ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > Regional forums > The Rockies – It's all downhill from here...
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-26-2012, 07:59 PM   #136
Pariahtize
Miscategorized
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Northern (FR), CO
Oddometer: 1,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatChance View Post
THIS has probably been in the works for four years and is a transparent repayment to one of his biggest constituent groups now that the second term is a done deal and he doesn't have to face re-election. Does the timing of THIS just seem coincidental? THIS is a consequence whether you recognize it for what it is or not. It would have been easier to prevent THIS from happening a couple weeks ago than stopping THIS from happening going forward, but the horse is out of the barn. Only his signature is required (congress doesn't have a say in the matter of an Executive Order) so there isn't much to stop him now that his final election is in the past.
Look, there's just no doubt that if this passes thru, it's because of who is in the office (Prez).
Doesn't exactly help us now, but we can still fight this and make our contacts, and voices heard to those with the strings, and those who support this retardation. . . .
BO is going to push the envelope in many ways during his last term.
Hang on, and be ready to feign shock when he does. ()
__________________
"Be of good cheer. All may yet be well. There's many a fork, I think, on the road from here to destruction."
E.A.
Pariahtize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 08:04 PM   #137
doc_ricketts
Thumper jockey
 
doc_ricketts's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: FlaWaCo?
Oddometer: 5,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatChance View Post
Thanks, Doc. Since this would require an Executive Order, it sounds like there is nothing to worry about and this is all just a false alarm...








If you had bothered to read the article then you would have noted this:
"The move was largely met with outrage and controversy, as it seemed to be a blatant attempt to ignore the legislative process. Fortunately, the backlash was such that the order never went anywhere. In fact, President Obama’s April signing of the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution, essentially a temporary budget agreement, included specific language blocking the Bureau of Land Management from instituting the policy."

Which shows that with the outrage from the wheeler community, the Pres signed the CR that blocked BLM from instituting a full roadless designation. Now what are we as ADVers missing as 'part of the community;? And what are you missing?
__________________
"Get yourself to the hills and be uplifted, assuming you got some good knobbies"
doc_ricketts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 08:07 PM   #138
dmac1 OP
Desert SW Luvr
 
dmac1's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Elizabeth, Colorado
Oddometer: 674
Update on my contact with New Belgium Brewing (I selected them as one of my 20 contacts on Sunday because I like to enjoy a Fat Tire from time to time).

Anyway, they largely provided the response that was published earlier, but with a few more details. Subsequent to that, I responded back and provided some facts per the BRC and I also offered to provide some more info from my (our) point of view. The gentleman I was in contact with expressed a willingness to review the information and possibly discuss things further within the company.

Anyway, I was glad to hear that they would at least take a look at things from our vantage point.
__________________
RwR | BRC | COHVCO | USA-All | Gunny/C.B GOATS
2015 KTM 300 XC, 2006 KTM 450 EXC, 2006 CRF 250X
dmac1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 07:13 AM   #139
enduro-ince
dirtslave
 
enduro-ince's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Placerville Co.
Oddometer: 5,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatChance View Post
..... If they do think he would, was the rest of the stuff they got for their vote worth it?
Dale, I love riding...Like I REALLY love riding. I go as often as I can and I go as far off the beaten path as I can. It makes me very happy. But if you think I'd vote for a presidential candidate based entirely on how it "might" affect my riding opportunities you are high. I happen to think the presidents job entails more important things than just where I can ride my dirtbike. Besides, he hasn't, and I seriously have my doubts that he will, sign anything like this. ITs too big, its too pricey and Utah senators are strictly opposed.

Thats all I got, this thread has/had? potential. I appreciate the heads up on this!
__________________
Life begins at the end of your comfort zone!
enduro-ince is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 08:32 AM   #140
dmac1 OP
Desert SW Luvr
 
dmac1's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Elizabeth, Colorado
Oddometer: 674
Give this some consideration

Part of a respionse I received is below. I am very frustrated right now. First at the political bickering in the previous pages, and because we have poor information and no crystal ball to see what will result IF the monument is created. We think we know, but we don't with 100% certainty.
--------------------------------------------
We have not endorsed the SUWA proposal that would close roads in the region. This letter is asking the President to recognize the important role that recreation of all types, including motorized, plays in our area.

I am familiar with the BLM plans for the region, as I served for 8 years on the Utah BLM Resource Advisory Council. And the problem is that recreation concerns simply are not addressed at the level you might assume. While recreation areas are identified in the resource management plan, this designation does not provide any protection. For example, there are lots of dispersed campsites in the region that have absolutely no protection. So members of the public, or outfitters (edit), could show up and find a drill rig in those spots and there would be little or no warning from the BLM. Already, you can hear pumps and see lights from the campground at Deadhorse Point.

