----- Original Message -----
From: Allen S. Thorpe <thorpe@co.emery.ut.us>
To: <
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 3:23 PM
Subject: (usall) Re: USA-ALL Monday Dispatch for Sept. 16 2002 and LAND USE
UPDATE


> What I don't get is how the courts expect their rulings to be enforced.
> The BLM doesn't have the personnel. Will they send the U. S. Marshals
> down here to keep out the OHVs. This has always been the key flaw with
> wilderness down here. It assumes that everybody will obey signs. The
> honest and law abiding do, but a lot of people don't.
>
> What is needed is support from those who obey the laws, but they have
> been insulted and belittled by the WAGs to the point where few of them
> would lift a finger to help nowadays, even if they weren't locked out of
> the lands. I've thought for a long time that wilderness won't work
> without the support of the people who live closest to it.
>
> I've also realized that the concept of wilderness, as promoted by the
> greens, is totally erroneous. They emphasize the fragility of
> wilderness. Maybe it's that way in some places, but around here it's a
> lie. The Swell is wilderness because it's too tough for anybody to tame.
> Wilderness is not a thing, it's a process. It starts when people quit
> maintaining their roads and buildings. It's what happens when you quit
> mowing your lawn or pulling weeds. It's not a delicate state balanced on
> on a point. It's driven by nature, and nature is not controllable
> despite man's best efforts. The best evidence is on SUWA's own website
> where they've taken photos of old pioneer roads that are still visible
> but which they claim are now wilderness.
>
> In order to support their "fragile nature" lie, the greens look for
> things to get worked up about, like cryptogamic soils and CO2. Then they
> use PR techniques to scare everybody. But the things that people do
> don't last the way wilderness does. In a generation, what now are
> "blights on the landscape" are eligible for historic preservation, and
> later on, they become archeological sites, protected from being
> disrupted. I think of the footprints left by dinosaurs that somehow
> became fossilized. It's a good thing there weren't any SUWAs back then,
> or they'd have been racked over and "reclaimed."
>
> It all comes back to what impressed me at the very first WSA hearings in
> Castle Dale. This land is wilderness /in spite of humans./ It might
> tolerate a few roads and trails, but they are ephemeral.
> I'm glad Yellowstone and Yosemite are protected, because they've been
> discovered and would be destroyed by tourists if they weren't. But the
> primary "protection" needed in the San Rafael Swell is protection of the
> people from their own stupidity, so they don't get lost or injured by
> falling or drowning, while they're our there trying to conquer the
> wilderness.
>
> AST/
>
> /
>
>
> Brian Hawthorne wrote:
>
> > *10th Circuit Court Of Appeals Sends Utah OHV Case Back To Utah
> > District Court*
> > *Decision Seen As A Big Win For WAGs*
> > For those of you who are new to our list; _a little background:_
> > In October of 1999, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) and
> > several other Anti-Access Groups filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of
> > Land Management (BLM) in Utah. The suit claimed the BLM had not
> > properly managed Off- Highway Vehicle (OHV) use on lands they manage
> > in Utah. Among other things, SUWA asked the court to _ban all vehicle
> > use on approximately 10 million acres!_ The Utah Shared Access
> > Alliance (USA- ALL), Utah's largest public lands access organization,
> > along with the BlueRibbon Coalition successfully petitioned for
> > defendant-intervenor status to aid BLM's defense of OHV management.
> > The state of Utah and several counties also intervened in the case
> > prompted by concerns that SUWA's claims also sought to close country
> > roads.
> >
> > Prior to arguing the merits of the case, SUWA filed a motion for
> > preliminary injunction demanding an _immediate ban_ of all vehicle use
> > in 9 popular OHV areas. Some of the roads SUWA went after included the
> > Devils Racetrack, the Eva Conover road, and Coal Wash road in the San
> > Rafael Swell. The Behind the Rocks road and the Moab Rim road near
> > Moab, and Moquith Mountain Loop road near Kanab. BLM and USA-ALL
> > defended against these claims, and USA-ALL went a step further in
> > filing a motion to dismiss, which argued that not only should SUWA's
> > request for an injunction be denied but also their claims be dismissed
> > on jurisdictional grounds. In a crushing blow to SUWA, the court
> > granted our motion, denied the motion for preliminary injunction, and
> > dismissed SUWAs claims in these areas. SUWA appealed this decision to
> > the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
> >
> > SUWA's appeal was argued in January, 2002. Unfortunately, just over 3
> > weeks ago (August 29) a panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
> > reversed the district court's ruling in a 2-1 decision. The majority,
> > while not ruling that SUWA would ultimately win, ruled that the matter
> > must remanded back to the district judge for further consideration.
> >
> > *What This Means -- What It Doesn't Mean*
> > It's important to understand that this decision _does not_ immediately
> > close any roads or trails, nor does it give SUWA a victory on any of
> > their original claims. All it does is _send the case back_ to the
> > District Court in Utah for consideration on the merits. SUWA still has
> > to prove their claims in court in order to close any roads or areas.
> >
> > *Is There Any Good News In This Decision?*
> > Not much. If there is any good news, it's that the dissenting judge
> > wrote a _long and well-reasoned dissent_.
> >
> > *What Will USA-ALL Do Now?*
> > _There should be no question here_. We're going to *fight like
> > bulldogs*! USA-ALL is committed to _fight for responsible OHV use_
> > whenever and wherever we can. USA-ALL intends to petition the entire
> > Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the ruling "en banc."
> > Although such consideration is discretionary, we are hopeful that
> > given the novelty of the law pronounced and the vigorous dissent, the
> > Appeals Court will accept review.
> >
> > **
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>