Grand Staircase & Bears Ears.

[MOAK]

Can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind the Blue Ribbon Coalition joining in a lawsuit to keep those two monuments as they currently are? I’ve been to both on multiple trips & would hate to see gates go up because of mineral rights expanded in either place.

 

[smritte]

Link?

 

[MOAK]

Federal judge tosses Utah lawsuit seeking to shrink Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments This is the first thing that came up. I get newsletters from SUWA and other agencies to keep abreast of what’s going on. We were some of the very last people to drive down the salt creek and camp at Peekaboo in the Needles district. I’m hoping for it to re open. Back then a background check then a permit was issued to get into that designated international archeological site. I’m hoping someday to go back there. My wife and I attempted to back pack in years ago, too hardcore for us, we don’t carry grappling hooks or line.

 

[Tundracamper]

Just think, in 1,000 years they’ll declare my neighborhood an archeological site. Eventually, they’ll be no place to live or have fun.

 

[MOAK]

Just think, in 1,000 years they’ll declare my neighborhood an archeological site. Eventually, they’ll be no place to live or have fun.

Nah, your neighborhood will never make it into the International Archeological Site Catalog hall of fame. Peek-a-boo and the entire canyon is indeed such a place. No riff raff allowed back then, nor today.

 

[DaJudge]

All the Monument did was draw attention to the area and cause the traffic to quadruple! The whole argument for the monument assumes that somehow the government will magically come up with money to manage and police the area, which will never happen! One of the big reasons for it was to "protect cultural heritage". All it has done is increase the damage to sites by increasing the traffic. I have been going to that area for 20 years. In the last five the amount of potsherds, intact walls, and the clarity of some of the rock art, has all been reduced. People are stupid and they can't keep their hands off of stuff. Just like TUNDRACAMPER mentioned, when they can't afford to actual manage areas in monuments and parks, they close them. Which only keeps out the people who follow the rules in the first place. Thee number of places that we can drive to, camp in, and visit freely its shrinking: That is why Blue Ribbon and other organisations are fighting it.
SUWA is a major problem and should be sued out of existence. All they want to do is close everything so only hikers and can visit. They are dishonest, elitist, and selfish.

I don't want to see the area drilled, dug up, etc. But the monument was a huge mistake.

 

[MOAK]

All the Monument did was draw attention to the area and cause the traffic to quadruple! The whole argument for the monument assumes that somehow the government will magically come up with money to manage and police the area, which will never happen! One of the big reasons for it was to "protect cultural heritage". All it has done is increase the damage to sites by increasing the traffic. I have been going to that area for 20 years. In the last five the amount of potsherds, intact walls, and the clarity of some of the rock art, has all been reduced. People are stupid and they can't keep their hands off of stuff. Just like TUNDRACAMPER mentioned, when they can't afford to actual manage areas in monuments and parks, they close them. Which only keeps out the people who follow the rules in the first place. Thee number of places that we can drive to, camp in, and visit freely its shrinking: That is why Blue Ribbon and other organisations are fighting it.
SUWA is a major problem and should be sued out of existence. All they want to do is close everything so only hikers and can visit. They are dishonest, elitist, and selfish.

I don't want to see the area drilled, dug up, etc. But the monument was a huge mistake.

Thanks for the clarity of your thoughts. I agree with part of your comment about SUWA and with people being there that shouldn’t be there. Therein lies the real problem, ie- bad actors giving conservation groups ammunition that get it all shut down. IMO that’s the problem in a nutshell. If those of us that practice LNT and Tread Lightly ethics could find a way to keep the abusers out, then SUWA or other organizations would have nothing to complain about. SUWA steps over my line often, as does the BRC. I just wish there were organizations that would work with one another to come up with viable solutions, instead of against one another and come up empty handed, time & again. Choosing a political party to support and or align with, IMO, is also a mistake. Your party loses? You’re screwed. The traffic in those areas has quadrupled, but not just in the past 5 or 6 years. In the past 15, that I know of, maybe. We were camped in northern Bears Ears along the Lockhart Basin road last fall. Instead of seeing one vehicle pass by in three days, we saw 4.

