Utah Land Grab

Printable View

  • 11-20-2012
    Fast Eddy
    Utah Land Grab
    I read this on the Blue Ribbon Coalition site (4x4 advocacy). The petition by the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) is signed by a bunch of backpacking companies and such.

    Edit: I just realized that this is Moab that they're talking about! Ouch.

    The OIA letter: http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/O...ion_Letter.pdf

    BRC response: https://www.sharetrails.org/public-l...pushed-in-utah

    Comments?

    (x-posted to the Utah forum)
  • 11-20-2012
    skiahh
    Land grab against whom? It seems that MTBing would still be allowed. National Monuments designate their own rules about trail usage.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't support redesignating land by decree, but I think the OHVers stand to lose the most; not us.
  • 11-20-2012
    skinewmexico
    I'm not in favor of the locals and state having an end run around them. Guess signers think no one in Utah is smart enough to manage this.
  • 11-20-2012
    Silentfoe
    Because the locals shouldn't have a say in how their state is run?
  • 11-20-2012
    skinewmexico
    Locals should have the final say, not the Feds.I think everyone in the Moab area does a great job of sharing the land. Except for the National Parks. And the National Park system is due for an update.
  • 11-20-2012
    lidarman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by skinewmexico View Post
    Locals should have the final say, not the Feds.nine think the Moan area does a great job of sharing the land. Except for the National Parks.

    Um Sorry but..Most of the land in the Moab area is BLM = FEDERAL. The difference is that BLM has had a policy in the past of of "it's all open to use." However, believe it or not, BLM policy has been changing in the last decade. Lots of the open camping/recreational use is being limited. You can't just camp anywhere in the Moab area anymore. You can't just ride anywhere anymore. Much is driven by wildlife such as Bighorn Sheep. Some is driven by high impact usage.

    But the sharing is not necessarily determined by the locals. The locals can express their views since this drives their economy but in the end the Govt gets to dictate the rules.
  • 11-20-2012
    Thor Lord of Thunder
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by skinewmexico View Post
    Locals should have the final say, not the Feds.nine think the Moan area does a great job of sharing the land. Except for the National Parks.

    National parks are there for a good reason, have understandable regulations, and fulfill their mission...deal with it. Guess you could blame Teddy.
  • 11-20-2012
    Thor29
    4x4s are allowed in Canyonlands National Park on some trails, so it's not like they will be banned if the area around Canyonlands N.P. is designated as a national monument. I guess the Jeepers are worried that some of the trails will be shut down because of environmental concerns. Jeeps are fun, but the desert ecosystem is more important than 4-wheeling.

    This is really a non-issue for mountain bikers.
  • 11-20-2012
    AZ
    Just because it is a non issue for mountain bikers at the moment does not mean that it won't be in the future. I believe that excluding one group just makes it easier to exclude another in the future. Divide and conquer.
  • 11-20-2012
    Fast Eddy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Thor29 View Post
    Jeeps are fun, but the desert ecosystem is more important than 4-wheeling.

    This is really a non-issue for mountain bikers.

    Read the list of supporters of the letter. There's no MTB companies on it. Once the enviro-nazis get on a roll, who do you think will be next?

    Point is that there is already a stringent management plan in place and there's no reason for a decree to change it. That decree would be a precedent.

    If you think your MTB access is safe, go read some of the wackiness on the PCT-L. People think that you are a menace to society, bro.
  • 11-20-2012
    Hoban
    Or there are some of us that own a Jeep, mountain bike, and backpack. Taking land away is no good.

    On the other hand it looks like they are trying to save it from drillers and gas companies. The offroad and mountain biking industry bring so much money to Utah that it will be unfortunate if they ever severely limit usage. That and it's also the best 4-wheeling in the US.
  • 11-20-2012
    jmmUT
    Hi!
    A Utahn here!

    This would "take land away" how exactly, and from whom...?

