Coloradans can help protect Greater Canyonlands

Mike McMahon wrote:Coloradans may want another national monument, but it seems the people of Utah think a little differently: le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbi… Here are a few exerts: "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah, the Governor concurring therein, express their opposition to the presidential creation of any large area national monument, as an abuse and violation of the Antiquities Act's smallest-area-compatible mandate." "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature and the Governor express strong opposition to presidential or congressional action that would unnecessarily restrict and reduce public access to federal lands."

Interesting background on the Antiquities Act and its inception with President Roosevelt can be found in Douglas Brinkley's The Quiet World: Saving Alaska's Wilderness Kingdom. A very interesting read.

Umph! wrote: You'll believe what you want to, regardless of the evidence,

Whoa now! Throttle back there Evel! I would still like to see what you've shown evidence wise! To help you with the "connective sense," see your comment here:

Umph! wrote: if it were to occur, many, many roads and trails would be completely shut down. That is (partly) the intention.

...now please point us to something that legitimizes this comment. You obviously have some insight into the BLM's intentions, now's you chance to share it...

FYI Umph! - I "think" about this issue often and quite deeply. In fact, my mind isn't completely made up on this particular issue. If you'd take a second to reread the OP you'd notice that I was looking for dissenting point of views. IMO - I think you're having trouble keeping your emotions out of it.

Peter Stokes wrote: I'll have to base my decision about the Greater Canyonlands proposal on more than what the editorial gave me, though...

Me too Peter. Thanks for getting it.

Here is the link to: PETITION OF SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE, ET AL. FOR PROTECTION OF THE GREATER CANYONLANDS in its entirety!!

dev.suwa.org/wp-content/upl…

Umph!, find Page 7-14 to see what may bother you the most...

OK, I'll play one last time, BC.

BC Sortor wrote: Whoa now! Throttle back there Evel! I would still like to see what you've shown evidence wise!

I provided several points and examples in my second post. . . I’m not going to do your homework for you, because I know it’s a waste of my time. Just look at the closures at Grand Staircase since its inception; look at many places the Feds have taken ownership of. Look into BLM roads and trail closures t/o the west, and within and just outside of the proposed site. Look at the SUWA verbiage!
Through your lack of knowledge and understanding, I can only gather that you don’t get out much: an "armchair environmentalist”?

"To help you with the "connective sense," see your comment here: ...now please point us to something that legitimizes this comment."

Really? You see, this is precisely why I try to stay out of internet idiocy like this. . . it's nearly pointless. Read the SUWA proposal you've attached - wow, are you really this unobservant?

"I "think" about this issue often and quite deeply. In fact, my mind isn't completely made up on this particular issue. If you'd take a second to reread the OP you'd notice that I was looking for dissenting point of views. IMO - I think you're having trouble keeping your emotions out of it."

Oh, now that’s rich! You “haven’t made up your mind and are seeking other opinions” about as much as I support SUWA.
And "emotions"?. . . hello, Mr. Pillaging and Plundering.
I'm not of your political persuasion, so I don't let my emotions dictate my logic, reasoning and actions.

As I've addressed from the onset, this is about OHV use more than anything. . . not drilling and mining – that’ll be shut out with it.

I tried to read the Introduction, but was overwhelmed with hyperbole, deceit, and asinine scare-tactics within the first 20 seconds – nearly the ENTIRE Introduction is hyperbolic BS bursting with deceit, and some outright lies.

However, within that first paragraph, it does in fact support my position. . . many roads and trails will be closed. In this introduction alone, it shows how dishonest you’ve attempted to be:
"The idea isn't to kill access to any already accessible roads or points of interest, but instead to fend off any new roads or mining operations.
Maintain the status quo vs. pillaging and plundering.
Think President Clinton's bold move on Grand Staircase Escalante”.