 

[DaJudge]

That is the big issue with any of these areas (and pretty much everything else in our society). It seems that one group wants zero restrictions and anything goes, another wants it locked up completely. It seems we have become extremists in everything, there is no balance.

 

[DintDobbs]

The Federal Government can do what it wants, because it is the biggest fish in the pond.

We don't like that, but if organizations would spend their time and money buying land to make their own stuff to do, rather than spending that time and money in a constant losing battle over "public" land, then once all the public land was closed, we'd have a lot of private places to do whatever we wanted.

The problem with this is, discussion is easier than action. Talking with the Federal Government about what we want it to do with the land it takes from us is kind of like telling a thief not to speed in your car.

 

[MOAK]

The Federal Government can do what it wants, because it is the biggest fish in the pond.

We don't like that, but if organizations would spend their time and money buying land to make their own stuff to do, rather than spending that time and money in a constant losing battle over "public" land, then once all the public land was closed, we'd have a lot of private places to do whatever we wanted.

The problem with this is, discussion is easier than action. Talking with the Federal Government about what we want it to do with the land it takes from us is kind of like telling a thief not to speed in your car.

Ah, that’s kinda like organizing farmers or herding cats. We want the federal government to stay out of “public” land management, until the management style benefits us, me, you, them. I’m striving for the best of both worlds, keep mining & power extraction out and keep the two tracks open. A viable solution would be to pass something like a drivers test, only the test would be about trail and camp etiquette, Leave No Trace, etc etc. pass the test, pay a small fee and have unlimited access to public lands.. that alone would keep the riff raff out. trouble with that? Too many stubborn, old school, spokespersons want to play the zero sum game- all or nothing, and more often than not, they end up with nothing. Permits are the future, like it or not, if we want to continue to enjoy our hobby of wandering around on dirt roads and unmaintained two tracks, then that’s the solution. The Canning Stock Route and many other places in OZ does this with fabulous results.

 

[DintDobbs]

@MOAK Not sure about your region, but in my area (not sure if state or county, I'd have to look it up) they're proposing legislation requiring permits in order to use these "public" recreation areas, as in, hiking trails.

The proposed fee is $5 per entry... "per car". Which car? What happens if you paid the access fee but you're riding with a pal who doesn't have a pass? Does your pass cover his car? If you have 4 cars, can you use one pass for all of them? Better question - what are they going to do, put up a gate with a posted guard and give you a physical permit? Make some kind of smart tech that scans your card, takes your money, and opens the gate for you to get past? People will make an other way in for free.

Trail access in places like the Uwharrie National Forest (for lack of a better comparison) requires one affordable day or season pass per vehicle, but if you stay on Forest Service roads, you don't need one. Primitive camping is free but is prohibited along FS roads. Don't know if/how much you have to pay for other activities like hiking, camping, fishing, horseback, etc. Only ever jeeped.

That solution seems to be successful. There is no requirement for any vehicle operation licenses besides those required by state law, and Leave No Trace is encouraged but not required. Again, not sure how they handle other activities, as I am an off-roader, not a hiker/camper/etc.

They also close the trail network from December through April to facilitate reforestation and maintenance.

Just seems to me that there are approaches that, even if imperfect, could be instated (even if mandated the Federal Government) that actually solve the real problem, not just move the vandalism and litter out of frame.

But, since discussion is easier than action, and closure is easier than maintenance, we get this! The Federal Government is not known for its brilliance in finding ways to serve the public.

 

[RedClay]

Resurrecting an older thread here, but I think this is important for Overlanders to understand. The Southern Utah Wilderness Association (SUWA) is a group that is actively...and successfully...working to restrict access to US Public Lands to motorized vehicles. Right now they are targeting dispersed camping in Southern Utah, trying to get restrictions put on dispersed camping in the GSE and other areas between Arches and Canyonland. BRC is fighting to keep our right to camp on public land and is suggesting that instead of punishing everyone for the actions of a few, we instead educate and (if necessary) punish those who don't follow LNT. At the rate things are going, our "Overlanding" will soon be driving between established campgrounds and I might as well sell my rig and by a Class A RV so that I can block the sound of all the other RVs running their generators and air conditioning all night. SUWA is typical of these groups around the country, and is basically a group of people who want to kick us off public lands so that they can hike and bike without all the 'rednecks' in off-road vehicles. They couch it as a concern for 'saving the environment', of course. :/

