# Option #2 and Wilderness



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

In light of Sec. Salazar's recent announcement to allow approximately 6,000,000 more Utah acres to become wilderness, (bringing the total wilderness and wilderness study areas to approximately 10,360,277 acres/20% of the state) we have yet another unintended consequence of micro-managing our deer herd per Option #2. I don't intend to bring on yet another debate regarding Option #2, because we don't have enough detail regarding the announcement and it's implementation, but it is something to think about when it comes to allocating tags for each unit. There may be enough deer to allocate 3,000 tags, but only to able-bodied hikers/horsemen who can get in and out without mechanical contraptions. As a consequence, some units would likely be undersubscribed, while others would have hard-to-get tags. And so much for family camping, aah? :O•-:


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

I don't know enough about the location of the lands in question to comment, but I think you've got a good point if those lands hold large populations of deer and elk. Those hunts would turn into a pretty good one to put in for, IMO.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

the more wilderness areas we have, the better.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> the more wilderness areas we have, the better.


Blanket statements such as this one are rarely true.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Yep let's have more wilderness and cut out even more hunters than the game and fish have.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

I too worry that too much wilderness leaves most people without an option to ever see or use it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

More wilderness is NOT the answer!

There was a document leaked a couple of months ago when Salazar was in 
Utah that is FLAT OUT SCARY!!!!!

Wanting the Federal government to use Utah as a model for the rest of the US
as far as wilderness and "preservation" issues....nothing WORSE could happen.

I am still PIZZed about the Escalante monument,,,,So many places there I will
never be able to show my kids because of lost access...........

In-fact, If I really stated how much I dis like wilderness on this forum,,I'd probably
get myself in trouble,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Because I think IT SUCKS!


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

I'll admit to some mixed feelings on the wilderness issue.

I share all the reservations about federal control, having land and resources locked up by Washington bureaucrats, reduced access and most everything else that people are concerned about.

Even so, when I go to these areas, hike in, stand there and look around, I'm astounded by the magnificence of it all. When I'm in a spot where I can see no other trace of humanity, I'm totally humbled and appreciative that these places still exist in our backyard. If we can keep a few places like this for a few more generations, I'll gladly sacrifice the oil well, the ATV trail and the gravel pit that might otherwise be there.

In my opinion, it's a matter of balance between the two. Where that balance lies, though, I'm not certain.



goofy elk said:


> So many places there I will never be able to show my kids because of lost access...


And I worry about all the places I've seen that that I won't be able to show my kids because of the roads, oil rigs, communication towers and ATVs that might show up there. I've backpacked for days into the Escalante area, but driven to the access points in a 4-WD truck.

Like I said, it's about balance. I don't think that every arch, every tree, every ravine and every overlook needs to be accessible by vehicles. Neither do I think that we should lock up a third of the state to development for the benefit of a few physically fit backpackers and long-distance hikers. Again, balance.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> More wilderness is NOT the answer!
> 
> There was a document leaked a couple of months ago when Salazar was in
> Utah that is FLAT OUT SCARY!!!!!
> ...


Goofy is spot on. I personally am not an extremist, I think some wilderness is a good thing, I also like a nice mix of private and public land. IMO, too much of any is not a good thing.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

the more wilderness, the better.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

For who? Not me, not most people I know.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

HG ,,jahan,, You make a very good points ,balance is key.
I would argue that we are close to that balance point now.....

And for the Escalante/Kaiparowits/Paunsaugunt,,,,,I say thanks to the ones in
Kane county for fighting for there county roads,,,,,OR we WOULD BE SCREWED!
The original plan the Feds had on place from 2000 to about 05 would have effectivly
made it to were you couldn't have road a horse across it in A WEEK!!!!!

And the federal law enforcement that was there for a while was UNFREAK'in real!!
They thought they had a bigger horse than John Wayne.........................
Right you a ticket FOR TAKING A PISS,,,,,,Cutting a tree limb, OR TAKING A ROCK!!!!


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

The more wilderness the better. 
Hunters, especially in Utah, have frankly turned into lazy wimps. Look at Utah's once proud heritage, most of its forefathers and original pioneers walked thousands of miles pulling a handcart or bouncing around in a covered wagon. But now 150 years or so later, most so-called "outdoorsmen" have a tough time walking two miles!!!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

balance is key. Where is the fulcrum, and who is to decide where that fulcrum shall be placed? If we are to balance our natural resources, including how much of our land is to be designated as wilderness area, what are the determining factors of what should be protected and what shouldn't?

Blanket statements shouldn't be made -- in either direction. It's a two-way highway.