    I am sorry to join in on what surely will be quite a mess soon this but when people start ranting on about "land grabs" of places that they didn't even know existed (And I quote, "Edit: I just realized that this is Moab that they're talking about!") I get irked.

    Here's the deal in a nutshell,

    Utah right now is steeped in a lot of fighting over state and federal land and natural resource extraction. It's been going on for decades but has gotten more attention recently.
    The state legislature has been in a hubbub and decided to vote for a meaningless non-binding resolution demanding the federal government to give all the public lands over to the state so that they could essentially hand it over to private resource extraction interests without federal regulation.

    (Obviously this is not ever going to actually happen- this is akin to a temper tantrum out of a two year old for a cookie, but with a far less chance of success).

    What this did do is show saber rattling against the outdoor community which is a major part of Utah and it's economy. This is why you know what a "Moab" is and why so many companies you have heard of that are on that open letter have addresses in Utah.
    People visit and live and own businesses in Utah because of the 4-wheeling, biking, rafting, skiing, climbing, etc. and all these things rely on federal protection to remain what we want it to be. And yes this includes ATVs and 4x4s.

    This letter was to make a statement to not only the federal government but to people like you who like to visit places like Moab that not all of Utah stands by the nuts in our state legislature and that we still want outdoor recreation protected.

    So go back to your 4x4 forum and remind them about other national monuments that have been protected for them such as the Grand Staircase, the entire Great Western Trial, and Hovenweep.

    What National Monument designation does is restrict and put under more public scrutiny and just makes it less of a free for all and protects citizens' rights to enjoy it without getting mashed to bits for resource extraction and the like.
  • 11-20-2012
    jmmUT
    Oh yeah, by the way,

    Everyone who thought that this isn't an issue for mountain bikers or that no mountain bike companies were on that list, do yourself a favor and google "Quality Bicycle Products" which is a Utah based company that's on the list.

    Here. I'll do it for you Quality Bicycle Products: Bikes, Wholesale Bicycle Parts, Wholesale Bicycle distribution

    Camelbak and some bike guide companies are on there too, by the way.
  • 11-20-2012
    hfly
    A few points:

    (1) None of the established biking areas immediately around Moab are threatened by this designation, per my perusal of the map. I would peg the big losers as the moto-ers.

    (2) I don't support the designation, only because I feel it drives old and hackneyed wedges between user groups. That's like 1990s Moab: the jeepers vs. the bikers vs. the hikers vs the ????? in some zero sum game. The Moab of the last 5 years is a testament to the opposite of this: multiple use, managed well (I dare say, though few agree) by a chronically underfunded and under appreciated agency (BLM).

    (3) One fallacy runs rampant. Each user group thinks they uniquely drive Moab's economic engine. Truth is, you could take any of the individual groups away (even some of the biggies, like jeepers or bikers), and Moab would hurt, but it would go on. No one user group holds so much sway over the Moab economy so as to throw their perceived weight around so divisively What makes Moab work more than anything (IMHO) is the diversity of use.

    (4) As a tax paying citizen of Grand County (and Moab City), my opinion on how to handle nearby federal land should matter exactly as much as that of any other citizen in the US, (even some dude in Jersey who doesn't know what Canyonlands is). As lidaman emphasized, it's FEDERAL land, and certainly no more my land than any other American's land.

    hfly
  • 11-21-2012
    J.B. Weld
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fast Eddy View Post
    Once the enviro-nazis get on a roll, who do you think will be next?


    Nazis were an overwhelming force that tortured and murdered human beings.

    Environmentalists are a minority group who champion for clean air, clean water, native plant and animal habitat, and open space.

    Name calling in general is pretty low brow, but comparisons like this are uncalled for IMO.
  • 11-21-2012
    k2biker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fast Eddy View Post
    Read the list of supporters of the letter. There's no MTB companies on it.

    There are several local MTB guide companies who've signed it....