I know your type, BC, and have dealt with you for many years. You’re as easy to unpeel as a banana, and about as intellectually honest as a chimp.
Practicing deceit and regurgitating lies won't likely get the masses on your side (unless you're the US Prez, or a hopeful). Try honesty. . . at the least you'll be able to feel good about your beliefs and ambitions.

Remember, these “introductory measures” are simply the tip of the iceberg.
This WILL effect access for climbers and everyone else. This WILL cost the taxpayers a lot of $$. This WILL grow the government. This WILL limit your freedom. This WILL create a "slippery slope" momentum for further closures and "study areas". And, this WILL hurt the economy within the region, and without.

I have no concern that this proposal will be enacted. . . but I do enjoy setting fire to strawmen (esp. when the direct intention is to further limit peoples freedoms).

And just for your little grade book, I'm not a big OHV supporter.
What I've always been is sensitive to bullies - and this, is bullying BS. . . which is, "what bothers me the most."

(Go ahead, have the last word)

Umph! wrote: I provided several points and examples in my second post. . .

No you didn't. Your second post reads:

Umph! wrote: And for river runners. . . the put-in and take-out points.

... and you didn't provide one single example in your third post either.

Umph! wrote: Read the SUWA proposal you've attached - wow, are you really this unobservant?

I observed just fine. I found that for you because you seemed incapable of finding any specifics.

Umph! wrote: This WILL limit your freedom.

Alright big shot. Please explain how my freedom will be limited by the Greater Canyonlands being protected. I've hiked much of it already and would still have access to hiking it. However, if this land is handed down to energy companies I could surely envision NO TRESPASSING signs.

Umph! wrote: I've always been is sensitive to bullies

Obviously. And, you're not handling yourself very well.

Umph! wrote: OK, I'll play one last time, BC.

For your own sake, please abide.

Andrew Gram:
“I'd be worried about how this would affect fixed anchors. The no fixed anchor rule in Canyonlands(not even bail slings) is completely ridiculous, and I would hate to see that extended to more of the desert.”

National Parks can only be created by acts of Congress (not much chance of them acting on this, or much of anything anytime soon). With an executive order, the President can sign into being a National Monument. LIke the Grand Staircase and Escalante National Monument (GSENM), signed into being by Clinton, The "Greater Canyolands" zone would be run by the BLM. The GSENM has no restrictions on climbing, fixed anchors, pitons, etc. No fee to enter. But it does have regulations against the creation of new roads and against motorized travel off of existing roads.

EDIT: sorry not to be clearer BC Sorter. Here: Yeah, climbing in all the places included in the proposed Greater Canyonlands would be unaffected; therefore I think it's a great idea for climbers to support the Greater Canyonlands proposal. It's a pre-emptive strike to forestall development and exploitation of the still-pristine land circling Canyonlands National Park.

So, Crusher, are you for or against the idea of a Greater Canyonlands National Monument?

BTW - loving your book!

Here's another map showing some of the threat locations:

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2011/10/groups-urging-obama-administration-protect-greater-canyonlands-region-near-canyonlands-national-park8903

From the excellent article linked by camhead:

“The threats to The Land are greater than they have ever been. And many of those threats come from the same forces that have always endangered the last special places. Oil. Mining. Timber. Motorized Recreation. Industrial Tourism.”

Yeah. Quite right. I’m a big fan of Jim Stiles. He points out how the tourist industry itself can exploit and damage wilderness. Moab and the surrounding lands have been transformed in the last couple decades by bikes, ATVs, motels, commercial guiding outfits, but still, in the background there still the old threats, the nodding donkeys near the entrance to Canyonlands National Park, pressure for new uranium mining south of Moab (even as trucks are slowly removing the vast pile of radioactive waste just north of Moab).

Stiles rails against SUWA because their stubborn push for their vast Red Rocks Wilderness is going nowhere and merely frightens developers into hysterical action. But in the Greater Canyonlands proposal, SUWA has joined forces with a number of other organisations to promote a more modest, eminently do-able idea. One worthy of support.

