Utah public lands policies could lose state outdoor retailers convention

I think this was in the Des News, it was emailed to me without a link.

Utah public lands policies could lose state outdoor retailers convention
By Dennis Romboy

Utah's attempt to wrest control of federal lands in the state could be a major obstacle to keeping the lucrative Outdoor Retailer trade show in Salt Lake City.

Outdoor Industry Association President and CEO Frank Hugelmeyer said the industry is often "surprised and frustrated" by Utah's unfavorable positions on public lands policy.

"Of greatest concern is the governor’s lawsuit challenging the federal government over jurisdiction of the federal public lands and some road claims within national parks, monuments and wilderness areas. We have not and will not sit silently on threats to the nation’s recreation infrastructure," he said.

Hugelmeyer's strong words came after the OIA board of directors met with Gov. Gary Herbert for about 90 minutes behind closed doors Wednesday.

A rift between the state and the outdoor industry has been brewing for some time, causing OIA to consider moving the state's largest summer and winter conventions elsewhere once the current contract expires in 2014. The semiannual shows bring 47,000 visitors and $40 million to the state each year.

In addition to the public lands issues, the show has outgrown the 679,000-square-foot Salt Palace Convention Center and a temporary 75,000-square-foot pavilion. Salt Lake City, which has hosted the event since 1996, also lacks hotel space to accommodate conventiongoers.

The 2012 Outdoor Retailer Summer Market started Wednesday with open-air demonstrations at Jordanelle Reservoir. The downtown trade show runs Thursday through Sunday.

Herbert came away from the meeting — his first with the association — with a different take than Hugelmeyer, saying the sticking points are more about exhibit and hotel space than politics.

"I think there are some issues out there that are legitimate and some that are rumor and myth," the governor said, adding that he addressed some of those "misunderstandings" in the meeting. "There's not really in Utah, for example, this desire to privatize the land."

Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature passed and Herbert signed a bill demanding that the federal government relinquish ownership of more than 30 million acres of public lands in the state by 2014. The state also sued the federal government this summer seeking control of 12,000 backcountry routes and roads.

"Beyond setting bad national precedent, these policies threaten the recreation infrastructure that is fundamental to the outdoor industry," Hugelmeyer said. "Good economic policy cannot be divorced from bad public lands policy."
We have not and will not sit silently on threats to the nation's recreation infrastructure." -Frank Hugelmeyer
Herbert said it's about finding the right balance.

"It shouldn't swing too far to the right, it shouldn't swing too far to the left. We ought to be good stewards of the land. Outdoor recreation is a big part of our economy and we're going to maintain that," he said.

Hugelmeyer said it's disappointing that the state hasn't had a collaborative relationship with the outdoor industry on public lands policy.

"We would like to see that change," he said. "It should be the rare exception, not the rule, for Utah’s leadership and congressional delegation to announce or implement policies with little to no consultation or warning for the companies whose lives depend on a well- managed outdoors."

Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, a driving force behind Utah's public lands legislation, said nothing is set in stone in terms of future land management.

"If they want input, come to the table. I haven't had a phone call from any of those guys," said Ivory, who was in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday talking up Utah's public lands position.

Ivory questioned the outdoor industry's reasons for looking elsewhere, noting the state has no intention of taking over national parks, national monuments and designated wilderness areas.

"Would we like them stay? Of course," he said. "Do I know the motivations behind what they're saying? I can't say."
I think there are some issues out there that are legitimate, and some that are rumor and myth.
–Gary Herbert
Boulder-based OIS is reportedly looking at Denver, Las Vegas and Anaheim as possible sites for future shows. Hugelmeyer said a state's political climate is only one factor among many to consider.

"My suggestion to them," Herbert said, "was they will be more profitable, more successful in Salt Lake City, Utah, than any other place they're looking at currently."

Hugelmeyer said he expects the Herbert administration to work with the outdoor industry within the next 30 days on possible solutions, and that the governor's office would provide specific recommendations by Outdoor Retailer Winter Market 2013.

The governor, however, suggested the time frame for discussion would be the next six months to a year.

Ben Longley, sales and marketing manager for Geogia- based BugBand, understands the problems with too little convention space and too few hotel rooms, but said there are "major upsides to being here."

"If I think of the outdoor lifestyle, I think of Salt Lake, not Las Vegas," he said. "We go to Vegas for some other shows, but I much prefer to come here because it fits with our company."

Ed Kalbach, owner of a Logan company called iCat that offers products for Apple devices used by outdoor enthusiasts, has been involved with the show since it had only 18 exhibitors.

