• RME Gear & Apparel

Opposing the Potential Designation of a Greater Canyonland National Monument

Olaf

Olaf

Active Member
Supporting Member
Location
Orange County, CA
This is what I'm talking about! Awareness will bring change!!! The internet and social media will work to our benefit!

cruiseroutfit said:
Fwiw, just read this on another forum regarding RMATV selling Camelbak products, once again RMATV continues to impress me!

Somebody wrote to them on their facebook page about it, and they confirmed that they will no longer sell camelbak once their current stock runs out. I would hope they could simply return it to them, but I don't know what kind of vendor relationship they have.
Click to expand...
 
cruiseroutfit

cruiseroutfit

Cruizah!
Moderator
Vendor
Location
Sandy, Ut
Olaf said:
This is what I'm talking about! Awareness will bring change!!! The internet and social media will work to our benefit!
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly my friend. The silver lining would be to see Camelbak back pedal on their GCNM stance as result of major vendors like RMATV. That is action!
 
Olaf

Olaf

Active Member
Supporting Member
Location
Orange County, CA
That's what I thought you meant regarding SITLA. I think we should figure out a way to buy up all of the "desirable" land that SITLA puts up for sale. Then we can decide how to manage it!
cruiseroutfit said:
Sorry Olaf, I was kinda rambling. SITLA (Utah Trust Lands, a Utah government entity) has closed areas around the state to motorized traffic as in their opinion, motorized traffic (trails and such) are "detracting from the real estate value of the land". I.e. they lock out motorized users because if/when they decide to sell the property (which does fund our school systems so it needs to happen), they don't want to have to deal with OHV activity on the property. Most notably in the Moab area would be the Lions Back/Hells Revenge exit area as well as the Proving Grounds areas.

Furthermore, they have in the past sold properties and had zero interest or intent to ensure any existing and historic right-of-ways or routes on that property remain open to the motorized community. They instead passed the buck onto the motorized community and the new land owner to sort out. I mentioned it was close to home for you as this happened with your next door neighbors at Area BFE. Land owners buy the land from the state at auction and immediately close Lower Helldorado and Strike Ravine. The SITLA office says in so many words they don't care about the routes and RR4W has to spend $20-30k to take the issue to court and force Miller & Rzeczycki to re-open the route as it had a legal right-of-way based on past use. Unfortunately that couldn't be proven for Lower Helldorado (too new) and SITLA didn't convey the rights on the property (not sure how that legally works) so it was lost. Fast forward to the next auction and the adjoining properties were for sale, it was know that Upper Helldorado and the other routes across the property would be again lost if it didn't end up in the right hands, and now we have Area BFE :D
Click to expand...



NPLD projects, individual club projects, etc often involve clubs working with the land managers (BLM, FS, etc) to close routes they (the land managers) deem should be closed. Examples would be the trail marking and fence building projects in American Fork Canyon, Five Mile Pass, Little Sahara Sand Dunes, Moab Area. I look at it this way, the land managers are closing the trails one way or the other, may as well promote stewardship and help right? Others however think we shouldn't help with any closures and in fact should 'boycott' the land managers working on such closures. I personally helped build a fence on the Pitsburgh Lake Trail in American Fork Canyon, it was a historic mining route, later turned 4x4 recreation route that was closed by the FS citing safety concerns, user conflicts, etc. I'd love to drive it one day but they have it closed and the fence build was part of a NPLD project that the U4WDA and local clubs were sponsoring. Let me know if that makes sense.
Click to expand...


Again, the grey area I'm talking about. You surely seem to promote fair & equal access yet are 'friends' (whatever that mean on Facebook these days) with the OIA (authors of the GCNM letter) and Utah Wilderness (SUWA, the proposer of the GCNM) on Facebook. How am I to interpret that? :D Again, not trying to air dirty laundry, just pointing out the grey areas that exist, I'm not familiar with any of the OIA's other legislation but I'm sure they have done some that the motorized community in fact benefits from so perhaps you supported them then because of that? The Utah Wilderness page however you'll have to expand on :D
Click to expand...
Kurt, here's another book to add the list if you haven't read it, "The Art of War." Keep your friends close and your enemies closer! That's why I friend these organizations! It allows me to access information on their fb pages that wouldn't otherwise be able to view.


