Wilderness Proposal Could Kill Trails in Moab- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 44 of 44
  1. #1
    dedicated beater
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    168

    Wilderness Proposal Could Kill Trails in Moab

    Please see: http://capwiz.com/amacycle/issues/al...ertid=14061961

    America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009. This legislation -- which will ban off-highway vehicle (OHV) access to public lands to those who live and recreate in Utah -- was introduced by New York Representative Maurice Hinchey.

    This bill proposes to change the following in Wilderness:

    b) Designation- In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are designated as wilderness areas and as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System:

    (1) Arches Adjacent (approximately 12,000 acres).

    (2) Beaver Creek (approximately 41,000 acres).

    (3) Behind the Rocks and Hunters Canyon (approximately 22,000 acres).

    (4) Big Triangle (approximately 20,000 acres).

    (5) Coyote Wash (approximately 28,000 acres).

    (6) Dome Plateau-Professor Valley (approximately 35,000 acres).

    (7) Fisher Towers (approximately 18,000 acres).

    (8) Goldbar Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).

    (9) Granite Creek (approximately 5,000 acres).

    (10) Mary Jane Canyon (approximately 25,000 acres).

    (11) Mill Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).

    (12) Porcupine Rim and Morning Glory (approximately 20,000 acres).

    (13) Renegade Point (approximately 6,600 acres).

    (14) Westwater Canyon (approximately 37,000 acres).

    (15) Yellow Bird (approximately 4,200 acres).

  2. #2
    Dr. Pepper drinker
    Reputation: catch22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,626
    Title should probably read "could kill Moab" because that proposal would likely make it Utah's youngest ghost town.
    Sipping the Knolly Whisquillappa

  3. #3
    Fragglepuss The Chaste
    Reputation: slcrockymountainrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,119
    Oh joy. I heard that the Blue Ribbon Coalition and Utah Shared Access Alliance 'wise use' freaks were sending out scare mail again.

    If you want to see the benefits of 'Wise Use', head up to the Bountiful OHV area on a Saturday and watch all the BRC guys racing up and down that dirt road without helmets. Bonus if you're into severely obese redneck women as they usually ride b!tch on the back.

    These are the same jackasses who've been harrassing Ron Lindley during the Bountiful Bomber DH races-including the quassi weekend warrior Sheriff a$$hole who pulled his badge on him even though all but the first 600 ft of the the race was on private property and he had written permission from both the property owner and the other government land manager (Forrest Service or BLM?). Sheriff Fatass was all butt hurt because he couldn't skid his quad down the one little peice of a drainage ditch we were using for the race. Fortunately this year it was pouring rain so they all stayed home and ate fried chicken.

    I'll take SUWA over these missed-evolution retards any day.

    Flame on....
    Last edited by slcrockymountainrider; 09-23-2009 at 02:16 PM.

  4. #4
    Dr. Pepper drinker
    Reputation: catch22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by slcrockymountainrider
    Oh joy. I heard that the Blue Ribbon Coalition and Utah Shared Access Alliance 'wise use' freaks were sending out scare mail again.

    If you want to see the benefits of 'Wise Use', head up to the Bountiful OHV area on a Saturday and watch all the BRC guys racing up and down that dirt road without helmets. Bonus if you're into severely obese redneck women as they usually ride b!tch on the back.

    These are the same jackasses who've been harrassing Ron Lindley during the Bountiful Bomber DH races-including the quassi weekend warrior Sheriff a$$hole who pulled his badge on him even though all but the first 600 ft of the the race was on private property and he had written permission from both the property owner and the other government land manager (Forrest Service or BLM?). Sheriff Fatass was all butt hurt because he couldn't skid his quad down the one little peice of a drainage ditch we were using for the race. Fortunately this year it was pouring rain so they all stayed home and ate fried chicken.

    I'll take SUWA over these missed-evolution retards any day.
    Kind of a toss up for me trying to pick the lesser of two evils in this battle. I wouldn't have near as much of a problem with SUWA's proposal if they showed a little moderation and common sense in the land they try to claim and if they could get anyone outside a few east coast politicians to sponsor their proposals. Have you seen the map of the proposed Wilderness area?
    http://www.suwa.org/site/PageServer?...WAclickablemap

    I think all the concern being shown now by the BRC and mountain bikers is due to the hearing SUWA has been granted for Oct. 1st:
    http://www.suwa.org/site/News2?page=...s_iv_ctrl=1061
    Sipping the Knolly Whisquillappa

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: connie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,837
    Quote Originally Posted by slcrockymountainrider
    Oh joy. I heard that the Blue Ribbon Coalition and Utah Shared Access Alliance 'wise use' freaks were sending out scare mail again.

    If you want to see the benefits of 'Wise Use', head up to the Bountiful OHV area on a Saturday and watch all the BRC guys racing up and down that dirt road without helmets. Bonus if you're into severely obese redneck women as they usually ride b!tch on the back.