I don't mind keeping some existing roads open (regarding Kane county). But, do we really need to have every single two-track in the desert open and available for ATVs? Do we really need to allow ATVs to ride up the Paria River bed? What happened to balance? Did someone move the fulcrum?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm for balance, compromise.


So, I'm for 3,000,000 more acres of wilderness in Utah and 3,000,000 more acres of wilderness in Wyoming.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> I'm for balance, compromise.
> 
> So, I'm for 3,000,000 more acres of wilderness in Utah and 3,000,000 more acres of wilderness in Wyoming.


Why does this not surprise me!


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

280Remington said:


> But now 150 years or so later, most so-called "outdoorsmen" have a tough time walking two miles!!!


I can do 2 miles on foot. Heck I can do 3, 4 or even 5 miles one way on an elk hunt without stressing it. But I would dare say less than 1% of hunters are physically capable and willing to hauling an elk out even 5 miles one way out of the back country. Big wilderness areas can get much, much deeper than that. If large tracts of land are designated as wilderness even the most physically capable folks will have little opportunity to do much with very much of it without horses.


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

bullsnot said:


> But I would dare say less than 1% of hunters are physically capable and willing to hauling an elk out even 5 miles one way out of the back country.


That's certainly true, but logistics always have to be considered. There are plenty of places much closer to roads that are real buggers to get in and out of. I've sometimes wondered how many elk are abandoned once the inexperienced, um, "hunter" realizes the difficulty in getting the animal out of the deep canyon or hauled over the steep cliff that didn't seem much of a problem going in.

A big expanse of roadless area is just another one of these factors to consider. I don't, however, feel that it's a birthright that all areas must be made equally accessible to all levels of abilities or handicaps. Engaging in a bit of hyperbole to make my point: I might be able to hoof my way up to the top of Lone Peak and back in a day, but if the government decides a groomed, switchbacked ATV trail for the out-of-shape, overweight and elderly is in order to ensure equal access opportunity, I'll balk.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> More wilderness is NOT the answer!
> 
> There was a document leaked a couple of months ago when Salazar was in
> Utah that is FLAT OUT SCARY!!!!!
> ...


Finally something we agree on!

I have asked on other threads, and I am still waiting for an answer, as to where the federal government has the authority to do this. Maybe pbh can answer that for me since he is such a big advocate of wilderness. Do the supporters of this even have a basic understanding of the purposes of the federal government? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Uh, I think it is called the Wilderness Act of 1964...

Pro, feel free to research (and report back to us) what the vote in the House and Senate was when this Act was passed.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Uh, I think it is called the Wilderness Act of 1964...
> 
> Pro, feel free to research (and report back to us) what the vote in the House and Senate was when this Act was passed.


Just because something passes Congress doesn't mean its Constitutional. Look no further than Obamacare for evidence of that. :shock:

The federal government was formed for ONE PURPOSE, and 'saving' land in Utah is NOT it.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Pro
For a New Year's resolution feel free NOT to hunt, fish, guide, drive or walk on any government owned land in Utah. Then tell us all how that works out for you.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Pro
> For a New Year's resolution feel free NOT to hunt, fish, guide, drive or walk on any government owned land in Utah. Then tell us all how that works out for you.


That is one of the most ignorant posts ever posted on here. Congrats. :roll:


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> wyogoob said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for balance, compromise.
> ...


OK, OK, 2,000,000 acres for Utah, 2,000,000 acres for Wyoming, and 2,000,000 acres for Idaho.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

If we don't have substantial tracts of wilderness designated lands in Utah. Then where do you expect wolf to thrive in the future? We need these sanctuaries largely void of human activity so the majestic predator can live unencumbered. And let mother nature do her work. If nothing else it will showcase that human hunters are not a necessary means to conserve wildlife. And maybe the non hunting public will deny hunters are valid conservationist. 

I know its increasingly politically incorrect these days even among hunters. But I have the mentality that man can and should manipulate wildlife to suit his needs and interests. So long as its done in a sustainable fashion. And for those too young to remember or understand this. Even on a unit like Monroe the ATV capitol of the world there is less access via motorized vehicles than ever before. Back in the day I had a 43 willeys that I could drive anywhere I wanted with or without a road. And there were logging or mining trails in every canyon and on every ridge. Many of which have been closed or grown over.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Iron bear is on top of this one,,,,,
The ones pushing wilderness sure seem to be the same bunch that love wolves...

WATCH out UTAH,,,,,,,,wilderness first, wolves in hot pursuit, arriving soon...

NO BS,,,This is the BIGGEST threat of ending hunting EVER....

You guys that want a future in hunting for younger generations,,,,This is were the fight is at...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > More wilderness is NOT the answer!
> ...


