Bogley

[RedMan]

Guess I am going to go check out what all the hoopla is about at factory butte in the AM.

Join me??

[ATVUtah]

July 1 we decided to go check out an area in eastern Utah called Factory Butte. This is an area of raging controversy as it was designated an open riding area. Like a sand dune. The land is a barren clay like material that when dry is light and fluffy and fun to run around in. Lots of rolling hills and dunes all surrounding the main "Factory Butte" plateau. Factory Butte is surrounded by an ancient seabed whose dramatic, knife-edged ridges and steep slopes are recognized around the world. The environmentalists are claiming the OHV riders are destroying the scenic beauty of the area. This is pure unadulterated LIES. Yes the OHVs leave tracks but one rain storm and they vanish. The greens claim that vegetation is being destroyed, again LIES. There is little or NO vegetation and in most cases where there is any the OHV users are either avoiding it or the terrain is too rough to go there. As you can see from my photos nowhere there is any vegitation do you see any OHV tracks.

The entire area was assessed and reviewed several years ago and it was determined that it's use as an open OHV use area would have little or NO lasting environmental impact and was the perfect area for this type of activities. This place isn't called the "Badlands" for nothing.

But the greens want everything in Utah that's not private land set aside as protected wilderness. The SWUA group recently proposed a compromise with the OHV users where they would allow us to keep 3% of what was already designated for our use. Can you guess what our answer was? Their proposal only proved how ridiculous this group is. Their tactics are deceptive and misleading. They post photos to the web of one tinny area and claim the entire area looks like in the picture. They claim photographers cant take a picture of Factory Butte without damage from OHV trails showing up in the photographs... I took a bunch shown below, can you see tracks in the photos of the Butte? I sure cant and any that we made will disappear after the next rain storm hits.

Now one word of caution, we went July 1st, NOT a good idea. It was 110 degrees in the shade of our tent. We went prepared and had a great time but we all drank so much water we started to grow gills. Had it not been an overcast day we would not have even unloaded the quads. We had a blast but then as I said we went prepared for the heat and the lack of shade or water.

It's a great place to go play for the day in early spring or even during the winter as the place gets little snow.











































































From left to right, Bubba (little brother Darin), Alan (my youngest son) Keri (sister in-law), Kyler (nephew), Redman (middle brother Shannon), Kaylee (niece), and Myself (ATVUtah Gary)

[fourtycal]

Thanks for the pics and info! I have been wanting to ride there for a while. I will definately try this when it cools a bit. :2thumbs:

[Sombeech]

cool pics man. :cool2: Thanks.

[rock_ski_cowboy]

ATVUtah wrote: July 1 we decided to go check out an area in eastern Utah called Factory Butte. This is an area of raging controversy as it was designated an open riding area. Like a sand dune. The land is a barren clay like material that when dry is light and fluffy and fun to run around in. Lots of rolling hills and dunes all surrounding the main "Factory Butte" plateau. Factory Butte is surrounded by an ancient seabed whose dramatic, knife-edged ridges and steep slopes are recognized around the world. The environmentalists are claiming the OHV riders are destroying the scenic beauty of the area. This is pure unadulterated LIES. Yes the OHVs leave tracks but one rain storm and they vanish. The greens claim that vegetation is being destroyed, again LIES. There is little or NO vegetation and in most cases where there is any the OHV users are either avoiding it or the terrain is too rough to go there. As you can see from my photos nowhere there is any vegitation do you see any OHV tracks.

The entire area was assessed and reviewed several years ago and it was determined that it's use as an open OHV use area would have little or NO lasting environmental impact and was the perfect area for this type of activities. This place isn't called the "Badlands" for nothing.

But the greens want everything in Utah that's not private land set aside as protected wilderness. The SWUA group recently proposed a compromise with the OHV users where they would allow us to keep 3% of what was already designated for our use. Can you guess what our answer was? Their proposal only proved how ridiculous this group is. Their tactics are deceptive and misleading. They post photos to the web of one tinny area and claim the entire area looks like in the picture. They claim photographers cant take a picture of Factory Butte without damage from OHV trails showing up in the photographs... I took a bunch shown below, can you see tracks in the photos of the Butte? I sure cant and any that we made will disappear after the next rain storm hits.
during the winter as the place gets little snow.


