Utah Greater Canyonlands Wirlwind Tour

[SportSawyer]

... I think this has a way of showing that it in a way is already protected. ...

It also may end up helping SUWA.

If you want to show the BLM lands within the proposed GCNM are protected, look at the Moab FO, Price FO, Richfield FO, and Monticello FO Final RMPs. Then look at what the protection was before the RMPs (which is basically the No Action Alternative in the DEIS).

The worst thing OHV interests could do is fall into the trap of asking for changes to SUWA's proposed GCNM plan to "better meet responsible OHV users' needs." This would have the effect of legitimizing an illegitimate end run (use of Antiquities Act to designate another huge monument in Utah) around the RMP's. It's better to support the RMPs, which went through 8-years of public process and included input from all stakeholders.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...The worst thing OHV interests could do is fall into the trap of asking for changes to SUWA's proposed GCNM plan to "better meet responsible OHV users' needs." This would have the effect of legitimizing an illegitimate end run (use of Antiquities Act to designate another huge monument in Utah) around the RMP's. It's better to support the RMPs, which went through 8-years of public process and included input from all stakeholders.

Yes and no. Hedge all your bets on the 'No Monument' and OHV users are 100% SOL if/when the NM is created. Work to protect interests (without supporting) and if/when the NM is created and at least we may have some protection to access. Mountain Bikers have been working this angle (allegedly sucsessfully) within the Red Rock Wilderness Bill, obviously it is yet to pass but they are still working to protect their interests as best you can. You can plan on your boat not sinking or you can bring a life jacket...