    These are the same jackasses who've been harrassing Ron Lindley during the Bountiful Bomber DH races-including the quassi weekend warrior Sheriff a$$hole who pulled his badge on him even though all but the first 600 ft of the the race was on private property and he had written permission from both the property owner and the other government land manager (Forrest Service or BLM?). Sheriff Fatass was all butt hurt because he couldn't skid his quad down the one little peice of a drainage ditch we were using for the race. Fortunately this year it was pouring rain so they all stayed home and ate fried chicken.

    I'll take SUWA over these missed-evolution retards any day.

    Flame on....
    You'd give up some of the most amazing mountain biking trails in the world to spite a couple of rednecks that pissed you off a couple years ago?

    I've run into a quad racing Bountiful too. It's annoying, but good grief.

  6. #6
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Pointless to even think or worry about this. Senate tradition would require that both Utah Senators sign off on the proposed legislation and I seriously doubt that Orin or Bobby would do that. Also Utah's 2nd district Congresmann Jim Matheson would not sign off on it either due to economic considerations. That is why SUWA has to go to NY to find a Congresmann to introduce the bill. That said don't underestimate the evil that is SUWA. They need to produce wilderness legislation to keep money flowing to the coffers. As for the Blue Ribbon coalition they can suck it also. I pray everyday that God destroys all quads in an act of vengence against the destruction of precious singletrack.
    Sierra Club Sucks

  7. #7
    I'd rather be biking...
    Reputation: shelbster15's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    937
    So Shelby got home and gave me a dozen long stemmed roses and a new purse! My mom took Rylee for the evening...Can't wait for dinner!
    I agree. That would kill moab as far as tourism (mtn biking) and income for the town. That would be the last thing they would want to do.

  8. #8
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186

    What's for...

    [QUOTE=shelbster15] So Shelby got home and gave me a dozen long stemmed roses and a new purse! My mom took Rylee for the evening...Can't wait for dinner!QUOTE]

    Desert?
    Sierra Club Sucks

  9. #9
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,159
    Maybe before everyone one goes all paranoid on this, someone should post an actual map of existing trails and possible closures.

    It's kind of pathetic with that with all the information available at our finger tips, there is so much more mis-information being spread.

  10. #10
    Dr. Pepper drinker
    Reputation: catch22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy
    Maybe before everyone one goes all paranoid on this, someone should post an actual map of existing trails and possible closures.

    It's kind of pathetic with that with all the information available at our finger tips, there is so much more mis-information being spread.
    I think that part of the problem is that there aren't many detailed maps so that we are able to figure out what is included. This is the best set of maps I've found:
    http://www.protectwildutah.org/proposal/index.html

    You can pull up specific regions, anything with the diagonal lines is included in the proposed Wilderness area. Check out the Moab one specifically, in looking at it I'm pretty sure all or parts of Amasa/Rockstacker/Jackson, Hurrah Pass, Kokopelli, Slickrock, Porcupine Rim/Whole Enchilada, Gold Bar(Blue Dot)/Poison Spider/Portal, Bar M and the other Brand trails, Sovereign, Klondike Bluffs/Baby Steps, Behind the Rocks and Top of the World would be gone for starters along with basically all the riding at the Westwater exit off of I70.

    It's sad really because I'm sure there would be a ton of support for trying to get National Recreation area status applied for many of those areas(or the whole region for that matter)from all user groups, instead they try to blanket those areas with Wilderness designations when it is fairly obvious they don't fit the bill. I especially liked that SUWA made sure to let everyone know in their press release that grazing and hunting will still be allowed in these areas, since you know, those just go hand in hand with true Wilderness.

    I'm shocked they didn't go after Gooseberry too but I guess maybe they didn't want to risk making themselves look any more ridiculous by going after a newly recognized National Recreation Trail.

    The Moab area map:
    http://www.protectwildutah.org/propo.../moabLaSal.pdf
    Sipping the Knolly Whisquillappa

  11. #11
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    Ugh, how is it that these special interest groups are so successful? I applaud catch22's post above as one of the few that fully recognizes that both sides have major issues and that we don't necessarily want to side with either.

    Wilderness is not a solution for the majority of our public lands, it is too restrictive, but neither is leaving the door wide open. People need to understand that there are ways of protecting our land and designating appropriate use without the "all or nothing" mentality. It is legally possible to designate lands as exclusively hiker, MTB, motorcycle, ATV, Jeep/OHV, equestrian, or any combination there of. To take vast tracts of land full of unique and diverse qualities and designate them all for the same use is, well, stupid. The reason why we keep seeing these proposals is $$, organizations like SUWA get paid to pursue Wilderness, plain and simple. Has very little to do with what makes sense, only what pays the bills.

    Anyway, I support Wilderness for the most remote and pristine lands. Outside of those areas, we need well managed National Recreation Areas (and the like) which thoughtfully look at each area and designate appropriate use in a fair and balanced manor. Don't let these fear mongering groups back you into a corner.