I am not against resource extraction, and there are some 5 million acres surrounding the area we identified that are targeted for tar sands, oil shale, potash, uranium, and oil and gas. Our county needs the mineral lease money from these activities, but it also needs the much larger tax revenues from all the visitors the outdoor industry brings to Moab. Our company and all the letter signers are open to other solutions--but we are committed to finding a way to protect the recreation economy around Canyonlands National Park.

Many of the folks that have contacted me are under the false impression that this is about closing roads, or they simply hate the federal government and do not trust them. But the interesting thing is that we have heard nothing from the oil and gas industry. They know the system favors them and they are standing back and watching the motorized and non-motorized recreation communities waste all our energy talking to each other, when we really should be united---not to stop oil and gas, but to save a few places for recreation.
__________________
RwR | BRC | COHVCO | USA-All | Gunny/C.B GOATS
2015 KTM 300 XC, 2006 KTM 450 EXC, 2006 CRF 250X
dmac1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 08:37 AM   #141
FatChance
Road Captain
 
FatChance's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: Durango, Colorado, USA
Oddometer: 10,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_ricketts View Post
If you had bothered to read the article then you would have noted this:
"The move was largely met with outrage and controversy, as it seemed to be a blatant attempt to ignore the legislative process. Fortunately, the backlash was such that the order never went anywhere. In fact, President Obama’s April signing of the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution, essentially a temporary budget agreement, included specific language blocking the Bureau of Land Management from instituting the policy."

Which shows that with the outrage from the wheeler community, the Pres signed the CR that blocked BLM from instituting a full roadless designation. Now what are we as ADVers missing as 'part of the community;? And what are you missing?
Doc, I read the article and am missing nothing, but thanks for the condescending attitude. I said that we have nothing to worry about because the "Pres signed the CR that blocked BLM from instituting a full roadless designation". Isn't that what the article said? That is how I understood it. If he has blocked roadless designations because of the backlash in 2011 from the wheeler community, then the new National Monument would not be approved or get a roadless designation because of that and everyone can continue to ride there. That would make this a false alarm that no one needs to worry about. I think that is good news and why I thanked you for the link. What are you missing?
__________________
Pain in the Butte Ranch
Durango, Colorado

- Calculated risk or forbidden fruit?

FatChance screwed with this post 11-27-2012 at 08:55 AM
FatChance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 08:47 AM   #142
FatChance
Road Captain
 
FatChance's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: Durango, Colorado, USA
Oddometer: 10,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmac1 View Post
I smell a troll
You can smell all you want.
__________________
Pain in the Butte Ranch
Durango, Colorado

- Calculated risk or forbidden fruit?
FatChance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 09:00 AM   #143
enduro-ince
dirtslave
 
enduro-ince's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Placerville Co.
Oddometer: 5,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmac1 View Post
Part of a respionse I received is below. I am very frustrated right now. First at the political bickering in the previous pages, and because we have poor information and no crystal ball to see what will result IF the monument is created. We think we know, but we don't with 100% certainty.
--------------------------------------------
We have not endorsed the SUWA proposal that would close roads in the region. This letter is asking the President to recognize the important role that recreation of all types, including motorized, plays in our area.

I am familiar with the BLM plans for the region, as I served for 8 years on the Utah BLM Resource Advisory Council. And the problem is that recreation concerns simply are not addressed at the level you might assume. While recreation areas are identified in the resource management plan, this designation does not provide any protection. For example, there are lots of dispersed campsites in the region that have absolutely no protection. So members of the public, or outfitters (edit), could show up and find a drill rig in those spots and there would be little or no warning from the BLM. Already, you can hear pumps and see lights from the campground at Deadhorse Point.

I am not against resource extraction, and there are some 5 million acres surrounding the area we identified that are targeted for tar sands, oil shale, potash, uranium, and oil and gas. Our county needs the mineral lease money from these activities, but it also needs the much larger tax revenues from all the visitors the outdoor industry brings to Moab. Our company and all the letter signers are open to other solutions--but we are committed to finding a way to protect the recreation economy around Canyonlands National Park.