What Salazar did was illegal and there will be lawsuits filed.

Goob, how about 5,000,000 acres in Wyoming and 100,000 acres in Utah. :mrgreen: :lol:

So what about all the RMP's that were in place? What about the millions of dollars in tax revenue that will be lost? All unanswered questions.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The more wilderness the better! The more roads on our mountains shut down to atv and motorized vehicle use the better!


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

"Our outdoor traditions - the challenge, freedom and solitude - depend on big natural areas such as wilderness and roadless lands. However, many hunters and anglers still mistakenly believe that 'roadless' means 'access denied'. The real connection they should be making is 'roadless' = 'bigger, healthier, more game and fish'." 
--- Michelle Detwiler, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

"Idaho's undeveloped public lands - more than any state other than Alaska - hold some of the most productive fishing and hunting opportunities left in America...These roadless areas supply Washington, Oregon and Idaho anglers with a huge percentage of their wild fish."
--- Scott Stouder, Trout Unlimited

"Roadless and wilderness lands - They're the heardbeat of our nation... Once you travel the land on the level of the animal, it gives you a richer appreciation of the animal. If you just drive in and walk half a mile, you don't immerse yourself in the experience. The hunt isn't just the shooting, it's the entire experience." 
--- Holly Endersby, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers

Some stats from Idaho:
74 percent of current chinook and steelhead habitat is roadless.
88 percent of the land in units yielding more than 90 percent branch bull elk hunting success is roadless.
72 percent of the land in units yielding more than 40 percent four-plus-point mule deer hunting success is roadless.

Why is it so many people are attracted to Alaska and Canada for their hunting/fishing dream vacations? It sure isn't because of ATV access and lack of wilderness!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

What many seem to be missing here is a key word, BALANCE. Turning 20% or more of Utah in wilderness is not balance. Lets drop the whole fishing and hunting argument, because we are just a small percentage of people who use these lands. A huge chunk of the people who enjoy these areas are not hunters and fisherman, they are just people who enjoy the outdoors and the ability to see these areas that they would never be able to see if it weren't for their ATV access. My inlaws went and took a drive down a road that is going to soon be closed by nine mile and Tavaputs. They drove in like 20 miles to this beautiful overlook of the Green River. What kind of people are going to hike in 20 miles to this area, very few. They took lots of pictures so they can show their grandchildren and area they will never be able to access again without hiking in a couple days. It is a crying shame. Like I said, I am not against some more wilderness, what upsets me is the way they (Federal Governement and Salazar) are going about it, illegally. There are tracts of land that currently do not have any roads into them and they are not wilderness, why don't we turn some of these already existing areas into wilderness? Instead they want to turn these areas, plus many other areas into wilderness, many of which have many roads running through them. 

54% of Carbon Counties property taxes go to the school system, guess where the majority of the property taxes come from, oil and gas companies leases. Oh but you are all right, this won't affect anyone.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> A huge chunk of the people who enjoy these areas are not hunters and fisherman, they are just people who enjoy the outdoors and the ability to see these areas that they would never be able to see if it weren't for their ATV access.


In Utah, a survey conducted by a BYU professor asked how much money residents personally would be willing to pay to preserve Wilderness Areas. People on average supported "additional wilderness designation" to a degree of 8 to 10 million acres, or approximately 15% of the state of Utah. Utahns would be willing to spend up to $38 million a year on wilderness preservation! Eighty-six percent of Utahns say it is "very important" or "important" to preserve pristine, unique, and natural areas of Utah as wilderness. Seventy-nine percent would support legislation to increase the amount of wilderness areas.


jahan said:


> 54% of Carbon Counties property taxes go to the school system, guess where the majority of the property taxes come from, oil and gas companies leases. Oh but you are all right, this won't affect anyone.


Recent studies show that property values actually go up with wilderness designation...also doesn't the government give PILT money for lost public land that negates any losses?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > A huge chunk of the people who enjoy these areas are not hunters and fisherman, they are just people who enjoy the outdoors and the ability to see these areas that they would never be able to see if it weren't for their ATV access.
> ...


Could you provide a link to the study and survey? You will get very different results depending on where you do the survey, SLC will give you different results than lets say Beaver.