    Some interesting info on SUWA (taken from a post on RM)-
    "In May 2007, New York millionaire Bert Fingerhut, who served on the SUWA board of directors for 18 years, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy in connection with a plot to reap more than $12 million in illegal profits by circumventing rules controlling how private banks are converted to public ownership. As part of his plea deal, he forfeited $11 million. On August 3, 2007 he was sentenced to two years in federal prison.[7]

    In October 2007 Mark Ristow, SUWA's treasurer and a SUWA trustee for about 20 years, pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in a scheme similar to Fingerhut's. In February 2008, he was sentenced to 20 months in federal prison and forfeiture of $2.8 million in profits. [8][9][10]

    On March 1, 2008, a letter signed by 45 members of the Utah House of Representatives requested detailed financial records from SUWA. The letter referred to the guilty pleas of Fingerhut and Ristow and said, "given SUWA's large amount of financial contributions and outside sources of funding, and especially SUWA's long-time association with these two individuals, the citizens of Utah demand your accountability with regard to these matters."[11]"

  12. #12
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,324
    Quote Originally Posted by slcrockymountainrider
    Oh joy. I heard that the Blue Ribbon Coalition and Utah Shared Access Alliance 'wise use' freaks were sending out scare mail again.

    If you want to see the benefits of 'Wise Use', head up to the Bountiful OHV area on a Saturday and watch all the BRC guys racing up and down that dirt road without helmets. Bonus if you're into severely obese redneck women as they usually ride b!tch on the back.

    These are the same jackasses who've been harrassing Ron Lindley during the Bountiful Bomber DH races-including the quassi weekend warrior Sheriff a$$hole who pulled his badge on him even though all but the first 600 ft of the the race was on private property and he had written permission from both the property owner and the other government land manager (Forrest Service or BLM?). Sheriff Fatass was all butt hurt because he couldn't skid his quad down the one little peice of a drainage ditch we were using for the race. Fortunately this year it was pouring rain so they all stayed home and ate fried chicken.

    I'll take SUWA over these missed-evolution retards any day.

    Flame on....
    You have a point to say many of the OHV users are irresponsible, but to pool them all together, you sound like an ignorant, biased jackass. I feel the same way with the "qwadders" as we (motorcycle enthusiasts) call them, but the Blue Ribbon Coalition works very hard to keep public lands open for everyone. It isn't a "scare email", they are simply doing their job to inform the public of government actions that could adversely affect everyone (bicyclists and OHV users).

    It only takes one irresponsible moron hauling down a dirt road with no helmet, to make all off-road enthusiasts look bad, but I would hope most people are intelligent enough to realize that falsification.

    "H.R. 1925 Would Eliminate Motorized and Mechanized Access to Over 9 Million Acres of Public Land in UT
    Please click here to let Members of the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands know that you oppose H.R. 1925, “America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009.” H.R. 1925 would designate over 9 million acres of land in Utah as Wilderness. If the bill were to become law, each of these 9 million acres would be made permanently off-limits to motorized and mechanized recreation, including off-highway motorcycles, ATVs, 4x4s, snowmobiles and mountain bikes. "

  13. #13

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    15
    SUWA has been scamming environmental do-gooders for years. That is a fact. They actually had a chance to support wilderness legislation that would have exceeded their original 3.7million acre proposal (which are already WSA's) in the earlier part of this decade. But that would have put the issue to rest along with their steady fountain of free money(donations) and their jobs.

    The fact that the organization is run by con-artists and fraudsters is no surprise.

    It is so much better and easier getting paid to have a pretend 'job' "saving the world" than to actually make something useful that will make the world a better place.

  14. #14
    should know better.....
    Reputation: neverwalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    749
    Looks like Flat Pass, and the 24 Hours Of Moab course area would be lost as well. Also Onion Creek.
    "Always Ride."

    -Anthony S.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    68
    Yep, I've seen this around on many off-road communities since it was first bought up and those groups are fighting against it.

  16. #16
    Tre1nt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    418
    Here's the latest from IMBA:

    http://www.imba.com/news/news_releas...ilderness.html

    Mountain Bikers Continue Decade-Long Involvement with Utah’s Red Rocks Wilderness Proposal

    For Immediate Release 10-01-09
    Contact Mark Eller
    IMBA Communications Director
    [email protected]
    303-545-9011 ext. 115

    Earlier today, the congressional subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands reviewed America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act. The bill would designate more than 9 million acres of Utah public lands as Wilderness.

    Jenn Dice, IMBA’s government affairs director, says that it is unlikely the bill will be approved in the near term, as it lacks congressional supporters in the House and Senate who hail from Utah. “This legislation has been in development for more than two decades, and likely will not be signed into law anytime soon. But IMBA remains committed to protecting the best interests of riders and protecting public lands in one of the most iconic states for mountain biking,” says Dice.