    Also, this could backfire on MTB-ing depending on how the decision makers clasify a bicycle. It's a touchy subject -- on one hand bicycles are classified as vehicles (see your state's driving handbook) and on the other, we don't want to be so MTB access can be had. Watch your local Sierra Club emails, they LOVE to call a bicycle a vehicle and let's face it, they have more political clout than IMBA. WE can change that, however.
  • 11-21-2012
    ShinDiggity
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    Oh yeah, by the way,

    Everyone who thought that this isn't an issue for mountain bikers or that no mountain bike companies were on that list, do yourself a favor and google "Quality Bicycle Products" which is a Utah based company that's on the list.

    Here. I'll do it for you Quality Bicycle Products: Bikes, Wholesale Bicycle Parts, Wholesale Bicycle distribution

    Camelbak and some bike guide companies are on there too, by the way.

    FYI, QBP is headquartered in Minnesota though they do have a distribution center in Ogden, Utah. They are very active in, and contribute much to the cycling community nationwide.
  • 11-21-2012
    skinewmexico
    So is it normal for National Monuments to allow 4x4 and MTBs? I can't think of any in New Mexico that do, but maybe that's not the norm. Personally, I'd rather deal with the BLM than the NPS.
  • 11-21-2012
    skiahh
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fast Eddy View Post
    Read the list of supporters of the letter. There's no MTB companies on it. Once the enviro-nazis get on a roll, who do you think will be next?

    Point is that there is already a stringent management plan in place and there's no reason for a decree to change it. That decree would be a precedent.

    If you think your MTB access is safe, go read some of the wackiness on the PCT-L. People think that you are a menace to society, bro.

    There aren't any MTB manufacturers on the list, but there are many MTB companies on the list. Companies that sell MTBs, fix MTBs, sell parts and/or components and gear and companies who run MTB trips. So yes, there most definitely MTB companies on this list.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    Hi!
    A Utahn here!

    This would "take land away" how exactly, and from whom...?

    I am sorry to join in on what surely will be quite a mess soon this but when people start ranting on about "land grabs" of places that they didn't even know existed (And I quote, "Edit: I just realized that this is Moab that they're talking about!") I get irked.

    Really? I think he knew it existed, what it was and where it is. May have even ridden there. What he didn't realize is that the subject area included Moab. That kind of response and presumption lessens your reply.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    The state legislature has been in a hubbub and decided to vote for a meaningless non-binding resolution demanding the federal government to give all the public lands over to the state so that they could essentially hand it over to private resource extraction interests without federal regulation.

    (Obviously this is not ever going to actually happen- this is akin to a temper tantrum out of a two year old for a cookie, but with a far less chance of success).

    While it's not going to happen, it's not meaningless. In politics actions like this are pretty strong. It's kind of like the US saying they "deplore" the action of another country. It seems meaningless to most of us, but it has meaning. And, should the your elected officials in Salt Lake decide it's worth it, they have means, through the courts and other avenues to attempt to put some teeth into such a resolution. However, like you said, this one seems to be more for show - sending a message.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    This is why you know what a "Moab" is

    Again, the condescension doesn't help you.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    What National Monument designation does is restrict and put under more public scrutiny and just makes it less of a free for all and protects citizens' rights to enjoy it without getting mashed to bits for resource extraction and the like.

    It also allows managers to disallow certain uses. Look at the Colorado National Monument, for example. No MTB access there. So it most definitely has the ability to restrict uses. Would a Canyonlands National Monument manager kill MTBing? Maybe. OHVing? Maybe. They could. Do they have the ability to license mineral extraction? The Death Valley National Monument has mining rules, so we're back to increased scrutiny, potential restrictions and even potential mineral extraction use.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Nazis were an overwhelming force that tortured and murdered human beings.

    Environmentalists are a minority group who champion for clean air, clean water, native plant and animal habitat, and open space.