You're preaching to the choir, dude. :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: Hope you ATV folk over here are having fun giving each other warm fuzzies about how stupid environmental fruitcakes are and patting each other on the back for discovering their conspiricy against all americans! :five: Keep up the good work :rockon:

[stefan]

ATVUtah wrote:

But the greens want everything in Utah that's not private land set aside as protected wilderness.



this is...what did you call it?......LIES

i am not even going to touch the rest.

[Utahmike]

I hate it when people on either side generalize, use hyperbole, propoganda, and for whatever reason mistate facts. It inhibits understanding and soulutions to real issues and It serves no one.

Fact: Utah has within its borders approximately 22 million acres currently being managed by BLM.

Fact: SUWA and Co. are calling for somewhere between 9-10 MILLION acres of those 22 million to be designated Wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

So it's not all of the non-private land. But it is 40-45% of BLM managed land. That’s pretty big. That doesn’t even consider land managed by the US Forest Service, DOD or other Federal and State agencies.

One should also consider the land protected in 5 National Parks, 7 national monuments including 1.9 million acres in GSENM, 1 National Historic Site, and 2 national Recreation Areas that are mostly closed to OHV recreation.

Clearly there is a lot of land "protected". Perhaps there is more that would qualify. But I believe the initial inventory of around 1.9 million acres done by BLM in the early 90's more accurately reflects the areas that strictly meet the requirements for Wilderness designation. Of course SUWA and their supporters disagree.

[Scott P]

I’m not going to go too much into this, but will express a few opinions. This isn’t meant to attack anyone. I also, didn’t take this from a website, this is all from me, and my own feelings, not SUWA’s or whomever’s (PS, yes I am an environmentalist “greens” as you call them, but I am not a member of SUWA).

Quote: The environmentalists are claiming the OHV riders are destroying the scenic beauty of the area. This is pure unadulterated LIES. Yes the OHVs leave tracks but one rain storm and they vanish.

This just isn’t true, my friend. The slopes of Factory Butte are made of a geologic formation known as Mancos Shale. I just moved from Fruita Colorado which is dominated by this formation, especially to the north. Mount Garfield looks just like Factory Butte, and is made of the same stuff. Observe the photo and see if you see any similarities in the appearance:



Mount Grafield was closed to motorcycles/ATV’s around ten years ago or there abouts. The area to the west of Mount Garfield is now designated for ATV’s and is very popular. The ATV and motorcycle tracks from Mount Garfield are still there after ten years. The ones on the slope are very visible. Next time I’m in the area, I’ll photograph some and post them. They (at least a good number of them-some may) do not simply disappear with the rain, unless you are in the wash. Mount Garfield would be a great example to use since it is made of the exact same geologic formations, and since it hasn’t seen any ATV’s in ten years. I’ll make sure to post some pictures when I get them. You can even comment on them if you would like. Better yet, you can visit the area and see if what I say is true. I would encourage you with a warm welcome to do this. Just let me know if you need directions, and I will be happy to send them.

Quote: The greens claim that vegetation is being destroyed, again LIES. There is little or NO vegetation and in most cases where there is any the OHV users are either avoiding it or the terrain is too rough to go there. As you can see from my photos nowhere there is any vegitation do you see any OHV tracks.

I am confused by the paragraph above. I actually see several photos where ATV tracks are across vegetation. Your truck is even parked on vegetation, and it is easy to see that to drive to and in the ramp, that ATV tracks do go right over the vegetation. I see quite a few tracks in other photos that are over the vegetation.

Quote: Their proposal only proved how ridiculous this group is. Their tactics are deceptive and misleading.

You may feel this way, and that’s OK, but any political group probably uses similar tactics. USA-ALL and Blue Ribbon Coalition do a heck of a lot of this too. You have even done the same with this statement:

Quote: But the greens want everything in Utah that's not private land set aside as protected wilderness.

