- Location
- Never Far From Nowhere
Have people been posting this up on other forums?
Opposing the Potential Designation of a Greater Canyonland National Monument
- Thread starter Stephen
- Start date
Jonathan
Western Colorado
- Location
- Western Colorado
^ Here are some of the other discussions.
Rising Sun 4x4
http://www.risingsun4x4club.org/forum2/showthread.php?t=18774
ExPo (great discussion here)
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/88267-Greater-Canyonlands-National-Monument
IH8MUD
http://forum.ih8mud.com/chit-chat/6...ds-letter-what-businesses-do-you-support.html
Pirate 4x4
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/land-use-issues/1103042-urgent-bad-news-utah.html
Here is a recent comment from AREA BFE's FB page.
Area Bfe
Good Morning,
It seems that many of the companies that signed on to this letter are under the same impression. However, if you read the actual letter and then compare it to the SUWA proposal, you'll notice that the verbiage is the same.
Taken from the letter, "Federal land use plans inappropriately open scenic and undeveloped land... and fail to address exploding off-road vehicle use that is damaging riparian areas, cultural sites, soils and solitude."
I'm sorry, but how can the off highway vehicle community get behind this?
Additionally, have you looked at the list of 114 companies behind this letter and asked why not one is related to motorized vehicular recreation?
I believe your impression may be skewed based on how this letter/proposal was presented and perhaps you should do more research into the issue. Please contact me with any questions.
Olaf Kilthau
Rising Sun 4x4
http://www.risingsun4x4club.org/forum2/showthread.php?t=18774
ExPo (great discussion here)
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/88267-Greater-Canyonlands-National-Monument
IH8MUD
http://forum.ih8mud.com/chit-chat/6...ds-letter-what-businesses-do-you-support.html
Pirate 4x4
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/land-use-issues/1103042-urgent-bad-news-utah.html
Here is a recent comment from AREA BFE's FB page.
Area Bfe
Good Morning,
It seems that many of the companies that signed on to this letter are under the same impression. However, if you read the actual letter and then compare it to the SUWA proposal, you'll notice that the verbiage is the same.
Taken from the letter, "Federal land use plans inappropriately open scenic and undeveloped land... and fail to address exploding off-road vehicle use that is damaging riparian areas, cultural sites, soils and solitude."
I'm sorry, but how can the off highway vehicle community get behind this?
Additionally, have you looked at the list of 114 companies behind this letter and asked why not one is related to motorized vehicular recreation?
I believe your impression may be skewed based on how this letter/proposal was presented and perhaps you should do more research into the issue. Please contact me with any questions.
Olaf Kilthau
Last edited:
bobn
Registered User
- Location
- salt lake city
Signed.
Thanks to all who have hopped on.
Thanks to all who have hopped on.
jeep-N-montero
Formerly black_ZJ
- Location
- Bountiful
That letter to the president was poorly constructed with very few developed ideas and no sources listed for the numerical data they are claiming, nor do they include any empirical data to support the claim of the "exploding off-road vehicle use that is damaging riparian areas, cultural sites, soils and solitude." A junior high student could construct a better written proposal paper. That letter carries very little weight without actual statements from each group or shop/business saying they support it with signed statements or reasons why they are behind it. At least the list of businesses provided will help us find out who is actually supporting this so we can boycott their services or make them aware their name is on it if they aren't supporting it. And as for the letter itself, I doubt it will ever even make it to the president's desk due to the reasons I mentioned, it is simply someone putting their whining on paper with some pretty pictures, and the author couldn't even put their name on it.
TJDukit
I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S.
- Location
- Clearfield
Guess I need to read my e-mails more thoroughly, I missed this awesome letter when I read it initially.
http://www.arra-access.com/site/DocServer/Canyonlands_letter_logos.pdf?docID=541
http://www.arra-access.com/site/DocServer/Canyonlands_letter_logos.pdf?docID=541
- Location
- Vehicular limbo
Awesome. That's a shelackin', right there.