    Name calling in general is pretty low brow, but comparisons like this are uncalled for IMO.

    Nazis were also people who thought and acted with the premise of my way is the best, I'll accomplish it any way I can, regardless of who's in the way and didn't really think beyond the end of their noses. Environmentalists aren't like that, but there is a extremist subset within the environmentalist community who do think and act like that. They burn buildings (putting tons of pollutants into the air) to show a building shouldn't be there. They drive large metal spikes into trees to "protect" the tree, potentially murdering human beings in the process. They are some of the most short sighted, arrogant, holier than thou people I've come across, and if you have the audacity to disagree with anything they so fervently hold to be right, then you become the scum of the earth, not worth the CO2 you're polluting the air with every time you exhale. Though the term "enviro-nazi" is overused, it has its place as an accurate description of some of the people "championing" the cause.
  • 11-21-2012
    wookie
    On the flip side. Utah is forced to take hazardous waste from other states & countries that it wholeheartedly does not want. The federal government is hypocritical; they want to protect UT lands from oil & gas, but force us to take hazardous waste?
  • 11-21-2012
    Hoban
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by skinewmexico View Post
    So is it normal for National Monuments to allow 4x4 and MTBs? I can't think of any in New Mexico that do, but maybe that's not the norm. Personally, I'd rather deal with the BLM than the NPS.


    X2. The NPs around here don't even allow my dogs on the trails. I don't visit them. Bad move, and there has to be another way to not allow the lease to gas companies.
  • 11-21-2012
    Thor Lord of Thunder
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hoban View Post
    X2. The NPs around here don't even allow my dogs on the trails. I don't visit them. Bad move, and there has to be another way to not allow the lease to gas companies.

    National parks and national monuments are not the same thing, and are not managed in the same way. Also not the same as national wilderness area, which a few other comments seem to allude to. All of this seems a little knee-jerk, as a move to declare a NM would be to prevent drilling and other energy development. Seems a little premature to say this would affect recreation to the extent some are assuming. If it moves in that direction, then appropriate discussion is warranted...but the landscape level effects of energy development and its implications in this area might be a better topic.
  • 11-21-2012
    Hoban
    National Monuments are usually more restrictive than Parks, generally because of their size and purpose.
  • 11-21-2012
    J.B. Weld
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by skiahh View Post
    Nazis were also people who thought and acted with the premise of my way is the best, I'll accomplish it any way I can, regardless of who's in the way and didn't really think beyond the end of their noses. Environmentalists aren't like that, but there is a extremist subset within the environmentalist community who do think and act like that.






    Though the term "enviro-nazi" is overused, it has its place as an accurate description of some of the people "championing" the cause.


    In response to the first statement, there are extremists in every group- I wonder if you are a bigot in other regards.


    To the second I say bull honky. People (like me) are accused of being enviro-nazis because we may place more importance on a river, an animal species, or an eco-system than an individual or corporation's financial well being. So I am a "Nazi" because I believe clean air and water free of pcb's are of more value than cheap energy and plentiful plastic crap.

    If it makes you feel better, we (environmentalists) are losing big time to big money so you have little to fear from us greenies, and I still contend that points on all sides would be less diminished by avoiding childish name calling.
  • 11-22-2012
    elder_mtber
    Enviros bad for us, bad for USA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Environmentalists are a minority group who champion for clean air, clean water, native plant and animal habitat, and open space.

    This statement is not true.

    The environmentalists are a (wealthy) special interest group that wants to keep almost everyone out of public land. And they want to destroy the United States by crippling energy production, manufacturing, etc.
  • 11-22-2012
    SS Hack
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by elder_mtber View Post
    This statement is not true.

    The environmentalists are a (wealthy) special interest group that wants to keep almost everyone out of public land. And they want to destroy the United States by crippling energy production, manufacturing, etc.

