what happened to "anti-access- moab thread"?

[utahmike]

It matters not that Sierra Club or SUWA will prompt them for such actions. These agencies do not operate under the aegis of these private organizations, and may by any number of means implement them. Although BLM is supposed to be guided under the hand of public input, there have been a few instances where such actions were done w/o public input/open house, etc.

Capt. Picky,
I am impressed at your ability to articulate a thoughtful and controlled reply. What has happened is truly unfortunate. If you have an "official statement" you would like us to get out for you, our offer to use our email alert system stands open.

I agreed with most all of your comments, and although I may have misunderstood the statement quoted above, I would like to take exception to it. I used to think agency employees were truly unbiased and uninfluenced by special interest. After taking on my current job, and yes this is my full time job, I have grown much more cynical. I not only think but I truly know that there are agency employees, who are not only influenced by groups like SUWA, but who are card carrying members. While these may be few, their personal ideals are very detrimental to sound land use management. These employees are Human and subject to weakness and pressure like the rest of us. I can't fault them for that, but on many occasions I have observed the effects of intense pressure from environmental groups on these managers and employees.

Environmetalists throw their weight around and often get their way. They may constantly complain and claim BLM is giving the farm away, but they know this is not true. If they were to ever claim absolute victory on any one issue, it would mean the fight for that issue is over and they risk losing funding over it. As such they will never be satisfied and will always pressure BLM for more.

Unfortunately as you have pointed out, we often give them all the ammunition they need to further their agenda.

The BLM Moab Field office is known even among and by other BLM employees as a slanted and biased office. It is disturbing to me that so much “impact” has occurred in their jurisdiction and it seems little has been done to pro-actively manage the situation. Now the knee-jerk response is to close things. We would hope that BLM would actively manage the land under the multiple use guideline. Some areas may need to be rehabilitated. But it would be unfortunate to see permanent closures. We hope to see a better a management approach to the unique cross section of users in your area. …I’m going off here…

Capt Picky, we agree with you on most all of your points and we want to help let us know if you want it.

 

[Capt. Picky]

Hello utahmike -

Firstly, I thank you very much for post and thoughts regarding this issue. Secondly, I wish to thank you and USA-All (which whom I've worked in the past) for offering your resources for our potential 'use'. Needless to say - but I shall anyway - I also appreciate the efforts and work done by USA-All to help keep the Public Land open to the public; to aid in issues regarding 4-wheeling issues and the overall support your organization affords. ;-)

Now, regarding the one issue cited as a quote from my prior post, I'll try to clarify that so that any misunderstanding (if any) will be addressed. I had posted:

It matters not that Sierra Club or SUWA will prompt them for such actions. These agencies do not operate under the aegis of these private organizations, and may by any number of means implement them. Although BLM is supposed to be guided under the hand of public input, there have been a few instances where such actions were done w/o public input/open house, etc.

Unfortunate as it is, I cannot now remember with any certainty the exact instance where BLM had made an "administrative" action. I wish I could recollect the exact case in fact, but nevertheless I do recall just such a thing as having occurred. They've not been numerous that I know of, but still, I knew of at least this one instance. It might have been an offshoot of an issue which the public had been invited to supply input, but due to extenuating circumstances which went beyond the normal mode of operation/ time frame allotted, *additional and newer* actions were implemented by BLM whch ran contrary to the input/BLM response which had existed up to the time of the 'closing arguments', and the stated action to be officially taken by the BLM.

As for the case of BLM employees having a side/personal agenda which *may* adversely affect their decisions or actions, that may very well be a possibility, and one which I've not been blind to. I just didn't want to 'go there' as that enters a larger area with far more involved issues with which I'm not prepared to deal with. I hope you can understand my view/position on this.

Returning *close* to my initial point, but being a bit more specific. There was an instance where BLM held open house in several regional offices. The final open house/ review was at the Moab District Office. In this meeting were the final plans regarding the efforts made during the previous year where the every visible trail of San Rafael Swell and areas east of Utah Highway 24 had been GPS'ed and documented. This was to address the revised RMP for the entire area. Now I'll cite a single example regarding this matter:

The BLM had a map making machine at this meeting. A doubtless expensive piece of hardware which could print color maps (which could include whatever data the software was configured for) on the spot to an enormous proportion, such as 4 x 6 feet or so. On one of these maps was the well known route of Hey Joe Canyon - STILL marked as a "Pack Trail" as per the USGS 7 1/2 minute Topo maps are. Now, I know, that they know, that we know, that you know, that they know, that this trail is NOT a Pack Trail. As such there isn't really a problem with that. However, there is a big issue with that in the overall sense as far as I'm concerned. Categorically:
1) The Map was presented at the meeting and had erroneous info. To a four-wheeler outdoor enthusiast who knows the true case, that's not a problem per se. However, these meetings are open house and the public with its full range of understanding and naivety are also present. Thusly, misinformation can propagate.
2) The maps were available and could be /would be dessiminated to whatever party was interested in obtaining them... along with the erroneous info. The maps were readily avalable for free as a very small map which still included all details of their bigger brothers. You are doubtless aware <-correction edit of the ones to which I refer, and which are readily available in any BLM office for free.
3) The corrected info was well known, yet remained uncorrected in print, depite acknowledgement of the facts of that trail.
4) Some 'do-gooder johnny-come-lately' could use that map as a 'bible' and dispute the legitimate right of a 4-wheeler (or any vehicle for that matter) to use that trail.

Now I can fully realize that nothing is perfect and that there will likely be mistakes made in any field of endeavor, but the case I'm citing is not one of any "newness or dispute", but was still left uncorrected at that late date. Is it then any wonder that all sorts of misunderstandings can come to pass? Not in my view it isn't.

Basically I'm saying that there is a difficult enough time getting things clearly understood when all the facts are there. Not removing or not correcting a known error in this area only serves to cloud and confuse the problem even further. It's like blabbing some incorrect info in the headlines USA wide, and then printing (if even acknowledged in print at all) a correction on page 122 next to the Obit column. No-one (very few) are going to see it and stand corrected. :-/

"History is hard to know because of the hired B***$***. - Hunter S. Thompson (Note- my edit: $ was substituted for "s")

As per usual, just my take on things.

With kind regards,
Capt. Picky

 

[utahmike]

I like this guy! Thanks.

 

[dieslcruisrhead]

Here is SUWA's own language about the response from that ad.

(3)FROM MOAB WITH LOVE

A huge thank you goes out to all our members in Colorado and Utah
who sent emails and made phonecalls to Moab businesses regarding
our open letter to Governor Huntsman. More than 100 Utah
business owners signed the letter that appeared in a full-page ad
in the Salt Lake Tribune on Sunday, March 27.

The ad clearly demonstrated the growing breadth of support for
balanced management of our public lands. A few off-roaders in
online discussion groups, alarmed by the long list of businesses,
reacted to the non-confrontational letter by targeting the most
mainstream supporters for a retaliatory boycott. It was highly
effective when these businesses, who rely in no small part on
tourism revenues, also heard from folks who supported their stand
for the land.

Most of the businesses who signed on to the open letter to the
governor reported that an overwhelming majority of the comments
they received from the public were favorable. This has made a
huge impression! Word is spreading that taking a public stand to
protect the land can be good for business--even in conservative
southern Utah. Rest assured that the impact of your emails and
phone calls will be felt for months and years ahead as we
continue to expand grassroots for balanced public lands
management.

 

[UtahFire]

SUWA and a slap in the face.

It sounds like SUWA is saying that these businesses really don't want/need our cash. They are saying their "green" members are going to take care of the Moab businesses with their "green" cash. I am certainly willing to comply with their wishes on that.

The problem here is not that we as "jeepers" want to distroy the landscape. Most of us agree that there should be a reasonable approch to protecting the land and recreating on it. SUWA's approch is to just shut it all down. They claim they are for managed access. Their approch to managed access is kicking all the OHV people out of the real pretty stuff and allowing us to ride only on the ugly crap that makes up much of the BLM lands in the West.

I think it is only a matter of time before much of the land around Moab is made a wilderness area. I hope that the Moab businesses will be able to survive on the revenue the hikers will be able to bring in to the town. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Bye-the-way, for those of you who know about other wilderness areas in the State of Utah, moutain bikes are generally not allowed either.

 

[UtahFire]

Moab Chevron Response

Here is an email repsonse I got back from Moab Chevron today about the SUWA letter:

Dear Warren,
We learned of this letter two days after it was published. I am writing to clarify our stance. In no way are we anti-access or against OHV recreation. We do believe in responsible and sustainable recreation as do most jeepers and OHV enthusiasts. We do regret the fact that because of this letter we are now thought to be in cahoots with SUWA. We never intended on becoming politically involved in such a sticky situation and will be much more careful when it comes to conversations we have and petitions that we accidentally sign, being unaware of the consequences. I hope that this letter does not stop you or your friends from coming to Moab and patronizing the local businesses. Many of us listed, were unaware of what we were signing and the response it would have.
Sincerely,
Ashle Kent
Moab Chevron-