    Although Utah Congressman Wayne Owens originally introduced the bill 20 years ago, this was its first congressional hearing. IMBA has been at the table with the Utah Wilderness Coalition (UWC) and Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) for more that 12 years, working to shape the bill with mountain bikers’ interests in mind. During that time IMBA has conducted three statewide inventories of current and potential mountain bike trails in the Wilderness Units associated with the proposal. IMBA can support many of the Wilderness areas as proposed, but is in ongoing negotiations on areas important to cyclists.

    Throughout these comprehensive negotiations, IMBA has worked with Wilderness advocates to preserve bicycle access to trails by adjusting boundaries. One example is the Porcupine Rim Trail. The trail now serves as the boundary between two Wilderness units — an arrangement that will protect the trail and the incredible scenery around it.

    To complement boundary adjustments, IMBA recommends non-motorized corridors and the creation of National Conservation Areas to add lasting protection to Utah’s public lands without jeopardizing bicycle access. IMBA is continuing to work with the UWC to protect bike access for important trails, including Lower Porcupine, Bar M and Goldbar Rim. “Wilderness advocates have been willing to work with us in dozens of places through out the state and we look forward to resolving our remaining issues,” says Ashley Korenblat, an IMBA representative from Moab.

    Additional Information:

    IMBA has been negotiating the Red Rock Wilderness proposal with SUWA and UWA for more than a decade.
    IMBA’s affiliated clubs in Utah have done three statewide inventories assessing trail opportunities and threats.
    IMBA believes that land protection doesn't have to be at the expense of bicycle access — we can protect the land and allow our continued use.
    IMBA is in negotiations with the bill's sponsors to suggest a National Conservation Area for several key trails important to the Moab mountain bike community.
    We are asking for additional areas to set aside for continued mountain bike use.
    IMBA has already successfully negotiated for continued access to Porcupine Rim, Amasaback, Slickrock and dozens of other cherished Moab rides.
    IMBA supports responsible Wilderness designations and suggests complementing these areas with other land designations that allow for bicycling.
    To learn more about IMBA’s position on protecting public lands without eliminating bicycle access, please visit our online resources.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    12
    http://www.outdoorindustry.org/about.friends.html

    This organization is FOR the bill...look under their list of friends and you'll see the IMBA.

    Sad that IMBA is in a round about way SUPPORT this closure.

    You can view the proceedings live:
    http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/...id=273&Itemid=

    The OIA Vice Chair was speaking on it's behalf earlier.

  18. #18

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    15
    IMBA is a sellout and has no vision for the future of the sport. I will never support them.

  19. #19
    Tre1nt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    418
    IMBA's position is that mountain bikers want to see public lands protected from extraction and abuse ... but not from bicycles. Therefore we can support Wilderness designations when trails are not at risk -- it's simply one way to preserve the land. But it's not the only tool land managers have. National Conservation Areas, National Recreation Areas and Roadless designations all provide bike-friendly options. That's why IMBA and its clubs work with decision makers to promote these alternatives to Wilderness.

    PussNBooty, I'm not sure who you think IMBA is selling out to -- environmentalists? The vast majority of our members say that they want IMBA to continue to uphold environmental values while allowing for healthy, low-impact recreation. The strategy of advocating for alternative land protections to accompany and/or replace Wilderness designations does exactly that.

    Mountain biking is a nature-based sport, and we need to find ways to preserve high-quality natural landscapes. There are lots of ways to do that, so we will continue working to make sure that mountain bikers have maximal access to places with great trails.

  20. #20

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    15
    IMBA supports the protection of existing trails, but has actively campaigned against the building and improvement of new, more modern fun trails. IMBA thinks that what there is now, is 'good enough' and that we should be lucky enough to have just that.

    Do you really think that there is no potential for future mountain biking in the wilderness proposal areas? Its typical narrow minded thinking like that that characterizes the unimaginative and spineless nature of the IMBA organization.

    If it were up to IMBA we'd still be living in 1999.

    I remember when IMBA used to fight actively against wilderness proposals for the very reason that wilderness by definition excludes bikes. Now that you have had a hand in creating the wilderness proposal to 'save' a few popular (but old) trails you think that it is alright to choke off the future progression of the sport? Screw you. Who made you god?

    So yes, IMBA has sold out to environmentalists and does not represent 'mountain bikers' but their own special interest. Their support of this wilderness proposal is disgusting and against mountain biking. I want nothing to do with IMBA.

  21. #21
    Tre1nt
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    418
    IMBA supports the protection of existing trails, but has actively campaigned against the building and improvement of new, more modern fun trails. IMBA thinks that what there is now, is 'good enough' and that we should be lucky enough to have just that.

    Nope, not even close. We build purpose-built freeride trails with plenty of gnar, trails for beginners and everything in between.

    Do you really think that there is no potential for future mountain biking in the wilderness proposal areas? Its typical narrow minded thinking like that that characterizes the unimaginative and spineless nature of the IMBA organization.