Many of the folks that have contacted me are under the false impression that this is about closing roads, or they simply hate the federal government and do not trust them. But the interesting thing is that we have heard nothing from the oil and gas industry. They know the system favors them and they are standing back and watching the motorized and non-motorized recreation communities waste all our energy talking to each other, when we really should be united---not to stop oil and gas, but to save a few places for recreation.
Who was this response from?
__________________
Life begins at the end of your comfort zone!
enduro-ince is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 09:13 AM   #144
COXR650L
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Denver
Oddometer: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmac1 View Post
Part of a respionse I received is below. I am very frustrated right now. First at the political bickering in the previous pages, and because we have poor information and no crystal ball to see what will result IF the monument is created. We think we know, but we don't with 100% certainty.


Dave I understand your frustration. I know you have been working very hard on this issue with no recognition or support, but hang in there.

No we cannot say for sure what will happen if the monument is created, that’s what is great about the federal government, ask what’s involved and we’re told to wait and see.

However we can look at every other National Monument in the country and have a pretty good idea............


Furthermore, if the sole intention is to protect the lands from oil and gas exploration and not limit recreation the focus should on BLM. All permits etc for any mineral exploration go through that agency.

Plain and simple this is an underhanded move that seeks to take away a lot of land and not give current users any say in how it will be managed. When have you ever heard of input being asked for a TMP plan in an area such as Esclante Natl Monument? A National Monument gives sole decision making to the governing agency and we as users have almost no input on how the lands are managed (yes that means even less than we have now).

If there are specific area the BLM and users are concerned about regarding exploitation they can utilize BLM Wilderness Study areas to limited use, there is no need for a National Monument Designation over such a large area.

As I said before, not only would this designation be a huge blow to SE Utah, more importantly it will set a president for the entire western states on the power that environmental groups have. The Swell will follow, and then it will spread as large Wilderness Designations in Colorado and New New Mexico.


COXR650L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 09:49 AM   #145
Pariahtize
Miscategorized
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Northern (FR), CO
Oddometer: 1,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by COXR650L View Post


However we can look at every other National Monument in the country and have a pretty good idea............


Furthermore, if the sole intention is to protect the lands from oil and gas exploration and not limit recreation the focus should on BLM. All permits etc for any mineral exploration go through that agency.

Plain and simple this is an underhanded move that seeks to take away a lot of land and not give current users any say in how it will be managed. When have you ever heard of input being asked for a TMP plan in an area such as Esclante Natl Monument? A National Monument gives sole decision making to the governing agency and we as users have almost no input on how the lands are managed (yes that means even less than we have now).

If there are specific area the BLM and users are concerned about regarding exploitation they can utilize BLM Wilderness Study areas to limited use, there is no need for a National Monument Designation over such a large area.

As I said before, not only would this designation be a huge blow to SE Utah, more importantly it will set a president for the entire western states on the power that environmental groups have. The Swell will follow, and then it will spread as large Wilderness Designations in Colorado and New New Mexico.


Fully agree.

How is COHVCO, Blue Ribbon , etc dealing with this potential? Anyone know?
__________________
"Be of good cheer. All may yet be well. There's many a fork, I think, on the road from here to destruction."
E.A.
Pariahtize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 09:49 AM   #146
SportSawyer
Adventurer
 
SportSawyer's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Northern Utah
Oddometer: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmac1 View Post
Part of a response I received is below. I am very frustrated right now. First at the political bickering in the previous pages, and because we have poor information and no crystal ball to see what will result IF the monument is created. We think we know, but we don't with 100% certainty.
--------------------------------------------
We have not endorsed the SUWA proposal that would close roads in the region. This letter is asking the President to recognize the important role that recreation of all types, including motorized, plays in our area.
.... .
Let me guess, the response you got came from one of the three key contacts listed on this press release from the OIA.

http://www.pitchengine.com/blackdiam...ional-monument

Which states: ".... Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) and more than 100 outdoor recreation related businesses will send a letter to President Obama urging him to protect Greater Canyonlands, the 1.4 million acre region of publicly-owned wildlands surrounding Canyonlands National Park in southern Utah as a national monument."

So they are asking for a monument with the same name and the same size as SUWA's proposed GCNM. What a coincidence.

Look a little further:

"The area, encompassing 1.4 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) land surrounding Canyonlands National Park, is under increasing pressure from rampant off-road vehicle abuse, proposed uranium, potash and tar sand mining, and oil and gas development."

Exactly what SUWA has as their reasons, and note that "rampant off-road vehicle abuse" is listed first.

The press release was posted on SUWA's site the next day:

http://www.suwa.org/2012/11/14/6238/

Look at SUWA's "Act Now" link... notice any similarities in the default message (see "Personalize your message" box):

https://secure2.convio.net/suwa/site...autologin=true

And that's coming from SUWA to support SUWA's plan:

http://dev.suwa.org/wp-content/uploa...bits_FINAL.pdf

So, how many proposals do you think have been sent to the President and DOI to proclaim a 1.4 million acre (less State and private inholdings, and that's a whole 'nuther issue) national monument that happens to be called "Greater Canyonlands"? Hint, you only need one finger on one hand.

