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!! |
|
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. . . Im not going to do your homework for you, because I know its 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 dont 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 thats rich! You havent 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 thatll 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 youve 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. Youre 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 bulliesObviously. 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: |
|
So, Crusher, are you for or against the idea of a Greater Canyonlands National Monument? |
|
Here's another map showing some of the threat locations: |
|
From the excellent article linked by camhead: |
|
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? |
|
BC, |
|
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, |
|
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. Tar sand mine. 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. |
|
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. Im 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 Abbeys 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. Ive 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.Tar sand mine. "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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
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. 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 Steves honest post, and my own, and your utter lack of respectable, coherent communication and information. BUT, its 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 doesnt care). His agenda (and yours, I guess, even though you dont actually make a point) I oppose (well 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 dont 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; its 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 youre a communist to boot? Seems fitting I suppose. Now, back to that agenda. . . . I dont 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 dont 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 doesnt care to address the fact that freedom limitations go far beyond hiking (duh?). Furthermore, and as insultingly, BC states nearly point-blank that he doesnt care about anyone else and their abilities or desires, because, hell!, hes 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 horses 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 hes 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 dont, 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 doesnt 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 isnt 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 Ill promise to give my support, because that type of activity doesnt 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 BSn political propagandists whose shallow intentions are single-minded and completely out of touch with realities call in this world. Theyre 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 dont 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 Ive provided links to below, for those who are interested (there are many more out there). Ive even added an EarthFirst link regarding potential tar sands mining on a small site along the Grand/Uintah line (thatd be way north of "GC"). Crusher, I dont 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 dont call TAXES a fee. . . . do you think all those federal structures and employees grow off of profit?? And dont forget those special use permits (Special Recreation Permits). Furthermore, access, as Ive 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 dont forget the extensive Outfitters and Guides section youll recall, those green industries that overtake areas like this? Im guessing youll change your stance on climbers support now? Im a little upset with Crusher, as he never asked me for my FAs of kitty-litter piles and choss-towers for his latest guide (joking, kinda). Crusher, you note that youd like to protect the still-pristine land outside of Canyonlands NP. . . for future generations, so that they can enjoy it as much as youve had the privilege: First, not even close to pristine: roads, mines, structures, facilities, trails, bathrooms, campsites, survival school training areas, etc. But, its so big and magnificent, that it feels pristine. . . guess weve been doing a pretty good job thus far? Second, how is anyone going to be able to appreciate it the way youve been able to if many of those same roads youve 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 cant afford the trips? Simple, they wont. 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 wasnt happy with. I have his entire collection, literally. Hes 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!, |