support group D who has proposed GCNM. Clear as mud
I'm not afraid to take a position on behalf of my company, nor am I would I be afraid to ask. I just wouldn't be shocked to hear they say they don't want to touch the subject with a ten foot stick. Again, I'm not saying to not ask, I'm just telling you what my experience has been in similar circumstances.
The offense in my perspective is when the OHV community has legislation in front of lawmakers that protects and supersedes the legislation that is threatening motorized recreation, until then all we do is defend against it. Keep in mind that even with zero industry 'supporters' and even hundreds of industry detractors, GCNM or the RRWA could become law, the winds of political change and lobbying don't always favor the majority, particularly when your dealing with the local majority (which we may or may not be).
Great stuff Olaf, I hope that through all this discussion we can all hone in on the best approaches to protecting access. So many fronts to the 'battle' with many having limited time its hard to figure out which one is the best course of action.
Last edited:
Skylinerider
Wandering the desert
- Location
- Ephraim
I have a few brief comments while I take a break from planning my outdoor ethics presentation for the BLM tomorrow. SITLA lands are not technically "public" lands they are held in reserve to benefit Utah Schools. Whether that be from the outright sale, or leasing of the land or mineral rights is entirely up to the organization. I'm definitely not onboard with a monument, especially using and end run around the system such as the antiquities act. That said, there are ways to preserve the area for recreation. First the laws are already in place to control OHV usage, the problem is enforcement and I can't see a solution on the horizon with the lack of funding recreation programs receive within the BLM. THe OHV communtiy is going to be collateral damage in this fight between the "green folks" and the extractive industry. An alternative to a monument could be a SRMA (Special Recreation Management Area) This designation while not designed for such a large area as is proposed will ensure recreation as the preferred use of the land.
I would encourage everyone here to pick up a few books and read a bit on the history of conservation and preservation in America to more fully understand the history of this long fought argument. The first is "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold. The next is "Wilderness and the American Mind" by Roderick Nash. Another is "A brave New West: Morphing at the Speed of Greed" by Jim Stiles.
I would encourage everyone here to pick up a few books and read a bit on the history of conservation and preservation in America to more fully understand the history of this long fought argument. The first is "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold. The next is "Wilderness and the American Mind" by Roderick Nash. Another is "A brave New West: Morphing at the Speed of Greed" by Jim Stiles.
Last edited:
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
Right, I only bring them up because the the Ride-On video contest campaign was a venture sponsored by SITLA & the DNR (an awesome project venture by the way), the irony being some of the 'best' 4x4 routes we've lost in Utah in the past 5 years have been on the lands they have sold at auction to the highest bidder.
Money for schools but a loss for the motorized community. I'm not supporting a boycott of SITLA in the least bit, they do some great stuff, just trying to illustrate the fact that you can't always rule with an iron fist with companies or government agencies rather we must weave through each individual issue. Collateral damage or pawn, both will likely apply to some degree
Lets get one proposed, this is offense!
You know which is my favorite but I best read the other.
Last edited:
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
Fwiw, just read this on another forum regarding RMATV selling Camelbak products, once again RMATV continues to impress me!