    Easy to say living in a flat state with no biodiversity, mountains or anything else worth protecting.
  • 11-22-2012
    drlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by skinewmexico View Post
    So is it normal for National Monuments to allow 4x4 and MTBs? I can't think of any in New Mexico that do, but maybe that's not the norm.

    I always thought that NMs were essentially governed the same as NPs.
  • 11-22-2012
    dirt farmer
    "Eco-Nazis"?

    "Tea Bagging elderly diabetics"?? (yes, that's my preferred term for the Blue Ribbon Coalition)

    When will the silly name calling cease??

    By the way, here is what is permitted and what is not permitted on western National Monuments:

    http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/...itted_Uses.pdf
  • 11-22-2012
    Jayem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by elder_mtber View Post
    This statement is not true.

    The environmentalists are a (wealthy) special interest group that wants to keep almost everyone out of public land. And they want to destroy the United States by crippling energy production, manufacturing, etc.

    So much hate in this statement, it's hard to know where to begin...:rolleyes:
  • 11-23-2012
    skiahh
    Hmmm... neg rep'd for my comments. Pretty much expected that (and that whoever did it wouldn't sign it; that's also part of the extremist MO), but I was just wondering if anyone could translate the gibberish that was posted:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anon neg repper
    The number of enviro-fanatics vs the tremendous nazi-strati, makes them inconsiquential, and your reasoning for their infamous existence is now mythical

  • 11-23-2012
    SS Hack
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    So much hate in this statement, it's hard to know where to begin...:rolleyes:

    Maybe it was Todd Akin posting?
  • 11-23-2012
    Mikemcg
    Divide and Conquer
    Yes, don't worry about it as it does not seem like it will affect MTB's.

    Sure, just review what has happened all across the country and you will realize that we are being divided and we will eventually be conquered due to our ignorance. The green (don't say Nazi now as it may offend some candy ass) groups know this and use it to their advantage. It always amazes me that the desert recovered nicely from nuclear test blasts but we are under fire for rolling our fat tired bikes across our "public" lands!

    Wake up and take action before they target our slice of the sport (our right to pursue happiness).
  • 11-23-2012
    zrm
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    So much hate in this statement, it's hard to know where to begin...:rolleyes:

    and ignorance.
  • 11-23-2012
    kingbozo
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jmmorath View Post
    Oh yeah, by the way,

    Everyone who thought that this isn't an issue for mountain bikers or that no mountain bike companies were on that list, do yourself a favor and google "Quality Bicycle Products" which is a Utah based company that's on the list.

    Here. I'll do it for you Quality Bicycle Products: Bikes, Wholesale Bicycle Parts, Wholesale Bicycle distribution

    Camelbak and some bike guide companies are on there too, by the way.

    Yeah, I am nitpicking, but QBP is a Minnesota company with a distribution center in Utah. Salsa and Surly among others are QBP brands
  • 11-23-2012
    zrm
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hoban View Post
    National Monuments are usually more restrictive than Parks, generally because of their size and purpose.

    Actually, it can the opposite. Read Dirt Farmer's link

    http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/...itted_Uses.pdf
  • 11-23-2012
    J.B. Weld
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mikemcg View Post
    Yes, don't worry about it as it does not seem like it will affect MTB's.

    Quote:

    Sure, just review what has happened all across the country and you will realize that we are being divided and we will eventually be conquered due to our ignorance.
    Well you nailed this one, instead of addressing important issues in a productive way we spend most of our energy attacking and blaming.

    Quote:

    The green (don't say Nazi now as it may offend some candy ass) groups know this and use it to their advantage.
    Don't worry about offending my "candy ass", if you need to resort to middle school social tactics go right ahead, it only diminishes your already weak point.

    Quote:

    It always amazes me that the desert recovered nicely from nuclear test blasts but we are under fire for rolling our fat tired bikes across our "public" lands!

    You ever been to a former nuclear "ground zero" test site? Been there before the test? Feel free to fill your canteen from some groundwater there!

