Coloradans can help protect Greater Canyonlands

BC Sortor wrote: That's just an ignorant statement.

A Picture from Canada, NOT Utah. Deceit. . . .

BC, do you carry Saul Alinsky's books with you at all times? Do you really believe continuing to submit deceitful propaganda, and outright lies is going to bring you the support you desire?

Nice picture of a Canadian operation. . . why did you put "UTAH" on it? Wait, I have the answer: deceit, IS your ethic.

SUWA's proposals are excatly about pushing others from the land to meet their (and their BIG $$$ funders!) benefit and expectations.

It's mockery of Utah's tourism slogan: Utah - *Life Elevated. There are no tar sand operations in Utah, but if there ever are this is surely what they'll look like.

I have another one here you might enjoy...

Utah trails.
Edit: *Life

.
Oh yeah, STRAWMEN. . . watch 'em burn baby, watch 'em burn.
.

Welcome back Umph! Tough crowd here, eh?

A couple things:

First, fees in Grand Staircase and Escalante National Monument. You asked where my information came from. It comes from firsthand experience. Never paid a cent in fees, over many visits. I have put lots of money into the local economy, to stores, motels, gas stations, restaurants. Only fees I’ve ever paid in that area were at Kodachrome Basin, which is a Utah State Park. Yes, GSENM does charge for camping at two developed campgrounds, Calf Creek and Deer Creek. Never camped at either one. Sorry if you felt I was misrepresenting things.

As for mining. Well, you might, just might be right about there being no realistic prospects for tar sand mining near Canyonlands. Among other things, they would need lots of water, and yeah, it's a desert.

But I don’t know for sure. I don’t trust or believe anything regarding the extractive and energy industries. They have a long history of lies, corruption, mismanagement and greed. The nuclear power industry for instance should, in this day and age, be a safe, clean, reliable source of energy. But it’s not. Last year’s disaster in Japan is just the latest incident where greed, hubris and incompetence has overruled common sense. BPs oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico likewise.

And on the Colorado Plateau? Vanadium Company of America, in cahoots with the feds, made millions of dollars mining uranium from the Navajo Nation in the 1950s. They neglected to inform the locals about the hazards. They were too cheap to install fans and other safety precautions in their mines. They left a legacy of death and destruction, and in 1967 the VCA conveniently disappeared, merged into another company. Our tax dollars will be paying for radiation and health issues for generations to come. Then there’s the story of John Boyden, a high-powered Salt Lake City lawyer (who twice stood for governor of Utah) who represented both the Navajos and Hopis in their negotiations with Peabody Coal, who wanted to mine coal on Black Mesa, situated between the two reservations. The Hopis wanted to stop the mining. The Navajos had doubts, but were a bit more amenable. Peabody ended up getting pretty much all they wanted. Including access to plenty of water, despite their operations being in the middle of a desert. Years later, after Boyden died, it became apparent that he was secretly being paid by Peabody the whole time. Corruption at a very high level.

So, if I read that, “tar sand mining around the Tar Sands Triangle (the relevant area near Canyonlands National Park) won’t happen, it’s impractical, nothing to worry about” or words to that effect, then I’m going to be skeptical. Plus, if you go to the website of US Oilsand:

usoilsandsinc.com/

especially their Corporate Presentation, here:

usoilsandsinc.com/documents…

you will find a much more upbeat assessment.

I don’t really know what to believe, who to trust. The feds can be grossly inefficient, slow, frustrating. For that matter, wilderness advocates can sometimes sound strident, elitist, deaf to local concerns. But their hearts are in the right place. I do know that the extractive industries are hugely profitable, have boatloads of money and have enormous influence over Utah politics and political discourse at all levels. And I also know that if the Tar Sands Triangle area is made part of a National Monument then it WILL be protected from mining, just as the creation of the GSENM ended plans for mining on the Kaiparowits Plateau. So I support the Greater Canyonlands proposal.

Lastly, Ed Abbey. What Abbey loved was the wild desert. “Indeed I am a butterfly chaser, a googly-eyed bleeding heart and a wild conservative.”

What Abbey hated was development. Particularly roads and all who build them, whether it be federal bureaucrats, county officials, miners, local businessmen. When Rainbow Bridge became accessible by boat, when previously it had required a 6-mile hike, he was incensed and railed against “the wheelchair ethos of the average American Slob.” Hey, is that elitist, or what?

I have my points of contrast (nuclear and other), but have voiced enough for this media and topic.

A pleasure to read, Crusher. . . thanks, man.

.

"Be of good cheer. All may yet be well. There's many a fork, I think, on the road from here to destruction." E.A.

"Though men now possess the power to dominate and exploit every corner of the natural world, nothing in that fact implies that they have the right or the need to do so." (Edward Abbey)

I like this interview with Cactus Ed because it covers a lot of thought. It's Parts 1-3 and will take about thirty minutes. This is from 1982. Has a fun overall perspective and surprising how fitting it is with today. Much of this could have been recorded last year just the same.

youtube.com/watch?v=jOgEs1O…

The area surrounding Canyonlands is a unique and special place, otherwise who would care.

