Access Denied

[puulboy]

If we could come up with some sort of answer for the enforcement issue, we could get their attention. The idea that we pick up garbage on one side while hearing shot gun blasts on the other side, is why we are completely powerless, to change the perception of "US"
How many times have we been on trails and watched others completely destroy what "US" as a community, stand for in trail responsibility? The Upper sycamore run to Rio Verde , is fresh in my mind and is a situation all of "US " have seen, on any number of occasions. (Trail closure sign because of nesting eagles. We stop and turn around, respecting the the rules. As we are stopped, 15 others are pissed and fly around us through the desert blazing their own trail). Even calls make us powerless to report the violation. We have to be the reason, to keep those trails open, so enforcement can be aided. Kevin , You made that point at the meeting Friday night. I beg the question. How do we make a difference, monitoring the trails that agencies have no funding to protect?
I think that is the key to making us "essential tools" to keep our land, correctly used.
Brainstorming?
A call to action for enforcement. We need to figure this out. The agencies will see up differently, if we can figure out how to make trail clean-ups less necessary.
Figure a way to control the small percentage that are really the problem and eyes will open.
I know Letters to congress, involvement in BLM, Forest Service project are also needed. Funding etc.

Why does everyone see the problem, but cannot do anything about it?

Something to think about . I think

 

[BellyDoc]

How about trying to avoid pitting us "against" the environmentalists in our own language? I'm tired of seeing people defined by their opposition.

Last I checked, I still care about the environment. I go out and enjoy it every chance I get, and I don't want it damaged any more than the ones that we treat like cartoon characters called "greenies".

I just happen to disagree that responsible offroad travel needs to be opposed in order to save the land.

Our opposition isn't stupid. They're just guilty of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". They're just too ready to make easy blanket decisions about limiting access to everyone but the birds and butterflies instead of working with us to come up with a more complicated solution that acknowledges everyone's right to be there. They're unwilling to accept the responsibility to participate with things like picking up trash, posting signs and teaching people to catch the oil dripping from a busted diff cover, because they don't wheel. It's no different than us moaning about picking up shotshell hulls when we weren't the ones out shooting.

They're just one step farther removed in the chain of events that lead to total loss of rights and our fighting for our rights is something they indirectly benefit from TOO.

It's no different than standing up for the rights of the Neo-Nazi's to march. I don't have to like them to respect their rights. In America, you have the right to be hateful, stupid and annoying, because we're ALL that... to someone.

Of course, the greenies need to read a copy of The Monkey Wrench Gang and just stfu, but until then, they'll just have to benefit from our rights-preserving efforts in the abstract, as their world and OURS remains open with more options.

 

[puulboy]

Just thinking about the amount of resources used to accomplish one clean up at Four Peaks. It must be a really big number in $$$
Everyone that showed up probably put gas in their vehicle, food donated, water, bags, media, planning dumpsters. For what?
We cleaned up while at the same time, others are trashing.
Just imagine if all of those resources went toward trail management, enforcement, garbage stations.
Why isn't there a fee for all that want to use the forest/land? I know I know another tax, but really, don't we pay those taxes anyway with the effort all of us do for a simple trail clean up?
At least this way the mindless others, who don't care will have to pay it too.
30 frikkin bucks from everyone that want to use the open outdoors.
Funds not put in a general fund, but a real agency, to pay for manpower and equipment to keep up trails , enforcement, garbage stations, etc. Real law enforcement, that can patrol hot spots to keep the rif raf out.
I'm just throwing out thoughts here.
No excuses why enforcement can't happen, its being paid for by the users

 

[puulboy]

Jon You probably type a hell of a lot faster than me
I'm sure I was still hunting and pecking after your response was submitted

 

[ChaseTruck]

Just thinking about the amount of resources used to accomplish one clean up at Four Peaks. It must be a really big number in $$$
Everyone that showed up probably put gas in their vehicle, food donated, water, bags, media, planning dumpsters. For what?
We cleaned up while at the same time, others are trashing.
Just imagine if all of those resources went toward trail management, enforcement, garbage stations.
Why isn't there a fee for all that want to use the forest/land? I know I know another tax, but really, don't we pay those taxes anyway with the effort all of us do for a simple trail clean up?
At least this way the mindless others, who don't care will have to pay it too.
30 frikkin bucks from everyone that want to use the open outdoors.
Funds not put in a general fund, but a real agency, to pay for manpower and equipment to keep up trails , enforcement, garbage stations, etc. Real law enforcement, that can patrol hot spots to keep the rif raf out.
I'm just throwing out thoughts here.
No excuses why enforcement can't happen, its being paid for by the users

That's a discussion from about two years ago. IIRC, it ended up in lots of politicking who would control such a fund, with entities such as the Sierra Club using their political influence w/ AZ state senators to try and divert / take control over the funds.