    Quote:

    Wake up and take action before they target our slice of the sport (our right to pursue happiness)
    .

    Well there you have it- your right to pursue happiness pretty much trumps all, future generations be damned.
  • 11-23-2012
    J.B. Weld
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by skiahh View Post
    Hmmm... neg rep'd for my comments. Pretty much expected that (and that whoever did it wouldn't sign it; that's also part of the extremist MO), but I was just wondering if anyone could translate the gibberish that was posted:

    That blows. I think rep. function should probably be disabled in off topic/ political threads. I disagree about the extremist MO though, extremists usually scream for attention and want to be known.
  • 11-23-2012
    Mikemcg
    Divided we fall
    OK frog face (oops, sorry, more middle school antics), when they come for your favorite riding spots, we'll see how you respond then.
  • 11-23-2012
    elder_mtber
    How does one "sign" neg or pos reps?
  • 11-23-2012
    skiahh
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    That blows. I think rep. function should probably be disabled in off topic/ political threads. I disagree about the extremist MO though, extremists usually scream for attention and want to be known.

    Yes, under the cover of their organization, but not as an individual.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by elder_mtber View Post
    How does one "sign" neg or pos reps?

    Just put your user name after your snarky/witty/thoughtful (or, apparently, in some cases incomprehensible) comment.
  • 11-23-2012
    June Bug
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dirt farmer View Post
    By the way, here is what is permitted and what is not permitted on western National Monuments:
    http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/...itted_Uses.pdf

    I am quite familiar with the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument area (the second National Monument listed on the pdf) and am quite certain that mountain biking continues to be allowed in the Sand Canyon area. Scroll down to the Sand Canyon Trailhead. A bit more about Sand Canyon here.

    Sand Canyon is in southwestern Colorado about 20 minutes west of Cortez in McElmo Canyon. For reference, Cortez is near the base of Mesa Verde National Park.
    Phil's World is a few miles up the road from Cortez, towards Durango.

    I suspect that when lands are converted to National Monument status, many existing uses, such as mountain biking, would be grandfathered in but creating new multi-use trails would be much, much more difficult because of onerous requirements to do various kinds of environmental impact studies. Again, speculation, but can anyone confirm this?
  • 11-23-2012
    zrm
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by June Bug View Post
    I am quite familiar with the Canyons on of the Ancients National Monument area (the second National Monument listed on the pdf) and am quite certain that mountain biking continues to be allowed in the Sand Canyon area. Scroll down to the Sand Canyon Trailhead. A bit more about Sand Canyon here.

    Sand Canyon is in southwestern Colorado about 20 minutes west of Cortez in McElmo Canyon. For reference, Cortez is near the base of Mesa Verde National Park.
    Phil's World is a few miles up the road from Cortez, towards Durango.

    I suspect that when lands are converted to National Monument status, many existing uses, such as mountain biking, would be grandfathered in but creating new multi-use trails would be much, much more difficult because of onerous requirements to do various kinds of environmental impact studies. Again, speculation, but can anyone confirm this?

    Like any proposed action on Federal land, a new trail proposal of any significance would be subject to the NEPA process. I'm not 100% sure on all the particulars but I believe a National Monument designation can have a lot more flexibility written into it's creation than a national park.
  • 11-23-2012
    Jayem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mikemcg View Post
    Yes, don't worry about it as it does not seem like it will affect MTB's.

    Sure, just review what has happened all across the country and you will realize that we are being divided and we will eventually be conquered due to our ignorance. The green (don't say Nazi now as it may offend some candy ass) groups know this and use it to their advantage. It always amazes me that the desert recovered nicely from nuclear test blasts but we are under fire for rolling our fat tired bikes across our "public" lands!

    Wake up and take action before they target our slice of the sport (our right to pursue happiness).

