[CRoss]

Congress is looking at the Red Rocks Wilderness Act October 1st. If this bill passes over 9 million acres of Utah BLM land will be designated wilderness. I can't see how congress could approve this but It just might happen with the current congress.

news article:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13358300

 

[ultraNoob]

How exactly will this affect MTB in Moab? Doesn't the bill just inhibit urban/commercial development? How will affect existing business and the local tourism industry?

 

[Serial Midget]

Hmmmm - I'm vacationing there from the 29th through the 5th.... might be my last chance?

 

[TheTruth]

I think cross is the ultranoob here.

 

[drkenan]

Pretty sure that mountain biking is illegal in wilderness areas.

 

[CRoss]

Wilderness is foot and horseback traffic only. No mechanized travel of any kind.

I have not found a close up map of Moab to see the exact areas but alot of the surronding area will be effected.

The red on the map will be areas designated as wilderness.
http://www.suwa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ARRWAclickablemap

 

[CBJ]

That makes sense horses are gentle to trails.

 

[Mike Buell]

If this were to pass, Utah would never be the same. Its a bunch of Horse S*!T.

 

[BRIANBUELL]

That makes sense horses are gentle to trails.

Haha, I enjoy a bit of sarcasm every once in a while!

 

[gonefirefightin]

Wilderness is foot and horseback traffic only. No mechanized travel of any kind.

I have not found a close up map of Moab to see the exact areas but alot of the surronding area will be effected.

The red on the map will be areas designated as wilderness.
http://www.suwa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ARRWAclickablemap

and anything with wheels

 

[CRoss]

and anything with wheels

Advocates for Wilderness will be quick to point out that wheelchairs are okay.

 

[gonefirefightin]

Advocates for Wilderness will be quick to point out that wheelchairs are okay.

ha.....dont get me started

 

[CRoss]

For those of you not familar with what Wilderness designation means.

What is Wilderness Designations
Wilderness Isn't some cute fuzzy term that means wild places and the great out of doors. It is a legal term and formal designation that means a place where man has no lasting impact or signs and where man is very limited to where he can go and what he can do. This means NO motorized OR mechanized access. That means even Mountain bikes are not allowed. Don't believe me? check out this sign I personally took a picture of: NO MOUNTAIN BIKES. It really means no management. It means no development. In some remote places this may be a good thing. In Utah BLM manages about 22 million acres and if 9.4 of them are locked up in wilderness it means the public can forget about using and fully enjoying over 40% of the mostly desert land that BLM manages. NONE of Utah's congressmen or senators support this bill. BLM itself has recommended to congress 1.9 million acres be designated. But the environmentalists don't care. They are asking for more than 400% more acres! I'm sure the mountain areas will be the next target of these greedy groups. To learn more about wilderness go to this article written by one of our board members:

Truth about Wilderness

 

[eric strt6]

alright GFF you need to invent an efficient hand crank all terrain wheelchair with a handicapped placard that you can use to "enjoy " wilderness and National park trails....4-5 in travel 4wd disc brakes etc

of course the disc would be to allow a controlled safe descent down hill

 

[TheTruth]

promoting humans to ride animals? GFF, can you secure a rope to hang these fart breathers?

 

[BurlyShirley]

I support Wilderness Designation.

If me not being able to ride my MTB is all I have to pay to keep the 4x4s and Quads from wrecking the world, so be it.

Are horses more damaging than MTBs? Definitely. But surely you guys understand that letting in MTBs also opens up all kinds of arguments for the quad and dirtbike guys. Sorry, but some things are just more important than my being able to ride a bicycle wherever I want.

 

[Mike Buell]

I support Wilderness Designation.

If me not being able to ride my MTB is all I have to pay to keep the 4x4s and Quads from wrecking the world, so be it.

Are horses more damaging than MTBs? Definitely. But surely you guys understand that letting in MTBs also opens up all kinds of arguments for the quad and dirtbike guys. Sorry, but some things are just more important than my being able to ride a bicycle wherever I want.