There is additional revenue loss, so what if they give "PILT" money (not sure what that is  ), will that cover all the future potential tax loss by not allowing new leases? The government is specifically targeting areas that they know are of interest to oil and gas companies, so they can force everyone into more "green" fuel sources. I spent a lot of time in the Wilderness area above Logan when I was in college, you could hike 3 miles and be in the middle of the wilderness. Some of these proposed areas, you could hike 20+ miles and still not be in the middle of it. This comes down to some people in NY, NJ, ect. wanting to turn Utah into their own little natural preserve. Well if they want to turn a huge chunk of Utah into a preserve for their benefit, then they shold have to subsidze all of the states with all the federal land. Same can be said for Wolves, if they want wolves brought back then I want a few packs released in Statan Island and all over New York, lets bring them back to every state. It is funny how people will change their tune once it affects them. 8)


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> ... They drove in like 20 miles to this beautiful overlook of the Green River. What kind of people are going to hike in 20 miles to this area, very few. They took lots of pictures so they can show their grandchildren and area they will never be able to access again without hiking in a couple days. It is a crying shame.


What about the people in the float boat on the river itself? They looked up at that same beautiful point, and they saw a 4x4 truck and people standing on it. They were disgusted that their view -- the view that they floated for 20 miles to see, was obstructed by a 4x4. It is a crying shame.

Jahan -- remember, it's a two-way street. Oh, and those people in NY? Guess what? It's their land too! Public is public, no matter where you live.

PILT = Payment In Lieu of Taxes: Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries.

I want more wilderness areas. I also would like to shoot a wolf. I live in Utah.

Why is it so wrong for me to want to enjoy more areas without ATVs? (FWIW, I am an ATV owner. I am also in the market for a new ATV).


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

In Garfield County, while personal income from labor in real terms grew by 14 percent in the four years prior to the Grand Staircase's establishment, it grew by 18 percent the four following years, noted the report, Prosperity in the 21st Century West. Unemployment, meanwhile, fell from 12.4 percent in 1995 to 9.2 percent in 2001, the study noted. At the same time Kane County, where personal income in real terms grew 27 percent in the four years prior to the monument's creation, saw growth increase 33 percent in the four ensuing years, the study added, and unemployment dropped from "8.7 percent in 1995 to 3.5 percent in 2001."

Along with personal income growth and job creation, the monument helped boost real estate values, the report found.

Real estate values give yet another indicator of the economy's strength and how much people want to live in the area. In both Escalante and Kanab, the communities most impacted by the designation of the Monument, the mean value of a home has risen substantially since 1996. The median value of a home in Escalante rose from $69,432 in 1990 to more than $100,000 in 2000, a 45 percent rise, in real terms. In Kanab the mean value of a home dropped by 13 percent from 1980 to 1990, before the Monument designation. From 1990 to 2000, it rose by 23 percent. The mean value of a home in 1990, before the designation of the Monument, was a little more than $86,000. This rose to more than $106,000 by 2000.
These trends dispel the argument that the Monument designation - setting aside public lands for protection against development - would result in economic decline and spawn only low-paying tourism jobs and hurt real estate values.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/20 ... ckyard5531
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... archtype=a


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

GEEZUS WtoU,,,,,Do you know that between 1990 and 2000 real estate value
was also on the rise EVERY WERE else too??!! Your kidding right?

And let me guess,,,,You wouldn't mind having a few wolves in Utah ether??


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > ... They drove in like 20 miles to this beautiful overlook of the Green River. What kind of people are going to hike in 20 miles to this area, very few. They took lots of pictures so they can show their grandchildren and area they will never be able to access again without hiking in a couple days. It is a crying shame.
> ...


So how many people float the river vs. an ATV ride on the trail above? So should the squeaky wheel always get their way? There are always two-sides to every argument. There are people out there that think there is nothing wrong with murder, but I don't put much in their opinion. This brings me back to my many argumentative essays I had to write in high school and college and one of my favorite topics was Lake Powell and the removal of Glen Canyon Dam. There is a very small group of people who want to drain Lake Powell and remove the dam. Even though I was able to provide plenty of evidence and proof that the dam should stay there is a small group of people who negate all facts so they can have that little area all to them selves.

Like Tye said in another thread, we are all selfish. I selfishly want many areas left be, where I can go on ATV rides. Others are selfishly wanting these areas preserved for their own reasons. BTW, what kind of ATV you looking at getting. :mrgreen:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I want a side-by-side. But, I refuse to pay $12k for a 2-cylinder engine when I can pay $8k for used Jeep that has a radio and a heater. (pay extra for both options on a side-by-side!)

the side-by-side market is a joke. So, I'll probably think about another 500cc quad.