I think what is key is to have appropriate uses for appropriate places. Moab itself is now a big, big town. Indian Creek is, and now always will be, a world-class, heavily used climbing area. Sand Flats is a heavily used area for camping, biking and 4WD. Behind the Rocks is mixed, with much 4WD use, as is Gemini Bridges. But much of the land surrounding Canyonlands National Park, especially to the west and south is still barely touched.

Canyonlands National Park itself was Ed Abbey’s favorite corner of Utah. You can, to this day, camp on the White Rim Trail and not see a single artificial light. The night sky is deepest black, the stars are on steroids, blazing with an intensity seldom seen any more. The silence is profound, unsettling. When a jet plane goes over you can almost hear the pilots talking to each other. I’ve been privileged to have had lots of fabulous adventures in and around Canyonlands National Park. I support keeping those same opportunities open for future generations. What better than to protect the lands surrounding Canyonlands National Park from exploitation and development--while we still can.

Access is overrated. Wildness is disappearing. Ecosystems are dying. Climbing doesn't help. Now would be a good time to demonstrate that you have an interest beyond facilitating your own personal utility of any public acre. It is OK if there are just a few cliffs in the world that you can't drive to. Using the commons for personal recreation is one thing, but shirking your obligation to invest in the sustainability of that commons is not only stupid, it is, as they say, a tragedy. When climbers choose to sacrifice wildness for access, essentially subverting a place to their own special interest, they reduce themselves to the level of mindless consumers, crackheads, out for the quick, easy hit, willing to steal from the future to satisfy a useless craving. Far removed from noble explorers, have modern climbers become so athletically specialized that they can no longer walk, use maps, or find water, or even act civilized?

Umph!, c'mon... regardless of the content of your posts, which, as pointed out above, are devoid of evident information, but full of claimed knowledge, your belligerent and arrogant tone is insulting, small-minded, and careless. You are also very loose with several dubious and unsuported assumptions that you present as "points and examples". I know, you are paranoid about an orchestrated agenda by the government to interfere with YOUR freedom. That's what you call it, right, "freedom"? That is really, really upsetting, I can't even imagine what that must be like, however, the toxic ambience of your argument, even if you had been equipped with some facts, would help galvanize any thoughtful reader in favor of the side you oppose. I pretty much try to tune out dogs and infants when I'm listening to people speak.

P.S.> I love how you call the OP a liar and compare him to a chimp, then accuse him of bullying you. Nice.

BC,

Thanks for posting on this topic, I was unaware and now will move to support the opposition as much as possible. I know that sounds confrontational, but allow me to explain.

I do not trust conservationists and wilderness folks. I used to vote Wilderness until too many of my mountain bike rides became threatened (i.e. Hidden Gems in the Roaring Fork area for example). I climb, mountain bike, dirt bike, drive/bike the White Rim trail, hike slot canyons and just enjoy that whole general area. Unfortunately conservationists have become exclusionary to everything but their pet pursuit (usually hiking) so I cannot team up with this group, no matter how bad the enemy may be (tar sand drilling). I'd rather be able to bike past an oil rig than not be able to bike in a place at all (I even hate that I've come to this!) Its sad what a divide these "hiker only" conservationists have caused. Will I be banned from riding the White Rim trail or hundreds of miles of other established, sanctioned (not social) trails. Sorry guys, I don't trust you. I for one will fight any expanded designation, national monument, whatever because of the exclusionary approaches of the folks organizing the fight.

The Wilderness designation is wielded too broadly and is splitting off factions that would otherwise support some level of protection. Then the oil guys win. SUWA, having "wilderness" in the name clearly places this organization as "hiking only".

So BC, I appreciate your passion, but consider what the "Wilderness" in SUWA does to alienate folks that would otherwise support your fight.