It is not true and very misleading. Below are some very misleading statements I’ve found on various anti-wilderness sites. I didn’t make them up, they were really printed on them. I should have posted sources to all the articles (one is on the General board):

http://www.summitpost.org/article/184539/Wilderness-is-for-Everyone.html

Quote: I hate it when people on either side generalize, use hyperbole, propoganda, and for whatever reason mistate facts. It inhibits understanding and soulutions to real issues and It serves no one.

I’ll agree with this one.

Quote: Fact: Utah has within its borders approximately 22 million acres currently being managed by BLM.

Excellent point. 22.9 million acres actually.

Quote: Fact: SUWA and Co. are calling for somewhere between 9-10 MILLION acres of those 22 million to be designated Wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964.

9.1 million acres to be exact is the maximum SUWA has ever proposed.

Quote: So it's not all of the non-private land. But it is 40-45% of BLM managed land. That’s pretty big.

Actually 39.7%, but your figures are pretty good. Even if the full 39.7% were designated, 60.3% would still be open to other uses.

Quote: One should also consider the land protected in 5 National Parks, 7 national monuments including 1.9 million acres in GSENM, 1 National Historic Site, and 2 national Recreation Areas that are mostly closed to OHV recreation.

You are right, but those parks are much smaller than others in the country. All the national parks in Utah would easily fit in Yellowstone, Glacier, or Death Valley National Parks. Besides Nevada, all the other western states have 4-5 times more protected wilderness than Utah. This includes other states with much larger populations than Utah.

Quote: Clearly there is a lot of land "protected". Perhaps there is more that would qualify. But I believe the initial inventory of around 1.9 million acres done by BLM in the early 90's more accurately reflects the areas that strictly meet the requirements for Wilderness designation. Of course SUWA and their supporters disagree.

Yes, you are right that they would disagree. Out of all the western states (and even some of the eastern ones), Utah has less protected land than any other state save Nevada.

To me though, it seems like neither side is making much ground, and is willing to compromise. Personally, I would just like to see 10% to 15% of the state immediately protected, and other lands just given to the ATV’ers for there use (as long as they stayed on the trails). That way less money would be flowing into the lawyers pockets and could be put to other uses.

Actually, if ATV’ers did stay on the trails instead of making new ones as they do around my house, there would be much less outcry then there is. I commend any ATV’er for sticking to the trails instead of making there own. Hopefully it is the majority.

[Utahmike]

Scott,

Very fair response. Most of those figures were off of the top of my head. Although I would take some issue with your rebuttal of the claim that OHV tracks disappear. There are a number of factors that must be considered. It is true that some tracks may be visible for years. While others do vanish within a few rainstorms or over a period of months. I have personally experienced this. Aspect, slope, soil type, and other climactic factors must be considered. To simply generalize either way is fallacious.

There are large areas where there is ZERO vegetation, whether his pictures represent that or not. The point that is being made is this place provides OHV riders an opportunity to travel in an unconfined manner where there is very little impact to other resources. Places were this type of activity can occur are rare. The land surrounding the Factory Butte Geographical area is either completely off limits to OHV’s or their use is severely restricted. This is an ideal place for their use and if “people” expect motorized recreationists to “compromise” and support trail systems and other closures then these “people” also need to compromise and allow this area to remain open to motorized use.

You have brought up an interesting point. Many of the tracks that we have observed either vanish or become crusted over time. For whatever reason the crusted tracks have a lighter appearance than the surrounding soil, fresh tracks are darker and are more obvious but old tracks do remain in some places and they become light gray, this is also true of human and animal tracks. If these tracks remain for years, and in some cases they do, how much impact are OHVs really having in the way of erosion? One of the big claims is that OHV’s are significantly contributing to the degradation of the area due to increased erosion. How can this be if the crusted tracks remain? Why don’t we see deposition in some tracks from all the fugitive sediment, or why don’t we see more riling in the tracks? could it be that OHV’s don’t have the impact on this area that some have claimed?

Part of the problem regarding the questions of "how much Wilderness" and "where" are: first SUWA has asked for land that does not meet a moderatley strict interpretation of the Wilderness Act, and second much of the proposed land is attractive to all users including motorized recreationists. ATVers enjoy much of the same values that non-motorized recreationists enjoy. And that really creates a problem.