Wilderness areas. I still like them. I know many don't, but I do. That doesn't mean I support wolf protection (I don't). That doesn't mean I'm an Obama supporter (I'd rather be a jock-supporter). It simply means that I believe that wild places are good, and wildlife can benefit from wild places. Too often we, as hunters and fishers, only want to exploit wildlife and our natural resources. I don't see anything wrong with attempting to protect more of it from exploitation. Just my opinion.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> I want a side-by-side. But, I refuse to pay $12k for a 2-cylinder engine when I can pay $8k for used Jeep that has a radio and a heater. (pay extra for both options on a side-by-side!)
> 
> the side-by-side market is a joke. So, I'll probably think about another 500cc quad.
> 
> Wilderness areas. I still like them. I know many don't, but I do. That doesn't mean I support wolf protection (I don't). That doesn't mean I'm an Obama supporter (I'd rather be a jock-supporter). It simply means that I believe that wild places are good, and wildlife can benefit from wild places. Too often we, as hunters and fishers, only want to exploit wildlife and our natural resources. I don't see anything wrong with attempting to protect more of it from exploitation. Just my opinion.


I thought the Polaris RZR was cool until I rode in one for a while, not a fan no more, the rest of them are as big as a Jeep or a Samari. Not to mention they are trail rated due to their width, anyways good luck. 

I agree with some wilderness areas being a good thing. I just feel there is motives behind the scenes that scare me. If it was truely to preserve and protect natural resources from being overused, I wouldn't be as against it. Well that is just my opinion. :mrgreen:


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Yup, give me an old Willys Jeep any day over the new side by sides. This is an old image but still pretty funny










-DallanC


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

HunterGeek said:


> I don't, however, feel that it's a birthright that all areas must be made equally accessible to all levels of abilities or handicaps. Engaging in a bit of hyperbole to make my point: I might be able to hoof my way up to the top of Lone Peak and back in a day, but if the government decides a groomed, switchbacked ATV trail for the out-of-shape, overweight and elderly is in order to ensure equal access opportunity, I'll balk.


That's not exactly the road I was headed down and we do have wilderness areas today that not all can access.

The point I was trying to make is that making lots of ground wilderness cuts off access to most folks. I don't think we need to accomodate all at all times, sure, but cutting off a majority doesn't really seem to serve much of a purpose.

I like the idea of preservation, I just wonder if there are better ways of doing it. For example why not set aside X amount of acres as "no build" zones and limit the mileage of roads that can exist within that zone. If you do it right you will have some pretty remote areas within your designation, but not to the point that only those with horses can access it most of it.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> It simply means that I believe that wild places are good, and wildlife can benefit from wild places. Too often we, as hunters and fishers, only want to exploit wildlife and our natural resources. I don't see anything wrong with attempting to protect more of it


I pretty much agree with this. And it should be pointed out that when wildlife benefits from wild places, the hunting and fishing automatically improves. (I know, exploitation) The better our habitat and environment is, the more wildlife is around to be available for use, whether that use is hunting and fishing, photography, or getting the warm fuzzies watching a bird or animal zip around the forest. Isn't "better habitat" one of the few things we all agree upon with our incessant arguments about the deer herds and option 1,2,or3?

The Clinton and Obama administrations did little to build bridges with the locals in their wilderness designations, and the Obama drilling moratorium in the basin is a local economic disaster, (and separate matter) but I agree in principle with the national monument and wilderness actions themselves. With the recent actions our Utah State legislature has taken regarding our fishing access and with a seeming desire to turn our public lands into a bunch of CWMU's for the wealthy, I grudgingly trust a BLM or Forest service manager over our legislature and a bunch of "Boss Hogg" county commissioners.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> With the recent actions our Utah State legislature has taken regarding our fishing access and with a seeming desire to turn our public lands into a bunch of CWMU's for the wealthy, *I grudgingly trust a BLM or Forest service manager over our legislature and a bunch of "Boss Hogg" county commissioners.*


I completely agree. Our local governments and legislatures have done nothing in the last few years except remove and restrict access for sportsmen as well as increase the monetary value of our wildlife (EXPLOITATION!). So, as a hunter and a fisher, I think it's refreshing to see an agency taking steps to protect areas. Roadless areas and wilderness areas actually _increase_ access in my eyes.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> > With the recent actions our Utah State legislature has taken regarding our fishing access and with a seeming desire to turn our public lands into a bunch of CWMU's for the wealthy, *I grudgingly trust a BLM or Forest service manager over our legislature and a bunch of "Boss Hogg" county commissioners.*
> ...