That's my two cents -- wanted to get that out there but don't have much time for MP.com so may not be back for a couple weeks (hence, can't get into a conversation on the finer points). Thanks again for the heads up.

Jeff Stephens wrote:Access is overrated. Wildness is disappearing. Ecosystems are dying. Climbing doesn't help. Now would be a good time to demonstrate that you have an interest beyond facilitating your own personal utility of any public acre. It is OK if there are just a few cliffs in the world that you can't drive to.

This. Yes.

In fairness, I've also developed some mistrust of "hiker only conservationists", and SUWA sometimes irritates me (as does the Sierra Club), but I still have an interest in a bigger picture than my own chosen pursuits.

Steve,

Name the mountain biking trails that were threatened by Hidden Gems. I am specifically curious about that.

Your discussion of "pet pursuits" was hypocritical and fallacious.

You refuse to be part of a solution. But you assert your right to use what belongs to nobody. That is a problem.

Wildness in the human spirit is becoming harder to find than wilderness itself. You make me sad and sick.

I appreciate your candor though.

“If there is such a thing as spiritual materialism, it is displayed in the urge to possess the mountains rather than to unravel and accept their mysteries,” - Polish climber Voytek Kurtyka.

Steve Bond wrote: I was unaware and now will move to support the opposition as much as possible.

Steve Bond wrote: no matter how bad the enemy may be (tar sand drilling).

I understand that nobody likes their good times taken away, but I don't think you know how the oil in tar sands is extracted. None of us will be anywhere near these open pit mines.



I support SUWA because there aren't many options to help bring the dial back the other direction. Deep pocketed energy companies and developers are doing all they can to snatch up as much of the potentially profitable lands they can find. They're a crafty bunch of profit driven individuals that would put a mine right in the middle of IC if they could make a buck from it. This isn't about pushing everyone else from the land so hikers have it for themselves. That's just an ignorant statement. It's about trying to protecting as much land as these greedy profiteers wouldn't give two squirts about ruining, and it's a tug-o-war.

Peter Stokes covered it well:

Peter Stokes wrote: I still have an interest in a bigger picture than my own chosen pursuits

I think Steve Bonds' question is quite reasonable. For sure around Boulder there is sometimes friction between hikers and bikers for trail access in and around the Flatirons.

In the case of Greater Canyonlands, I understand that that the local Moab bike community are supportive; there is no threat to any established bike trails. One bike trail somewhere near Bartlett Wash travels the boundary of the proposed monument; and thus is not affected.

This helps:

Steve "Crusher" Bartlett wrote:From the excellent article linked by camhead: “The threats to The Land are greater than they have ever been. And many of those threats come from the same forces that have always endangered the last special places. Oil. Mining. Timber. Motorized Recreation. Industrial Tourism.” Yeah. Quite right. I’m a big fan of Jim Stiles. He points out how the tourist industry itself can exploit and damage wilderness. Moab and the surrounding lands have been transformed in the last couple decades by bikes, ATVs, motels, commercial guiding outfits, but still, in the background there still the old threats, the nodding donkeys near the entrance to Canyonlands National Park, pressure for new uranium mining south of Moab (even as trucks are slowly removing the vast pile of radioactive waste just north of Moab). Stiles rails against SUWA because their stubborn push for their vast Red Rocks Wilderness is going nowhere and merely frightens developers into hysterical action. But in the Greater Canyonlands proposal, SUWA has joined forces with a number of other organisations to promote a more modest, eminently do-able idea. One worthy of support. I think what is key is to have appropriate uses for appropriate places. Moab itself is now a big, big town. Indian Creek is, and now always will be, a world-class, heavily used climbing area. Sand Flats is a heavily used area for camping, biking and 4WD. Behind the Rocks is mixed, with much 4WD use, as is Gemini Bridges. But much of the land surrounding Canyonlands National Park, especially to the west and south is still barely touched. Canyonlands National Park itself was Ed Abbey’s favorite corner of Utah. You can, to this day, camp on the White Rim Trail and not see a single artificial light. The night sky is deepest black, the stars are on steroids, blazing with an intensity seldom seen any more. The silence is profound, unsettling. When a jet plane goes over you can almost hear the pilots talking to each other. I’ve been privileged to have had lots of fabulous adventures in and around Canyonlands National Park. I support keeping those same opportunities open for future generations. What better than to protect the lands surrounding Canyonlands National Park from exploitation and development--while we still can.

