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 11-29-2012, 07:45 AM   #16
bobfab
Beastly Adventurer
 
bobfab's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Westminster CO
Oddometer: 1,136
done!
__________________
Project Labor of Love: 1972 CT90 Rebuild
Current Stable: VFR800 | CRF250L | KTM200SX
bobfab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 07:51 AM   #17
Gordy
Team Listo
 
Gordy's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: NM
Oddometer: 20,745
Done and thanks for the work putting this together in one place.
Gordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 08:17 AM   #18
OTB
Oh fer Chrissakes
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Rio de Las Animas Perdidas
Oddometer: 6,839
While I agree that Monument status is not the answer for the Canyonlands area, let's start by getting our facts straight. Your letter states that montain bikes aren't permmitted on trails in monuments. That is incorrect. Canyon of the Ancients is an example.
This push by the OIA and others is out of frustration with the state of Utah and their push to wrest control of the BLM lands in the area from the feds. I see it as a threat in a negotiating game. Punishing retailers who fear industrial degredation of the area is inappropriate, in my view. I know some of these people and some are avid trail riders.
I have been riding both dirt and mountain bikes in this are since the mid 80's. The changes have been huge. There has been a huge growth in visitation and the impacts are obvious. We have to recognize this. I think the two wheel crowd ia the least impactful and has done the most to mitigate impacts through great groups like Ride With Respect. However, I remember that the Sandflats area looked like the landfill it sits above before they limmited camping and stopped the random offroad mayhem that used to occur there. I remember when Amassa Back, Poison Spider and Pritchart Canyon were double track trails, not the utterly destroyed Jeep testing grounds they are today.
I don't think the OIA is the problem. I don't agree with their tactics. But, I don't like the strident denials of the Blue Ribbon folks either. The polarized tit for tat is getting us nowhere. I would prefer that we work together to keep the Canyonlands area a recreational wonderland for all of us. So let's acknowledge the problems and propose ways to make it work for all of us. We need to get in bed with these groups to protect the area from further industrial exploitation and mitigatge the inevitable impacts of a growing recreational crowd.
__________________
He not busy being born is busy dying
OTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 08:31 AM   #19
VxZeroKnots
Beastly Adventurer
 
VxZeroKnots's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Durango CO
Oddometer: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTB View Post
While I agree that Monument status is not the answer for the Canyonlands area, let's start by getting our facts straight. Your letter states that montain bikes aren't permmitted on trails in monuments. That is incorrect. Canyon of the Ancients is an example.
This push by the OIA and others is out of frustration with the state of Utah and their push to wrest control of the BLM lands in the area from the feds. I see it as a threat in a negotiating game. Punishing retailers who fear industrial degredation of the area is inappropriate, in my view. I know some of these people and some are avid trail riders.
I have been riding both dirt and mountain bikes in this are since the mid 80's. The changes have been huge. There has been a huge growth in visitation and the impacts are obvious. We have to recognize this. I think the two wheel crowd ia the least impactful and has done the most to mitigate impacts through great groups like Ride With Respect. However, I remember that the Sandflats area looked like the landfill it sits above before they limmited camping and stopped the random offroad mayhem that used to occur there. I remember when Amassa Back, Poison Spider and Pritchart Canyon were double track trails, not the utterly destroyed Jeep testing grounds they are today.
I don't think the OIA is the problem. I don't agree with their tactics. But, I don't like the strident denials of the Blue Ribbon folks either. The polarized tit for tat is getting us nowhere. I would prefer that we work together to keep the Canyonlands area a recreational wonderland for all of us. So let's acknowledge the problems and propose ways to make it work for all of us. We need to get in bed with these groups to protect the area from further industrial exploitation and mitigatge the inevitable impacts of a growing recreational crowd.
I'm with you 100% I grew up going to Indian Creek and the surrounding areas for the last 20 of my 27 years. The increased use and impact is undeniable, though climbers are as much to blame as anyone for the changes I've seen in the Creek.

I won't be boycotting anyone, especially members of my community, but I will let them know that there are responsible users from all backgrounds and that we can all work together to preserve our public resources. Polarizing issues will get us no where, just look at the state of our federal government for evidence of that. I'm not really sure how I feel about this issue seeing what I have.

On that note I did sign the letter to the President.
__________________
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure
Quote:
Originally Posted by v8toilet
Of course the bike doesn't exist, this entire forum is here because the right bike doesn't exist but the right people do, and they make the trip anyway.
VxZeroKnots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 08:51 AM   #20
COXR650L OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
COXR650L's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Denver
Oddometer: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTB View Post
While I agree that Monument status is not the answer for the Canyonlands area, let's start by getting our facts straight. Your letter states that montain bikes aren't permmitted on trails in monuments. That is incorrect. Canyon of the Ancients is an example.
So they are allowed on single track hiking trails in this area? I have been to several other National Monuments and Mountain Bikes are not allowed on single track hiking trails.