Please do explain. o-|| :O•-:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

explain? I've never seen a Wilderness area with a "Keep out" sign. I've never seen a Wilderness area that said "No Trespassing". I've never seen a Wilderness area that forced people to "pay-to-play". Sounds good to me.


i have seen the Utah legislature offer money to private land owners to buy access, when legally the public should have access already. I've seen the WB restrict hunting opportunities for the general public, but keep the same amount of tags for CWMU's and special interest groups. I've watched the general public lose access and opporunities for some time now. In my eyes, we need more wilderness areas. I'm sorry that you disagree with me.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Don't we have access to the land before it's made wilderness? What does private land have to do with the creation of wilderness land? When do county commissioners have authority over federal lands? Where is this thread really going?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> explain? I've never seen a Wilderness area with a "Keep out" sign. I've never seen a Wilderness area that said "No Trespassing". I've never seen a Wilderness area that forced people to "pay-to-play". Sounds good to me.
> 
> i have seen the Utah legislature offer money to private land owners to buy access, when legally the public should have access already. I've seen the WB restrict hunting opportunities for the general public, but keep the same amount of tags for CWMU's and special interest groups. I've watched the general public lose access and opporunities for some time now. In my eyes, we need more wilderness areas. I'm sorry that you disagree with me.


It is fine that we disagree, I am just trying to see out you can believe that wilderness will "increase" access. I can't think of one instance where wilderness has "increased" access.

As far as Wyo2ut comments on property values, like Goofy said those were the peak times in the realestate market, everywhere was booming. So if the North part of the San Rafael swale was turned into wilderness and no motorized access was allowed, do you really think Elmo, Cleveland, Huntington, ect. property values would rise? First of all, very few would venture out there if it was closed off and in my mind I can not see how that would help out property values. I do know there are several buisness's that would go under if that was to happen, but wilderness helps everyone.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

All I've seen with wilderness is LOSS of access!!!!!!!!!

SAW it 20 years ago in Nevada,,,,,,,Saw it 10 years ago on Escalante.......
WERE ABOUT TO LOSE THE ENTIRE SAN RAFAEL!!!!!!

Some wilderness is GOOD,,,,,I don't mine some like Nebo, or Lone peak.....

But these GIGANTIC chunks that can be inaccessible to 99% of the general 
public is complete BS..


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> [
> As far as Wyo2ut comments on property values, like Goofy said those were the peak times in the realestate market, everywhere was booming. So if the North part of the San Rafael swale was turned into wilderness and no motorized access was allowed, do you really think Elmo, Cleveland, Huntington, ect. property values would rise? First of all, very few would venture out there if it was closed off and in my mind I can not see how that would help out property values. I do know there are several buisness's that would go under if that was to happen, but wilderness helps everyone.


1) property values from 1990-2000 increased statewide on average of 7.6%...however, the jumps in Garfield and Kane Counties were much higher than that (45 percent increase in Escalante alone). In the previous ten years (1980-1990) real estate values jumped statedwide on average of 1.6%...in both Garfield and Kane Counties, however, real estate values were actually decreasing. So, it is reasonable to think that the designation of the Grand Staircase boosted real estate values.

2) If the San Rafael Swell were designated as Wilderness, I absolutely think real estate values would jump in that area...why wouldn't I? The precedent has been set not only in Utah but throughout the US.

3)"In 2008, 20.4 million visitors traveled to Utah (Utah Office of Tourism, Governor's Office of Economic Development). Taken together, outdoor recreation and tourism represent one of the largest and fastest growing sectors of Utah's economy, with tourism accounting for an estimated $7.1 billion in traveler spending and 113,030 tourism-related jobs in 2008. This visitor spending generated $631 million in state and local tax revenues, revenue that helps pay for services and infrastructure Utah residents and visitors use and enjoy. The Utah tourism industry continues to be a significant driver of the state's economy." The designation of new wilderness--like the San Rafael area--would certainly boost tourism to that area.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> All I've seen with wilderness is LOSS of access!!!!!!!!!


Why is it inaccessible?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> goofy elk said:
> 
> 
> > All I've seen with wilderness is LOSS of access!!!!!!!!!
> ...


Its not that its "inaccessible" for those in very good physical condition
and plenty of time to hike, and camp out of a back pack for extended time..

Our own horses, But they even have limitations in dry,,,cliff country..

Most people don't have the ability, tools, or time to access it........
In essence, they MIGHT as well lock it up for over 95% of the general public..


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Inaccessible how??? Are the wilderness areas posted "no trespassing"? Are you physically handicapped? Did the Lord give you two legs and two feet at birth?????

If you aren't able bodied, you are lazy.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Inaccessible how??? Are the wilderness areas posted "no trespassing"? Are you physically handicapped? Did the Lord give you two legs and two feet at birth?????
> 
> If you aren't able bodied, you are lazy.


My 75 year old mother Loves escalante,,,,,,,
Went into the Karpowitz on a sheep hunt with us in 02...N/W of Warm creak..
Some of the areas,,,Coyote springs,,Wahweap creek are now only accessible
by foot travel...She told me last summer she would like to go there again some
day,,,,,,,,,,,Didn't have the heart to tell her it wasn't going to happen!!!!!!!

