Bogley

hank moon · Joined: 16 Mar 2007 Posts: 941

scoutabout wrote: Unfortunately, the existance of groups like SUWA and others requires the existance of groups like USA-ALL to push back. I wish neither were necessary. I'd like to see more environmental groups work with OHV groups to increase education and awareness.

I agree to a point, but it's all unnecessary, just a step away from a better mode of communication than the violent style that presently exists.

hank moon wrote: scoutabout wrote: Read my comments in this thread:

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7763

The numbers prove that less than 0.2% of OHV users engage in irresponsible recreation behavior.

Help us stamp out the last 0.2% by getting involved and donating to groups like USA-ALL

Hi Scoutabout - thanks for your thoughts. I have not read your comments yet, but soon. I don't believe orgs like USA-ALL or SUWA are what is needed to solve this problem. They only serve to perpetuate an atmosphere of war. What is needed is direct, constructive communication between user groups with the ultimate goal of uniting all conscientious users and marginalizing the madmen.

We all want (more or less) the same thing: to enjoy the beautiful (but fragile) utah wilderness in our own varied ways and to preserve it as much as possible for our own continued enjoyment and that of future generations. I believe this is not possible w/o structured communication and cooperation between the various user groups. The borderline hate speech that comes out of SUWA, USA-ALL, etc. is not productive. I aim to (somehow) find a "third way" out of this us vs. them / me vs. you trap.

That said, I *do* believe SUWA and USA-ALL are well-intentioned orgs but who have simply learned to ignore the truth and importance of the following adage:

Quote: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

More to come...and thanks again.

hank

UtahFire · Joined: 19 Jun 2006 Posts: 256

scoutabout wrote: I posted these comments on sltrib.com, and Patty is making a correction to the article. Thought everyone would find this interesting.

I wouldn't hold your breath for any corrections. The Salt Lake Tribune is SUWA's lapdog.

scoutabout · Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 633

hank moon wrote: scoutabout wrote: Unfortunately, the existance of groups like SUWA and others requires the existance of groups like USA-ALL to push back. I wish neither were necessary. I'd like to see more environmental groups work with OHV groups to increase education and awareness.

I agree to a point, but it's all unnecessary, just a step away from a better mode of communication than the violent style that presently exists.

hank moon wrote: scoutabout wrote: Read my comments in this thread:

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7763

The numbers prove that less than 0.2% of OHV users engage in irresponsible recreation behavior.

Help us stamp out the last 0.2% by getting involved and donating to groups like USA-ALL

Hi Scoutabout - thanks for your thoughts. I have not read your comments yet, but soon. I don't believe orgs like USA-ALL or SUWA are what is needed to solve this problem. They only serve to perpetuate an atmosphere of war. What is needed is direct, constructive communication between user groups with the ultimate goal of uniting all conscientious users and marginalizing the madmen.

We all want (more or less) the same thing: to enjoy the beautiful (but fragile) utah wilderness in our own varied ways and to preserve it as much as possible for our own continued enjoyment and that of future generations. I believe this is not possible w/o structured communication and cooperation between the various user groups. The borderline hate speech that comes out of SUWA, USA-ALL, etc. is not productive. I aim to (somehow) find a "third way" out of this us vs. them / me vs. you trap.

That said, I *do* believe SUWA and USA-ALL are well-intentioned orgs but who have simply learned to ignore the truth and importance of the following adage:

Quote: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

More to come...and thanks again.

hank

I agree completely regarding the style of comments and rhetoric coming from both groups. While I can't change SUWA, I can say that going forward USA-ALL will not be employing that type of rhetoric. While some of the comments of the former ED and Pres were occassionally funny zingers, the "blame SUWA" and "we want it all" tone isn't helping. Since taking over, I have chosen a different route when commenting on stories for the press. I hope the comments that have appeared thus far have reflected that.

scoutabout · Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 633

UtahFire wrote: scoutabout wrote: I posted these comments on sltrib.com, and Patty is making a correction to the article. Thought everyone would find this interesting.

I wouldn't hold your breath for any corrections. The Salt Lake Tribune is SUWA's lapdog.

I agree that the editorials are COMPLETELY biased against motorized recreation, but my experience with the actual reporters has been fairly good. Ms. Henetz did correct the online version of the story, and even consulted me on some additional analysis of the data. I don't know if it was printed in the paper, but there is a correction note on the website as well for 7/12. Most of the stories are driven by well crafted, well represented, and well supported press releases by the professional firms employed by PEER, SUWA, and their friends. That's why I floated my idea on pooling resources to fund a PR campaign on the USALL list (not affiliated with USA-ALL). However, that idea was met with absolute silence by the leaders of the motorized community. It seems that very few groups will put their money where their mouth is. USA-ALL will, and so will U4WDA. Only two groups I can influence, so I'm starting there.

UtahFire · Joined: 19 Jun 2006 Posts: 256

scoutabout wrote: I posted these comments on sltrib.com, and Patty is making a correction to the article. Thought everyone would find this interesting.

I wouldn't hold your breath for any corrections. The Salt Lake Tribune is SUWA's lapdog.

hank moon · Joined: 16 Mar 2007 Posts: 941

scoutabout wrote: I agree that the editorials are COMPLETELY biased against motorized recreation

could somebody point me to an online xample of the bias?