    Ignorance? "The desert recovers nicely from nuclear test blasts"? Really? Are you insane? Have you ever looked at Google earth and the Nevada Test Range? Please go check out the lasting impact, and I'm not even talking about radiation, but there's that too. It might not be enough radiation to require PPE if just passing through, but just to make that outlandish statement with no research or experience is just beyond me. Then you claim that these are the ones "dividing people"? Sounds like these are some of the few actually looking out for our future, the rest are just about ME and what they can pillage plunder and steal while they are alive.

    Quote:

    A 1979 study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that:
    A significant excess of leukemia deaths occurred in children up to 14 years of age living in Utah between 1959 and 1967. This excess was concentrated in the cohort of children born between 1951 and 1958, and was most pronounced in those residing in counties receiving high fallout.[12]
    In 1982, a lawsuit brought by nearly 1,200 people accused the government of negligence in atomic and/or nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site in the 1950s, which they said had caused leukemia and other cancers. Dr. Karl Z. Morgan testified that radiation protection measures in the tests were substandard.[13]
    In a report by the National Cancer Institute, released in 1997, it was determined that ninety atmospheric tests at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) deposited high levels of radioactive iodine-131 (5.5 exabecquerels) across a large portion of the contiguous United States, especially in the years 1952, 1953, 1955, and 1957—doses large enough, they determined, to produce 10,000 to 75,000 cases of thyroid cancer. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 allowed for people living downwind of NTS for at least two years in particular Nevada, Arizona or Utah counties, between 21 January 1951 and 31 October 1958, or 30 June and 31 July 1962, and suffering from certain cancers or other serious illnesses deemed to have been caused by fallout exposure to receive compensation of $50,000. By January 2006, over 10,500 claims had been approved, and around 3,000 denied, for a total amount of over $525 million in compensation dispensed to "downwinders".[14] Additionally, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 provides compensation and medical benefits for nuclear weapons workers who may have developed certain work-related illnesses.[15]
  • 11-23-2012
    SS Hack
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jayem View Post
    Ignorance? "The desert recovers nicely from nuclear test blasts"? Really? Are you insane? Have you ever looked at Google earth and the Nevada Test Range? Please go check out the lasting impact, and I'm not even talking about radiation, but there's that too. It might not be enough radiation to require PPE if just passing through, but just to make that outlandish statement with no research or experience is just beyond me. Then you claim that these are the ones "dividing people"? Sounds like these are some of the few actually looking out for our future, the rest are just about ME and what they can pillage plunder and steal while they are alive.

    A huge chuck of the country took a hit. St. George Utah was like the US cancer capital for a time - I still wouldn't live there. The west coast received nothing of course ... which might explain a few things ...

    Remember, if people believe that the "end of days" is upon us, then they have no reason to conserve anything.
  • 11-23-2012
    June Bug
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Like any proposed action on Federal land, a new trail proposal of any significance would be subject to the NEPA process. I'm not 100% sure on all the particulars but I believe a National Monument designation can have a lot more flexibility written into it's creation than a national park.

    Yes, absolutely, but I was referring to a process that would be more difficult in National Monument status relative to BLM. BLM is structured to promote multiple uses of resources; the National Park Service, and by extension, National Monuments, are structured to protect resources.

    Relative to the thread in general, just as I try to remember when there is heavy congestion on the highway, I'm not IN traffic; I AM traffic. Why are we so shocked at the prospect of oil and gas exploration ruining our wilderness experience when every single person who visits Moab gets there in a car? Running on gasoline. Maybe a Nissan Leaf has driven through Moab, but not likely. I want to be clear that I don't support drilling and resource extraction in the view shed, but please contemplate the irony.

    Also take a few minutes to contemplate that Moab for most of its existence was a tiny, ratty, hardscrabble town with a moribund economy based on ranching and an expired uranium mining industry with a BLM office and a few outfitters. The film Raiders of the Lost Ark changed all that, but I like to remember Moab pre discovery.