I also support Wilderness, in the right places, this particular bill goes completely overboard, it basically shuts down ALL desert terrain in Utah. Its absurd irresponsible and greedy. Just like the hidden gems bill in Colorado, completely ridiculous.
I challenge you to educate yourself on the scope of this thing and still show your support.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I also support Wilderness, in the right places, this particular bill goes completely overboard, it basically shuts down ALL desert terrain in Utah. Its absurd irresponsible and greedy. Just like the hidden gems bill in Colorado, completely ridiculous.
I challenge you to educate yourself on the scope of this thing and still show your support.

Well, I was speaking only to the posters in this thread slamming wilderness designation generally.
But since you asked me to look, I did for a couple minutes, and Im having trouble finding anything other than obvious hyperbole.
Got any maps, or nice breakdowns?

Edit: Nevermind...somebody already did. Fail to see how that includes "all desert terrain" but it is a good amount of land. If the best objection people have is that they can't ride their MTBs though, I honestly still can't say Im having much problem with it..

 

[CRoss]

There is a link to a map in post #6(saw your edit)

There would be a significant economic impact to Utah if this land is designated wilderness. This is probably why none of the five lawmakers from Utah support this act.

You will also not stop people from using mechanized recreation. If you close these areas other areas will have a increase of traffic. OHV's can use the land without destroying it. You need to manage the land and give the OHV users what they want and they will not go destroying things looking for what they want.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I've heard this before, but I've yet to see an example of OHVs really being successfully managed, (barring some example where they ride on pure rock I guess, which Im sure happens in Utah) and really think they ought to be restricted to private land in most cases (just because somebody went out and bought a toy doesnt mean they have a "right" to go out and destroy everyone's nature with it), but as for the economic impacts, I don't know enough about Utah or the specific economics to really make an informed decision.


But I will say this: If your primary issue with wilderness designation is that you can't go out and play with some toy... you've got a screwed up set of priorities, IMHO. Conservation should always be more important than recreation to a responsible citizen.

 

[Mike Buell]

Edit: Nevermind...somebody already did. Fail to see how that includes "all desert terrain" but it is a good amount of land. If the best objection people have is that they can't ride their MTBs though, I honestly still can't say Im having much problem with it..

You'd have to be familiar with Utah to understand the terrain that is covered in the map. Its basically, all the red rock desert style classic Utah terrain. Also with the pure expanse of these areas, a lot of this land would be completely cut off to humans, not that this is always a bad thing but concerning this much land it would be a tragedy.
I don't know where you live but it would be like taking all of the best terrain in your state and shutting it off forever. All or nothing is never a good plan.

We need to conserve but we can't shut off all recreation, just like everything in life there needs to be a balance. The world would Suck without recreation and the ability to enjoy and access these awesome areas.

Not to mention if this were to pass, unemployment would probably double in many rural Utah towns which are based around recreational tourism.

 

[narlus]

You'd have to be familiar with Utah to understand the terrain that is covered in the map. Its basically, all the red rock desert style classic Utah terrain. Also with the pure expanse of these areas, a lot of this land would be completely cut off to humans, not that this is always a bad thing but concerning this much land it would be a tragedy.

you can ride horses and hike on it, right?

 

[DirtMcGirk]

I'll sniper and leave a ranger on the trail if they close Moab.

 

[gonefirefightin]

I'll sniper and leave a ranger on the trail if they close Moab.

rookie move,


your supposed to shoot one in the arm so he can return to the main element and bring others within range of your shooting lanes, thus maximizing your kill ratio and creating more confimed cold bore ranges on your shoot tables for efficiency for the next wave of encroachments.

 

[sanjuro]

I hope so. Mountain biking sucks there.

 

[Da Peach]

I'd say it's a fun spot to ride. But give me mud over sand any day. And shade is nice.