The sad thing is there are areas within SUWA's proposal that could be left open if motorized recreationists obeyed the law and were courteous to non-motorized recreationists, the same goes for non-motorized users and SUWA and Co. would stop being so greedy. Sure there are areas that OHVs have yet to "invade" lets keep those areas for non-motorized uses. But let’s not remove the areas where motorized access already exists.

We don’t need more closures we need better management and a public commitment to an ethic of sharing and enjoying the outdoors. SUWA represents a radical organization with radical views. You said it Quote: Out of all the western states (and even some of the eastern ones), Utah has less protected land than any other state save Nevada.
What does this say about SUWA? The majority of motorized recreationists would support reasonable Wilderness Designations. To me that is compromise. We are willing to work things out. SUWA has a well known reputation for not being reasonable. It is likely that they are directly responsible for the lack of Wilderness in Utah. I know that sounds like I am slamming them. I am not, it is simply true. Disagree if you like, but you cannot deny that for all their efforts Utah has very little Wilderness in comparison to surrounding states.

[Scott P]

Quote: Although I would take some issue with your rebuttal of the claim thatOHV tracks disappear. There are a number of factors that must be considered. It is true that some tracks may be visible for years. While others do vanish within a few rainstorms or over a period of months. I have personally experienced this. Aspect, slope, soil type, and other climactic factors must be considered. To simply generalize either way is fallacious.

I was only saying they did not disappear, but I didn't mean some couldn't have. I should have rephrased it better. Maybe some do, but not all. I never lived in the Grand Junction area before the closure, so can't say how many have disappeared. I do know that many are still visible. The ones on the hills are highly visible from the freeway (wait for my promised photos!), partially because water began to run down them over the years. Others are still visible, but since I never saw anything before the closure, I wouldn't know how many were there before.

Quote: There are large areas where there is ZERO vegetation, whether his pictures represent that or not. The point that is being made is this place provides OHV riders an opportunity to travel in an unconfined manner where there is very little impact to other resources. Places were this type of activity can occur are rare. The land surrounding the Factory Butte Geographical area is either completely off limits to OHV’s or their use is severely restricted.

I believe there use is only restricted to trails. Some of the trails I know are open in the area are the Behind the Reef Road, Kimball Draw, and many other old roads.

Quote: This is an ideal place for their use and if “people” expect motorized recreationists to “compromise” and support trail systems and other closures then these “people” also need to compromise and allow this area to remain open to motorized use.

It was a nice place for hikers, but understand that they feel driven out. My father used to take me all over that area in the 1980's, but it is no longer appealing. It used to be all unscarred land, but a few roads. The first time I saw ATV's in the area was in 1988. I do understand that ATV'ers need somewhere to ride, though, and I understand that it is "fun"., but personally I feel they are roaming too large an area. If tehy stuck to tracks and old roads, they could roam a much larger area. Just my opinion.

Quote: why don’t we see more riling in the tracks?

I do see it on the hills on Mount Garfield.

Quote: Part of the problem regarding the questions of "how much Wilderness" and "where" are: first SUWA has asked for land that does not meet a moderatley strict interpretation of the Wilderness Act

There is where the controversy lies. The definition of a road. In the county I live in, many roads claimed by the county are not as such. One has a 20 dryfall blocking the way. Since it is a historic Indian trail, the county is claiming it as a road. Here is another good one. Let me know what you think.

The county is claiming that Quandary Canyon is a road:

http://www.canyoneeringusa.com/utah/swell/quandary.htm

No, I'm not joking, and am dead serious. :popcorn:

Quote: second much of the proposed land is attractive to all users including motorized recreationists. ATVers enjoy much of the same values that non-motorized recreationists enjoy. And that really creates a problem.

Yep, that's where the problem lies. I agree. Personally, I feel that just walking is healthier and creates less damage than ATV'ing, but I understand that that type of recreation must be somewhere.

Quote: The sad thing is there are areas within SUWA's proposal that could be left open if motorized recreationists obeyed the law and were courteous to non-motorized recreationists, the same goes for non-motorized users and SUWA and Co. would stop being so greedy.