 

[12C20]

Resurrecting an older thread here, but I think this is important for Overlanders to understand. The Southern Utah Wilderness Association (SUWA) is a group that is actively...and successfully...working to restrict access to US Public Lands to motorized vehicles. Right now they are targeting dispersed camping in Southern Utah, trying to get restrictions put on dispersed camping in the GSE and other areas between Arches and Canyonland. BRC is fighting to keep our right to camp on public land and is suggesting that instead of punishing everyone for the actions of a few, we instead educate and (if necessary) punish those who don't follow LNT. At the rate things are going, our "Overlanding" will soon be driving between established campgrounds and I might as well sell my rig and by a Class A RV so that I can block the sound of all the other RVs running their generators and air conditioning all night. SUWA is typical of these groups around the country, and is basically a group of people who want to kick us off public lands so that they can hike and bike without all the 'rednecks' in off-road vehicles. They couch it as a concern for 'saving the environment', of course. :/

Not to point fingers, but there are a crap-ton of douchebags and idiots in ‘side-by-sides’ who actually DO tear up the wilderness.

That said, closing it all to everyone who doesn’t have dreadlocks or wear Chacos isn’t the answer, either.

 

[Tundracamper]

Not to point fingers, but there are a crap-ton of douchebags and idiots in ‘side-by-sides’ who actually DO tear up the wilderness.

That said, closing it all to everyone who doesn’t have dreadlocks or wear Chacos isn’t the answer, either.

I’d like to get a little philosophical. What exactly do we mean by “tear up?” In a sense, isn’t paving a road the ultimate “tear up” as it covers up the land with tar, never to be seen again. I personally don’t have an issue with the ATVs digging in the mud and spinning out, so long as they do it in the designated areas and stay on the current trails. I know they often don’t do that. Perhaps that’s what you mean. Nature has a pretty good way of repairing itself when left alone for a few years (e.g. Before the national park, large parts of the Smokies were clear-cut). I just don’t see what closing off the land to everyone accomplishes.

 

[pluton]

BRC is fighting to keep our right to camp on public land and is suggesting that instead of punishing everyone for the actions of a few, we instead educate and (if necessary) punish those who don't follow LNT.

I'm for this, with emphasis on "Punish" .

 

[pluton]

Nature has a pretty good way of repairing itself when left alone for a few years.

Smoky Mtn NP gets 55 to85 inches of rain per year. Canyonlands gets 9.5 inches.
Desert areas, like most of southern Utah, can need centuries to recover the plant life/ecosytsem that's erased by clowns with motors going off the road.
There'd be no support for closures ...excepting the crazed ultra-enviro crowd...if everyone would STAY ON THE ROAD. But the crazed enviro crowd is a minority. IMO, most people are fine with vehicles being used for transportation in the backcountry. Transportation across the land as opposed to thrill-ride entertainment on undisturbed land.

 

[smritte]

Here lies the problem.
1. Yes. The land is damaged forever when idiots drive off the roads.
2. No. The land is not damaged forever and the tracks erase.
Both are correct and wrong.

As some of you know, I spent a couple of decades attempting to fight to keep our lands open. I wasn't able to dedicate all my time to it but, I did what I could.

All one needs to do is go to an "open" riding area then go to a "roads and trails only" to see the difference in damage. The tracks on the other hand, mostly disappear but the damage to the vegetation is still there. I can drive across the desert and spot these "erased" tracks because the vegetation is worn in a line.

The groups fighting to keep these areas open are in an almost no-win battle. Our hobby is commonly referred to as a "user" group. User groups are, OHV, Highway, Ranching/Farming. All of these need access and all of these damage the environment one way or another.

