A false narrative

jps8460

Cruise Moab Committee
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
2,923
Location
Broomfield
Below is a recent email from the BRC about the San Rafael swell. But first a short rant....

More and more I’m hearing the false narrative that disrespecting our public lands get them closed. In my research, rarely have I found a situation where trash or off trail use has been the reason an area was permanently closed.

More often it is a large group of organized lobbyists and policy that get our favorite areas and trails shut down.

I challenge you to change your narrative to explain that while leaving your McDonald’s cup behind is an asshole move, the real change starts with organizing and taking on anti mechanized recreation groups like SUWA etc that spend hundreds millions of dollars each year to seal off large swaths of land each year.

I’ve donated to the Blue Ribbon Coalition on several occasions and try to support them challenging anti-mechanized (yea, this includes bicycles too) groups like SUWA.

Ok here’s the email if you don’t get them.

The BLM recently announced that they would be analyzing 195 miles of routes - Again - in the San Rafael Desert. We’ve been following this issue for several years, so let us give you a quick refresher.
  1. In 2020 BLM released a final Travel Management Plan for this area. They chose the OHV friendly alternative.
  2. SUWA challenged the decision through an administrative appeal.
  3. BlueRibbon Coalition, several allies, and the State of Utah intervened to defend the plan.
  4. Their appeal was denied.
  5. BLM began implementing the plan to designate over 800 miles of routes as open in the area (less than 1% of the area is impacted by routes).
  6. SUWA challenged the decision in the Federal Court of Appeals.
  7. BlueRibbon Coalition, several allies, and the State of Utah intervened to oppose the appeal.
  8. Administration changes in Washington.
  9. While waiting for SUWA to file an initial complaint BLM secretly releases a decision to close 35 miles of routes through a categorical exclusion.
  10. After over a year of collecting information, SUWA and BLM create a backroom settlement deal.
  11. BRC, several allies, and the State of Utah appealed the inappropriate use of a categorical exclusion to close these roads.
  12. BRC, several allies, and the State of Utah oppose the motion to dismiss the appeal (the backroom settlement deal).
  13. Despite the opposition to the settlement, a Federal judge agrees that the settlement can move forward.
We are currently waiting to see if the closures of the 35 miles of routes through categorical exclusion will be reversed by our appeal.
The BLM announced it is collecting feedback from the public on 195 miles of routes as part of the settlement agreement with SUWA. Here is the BLM’s request:
Request for Public Input: During the process that culminated in the 2020 SRD TMP, BLM received extensive input on routes in the SRD TMA from the public and cooperating agencies. BLM is reviewing these prior comments as a part of its preliminary reconsideration assessments. BLM now invites the public to submit new information focused on the settlement routes, including information about the routes’ purpose and need and resource considerations. Because BLM has reviewed and is considering comments submitted prior to the adoption of the 2020 SRD TMP, BLM respectfully requests that commenters only provide new settlement-route-specific information not already submitted in the previous SRD TMP travel-planning effort.
BLM will review and consider all new information and comments pertaining to the settlement routes submitted by the public. If possible, please include the route Segment ID with each comment. The public has until August 26, 2022 to submit any new information or comments on the settlement routes.