Steve "Crusher" Bartlett wrote:I think Steve Bonds' question is quite reasonable. For sure around Boulder there is sometimes friction between hikers and bikers for trail access in and around the Flatirons. In the case of Greater Canyonlands, I understand that that the local Moab bike community are supportive; there is no threat to any established bike trails. One bike trail somewhere near Bartlett Wash travels the boundary of the proposed monument; and thus is not affected.

This doesn't:
dailycamera.com/guestopinio…

Jeff Stephens wrote:Access is overrated.

Jeff Stephens wrote: You refuse to be part of a solution. But you assert your right to use what belongs to nobody. That is a problem.

"Belongs to nobody" should actually read belongs to everybody; and the aerial shot of Ft. McMurray up near the Artic Circle, which conviently pays for Canada's single payer health system btw, is the height of hyperbole.

I get the sense here that failing to convince a majority to support this means that the proponents would then resort to the Progressive method of unilateral action by fiat by those who hold the "greater good" interests at heart and thus know better than the average citizen. If you sacrifice liberty for security, you deserve neither. Acquiesce this land to Washington and forever lose the right to have any input with how it should be used. Remember, it is a very short, very easy step for them to take to forbid any access at all once this is in place. And there are plenty of zealots in the environmental sciences working their way into government with that very goal in mind. They already have infiltrated Colorado's government.

I'm not pro-industry and environmental degradation, but you need to do better than that to convince me.

bouldertheater.com/event/fr…

Umph!, you so underwhelmed me with your previous attempts, I couldn't bring myself to reading the ramblings *below. Hopefully you didn't spend too many days putting together that pile of garble.

EDIT: *below

There, it's below you now BC, try that. . . I know it really pains you to think, but, placing it below you is as much help as I can muster.
Amazing what capable people can do in an hour, BC.

Jeff Stephens wrote: Far removed from noble explorers, have modern climbers become so athletically specialized that they can no longer walk, use maps, or find water, or even act civilized? Umph!, c'mon... regardless of the content of your posts, which, as pointed out above, are devoid of evident information, but full of claimed knowledge, your belligerent and arrogant tone is insulting, small-minded, and careless. You are also very loose with several dubious and unsuported assumptions that you present as "points and examples". I know, you are paranoid about an orchestrated agenda by the government to interfere with YOUR freedom. That's what you call it, right, "freedom"? That is really, really upsetting, I can't even imagine what that must be like, however, the toxic ambience of your argument, even if you had been equipped with some facts, would help galvanize any thoughtful reader in favor of the side you oppose. I pretty much try to tune out dogs and infants when I'm listening to people speak. P.S.> I love how you call the OP a liar and compare him to a chimp, then accuse him of bullying you. Nice.

Wow, dude. Freakin’ hilarious!

Apparently, being "civilized" is hard for some, Jeff. I know, facts are painful things for those not prepared, and pain can create anger!

I took a bit of my time (to do some quick homework afterall) this evening to put this together - you're welcome.
Some links in here re GSENM. . . just read down closer the end, after I bash Jeff and Co. for a bit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, Jeff, I could attempt dialogue with you, but what of anything I write will be processed through your temporal lobe?
You really are an angry, self-centered asshat – considering your repulsive retort to Steve’s honest post, and my own, and your utter lack of respectable, coherent communication and information.
BUT, it’s rather funny, so I hope you continue to have a meltdown!