But he doesn't think the city should build more exhibit space for a twice yearly convention.

"I'm not sure it shouldn't move on," he said. "I think the outdoor industry is in trouble. I see kids and they're on computers, playing games, they're not outdoors."

Kalbach said the convention does need to stay in the West, which means Las Vegas or Denver.

"To move it anywhere else is a mistake," he said.
 

jeeper

I live my life 1 dumpster at a time
Location
So Jo, Ut
I don't think they'll leave, Utah gives them TONS of sales.. besides, they appose land use by vehicle anyway
 

bryson

RME Resident Ninja
Supporting Member
Location
West Jordan
...Hugelmeyer said it's disappointing that the state hasn't had a collaborative relationship with the outdoor industry on public lands policy.

"We would like to see that change," he said. "It should be the rare exception, not the rule, for Utah’s leadership and congressional delegation to announce or implement policies with little to no consultation or warning for the companies whose lives depend on a well- managed outdoors."

...


This seems like a rather odd comment to me. Do they really want Utah to consult with Petzl or Black Diamond or other random retailer before passing legislation? Am I reading that wrong, or is that what he is saying?

What is your take on this (the whole situation, not just the part I mentioned...) Mr. Jackson?
 
I thought the comments that Utah doesn't want to privatize public land or has no interest in taking over wilderness areas was interesting. Wasn't that the point of Take Back Utah and the lawsuits? Just a puff piece to fill columns in my opinion. Seems like Denver is a better fit, but not because of any public land policy. Just logistics.
 

jackjoh

Jack - KC6NAR
Supporting Member
Location
Riverton, UT
Steve, tried a PM and email but they did not work so I am adding this here. U4 just paid $1400 for the use of pictures on our website. Do you know anything about this? Is it a legitimate cost?
 

jackjoh

Jack - KC6NAR
Supporting Member
Location
Riverton, UT
It seems to me that the outdoor recreation people are mostly tree huggers so their policies would be against anything I believe. Therefore I don't care to have their policies imposed on the State or the pressure they can bring to bear used here. Their money is welcome if they so desire to leave it here but that is up to them just don't try to get rid of four-wheeling.
 

cruiseroutfit

Cruizah!
Moderator
Vendor
Location
Sandy, Ut
Why is this of any surprise? The Outdoor Retailer Show (been many times fwiw) is aimed in large majority (lets just say 90%+) at human powered sports which are not under any current threat by the federal government nor Wilderness with the exception of MTB's (and they are working their own Wilderness angle). So given they have near free reign over the public lands in the State of Utah, why would they want any change at all? They are a very educated on the land use matters here in Utah, while I don't align with all of their opinions I can fully understand why they want nothing to do with a State takeover of public lands. There is a growing number of motorized users that have the same apprehension with the proposed take over as well. I personally am not going to place much support in the proposal until there is some back end plan of how it is going to happen both financially and logistically on the ground. What areas will be privatized? What areas will be leased? Where will we lose access? Where will we gain access? Unfortunately these things were not answered in the bill rather the bill states that a committee will be formed to study these items. How hard would we laugh at a bill to lower taxes that doesn't actually lower taxes it just says they should be lowered by Jan, 1 2015 and they should form a committee to figure out how to do so ;) Of most concern to me personally is the sale of lands as well as the leases to bulk tracts of lands that could/would result in the exclusion of public recreation, be it for private property issues and or perceived safety issues near oil, gas, mining or ranching industries. This could be a very beneficial proposition for Utah's motorized community... but it could also be very damaging for not only the motorized community but the outdoor public as well.

I guess I really need to do some research on the fundamental reasoning behind the land surrender. I've seen the language of the bill but what is the real pretense that would permit the land to be returned to Utah on some historically lawful basis? I mean if the bills own proponents say its not going to happen as its not constitutional (see page 7 as our own legislators review the bill and said it is likely unconstitutional), what are they basing their argument on? Say they did win, does Mexico then have claim to the land as well as they 'owned' it before the newcomer "Utahans" started squatting on their land and later applied and lobbied the federal government to be a state? How much land do the Native Americans get back? When Utah became a state our deal with the federal government was that we were given 1 in 9 parcels of public property and surprise its that 1 in 9 that is sold on a regular basis to private interests (to fund our public schools so a much needed source of income). Where did that 1/9 number come from and did the then Utah government officials agree to it?