280 ,,,,This quote,,,"If you aren't able bodied, you are lazy." IS BS!!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

wait a minute....I think some of you are confused.

The Grand Staircase is NOT designated as "Wilderness Area". Parts of it are closed to motorized vehicle travel, but MOST of it is NOT! ATVs are still allowed in MOST of the GS. Just stay on the approved roads and trails.

FWIW -- I have utilized the desert surrounding Escalante and Kanab MUCH more since the Grand Staircase was created by Clinton. Prior to it's designation as a National Monument, I NEVER ONCE set foot on it. Since that time, I FREQUENT it! I know I'm only 1 person, but I guarantee that I'm not the only person that has used this area of the world MORE since the inception of this monument.

Goofy -- your mother may not be able to go to _some_ of those places, but she can STILL go to many other places on the Grand Staircase that are very similar. Hell, just a ride down the Hole-in-the-rock road is a pretty spectacular ride. It is unfortunate that she can't go to the places she might have been to at one time. However, one thing to consider when bringing up elderly people, and access: eventually, she won't be able to go to the grocery store either. Life sucks. Sometimes we just can't do the things we want to. We have to adapt. Just like the deer hunt changes -- time to adapt.

Increased access is simply a matter of perspective. For those who are looking for areas to enjoy and explore without the competition or distractions of ATVs, then a designated "Wilderness Area" would _increase_ their access to an area void of motorized vehicles. Sure, it will decrease access for those who are looking for ATV trail riding (or non-trail riding), but I'd be OK with that. There are still millions of acres of areas that I can enjoy riding my ATV.

Don't look now, I think the sky is falling!


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Goofy
Growing old sucks. But it is part of the ecosystem. I have been hunting for 36 years. I wish I had the body and eye sight I had when I was a teenager but I don't. Again getting old sucks. But the reason people get old isn't the fault of the environmentalists, the democrats, SUWA, etc. etc. There is nothing written in the Constitution that gives us the right to remain young and never grow old.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

> wait a minute....I think some of you are confused.
> 
> The Grand Staircase is NOT designated as "Wilderness Area".


Isn't the paria part of the Grand Staircase? :lol: PBH are you confused? :lol: :lol:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

EmptyNet said:


> Isn't the paria part of the Grand Staircase? :lol: PBH are you confused? :lol: :lol:


Me confused? Nope. Sure, PARTS of the GS may be wilderness, but all of the 1.9 million acres certainly are NOT. The majority of the monument is accessible to motorized vehicles. Only small portions are not.

FWIW -- there are over 900 miles of OHV trails inside the Grand Staircase.

Paria Canyon is mearly 38 miles long, some of which is inaccessible to ATVs regardless of "Wilderness Area" status.


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

I think most wilderness areas are just a political statement, do they really need to be designated as wilderness to be wilderness. I can think of a few but the best would have to be Box Death Hollow.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

PBH said:


> wait a minute....I think some of you are confused.
> 
> The Grand Staircase is NOT designated as "Wilderness Area". Parts of it are closed to motorized vehicle travel, but MOST of it is NOT! ATVs are still allowed in MOST of the GS. Just stay on the approved roads and trails.
> 
> ...


You and your brother should be politicians, you are excellent at twisting things. :mrgreen: :lol: Still doesn't "increase" their access, it may make less people frequent the area, but by all defintions of "increase" in access, wilderness doesn't accomplish that. I will say it again, I am not against wilderness areas, but this potential giant land grab is not good for the people. Wyo2ut, we will just agree to disagree on the property values.  I think the difference in the example you gave and the one I gave is the fact that you are referring to a National Park, which will attracttourist, but usually wilderness areas won't have the same impact, IMO.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

jahan -- twisting? I don't think so. I guess you could just say that maybe our use of terms isn't exactly correct. Me using "increase" to describe the increased potential use by certain special interest groups would be about the same as you using "National Park" to describe a National Monument. Maybe it wasn't the correct term to use. However, my use of the San Rafael -- if it were turned into a wilderness area -- would potentially increase. I would be more inclined to visit the area if I knew there would be fewer ATVs in the area.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I like my seclusion as much as anyone. Utah already has more than enough places you can go and not run into an ATV. Most of them are in southern Utah's color country. I have put 1000s of mile in my lifetime hiking these areas. I must also add that if you have seen one of these canyons you have seen them all. And to be quite honest granola eating weekend warriors have ruined some of my favorite spots. The top of the list is Coyote Gulch. No vehicle access there and because of so many people down there I cant take a dog anymore. Little Wild Horse Canyon is another. The list goes on and on. 