 

[puulboy]

I just needs to be introduced again, with a better plan.
Gentlemen/Ladies ?

 

[Tools R Us]

If we could come up with some sort of answer for the enforcement issue, we could get their attention. The idea that we pick up garbage on one side while hearing shot gun blasts on the other side, is why we are completely powerless, to change the perception of "US"
...

Enforcement is a tough issue. Most agency employees don't have enforcement authority, to have full enforcement power, the training is the same as any other police officer. The ones who have that training are the only ones who can carry a gun, standard employees and volunteers are forbidden to carry firearms.

Part of the plan is to have civilian patrols. The primary use is for friendly interaction, education, but also reporting witness when called for, this is part of the reason for radio training.

 

[Tools R Us]

How about trying to avoid pitting us "against" the environmentalists in our own language? I'm tired of seeing people defined by their opposition.

Last I checked, I still care about the environment. I go out and enjoy it every chance I get, and I don't want it damaged any more than the ones that we treat like cartoon characters called "greenies".

I just happen to disagree that responsible offroad travel needs to be opposed in order to save the land.

Our opposition isn't stupid. They're just guilty of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". They're just too ready to make easy blanket decisions about limiting access to everyone but the birds and butterflies instead of working with us to come up with a more complicated solution that acknowledges everyone's right to be there. They're unwilling to accept the responsibility to participate with things like picking up trash, posting signs and teaching people to catch the oil dripping from a busted diff cover, because they don't wheel. It's no different than us moaning about picking up shotshell hulls when we weren't the ones out shooting.

They're just one step farther removed in the chain of events that lead to total loss of rights and our fighting for our rights is something they indirectly benefit from TOO.

It's no different than standing up for the rights of the Neo-Nazi's to march. I don't have to like them to respect their rights. In America, you have the right to be hateful, stupid and annoying, because we're ALL that... to someone.

Of course, the greenies need to read a copy of The Monkey Wrench Gang and just stfu, but until then, they'll just have to benefit from our rights-preserving efforts in the abstract, as their world and OURS remains open with more options.

Nice notion and one that I at one time agreed with. How many meetings have you been to with some of these organisations? My stance was that we agree on 90+% of the issues, lets fight those for those, once those are done, we can argue over our differences. It was highly naive. Quickly found that there are very big, powerful organisations, who will not stop until there is zero mechanized transport on public lands. If you give in to them, they will take it, but will not give anything in return, ever. They will look to twist anything you say or do and use it against you. Ally with them at your own risk, but expect a knife in your back. I wont be supporting that, my back is still bloody.

What was really shocking to me is, most of them have no idea what they are fighting for. When the meeting moves to specific issues, in specific places, they are lost, have no idea what is being talked about. It is like they watched a discovery show, saw something on the internet on forest destruction, maybe hiked, camped in a park and are now a jihad to fix the world, without any first hand knowledge of the problems or even where most places are and they look like.

I agree that all sides have way over dramatized issues and that isn't good, kinda like the boy who called wolf too many times. But that maybe what is necessary now days, people have been conditioned to only respond to extreme drama?

 

[BellyDoc]

I'm not advocating that anyone contribute equal funds to the Sierra Club and BRC. I'm saying, don't let them "own" environmental concern by making them the "greenies" and we're the anti-group defined by not being them.

How about being "rational environmentalists" instead... or "freedom defending outdoorsmen" (sorry ladies... "people"...)

You're exactly right in concluding that the opposition is dealing in theory and feeling while we're dealing in specifics. We're probably not going to change that and we're probably not going to convince many (if any) of THEM to change their minds to agree with US.