    Go take a close look at the vast expanses of sand and rock that constitute 90 percent of the Red Rocks bill's Wilderness designations. Tell me if you think you'd ever ride a bike there.

    I remember when IMBA used to fight actively against wilderness proposals for the very reason that wilderness by definition excludes bikes. Now that you have had a hand in creating the wilderness proposal you think that it is alright to choke off the future progression of the sport? Screw you. Who made you god?

    No claims to deism here. Just trying to protect the land and allow access for bikes.

    So yes, IMBA has sold out to environmentalists and does not represent 'mountain bikers' but their own special interest. Their support of this wilderness proposal is disgusting and against mountain biking. I want nothing to do with IMBA.

    Sorry to hear you feel that way. We will go on trying to get the best access to the best lands.

    And just to be clear, IMBA does not support the proposal in its current form. We are prepared to oppose it unless our suggested modifications and alternative designations are adopted.
    Last edited by Mark E; 10-01-2009 at 02:36 PM.

  22. #22
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark E
    IMBA supports the protection of existing trails, but has actively campaigned against the building and improvement of new, more modern fun trails. IMBA thinks that what there is now, is 'good enough' and that we should be lucky enough to have just that.

    Nope, not even close. We build purpose-built freeride trails with plenty of gnar, trails for beginners and everything in between.

    Do you really think that there is no potential for future mountain biking in the wilderness proposal areas? Its typical narrow minded thinking like that that characterizes the unimaginative and spineless nature of the IMBA organization.

    Go take a close look at the vast expanses of sand and rock that constitute 90 percent of the Red Rocks bill's Wilderness designations. Tell me if you think you'd ever ride a bike there.

    I remember when IMBA used to fight actively against wilderness proposals for the very reason that wilderness by definition excludes bikes. Now that you have had a hand in creating the wilderness proposal you think that it is alright to choke off the future progression of the sport? Screw you. Who made you god?

    No claims to deism here. Just trying to protect the land and allow access for bikes.

    So yes, IMBA has sold out to environmentalists and does not represent 'mountain bikers' but their own special interest. Their support of this wilderness proposal is disgusting and against mountain biking. I want nothing to do with IMBA.

    Sorry to hear you feel that way. We will go on trying to get the best access to the best lands.

    And just to be clear, IMBA does not support the proposal in its current form. We are prepared to oppose it unless our suggested modifications and alternative designations are adopted.
    Thanks for some intelligent input Mark E. IMBA is the only national group that is actively lobbying for mountain bikers and their trails.

  23. #23
    Missouri Chubber
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    83
    http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/

    Attempting to amend "wilderness restrictions" back to what congress originally intended "mechanized travel" to mean is probably the clearest course of action. Many threads on this forum and others show the clear problems raised by following IMBA led ideals of conservation by setting aside wilderness areas and the inevitable lifetime ban from biking that the current legislation dictates in these areas.

    The easiest and most obvious solution seems to be to roll back the wording of the wilderness act to the original 1964 intent which stated that mechanized travel was travel powered by a motor or engine. How congress EVER decided that this transferred over to bicycles is beyond me. Furthermore this would give bikers lobbying power with the wilderness conservatives as it would be limiting motor use (which most major areas do ....national forests, state parks etc) in areas which bikers wished to preserve their singletrack trails.

    While I respect motorbike and ATV use on mountain trails I feel the motorized industry had a choice to make decades ago about heavy engine vs. light engine use and having clearly opted for heavier bikes evolving into motorcross style models. As a result there is now no longer a "leave no trace" option for most motorized users.

    The only major disadvantage of this line of thinking is it blurs the line between multi-use intent regarding trail damage specifically by horses. Once this line has been crossed it would be much harder to claim that horses have a negative impact on MTB trails and seek non horse designations for trail systems. I believe most MTBers would take this in stride as it would allow much greater access for MTB trails and the usage designations ultimately are up to the land managers anyway.

    I am in no way affiliated with http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/
    I simply stumbled across there site when researching wilderness area designations and it had many of the same arguments I was formulating from my own reading of the 1964 Wilderness act text.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,025

    I just recieved this statement

    from Americans for Resonsible Recreation Access. It is simply another way of looking at the issue:

    Red Rock Wilderness Bill - The East Knows Best for the West
    Generally speaking, when wilderness legislation is introduced in the Congress, the effort usually is led by a local Member of Congress. The Member or Senator works closely with various interests in the congressional district or state he or she represents to determine what areas of land should forever be designated as "wilderness." In other words, those living closest to the land where the designation is to take place are in the best position to know how that land should be used.

    Since most wilderness areas of federal land are in the western part of the U. S., usually western Senators or Members of Congress are the ones most involved in the formation of the legislation. In recent years that demarcation has changed. We saw this when Representative Carolyn Maloney, representing Manhattan, New York, introduced the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act encompassing more than 23 million acres in five western states. It seemed rather absurd that someone who has Central Park and Times Square in her district would also know something about 23 million acres more than 2500 miles away from her congressional district.

