# USA ALL petition



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Please view the following link: http://www.motoutah.com/index.php?option=com_chronocontact&chronoformname=USA_ALLPetition

Please read the petition; the general purpose is for:
PETITION FOR EQUAL AND SHARED MOTORIZED ACCESS TO OUR PUBLIC LANDS

We have signed this petition to ask our lawmakers, land use planners, and others involved with public lands to:

1. Seriously listen to our concerns and views regarding motorized access to and camping on public lands;

2. Sensibly and realistically adopt land use policies; and

3. Responsibly provide for equal and shared access to our public lands by all users, not just a select few.

For too long, the silent majority has sat back while a small group of environmental extremists have pushed their demand-driven agenda and dictated policies that they insist be imposed on all of us. It seems these days that if lands are scenic, green, wet or fun, those entrusted with public land management are devising ways to take them away from us. The "public"no longer seems to be the guiding factor.

We are greatly concerned and see, too frequently, little regard for the "human element" in closing off areas to camping and motorized vehicle use. Other aspects of resource management are given clear and often exaggerated priority. The focus most often seems to be on unrealistic land and resource protection, founded on extremist views and manufactured facts.

Motorized use, even when permitted, is based on unreasonably strict conditions. We and our families, as off-highway vehicle users, and campers end up being the ones unnecessarily hurt by these drastic decisions.

By this petition, we ask that common sense and reason guide all future governmental action relating to outdoor recreational use, and that lawmakers and governmental agencies provide for multiple use and equal and shared access by off-highway vehicle users to meet the legitimate needs of present and future generations.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

I only get around up in the northern part of the state. We do have access to the lands it is just the small side roads that are bing closed offed. Are these the one's that you speak of?

As far as getting access through private land to access public land, it will state more than just a petition, you are talking a long court battle for this type of action.

Now if you can get the hand full of individuals that ride off the designated trails then I am all for this. until then go after the ones causing the most trouble first.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Having been well inside the policy making process for public land agencies for several years, I find USA-ALL's credibility on par with SUWA. Interpret that however you will.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Having been well inside the policy making process for public land agencies for several years, I find USA-ALL's credibility on par with SUWA. Interpret that however you will.


Please expand on your thought; I have no ties to USA ALL, simply asked to sign it by a friend; give us the low down!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> I only get around up in the northern part of the state. We do have access to the lands it is just the small side roads that are bing closed offed. Are these the one's that you speak of?
> 
> As far as getting access through private land to access public land, it will state more than just a petition, you are talking a long court battle for this type of action.


I simply posted the foreword of the petition, I do not speak of any specific closures. I do not see any inference to access across to public land across private land; where are you reading this?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> Please expand on your thought; I have no ties to USA ALL, simply asked to sign it by a friend; give us the low down!


I'll post a more detailed explanation but in a quick hit -
USA ALL I believe is an organization that started out with good intentions in preserving motorized access where appropriate. But as a victim of the policy-making process, moved to an extreme position for all motorized access everywhere. Same as SUWA - only the other end of the spectrum. As a result, in maintaining the extreme position, both SUWA and USA ALL have sabatoged agency planning efforts to no end, costing tax payers millions of dollars stalling and delaying planning efforts with anything but reasonable discussions and procedural impediments. Ironically, the end result of the approach from both SUWA and USA ALL (as well as the rural counties but that is another story), they will ALL be screwed in 24 months when the next administration takes office.

Long story short- it is now an organizaiton fixated on maintaining the organization - just like SUWA and has lost any real ability to pursue its original intent. And to maintain the organization, they have to be a pain in the arse of real land management policy development.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Seconding Garyfish's assessment.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

USA-ALL seems to be the kind of organization that propigates the stereotypical image of sportsmen as gasoline spewing, ******** who just want to use and abuse the public land with no thoughts or cares about anyone else. I, for one, would never sign such a petition. Access everywhere is rediculous. I say access where approprate and no access where motorized use is damaging to the environment. You should be able to ride in some places and not in others. All or nothing is rarely a good idea. 

ATVers have as bad a public image as hunters, maybe worse, in many places and these extreme organizations don't help. I saw someone on a dirtbike with a USA-ALL sticker on his truck riding right through the heart of a Wilderness area the other day. That's the PR equivalent of the guy who arrows a deer in a subdivison, and has to haul it out from under his neighbor's deck. Not going to make a lot of friends that way.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

Preserving tracts of roadless wilderness areas is a noble cause. I am strongly opposed to a group that wants to further the degredation of our watersheds and wild areas. I see no shortage of existing trails in our state and I use them to get where I am going (the ones big enough for my truck anyway), but I stop far short of looking across an alpine landscape and wishing there was a 4X4 trail scarring it's way through the middle of it. I guess I am an 'environmental extremist'.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> I simply posted the foreword of the petition, I do not speak of any specific closures. I do not see any inference to access across to public land across private land; where are you reading this?


Huge29; I was asking a question. and making a statement if this is what it is all about. seeing how landlocked public land seems to be an issue in different parts of the state or states in general.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

ScottyP said:


> Preserving tracts of roadless wilderness areas is a noble cause. I am strongly opposed to a group that wants to further the degredation of our watersheds and wild areas. I see no shortage of existing trails in our state and I use them to get where I am going (the ones big enough for my truck anyway), but I stop far short of looking across an alpine landscape and wishing there was a 4X4 trail scarring it's way through the middle of it. I guess I am an 'environmental extremist'.


I can agree to that. Some places should stay by foot or horse only.

I would support a petition like this if it was about offering reasonable access to hunting or fishing grounds, but I do not know if this group is trying to promote more access to ATV's. I think there is plenty for the ATV's and would like to see less ATV's being used just to shred up dirt instead of as a hunting help. I also would never support anything that would increase the use of jetski's either, but that is a different subject.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Again, I have no vested interest in this, however every single point of opposition mentioned has been about 100% speculation about what is meant by this request. No where does it ask for "a new scar across my favorite landscape" or have "unlimited access by ATV to any where I want to rip up the land" as every opposition shown basically mentions. Please read carefully and comprehend what is being said, I do not read any of the issues that you have all insinuated; I can appreciate your past experiences and your opinions formed because of what USA ALL may or may not have done in the past, but I read the following terms:
"Seriously listen to our concerns and views..."
"Sensibly and realistically adopt land use policies"
"Responsibly provide for equal and shared access to our public lands by all users, not just a select few." I admit that many things can be insinuated by this line as it is awfully broad... 
"to take them away from us."
"...in closing off areas to camping and motorized vehicle use."

I think the petition is simply asking for equal representation and to stop closing more and more areas-no where does it ask for more access, does it? Seems to be a pretty reasonable request. I honestly have no vested interest in motivating you one way or another, but I do believe that some of you are reading way too much into this, now you have my $0.02.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

> I think the petition is simply asking for equal representation and to stop closing more and more areas-no where does it ask for more access, does it?


Kind of misleading since technically (until next year I think) an ATV is allowed to go anywhere not specifically restricted on NF or BLM land.

Of course next year, the rule changes and ATVs are only allowed where specifically permitted- and that's the way it should be.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Trooper said:


> > Kind of misleading since technically (until next year I think) an ATV is allowed to go anywhere not specifically restricted on NF or BLM land.


ATV's are not allowed to travel anywhere on USFS lands except on designated trails.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

> ATV's are not allowed to travel anywhere on USFS lands except on designated trails.


That's fine by me... but just about irrelevant since there is basically zero enforcement.

If there is a regulation in the forest and there is no one there to enforce it, does it really exist?


----------