Jonathan
Western Colorado
- Location
- Western Colorado
It's unfortunate that there is a pretty serious spelling error on the first line which would potentially make people take it less seriously. It's well worded though. I would have likes to see some bipartisan signatories.
I like this one too. Thanks for posting both.
Last edited:
TJDukit
I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S.
- Location
- Clearfield
It's awesome seeing not just people pissed off about this whole thing but more and more people willing to take the time to try their best to do something about it.
TJDukit
I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S.
- Location
- Clearfield
I've had a couple beers tonight but where is this serious spelling error. Maybe I'm blind and I am just missing it.
- Location
- Vehicular limbo
I don't see it either?
SportSawyer
Member
- Location
- Northern Utah
Neither do I.
Wait a minute, is it that "Hanky" is spelled "President." .... "Dear Mr. Hanky... ."
Jonathan
Western Colorado
- Location
- Western Colorado
Our president's name is spelled with one "r". It may seem trivial but this is the kind of thing that naysayers will dwell on. Drink on!
TJDukit
I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S.
- Location
- Clearfield
Ok see it now, I was clicking on the second letter I posted.
- Location
- Never Far From Nowhere
CamelBak's response on their Facebook page:
More people need to express their displeasure.
More people need to express their displeasure.
Jonathan
Western Colorado
- Location
- Western Colorado
Thanks for posting! Get out there people!
Edit:
Here is Fishpond's response to AreaBFE (https://www.facebook.com/fishpond.usa?fref=ts)
fishpond wrote: "Thank you for your insight and position on this situation. We wanted to give you an update to as to where this issue stands right now and where fishpond stands.
There are on-going drafts being considered right now and there is no intent to eliminate ORV's from using this area, yet there will need to be compromise to protect this area.
There needs to be a balance with energy, types of use, etc. As a company, we are a member of the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), a very large group of outdoor companies, and together we recognize that the recreational outdoor economy depends on places like this to fuel our industry. We would like to see this as a National Monument as this offers the protection status we believe this land deserves. The principal reason this is an important item for us is that it represents protection for the entire outdoor recreation industry, which can include ORVs. Nothing is yet set in stone.
We value everyone's opinion and we, as a company, are not specifically looking to limit motorized traffic, but instead want to see the most beautiful and fragile places in our country protected on various levels.
We are working hard at the state level but also intend to work with policy makers in Washington DC to ensure the correct decisions are made for these special areas as well as in the interests of our business.
Thank your for your comments. We will take them into consideration.
-fishpond"
Last edited:
Jonathan
Western Colorado
- Location
- Western Colorado
Lot's of other industry responses coming up.
Facebook response from New Belgium Brewing. https://www.facebook.com/newbelgium?fref=ts
"New Belgium Brewing Here is a note we put together. I am posting it to a few of the comments on our Facebook wall, hopefully it gets around…
In August 2012, New Belgium along with 100 other companies signed a letter in support of designating the Greater Canyonlands as a national monument. We did so because we believe the area greatly needs the protections that monument status will afford. The document clearly calls out the economic role that outdoor recreation plays in the area and asks for protections that will allow that industry to flourish. Our advocacy on this issue acknowledges that public access to these lands is dependent upon their federally designated status. We support sensible allocation of open space for all recreational enthusiasts including motorized vehicles. Our understanding is that monument status does not necessarily exclude motorized vehicles as that would be negotiated in the managment plan."