If this is the case we are more than willing to edit the letter. However, I think you would agree there is much less riding availiable in a national monument for both mechanical and motorized vehicles than when it is managed under a traditional travel management plan.
__________________
Dubinky.com Enduro, Trail, Dual-Sport and Adventure Riding Apparel.

Westfest 2013
Canyonlands Adventure Ride

COXR650L screwed with this post 11-29-2012 at 08:58 AM
COXR650L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 09:09 AM   #21
OTB
Oh fer Chrissakes
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Rio de Las Animas Perdidas
Oddometer: 6,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by COXR650L View Post
So they are allowed on single track hiking trails in this area? I have been to several other National Monuments and Mountain Bikes are not allowed on single track hiking trails.

If this is the case we are more than willing to edit the letter. However, I think you would agree there is much less riding availiable in a national monument for both mechanical and motorized vehicles than when it is managed under a traditional travel management plan.
The rules for Monuments are decided on and individual basis. The only hard and fast rule is that no resources can be extracted.
On the second point, I agree. I don't support monument status for the Canyonlands area. The Escalante was a reaction to an attempted land grab by Utah. The message is 'if you don't back off in Canyonlands, we will push this avenue'. I think we need to get the governor and his people to back off.
__________________
He not busy being born is busy dying
OTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 09:19 AM   #22
COXR650L OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
COXR650L's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Denver
Oddometer: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTB View Post
The rules for Monuments are decided on and individual basis. The only hard and fast rule is that no resources can be extracted.
On the second point, I agree. I don't support monument status for the Canyonlands area. The Escalante was a reaction to an attempted land grab by Utah. The message is 'if you don't back off in Canyonlands, we will push this avenue'. I think we need to get the governor and his people to back off.
That issue was pointed out by Doc in the other thread and he has reached out to Huntsman to see if he plans on mediating the issue.

But along what I said in the other thread, the Sierra Club has had this on their radar for a long time. They can use the current political actions by the governor as a "reason" but regardless they want us out. A national monument is not the answer and that is all we are saying. If this is enacted it will be a huge blow for anyone that usea greater canyonlands.
__________________
Dubinky.com Enduro, Trail, Dual-Sport and Adventure Riding Apparel.

Westfest 2013
Canyonlands Adventure Ride
COXR650L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 09:28 AM   #23
OTB
Oh fer Chrissakes
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Rio de Las Animas Perdidas
Oddometer: 6,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by COXR650L View Post
That issue was pointed out by Doc in the other thread and he has reached out to Huntsman to see if he plans on mediating the issue.

But along what I said in the other thread, the Sierra Club has had this on their radar for a long time. They can use the current political actions by the governor as a "reason" but regardless they want us out. A national monument is not the answer and that is all we are saying. If this is enacted it will be a huge blow for anyone that usea greater canyonlands.
Look in Utah HB 148. It was signed by the governor and is an attempt to take these lands from the feds. This would be a much bigger blow to the region. It's Sage Brush Rebellion tactics all over again. Read up on it in some of the 4x4 forums like pirate4x4.com They are siding with the enviros against Herbert on this one.
__________________
He not busy being born is busy dying
OTB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 10:58 AM   #24
WIwoodsrider
n00b
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Oddometer: 2
Sending to all riders in WI

Done and will send to everyone we know in our area. Thank you!
WIwoodsrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 11:09 AM   #25
doc_ricketts
Thumper jockey
 
doc_ricketts's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: FlaWaCo?
Oddometer: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTB View Post
Look in Utah HB 148. It was signed by the governor and is an attempt to take these lands from the feds. This would be a much bigger blow to the region. It's Sage Brush Rebellion tactics all over again. Read up on it in some of the 4x4 forums like pirate4x4.com They are siding with the enviros against Herbert on this one.
That is the way I see it. Lots of the takeover land would be 'purchased' by rich friends of Herbert and closed to everyone. But I doubt that the takeover will happen and Herbert seems to be truly siding with the off road folks and the takeover is mainly a stunt to pandor to his rich friends. And I think that the administration will not do anything except prevent the Utah takeover. And prevent drilling rigs from springing up around the margin of Arches Park or other prime scenic areas.
__________________
"Get yourself to the hills and be uplifted, assuming you got some good knobbies"
doc_ricketts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 11:27 AM   #26
dmac1
Desert SW Luvr
 
dmac1's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: In the Ponderosas
Oddometer: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTB View Post
While I agree that Monument status is not the answer for the Canyonlands area, let's start by getting our facts straight. Your letter states that montain bikes aren't permmitted on trails in monuments. That is incorrect. Canyon of the Ancients is an example.
We are talking about mountain biking on singletrack...not riding the few roads they'd maybe leave open. Also, I understand that the road density in the proposed area FAR exceeds the road density in any current monument...which means ALOT of it will be closed....in addition to the singletrack.

