Bogley

[Utahmike]

If you are concerned about protecting your right to access public land with a motorized vehicle join Utah Shared Access Alliance (USA-ALL)

USA-ALL believes in responsible use of motorized vehicles on public land

USA-ALL Has a fulltime staff to work on the issues

USA-ALL has thousands of local members

USA-ALL was founded in 1999 and is locally based and focuses on Utah issues

USA-ALL is the answer to uniting the motorized community and standing up against the abuses by radical environmental organizations.

JOIN TODAY!!! :mrgreen:

www.usaall.org

[rock_ski_cowboy]

If you are concerned about protecting your public land from damage by motorized vehicles join Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA)

SUWA believes in minimal damage to and maximum preservation of public land

SUWA has a fulltime staff to work on the issues

SUWA has thousands of local members

SUWA was founded before 1999 and is locally based and focuses on Utah issues
SUWA is the answer to uniting the environmentally concerned community and standing up against the abuses by radical offroad motorized users.

JOIN TODAY!!! :mrgreen:

www.suwa.org

[Utahmike]

That is hilarious! :lol8:

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) was founded in 1983.

Fulltime staff that hovers around 20-22

Annual Budget that exceeds $ 3 Million

SUWA has been relatively unsuccessful at uniting anyone, even in the environmental community. ZERO acres of Wilderness have come from their efforts (20 plus years worth) (don't even claim the Cedar Mountain Wilderness, we all know that was done to block transportation of nuclear waste). One could argue that their "uncompromising defense" (see SUWA's mission statement) of wild lands has stopped Wilderness designations and therefore allowed these areas to become further impacted by human use. So is it really about protection or preservation? :ne_nau: A classic example of this is their position on the Washington County Land Use Bill that includes new Wilderness designations. But of course their "uncomprimising" position wont allow them to accept large Wilderness designations if the boundaries arent exactly were they want them, so rather than take some and work on the rest later they trash the whole thing.


However, I appreciate their desire to protect the land that I too love. There is a bad element or bad apples in ALL user groups motorized and non-motorized that abuse the land and have little disregard for others. :nono: These people must be stopped.
:frustrated:

[stefan]

Utahmike wrote: :ne_nau: A classic example of this is their position on the Washington County Land Use Bill that includes new Wilderness designations. But of course their "uncomprimising" position wont allow them to accept large Wilderness designations if the boundaries arent exactly were they want them, so rather than take some and work on the rest later they trash the whole thing.


well you can't say SUWA hasn't done anything for wilderness in utah. they have been extremely responsible for raising awareness about wilderness within and outside of utah. they have contributed or facilitated many person-hours of exploring to identify wilderness quality lands and helped to establish wilderness study areas. and they are largely responsible for the redrock wilderness act, establishing the concept of utah wilderness in a quantifiable way, on a grand scale. i think to suggest that SUWA has NO part in any designation, e.g., cedar mountain is likely incorrect, at the same time, you may never get open acknowledgment of suwa by the government either.

their all or nothing approach may well in the end be more effective ... i think it's difficult to say at this moment. in some sense if you continue to bombard congress and the public with the "need for wilderness" and the fact that wilderness has hardly been designated in any large scale fashion, there is a chance that ultimately such a designation will occur. i believe that there is a fear that if smaller scale designations occur, congress and local lawmakers could feel that enough has been done and more isn't necessary, with their designations constituting leverage. without such designations they don't have leverage, and if one keeps pushing, perhaps ultimately, they can convince for the need of large scale designations, with a percentage of this land continually being preserved in WSA during the mean time. if this were to happen, then you would find suwa more responsible than you could possible have imagined.

you think i'm probably dreaming, and you might be right ... but i hope you're wrong.

[Utahmike]

Stefan,

You are correct I shouldn’t say they haven’t done ANYTHING for wilderness. What I meant was since 1983 they have been pushing for wilderness designations on BLM land and not 1 single acre of designated Wilderness has come about in Utah from their efforts.

I do have a problem with their inventory of Wilderness quality lands. I don’t believe that many of their staff or volunteers have the expertise and or are willing to set aside their bias and accurately inventory public land for Wilderness consideration. I have been in many of these areas and found roads, landing strips, mines, cabins, and other impacts that I believe would not be eligible for a wilderness designation. No matter who owns a road, or how it was constructed, or why it was created, if it exists then there is lasting sign of man. An accurate interpretation of the Wilderness act of 1964 would not allow such lasting sign to exist inside a Wilderness Area. Ownership and use have nothing to do with its existence.