 

[Bushwhacker]

There is no reason for this legislation other than someone turning a dollar and citizens having just a little bit more taken away from them.

SUWA is just as dirty as the next guy...

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]

 

[CRoss]

you can ride horses and hike on it, right?

Yet, to see some of the things that current trails take you to, you would need a multi-day hike. This would be for a healthy person, I think gonefirefightin has something to say about this. I think if I took all the money I spent on my bikes and Jeep I still would not be able to afford a horse and all the gear to take it to places with me.

I am all for some of the things wilderness is trying to do, stop oil and gas and logging. To do it at the expense of restricting who can access and enjoy the world around us is not acceptable. What is the point of preserving things if we cannot get out and enjoy them and share them with others. I do not know about you but just seeing pretty pictures in a book or at a welcome kiosk is not the way to experience the world around us.

There is a similar group here in Western Colorado trying to get 400,000 acres designated Wilderness. They hide under the primary mission of stopping oil and gas. Sure we could just say these areas will not effect me much or I do not mountain bike there, why should I care. The problem is after they get the 400,000 acres they have plans to keep going after more and more. They will willingly tell you this too. They do not want to stop. If this group wins in Utah the next step could be going after the mountains of Utah.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Why mt bikes (and hang gliders for that matter) are still included in the Wilderness ban is beyond me.

I could get behind pretty much EVERY Wilderness designation if it allowed mt biking. As it stands, I will oppose pretty much every Wilderness until this rule is changed.

Or maybe take up unicycling.

 

[Err]

Glad to see this topic gathering interested here on RM.

A couple key points:
- I am not anti-Wilderness, I am as much a backcountry snowboarder as a mountain biker so I directly benefit for Wilderness when designated appropriately
- Wilderness designation is a legal term that disallows travel by any means other than foot or horse back.
- Wilderness designation is NOT the sole means of restricting travel on public lands. There are other designations, such as National Recreation Areas, which can restrict just certain types of travel and use. Land can be designated as open for mountain bikes but not to OHV's.
- Most of the motorized trail systems in Utah are responsibly used and well maintained. OHV groups pour tremendous amounts of man hours and money into the construction and maintenance of sustainable trails.
- OHV access can be restricted to certain types of OHVs, for instance in UT we have a tremendous resource of single track (much of which was constructed by moto riders) that is open only to dirt bikes. ATV's and Jeeps are off limits in these areas. Do not let the fear mongering activists convince you that OHV designation means droves of drunk quad riders doing donuts up and down your mountain, it simply is not true.
- Some groups who seek Wilderness designation for public lands are funded based on the quantity of land that they are seeking to have designated as Wilderness. These groups are not funded to explore alternative methods of use and access control. This is a key reason why we are not seeing more fair and balanced proposals.
- Wilderness advocacy groups like to use fear, primarily of sprawling shopping malls, condos, and quad riders taking over your forests. It is often suggested that Wilderness is the only effective means of preservation and that it can not be overturned by those with special interest. This is absolutely not true, please research the Wilderness area in American Fork Canyon in UT which now allows OHV access after the users of the land united against the Wilderness designation. Wilderness can be overturned.
- Finally, Wilderness designation is simply outdated for many land areas. It should have included bicycles as acceptable usage and many agree on this point. Before Wilderness designation is further applied, it needs to be updated to include bicycles.
- I am not fighting against the preservation of our lands, I'm fighting against the "all or nothing" mentality of this Wilderness proposal. Fix the Wilderness designation to include bicycles, shrink the Wilderness proposal footrpint, suggest multi-use areas for OHV's, ATV's, and dirt bikes.


It is also worth noting that Save our Canyons is trying to have almost all public land in the Wasatch designated as Wilderness. There is momentum to eliminate considerably more access to Utah's public lands that what is on SUWA's map.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Glad to see this topic gathering interested here on RM.

