# Recapture Canyon ATV Ride



## Critter

I am surprised that no one here is talking about the ATV ride in Recapture Canyon out of Blanding.

So what are your thoughts? I can understand both sides, for the BLM it's making sure that the archaeologicall sites are not disturbed but on the other hand it sounds like they blocked off a trail that had been used for years, at least until 2007. So what is the difference between leaving it open to horseback or hiking but closing it to ATV's as far as the archaeological sites are concerned. People on horses and hiking can and have destroyed them before.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nagement-in-growing-debate/?intcmp=latestnews


----------



## digginfreek

I haven't followed it much, but any ATV trail I know of wouldn't handle having dozens of wheelers going down it at once very well. Hikers and horses leave less of a footprint as far as the trail goes. The protesters could have potentially done more damage to the trail than good.

I agree anyone can destroy the archaeological sites, however the people got there.


----------



## LostLouisianian

The US Constitution prohibits the government from owning land. The federal government has failed to honor the agreements with western states it made over 100 years ago


----------



## DallanC

digginfreek said:


> I haven't followed it much, but any ATV trail I know of wouldn't handle having dozens of wheelers going down it at once very well. Hikers and horses leave less of a footprint as far as the trail goes. The protesters could have potentially done more damage to the trail than good.


They went down a decades old road, what are they going to hurt??


----------



## Fowlmouth

I don't have a problem with people protesting something they believe in, but having dip $hit militia men with weapons showing up to these events does more harm than good. I do think the folks that went ahead and rode their ATV's in the closed area will be getting a $1,000 ticket and maybe jail time. There were Feds there documenting all the riders. IMO there are better ways to get your point across.


----------



## goosefreak

And did you guys see that one guys face??? freaky


----------



## reb8600

Fowlmouth said:


> I don't have a problem with people protesting something they believe in, but having dip $hit militia men with weapons showing up to these events does more harm than good. I do think the folks that went ahead and rode their ATV's in the closed area will be getting a $1,000 ticket and maybe jail time. There were Feds there documenting all the riders. IMO there are better ways to get your point across.


They should get fined. If I was to go there today and ride it, I would get a ticket.


----------



## reb8600

digginfreek said:


> I haven't followed it much, but any ATV trail I know of wouldn't handle having dozens of wheelers going down it at once very well. Hikers and horses leave less of a footprint as far as the trail goes. The protesters could have potentially done more damage to the trail than good.
> 
> I agree anyone can destroy the archaeological sites, however the people got there.


Hikers and horses do cause damage. Just look at some of the trails on the WMA's that are only open to them.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

LostLouisianian said:


> The US Constitution prohibits the government from owning land. The federal government has failed to honor the agreements with western states it made over 100 years ago


Do you dream this stuff up or are you just one of those people who recite idiotic beliefs?



> Clause 2: Federal Property and Territory Clause[edit]
> The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.[8]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...ause_2:_Federal_Property_and_Territory_Clause

Notice the statment "Federal Property and Territory" That mean land!!


----------



## LostLouisianian

Dukes you need further education. Here you go
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...land-answers-suggested-by-the-bundy-standoff/


----------



## DallanC

goosefreak said:


> And did you guys see that one guys face??? freaky


Wasn't he a movie actor once?










:mrgreen:

-DallanC


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

LostLouisianian said:


> Dukes you need further education. Here you go
> http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...land-answers-suggested-by-the-bundy-standoff/


Mine is from the actual constitution. Read the source rather than something that you agree with.

The thing that really disgusts and angers me is when a group of actual patriots; veterans many who were injured fighting for this country have to cancel their healing ceremony after they follow the proper steps. A bunch of "trash" protests the very government these men fought for.

San Juan County is a welfare county and I'd like to see the feds cut funding to Billy Bob the local sheriff who fails to uphold his oath to enforce laws. How much of his equipment and funding come from the feds? Anyone have a number??

Remember in 98 when those government hating nuts killed the deputy in Cortez and ran into the wilds of San Juan County? Happy to embrace the fed then weren't they?