The “bully” is SUWA, not BC Sorter. BC is simply a tool, and his role as a tool is to promote agenda through whichever means he finds/feels appropriate (scary pictures, false headlines, insupportable babble - SUWA doesn’t care).

His agenda (and yours, I guess, even though you don’t actually make a point) I oppose (we’ll come back to this in a moment).
I did reference a “chimp” for functionalities sake, but then I also “compared” him to a banana. . . . Analogous and metaphoric language is neither literal nor appointing/entitling, so don’t let that entertaining stuff deter your focus.

BC “acted” like he was concerned, but unsure, and wanted input from others. He said that existing roads and “points of interest” would not be closed; it’s just the “new roads or mining operations” that would not be permitted – you know, to keep from “pillaging and plundering” like the savage Viking hordes -lacking conscience, ethics and morals - that we are. . . .
Deceit.

I never did call him a “liar”, but rather a “regurgitator of lies.” Try to focus when you read, son.

And, “freedom”. . . really, this bothers you? FREEDOM?! This makes you angry too? Apparently you’re a communist to boot? Seems fitting I suppose.

Now, back to that agenda. . . . I don’t believe in blind agendas. My approach, in these cases: Logic, reasoning, a plethora of observable examples and evidence, to include both scientific and humanistic criteria and methodology. . . oh, and honest information.

I don’t work well with feel-goodism and pandering politics. . . makes me feel, well, stupid. Followin’ yet, cowboy?

BC, you and SUWA, you all like feel-goodism more than rational thought. As example, BC stated:
Please explain how my freedom will be limited by the Greater Canyonlands being protected. I've hiked much of it already and would still have access to hiking it.

He really doesn’t care to address the fact that “freedom limitations” go far beyond hiking (duh?).
Furthermore, and as insultingly, BC states nearly point-blank that he doesn’t care about anyone else and their abilities or desires, because, hell!, he’s “hiked much of it already”, and would still be able to hike it if all the vehicular access points were closed down! That is his kind, “from the horse’s mouth”. . . this is self-centered elitism, and it sucks.

Now, I highly doubt that BC has hiked “much of it”.
And, if this proposal were to be enacted, he would be able to hike much less of it than he’s already exaggerating about!
Have you been out there? Have you driven out there? Do you understand those distances in that desert environment? The vast majority of people would not be able to appreciate it without vehicular access. And that form of segregation and control, in this particular instance/proposal, is a form of “elitism”. . . but, I already covered that.

I do of course love petroleum. If you don’t, then you are too ignorant (pretty well proven) to understand what petroleum has done for you, and others not nearly as fortunate as you.
Tar sands extraction doesn’t concern me in the ‘Greater Canyonlands” site, as no permits nor proposals have been submitted for this mining method. . . . There you elitists go again, using deceit and scare tactics to raise support from the ignorant masses. You probably helped to bus in votes from paid homeless people, too, huh? Seems fitting of your ethics.

If you can prove me wrong, then PLEASE post up the permits or proposals for tar sands extraction in the “GC” area.
If not, quit with the deceit and BS. . . this isn’t the homeless shelter, and your BS scary pictures and BS “headlines” followed by BS rhetoric from SUWA do not motivate tax-paying, gasoline pumping, socially diverse and politically cognizant people.

If SUWA begins to campaign against ACTUAL threats from tar sands operations within the GC area, then I’ll promise to give my support, because that type of activity doesn’t bode well for this unique natural area, its wildlife/residents and economy.
I support organizations whose intentions and funds are well-aired and solid.

This SUWA, well, they are a bunch of BS’n political propagandists whose shallow intentions are single-minded and completely out of touch with realities call in this world. They’re elitist swine, and hypocritical, self-hating political tools. . . .

As of now, there are (and have been) many “combined hydro-carbon leases” for eastern (north south and central) Utah. There are (and have been) tar sands provisions within them. This said, tar sands mining operations require a lot of resources/materials that most of these areas are not able to support (ex: water).