UtahFire · Joined: 19 Jun 2006 Posts: 256

hank moon wrote: scoutabout wrote: I agree that the editorials are COMPLETELY biased against motorized recreation

could somebody point me to an online xample of the bias?

Anyone who reads the Tribune with regularity knows that their editorial board and staff writers have an anti-OHV agenda. Do a search on the Tribune website on any of the following keywords: "OHV, ATV, ORV, SUWA, Southern Utah Wilderness, RS2477, Factory Butte, Kane County, BLM, Arch Canyon or wilderness. Show me any recent article or editorial which comes up which demonstrates a positive tone about motorized recreation. There was one feature they did a few years ago which presented a few positive arguments. But by in large they are vastly more negative. In fact, if you find any positive editorials or articles, please post them. Since you have already seen that members on this board have no problems finding plenty of negative ones, prove me wrong.

I know Joe Baird personally (our daughters are friends). I have a pretty good feel for his political bent on this issue. I can assure you the Tribune writers "cherry pick" press releases from anti-OHV groups. You will also see they provide far more quote space to anti-OHV groups like SUWA. I can assure you that Heidi McIntosh's cell phone number is on the Tribune environmental writers contact list.

Cachesoul · Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 16 Location: Logan UT

It's not an issue of fairness and access. The issue is respect to other public land users and containing a public nuisance. The fact is when my weekends get ruined by noise... the laws need to be be established. If you dont want the laws, prevail on your fellow ATV riders to show respect.... period.

Sombeech · Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 12128 Location: The Rubbish Bin

If I want peace and solitude when I go hiking & backpacking, I just accept the fact that I'll have to hike where there aren't ATV trails. This concept seems to work for me.

And when I don't even want to see other hikers, I accept the idea of hiking a little longer up the trail, in an off peak season, or an unpopular trail. This concept seems to work for me also.

If I camp near a trailhead, I can't imagine blaming automobiles, ATVs, and small children for the noise. That would be stupid of me.

If hiking is about the serenity, beauty, tranquility, and peace, I'm not going to hike near ATV accessible lands. Sometimes you have to drop the "right or wrong" concept, and just skip the argument altogether by hiking somewhere smart. You'll get more accomplished. :2thumbs:

Cachesoul · Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 16 Location: Logan UT

I hear (and practice) all that you say. It is still sad to visit the places we camped when I was a kid that are now noisy, dusty unpleasant places to go. Where does it end? What areas will be compromised next? Stronger limits do need to be established. :nod:

Sombeech · Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 12128 Location: The Rubbish Bin

There will always be A-holes that break the rules, or are impolite. But I know where I can go that won't be interrupted by ATVs and offroad vehicles. I think it's fair to say that we should expect noise & dust at the easy-to-get locations.

scoutabout · Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 633

There are a-holes that disrespect others and break the rules while hiking, mountain biking, and driving on the highway.

Should we close every hiking trail, mountain biking trail, and highway? No, we should work to enforce the laws and educate the minority that is causing problems. Same for OHV use.

The anti-motorized groups have done a good job of convincing the public that if a few people disobey the laws, then everyone should be punished. We don't do that in other parts of society, why would we do that for OHV recreation?

Cachesoul · Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 16 Location: Logan UT

Again, the actions are not punishment, they just seem like it because of the pardigm you are in. They are in actuality containment of a public nuisance.

Im not saying off road use should be banned all together; I am saying there is a right and wrong place for everything. Adding noise and dust to our most beautiful places is not the right place and it impacts everyone else.

Also, it is more than hikers that get impacted. Also are the people who want dispersed car camping but cant because of the constant 4 wheeler traffic. I ask who is limiting the experience and access to whom?.

Obviously I am talking about the small percentage that break the rules, but if we address problem areas, it's not impacting the respectful users in my opinion.

Sombeech · Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 12128 Location: The Rubbish Bin

But the argument isn't about ATVs in the parking lot and around National Forest campgrounds.

It's out in the wilderness, where kids & car camping isn't likely to happen.

For instance, if somebody went to the sand dunes for a nice quiet afternoon, I think we know who the idiot would be.

scoutabout · Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 633

Cachesoul wrote: Again, the actions are not punishment, they just seem like it because of the pardigm you are in. They are in actuality containment of a public nuisance.

Public nuisance?

Cachesoul wrote: Im not saying off road use should be banned all together; I am saying there is a right and wrong place for everything. Adding noise and dust to our most beautiful places is not the right place and it impacts everyone else.

Where exactly are you talking about, or are you just repeating some propoganda you read at suwa.org? What is a wrong place for motorized recreation? Wilderness? I agree. Wilderness by definition has no improved roads or trails, so there isn't any OHV activity in ACTUAL Wilderness.

Cachesoul wrote: Also, it is more than hikers that get impacted. Also are the people who want dispersed car camping but cant because of the constant 4 wheeler traffic. I ask who is limiting the experience and access to whom?

You have obviously never been to AF Canyon on a weekend. Over 100 dispersed campsites within 25 yards of a road that sees 500-600 OHV users every weekend.

Cachesoul wrote: Obviously I am talking about the small percentage that break the rules, but if we address problem areas, it's not impacting the respectful users in my opinion.

I feel the same way about hikers. I hate to go backpacking and find tp-bombs, trash, off-trail damage, and other unsightly disturbances. It makes me very irritated. These irresponsible users are disturbing my backcountry experience with their disrespectful behavior. Instead of closing everything, let's work to educate them and enforce the rules already in place.