It is worth pointing out that BLM makes it clear that they are requesting new information on these routes, however, until we hear back on the 35 miles that were closed through categorical exclusion, it is incredibly difficult for the public to assess the current condition of the closed routes to provide new information.
We shared our concerns with the BLM, and we requested that they rescind the temporary closure order or extend the deadline of the reconsideration process until 30 days after we receive a response to our appeal.
This is the response we received from the attorneys at the BLM:
I have consulted with BLM and they decline your request to withdraw the temporary closure order or extend the San Rafael Desert reconsideration process being conducted pursuant to the 2022 settlement agreement. The agency's recent current request for new information concerning the routes under reconsideration is not a request or invitation to use off-road vehicles on routes that are temporarily closed. Additionally, there are ways for the public to obtain information, even on temporarily closed routes, including, for example, by walking, using drones, or using Google maps or other electronic imagery.
We have spent time in the San Rafael Desert ground-truthing the BLM’s field work with volunteers who have physical disabilities that prevent them from walking 35 miles in harsh terrain during the months of July and August when the average temperatures in the San Rafael Desert easily exceed 100 degrees. It is insulting and discriminatory that BLM’s response to stakeholders in this process is that instead of letting them use OHVs on perfectly good OHV routes to provide public feedback on the condition of the OHV routes, they must walk. The BLM also buried the information about these closures in the “related projects and links” tab of the project page instead of acknowledging these route closures in the introductory document.
While we need any willing members of the public to provide feedback on these routes, if you do go to the San Rafael Desert to ground truth the routes, please review the current route closuresto avoid using these routes with an OHV. If you decide to walk these routes, please bring a good pair of hiking shoes, a lot of water, and a satellite device to call Search and Rescue if necessary (these perfectly good OHV routes can still be used by Search and Rescue vehicles).
In the image above, the routes in red are the ones BLM is analyzing again. You can also access an interactive version of this map here, so you can zoom in and review the routes in more detail.
We invite all our members, and especially our supporters of the 10,000+ Project to add their feedback to this process. Here are the forms of feedback that will be the most helpful:
  1. Visit the San Rafael Desert and verify the condition of any of these routes on the ground with abundant photographic documentation. (Be careful to avoid using OHVs on the 35 miles of closed routes. If you have a drone, consider getting drone footage of these routes.
  2. Spend some time finding the routes on Google Earth and sharing the satellite imagery with the BLM. Remember, Google Earth has satellite imagery that let’s you look at historical imagery going back to the 1990s. That so many of these routes have persisted over time shows they are being used and have a purpose and need.
  3. We will have an action alert on this project soon, so stay tuned for additional updates on this issue in the coming weeks before August 26.
  4. We have already done significant work in this area, but we will probably spend a few more days in the desert before the comment period ends. If you haven’t become a sustaining member of the 10,000+ Project, we need your support. We are asking everyone who cares about keeping these areas in Utah open to commit to donate $5 a month to support our legal work. We are going the distance to fight for your future access to these areas.
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
13,022
Location
Grand Junction
SUWA has had this tied up in court for a long time and appears intent to keep it tied up indefinitely. For the past 10 or so years it's been this slowly accelerating drip-drip-drip. Everyone thought it was over in 2017 when all parties agreed to drop their lawsuits.


Then the Dingell Act designated a bunch of new Wilderness. Which all parties again went through the hoops to comply and thought it was over in 2020 with the San Rafael Desert anyway. The BLM hasn't even fully finished all the Plans in other impacted areas and hasn't finished implementing the ones they thought were done.

But now it's not again. Anyone who doesn't agree (MTB'ers included, who I feel are doing more harm than help sometimes) has to understand SUWA won't be happy until they get their whole Red Rock Wilderness put into place. They've been working at it since 1989 so they have a long view and the deep pockets to make it happen piece-by-piece, moving the goal post an inch at a time.
 
Last edited:

jps8460

Cruise Moab Committee
Cruise Moab Committee
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
2,923
Location
Broomfield

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
13,022
Location
Grand Junction
The old adage is "Perception is reality." There's also "With great power (authority) comes great responsibility."

This very old thread highlights some internal collusion working against us.

That continues apace or perhaps accelerated with current director of the BLM.

But was re-upping my BRC membership and thought I'd look into stepping up to the premium. It's basically a push if one were, oh I dunno, thinking about buying something more than $25 for their dirt bike. You know, in theory, since a premium BRC gets you $25 credit at Rocky Mountain ATV and Motorcycle.


It also gets you a discount at something called Gorilla Whips. I had no idea what that was, so it was with some trepidation I did a web search. Who knows what that was gonna turn up. Best case scenario in the back of my mind was rugged GMRS antennas.


Now I'm sure my world view isn't a secret. It boils down to live and let live. But these things on side-by-sides do not serve any purpose that I understand. They do irritate everyone trying to have some peace and quiet. Along with it seems loud stereos are like a flame to a moth for these users. And engines that seem to be impossible to muffle effectively.

Anyway, BRC needs money.

But two things come to mind. These guys are apparently financially successful enough to help, which I don't think speaks well of our collective OHV spending priorities. But it also seems to be me a close association such as this is kind presents exactly the opposite image of being considerate and thoughtful users trying to co-exist with other users and nature.