Quoted below is what I find on the BLM's site about Canyon of the Ancients. Doesn't sound like a mountain biking mecca.

"Most of the Monument is open to exploration on foot, but marked foot trails are few and limited to specific areas".

Another point...sure, you could ride a mtn bike through Colorado National Monument...on the pavement. Could ride your road bike through there too. But thats not the point. Remember, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT MOUNTAIAN BIKE USE TOO!!

As far as Indian Creek...which will be in the monument, let me ask you this...once the rap rings are worn out (or any current fixed gear) will you be able to replace them within a monument? I think the answer is no (based upon the rules I remember from when we'd go climbing in Colorado National Monument)....not without a permit....which won't help much when you're 150' off the deck on Supercrack...or one of the myriad other climbs in there. I've seen paper thin rings that came of Supercrack back in the day and there's no way I'd use em! And what about new routes? How are ya gettin down?

I do hope that we can all agree on a mutually agreeable solution that allows for multiple use and doesn't single out any one particular group to largely exclude simply because an environmental group (i.e. SUWA) says we're a problem. I've tried to get IMBA to talk to me about stuff largely to no avail (other than for them to say 'oh yeah...we've worked with motorized groups before) but when I've asked on what, I get no response. I've told them I'd rejoin their group if they could provide something concrete that evidences it....nothing was forthcoming. I was an IMBA member for about 10 years but dropped them when I started riding moto when no evidence of cooperation was forthcoming.
__________________
RwR | BRC | COHVCO | USA-All
2006 KTM 450 EXC

dmac1 screwed with this post 11-29-2012 at 11:54 AM
dmac1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 11:57 AM   #27
COXR650L OP
Beastly Adventurer
 
COXR650L's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Denver
Oddometer: 1,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by OTB View Post
Look in Utah HB 148. It was signed by the governor and is an attempt to take these lands from the feds. This would be a much bigger blow to the region. It's Sage Brush Rebellion tactics all over again. Read up on it in some of the 4x4 forums like pirate4x4.com They are siding with the enviros against Herbert on this one.
Fist off thank you to everyone that is helping out!!!!

Next:

Show me a thread on a 4x4 website that supports the creation of the proposed Greater Canyon Lands National Monument ??


Then:
Herbert's stance is irrelevant, as is the environmentalists, as far as we are concerned. This is only about one issue, the creation of a National Monument consisting of 2.4 million acres of land in SE Utah. That is the only thing on the table for us and that is what we are worried about. There is a real possibility that we can loose a large percentage of land in SE Utah under a Ntl Monument Designation.


We are not endorsing any actions by the State of Utah to regain control of federal land, or any actions by environmentalists that want to fight those measures.


What we are saying is a National Monument Designation is not appropriate; it is outside the scope of what the Antiquities Act was created for, it will have a negative impact (ie create less recreational opportunities) for all current users of the land, and seeks to bypasses the input from those that use and live in the land.


We are not denying there should be a discussion on the intentions of the State of Utah, but a National Monument Proposal sitting on President Obama's desk is not going to accomplish anything. At this point President Obama will either sign it into law, or he wont. We are trying to sway the decision so it does not become a National Monumet, it’s that simple.



We keep having this come up, people saying they don’t support a National Monument Designation in SE Utah, yet then argue here about why it is happening........
__________________
Dubinky.com Enduro, Trail, Dual-Sport and Adventure Riding Apparel.

Westfest 2013
Canyonlands Adventure Ride

COXR650L screwed with this post 11-29-2012 at 12:07 PM
COXR650L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 12:24 PM   #28
VxZeroKnots
Beastly Adventurer
 
VxZeroKnots's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Location: Durango CO
Oddometer: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmac1 View Post
We are talking about mountain biking on singletrack...not riding the few roads they'd maybe leave open. Also, I understand that the road density in the proposed area FAR exceeds the road density in any current monument...which means ALOT of it will be closed....in addition to the singletrack.

Quoted below is what I find on the BLM's site about Canyon of the Ancients. Doesn't sound like a mountain biking mecca.