Furthermore, I don’t know of any leases or “plans of operations” (or expression of interest) that have been approved or proposed. . . and I even made some calls - again, enlighten us with your factual information. . . .

A few examples I’ve provided links to below, for those who are interested (there are many more out there). I’ve even added an EarthFirst link regarding potential tar sands mining on a small site along the Grand/Uintah line (that’d be way north of "GC").

Crusher, I don’t know where you obtain some of your information. Fees are charged at our latest “Monument”, GSENM.
Fees are charged (and more will come!) for campgrounds, some picnic areas, some access areas, and if you don’t call TAXES a fee. . . . do you think all those federal structures and employees grow off of profit??
And don’t forget those special use permits (Special Recreation Permits).
Furthermore, access, as I’ve always stated, is affected in this “Monument”.

Roads and trails closed, roads paved, facilities built, NO FIXED HARDWARE regulation at the “majority of areas suitable for climbing”. . . .
And don’t forget the extensive “Outfitters and Guides” section – you’ll recall, those “green industries” that overtake areas like this?
I’m guessing you’ll change your stance on “climbers support” now?

I’m a little upset with Crusher, as he never asked me for my FA’s of kitty-litter piles and choss-towers for his latest “guide” (joking, kinda).
Crusher, you note that you’d like to protect the “still-pristine land” outside of Canyonlands NP. . . for future generations, so that they can enjoy it as much as you’ve had the privilege:
First, not even close to “pristine”: roads, mines, structures, facilities, trails, bathrooms, campsites, “survival school training areas”, etc. But, it’s so big and magnificent, that it feels pristine. . . guess we’ve been doing a pretty good job thus far?
Second, how is anyone going to be able to appreciate it the way you’ve been able to if many of those same roads you’ve used for 4wd access, are closed; or if fixed hardware bans are enacted; or if due to the increased fees, and gas prices, and horrible economy, people can’t afford the trips? Simple, they won’t.

As for Ed Abbey, I recall his favorite area(s) in this region were the Maze District and the Henry Mountains (of course, there was the Glen Canyon area too, but the Feds put an end to that!). . . both of which he used a 4x4/vehicle to access, just like you! (and at times with great difficulty).
Ed was an anarchist, as much as he could be – to him the government was more corrupt and foul than the citizenry, which he certainly wasn’t happy with. I have his entire collection, literally.
He’s an American treasure.

Some simple links (that were easy to find) that support my points, below - hope they all work:

4x4now.com/trut262.htm

news.heartland.org/newspape…

litigation-essentials.lexis…

blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/grand_s…

blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/grand_s…

earthfirstnews.wordpress.co…

.

Umph!,

Your passion is infectious and you made a really good point, but I can't seem to find it now. Where did I set my damned notes? That new maid must've set them somewhere. Here they are... I wrote: "How can we be lovers if we can't be friends?" Hmmm...I must've been lost in thought.

Your latest post reminds me of a Dr. Bronner's bottle, and was at least as informative, so you must give me time to absorb its message. I have some questions, like "What's a meltdown?" Could you show me one?

I've never met a libertarian conservationist and energy advocate. What kind of conservation do you do? Diversity is neat. Like you, I'm not seriously concerned about tar sand development down there. For me, honestly, its about old-fashioned wilderness ideals. I want to fend off the growing masses, not accommodate them. I am against growing masses in general. I think growing masses should live in tumors. Furthermore, remoteness is rare and silence is golden. I like rare and golden things.

You are so mega-passionate that your instinct might be to attack me for saying so (collect yourself Umph!, draw your breath into the abdomen and remember: Mercy is power), but I sincerely suggest you edit your posts down to a readable length to make them easier to comprehend. Too much to go through and respond to coherently. (I admit, as you suggest, that I may not be intellectually up to the task.)

For the record, I was born and raised in Utah, and have been in all areas of Canyonlands multiple times.