utahmike
Lobbyist \ Consultant
- Location
- Salt Lake City, UT
I was really expecting to get flamed from my post. So I am pleasantly surprised. 
I wanted to add 2 quick (yeah right) points.
1- The effort yesterday was bipartisan. Mike Noel asked me to say a few words and I was a little nervous, not because of the crowd or the TV cameras but because I was standing next to the longest standing senator in Utah history and the Senate minority leader Mike Dimitrich. He IS the democratic leader for the senate. He was the senate sponsor on a number of our bills. There were other Dem’s there also. I can understand what you’re saying; you’re right about what SHOULD happen. I wish we could all have an open healthy dialogue and solve problems too. But that requires 2 willing parties and I can tell you SUWA is not willing. SUWA for the longest time has disregarded us as weak. We are showing them we are not weak, we have grown substantially, and now we’re playing offense. We want to be proactive and less reactive. Our strategy is working.
2- How do I say this the right way… I appreciate the good the BLM does. I appreciate the trails that are left open. I even appreciate the remote areas that don’t have trails, I can buy off on some areas becoming Wilderness. I like to keep my face in the sunshine, you know, focus on the good. But every once in a while you have to look back and remember what we’ve lost. The off-road community has already paid a high price. Feeling good about ONLY losing a few more trails is unacceptable to our organization. There needs to be a very good reason for closure and the blanket hollow answer “resource issues” is not sufficient. The BLM has a close it and forget it attitude, mitigation seems to be a last resort.
That’s a wordy way to say I am not happy with the RMP’s. It’s tempting to try to be positive and say, “It’s good enough” or “it could have been worse.” Well maybe that’s true but were do we draw the line? When we’re down to our last two trails and they close one do we say, “It could have been worse”? USA-ALL has drawn a line. Trails should only be closed in legitimate and certain circumstances. We will not accept the closure of trails to be re-designated as motorcycle trails (this happened in hobble creek) or mountain bike trails (Moab). We will not accept trail closures because of resource issues when those issues could be mitigated. We will not accept trail closure because of “User conflict”. Why are motorized users the ones who always lose that conflict? USA-ALL wants old trails reopened. We have established a “no net loss” policy. If a trail gets closed even for legitimate reasons we want an additional and equal trail reopened or constructed. NO NET LOSS!
And for those who don’t think we like 4x4’s, I have had a long standing policy (and it has got me into trouble with other supporters) That if a trail can accommodate or was ever used for full size vehicle travel, it should remain that way. It SHOULD NOT be re-designated as an ATV or Single Track trail. That makes my blood boil.
I wanted to add 2 quick (yeah right) points.
1- The effort yesterday was bipartisan. Mike Noel asked me to say a few words and I was a little nervous, not because of the crowd or the TV cameras but because I was standing next to the longest standing senator in Utah history and the Senate minority leader Mike Dimitrich. He IS the democratic leader for the senate. He was the senate sponsor on a number of our bills. There were other Dem’s there also. I can understand what you’re saying; you’re right about what SHOULD happen. I wish we could all have an open healthy dialogue and solve problems too. But that requires 2 willing parties and I can tell you SUWA is not willing. SUWA for the longest time has disregarded us as weak. We are showing them we are not weak, we have grown substantially, and now we’re playing offense. We want to be proactive and less reactive. Our strategy is working.
2- How do I say this the right way… I appreciate the good the BLM does. I appreciate the trails that are left open. I even appreciate the remote areas that don’t have trails, I can buy off on some areas becoming Wilderness. I like to keep my face in the sunshine, you know, focus on the good. But every once in a while you have to look back and remember what we’ve lost. The off-road community has already paid a high price. Feeling good about ONLY losing a few more trails is unacceptable to our organization. There needs to be a very good reason for closure and the blanket hollow answer “resource issues” is not sufficient. The BLM has a close it and forget it attitude, mitigation seems to be a last resort.
That’s a wordy way to say I am not happy with the RMP’s. It’s tempting to try to be positive and say, “It’s good enough” or “it could have been worse.” Well maybe that’s true but were do we draw the line? When we’re down to our last two trails and they close one do we say, “It could have been worse”? USA-ALL has drawn a line. Trails should only be closed in legitimate and certain circumstances. We will not accept the closure of trails to be re-designated as motorcycle trails (this happened in hobble creek) or mountain bike trails (Moab). We will not accept trail closures because of resource issues when those issues could be mitigated. We will not accept trail closure because of “User conflict”. Why are motorized users the ones who always lose that conflict? USA-ALL wants old trails reopened. We have established a “no net loss” policy. If a trail gets closed even for legitimate reasons we want an additional and equal trail reopened or constructed. NO NET LOSS!
And for those who don’t think we like 4x4’s, I have had a long standing policy (and it has got me into trouble with other supporters) That if a trail can accommodate or was ever used for full size vehicle travel, it should remain that way. It SHOULD NOT be re-designated as an ATV or Single Track trail. That makes my blood boil.