I say if an area is truly primitive (untrammled), fine then consider it for Wilderness. But remember designated Wilderness means no management, so it is often difficult to manage things such as fire, insects, and other natural processes. It ties the hands of land managers and allows nature to take its course. I’m not saying that’s bad. But people must be willing to live with what Mother Nature does, and that isn’t staying the same, over time she changes and evolves. You may lose the things and the character that you seek to "protect".

Thier are other designations and tools land managers can use to protect certain qualities and resources, Wilderness is often not the best choice for true protection of resources.

They definitely have raised issues regarding Wilderness, but in many cases I believe they have twisted the truth or blown things out of proportion. Often the reality on the ground is not what they are telling people. I have experienced this first hand on a number of occasions. Until organizations on both sides of the issues embrace and spread the truth the land that we ALL love will not receive the management that it needs.

Actually I can say that about the Cedar Mountain Wilderness, I am involved in these issues full time and I have talked with Congressman Bishop about it. If SUWA had opposed that designation it still would have went through. It was for a specific purpose and that was to block transportaion of nuclear wast. Period, end of story.

I also think the "all or nothing" strategy is flawed. Unless our political system changes and the philosophies of most elected officials also changes this strategy will almost surely result in no progress. Politics is often about compromise and finding a middle ground. I don’t always like that but it does seem to be the way things go.

SUWA's only hope is for both houses and the administration to be controlled by the democrats. It could happen. And then they might be able to get their bill passed. And yes they own that bill (Americas Red Rock Wilderness) and have tried to push it since Congressman Wayne Owens was around in the mid 90's. They have gained a few more supporters and talked an Illinois democrat senator Dick Durbin and a New York Democrat Congressman Maurice Hinchey to sponsor it but it has really never got anywhere.

I mean Utah's own delegation doesn’t even support it. I don’t think even Matheson would support it. Can you imagine passing a land use bill for Illinois sponsored by out of state representatives and then passing it and cramming it down the throats of the people of Illinois? As if we know better than those most affected by the legislation? That reeks! That is essentially what is going on with SUWA’s bill. Our own elected representatives don’t support it, and they speak for Utahans. Like it or not. And sometimes I don’t like it.

SUWA is great at stopping things such as legislation but they have a dismal track record at passing anything. A more moderated approach would get them further and better stop humans from impacting untracked land.

yeah I could go on, but i'll get off my soap box for now.

[stefan]

Utahmike wrote:
But remember designated Wilderness means no management, so it is often difficult to manage things such as fire, insects, and other natural processes. It ties the hands of land managers and allows nature to take its course. I’m not saying that’s bad. But people must be willing to live with what Mother Nature does, and that isn’t staying the same, over time she changes and evolves. You may lose the things and the character that you seek to "protect".


well, it depends on how you view the "character" you speak of. i think we meddle too much; i have no problem with what mother nature does, it is precisely that which i wish to preserve. i want that land predominantly to be touched only by mother nature. yes, these issues are now more complicated and problematic with species invasion and other artificial influences which can enter the picture. at the same time, if we are managing the land, management is questionable as well, since we truly don't understand the long-term consequences of our regularly changing management policies and methods. they possibly can do more to alter the land, impacting it more negatively in the long run.

Utahmike wrote:
Thier are other designations and tools land managers can use to protect certain qualities and resources, Wilderness is often not the best choice for true protection of resources.


For example what and why? If many of these areas currently exist in a state of unmanaged wilderness what should be the difference? the land seems to be doing fine on its own at the moment.

Utahmike wrote:
I mean Utah's own delegation doesn’t even support it. I don’t think even Matheson would support it. Can you imagine passing a land use bill for Illinois sponsored by out of state representatives and then passing it and cramming it down the throats of the people of Illinois? As if we know better than those most affected by the legislation? That reeks! That is essentially what is going on with SUWA’s bill. Our own elected representatives don’t support it, and they speak for Utahans. Like it or not. And sometimes I don’t like it.


i must say, i completely disagree with this point. i am sorry, just because utahns live somewhere doesn't mean that their wishes are the end all be all. clearly the mormons understood this when they conceded and renounced polygamy. yes i agree that utahns should have some voice,
but often there is genuine rationale for others to step in and make decisions, especially when it concerns federal land. conversely, currently the feds decide when it will lease for oil, logging, mining and such, without necessarily the support of utahns, right?

many areas in this country, long before utah, have seen the effects of land manipulation, to different degrees and in different ways, and it's likely that many utahns are not aware of these experiences or that their interests lie in support of land manipulation/control. sometimes it's completely justified for someone with the right perspective to step in from the outside and make decisions ... sure the local folks are going to be bitter, so are children when they don't get their way with their parents. you may find this analogy callous, but then again, local interests are often self-serving. this is federal public land and a broader perspective is necessary. :ne_nau:

Utahmike wrote:
SUWA is great at stopping things such as legislation


right, this is currently their strong suit