As for the ATV's I think its the Jamboree retired set that has abused the privilege. They run around in groups of a dozen or more which is really irritating to me. I have seldom been bothered by a hunter on a ATV which generally travel in small groups. I am to the point that I would support a ban on ATV's on Monroe due to the Piute jamboree and crowds it promotes. 

Another note the Smokey Mtn Trail is one of the neatest drives in the country. And the Hole in the rock trail is a terrible ride in comparison. Too much traffic.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Gotta love those switch backs off the Smokey down to Warm Creek.......

And PB,,,,,I'd dare bet there was 10,000 miles of 4x4 jeep trails in the
stair case when I first stated down there................

To say there are now 900 miles of ATV trails now is pale in comparison...
Especially were the ATV trails you mentioned are REALLY roads,,open to any vehicle..
Huh,,,,now that's a "twist".....


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> And PB,,,,,I'd dare bet there was 10,000 miles of 4x4 jeep trails in the
> stair case when I first stated down there................


Thank God much of those 10,000 miles have been closed!!

That's what gets me. Just because you have an ATV that can go anywhere doesn't mean you should use it to go anywhere!

It's not the people (ATVers) on the trails that bother me. It's the ones that aren't on the trails. I have to disagree with Iron Bear. The jamboree'ers typically stay on the trails -- right where they should be. It's the hunters that believe that "retrieving game" gives them the right to bushwhack their 800cc machine through every grove of aspen on the mountain. Those are the guys that are ruining things for everyone.

Keep 'em on the trail, and we won't have problems.

Rumor has it that there is a group in southern utah offering a $500 reward for information leading to a ticket for any ATV user that is riding in a non-motorized area, or any other place that ATVs should not be. Sounds like a good way for us to put some peer pressure on each other to stay on the trails!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

There are ways to reduce ATV trails/use without making the land wilderness. This has NOTHING to do with ATV's, and is all about power/control and forcing 'green' energy on all Americans.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

While were on the subject of wilderness,,,,,,Escalante/Staircase.....

Anyone on this forum ever found the ' Chicken Rock' ??[attachment=0:1bjbiosh]100_2186.jpg[/attachment:1bjbiosh]


----------



## EmptyNet (Mar 17, 2008)

Nope, just the alien head rock.


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

As a sportsman involved in wildlife restoration and conservation, one of the most devastating pieces of legislation to proper game restoration has been the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness in and of its self does not relate or reflect proper wildlife habitat. It is usable habitat that is critical in preserving many species of threatened wildlife. In the designated wilderness study areas many of worth wild habitat rehabilitation projects have been abandoned due to the governmental restrictions placed on wilderness designated land. Water projects (guzzlers), invasive species, predator and disease control are only a few examples of management tools lost from wilderness proposed or designated lands. The ability to do vehicular surveillance and monitoring of targeted habitat and animal restoration is severely affected. This is just a short punch list of why I feel further wilderness designation is detrimental to wildlife in Utah and other states.
Big

1964 DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.



> "It's about use people. National Forest land is useable to all people. It can be used by hikers, campers, atvs, jeeps, mountain bikers and many other kinds of outdoor recreation. Different businesses can be permitted to use Forest Service Land. It is not an open free for all of raping the forest. Businesses must get permits and permission to use the land. Everything requires an environmental study to see the impact.
> 
> There is an economic cost to closing land. Utah schools are heavily funded by logging and mining on Federal lands. When the ability to mine or log is limited the ability to fund Utah government disappears. It leaves a large economic gap. It also limits recreation and tourism dollars by strongly restricting outdoor activity thus lowering sales tax and related business associated with recreation.
> 
> ...


http://www.eransworld.com/my-rants/northern-rockies-ecosystem-protection-act-nrepa/


----------



## HunterGeek (Sep 13, 2007)

bigbr said:


> > It is impossible to be an economic powerhouse without natural resources. Just look at North Korea.


North Korea has abundant natural resources - it's their psychotic political and economic system that's the problem. Japan, a country with very few natural resources, is the second or third largest economic power in the world.

Still, I think your overall post, bigbr, makes some good points. I'm definitely not against wild, natural places - I love them, and don't want them to disappear. Similarly, I dislike animal and plant species going extinct. That said, both the Wilderness Act and the Endangered Species Act have some major shortcomings that are actually counterproductive to the reasons they were enacted. Both are extremist and draconian in the sense that they lack the flexibility needed for good common sense to prevail when bureaucratic regulations fail to adequately deal with the issues involved.


----------