Out own Utah Constitution is somewhat damning no? Article III, Section 2: "The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States.". So basically we don't have any lawful ownership to the property, rather a hope that Congress shall decide we need the land and income more than they do, which given our federal governments fiscal situation isn't too likely right. Are we as a state going to throw a bunch of money at this in the name of public perception? What am I missing?
 
Last edited:

cruiseroutfit

Cruizah!
Moderator
Vendor
Location
Sandy, Ut
It seems to me that the outdoor recreation people are mostly tree huggers so their policies would be against anything I believe...

Jack, its easy to dismiss the as a bunch of "tree-huggers" but the reality is they represent exponentially more people, money and user than our motorized community so the biggest mistake anyone could make would be to discount their impact on both the states economy and their influence on policy. Walk through the ORS and you'll quickly realize that you (and I'd say everyone here on RME) is buyer of goods from an ORS vendor. Guidebooks, hiking boots, camping gear, every GPS manufacture, GoPro and thousands others... kinda like claiming to hate China while shopping at Walmart ;)
 

Tacoma

Et incurventur ante non
Location
far enough away
As it's been said in more detail a hundred times before: Utah's motorized usergroups-- actually, I should be inclusive and say mechanized usergroups-- are tilting at a cash windmill of enormous strength. I don't necessarily think that the opposition is educated any better than the offroad contingent, but they mobilize their checkbooks, and it is a far sexier, far easier sell to "protect wilderness"-- no matter how inaccurate, how inflammatory, and how just plain wrong the perception of that is-- than it is to get people to understand why and how big, gas-guzzling trucks, motorcycles, etc should be allowed to drive these roads through all this "wilderness"... Hugelmeyer's comments struck me as a little odd as well, I'm not sure how much of that is his personal political slant, and how much of it is motivated by a policy-based opinion, but definitley.. .strange.

I share Kurt's reticence to accept a blind "state's rights!!!" approach to this issue, especially given the state's constitution, and after spending as much time as I have in Vernal. Oil roads ALL OVER BLM land up there, pipelines at random, old lines running all over the place-- totally acceptable because oil companies are paying enormous truckloads of cash to get what they want. Money talks, and in UT it says "If you have a resource, we will get it, and you will take our money to let us".

In my opinion you either have to have the money to fight this battle, which UT's considerable offroad community has so far been unwilling to part with, or the passion to mount a large, involved grass-roots uprising against an injustice, which UT's offroad community ALSO lacks, so far. Personally, I think it's foolish not to acknowledge the reality of perception issue-- UT is seen nationwide as this awesome outdoor mecca, and its a no-brainer to tilt the public to the side of barring motorized recreation... the swelling coffers of green groups nationwide bear that out, compared to say... Blue Ribbon Coalition? United 4WD??

So, I don't know. Fight the good fight, rage against the dying of the light but..... good LUCK.
 

jackjoh

Jack - KC6NAR
Supporting Member
Location
Riverton, UT
Jack, its easy to dismiss the as a bunch of "tree-huggers" but the reality is they represent exponentially more people, money and user than our motorized community so the biggest mistake anyone could make would be to discount their impact on both the states economy and their influence on policy. Walk through the ORS and you'll quickly realize that you (and I'd say everyone here on RME) is buyer of goods from an ORS vendor. Guidebooks, hiking boots, camping gear, every GPS manufacture, GoPro and thousands others... kinda like claiming to hate China while shopping at Walmart ;)

I am not dismissing them, I am acknowledging the fact that they have money and political power but I do not agree with them.
 
Steve, tried a PM and email but they did not work so I am adding this here. U4 just paid $1400 for the use of pictures on our website. Do you know anything about this? Is it a legitimate cost?

I don't know, if someone wanted $1400 for a picture being used, I'd remove the picture before wasting $1400. There is a market for stock photographs to be used in various medium. Usually web being the cheapest, a few dollars and up depending on how the owner wants to license the photo. $1400 is way beyond reasonable. I've been out for 3 years, after looking, most of the photos on the website are ones that Alan Taylor put up in the original design (6 or 7 years old now?), pictures I took myself, or stuff that's been added which I couldn't comment on. I'll make room for one PM or email me, I'd be interested to hear the story. How is that $1400 protecting access?
 
Last edited:

Herzog

somewhat damaged
Admin
Location
Wydaho
If that was a bill from Getty Images, you guys got scammed. They tried doing this to a company I worked for a while back. Basically they just scour the internet looking for their images that were legally purchased at one point in time then send a letter demanding payment for the image... surprisingly most companies pay without questioning. It's their latest racket. Getty images sucks.
 
Top