Now comes the politics.
Most of the groups trying to ban us are doing it for political reasons. Some are doing it to preserve the areas. Its almost impossible to tell which is which. If you look at the people trying to shut us out, you notice that the majority of them are young. 18-24 years old and their only actively involved when their in school. You will see one or two older people that are there all the time. Its easy to recruit young people to their cause when they have access to colleges and universities.

On our side we have a few dedicated people and that's it. If it wasn't for the few organizations on our side, we would be literally driving from one campground to another on paved roads and walking miles to see a sight.
The biggest problem on our side is, we just want to go camp somewhere nice. We don't want to take a couple days a month off to go sit in a room with a bunch of 18-24 year old's telling us how evil we are.

Back to politics. If a politician is involved its not because they want to help either side, its because they want money or fame. Our side of this doesn't give them either. What we cant do is give them (the opposition) something to take pictures of. One of the biggest problems we have is everyone puts their stupidity on the web. Look at that off road towing company. We laugh at the stupidity but that's just more ammo against us. There's an area up north of me that we were closed out of because someone allowed a mining company from China to tear up the land. We all know, a politician got paid for that.

One day we will lose everything. I stopped caring a long time ago because I got yelled at from both sides. The environmental groups and the OHV community.

Having young people yell at me because....that's how their trained to win these things. Meanwhile, I cant say anything because they have proof of our stupidity and all I have is proof we are fixing the stupidity almost as fast as it happens. Our side just sits there, takes it and argues" its our right to be there".

Then there's the OHV people. Yelling at me because its their right to trash everything. This includes ripping down signage because they don't want to be told to stay on the trail. I have way too many examples of this including having guns pointed at me while I was informing a group of jeeps, they cant cut the lock off a closed route. "It was their right to be there".
There was a real cool canyon near me. People had been driving up this (somewhat responsibly) for years. An environmental group sued to have it closed because of an endangered frog. The group didn't care about frogs, they wanted money to go away. Everyone including the judge knew this was a made up thing. He had the route closed for a year so an assessment could be done. We knew we would win. The issue was people tore down the signs and barricades. They drove there anyway. The judge had no option but close the area.

So yeah, I threw the towel in years ago. My only advice is, don't do stupid things and if your not going to be actively involved, don't complain. If you are going to be actively involved, don't complain and try not to burn out quickly.

 

[RedClay]

Here lies the problem.
1. Yes. The land is damaged forever when idiots drive off the roads.
2. No. The land is not damaged forever and the tracks erase.
Both are correct and wrong.
...
So yeah, I threw the towel in years ago. My only advice is, don't do stupid things and if your not going to be actively involved, don't complain. If you are going to be actively involved, don't complain and try not to burn out quickly.

Thanks for trying.

I agree that it's likely a losing battle, but as a wise man once told me it's not always the winning and losing that determines a battle's worth. Seems to me the answer to this, like most things, is to follow the money. Or, more accurately, make the money lead to the outcome you desire. We need to tie our hobby to the rewards of the government, which is almost always monetary (or fame, as you say, but that is really about getting power->money.)

How do we make it so that the BLM gets more money based on motorized usage? Off-road licensing required for BLM access perhaps? Have the fees go to the BLM to overweight the money that the SUWAs of the world feed them. Or maybe something as drastic as (holding my nose here!) laws that allow BLM agents to have some level of seizure. That sure convinced a lot of poor police departments to start trying to interdict trafficking. I'm not a fan of it generally, but maybe that's what we need to get the idiot-OHVers and idiot off-roaders off the trails. Take their rigs if they have a second offense. The money could be used for enforcement and still allow access. <shrug>

And maybe the problem to the younger person appeal issue is we don't have organizations that work the college scene to show the other side of how the wilderness can be responsibly enjoyed. College kids largely can't afford off-road equipment (so they hike...at least I did), but maybe a program that pairs a college overlanding club with some people with rigs who can teach the right way.

Crazy ideas, both. But I hate to just give up. The best defense here might be offense, changing the landscape rather than trying to stop the ball from rolling downhill so to speak.

I dunno.

 

[12C20]

Not to point fingers, but there are a crap-ton of douchebags and idiots in ‘side-by-sides’ who actually DO tear up the wilderness.