However, there's an even LARGER group (very much larger) that we need to be concerned with, and that's the people who have no particular involvement one way or the other and are going to ally with the issue only if forced to, and only in accordance to the simplicity of slogans and glossy pictures.

Those people are a potential resource for us (or them) as the pushing and shoving turns to slugging.

If they're the "greenies" and we're the "anti-greenies", they just flat out win that one.

 

[fumann]

The job of the Resource Manager is to first protect and preserve the resource and second to BALANCE the needs/access of all parties concerned with the resource. They are the decision makers that put together Management Plans that may include decisions to close trails.

The so-called "Greenies" are a collection of groups that would advocate for less intrusion on the land. Recreational vehicle drivers have an agenda that would advocate for responsible access to the land. When you are working with the BLM and the FS, please keep in mind that they are not the enemy. They are in the middle trying to strike a balance between two or more often conflicting agendas over how to best manage, protect and preserve a resource.

 

[BellyDoc]

The job of the Resource Manager is to first protect and preserve the resource and second to BALANCE the needs/access of all parties concerned with the resource. They are the decision makers that put together Management Plans that may include decisions to close trails.

The so-called "Greenies" are a collection of groups that would advocate for less intrusion on the land. Recreational vehicle drivers have an agenda that would advocate for responsible access to the land. When you are working with the BLM and the FS, please keep in mind that they are not the enemy. They are in the middle trying to strike a balance between two or more often conflicting agendas over how to best manage, protect and preserve a resource.

Bravo!

This is balanced and level headed.

 

[Tools R Us]

...
If they're the "greenies" and we're the "anti-greenies", they just flat out win that one.

Whatever, one could also argue; if we have to argue about the names of various groups, we have lost. I see it as trivial, yes we are all "green" to a certain extent, none of us want to see the forest destroyed. I simply used short names that that this group would understand. Could have typed a couple of paragraphs explaining each group, brought out the 27 color, glossy photos,,, didn't think it was necessary? Sorry if I offended you.

IMHO there is much more important arguing to do, example: A simple question; we would like to be able to report issues in real time, can we barrow a radio? This gets into things like; budget to purchase/store said radio, staffing required check in/out and maintain said radio, training required to properly operate said radio, scheduling on when said radio can be checked in/out, etc, etc, etc. After a couple of hours of negotiating, the answer is; maybe, will research it and get back to you.

 

[Tools R Us]

The job of the Resource Manager is to first protect and preserve the resource and second to BALANCE the needs/access of all parties concerned with the resource. They are the decision makers that put together Management Plans that may include decisions to close trails.

The so-called "Greenies" are a collection of groups that would advocate for less intrusion on the land. Recreational vehicle drivers have an agenda that would advocate for responsible access to the land.

Agree, but it goes much deeper. The groups they have to take into consideration also include; forest products, mining, ranching, tour operators, hunters, campers, equestrian, etc, etc. Big job, very diverse groups, with widely varying needs/wants.

When you are working with the BLM and the FS, please keep in mind that they are not the enemy. They are in the middle trying to strike a balance between two or more often conflicting agendas over how to best manage, protect and preserve a resource.

Agree, somewhat, maybe. The agency employees who I have dealt with are also a diverse group, some having the same agendas as the outside groups. There are some that I consider friends/allies, a few that you have to be very careful around, are biased because a truck is my chosen transportation on public lands.

 

[fumann]

Agree, but it goes much deeper. The groups they have to take into consideration also include; forest products, mining, ranching, tour operators, hunters, campers, equestrian, etc, etc. Big job, very diverse groups, with widely varying needs/wants.

You're right there are multiple stakeholders. I'm just trying to simplify for the point of discussion. Too often in these discussions the Resource Managers are mistaken for stakeholders.

We all need to be green-considerate in our approach to the trails we like to romp around on and the streams we splash through. If the places we like to go are trashed, they would lose their appeal.

Agree, somewhat, maybe. The agency employees who I have dealt with are also a diverse group, some having the same agendas as the outside groups. There are some that I consider friends/allies, a few that you have to be very careful around, are biased because a truck is my chosen transportation on public lands.

