The Henries, SanJuan, SW Des, Books and many more

My Dad's thoughts on this subject. He has to deal with all this stuff for the county.

"SUWA is ready to introduce "America's Red Rock Wilderness Act" to
congress again. It has been introduced to each congress for the last
20 years, and yes! it needs to be opposed.Main sponsors include
congressmen from New York and Illinois, but has many cosponsors from
the east, midwest and California. None of Utah's delegation support
it. If you can inform guys in other states to write their Sens. and
Reps. and advise them to oppose this bill it would help. It would
designate over nine million acres in Utah, 1.4 million acres in Emery
County as wilderness. Maybe half or one third of that amount actually
qualifies as wilderness.

Emery County will probably introduce its own legislation in the next
few months that would designate five or six hundred thousand acres
wilderness. Congressional hearings on the Red Rock Bill produced lots
of testimony that favored wilderness bills sponsored by counties over
the Red Rock Bill. Our potential legislation occupies 70 to 80 percent
of my time."

"The Ox" wrote:if we lose this stuff to wilderness we lose a lot of rec areas for people. ranchers get screwed hunters and atvers, campers etc.

I wouldn't say that, its just a different kind of recreation. Backpacking, horseback riding, hiking, etc. I would actually like to see this go through. From what I've seen Utah has the least wilderness areas of all the western states. You think the Henries has big deer now? Put a wilderness area in the mix and trophy quality will be even better IMO. Maybe i'm missing something, but i like the back country type recreation. Dont mean to step on any toes... just my 2 cents. :thumb

archer dont be naive this is not a good thing! like i said some wilderness is ok but this is a huge amount and it is gonna screw alot of people and most of this proposal doesnt even meet wilderness criteria they are bending the rules to work for them. mark my words if this goes thru it wont be good! everything you mentioned as diff recreation can and does get done in areas that are not wilderness!

much of the proposed areas are poor areas for wilderness no scenic valley little wildlife and hot dry desert with over growth of PJ"S. hope you wake up archer and realize the magnitude of this

"The Ox" wrote:archer dont be naive...
it is gonna screw alot of people...
hope you wake up archer and realize the magnitude of this

Sorry Ox... just because somebody has an opinion that differs from yours doesn't make them naive. Is it going to screw with "a lot of people"... or more specifically affect YOUR recreation activities if this goes through?
All I know... with the amount of land in this state that is being gobbled up be the private sector, I'm all for designations that preserve large tracts of land for public use (whatever use it may be).
I agree with Archer on this one.

derek this is all BLM( thats public land in case you didnt know!) not gonna get "gobbled up" by the "private sector".
i say he is naive because this is actually taking from our rights as public land.(same people pushing for anti gun laws, wolf protection etc) they are restricting our usage of it because of their environmentalist views. everything he mentioned for recreation use in a wilderness is believe or not! allowed without wilderness areas. we can backpack hike camp hunt do everything in non wilderness areas too. all this wilderness will do is take our rights to our public land away. these people are manipulating people and most of this land does not fall under their criteria for wilderness.(they are changing their criteria to further push environmentalist crap upon us. they are trying to sneak this past the public the ranchers the hunters the atvers and other people that enjoy thier rights to puiblic land . these agencies have held meetings and neglected to inform anyone of the people that this will hurt. this is their sneaky low tactics they use to take our rights away. if we give them an inch they will take a mile, as they are trying to do. if you have ever been to some of these spots you know what i am talking about in the criteria part. much of the sw des area they wanna take are covered in existing roads, there is areas that have been chained and railed etc.
these are the same people that try to justify no management for wolves etc. the same people that wanna take our guns. look at the lists of people helping with this. the sierra club is involved, earth justice etc and many other anti hunting groups anti gun pro wolfers etc wake up man!. this just gets these people one step close to taking more and more rights from you and i like hunting and guns! they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes buddy! these are anti hunting groups!!!!!!!!!! your being just as naive if your falling for this crap. do some research these are the same people we fight everyday to keep our hunting rights

I'm pretty surprised to see anyone from a predominately Utah hunting forum jump aboard in agreeance with this, let alone 2 people within a half day. I feel like I don't need to go into too much detail as to why because Ox has said it twice in addition to the input given from Sneekeepete's father (who apparently deals with this in depth at the County level). I love backpacking and horseback riding as much as I do hunting but there are plenty of places for both in Utah. There is no pretext for giving these extremists triumph and reinforcing their pursuits.

My only question, natured in friendly discussion and curiosity, is why should other western states set the standard for how much wilderness Utah possesses? I feel your argument in Utah having the least wilderness of all the Western states is unrelated. And I guess it's a 2 part question; do those of you who are pro ARRW Act really feel you are deprived of outdoor activities due to lack of wilderness, if so why/how?