Facebook response from NRS. https://www.facebook.com/nrsweb
"NRS Jonathan -- Thank you for letting us know your feelings on this. We hope you haven’t thrown your NRS straps away yet, because we’re not suggesting banning 4x4s. Like you, we’re passionate about the outdoors and would like to see the greater Canyonlands area preserved for all types of recreational use. You may have associated the Outdoor Industry Association letter with one of the more restrictive proposals that have been making headlines lately, but we don’t endorse any such proposals. We’re not advocating keeping anyone off the land, but only to protect this valuable recreational resource from harmful industrial development. We look forward to an open and robust discussion on the issue where all opinions can be heard and respectfully considered. Here's a link to the official position of the OIA: http://ow.ly/fmgNj"
Facebook response from CamelBak . https://www.facebook.com/CamelBak
Hi {Insert Name Here}, thanks for sharing your thoughts. At CamelBak, we enjoy and encourage active, outdoor adventures. As part of that, we support the conservation of land for recreation. We support the Outdoor Industry Association on this issue in order to encourage our nation’s leaders to protect land for recreational use. We appreciate and respect that others may have a different perspective.
Outdoor Industry Association Response
http://www.outdoorindustry.org/news/industry.php?newsId=17492
Facebook response from New Belgium Brewing. https://www.facebook.com/newbelgium?fref=ts
"New Belgium Brewing Here is a note we put together. I am posting it to a few of the comments on our Facebook wall, hopefully it gets around…
In August 2012, New Belgium along with 100 other companies signed a letter in support of designating the Greater Canyonlands as a national monument. We did so because we believe the area greatly needs the protections that monument status will afford. The document clearly calls out the economic role that outdoor recreation plays in the area and asks for protections that will allow that industry to flourish. Our advocacy on this issue acknowledges that public access to these lands is dependent upon their federally designated status. We support sensible allocation of open space for all recreational enthusiasts including motorized vehicles. Our understanding is that monument status does not necessarily exclude motorized vehicles as that would be negotiated in the managment plan."
Facebook response from NRS. https://www.facebook.com/nrsweb
"NRS Jonathan -- Thank you for letting us know your feelings on this. We hope you haven’t thrown your NRS straps away yet, because we’re not suggesting banning 4x4s. Like you, we’re passionate about the outdoors and would like to see the greater Canyonlands area preserved for all types of recreational use. You may have associated the Outdoor Industry Association letter with one of the more restrictive proposals that have been making headlines lately, but we don’t endorse any such proposals. We’re not advocating keeping anyone off the land, but only to protect this valuable recreational resource from harmful industrial development. We look forward to an open and robust discussion on the issue where all opinions can be heard and respectfully considered. Here's a link to the official position of the OIA: http://ow.ly/fmgNj"
Facebook response from CamelBak . https://www.facebook.com/CamelBak
Hi {Insert Name Here}, thanks for sharing your thoughts. At CamelBak, we enjoy and encourage active, outdoor adventures. As part of that, we support the conservation of land for recreation. We support the Outdoor Industry Association on this issue in order to encourage our nation’s leaders to protect land for recreational use. We appreciate and respect that others may have a different perspective.
Outdoor Industry Association Response
http://www.outdoorindustry.org/news/industry.php?newsId=17492
They are playing dumb and trying to make it sound like we are getting riled up over nothing, when in fact the real details about how it affects the offroad and other mechanized communities is buried in the details. This is a common political ploy.
Obviously we don't want our trails and other areas that we visit torn up by industry either... that's the angle they are playing.
Obviously we don't want our trails and other areas that we visit torn up by industry either... that's the angle they are playing.
Jonathan
Western Colorado
- Location
- Western Colorado
Oops. I didn't even realize that there were two threads going on.
http://www.rme4x4.com/showthread.php?94078-Who-to-boycott
http://www.rme4x4.com/showthread.php?94078-Who-to-boycott
Signed and will be getting the word out!!!
- Location
- Never Far From Nowhere
I think one of the most important things that we need to be saying is that we are recreationalist and that they are looking to stifle recreation. This is truth. Every single 4-wheeler that I know is a hiker, or a biker, or kayaker, rock climber, fisher, birder, mountain biker, ect. This proposal hurts recreation in general, not just OHV's. This proposal is an attack on people wanting to have a choice on how they recreate in this area of Utah. The people who support this dislike recreation in general. If they didn't, then they wouldn't support it. Its that simple. These companies are looking to disenfranchise their customer base. The sooner they realize that, the better.