Our viewpoints will differ here. Personally, I do not feel that 10-15% would be greedy. California, for example, has 15 million acres of protected wilderness, and is far more crowded. 5.7 or even 9.1 million doesn't sound like too much to me, and just about everyone (with some unfortunate exceptions whom I am sympathetic for) could still go there. Wilderness wouldn't lock out the people (with a small exception) from those areas, only the vehicles.

Quote: Sure there are areas that OHVs have yet to "invade" lets keep those areas for non-motorized uses. But let’s not remove the areas where motorized access already exists.

I see, but the problem is that many of those areas didn't exist only a few years ago. More and more areas are being "invaded" as you put it. Some really good examples in the same area that Factory Butte is in are Upper Pine Canyon, Upper Cane Wash, the area east of Cedar Mountain, Upper Spring and Nates and the area around the Moonshine Waterhole are just a few areas where people have or are making more and more new tracks. Closer to home, I live on the side of Sandrocks Mountain. I've only lived here for under two years (Moving from Fruita CO and SLC before that). When I moved here, there were two ATV tracks up Sadnrocks on the side I live on. Now there are about 12-20?, mostly made by the same group. I mean every 30 yards or so, a new track. I used to take my kids up there every evening to watch the elk, but now they are all gone. The noise has driven all of them out. I don't mind the fact there were two tracks up there at all, but why 20 new ones in a space of just to years? I honestly admit that I am saddened and don't understand it. Even if you don't agree, can you see some of my viewpoint.

Quote: We don’t need more closures we need better management and a public commitment to an ethic of sharing and enjoying the outdoors.

But what would better management be, and where would the moneys come from. Things like making it a felony to leave the ATV trail and strictly enforcing it and imposing prison sentances (for example) may help in theory, but would create a lot of controversy and hate too.

Quote: Out of all the western states (and even some of the eastern ones), Utah has less protected land than any other state save Nevada.

What does this say about SUWA? The majority of motorized recreationists would support reasonable Wilderness Designations.

The areguement however is what is a "reasonable wilderness designation". The two sides, or even those neutral will never agree on this. You have said 1.9 million acres. Personally, I wouldn't consider that to be reasonable at all. Isn't that only about 3% of the state? The same small percentage that was cried foul proposed by SUWA for the proposal of keeping open Facotry Butte. Both numbers seem very small. I can even agree that only keeping 3% of Factory Butte open to motorized use might be overboard. On the other hand, 3% as wilderness seems too small as well.

Quote: To me that is compromise. We are willing to work things out. SUWA has a well known reputation for not being reasonable.

Many environmentalist feel the same way (including myself), but the definition of reasonble seems so vastly different between the two groups. It would be nice if they would agree, and I wish they did. I guess when it comes down to it, 10-15% seems like a very reasonable number to me, but not other groups.

Anyway, nice conversation.

[stefan]

Quote: This is an ideal place for their use and if “people” expect motorized recreationists to “compromise” and support trail systems and other closures then these “people” also need to compromise and allow this area to remain open to motorized use.

maybe it was a mistake in judgement to open the entire area to ORV in the first place. what guarantees the right to freeride on wild landscape?

Quote: Part of the problem regarding the questions of "how much Wilderness" and "where" are: first SUWA has asked for land that does not meet a moderatley strict interpretation of the Wilderness Act

we all know that the definition of a road is up for great interpretation ... and regardless, the spirit of the Wilderness Act is simply embodied in the phrase "generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprints of man's work substantially unnoticed.

We have the slight clarifications ...

From the House Committee Report 94-1163 May15,1976. Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

“The word ‘roadless’ refers to the absence of roads which have been improved and maintained by mechanical means to ensure relatively regular and continuous use.

A ‘way’ maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.“


From the 1978 BLM Wilderness Inventory Handbook:

“Improved and maintained”—Actions taken physically by people to keep the road open to vehicle traffic. "Improved" does not necessarily mean formal construction."Maintained" does not necessarily mean annual maintenance.

“Mechanical means”—Use of hand or power machinery or tools.

“Relatively regular and continuous use”—Vehicular use that has occurred and will continue to occur on a relatively regular basis.Examples include access roads for equipment to maintain a stock water tank or other established water sources,access roads to maintained recreation sites or facilities,or access roads to mining claims.

but still this is all up for interpretation. there are many instances where the current administration is tending to the unreasonable extreme, as scott has clearly pointed out, and this is OBVIOUSLY to prevent wilderness. however, there are many "roads" which are mere specks in an otherwise untouched land ... in my opinion, this goes in the spirit of the wilderness act.