No matter who you are, even a old curmuggeon in a 4WD stopped for some lunch at an overlook never mind someone who's generally a slower and quieter traveler. You will not see any wildlife within miles of you with one of these moving discos near by. What's the goal here? Why must the point be to see who can be the most obnoxious vehicle and bring it as far as possible into the backcountry?

We're our own worst enemies sometimes.
 
Last edited:

DanS

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
1,445
Location
Dumont
But two things come to mind. These guys are apparently financially successful enough to help, which I don't think speaks well of our collective OHV spending priorities. But it also seems to be me a close association such as this is kind presents exactly the opposite image of being considerate and thoughtful users trying to co-exist with other users and nature.

No matter who you are, even a old curmuggeon in a 4WD stopped for some lunch at an overlook never mind someone who's generally a slower and quieter traveler. You will not see any wildlife within miles of you with one of these moving discos near by. What's the goal here? Why must the point be to see who can be the most obnoxious vehicle and bring it as far as possible into the backcountry?

We're our own worst enemies sometimes.
Dave you and I are on the same page. The SxS community is a very real liability to the community of responsible and respectful OHV users. For some reason, the SxS community has deemed it desirable to impose themselves upon the world in as many ways possible. Loud exhaust. Loud Music. Loud paint jobs. Kicking up dust. Going fast. Going off trail.

I don't get it.

Dan
 

Corbet

RS Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
7,982
Location
Durango, Colorado
I hate to single out the UTV community but yah they bring it on themselves. It they were just quieter that would go a long way. My Cruiser is by no means quiet but by comparison it’s a mouse at a rock concert.

Silverton banned them last year and Lake City reduced access this year.

every user group has tards. But every UTV is loud and that makes them hard to accept.
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
13,022
Location
Grand Junction
Another thing is the drinking on the trail.

It's usually a bad idea to allow divisions within user groups and particularly since it's not all UTVs and side-by-sides. But it sure seems it's disproportionately negative and is harming us trying to win the middle ground. One jerk in a rental UTV can undo in a day all the trail work and giving out water to hikers and bikers good will you've ever done.

But I won't act like it's just UTVs. A tourist on an e-bike short cutting or not yielding (it really irritates me when a downhill rider rides around and widens a trail instead of just waiting for uphill) or hiker defacing petroglyphs is no better.
 
Last edited:

J1000

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
1,559
Location
Morrison, CO
Like Jackson says in the OP, we need to stop focusing on UTVs. Sure they are annoying, but there are also a lot of them. There are a lot of rental companies that make lots of money renting them also. If we can all get on the same page it would increase our numbers. Right now all our ire and outrage is focused on other OHV users when we should really be focusing it on the bureaucrats that are actually behind the closures.
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
13,022
Location
Grand Junction
Like Jackson says in the OP, we need to stop focusing on UTVs. Sure they are annoying, but there are also a lot of them. There are a lot of rental companies that make lots of money renting them also. If we can all get on the same page it would increase our numbers. Right now all our ire and outrage is focused on other OHV users when we should really be focusing it on the bureaucrats that are actually behind the closures.
So what do you propose we do? If you don't like the losses in San Rafael(s) and Labyrinth/Gemini make sure to watch Paunsaugunt, Nine Mile, Dolores, Dinosaur (North), Trail Canyon, Henry Mountains/Fremont and Book Cliffs that are still to go.
 
Last edited:

J1000

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
1,559
Location
Morrison, CO
So what do you propose we do? If you don't like the losses in San Rafael(s) and Labyrinth/Gemini make sure to watch Paunsaugunt, Nine Mile, Dolores, Dinosaur (North), Trail Canyon, Henry Mountains/Fremont and Book Cliffs that are still to go.
I mean you can add to that list Wyoming and southern CO too. Under attack from all sides at once.

My suggestion would be to somehow get more community involvement in this stuff. Stay the Trail is a great organization but limited in their scope, but one thing stuck out to me while talking to them at Kingston a few weeks back; he said they had a STT truck at Rainbow Falls and there were literally hundreds of SxSs there. Hundreds. Of course they were drinking and partying etc, but those numbers are undeniable. I don't have the right answer and I'm bad at organizing people.
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
13,022
Location
Grand Junction
I mean you can add to that list Wyoming and southern CO too. Under attack from all sides at once.

