Greetings outtahere, and all other forum readers and members -
This will be yet another one of my "too long posts...", therefore I must submit it in two sections. There are too many 'characters' beyond the limit, just as there are so many "characters out there'. :-D
outtahere said:
Good writing on land use ethics, Capt. Picky. If only we had more like you. In fact, you sound a lot like SUWA.
If I were to be a defensive sort of fellow, I might take offense to the latter sentence of the above quoted statement, however, I'm not. In fact, I take firm pride in the care I have for the beauty which attracts my attention (still - 26 years after first setting eyes upon it), and my reasons for trying to 'promote' an understanding of that beauty. SUWA is a relative latecomer when placed next to my yardstick. They are reacting to things after the fact; I am trying to address these issues from where they originate.
I only take issue with this part:
Capt. Picky: "First of all, *If* the Representative were truly an actual believer in what they were presenting, they should probably have said something to the effect of 'Listen; in the long run and big picture you are doing something noble and in the long term it will be a benefit of immense value. You might not fully understand it or agree with it now, but believe me when I tell you that time will show you that this is true and totally worthwhile'. But no; that's not what happened... this person looked at this as strictly a matter of finances and monetary value."
I still stand firmly behind this statement - quoted above - which I made. To elucidate: *I don't want outside intervention or regulation*.
I would hope and wish for people to conduct themselves with discretion and care when 4-wheeling and not regard every area as one giant sandbox (which it will become if every bit of vegetation is destroyed). It will achieve 100% entropy as all will then be the same. <-- an obtuse abstraction. But it would hardly be interesting to me to be in an environment of all sand and dirt, tire tracks, and black rubber marks on every prominence which might remain jutting up off of the otherwise featureless and beautyless place.
In my final analysis of this, what use is freedom in H***? What use would it be to spend my time and $$ four wheeling around in a place where it is *ugly*? Why should I live here to find that every place looks as featureless as New Jersey (not wishing to imply that anything is actually wrong with N.J.; just saying it lacks the wonderful landform expression that might be *TAKEN FOR GRANTED* and abused here in Moab) or some demolition derby arena?
Fact of the matter is that it's unrealistic to expect proper 'behavior' from 100% of the (our) fellow outdoor enthusiasts, or to expect all to see and agree on the ways and means of personal enjoyment. In light of that, it is not unrealistic to see that in the not too distant future, that the Administering agencies will eventually curtail or outright close areas. 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.
Short version (haha) is: If we can't regulate and care for things ourselves, someone will be all too willing to do that for us. You've heard of 'play nicely, or don't play at all' ? I've already witnessed such actions done. Prompted *not* by SUWA or anyone else, but simply by the County or Regional BLM office to address the *carnage* created by spring breakers that came to the Moab Easter Jeep Safari and ran roughshod over the Sandflats area back in 1993 (IIRC). Since that 'wonderful' time and the 'wonderful' mess they created (I was there. I saw it with my own eyes. This is not heresay) the way Sandflats has been managed has taken on a whole new complexion.
And guess what? Despite having to now pay to enter there; to have to had mark the trail (which BLM first requested that we should not mark), despite admonishments and requests to not run that trail unless one *absolutely* knew the route, or had guidance by one who did know it; to now have the area restricted to *designated trails and routes*, the place is still being messed up, and as I've said earlier, we must now literally as well as figuratively *pay* for that privilege. The above problem is no longer limited to Sandflats area, and has spread to virtually all other areas of widespread use (more specifically, abuse)
That same thing can and *will* happen on a far larger scale if we don't learn what price is to be paid by all from the actions of the few. Furthermore, I am *hoping* it IS from the FEW, and NOT from the MANY. I mean, that if the general overall complexion has become one of *EXTREME THIS and EXTREME THAT*, with but a handful of 4-wheelers who use the activity to explore and enjoy the land, recognizing it's innate beauty and value, VERSUS simply enjoying the USE of their VEHICLES as the *be all end all*, then it's *all over*. Please try and realize that this is not some dirt/wooded area with no "interface" of variety and lacking outstanding expressions of the landform (i.e. - *scenery*). Isn't this why we choose to come here and live here? If you want to just drive on dirt and plants and rock, aren't there many other places in which one could do that? While on this subject, I am left totally amazed at the sheer number of tracks I see adjacent to a slab of slickrock/slabrock which go some undefined distance through scruboak and blackbrush to then re-emerge back onto the well marked slickrock. I'm talking Fins and Things in this instance. The trail is profusely marked at this one section I'm referring to to the point of absurdity. I have personally painted the Stegosaur stencil trail marking every vehicle length, It was hardly necessary - or so it seemed - it was matked and the only obvious route. BUT, for some reason, there were those who wanted to drive in the adjacent dirt despite the obvious location of the trail. Well, I'm compelled to ask a number of things here, but will limit it to one, and one only. Why would someone deliberately drive on dirt and run over plants where they had never been driven on before, when one has the nearly *unique* ability to drive on slickrock (and leave no trace to boot)? Where else in the world can one do that? New Jersey maybe? Furthermore, in time it had been repeated by untold numbers of drivers as the dirt 'trail' grew in length, depth and breadth. We added more stencil marks; we blocked the dirt trail - *countless* times. Guess what? That didn't work either.
:-\
Now, back to where I was before I digressed into *fact*:
*Extreme* whatever it is (extreme book reading/ extreme shopping/ extreme hang-gliding / extreme first-dating) will be answered with *extreme solutions*. Why should these entities and Adminstering agencies not match 'fire with fire'? What I am asking here is this: If everything has become "extreme", why should they be an exception? I don't like it, and I am not saying I'm in favor of it (by any stretch of the imagination), but I am a realist. I've been around the block a couple of times.
In the long distant past generally "all was permitted except that which was forbidden". (Cultural taboos and laws). Then it became - or is becoming - "All is forbidden except that which is permitted". The next step which naturally follows is "All is forbidden except that which is compulsory". If things get this far, it is simply due to people trying to 'get away with' everything which they feel they can get away with before there are any laws enacted. Even after laws are enacted, the ones who pay are the reasonable person. The unreasonable still act..... unreasonable. Remember if you will, that murder, hate crimes, incest, vandalism, theft, and all others are laws on the books. People still do them. They actually have not stemmed the tide. (maybe they have to some degree... I've not done a scientific poll or study) What I'm getting at here, is that people who have acted and carried themselves in a responsible manner are the ones who get shut out, must pay for, and lose their freedom and privileges. The others just do the same thing in some other way elsewhere or in some other field of endeavor. Surely you've heard of instances where some CEO or other shyster has done that which was *morally wrong*, but was not prevented from doing so because there was no law on the books to prevent them? Try to pause and examine this entire issue in a similar light, and you will see why we will have bigger problems if we don't police ourselves. Some one will do it for us, AND you will have to pay them (as a taxpayer) for that 'privilege'. This is not my idea of a good time or money well spent, when there may be less 'costly' ways of dealing with it. I could well expand on this but will not bore and belabor you all with what I have learned and observed as I've lived.
End Page 1 - Page 2 continues next post