Quote: second much of the proposed land is attractive to all users including motorized recreationists. ATVers enjoy much of the same values that non-motorized recreationists enjoy. And that really creates a problem.

hmm, which ones? the one's who like to cruise roads to check out the scenery? or the ones who like to high-mark the hills? i know there is a major distinction between the two groups. the groups highmarking the hills have something else in mind and don't appreciate the land in the same way, CLEARLY. the ones who ride the roads to check out the wild landscape do. but the difference is that they feel they should be able to bring their vehicle with them, implying there should be a road there to enjoy this land. i just don't understand or believe this argument. why should there be roads everywhere so people can take their atvs to enjoy wildlands? it's like saying, in a big crowded city, there should always be a parking space wating for me where ever i go. [kinda]


Quote: The sad thing is there are areas within SUWA's proposal that could be left open if motorized recreationists obeyed the law and were courteous to non-motorized recreationists, the same goes for non-motorized users and SUWA and Co. would stop being so greedy.

i agree wholeheartedly with scott. SUWA is not being greedy. it truly is a small amount of land. it's something that people in the future would commend for being preserved. it's funny how few people realize this now. so much of the land in utah has been manipulated or will become manipulated. simply put, it's not an unreasonable perspective to think that the unwillingness to preserve the 9.1 million acres is simply stingy. you may disagree, but straightup ... IT IS.

Quote: Sure there are areas that OHVs have yet to "invade" lets keep those areas for non-motorized uses. But let’s not remove the areas where motorized access already exists.

you should know as well as anyone, this problem is only going to grow and get out of control. and more of a sense of entitlement (unjustly so) will be touted. you've seen the figures of growth of ORVs. and you know how people behave. once they see some tracks there'll be more justification, and the problem will snow ball. an oh, yeah, who are we going to have manage the land, then. there is already a clear problem with the number of BLM rangers managing this problem. i think it'll only get worse as the number of infractions increases. there isn't enough concern/justification to fund this sort of management, especially as we're trying to pay for wars and taxcuts.

[Utahmike]

First off I have appreciated the civility of this discussion. It is refreshing. :2thumbs:

I really don’t have time to go into great detail, but let me say this. The problem I have with the amount of Wilderness is this. Discussions about numbers are not really productive. I simply don’t believe that there is 9.1 million acres of land suitable for Wilderness designation. And if there were I feel Wilderness designation may not be the best method of preserving many natural values. Look at the USFS "All Natural" no chemical approach to managing the bark beetle. What a disaster that has become, we created or at least failed to address the problem, we failed to manage it, and now we have a very unnatural problem in the forests of Utah and it is spreading rapidly. Something similar could happen in a Wilderness area due to the “hands off management approach”. Now from a purist standpoint you may say that is natural. But we have "meddled" with nature long enough that to simply stop managing the land (cold turkey) may be more damaging to what many of us seek to protect. Is it the responsible thing to do at this point? Is this making any sense?

Another problem I have with the land within the 9.1 million acre proposal is that it isn’t simply a percentage of total public land in Utah; it embodies much of the land that ALL people enjoy seeing and experiencing. It is the recreational jewels of the State. I have a problem with limiting access to some of these places and leaving it only for the most fit and healthy among our population. Surely you can see the logic in that. Of course you can leave the flat sagebrush land in the west desert out of the designations it is much less popular for obvious reasons. Much of the 9.1 million acres is the same places we all love, and if you close it off to motorized access you will deny a large percentage of the population the opportunity to enjoy it. Now the areas that are truly primitive, I think we should preserve those characteristics. This will allow those seeking solitude to go to these places.

If you knew how much access (established routes) has been closed for a variety of reasons you would understand why many feel as though they have already compromised, and it seems that there is never an end to what motorists must give up in terms of access options.