    The latest in the "East knows best for the West" category is the 9 million acre Utah wilderness bill, H.R. 1925, sponsored by another New York Congressman, Rep. Maurice Hinchey. Hinchey represents a congressional district north of New York City, comprised of rural areas along with old industrial cities. The land mass covered by H. R. 1925 is more than 4 and ˝ times the size of Hinchey's congressional district. The House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands recently held a hearing on Hinchey's bill. The entire Utah congressional delegation testified against the measure. Even the Bureau of Land Management, the federal agency with the responsibility of managing most of the land included in the bill, expressed reservations about the legislation.

    No doubt there are areas within the 9 million acres that merit wilderness designation. I would feel more comfortable about such a designation if Utah's congressional delegation was making that determination rather than relying on someone in Congress who represents apple orchards and industrial cities struggling to attract people and jobs. But then, that would be a violation of the "East knows best for the West" rule.
    I don't know what trail we're on, but at least it's getting dark

  25. #25
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186

    Don't ya

    know Greg that we are all a bunch of retarded hicks out West who drive around in jacked up diesel trucks running over endangered flowers? Well, that may be true but going back to the legislation it will never pass with out local political support. I may be getting way to cynical but this appears to be just a way for a NY politician to add donations to the reelection fund.
    Sierra Club Sucks

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    10
    Wilderness protection is absolutely essential to ensure that we still have places to get out and enjoy what makes Utah amazing. Most of this is scare tactics and most of our riding will be just fine. If we lose a bit, OK. I'm willing to give a bit to protect some of the most amazing land on the planet.

  27. #27
    Fragglepuss The Chaste
    Reputation: slcrockymountainrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,119

    How soon you all forget

    Take your trail closure pick: SUWA's wilderness bill or Republican Administration oil lease give aways?
    Those of you who followed this in main stream news and various mountain bike websites US and Canadian (not slanted SUWA or BRC-type newsletters) may recall that a bunch of trails, including the two listed below, as well as the view of Delicate Arch without an oil platform in the background were all up for grabs for next to nothing to oil companies back in December. Some famous trails would have been closed or rerouted to recreational use. Anyone remember when the oil platform went up next to Gemini Bridges coming in from the park side went up around 2001? Yeah, that's a pretty sweet option .

    Gas up your primer gray erection Chevy Nova and go play Road Warrior .

    From Bikemag.com earlier this year (read the entire article here)

    In December, we reported that the Porcupine Rim and Amasa Back trails in Moab, Utah, had narrowly averted being leased to oil companies for drilling. Thanks to protest by IMBA and the Outdoor Industry Association, as well as concerned locals like Western Spirit owner Ashley Korenblat, the Bureau of Land Management delayed the auctions indefinitely. But despite that victory, other areas like Tusher Canyon remained in danger.

    Then came the crucial intercession that many riders had hoped for. According to the New York Times, President Obama's interior secretary, Ken Salazar, has cancelled auctions to drill for oil and gas on 77 parcels of public land in Utah, including those that abutted beloved mountain bike trails.

    Mr. Salazar said in a news conference that after reviewing the Bush administration's midnight attempts to lease the land, he had found the BLM had “rushed ahead to sell oil and gas leases at the doorstep of some of our greatest national icons, some of our nation’s most treasured landscapes” without properly reviewing the environmental and economic impacts to the area. The local economies around Canyonlands and Arches National Parks revolve around outdoor tourism, much of it mountain bike-based, that could have suffered greatly if drilling were to begin....


    Take it as you will, but this is not one sided. Nor limited to one political party.
    As far as my stance: I've been on a few SUWA road claim survey's back in the late '90's. After seeing first hand the damage that's been done way out where most of you have never been, will never be and cannot ride your bike, I'm all for Wilderness. From what I've seen personally, there is no such thing as a responsible OHV.

    And those of you in the cool freegaper crowd, know that even within our Park City mountain bikers have built a couple of illegal trails (I'm sure there are a lot more)-one of which I'm guilty of riding. Not to name names, but the builders all post on this Forum. Once someone gets seriously injured on one and sues or the land manager finds them, I'm sure that will do a lot to promote the sport and keep trails open .

    And IMO, IMBA makes a very strong and most reasonable arguement.

    Well, try and flame on. Whatever....the snow's here, go get agro in the Bobsled rut.


