|
|
|
|
petro
Aug 27, 2003, 6:42 PM
Post #1 of 5
(1995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 176
|
I saw this in the rock and ice website under breaking news.
ATV Safari Threatens Utah Climbing Areas
The city of Monticello, Utah, has applied for a Special Recreation Permit to hold the San Juan ATV Safari on September 25-27. Up to 350 vehicles would take part in the three-day off-road-vehicle event in San Juan County near Indian Creek and Canyonlands National Park. The proposed route would pass the climbing areas of Bridger Jack Mesa and Texas Tower and tear up pristine backcountry -- including several areas of proposed wilderness and Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC’s).
You can learn more -- and petition the BLM to reconsider its decision to allow the event to go ahead -- by visiting the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance website: http://www.suwa.org/entry.php?entry_id=392
Breaking News 5-21
Compiled by Alison Osius (news@bigstonepub.com)
The creek is my favorite place to climb, and yes I am an environmental nazi :oops: , but come on folks, this hasn't happened yet!!!
|
|
|
|
|
allarounder
Aug 27, 2003, 7:04 PM
Post #2 of 5
(1995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2003
Posts: 174
|
From a Sierra Club Website:
"Areas over 5000 acres in size (or smaller areas connecting to existing Wilderness Areas) meeting the Forest Service definition are "Inventoried Roadless Areas". These areas have special status under Forest Service Rules, and these are also the areas that the Clinton Administration sought to protect from future logging and roading with its Roadless Area Rules...
However the fact that the Forest Service has identified many areas as "Inventoried Roadless Areas", ...gives special protections like calling for full Environmental Impact Statements before damage is done. "
From the SUWA website:
"The BLM has released an environmental assessment (EA) draft "finding of no significant impact" for a "proposed" three-day, 350 ATV event on BLM and Forest Service managed lands throughout San Juan County, Utah this September 25-27." and:
"Currently, the EA lacks consideration of an alternative that would disallow proposed routes through inventoried wilderness and other sensitive lands." [Note -- the land is not wilderness, it is inventoried roadless area. Big difference. The fuzz-bucket tree huggers like to mispeak and mislead that way.]
The BLM performed their legal obligation. Get over it. these are public lands that may be used in any number of ways, including mineral exploration. Until they are removed from public use by wilderness designation, they are open to such use with due process by the involved parties.
|
|
|
|
|
petro
Aug 28, 2003, 1:01 AM
Post #3 of 5
(1995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 176
|
All right... F*** it than.
You convinced this 'fuzz bucket tree hugger' that the desert is worthless. I don't even know what I was thinking... Hell, it's erosion that made the creek what it is now, might as well encourage it...
Hey allarounder, since I don't have a TV, maybe I could come over to your place and watch nascar, I'll trailer my jeep and ATV's, and we can do some sweet a** four weelin' around in the valley. Then maybe we can... Oh, I don't know, get drunk and beat our girlfriends. :shock:
I've even got a toast... here's to tearin' s*** up kuz it's fun!! YEEEEEE HAWW!!!
|
|
|
|
|
allarounder
Aug 28, 2003, 3:48 PM
Post #4 of 5
(1995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2003
Posts: 174
|
WTF??? You're the one that called your self an "environmental nazi". If you will note, I did not refer to you as a tree hugger -- that was in reference to the Sierra Club.
I don't like ATV's or dirtbikes any more than you, but the fact of the matter is, we aren't the only ones with the right to use the land. We are loosing that right at a number of places due to certain members of our community who lack ethics and class. Meanwhile groups like ATV users expand their reach through events such as this by using the proper, legal channels. Maybe we as climbers could learn something.
|
|
|
|
|
wlderdude
Aug 28, 2003, 4:44 PM
Post #5 of 5
(1995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2002
Posts: 1123
|
I couldn't afree more, allrounder.
These people who drive ATV's should have access to public lands through proprerly legislated and managed channels.
If indeed prisine "wilderness" lands are going to be torn up, I will of course be bothered by this. I don't like ATV's, dirt bikes or off road vehicles, either. I shudder to think of it as a sport.
But the lands are public, for public use. Take a good hard look at a map of Utah and see how much of the state is already tied up in protected lands. I think it is unreasonable to expect the entire Colorado platue to be designated as wilderness (as some people seek). The land is as much of an ideal spot for off roading as it is for climbing and mountain biking.
Yes, I would encourage everyone to tell the BLM your concerns. Just realize that there really isn't much private land down there. These people who love their sport rely on public lands the same way we do.
Setting a precence of restrictions is not good news for the climbing community. Be carefull. Exremists will likely do more harm than good.
The BLM does not have as its sole goal conservation. It keeps lands usable. Let's not shoot ourselves in foot by trying to change it to tree huggers who closes cliffs to climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