The issue of roads is an interesting one. Yes there are some roads that may not appear to be physically obvious. In some cases they probably should remain unrecognized. However in some cases the law granting valid rights should be upheld, and indeed has been with the most recent 10th circuit ruling. This is important as a matter of principle (not just for public land). We could argue over a few roads, and that would get us no where. A number of roads that SUWA disputes are clearly a road, even if they may find some sections of it that are difficult to discern. Do we throw away miles of good routes simply because there is a few hundred feet in the middle that has washed away or something? No. And if the impact of a travel route exists, who cares if the state and counties own it or the feds? The physical impact is still there, how primitive is the area? How much lasting impact is acceptable for somewhere to be wilderness; A full blown road (even if it doesn’t resemble I-15)? I don’t think so. Is it an effort to subvert Wilderness designations, in some cases yes, in some cases no. Either way it doesn’t matter there is lasting sign of man on the ground. Does that comply with the intent of the Wilderness Act? In some cases roads are cherry stemmed or even closed so they can amass 5000 continuous acres for WSA or full blow wilderness. Does that keep the intent of the legislation? I can specifically think of one road that has been recently closed and was used right up to the day before it was closed. That road should be open. I’m sure you can find a few cases to counter my claims, but on the whole the principle that the ownership or status of the road doesn’t matter as far as wilderness designation is concerned is solid.

On the statement about "types" of riders. you identified a good point, there are different "types" I am not a big fan of those who ride for "thrill” reasons although I believe they should have their time and place, I don’t want you to think I would like to see that type have broad access to public land. Although Factory Butte is a great place for those interested in that type of riding and it should be reserved for it. Those who say they love to hike that area are either full of BS or are VERY hardy hikers (yes I know there are some, they're pretty hardcore). Either way they comprise a much smaller group than those who use OHV's to see that country.

There is no guarantee of rights to ride on wild landscapes. But you must be careful with your logic. What guarantee does anybody have to access public land? At what point can you logically draw the line?

There really needs to be some philosophical questions answered. Why do we want wilderness, for what purpose? Who are we preserving it for? How do we know they want it preserved? How will Wilderness affect current and future generations?

Guys we're not that far apart. I ride OHV's and I love them, there are those who ride them and need their butts kicked, same for some hikers, mnt bikers, rock climbers, et al. But I love solitude as well, I have found it in many places in Utah, and I hope we choose to preserve that opportunity as well. It’s getting harder to do. I love the back country of Utah. I mean I LOVE IT. But I believe Wilderness is not the best tool to preserve land or what we love about it. We need better management, which includes better funding for managers. And we DESPERTALY need a spirit of cooperation and understanding between ALL user groups. Why can’t we share? Why cant non-motorized recreationists stop complaining about motorized recreationists and why can motorized guys be more conscious and respectful of non-motorized recreationists (I don’t mean to generalize, I know there are those out there in both camps that do these things). I really think there is enough land and opportunity out there to share, and I feel that most of us in the “middle” could work this out and get along. It’s the extreme ends and the political games our elected representatives play that end up hurting most people.
:blahblah: I’ve rambled long enough. Again, good thread (that we have sorta hi-jacked), good discussion. :nod:

[Scott P]

Quote: But we have "meddled" with nature long enough that to simply stop managing the land (cold turkey) may be more damaging to what many of us seek to protect. Is it the responsible thing to do at this point? Is this making any sense?

Yes it does make sense. Much of the bark beetle problem is a result of decades of fire suppression.

Quote: I have a problem with limiting access to some of these places and leaving it only for the most fit and healthy among our population. Surely you can see the logic in that.

Well sort of. There are a small percentage of people that can't access much of the wilderness (though there are still other ways, such as flatwater canoeing). I would be happy to take those who are unable out on my canoe free of charge to see some wilderness, where it is accessible to canoes (such as the Black Ridge Wilderness). I also support the wilderness on wheels where wilderness trails are made accessible to wheelchairs. Colorado has some; more is needed in all states where applicable.

Perhaps there should be exceptions for the handicapped so they can access some wild areas. It could be a good thing. That's a different situation than that of a healthy person, and they certainly have my sympathy and understanding.

However, you statement that leaving it for the most fit and healthy simply isn't accurate in my eyes. Almost anyone can visit the wilderness, and they have my warm welcome to do so.