----------



## LostLouisianian

Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it's not correct. The founding fathers were vehemently against federal ownership of lands. Prove that the info I provided is wrong.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

LostLouisianian said:


> The US Constitution prohibits the government from owning land. The federal government has failed to honor the agreements with western states it made over 100 years ago


Reread your post about what the constitution states. Are you really going to defend actions of idiots who have such hatred and disrespect they break laws?

As for Barney Fife he obviously won't enforce Utah law about kids wearing helmets either. Guess it was a nice day to ride his horsey.


----------



## goosefreak

how do you know they weren't cited??^ by the picture??


----------



## Dukes_Daddy

Wanna bet?


----------



## martymcfly73

Dukes_Daddy said:


> Mine is from the actual constitution. Read the source rather than something that you agree with.
> 
> The thing that really disgusts and angers me is when a group of actual patriots; veterans many who were injured fighting for this country have to cancel their healing ceremony after they follow the proper steps. A bunch of "trash" protests the very government these men fought for.
> 
> San Juan County is a welfare county and I'd like to see the feds cut funding to Billy Bob the local sheriff who fails to uphold his oath to enforce laws. How much of his equipment and funding come from the feds? Anyone have a number??
> 
> Remember in 98 when those government hating nuts killed the deputy in Cortez and ran into the wilds of San Juan County? Happy to embrace the fed then weren't they?


I remember it well. I hiked through the desert with some feds from the Navajo Nation. Amazing trackers.


----------



## RandomElk16

LostLouisianian said:


> Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it's not correct. The founding fathers were vehemently against federal ownership of lands. Prove that the info I provided is wrong.


I like the author's description "Rob Natelson is a *long-time conservative/free market activist*".... Wonder if his writing is going to be opinionated at all?

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...tano-washington-lacks-constitutional-right-o/
_

You must read the whole thing(it's short) but I like the conclusion:
"*Our ruling*

Napolitano said the federal government has no constitutional authority to own land in many Western states. The underlying legal argument rests on a tenuous interpretation of constitutional language and the rejection of about 125 years of Supreme Court decisions. The legal scholars we reached, *regardless of any political leanings they might have*, agreed that the Constitution *clearly grants* Washington the power to own land and that arguments to the contrary are baseless.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire."_

Add this to Dukes quotation of the United States Constitution and you are still going to say that your source wasn't disproved? I don't get it?


----------



## Huntoholic

The simple fact is it is easier to manage an area if you limit the people in the area. This is the Fed's current policy. As long as the Fed's get sued by tree hugging wack jobs, this will be the out come for Federal ground.


----------



## Trooper

LostLouisianian said:


> The US Constitution prohibits the government from owning land. The federal government has failed to honor the agreements with western states it made over 100 years ago


Dude, your own source basically starts with,

"One position, _which is current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine_, is that the federal government may acquire and own any land it wishes for any governmental purpose, not just for its enumerated powers."

_Current Supreme Court Doctrine_ means that a decision is the law, no kinda, sorta, oughta, that's the way it is. Our Founding Father's also believed in slavery, but _"Current Supreme Court Doctrine"_ is otherwise...


----------



## Catherder

All I will say on this is how much freedom do you think this crowd of protesters will have to ride the area in question if it is sold by the state and the new owner plasters "no trespassing" signs at all the entrances?


----------



## wyoming2utah

What I can't believe hardly anyone is talking about regarding this issue are the thoughts/beliefs/desires of the tribes whose ancestors actually used the land…doesn't their use of the land predate any nut job on an ATV? 

I also would love to have a President with the cajones to put his foot down and start having these law breakers at least cited. The land fight in the West is heating up and giving more and more people this sense of entitlement to breaking laws…laws that ultimately only protect the interests of hunters and fishers.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Dukes_Daddy said:


> San Juan County is a welfare county and I'd like to see the feds cut funding to Billy Bob the local sheriff who fails to uphold his oath to enforce laws. How much of his equipment and funding come from the feds? Anyone have a number??


This ticks me off&#8230;the sheriff showed up to keep the peace, but not to enforce the laws. I hope the BLM was getting enough information to start citing people at some point&#8230;!


----------



## Huntoholic

wyoming2utah said:


> What I can't believe hardly anyone is talking about regarding this issue are the thoughts/beliefs/desires of the tribes whose ancestors actually used the land&#8230;doesn't their use of the land predate any nut job on an ATV?