A couple key points:
- I am not anti-Wilderness, I am as much a backcountry snowboarder as a mountain biker so I directly benefit for Wilderness when designated appropriately
- Wilderness designation is a legal term that disallows travel by any means other than foot or horse back.
- Wilderness designation is NOT the sole means of restricting travel on public lands. There are other designations, such as National Recreation Areas, which can restrict just certain types of travel and use. Land can be designated as open for mountain bikes but not to OHV's.

This is the type of designation I currently support. Ban the *motorized* vehicles from trails.

 

[zebrahum]

God, just hearing Save our Canyons gave me the chills. Err, brilliant post, we need to stop developing all this land, but not under the "all or nothing" wilderness protection.
I have seen first hand what overuse can do to trails in Moab, I can understand wanting to designate it as wilderness. The amount of traffic Moab sees every year is just incredible. Having been riding there during Jeep week for two years now, I can tell you first hand how quickly a trail can be beaten down. But it's not just the OHVs, did anyone ride LPS before it got well known? The hill after the notch today is completely massacred, full of skids, ruts, and unbelievable damage. So much so that the Moab area trailbuilders are re-routing it.

So how do we go about actually doing something? I don't honestly know. Can a more appropriate level of protection be implemented, or even agreed upon? I know no one wants to do it, but advocacy goes a long way. How can you possibly determine that X users can use this trail, but not Y, I think this is the core of the all or nothing push.

Save our land, but let us use it.

 

[rockofullr]

Call me a hippy but I like this!

Are you telling me that all the good MTB trails in Utah/Moab will be closed because of this?

Wilderness designation is a good move for the future. Personally I think horses should be kicked out too. If you aren't man enough to pack your gear on your back then you just don't get to go.

 

[gonefirefightin]

Personally I think horses should be kicked out too. If you aren't man enough to pack your gear on your back then you just don't get to go.

it will never happen, the agencies use animals for the construction and maintenence. every agency that has wilderness has packers

 

[ultraNoob]

To learn more about wilderness go to this article written by one of our board members:

Truth about Wilderness

Thanks for the info. I was unaware of the impact of the "wilderness" designation.

 

[Mike Buell]

This is the type of designation I currently support. Ban the *motorized* vehicles from trails.

Why can't people understand that there is more then one way to enjoy the word, just because something is motorized doesn't make it bad. Don't let the few bad apples in the group override your perception of the whole group.

Dirtbikes can be just as responsibly used as mt. bikes in the proper areas. If you don't participate and understand an activity its easy to hate, but its not always justified, its pretty arrogant to assume that what you do is the only way and everyone else is wrong. Mt. bikers hating on Motos is no better then hikers hating on Mt bikes.

Every group hates the group that is aligned above them, and its stupid, working together rather then fighting would get a lot more accomplished.

Obviously everything isn't sustainable everywhere, but these activities are not going to go away. If your going to take a certain place away something comparable should be designated in return.

 

[rockofullr]

it will never happen, the agencies use animals for the construction and maintenence. every agency that has wilderness has packers

so give a special pass for horses for maintenance/construction

 

[blue]

All of this craptacularity could be solved by allowing bikes in wilderness areas.

 

[Gex]

All of this craptacularity could be solved by allowing bikes in wilderness areas.

Jeep tours are also big business in moab. When I wen't there over spring break two years ago there were a ton of off roaders.

 

[C.P.]

Folks, I'm a betting man that this bill will go nowhere. I base this on the fact that it's been shot down in every attempt to bring it out of commitee and to vote since it's first introduction in 1995. (that includes ALL of Clintons and Bush2's terms). It has NEVER made it past committee hearings and (hopefully) never will, it needs committee approval to make it to the House floor for a vote. Yeah, the co-sponsors would love to pass it I'm sure. But take a look at the House commitee on Natural Resources (one of the two commitees charged with review) and you'll see a pretty balanced mix of Dem/Rep. I think that will deadlock it again.

Yeah, also, I'm in FULL agreement with many of you here that think Wilderness Rules ought to be amended to include bicycles.