Sure, they are people. They have a job to do and and they have biases, just like the rest of us. Your point to try to establish a relationship with the decision makers makes a lot of sense to me.

Thank you, very much for being our front man!

 

[ChaseTruck]

...
The so-called "Greenies" are a collection of groups that would advocate for less intrusion on the land...

Negative. Time to read the fine print.

These groups advocate for NO access.

They 'concede' at this time that there be 'no MECHANIZED access'.

There are people in Utah that argue that every tourist visiting Canyonlands National Park represents an illicit exploitation of natural resources - even before that tourist has set foot out of the car in Moab.

The idea that the anti-access groups would be open to a collaborative approach to land use management is severely faulty.

 

[fumann]

There are people in Utah that argue that every tourist visiting Canyonlands National Park represents an illicit exploitation of natural resources - even before that tourist has set foot out of the car in Moab.

And there are men on the Arizona Strip with wives. To me it just means that they have a different perspective than I do.

The idea that the anti-access groups would be open to a collaborative approach to land use management is severely faulty.

I agree. You have to negotiate with the Resource Managers.

 

[ChaseTruck]

And there are men on the Arizona Strip with wives. To me it just means that they have a different perspective than I do.

Negative again. Those are just rednecks with shotguns. Entirely irrelevant.

The people I referred to above have enough clout to get congresspersons from New York, California, and Arizona to sponsor their bills.

 

[mikeob1]

Here is my contribution to this discussion. I fully acknowledge this is more vague and less tactical...with some disorderly undercurrents.

Public is Public. Private is Private. Any sort of codification of special "use" creates a zone that is neither public nor private. It becomes "privileged".

Every time a permit is purchased, a rule is written, a policy is broken, or a watchdog is hired, the very act creates implied acknowledgment, acceptance and agreement. These acts, if avoided will eliminate the creation of the third privileged category. Use public lands and treat them like they're yours. Ask permission to use private lands.

Allowing and permitting agency bureaucracy is the first step to full privatization and exploitation of public resources. When papers are brought to the table, they should be cast away, scoffed and burned. Acceptance will only lead to the repetition of the ancient process where domain is established, roads are built, armies can be moved, taxes can be collected, lines will be painted, licenses will be granted and denied. How is any of this representative of freedom?

Resources should be pooled to eliminate the ridiculous, expensive, ass backward agencies through every legal and subtle or perhaps subversive tactic available. The situation really is simply an instance of the game "capture the flag". Or maybe we should say, "re-capture the Flag".

 

[1leglance]

I think there is a powerful tactic that the "no mech access" groups use that we in the "mech access" group should try also...
buy up the private land.
It is really simple and solves a number of problems, and as a recent example I will use the Gillette Townsite at Table Mesa as proof.
I did a Disabled Explorers day trip there last Saturday with a paraplegic driving the van and incomplete quad driving his own van. When we got to the Aqua Fria there were big rock piles and lots of fences. No access to the history and sights of Gillette.
A quick phone call got me the story.
A private individual bough the land for $280,000. That is a steal for all the history and recreation the area offers.
Now it is closed to us, and we missed out.
Imagine if you will that there was a fund run by an Arizona group that would raise money and buy places like this to place in trust and keep open.
Imagine if this same group told this story through the media to shed a positive light on us "mech access folks"
Now think about other areas that are privately owned and worth keeping open.
Now think about how the "no mech access" folks are already putting together funds to buy those areas, don't believe me, just google it baby.

Raising money is tough, I should know as it has been near impossible for me with Disabled Explorers. I work overtime to fund it as I suck at getting donations.
As a non-profit that represents the disabled community and mech outdoor access I have the ability to sit at the table with real decision makers. I have put together position papers for a number of the travel management plans here in Arizona.
Why am I not doing more?
Simple, I have to work overtime just to pay for the Sportsmobile WAVE, the $5000 a year insurance so disable folks can drive it and all the other cost.
Would I like to do more? Sure, but is always comes down to money.

If anyone wants to volunteer to help spread the word on the needs for the disabled to have mech access to remote areas let me know. There is plenty of really boring but important things to do. Read Travel Management plans, help write position statements, set up appointments, raise money and more.

I am really really happy to see more passion in this place and more awareness of the issue.
Keep the fires burning.