Yeah, I know what you're saying, I was being as much tongue in cheek as anything.
I'm no expert, just as ignorant as the next person, but I think threads like this need to be more about what to do about this specific issue instead of focusing on how SUWA may or may not suck.
In this case, I think that writing to Secretary Salazar (who is the recipient of said petition) is the most effective thing to do. He's getting emails from them, he should get them from us too. I also think that copying the email to those listed in my previous post is helpful because it gives those agencies/politicians the empowerment to approach Salazar in a defensive mode with evidence of public support to back them up.
WHAT TO WRITE?
Good: Mention that you oppose the petition
Better: Add that you support the positions of USA-ALL, U4WDA, and BRC (then hope that those organizations are sending in correspondence stating their positions)
Best: Mention something personal and specific (such and such road that I use is within the petitioned area and the petition misrepresents the facts in that...).
As far as our land use organizations keeping us up to date:
BRC has out an action alert about this
here telling us to contact our US Representatives using the link
here.
U4WDA has a news alert that links to the BRC Action Alert
here.
USA-ALL tends to be a little stingy on "action alerts" (they worry that sending out an action alert about every little thing tends to water down the enthusiasm and urgency and is like crying wolf before the real emergencies come along). So I couldn't find anything on their website or a specific call to action, but they did email out "Land Use News" about it, which included the following statement that they had provided to the media. I think it provides some ideas on what to include in your emails to Salazar/US Reps/whoever:
We welcome the proactive management of OHVs on public land, not only in the Canyon Lands area but, all over our beautiful state. However the anti-access groups, like SUWA, fail to recognize that access routes can and should be managed not closed. There are many tools at the disposal of land managers to address the use of public land. Allowing the public greater access to public land will enhance the public's love of the land. We protect what we know and love. Closure of routes will not truly protect anything. However, increased closures will shift and concentrate use into ever smaller places thereby creating greater impacts. Route closure is not the solution. Active management with input from all user groups is what is needed.
All forms of access have impacts to land, water, and resources. We believe that these impacts can be managed in a way to allow for responsible motorized access and protection of public land, natural resources, and cultural resources. The archaic notion that we must close routes to protect our environment is narrow minded and false. SUWA's obvious hatred of, and assault on, OHVs and those who operate them will not serve to address issues and reach solutions. Their reliance on fear, half truths, and junk science calls into question their true motives. Unfortunately they and their petition do little to solve real problems but certainly keep the fires of controversy burning. And let's face it, controversy is good for business. Reaching real solutions would put them out of business.
As far as a long-term, full fledged plan of attack? I think
the thread here is very much headed in the right direction. It appears to have fizzled out here on the open forum, but I do hope that the ideas expressed are still strong behind the scenes (I know they still are strong on my end) and that U4WDA/USA-ALL are in contact with each other about how to get this thing rolling and that a need for specific member volunteer actions can be called for in the near future.