"Most of the Monument is open to exploration on foot, but marked foot trails are few and limited to specific areas".

Another point...sure, you could ride a mtn bike through Colorado National Monument...on the pavement. Could ride your road bike through there too. But thats not the point. Remember, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT MOUNTAIAN BIKE USE TOO!!

As far as Indian Creek...which will be in the monument, let me ask you this...once the rap rings are worn out (or any current fixed gear) will you be able to replace them within a monument? I think the answer is no (based upon the rules I remember from when we'd go climbing in Colorado National Monument)....not without a permit....which won't help much when you're 150' off the deck on Supercrack...or one of the myriad other climbs in there. I've seen paper thin rings that came of Supercrack back in the day and there's no way I'd use em! And what about new routes? How are ya gettin down?

I do hope that we can all agree on a mutually agreeable solution that allows for multiple use and doesn't single out any one particular group to largely exclude simply because an environmental group (i.e. SUWA) says we're a problem. I've tried to get IMBA to talk to me about stuff largely to no avail (other than for them to say 'oh yeah...we've worked with motorized groups before) but when I've asked on what, I get no response. I've told them I'd rejoin their group if they could provide something concrete that evidences it....nothing was forthcoming. I was an IMBA member for about 10 years but dropped them when I started riding moto when no evidence of cooperation was forthcoming.
There is plenty of ridable single track in Canyon of the Ancients, it is one of my favorite places in the four corners to ride my MTB. As to Indian Creek I'm waaaaaaay to much of a pansie to climb that stuff, I just like going there cause it looks pretty, it'll look just as pretty on foot, MTB, or OHV. To me, preservation of that resource trumps my selfish desire to be able to access via the medium of my choice, though I'd rather be able to have my cake and eat it too. People like us aren't the problem, we care, we are active in the community and conversations; it's the throngs of those who aren't and don't give a fuck because they are just in the area intermittently and don't grasp the severity of responsible land stewardship.
__________________
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure
Quote:
Originally Posted by v8toilet
Of course the bike doesn't exist, this entire forum is here because the right bike doesn't exist but the right people do, and they make the trip anyway.
VxZeroKnots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 02:41 PM   #29
FatChance
Road Captain
 
FatChance's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Location: Durango, Colorado, USA
Oddometer: 9,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_ricketts View Post
That is the way I see it. Lots of the takeover land would be 'purchased' by rich friends of Herbert and closed to everyone.
How do you think it matters who wants to take over this land and close it, their reasons to do so or the constituents that they are trying to reward? Whether it is the SUWA (or Sierra Club) or Herbert and his customers, their paths and goals are different but the final results for the public will be the same. What do you think is the best way to deal with this considering that there are multiple threats that require different tactics depending upon from where the various threats and their goals come?

United we stand, divided we fall, yet with which groups should riders be aligned or opposed? Land developers or the Sierra Club? There is precious little ground between the two. That seems to me to be the conundrum...
__________________
Pain in the Butte Ranch
Durango, Colorado

- Calculated risk or forbidden fruit?

FatChance screwed with this post 11-29-2012 at 02:46 PM
FatChance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 02:55 PM   #30
doc_ricketts
Thumper jockey
 
doc_ricketts's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: FlaWaCo?
Oddometer: 4,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatChance View Post
How do you think it matters who wants to take over this land and close it, their reasons to do so or the constituents that they are trying to reward? Whether it is the SUWA (or Sierra Club) or Herbert and his customers, their paths and goals are different but the final results for the public will be the same. What do you think is the best way to deal with this considering that there are multiple threats that require different tactics depending upon from where the various threats and their goals come?

United we stand, divided we fall, yet with which groups should riders be aligned or opposed? Land developers or the Sierra Club? There is precious little ground between the two. That seems to me to be the conundrum...
I think you have to believe that 'wisdom' will prevail in the end. The hue and cry of the Sierra Club crowd or the 4x4 crowd will mean nothing unless BLM and Forest Service, backed by your hated leader in the White House realize that the central Utah region is a major recreational resource that needs to be preserved in its current state so that all may enjoy it fully. I think Herbert is pandering to his rich friends and that the Sierra club/SUWA is concerned about 4x4 damage, but really about the Sagebrush Revolution being renewed by Herbert. I think Herbert though is just as attentive to the 4x4ers as he is to his rich friends and the takeover stand is just show. Even if it is not, Washington is not going to let him do it.
__________________
"Get yourself to the hills and be uplifted, assuming you got some good knobbies"
doc_ricketts is online now   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 12:15 PM.


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