Why do the thoughts/beliefs/desires of the tribes have any bearing? I can see bearing when it comes to graves, but after that I struggle.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Because the history and archaeology of those dwellings and artifacts are culturally important&#8230;and, weren't they the original "owners" of that land? 
http://www.justice.gov/usao/briefing_room/ic/artifacts.html#artifacts1

I would also think that the ATV ride is in direct violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_ArchRsrcsProt.pdf
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_HistPrsrvt.pdf
and Archeological and Historic Preservation Act amendment. http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/FHPL_ArchHistPres.pdf

But, here in Southern Utah we don't recognize federal laws anymore, I guess&#8230;.


----------



## Huntoholic

wyoming2utah said:


> Because the history and archaeology of those dwellings and artifacts are culturally important&#8230;and, weren't they the original "owners" of that land?
> http://www.justice.gov/usao/briefing_room/ic/artifacts.html#artifacts1


Which tribe? They all are not related. I think the history and archaeology of those dwellings are important also. So their say is more important than mine. So a 100 or a 1000 years from now one of my kids or relatives can come back to the house I built and tell the current owner what he can and cannot do?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Huntoholic said:


> So their say is more important than mine.


**** straight! Why wouldn't it be? After all, your ancestors archaeological sites aren't being destroyed! And, they are surely outdate and creation of roads in the area&#8230;.!


----------



## Huntoholic

wyoming2utah said:


> **** straight! Why wouldn't it be? After all, your ancestors archaeological sites aren't being destroyed! And, they are surely outdate and creation of roads in the area&#8230;.!


Well I disagree. It's a 1000 or 2000 years old home that does not belong to them anymore. It's land that does not belong to them anymore. No different then the land they took for others through their history.

Why is it open to hikers and horse back riders?

How come you are not closing down Mesa Verde?


----------



## wyoming2utah

To me, this ATV ride reminds me of this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33157653/...love-indian-artifacts-backfires/#.U3EOvcaExZg

And, I believe, San Juan County is still trying to fight back about it&#8230;.and, in both cases, I think they are probably wrong!


----------



## martymcfly73

Maybe the ATV ride was a front for more Blanding residents to loot the site. They seem to like doing that.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Huntoholic said:


> Well I disagree. It's a 1000 or 2000 years old home that does not belong to them anymore. It's land that does not belong to them anymore. No different then the land they took for others through their history.


So, you don't agree with the preservation of any historical dwellings? Artifacts? You don't find, for instance, the preservation of say the original constitution--the actual document--to be worthwhile? What about the dwelling place of say, George Washington or Thomas Jefferson?

Also, without looking, I would bet that most of Mesa Verde--if not all--is closed to ATV use! And, I don't buy the idea that horses or hikers do as much damage as ATVs...


----------



## Huntoholic

wyoming2utah said:


> To me, this ATV ride reminds me of this:
> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33157653/...love-indian-artifacts-backfires/#.U3EOvcaExZg
> 
> And, I believe, San Juan County is still trying to fight back about it&#8230;.and, in both cases, I think they are probably wrong!


It is a tough situation as to were to draw lines. I wish I had the answers, but I don't. I have seen the damage done (Grand Gulch) by hikers and horseman. But I feel locking people totally out will get what we saw this last weekend. Archeologist putting everything in a box and locking it away in a warehouse never to be see except by a few is just as bad. I feel there can be a better balance that can be used to teach. But it won't happen with things locked up.


----------



## Huntoholic

wyoming2utah said:


> So, you don't agree with the preservation of any historical dwellings? Artifacts? You don't find, for instance, the preservation of say the original constitution--the actual document--to be worthwhile? What about the dwelling place of say, George Washington or Thomas Jefferson?
> 
> Also, without looking, I would bet that most of Mesa Verde--if not all--is closed to ATV use! And, I don't buy the idea that horses or hikers do as much damage as ATVs...


Do you have to walk 14 miles round trip to few the things you have listed?

This is not just about ATV's.