My suggestion would be to somehow get more community involvement in this stuff. Stay the Trail is a great organization but limited in their scope, but one thing stuck out to me while talking to them at Kingston a few weeks back; he said they had a STT truck at Rainbow Falls and there were literally hundreds of SxSs there. Hundreds. Of course they were drinking and partying etc, but those numbers are undeniable. I don't have the right answer and I'm bad at organizing people.

It was the Emery County Commission who voted to support a SITLA (Utah's state land trust) swap that was an important linchpin to passing the Dingell Act in 2019. That legislation added many new Wildernesses in and around San Rafael Swell and Desert that led to substantial loss of OHV access of those areas, within their county.

Their constituents should've voted harder. If they disagreed with it anyway.

Also, you realize the director of SUWA is a long time Moab resident.

Since it's mostly people in Denver, SLC, Dallas who are not from Castledale, Price, Moab, Grand Junction, Monticello, Montrose, Ouray, Kanab, etc commenting how sure are you what's happening isn't really what the communities want? Maybe locals are tired of the hoardes descending, clogging all the trails, running roughshod over everything, leaving damage and trash that locals have to deal with Monday morning? Just food for thought.
 
Last edited:

nuclearlemon

Hard Core 4+
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
8,316
Location
windy wyo
Since it's mostly people in Denver, SLC, Dallas who are not from Castledale, Price, Moab, Grand Junction, Monticello, Montrose, Ouray, Kanab, etc commenting how sure are you what's happening isn't really what the communities want? Maybe locals are tired of the hoardes descending, clogging all the trails, running roughshod over everything, leaving damage and trash that locals have to deal with Monday morning? Just food for thought.
they bit off more than they could chew when they required a certain amount of tax money goes to promoting moab....
 

BritKLR

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
1,212
Location
ATC HQ - Nederland, Colo.
If you'd like an interesting read simply google something along the lines of "SXS forums Moab Trail Closures" and you'll be rewarded with a bunch of great reads about what and who the SXS community blames for the closures....But, this quote I lifted kinda sums up a good number of the comments.

"It’s also disheartening hearing opinions of the sxs owners/riders within the ohv world. Some will defend us - at least to an extent, saying things like “they’re not all bad” - but many look at sxs operators as the asshats of the off-road world. Deservingly so, I guess." (RZRforums.net)

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”​

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
13,022
Location
Grand Junction
they bit off more than they could chew when they required a certain amount of tax money goes to promoting moab....
The Big 5 campaign has been pretty much a regional disaster.

 
Last edited:

J1000

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
1,559
Location
Morrison, CO

It was the Emery County Commission who voted to support a SITLA (Utah's state land trust) swap that was an important linchpin to passing the Dingell Act in 2019. That legislation added many new Wildernesses in and around San Rafael Swell and Desert that led to substantial loss of OHV access of those areas, within their county.

Their constituents should've voted harder. If they disagreed with it anyway.

Also, you realize the director of SUWA is a long time Moab resident.

Since it's mostly people in Denver, SLC, Dallas who are not from Castledale, Price, Moab, Grand Junction, Monticello, Montrose, Ouray, Kanab, etc commenting how sure are you what's happening isn't really what the communities want? Maybe locals are tired of the hoardes descending, clogging all the trails, running roughshod over everything, leaving damage and trash that locals have to deal with Monday morning? Just food for thought.
It certainly is true that SUWA and other organizations go a step further than just fundraising and "raising awareness" and go after the seats of power and manipulate local politics. Jackson posted this article in the other thread:



But, ultimately, even if the residents of these areas are the ones who do not want the 4x4 tourism, it is our Federal public lands and it belongs to everyone in the country. It is not their right to close it off.
 

DaveInDenver

Rising Sun Ham Guru
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
13,022
Location
Grand Junction
But, ultimately, even if the residents of these areas are the ones who do not want the 4x4 tourism, it is our Federal public lands and it belongs to everyone in the country. It is not their right to close it off.
That's a slippery slope.

"We all share the same air so not your right to drive an old vehicle without modern emissions controls."

It comes down to either respecting individuals and their decisions and property or not. It's the tragedy of the commons or an implicit social contract in economic terms. What right are you assuming to assert that allows anyone to drive or camp in the first place? When I hike roads I see dead stuff that was run over by us, so in that respect environmentalists aren't wrong. Then it gets into finite slicing. A 4WD Unimog is worse than a Land Cruiser is worse than a mini truck is worse than a UTV is worse than a dirt bike is worse than a MTB is worse then a hiker. Where is the line that's OK?

In fact they are hypocrites, too, though. One justification for closing Ten Mile Wash is desert bighorn lambing in the spring. But they didn't restrict hikers or horses and they could easily be as upsetting. So to this one-of-330 million public land owner I feel a more appropriate compromise would be a seasonal closure of everyone and perhaps a standing sound level restriction. I was on my bike last week down there and it was quiet. I did encounter in the wash deer that were super skittish and seemed unhealthily skinny. So I'm certainly not absolutely pro-OHV or 4WD everywhere, we have a footprint that isn't small. But at the same time I enjoy it and I think SUWA in this case is unreasonable. But their goal is no one, not even hikers, in a lot of these places. So the whole argument isn't based on any desire to compromise. People who are naive in thinking no OHV don't understand that without a vehicle to get to remote places and bring water it'll eventually be impossible for anyone to get more than a few miles of any trail head, more so here in the desert.
 
Last edited:

SteveH

Hard Core 4+
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
2,913
Location
Colo Springs
I returned 2 weeks ago from Silverton, and on Engineer Pass my brother and I encountered a large group of SxS riders, complete with 'Trump 2024' and 'F Joe Biden' flags and blinky antennas. All ~9 were clutching a tall boy Bud Lite while driving. Upon stopping in my '99 LX 470, one looked at me from head to toe as if I was an alien. One was vaguely friendly, the rest were silent. The vibe was very much 'you're not one of us'. Maybe they truly never see a stock Lexus in such places. Other times we saw SxSers, they seemed very cliquish. All the Toyota-drivers we saw (and Jeep/Samauri types) we saw were more willing to chat or smile or engage. There is clearly a truck vs SxS divide.

This is just one data point, but in some way, ALL land users need to stand against the closure nonsense. I wish the SxSers we saw didn't seem like such outliers.
 

J1000

Rising Sun Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
1,559
Location
Morrison, CO
That's a slippery slope.

"We all share the same air so not your right to drive an old vehicle without modern emissions controls."

It comes down to either respecting individuals and their decisions and property or not. It's the tragedy of the commons or an implicit social contract in economic terms. What right are you assuming to assert that allows anyone to drive or camp in the first place? When I hike roads I see dead stuff that was run over by us, so in that respect environmentalists aren't wrong. Then it gets into finite slicing. A 4WD Unimog is worse than a Land Cruiser is worse than a mini truck is worse than a UTV is worse than a dirt bike is worse than a MTB is worse then a hiker. Where is the line that's OK?

In fact they are hypocrites, too, though. One justification for closing Ten Mile Wash is desert bighorn lambing in the spring. But they didn't restrict hikers or horses and they could easily be as upsetting. So to this one-of-330 million public land owner I feel a more appropriate compromise would be a seasonal closure of everyone and perhaps a standing sound level restriction. I was on my bike last week down there and it was quiet. I did encounter in the wash deer that were super skittish and seemed unhealthily skinny. So I'm certainly not absolutely pro-OHV or 4WD everywhere, we have a footprint that isn't small. But at the same time I enjoy it and I think SUWA in this case is unreasonable. But their goal is no one, not even hikers, in a lot of these places. So the whole argument isn't based on any desire to compromise. People who are naive in thinking no OHV don't understand that without a vehicle to get to remote places and bring water it'll eventually be impossible for anyone to get more than a few miles of any trail head, more so here in the desert.
Yeah we agree on a lot. I think it just comes down to the more and more popular saying "closure isn't management." These agencies are tasked with managing the land and closing it is not upholding their end of the deal. Maybe there should be a discussion about what types of OHVs are allowed and where. Maybe there should be a discussion about this or that. Maybe they need to hire 10x or 100x the Rangers to police people. All of that is management.

The hikers and mountain bikers are just naive and short sighted. Like you say these lands are now closed to them as well.
 
Top