That said, closing it all to everyone who doesn’t have dreadlocks or wear Chacos isn’t the answer, either.

I’d like to get a little philosophical. What exactly do we mean by “tear up?” In a sense, isn’t paving a road the ultimate “tear up” as it covers up the land with tar, never to be seen again. I personally don’t have an issue with the ATVs digging in the mud and spinning out, so long as they do it in the designated areas and stay on the current trails. I know they often don’t do that. Perhaps that’s what you mean. Nature has a pretty good way of repairing itself when left alone for a few years (e.g. Before the national park, large parts of the Smokies were clear-cut). I just don’t see what closing off the land to everyone accomplishes.

I’m referring to both.

The damage to trails caused by fast driving and tire spinning causes other drivers to ‘widen the road’ as they attempt to avoid ruts and holes. Over time, roads turn into trenches.

Leaving the trail is an inexcusable sin. Along with shallow cat holes, abandoned trash, and random fire pits, I think these are the primary reasons for the negative image of off road drivers.

 

[Robert543]

Here lies the problem.
1. Yes. The land is damaged forever when idiots drive off the roads.
2. No. The land is not damaged forever and the tracks erase.
Both are correct and wrong.

As some of you know, I spent a couple of decades attempting to fight to keep our lands open. I wasn't able to dedicate all my time to it but, I did what I could.

All one needs to do is go to an "open" riding area then go to a "roads and trails only" to see the difference in damage. The tracks on the other hand, mostly disappear but the damage to the vegetation is still there. I can drive across the desert and spot these "erased" tracks because the vegetation is worn in a line.

The groups fighting to keep these areas open are in an almost no-win battle. Our hobby is commonly referred to as a "user" group. User groups are, OHV, Highway, Ranching/Farming. All of these need access and all of these damage the environment one way or another.

Now comes the politics.
Most of the groups trying to ban us are doing it for political reasons. Some are doing it to preserve the areas. Its almost impossible to tell which is which. If you look at the people trying to shut us out, you notice that the majority of them are young. 18-24 years old and their only actively involved when their in school. You will see one or two older people that are there all the time. Its easy to recruit young people to their cause when they have access to colleges and universities.

On our side we have a few dedicated people and that's it. If it wasn't for the few organizations on our side, we would be literally driving from one campground to another on paved roads and walking miles to see a sight.
The biggest problem on our side is, we just want to go camp somewhere nice. We don't want to take a couple days a month off to go sit in a room with a bunch of 18-24 year old's telling us how evil we are.

Back to politics. If a politician is involved its not because they want to help either side, its because they want money or fame. Our side of this doesn't give them either. What we cant do is give them (the opposition) something to take pictures of. One of the biggest problems we have is everyone puts their stupidity on the web. Look at that off road towing company. We laugh at the stupidity but that's just more ammo against us. There's an area up north of me that we were closed out of because someone allowed a mining company from China to tear up the land. We all know, a politician got paid for that.

One day we will lose everything. I stopped caring a long time ago because I got yelled at from both sides. The environmental groups and the OHV community.

Having young people yell at me because....that's how their trained to win these things. Meanwhile, I cant say anything because they have proof of our stupidity and all I have is proof we are fixing the stupidity almost as fast as it happens. Our side just sits there, takes it and argues" its our right to be there".

Then there's the OHV people. Yelling at me because its their right to trash everything. This includes ripping down signage because they don't want to be told to stay on the trail. I have way too many examples of this including having guns pointed at me while I was informing a group of jeeps, they cant cut the lock off a closed route. "It was their right to be there".
There was a real cool canyon near me. People had been driving up this (somewhat responsibly) for years. An environmental group sued to have it closed because of an endangered frog. The group didn't care about frogs, they wanted money to go away. Everyone including the judge knew this was a made up thing. He had the route closed for a year so an assessment could be done. We knew we would win of read one piece 1163. The issue was people tore down the signs and barricades. They drove there anyway. The judge had no option but close the area.

So yeah, I threw the towel in years ago. My only advice is, don't do stupid things and if your not going to be actively involved don't complain. If you are going to be actively involved, don't complain and try not to burn out quickly.

Yes i see this