That's just the first sentence of the reply you received, dig deeper and you'll find the whole response is misinformation at best, and more likely, intentionally deceitful. And it came from one of the three contacts on that press release (I know which one), who is working closely with SUWA to advance this proclamation. It's meant to confuse and diffuse the opposition.

SportSawyer screwed with this post 11-27-2012 at 10:11 AM
SportSawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 09:51 AM   #147
Gordy
Team Listo
 
Gordy's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: NM
Oddometer: 22,208
[QUOTE=COXR650L;20126623If there are specific area the BLM and users are concerned about regarding exploitation they can utilize BLM Wilderness Study areas to limited use, there is no need for a National Monument Designation over such a large area.
[/QUOTE]

Is this entire area currently managed by the BLM or multiple agencies?

I would like to know this as it will pertinent in my letters. (if it is)
I know a lage area of it is and possibly some is currently covered by The USFS?

If they have federal agencies overseeing this land, then they already have all the power that they need to restrict it in any means necessary to protect it without going for the blanket National Monument designation.

Thanks!
Gordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 10:08 AM   #148
COXR650L
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Denver
Oddometer: 1,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordy View Post
Is this entire area currently managed by the BLM or multiple agencies?

I would like to know this as it will pertinent in my letters. (if it is)
I know a lage area of it is and possibly some is currently covered by The USFS?

If they have federal agencies overseeing this land, then they already have all the power that they need to restrict it in any means necessary to protect it without going for the blanket National Monument designation.

Thanks!


See the bellow map....


the majority is BLM and the other part is USFS in the Mante La Sals. For those that have ridden in this area there are very few roads and no trails for OHVs. You can go three days without ever seeing another person and I have never seen any oil wells. Sounds like an area we really need more governemnt control over

Also if anyone believes the letter dmac recieved above about this not being related to OHVs, see the Sirra Clubs first reason for the National Monument............


What are they really saying is the justification for this? OHVs or oil and gas

There is talk about what trails will be effect by this and looking at the map I can see Behind the Rocks, Kane Creek, Lockhart Basin, Moab Rim (?) Pritchitt (?) Ruin Park, Wooden Shoe Rd just looking for a second. What trails can you see that could be closed?

Let BLM and USFS do thier job and manage the land.
COXR650L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 10:10 AM   #149
dmac1 OP
Desert SW Luvr
 
dmac1's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Elizabeth, Colorado
Oddometer: 674
Thanks for the encouragement Ben and GREAT responses guys! We are finally back on track and no longer infighting over political issues.

I agree that this is prompted by SUWA (as I stated I think in the first post in the thread) and Sierra Club and others too probably.

Check this out...even the first pic is the same! Oh...and in the fact sheet, they even blame us for climate change in the West!

http://www.suwa.org/issues/greatercanyonlands/
__________________
RwR | BRC | COHVCO | USA-All | Gunny/C.B GOATS
2015 KTM 300 XC, 2006 KTM 450 EXC, 2006 CRF 250X
dmac1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 10:15 AM   #150
Pariahtize
Miscategorized
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Northern (FR), CO
Oddometer: 1,252
dmac1. . . who was that rsponse from?
"This letter is asking the President to recognize the important role that recreation of all types, including motorized, plays in our area."
Maybe I missed something. . . what letter is he talking about? The "proposal letter" from the "coalition (SUWA, et al)??

There aren't any tar sands drilling proposals that have been filed (last I checked a few months back, and was told they know of nothing in the works either). Tar sands are expensive, require lots of space, and require LOTS of water. SUWA and friends would love to have you believe that they are protecting the place from tar sand explorations, et al, but they too know that it isn't hardly a threat. OHV's are their threat, and they don't often hide that too well.
Their goals:
* Shut off OHV access and privelage
* Expand "eco-tourism" (rafting, hiking, canyoneering, guided Jeep tours (you sit in the back and they drive you down the road). Essentially, guide services, hotels, restaurants, glass bridges, paved roads, "visitor centers"
* Create very large swathes ofland where only foot traffic can enter (until they see it's not making them enough $$, then open it to guides service vehicles)
__________________
"Be of good cheer. All may yet be well. There's many a fork, I think, on the road from here to destruction."
E.A.

Pariahtize screwed with this post 11-27-2012 at 10:23 AM
Pariahtize is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 11:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014