Who are we punishing? There are hundreds of companies there that do in fact promote fair & equal access and obviously some that are proud to say they are OK with losses to the motorized community. I'm not going to skip supporting company A because they are at the same show as company B hosted by association C that happens to support group D who has proposed GCNM. Clear as mud :D
Click to expand...
Once again Kurt, I believe that each entity should be judged on their own merits! Rock Mtn Atv supports open access but perhaps they're unaware that Camelback doesn't. If we make them aware then perhaps they will re-evaluate.



I'm not afraid to take a position on behalf of my company, nor am I would I be afraid to ask. I just wouldn't be shocked to hear they say they don't want to touch the subject with a ten foot stick. Again, I'm not saying to not ask, I'm just telling you what my experience has been in similar circumstances.
Click to expand...
Let me be clear, I'm not asking a political question to these companies but rather an ideological one! Politics get complicated but ideology is is clear! If they don't want to take a position then I have to evaluate my position/relationship with that entity because not taking a position, is taking a position. It means that I can't count on them so they may as well be against us! I believe that there's only one thing worse than a "no" and that's a "maybe"!


The offense in my perspective is when the OHV community has legislation in front of lawmakers that protects and supersedes the legislation that is threatening motorized recreation, until then all we do is defend against it. Keep in mind that even with zero industry 'supporters' and even hundreds of industry detractors, GCNM or the RRWA could become law, the winds of political change and lobbying don't always favor the majority, particularly when your dealing with the local majority (which we may or may not be).
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right that there aren't any guarantees. I'm also not a politician so I'll leave that up to the Land Use people/organizations and PACS to do their job. I will continue with boots on the ground and try to figure out how to buy up as much land as possible while all of the politicing goes on.

Great stuff Olaf, I hope that through all this discussion we can all hone in on the best approaches to protecting access. So many fronts to the 'battle' with many having limited time its hard to figure out which one is the best course of action.
Click to expand...
I'm really learning here and I appreciate your guidance.
 
cruiseroutfit

cruiseroutfit

Cruizah!
Moderator
Vendor
Location
Sandy, Ut
Olaf said:
That's what I thought you meant regarding SITLA. I think we should figure out a way to buy up all of the "desirable" land that SITLA puts up for sale. Then we can decide how to manage it!
Click to expand...

Its a very valid strategy! I get quarterly notices for the upcoming SITLA auctions, I try and pour over them for any trail conflicts or major recreation opportunities. You serious about helping line up some buyers if/when a good parcel comes up?

Having the land in private (pro-OHV) hands is obviously very beneficial on the immediate lands (such as you have done with Area BFE) but their are neighboring benefits too such as the right to access ones property even if that means traveling through other disputed lands. Or the future ability to possibly trade parcel x to the BLM, NPS or FS for a parcel with better recreation opportunities. Ski resorts are doing this up here in the North, no public comment, just happens... next thing you know they own an entire mountain all from trades. We need to go live on this type of action ourselves!

Little Moab up here in the North is (partially) SITLA, I've always quipped that it would be a fabulous case study of pro-ohv group ownership? I don't think of this as the end all but more a stop gap to potentially provide some bartering power with other lands?
 
Last edited:
Olaf

Olaf

Active Member
Supporting Member
Location
Orange County, CA
Thanks for the book references.
I'm very aware of collateral damage and I understand how the ohv community has and will continue to suffer in the middle.

"We don't have enough enforcement so close it!" Do they ever consider whether this approach to management can continue successfully? Human nature shows that it will not be deprived of what it wants.

How does a SRMA differ from a National Recreation Area?