    Its beauty and attendant attractions have brought a lot of unpleasant aspects that always accompany the type of explosive and uncontrolled development that has afflicted Moab; this, to me, is in some ways just as unattractive as a well pad. However, most people are so adjusted to this type of typical urban strip development and traffic congestion that it just seems normal.

    All for now; I wandered a bit off topic.......got to get ready for Cranksgiving in the morning.
  • 11-23-2012
    DavyRay
    I do like riding a bike, and hiking, in places which are not industrial, not polluted, and more the work of God than Man. I am definitely not wealthy. I used to be active in the Sierra Club, so any haters out there can call me what you will.

    Those of you who are rude on this forum are just showing yourselves. Your anger politics are obviously more important to you than the discussion with other forum members.

    Those of you who have the patience should keep up with changes like this in areas you care about. The stakeholder processes are boring, but do usually result in all interests getting some consideration. I see IMBA getting some respect in these negotiations.
  • 11-23-2012
    zrm
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by June Bug View Post
    Yes, absolutely, but I was referring to a process that would be more difficult in National Monument status relative to BLM. BLM is structured to promote multiple uses of resources; the National Park Service, and by extension, National Monuments, are structured to protect resources.

    Relative to the thread in general, just as I try to remember when there is heavy congestion on the highway, I'm not IN traffic; I AM traffic. Why are we so shocked at the prospect of oil and gas exploration ruining our wilderness experience when every single person who visits Moab gets there in a car? Running on gasoline. Maybe a Nissan Leaf has driven through Moab, but not likely. I want to be clear that I don't support drilling and resource extraction in the view shed, but please contemplate the irony.

    Also take a few minutes to contemplate that Moab for most of its existence was a tiny, ratty, hardscrabble town with a moribund economy based on ranching and an expired uranium mining industry with a BLM office and a few outfitters. The film Raiders of the Lost Ark changed all that, but I like to remember Moab pre discovery.

    Its beauty and attendant attractions have brought a lot of unpleasant aspects that always accompany the type of explosive and uncontrolled development that has afflicted Moab; this, to me, is in some ways just as unattractive as a well pad. However, most people are so adjusted to this type of typical urban strip development and traffic congestion that it just seems normal.

    All for now; I wandered a bit off topic.......got to get ready for Cranksgiving in the morning.


    OK, I thought you were asking what a new trail in a monument vs a park.

    I'd have to do some research to say for sure but I do seem to remember that a monument status doesn't preclude new trails, no matter what the use. I suppose the travel management plan for the monument would be similar to a non monument BLM land in that it will have different use prescriptions and some of those prescription would be more restrictive than others. I would assume that if the main reason for the creation of the monument is protection of unique resources there would be more restrictive travel prescriptions in the monument area than there would be if it where just generic BLM land, although that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Motor and mechanized travel would be restricted to designated routes, but this is the direction that travel management on all federal land has been going for quite a few years.
  • 11-25-2012
    acer66
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by elder_mtber View Post
    This statement is not true.

    The environmentalists are a (wealthy) special interest group that wants to keep almost everyone out of public land. And they want to destroy the United States by crippling energy production, manufacturing, etc.

    Wow.
  • 11-25-2012
    Old Ray
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by elder_mtber View Post
    This statement is not true.

    The environmentalists are a (wealthy) special interest group that wants to keep almost everyone out of public land. And they want to destroy the United States by crippling energy production, manufacturing, etc.

    There may in fact be a few wealthy environmentalists, but there are far more who are of average means.
    Ever since the election, though, I've noticed a dramatic uptick in delusional thinking, of the sore-loser variety.
  • 11-26-2012
    J.B. Weld
    To my anonymous neg. repper- Thank you for taking the time to write me a personal note. I now know the error of my ways and will from here on out refer to environmentalists as "nazis" which as you eloquently stated is the most accurate description of that horrid group.