  28. #28
    Victim of Saddle Rage
    Reputation: cannonballtrail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    622
    I have to agree with the previous posts about the IMBA. They have really fizzled out when it comes to protecting the future of mountain biking. Every time I try call to contact my local reps they are gone for a week mountain biking in Tahoe, Durango, or Moab. The mountain bike community has so many members, cycling firms, local frame builders, and could be a huge force, but we are always out riding while the hikers and Mike Vandeman's are flexing political muscle. Most of these "hikers" spend about two hours on a trail and then go home. The problem is the mtb community is strong locally, but has so little unity on the national level. There is no real push to change mechanized to motorized in the wilderness designation and IMBA claims they will "fight that battle someday."Great, why not make someday today.
    " the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." C&H

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by cannonballtrail
    I have to agree with the previous posts about the IMBA. They have really fizzled out when it comes to protecting the future of mountain biking. Every time I try call to contact my local reps they are gone for a week mountain biking in Tahoe, Durango, or Moab. The mountain bike community has so many members, cycling firms, local frame builders, and could be a huge force, but we are always out riding while the hikers and Mike Vandeman's are flexing political muscle. Most of these "hikers" spend about two hours on a trail and then go home. The problem is the mtb community is strong locally, but has so little unity on the national level. There is no real push to change mechanized to motorized in the wilderness designation and IMBA claims they will "fight that battle someday."Great, why not make someday today.
    X2!
    I don't know what trail we're on, but at least it's getting dark

  30. #30
    Fragglepuss The Chaste
    Reputation: slcrockymountainrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,119
    What cracks me up about all of this is that it was a UofU student who threw a monkey wrench into the last (Republican) attempt at mucking up those 'sweet' mountain bike trails in and around Moab. A guy who now speaks for the likes of SUWA and the Sea Sheppard Conservation Society. Tim DeChristopher has bigger balls than myself, anyone posting here or the Blue Ribbon Coalition/Utah Shared Access Alliance guys.

    I don't recall the buttery faced BRC guys or either Senator jumping in and crying foul when this was going on less than a year ago. I can just imagine the mind numbing thoughts trying to be generated by both: Jobs or A desert wasteland playground for my camo quad and fat kids?

    What also cracks me up is when mountain bikers think they're getting any real support from the BRC crowd. Sorry, but they're a motorized access group. They know that there's a good percentage of mountain bikers, I'll call them the 'I only drive a Subaru Outback and have the token black lab people', don't want motorcycles or ATV's on trails. Sure they now have the words 'mountain biking' in one sentence on their website as an attempt to garner more members and membership dollars, but as I tried to mention earlier with the Bountiful example that went over everyone's heads. When mountain bikers start showing up, the OHV crowd gets nervous. Because they know that it's only a matter of time before the freaky elitist So.Cal people who've moved up here and start complaining to the land manager and then OHV's are banned. Then of course it gets recycled again when the hikers show up and want to kick the mountain bikers out.

    Flame on...

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    333
    Oh good hell, redneck nation is up to more lies. Any of the wilderness proposals would still be less than 10% of Utah's total area.
    I'm all for Wilderness Areas. I'm all for mountain biking. They can easily go hand in hand.
    The majority of trails open to bikes would still be open to bikes.

    Seriously rednecks, you're like Faux News in the truthiness department.

  32. #32

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg
    I'm all for Wilderness Areas. I'm all for mountain biking. They can easily go hand in hand.
    Can you mountain bike in a Wilderness area?
    No.

    Does designated wilderness and mountain biking go 'hand in hand', as you would say?
    Obviously they do not.

    Its like saying "I like eating ice cream, but I wish they would ban people from eating ice cream"

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by PussNbooty
    Can you mountain bike in a Wilderness area?
    No.

    Does designated wilderness and mountain biking go 'hand in hand', as you would say?
    Obviously they do not.

    Its like saying "I like eating ice cream, but I wish they would ban people from eating ice cream"
    Yes hand in hand. You can have BOTH. The FACT is, a very small fraction of the land in the US even qualifies for Wilderness designation. The Wasatch has a few wilderness areas yet there are thousands of miles of trails that can be ridden in the Wasatch.
    That is hand-in-hand. It's a system that works.
    As I said, over 90% of the land in Utah is open to biking. When redneck nation starts making **** up about closing down Moab, it doesn't help your cause.

  34. #34

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    15
    Except that the enviro-nuts want to expand wilderness boundaries that would pretty much wipe out mountain biking in the central Wasatch.

  35. #35
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by PussNbooty
    Except that the enviro-nuts want to expand wilderness boundaries that would pretty much wipe out mountain biking in the central Wasatch.
    Do you have documentation for this allegation?

  36. #36
    Dr. Pepper drinker
    Reputation: catch22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by crashtestdummy
    Do you have documentation for this allegation?
    I'm guessing in reference to SOC's proposed additions that would potentially put an end to riding Mill D or White Pine.

    http://saveourcanyons.org/files/imag...6april2009.pdf
    Sipping the Knolly Whisquillappa

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by catch22
    I'm guessing in reference to SOC's proposed additions that would potentially put an end to riding Mill D or White Pine.

    http://saveourcanyons.org/files/imag...6april2009.pdf
    I don't see any currently rideable areas on that map. I can't tell if there would be a small portion of Crest on it or not.

  38. #38
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186

    Dear Colonel Flagg...