Skylinerider said:
I have a few brief comments while I take a break from planning my outdoor ethics presentation for the BLM tomorrow. SITLA lands are not technically "public" lands they are held in reserve to benefit Utah Schools. Whether that be from the outright sale, or leasing of the land or mineral rights is entirely up to the organization. I'm definitely not onboard with a monument, especially using and end run around the system such as the antiquities act. That said, there are ways to preserve the area for recreation. First the laws are already in place to control OHV usage, the problem is enforcement and I can't see a solution on the horizon with the lack of funding recreation programs receive within the BLM. THe OHV communtiy is going to be collateral damage in this fight between the "green folks" and the extractive industry. An alternative to a monument could be a SRMA (Special Recreation Management Area) This designation while not designed for such a large area as is proposed will ensure recreation as the preferred use of the land.

I would encourage everyone here to pick up a few books and read a bit on the history of conservation and preservation in America to more fully understand the history of this long fought argument. The first is "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold. The next is "Wilderness and the American Mind" by Roderick Nash. Another is "A brave New West: Morphing at the Speed of Greed" by Jim Stiles.
Click to expand...
 
Olaf

Olaf

Active Member
Supporting Member
Location
Orange County, CA
Yes! I will speak to some ohv specific companies that have expressed some interest in this type of action.

cruiseroutfit said:
Its a very valid strategy! I get quarterly notices for the upcoming SITLA auctions, I try and pour over them for any trail conflicts or major recreation opportunities. You serious about helping line up some buyers if/when a good parcel comes up?

Having the land in private (pro-OHV) hands is obviously very beneficial on the immediate lands (such as you have done with Area BFE) but their are neighboring benefits too such as the right to access ones property even if that means traveling through other disputed lands. Or the future ability to possibly trade parcel x to the BLM, NPS or FS for a parcel with better recreation opportunities. Ski resorts are doing this up here in the North, no public comment, just happens... next thing you know they own an entire mountain all from trades. We need to go live on this type of action ourselves!

Little Moab up here in the North is (partially) SITLA, I've always quipped that it would be a fabulous case study of pro-ohv group ownership? I don't think of this as the end all but more a stop gap to potentially provide some bartering power with other lands?
Click to expand...
 
Skylinerider

Skylinerider

Wandering the desert
Location
Ephraim
Olaf said:
How does a SRMA differ from a National Recreation Area?
Click to expand...

Think of the Sand Flats area in Moab, or Three Peaks near Cedar. Both are open to recreation, but not to extractive uses. Sand Flats charges a small fee, but Three Peaks is free to use. They are managed by the local BLM rec. departments.
 
Olaf

Olaf

Active Member
Supporting Member
Location
Orange County, CA
I'm not sure of the advantage of one over the other except for fee vs. no fee. However, these options sound like an awesome approach to open access to multiple recreation use.
Are organization like SUWA against this?
I'm sure the resource companies are but that's a separate fight.
Skylinerider said:
Think of the Sand Flats area in Moab, or Three Peaks near Cedar. Both are open to recreation, but not to extractive uses. Sand Flats charges a small fee, but Three Peaks is free to use. They are managed by the local BLM rec. departments.
Click to expand...
 
Skylinerider

Skylinerider

Wandering the desert
Location
Ephraim
They are both examples of SRMA's. An example of a NRA would be Glen Canyon NRA. In my experience it is easier to get a SRMA proposed and going over something larger and farther reaching like an NRA. Get maps and propose a SRMA to the Rec Planner. If you get him/her on board they can go a long way to furthering the cause.
 
Kevin B.

Kevin B.

Not often wrong. Never quite right.
Moderator
Location
Vehicular limbo
So I shut my yap a while ago, but I just wanted to let you guys know at least one guy besides Olaf and Kurt and Kurt is still following this thread with interest. :)
 
Team1k

Team1k

Active Member
Location
Lehi
I went to the RMATV site and did a quick search for Camelbak. Everything is on closeout :)

Not sure if thats a confirmation but it is interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top