Theres obviously something that i'm not understanding... I don't get into politics as much as i'm sure I should. Maybe I am a little naive but i'd like to understand. Thats why i'm on these forums in the first place, to learn and find out what I can do to be a successful hunter, help our sport, enjoy hearing opinions on issues we may encounter as hunters, and of course hear success stories. My initial thought was sweet, more wilderness but that could change, maybe someone could just help me understand???

My understanding is that wilderness areas are managed by the BLM, Bureau of LAND Management. They're created to provide protection against development and also to preserve the nature of the land. I didn't think they would have the power to effect game management. Is this the case? Or would they be able to negatively effect the wildlife management in the area? Just trying to understand...

I definitely applaud your for your conviction Ox. =D> In my opinion that's what makes the MM forum great.
To address the "pulling the wool over my eyes"... I agree that the tactics being used by SUWA are dirty, underhanded, and unethical. They've pulled the wool over the entire general public's eyes. Where is the open public discussion? Non-existent and that really bothers me.
If this is tabbed "Wilderness Area" it will still be under the BLM umbrella (check the legends on the maps from the website linked in the first post: USFS & BLM Wilderness areas). Whether or not this land meets the criteria for the wilderness designation... I hope they can get someone that is unbiased to make that determination (yeah right... anybody got a pile of $$$). If it truly doesn't, the ethical thing to do is leave it alone.
Understand this though, the way I see it (very selfishly, mind you)...I use two or four legs for my hunting access, so in a way this could eliminate a lot of competition for me assuming that I would eventually be fortunate enough to draw a tag in any of the affected areas. The two areas that I've targeted for limited entry elk are both already wilderness areas. I like guns, and I like hunting... and at last check you can still do both in wilderness areas.
Ox, for your sake I hope it doesn't happen and it stays as is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told at a U4WDA event this past weekend that the bill is being promoted and was introduced by some random political figure in New York that has no ties to Utah whatsoever? That is the part that is so confusing to me... There is also a rally/parade against this coming up sometime in the next couple weeks going from the state fair grounds up to the capital to try to gain recognition for the fight against the bill.

Derek are you telling me your gonna hike from clinton or ride your horse all the way to the swdesert to hunt elk? i dont think so... when you hunt you use your vehicle to get to these areas so you dont just hunt with your feet. yes probably fewer would venture in to these places. some people simply love to hunt but cant hike long distances. should we take these rights from them? i prefer to hike just like you thats why i prefer archery it forces me too. ive always been able to find places to hunt that i can hike into if i chose that are not wilderness.
in theory yes wilderness seems great but in reality it just takes our rights to public land.
many of these areas only have game in them beause of the ranchers that have developed water in to the areas that never had them before. how about we just fight to keep this public land free and mutiple use for everyone. there is big bucks and big bulls that are always killed near roads. henrys has roads and look at the bucks comin off there etc .monroe(world record elk that had roads all around it), sw des lots of roads big bulls. etc. stil plenty of opportunity even with the roads. how successful do you thin the guys driving the roads are anyway. they stay enticed to stay on the roads while your off the roads capitalizing on the game they are pushing to you. soads limit competion in a sense also.
so do your self a favor and dont give up your rights man. there may come a day you wish you wouldnt have.
like zach said many of the people supporting this have no ties to utah many are people back east deciding the fate of utahs public lands. as much as i hate guys burnin up the trails on atvs during hunting season they have the right to because its there public land too
-oh and its not anymore comforting that the blm still has jurisdiction over wildernss, the agency is quickly turning to a preservation agency. they wont allow habitat conservation in areas. they cant even manage their mustangs. there are more stangs than elk and deer on sw desert. imagine how bad the mustang situation will get on sw des if they cant do round ups because there is no motor vehicle access allowed to it. this just spells disaster imo

I backcountry hike A LOT! I understand both sides of the issue, but I have to say this bill is bad. I hike a lot and I have plenty of wilderness left to explore still.

Camping and RV's do NOT ruin land in my opinion. I think we have a good mix here in UT and I would hate to see more of it become inaccessible to my FAMILY!

No matter how they spin it, this is about left wing wacko's grabbing more land for their non-profit organizations. What do you think will happen if they get this passed? Will they have a celebration BBQ and go home!? NO! They will get right to work shutting down more land next year.

I appreciate opinions from both sides and I can really understand the desire for wildnerness. When most people understand the whole issue, they don't want land designated wilderness. It's all about getting good information.

Sewing-
GOOD POST!

Whatever your opinion on this is it looks like the bill has been defeated.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700140636/Obama-abandons-wilderness-plan.html

I'm not personally against more wilderness areas, but I think it's important to get local input and be smart about making that type of a designation.

thanks dahlmer!

Good news! :thumb

Sweet!