Here is a photo of my four year old son and 62 year old father topping out on the most remote 14,000 foot peak in Colorado. It is in the heart of the largest wilderness area in Colorado.



Unfortunately, I agree that a disabled person can't make it up there (but can view it), but for everyone else, it is there and waiting. You, me, and everyone else have the warm welcome to visit, and you will always have my friendly welcome to do so.

Quote: if you close it off to motorized access you will deny a large percentage of the population the opportunity to enjoy it.

I will kindly disagree with the statement "large percentage". It will be only a small percentage that would be unfortunately unable to visit even the most remote wilderness. Perhaps some sort of exception should be made for them. I don't know the solution for that small percentage, but perhaps something should be done. The rest of the vast majority however, would be fully able to enjoy the wilderness as you see from the photo above. Vehicles, not people would be what is locked out.

Quote: If you knew how much access (established routes) has been closed for a variety of reasons you would understand why many feel as though they have already compromised

I do know of many (Salt Creek, Swaseys Leap, etc), but on the other hand, what about some previously quiet and uplifting places that have now been over run by ATV's? It works both ways. Some of the areas we previously loved are no longer desirable anymore.

Quote: A number of roads that SUWA disputes are clearly a road, even if they may find some sections of it that are difficult to discern.

Maybe so(?), but on the opposite side, many roads claimed are not roads at all anymore. Quandary Canyon is a prime example. There was actually a road in there before 1956. It hasn't been used since, and in fact, you have to use ropes (to rappels) to access the drill hole that was there in the 50's! No joke! Is it still a road? The county says yes, SUWA says no.

Quote: I can specifically think of one road that has been recently closed and was used right up to the day before it was closed.

Go ahead and list it if you would like. No offense will be taken.

Quote: At what point can you logically draw the line?

That's where the disagreement comes in. As I said, I am not a member of SUWA, nor do I even agree with all of their beliefs. However, I am much closer to their ideals than say USA All or Blue Ribbon Coalition. I will even go as far as to say there is some dishonesty in all three groups, though the later two seem to have more in my eyes.

Quote: Why do we want wilderness, for what purpose? Who are we preserving it for? How do we know they want it preserved? How will Wilderness affect current and future generations?

Now those are excellent, excellent questions. Excellent ones! Here are my ideals"

Wilderness is not just about hiking. It also preserves clean water, pure air, wildlife, and nature. Since this is a Utah board, I'm sure we will all agree that most of the water used in Utah for drinking and other uses comes from the wilderness areas? Would you agree? If you want to be grossed out, try to find out where much of the Midwest gets their water. Yuck!

Also, do you like views of unscarred land, even if you don't hike? How is the experience of simply living in SLC and looking out the window? Do you enjoy the views of Twin Peaks, Lone Peak, and Mount Timpanogos. Would the view be enhanced or detracted from with radio towers, tracks, etc? You never actually have to set a foot in the wilderness to be a wilderness user!

Once the wilderness is gone, it is hard to recover. Future generations must have unscarred land to gage the world.

We also have to look at benefits to society in the long run. What are the health benefits of having areas to have recreation? No offence to anyone, but America needs a more physically healthy population. No one could argue that wilderness sports are not without any health benefits. There is a scientific benefit to the wilderness as well.

Now, ATVing does have its place. What would be the physical and scientific value of it though? Look way into the future. No doubt, it is fun and stimulating, but like watching the football game on TV, does it have a benefit to society? Maybe it does.

Quote: Why can’t we share?

That’s a good question. Wilderness advocates ask the same question. It seems like the only way to share is to divide up the state into certain usage areas (9.1 million acres, hee hee). ATVers may say that hikers are still welcome in areas used by ATVers, but on the other hand, ATVers would be welcome to hike, raft, horseback ride, etc, in any wilderness area after designation. They wouldn’t be refused entry no doubt.

The problem is that once ATV’s are using an area, it comes undesirable for the reasons to visit the wilderness. Peace and quiet, unscarred land, wildlife, etc. Until hover bikes are invented (hey, now there’s an idea), I would bet that there is always going to be some disagreement, no matter how reasonable each side may seem.

[Sombeech]

There's too much reading in this thread for me. :bueller: