Sorry you take offence, but if
“careless, drunken, redneck, hillbilly ATV riding that focuses on running over all living animals and tearing apart any living plant” wasn’t a huge problem (in my view second only to road-building/”development”) in trashing the plateau, then folks like SUWA wouldn’t be paying as much attention to ATVs. Maybe you’re a totally responsible rider. I bet 80% of ATVers are. But sure as hell not 99%. And the 5-10% or whatever of your compatriots who are certifiable douchebags or totally lack a clue do so much damage and are so offensive that I don’t think there’s any real alternative except euthanizing the entire “sport”. I hope that in a century or so the world looks back on ATVers like we now look upon on the 19th century sport of taking potshots at bison out of the windows of the passing transcontinental train…. that we’ll scratch our heads and wonder “what in the hell were those people thinking?” JMHO SCP
**************************************Check out AOL’s list of 2007’s hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Rich Carlson
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “adkramoo” wrote:
Close it down? Nah, that’s your vision. Mine is that they will have to > walk just a bit more to get to them…if their lucky….As fat and > lazy as folks are becoming in the first world, they may actually get > some solitude to boot 😉 > R
Geez, Ram. Sounds a bit elitist. Wilderness is for everyone, but you must be physically fit to enjoy it – to even SEE it.
Not accessible by car, 4X4, ATV, dirt bike, RV, mountain bike, horseback or wheel chair. Closed to the elderly and handicapped. Of course it will also be closed to anyone deemed irresponsible (as decided by one elitist group), which will of course include hunters, boy scouts, etc.
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Koen” wrote: > I didn’t talk about paid lobbyists… I did talk about lobbyists with> big ego’s. That’s probably worse… I’m > curious to see if SUWA would quit if that bill goes through. Bets are> open 😉 ? > All this remind me of the old, big sport federations: at the top > you’ve mostly got a bunch of old crocodiles who long ago lost touch > with the actual sport. > But because they’ve got their network, time and always a big ego they > can’t “let go. They just can’t stop being important.
Again, I haven’t seen this org. over the long haul but I will share some observations from the recent rendezvous. The “movers” appeared fairly young. 30’s and 40’s? They hadn’t been in their positions that long. Lots of old timers around, but with no more titles. Maybe still board members? Not sure. I heard these two groups discuss how to get the many young folks there to do even more than they were doing, which was a lot. A lot of field work and recruiting and generally being the engine of organization on many levels. This was done tongue and cheek, but had the ring of truth to it. They elsters seemed to feel that the youthful energy was what was needed. They were plotting their own obsolescence…or so it seemed to me. There were a lot of young folks, 20’s and 30’s who seemed galvanized. I got the distinct impression of a group of folks that take their advocacy seriously, but not themselves. FWIW
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Koen” wrote: , but that is a cost I see as worth it, so the
kiddies have wild places to play.
R
> We should all lobby for preserving wilderness AND keeping it open for > our children and their children. Not take the easy path and close up > everything now (because we’ve already seen it).
Close it down? Nah, that’s your vision. Mine is that they will have to walk just a bit more to get to them…if their lucky….As fat and lazy as folks are becoming in the first world, they may actually get some solitude to boot 😉 R
Koen
> I expect the result of success, in passing the > Wilderness Act, would be longer accesses to certain canyons and some > venues. If that is the cost of having wilderness, so be it, as far as > I am concerned. It will lock me out of a few places as I age and > continue to slow down, but that is a cost I see as worth it, so the > kiddies have wild places to play. > R >
Ram, that’s kind of selfish what you’re saying: you already shown your kids a lot of canyons. But better prepare to talk to your grandchildren like “your dad and I spent some mighty nice days in yonder canyon, I’ll show you the pictures…”.
We should all lobby for preserving wilderness AND keeping it open for our children and their children. Not take the easy path and close up everything now (because we’ve already seen it).
Koen
Koen
I didn’t talk about paid lobbyists… I did talk about lobbyists with big ego’s. That’s probably worse…
One still has to show me one (1) mayor nature lobby group who actually quit after the objective for which they were founded was met. I’m curious to see if SUWA would quit if that bill goes through. Bets are open 😉 ? Organisations like that quit or weaken through internal struggle, not by fullfilling their primary goal. Their (rightful) argument is that protecting nature is never a done deal. Very true, so us people who intrude on nature in bizarre ways should watch out. Because we might be next. And somewhere in the future, us canyoneers WILL be next.
All this remind me of the old, big sport federations: at the top you’ve mostly got a bunch of old crocodiles who long ago lost touch with the actual sport. But because they’ve got their network, time and always a big ego they can’t “let go. They just can’t stop being important.
Koen
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Koen” wrote: >those of you who> consider SUWA and the likes a “dear friend” should seriously consider> which nature user groups will top their list of targets in the future. Canyoneers ? Huh ? From under what rock > did those crawl out when we weren’t looking ? But let’s do them… who> cares for canyoneers anyway !
May hold true in many circumstances. Likely not here….I hope. The folks I have met, and it is not a ton, seem to be hikers and canyoneers themselves. I expect the result of success, in passing the Wilderness Act, would be longer accesses to certain canyons and some venues. If that is the cost of having wilderness, so be it, as far as I am concerned. It will lock me out of a few places as I age and continue to slow down, but that is a cost I see as worth it, so the kiddies have wild places to play. R
HARVEY HALPERN
Just to clear up another misconception SUWA’s lobbyists make NO money. We use citizen lobbyists ( I’ve been one 7 or 8 times over the last 15 years). Who use their own vacation time to leave their homes and families, pay for their own lodging and food, dress in funny uncomfortable clothes to walk capitol hill and ask our representatives ( or far more likely their aides) to protect this great landscape that WE ALL OWN. Not to mention the 5-15 phone calls per meeting that you have to make at your own time and expense to set up the meeting- probably the most trying aspect for those of us who don’t work by phones. Yes SUWA pays to fly us out but that’s it. I’d rather stay at home and swing a hammer to earn money for my next canyon adventure. So please don’t talk about the rich lobbyists getting richer worker for Utah wilderness, because frankly you don’t know what you’re talking about.
HARVEY HALPERN
Actually the “lobbying ourselves out of existence” is something that past executive directors ( i.e. Brandt Calkin and others) and the board at SUWA is quite enthusiastic about seeing happen. Win America’s Redrock Wilderness bill and see it actually enforced and you’ll see SUWA happily close up. I know I’d go onto other pressing social issues (eliminating nuclear weapons, reversing global warming, racism) with the time I have left. Hell I’d even have more time to visit those canyons I care so much about.
millcreek3640
Kelsey @ p.17 of his “Technical Slot Canyon Guide” states as follows:
“In recent years with increased traffic of all kinds on the Plateau, there has also been a dramatic increase in the number of off road vehicles (ORV’s). Since these are called ORV’s, naturally the owners want to test drive them “off the road.” This indiscriminate use and the destruction of public lands has caused a backlash from environmentalists. This is the primary reason why there has been a move in recent years to protect the more scenic regions by making them into wilderness areas. Just one thought for ORV owners; it’s you who have been using he public lands as test tracks for your noisy toys, and who have triggered a war over public land issues including the battle over wilderness areas. Slowly but surely the Forest Service and BLM are closing off areas formerly destroyed by ORV traffic. So please, everyone drive on existing roads!” @ p. 18 Kelsey has a “para” titled “Respect the Land.” interested parties can look at the text. ___________ Just released in SLC is the flick “I’m Not There” “Six Sides of Bob Dylan. Years ago a wise poet penned the piece Six Blind Men of Instanbul – who went to see an elephant, though all were blind.
Decades ago I and a batch of my friends discovered the contours of the Colorado Plateau primarily on dirt bikes. Years later some of us morphed into using Mt. Bikes; and then by some instinct or gravity, most serious exploring in the past two decades, in the mountains and desert, has been by foot (I/we still drive to trekking/canyon access spots.)
This “canyons group” site is created primarily for canyoneers. Some are suwa supporters, some detractors, and I suppose many simply apathetic re it’s cause. The Shared Access Alliance (ORV Supporters) has it’s own site and forum for discussion of ATV issues and I imagine some on this site have an affinity of some sorts to jeeps, four wheelers or dirt bikes – others claim no allegiance to this tribe.
Instead of stating simply an affirmative view; I’ll offer that I accept there are a full quiver of opinions when it relates to human impression/expectation of CP canyon and land use. Most canyon folk in my view care simply about front country vehicle access. Beyond that, the “universe” of either suwa or Shared Access Alliance hardly resonates.
Civil discussions on matters like this can assist – in my view. And it’s NOT a negative effort. And if folk are always “extremely careful in giving outright support” then who looks out for “one’s passionate cause?” Is this mantra suppose to fit for all persuasions of religion, politics, civics and land use disputes? Lordy, head to the likes of Utah’s Garfield or Kane Counties – “outright support” has put a real stamp and mark on that corner of the state.
If folk continually banter re canyon shoes, ropes, harnesses, rap devices and self rescue modes; then it’s only normal aye? that they offer a positive postulate as to “view and resolution” of land use disputes. Brando – once upon a time, in another life, I rode dirt bikes and for many years I was a scout and varsity leader. I hear you, respect your view, accept your opinions and hope I understand your balanced concern. But I also hope that you accept that some/many of us have more connection and sense of relevance to nature, when we are free from the sound of ATV’s (or mountain choppers) and that we accept that in some circumstances, we humans (all users) should give some land areas and wild critter habitat, a rest.
This is a humorous dodge ball match! Throw hard at one side, dodge, squirm, get up and throw back. The “art of negotiation” listening, talking, addressing interests and in most circumstances, accepting some give and take/compromise. The crazy permit system in Zion Park? – I’ve spoken with not less than 10 park officials in the past 2 years and had semi serious interaction with a ranger not less than 5 days ago. Hard for me not to give outright support, for scraping that crazy permit system (for the most part). And yet every time I speak with those folks I try to ask – explain to me YOUR interests and views. I listen to them – rarely to I feel they listen to me. Crazy this negotiating game?
Best to you Brando bud, we may cross paths some day – and we can chat re this “cat and mouse” land use game. In parting, if the going gets tough, maybe we should all throw in the towel before we get bitten in the hand? I hope not.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Koen” wrote: > I’m not saying groups like SUWA are all bad, they certainly accomplish > good things. But one should be extremely careful in giving outright > support. I’ve seen too many supporters getting bitten in their hand > that was feeding.Try investing your energy and support in your own lobby groups. > Koen >
Dan Ransom
I recall him saying something to the effect that SUWA is a bunch of nutjobs. It is shortly after he advocates the use of a g-pick… Intro to his red book.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “adkramoo” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “gajslk” wrote:
I agree with Kelsey’s> assessment of SUWA,
Where does he express this opinion? What does he say? > R >
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “gajslk” wrote: >I agree with Kelsey’s> assessment of SUWA,
Where does he express this opinion? What does he say? R
Steven Jackson
Rich and Koen both bring up Excellent points. I think everyone on this forum should take their advice to heart. I believe it would help the grand sceam of things and would most definately help this forum. As Koen pointed out lobbyists make money for lobbying. If they win their argument with one group rest assured they will move on to another group! We would all be better off if outdoor enthusiasts of all walks got to know each other, and we got rid of lobbyists all together! As for the 5-10% that exists in any outdoor sport as Rich pointed out. The best thing to do is do our best to educate and bring them in line. Just as I know many of you have done with young or inexperienced canyoneers. I don’t believe that any group OHV or other has hardly anyone that destroys the land we all love for fun or just because. That 5-10 % is more likely just the problem of the revolving door on all our sports. Education is the answer! Along with some limitation. The actual percentage of people that just don’t care I don’t think you can pin to any one group. The accurate and fair definition would be “Of all outdoor enthusiasts a small percentage just don’t give a Damn!” That’s the way I see it. JMO Spidey
Rich Carlson rcwildone@yahoo.com> wrote: — In Yahoo Canyons Group, stephencpace@… wrote:
> And the 5-10% or whatever of your compatriots who are certifiable > douchebags or totally lack a clue do so much damage and are so offensive that I > don’t think there’s any real alternative except euthanizing the entire “sport”.
… and if 5-10% or whatever of canyoneers are found to be irresponsible, there won’t be any real alternative except euthanizing the entire “sport”.
I don’t participate in these discussions anymore. Too much negative energy. It’s unfortunate that a group that loves the outdoors feels it has to target another group of outdoor lovers. There will be bigger battles to fight down the road and they’re going to wish they didn’t alienate so many potential allies.
Win a battle. Lose the war.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
hank moon
On Nov 22, 2007 11:11 AM, Rich Carlson rcwildone@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It’s unfortunate that a group that loves the outdoors feels it has to target another group of > outdoor lovers.
Exactly. I think that many “footies” don’t get that the moto folks love the outdoors, too. Here’s a line I found on the web recently:
“I just finished a 4 hour atv ride! The mountains are so beautiful right now, I seem to lose track of the time when I am there.”
Rich Carlson
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, stephencpace@… wrote:
> And the 5-10% or whatever of your compatriots who are certifiable > douchebags or totally lack a clue do so much damage and are so offensive that I > don’t think there’s any real alternative except euthanizing the entire “sport”.
… and if 5-10% or whatever of canyoneers are found to be irresponsible, there won’t be any real alternative except euthanizing the entire “sport”.
I don’t participate in these discussions anymore. Too much negative energy. It’s unfortunate that a group that loves the outdoors feels it has to target another group of outdoor lovers. There will be bigger battles to fight down the road and they’re going to wish they didn’t alienate so many potential allies.
Win a battle. Lose the war.
gajslk
You’ve got lots of support here, but the passion seems to lie with those that would save the world. Even though I agree with Kelsey’s assessment of SUWA, it’s just not worth my time to try to change their minds.
Gordon
Koen
Don’t take it personally Brando, enjoy ethical offroading while you still can. And we should all enjoy canyoning while we can… those of you who consider SUWA and the likes a “dear friend” should seriously consider which nature user groups will top their list of targets in the future.
That’s just the way these groups function. If they can’t lobby anymore for or against something they lose their very reason for existence. And the ego’s on top won’t let that happen ! Let’s open a poll, who’ll be next ? Mountainbikers ? Surely, but already well established. Climbers ? Too big a group and way too powerful a lobby to tackle. Canyoneers ? Huh ? From under what rock did those crawl out when we weren’t looking ? But let’s do them… who cares for canyoneers anyway !
Heck, you guys already need a permit to go see some canyons. The step towards outright closure is frightfully small. It only needs a “spark”: a bit of bad press, an talked-about accident in the wrong place and time and the knives will be sharpened .
I’m not saying groups like SUWA are all bad, they certainly accomplish good things. But one should be extremely careful in giving outright support. I’ve seen too many supporters getting bitten in their hand that was feeding. Try investing your energy and support in your own lobby groups.
Koen
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Brando” wrote:
> Why do I even say anything about it? It seems that I am always > responding to someone posting a support SUWA statement that is most > always directed at ATV and OHV users. Do I instigate the discussion? > NO, I try to support the opposing view. However my view for some > reason seems to be throw in the catergory of careless, drunken, > redneck, hillbilly ATV riding that focuses on running over all living > animals and tearing apart any living plant that I see in an effort to > scar and destroy the natural environment.
Brando….I for one have enjoyed your posts of a different point of view. I have also learned from you. Your points about general access have much merit. You have actively planned a ORV/canyoneer rendezvous with some canyoneers. I think the drunken, hillbilly redneck comments reflect your frustration of going it alone as the only advocate. Almost everyone who has argued the opposite point of view has been for the limiting their spread, eliminating newer illegally made routes. Even this recent ride you made, the issue was one of the routes within a figure 8, correct? A newer route? Few want to outlaw the sport.
> I would hope there are more egroups canyoneers who understand my > arguement and support it. I have tried to show that the OHV community > is not a bunch of hooligans. I would hope to see less SUWA propaganda > on the canyons egroup forums… try to get back to discussions based > on canyoneering.
You make a good point, and I suspect there are many that support your point of view. Bigtoeone spoke up a few times. Land and environment issues are hard to separate from any of these recreation sports, but it shouldn’t dominate a forum. I don’t think you should back off your advocacy. You have represented your beliefs pretty darned well. Sooooo at the risk of going from the frying pan into the fire, Brando….. Baptist/Chute is a route you have done multiple times and with youth groups. What say ye about these new bolts?? 😉 Ram
hank moon
Brando, sorry to see ya go. I agree there is too much propaganda on moto issues – that’s a relatively new development and hopefully will fade. When/if the climate permits, please do come back…
…and contact me sideband about that project!
On Nov 22, 2007 9:19 AM, Brando plaidfro@hotmail.com> wrote: > my view for some > reason seems to be throw in the catergory of careless, drunken, > redneck, hillbilly ATV riding that focuses on running over all living > animals and tearing apart any living plant that I see in an effort to > scar and destroy the natural environment.
Brando
Yes this group is diverse. But just as you canyoneers would prefer to not associate with people who want to actively close down the sport of canyoneering. I am going to most likely head into lurkdome since it seems many of you strongly are against my other favorite sport Off- Road Motorcycling, and strongly promote to others about closing down public areas.
Why do I even say anything about it? It seems that I am always responding to someone posting a support SUWA statement that is most always directed at ATV and OHV users. Do I instigate the discussion? NO, I try to support the opposing view. However my view for some reason seems to be throw in the catergory of careless, drunken, redneck, hillbilly ATV riding that focuses on running over all living animals and tearing apart any living plant that I see in an effort to scar and destroy the natural environment.
To those who know me, especially those who have ridden with me, they know that I am most happy in the outdoors and enjoying the natural beauty of creation. My riding ethics are impeccable as I do almost everything I can to help preserve the envrionment. Even as a scoutmaster I feel I have done a good job on passing my ethics and knowledge down to my scouts about how to behave in the outdoors to preserve its beauty for the next people to enjoy.
I would hope there are more egroups canyoneers who understand my arguement and support it. I have tried to show that the OHV community is not a bunch of hooligans. I would hope to see less SUWA propaganda on the canyons egroup forums… try to get back to discussions based on canyoneering.
Feel free to contact me via email anytime if you want to get a hold of me…
-Brando