• RME Gear & Apparel

Recapture Canyon

Kevin B.

Kevin B.

Not often wrong. Never quite right.
Moderator
Location
Stinkwater
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57924460-78/blm-canyon-amp-recapture.html.csp

I'm 100% in favor of closing motorized access to protect archeological sites when all other options have failed. I don't know enough about this situation to know if all other options failed before they shut it down, though?

I also don't know how I feel about this proposed ride. I'm sure it'll be very cathartic for the organizers who have been fighting the closure, but I'm also sure that most of the riders will be the sort of "can't tell me what to do"-style yahoos that got the canyon shut down in the first place. I don't think this is productive.
 
jeeper

jeeper

I live my life 1 dumpster at a time
Location
So Jo, Ut
I heard an interview with the county rep, who said the trail was closed under an emergency "un-authorized trail construction" report because someone had installed a pipe across the trail in a washed out area to help with drainage.. There was no comment on any artifacts.. but he may have been one sided.
 
JL Rockies

JL Rockies

Binders Fulla Expo
Location
Draper
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...how-dozens-just-protested-the-federal-agency/

You beat me to it. Highlights from the article:

Motorized access was closed in 2007. Hikers and horses ok.
The BLM states that sites may have been damaged; no evidence, they're just sayin'. Everyone knows that hikers and peeps on horseback are just a different breed.
With these assets under assault, the BLM was completely ineffective protecting anything with the special forces deployed in NV. Maybe they should've called the Sheriff or some other state funded agency to take care of the problem.


BLM... lolz.
 
Last edited:
anderson750

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
Here is a letter to the editor of the Deseret News written by Rainer Huck that they refused to publish. Plus the added bonus of a picture of the BLM "snipers" who hid out along the way to make sure nothing bad happened.

Dear Editor:

In its agenda driven story convicting the Recapture Canyon protest riders of crimes, theDeseret News ignores the illegal activates of the BLM that precipitated this action

In 1976 the Federal Land Policy and Management act grandfathered all existing roads over public land. The BLM openly flaunts this law while insisting on enforcing the letter of lesser laws approved by the political environmentalists and the media.

This closure constitutes illegal discrimination because it applies to only one class of users. If the BLM is worried about protecting cultural artifacts, then the canyon should be closed to all human entry. But this never happens. All closures, no matter the pretext, apply only to people on vehicles.


It is curious that the Deseret News, which always strives for the highest standards in political correctness, would print the hate speech of Rose Chilcoat when when she calls the demonstrators "domestic terrorists" and "anarchists" .



Why would reporter Richard Piatt quote Jerry Spangler as saying the ride is a slap in the face of Native Americans? Maybe he wasn't listening to the Native American speaker, Curtis Yanito who supported the protest by riding his ATV.

I'd like to know why our government felt compelled to send snipers in full combat gear to hide in the bushes endangering innocent families expressing their constitutional rights. Is this what America has become?
Click to expand...

100_0267.jpg
 
JL Rockies

JL Rockies

Binders Fulla Expo
Location
Draper
The main thing is the BLM is completely above-board and not corruptible like state government. Everyone knows that the Fed is like Elliott Ness and the untouchables.


BLM... lolz.
 
nnnnnate

nnnnnate

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Location
WVC, UT
Those sniper rifles look a lot like ARs to me. The BLM has a law enforcement branch. Law enforcement carry arms, I don't see how this is news. I also don't understand how these law enforcement are endangering innocent families due to being armed. I'd be willing to bet that a fair amount of the protestors were carrying but they are not being called out for endangering their fellow protestors. Should we be nervous that there are armed police officers in the schools that our children attend?

There are always cops at protests and they are always armed. This is a moot point.
 
DAA

DAA

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Location
West Bountiful, UT
No, not moot.

The BLM should not equal "cops". The BLM, a federal land management bureaucracy, should not in my opinion have the option of using that kind of force at their discretion. Rangers being armed for their own protection is one thing. BLM having SWAT like enforcement personnel to implement land management policy, to enforce the rules they themselves - as bureaurocrats - decide to make, is quite something else and I for one don't like it.

Police generally don't get to make up the laws they then decide how and when to enforce. BLM does get to make up the rules - not even laws, rules - that they then get to decide when and where it's appropriate to enforce. Being able to make up their own rules and decide when and where to enforce is bad enough. Having the option to use that kind of force to back up their rules is ridiculous. They should be forced to enlist the help of actual law enforcement agencies if they feel it's necessary.

It's not moot. It sucks.

- DAA
 
Kevin B.

Kevin B.

Not often wrong. Never quite right.
Moderator
Location
Stinkwater
DAA said:
No, not moot.

The BLM should not equal "cops". The BLM, a federal land management bureaucracy, should not in my opinion have the option of using that kind of force at their discretion. Rangers being armed for their own protection is one thing. BLM having SWAT like enforcement personnel to implement land management policy, to enforce the rules they themselves - as bureaurocrats - decide to make, is quite something else and I for one don't like it.