The proposal is to protect Greater Canyonlands and its charm from those who threaten it most, extractive/energy companies, and land vandals (OHVs). I think most fair-minded people would agree that the extractive/energy industry digging and scraping away more of these lands would be bad... no hiking trails, no OHV trails, no access. This is probably the most important reason for protection. But, the damage caused by OHVs isn't much better. These land vandals are doing a great deal of damage already and without limiting their access, more is sure to come. The back-up evidence for this is as numerous and plentiful as discarded beer cans during the Jeep Jamboree weekend. And I understand why. When my bros and I go into the back country here in the Wasatch powder, we're always looking for new fresh lines. As climbers we do the same thing at the crag or driving near some vertical looking rock. Land vandals do this same thing but their impact is infinitely more damaging. Along with the initial tracks and obnoxious noise pollution their scars speed up the degradation of vegetation and soil erosion. Some may argue that OHV users "stay on trail." Not all are rampant vandals, but many are. I've witnessed many OHVs going off trail more times than I care to remember, and that falsehood is further flattened here:

In a survey conducted by Utah State University, owners of ORVs reported that they prefer to ride off trail and in fact, do ride off trail. Specifically, 49% of the ATV rider and 38% of the motorcycle rider report that they prefer to ride off-trial, and 39% of the ATV rider sand 50% of the motorcycle rider responded that they did, in fact, ride off-trial on their last trip.

In time, I believe these actions will be looked upon in a similar light as the marksmen some 170 years ago sitting in trains crossing the plains plunking off bison for no other reason than the fleeting thrill. Instead of killing wild and majestic beasts in nature with one single shot, land vandals slowly and systematically kill a naturally majestic and wild country.

SUWA and the supporters of SUWA are not trying to take this land away from anyone, quite the opposite actually, the intent to protect the land for everyone. The notion that this is a ruse for hikers to banish everyone but themselves is a desperate and limp argument without any merit whatsoever. I challenge anyone to point out literature or statements that claim this as an end goal. It just so happens that there are open-minded, generous, and thoughtful people who are passionate about protecting wild and special places. As a matter of fact, many of the contributors to SUWA come from people living in the Midwest and on the east coast. Some may never step one foot on Greater Canyonlands National Monument, ever. For them, and me, this is about protection from those that will do this land harm. The land should and will always be accessible to anyone who cares to visit, in a respectable and non-vandalizing way.

Sure, there are always going to be hyper-sensitive land vandals ready to spew their tactless retorts, victimization, and diatribe, but what other options do they have? Their hobby is vandalizing our lands. Sadly, a great number of these land vandals are too callous and arrogant to genuinely consider their position and impact.

Anyways, what's important to me, and hopefully us, is protecting this wild and special place.

suwa.org/issues/greatercany…

This is relevant to this discussion. Idiots.

le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbi…

Not that it would do much good to change the minds of our "leaders," action can be taken: utah.sierraclub.org/Tracker…

Finally made it back. Some good arguments (and the usual not so good, but hey, its the internet). I feel like I am back in grad school with all the reading I just had to do.

BC - I can't disagree with many of the OHV'r statements. Usually its the bad seed (i.e. 18 year old moron) but unlike hiking off trail or riding a bike off trail even, the impact from one person is huge. I hate that too. So many great motorized trails exist, no need to make something new on your own.

The fact remains though, "wilderness" as a word is becoming a political fragmentation point. That makes it pretty much "hiker only". Now in truth, I am being lazy in my research and assuming a bunch from that one word...but that makes me your average American voter unfortunately.

The alternative I saw in the Hidden Gems thing was a NPA, NCA or NRA (National Protection, Conservation, Recreation Areas). This brings a lot of people back into the fold for fighting some of the nastier land uses out there (usually energy related).

So my point is, "Wilderness" is exclusive by its nature. I think we need Wilderness, but again, it seems like pushes for it are popping up everywhere.

One thing I've got to thank everyone on this thread for though is the motivation to learn more about this, and assess my position on protections for our great lands out there. Especially Crusher's impactful phrase, "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." I may be willing to lose some access to make sure I can have another one of those experiences...even if I have to hike.

Steve Bond said " I may be willing to lose some access to make sure I can have another one of those experiences...even if I have to hike." Steve means well, but if you don't know history and you don't know the agenda (Agenda 21) you are being led to the slaughter. The deception is known as DIVIDE AND CONQUER. First we get rid of those "noisy and destructive" ORVs. Once they're eliminated we then go after those "destructive and garishly dressed" mountain bikers who silently sneak up on us out on our trails. Finally when we've eliminated that group WE (the hikers)are the next group to be eliminated. WE are interfering with the mating habits, food gathering, etc. of any one of the local (soon to be listed as endangered) species - flora or fauna. Don't think that you are not next on that list - but now without any legal or financial backing of those other groups you eliminated - Just read up on AGENDA 21. 50% of the land mass of the USSA will be Core Wilderness and off limit to ANY human intrusion. Unfortunately this will include almost all of our favorite places to hike,bike, and drive ORVs. Another 25% of the USSA will be Buffer Areas surrounding the Core Wilderness and will be available for very limited human intrusion. Think it's all fantasy? We have large areas of "open space" - not even of wilderness status - here in the Denver - Boulder area that are closed to any human intrusion (except park police and "maintenance crews".
So Steve, what you are going to do by going along with groups like the Sierra Club and SUWA and selfishly eliminating multiple use of your favorite places is to also lose your future experiences there - because they'll be closed to hiking as well.

An entire new thread discussing AGENDA 21 and it's eventual impact on climbing should be started. AGENDA 21 is a UN sponsored program that is well under way in our country and will drastically affect every aspect of our lives.

Thumbs down for coming in from another state and influencing what goes on in Utah. There is plenty of Federal/protected/off-limits land in Utah. Let Utah decide.

Anyone who wants to go after energy production and drives, turns on lights, buys stuff, etc.... and then wants to tell others what to do with land in their area..... hypocrite.