Damage to these sites has nothing to do with ATV's. Grand Gulch is a perfect example. Only accessible by horse and hikers. Plenty of damage done. Education is the only way to help stop this kind of behavior. That takes someone there to teach, not close it off.


----------



## Critter

I have never seen a ATV dig up a artifact by itself. So just banning ATV's isn't going to solve the problem. I have seen more artifacts taken out by horseback and in backpacks than I have ever seen hauled away on a ATV.

I personally believe that this is more of a issue of closing a trail to certain vehicles rather than the destruction of a archaeological site_. _I can just imagine what would be the uproar if they would restrict the access of hikers and horseback riders and only allow those on ATV's to access a trail.


----------



## Daisy

Critter said:


> I have never seen a ATV dig up a artifact by itself. So just banning ATV's isn't going to solve the problem. I have seen more artifacts taken out by horseback and in backpacks than I have ever seen hauled away on a ATV.


I hope the artifacts were taken legally, if not, you failed in your civic duty.


----------



## Critter

Daisy said:


> I hope the artifacts were taken legally, if not, you failed in your civic duty.


The ones that I saw were collected way before the newer law went into effect in 1979 and didn't violate the law that was passed in 1906 or the 1966 law. But if they did it now they would be in jail for a long time.


----------



## klbzdad

Yeah, so that a$$face dude is Ryan Bundy. The one in the photo with the kids missing their helmets....yeah, kinda ironic that a head trauma accident mangles him up like that and he goes and puts his kids in the same kind of danger. Also ironic, he doesn't recognize the federal government but he's flying a US flag on some re-bar while its dangling behind the rear wheels getting filthy. Patriot? Nope. Moron? Most likely. But that just my opinion.


----------



## RandomElk16

klbzdad said:


> Yeah, so that a$$face dude is Ryan Bundy. The one in the photo with the kids missing their helmets....yeah, kinda ironic that a head trauma accident mangles him up like that and he goes and puts his kids in the same kind of danger. Also ironic, he doesn't recognize the federal government but he's flying a US flag on some re-bar while its dangling behind the rear wheels getting filthy. Patriot? Nope. Moron? Most likely. But that just my opinion.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-blm-battle-20140511-story.html

The Bundy's sure are quite the activists nowadays...


----------



## HighNDry

What puzzles me about the protesters is that they are the first ones in line to whine about the problem at the Mexican border, how illegal it is for the Mexicans to be entering the United States without following the proper order of law, then they go ahead and break the law and enter a place that is restricted and claim they don't recognize the federal government. So if all the people at the border get on ATVs and claim they don't recognize the federal government and ride into the U.S. are they going to go down and support them too?


----------



## RandomElk16

HighNDry said:


> What puzzles me about the protesters is that they are the first ones in line to whine about the problem at the Mexican border, how illegal it is for the Mexicans to be entering the United States without following the proper order of law, then they go ahead and break the law and enter a place that is restricted and claim they don't recognize the federal government. So if all the people at the border get on ATVs and claim they don't recognize the federal government and ride into the U.S. are they going to go down and support them too?


"Well that's different! They aren't citizens... of the country... that doesn't exist?" -Ov-

Dang, must be confusing for them sometimes.


----------



## GaryFish

wyoming2utah said:


> So, you don't agree with the preservation of any historical dwellings? Artifacts? You don't find, for instance, the preservation of say the original constitution--the actual document--to be worthwhile? What about the dwelling place of say, George Washington or Thomas Jefferson?


I see what you are saying. But Mount Vernon and Montecello are not the best of comparisons. Both are privately held and are not open to the public in the same sense. They are private properties, and the owners charge admission for tours of these facilities. The gates close at the end of the day and the public is not allowed open access.

But I see your overall point.


----------



## HighNDry

Maybe the canyon could be opened up for these vehicles too. You could drive right up to the cliff dwellings!
http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelind...d#/video/fd3aaf8c-ebb4-40e7-bd24-76b8fd119460


----------



## The Naturalist

RandomElk16 said:


> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-utah-blm-battle-20140511-story.html
> 
> The Bundy's sure are quite the activists nowadays...


 Maybe they're hoping to get a TV Reality show and be the Duck Dynasty of the west.


----------