Police generally don't get to make up the laws they then decide how and when to enforce. BLM does get to make up the rules - not even laws, rules - that they then get to decide when and where it's appropriate to enforce. Being able to make up their own rules and decide when and where to enforce is bad enough. Having the option to use that kind of force to back up their rules is ridiculous. They should be forced to enlist the help of actual law enforcement agencies if they feel it's necessary.

It's not moot. It sucks.

- DAA
Click to expand...

I don't know a lot about these things, but this strikes a chord with me. Local law enforcement is generally held directly accountable to a locally elected official who is held directly accountable by the folks what elected him, or at worst appointed by another elected official. And as DAA notes, the laws they enforce are formulated at the same level by people who are also accountable to those same voters. Neither of those things is true for the BLM. Until this nonsense with the Nevada ranch and now this protest, I didn't know the BLM had Special Tactics type people. I'm not ok with that. BLM can have AR15s or whatever for when they might run into drug growers or poachers or what have you, but I see no reason at all for them to have trained squads of goons, and definitely no reason for those goons to be anywhere within miles of a political protest. The Feds have enough trained squads of goons as it is.
 
DAA

DAA

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Location
West Bountiful, UT
It's pretty simple. We live in a society where the system occasionally requires having a gun put to my head to get me to go along with the program. Where the rubber really meets the road, that is how civilized society works. Otherwise, I'd not pay taxes, obey traffic laws, or consistently overcome my occasional desire to let the air out of some random ass wipe. Get a few too many like me, without guns being put to our heads, next thing you know, civil society is in danger.

But I'm very sensitive about the subject of who gets to decide when it's okay to put that gun to my head and who gets to pull the trigger. Very sensitive.

The BLM has no business being in the position of deciding when it's okay to put that gun to my head and even less business being in the position of pulling the trigger. It's amazing to me how many Americans are perfectly okay with every other alphabet agency and bureaucracy in their gov't having the authority of making their own decisions and then the capability of putting guns to their heads and telling them how it's going to be.

- DAA
 
anderson750

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
nnnnnate said:
Those sniper rifles look a lot like ARs to me. The BLM has a law enforcement branch. Law enforcement carry arms, I don't see how this is news. I also don't understand how these law enforcement are endangering innocent families due to being armed. I'd be willing to bet that a fair amount of the protestors were carrying but they are not being called out for endangering their fellow protestors. Should we be nervous that there are armed police officers in the schools that our children attend?

There are always cops at protests and they are always armed. This is a moot point.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misused the title of "sniper" since I was referring to the fact that they were hiding in the tree's along the route and not visibly present during the protest not referring to the type of gun they were carrying.

DAA said:
It's pretty simple. We live in a society where the system occasionally requires having a gun put to my head to get me to go along with the program. Where the rubber really meets the road, that is how civilized society works. Otherwise, I'd not pay taxes, obey traffic laws, or consistently overcome my occasional desire to let the air out of some random ass wipe. Get a few too many like me, without guns being put to our heads, next thing you know, civil society is in danger.

But I'm very sensitive about the subject of who gets to decide when it's okay to put that gun to my head and who gets to pull the trigger. Very sensitive.

The BLM has no business being in the position of deciding when it's okay to put that gun to my head and even less business being in the position of pulling the trigger. It's amazing to me how many Americans are perfectly okay with every other alphabet agency and bureaucracy in their gov't having the authority of making their own decisions and then the capability of putting guns to their heads and telling them how it's going to be.

- DAA
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
nnnnnate

nnnnnate

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Location
WVC, UT
I will never claim to be the most educated man on the subject, and I am sure that affects my current stance. I do tend to have a pro law enforcement mentality. I also tend to assume that LE will act prudently and justly to protect life. Regardless, I do see the necessity of long guns at any protest. It is often that LE are required to enforce law that they don't personally agree with. I'm not trying to defend the BLM and how they create policy or any other city or government agency. I simply was trying to explain my view on why LE was and is necessary despite popular opinion. I do see the people at the BLM making the rules completely separate from those enforcing them which I understand is a difficult viewpoint for others to see.

I honestly don't view this current issue as being any different from the state of Utah telling me I can't drive on the south side of Antelope Island. They (Utah) have made quite the to-do about the BLM closing land access but in my mind have done the same thing albeit on a smaller scale. Is it okay for Utah to limit my access but not okay for the BLM to do so? I wish people would show more respect to the outdoors and not give others a reason to shut areas down and I wish I could go wherever I wanted whenever I wanted.

I tend to stay out of discussions like this because I rarely have the same views of those I associate with. Perhaps I ought to have stayed out of this one as well.
 
DAA

DAA

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Location
West Bountiful, UT
There's no harm in expressing your opinion. Although, I get it, too, as I usually have contrary views and usually keep them to myself. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm in total, profound disagreement. To me, Bureaucrats with rifles being considered as necessary at citizen protests is an absolutely chilling, frightening way of looking at the role of the Federal gov't. I mean, truly - that's some scary stuff.

- DAA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top