    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg
    Oh good hell, redneck nation is up to more lies. Any of the wilderness proposals would still be less than 10% of Utah's total area.
    I'm all for Wilderness Areas. I'm all for mountain biking. They can easily go hand in hand.
    The majority of trails open to bikes would still be open to bikes.

    Seriously rednecks, you're like Faux News in the truthiness department.

    You are wrong if you think that wilderness and biking can get along. Mountain bikes can not be ridden in designated wilderness. As a matter of fact there is a movement within the Forest Service at this moment to eliminate mountain bikes from wilderness study areas, the BLM has been scoping this also. Evidence for this is in the San Rafael swell near Goblin valley and at Little Ck Mesa in St. George. If you want to find examples of where wilderness advocates have eliminated or are in litigation to eliminate mountain biking from hundreds of square miles on NONwilderness you should look at the neighboring state of Idaho and Colorado which is fighting to save hundreds of miles of trails and Montana which is fighting to save thousands of miles of trail. So please pay more attention to access issues if you want to continue to ride pristine and challenging trails. As a preemptive disclosure I do not belong to the BRC, own an OHV of any kind or watch Fox news, I just have been involved in access issues in the past and believe that we as cyclist have to be preemptive to keep access.
    Best,
    IB1
    Sierra Club Sucks

  39. #39
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg
    I don't see any currently rideable areas on that map. I can't tell if there would be a small portion of Crest on it or not.
    Originally they were going to elimiate Mill D and reroute a portion of the Crest into the Canyons resort, which being private land, would be open at the whim of private landowners. Since, to the credit of SOC and their younger members of the staff, worked to change the proposed Wilderness lines to allow mountain bikers to keep access to these trails. I talked to several older members and they had 0 interest in compromising and couldn't understand why I rode bikes on trails. This illustrates an important point, many members of these organizations, especially the older ones, don't like mountain bikes. That's why we have to be preemptive with these groups to ensure that bicycles are eliminated from trails.
    Best,
    IB1
    Sierra Club Sucks

  40. #40
    Dr. Pepper drinker
    Reputation: catch22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg
    I don't see any currently rideable areas on that map. I can't tell if there would be a small portion of Crest on it or not.
    It looks like White Pine is still in there, I'm not sure what is going on with Mill D from the Dog Lake connector down, it looks like it now has a Wilderness area boundary on each side so maybe the trail itself would be okay. Grandeur Peak off of Pipeline is another one but it is very seldom ridden. I know there had been some speculation about building a trail from upper Millcreek connecting down to Pipeline and that opportunity would be eliminated. I assume all of the Crest would be left alone but it's tough to tell from that map.
    Sipping the Knolly Whisquillappa

  41. #41
    Arriving Somewhere
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle99uzi
    http://www.wildernessbicycling.org/

    Attempting to amend "wilderness restrictions" back to what congress originally intended "mechanized travel" to mean is probably the clearest course of action. Many threads on this forum and others show the clear problems raised by following IMBA led ideals of conservation by setting aside wilderness areas and the inevitable lifetime ban from biking that the current legislation dictates in these areas.
    Amen!

    The easiest and most obvious solution seems to be to roll back the wording of the wilderness act to the original 1964 intent which stated that mechanized travel was travel powered by a motor or engine. How congress EVER decided that this transferred over to bicycles is beyond me.
    Congress did no such thing. The bike ban was an arbitrary regulation by the Forest Service in 1984 that contradicted their original 1966 interpretation of "mechanized transport" as having a non-human power source. It quite likely would be found illegal in a serious court challenge as lacking in due process and just cause.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    We really need a new designation besides "wilderness." Something that allows for mechanized trails, existence of some Jeep roads that have been around for over 60 years (long before wilderness designations), something that allows for some low density growth for farmers, and perhaps even something that allows for some sort of ultra-low impact (something equivalent to LEED or something like that) so they are protected, keep Utah's interests for preserving beauty etc in check, but don't totally ruin it.. We already have more than the land mass of the entire state of Connecticut as designated wilderness. We don't need to triple it...

    Trust me, this is coming from an Obama supporting, left leaning liberal, who is originally from New York... I'm also a raging environmentalist who is on the board of a few environmental groups and work strongly as a volunteer on air quality issues (literally hours each week)... I just happen to live here and with wilderness there are no roads, no access, basically land that is just shut off. ..

  43. #43
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by dieselcruiserhead
    with wilderness there are no roads, no access, basically land that is just shut off. ..
    Is there something wrong with your legs?

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    Not at all and I enjoy hiking and difficult hiking. My wife was a ski racer for years and has a bum knee and that limits her to about 1 hike a trip before her knee swells up, so the rest of the time we're twittling our thumbs, bikes in the back of the truck, having fun of course but its not the same.


    I did the math and right now we have more Wilderness and Wilderness Study Area (permanently drawn into the map) in Utah than the entire state of Connecticut.

    The Red Rock Bill seeks to triple that... Question - Do we need all of the equivalent of lower New England as designated wilderness in Utah? Does that seem a little "extreme"?

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.