... but who's mischief?
Finally common sense.
This is a big win for Southern Utah as well as the entire west. SUWA goes down
in flames. YESSSSSSS!
Oh well, looks like I'm spending my recreation money somewhere else. Buh bye.
I love my 4-wheelers and dirt bikes, but I love the serenity of the high Uintas
wilderness as well. I'm glad there are places for both activities. So while I
don't want SUWA to be able to close all the off-roading trails, I don't want to
lose the opportunity for quiet "getting away from it all" either!
Blue Bolshevikyou would have been spending it elsewhere anyway, the BLM
wants these lands inaccesible. Besides, bolsheviks spend all their leisure time
waiting in line to see Lenin's tomb, so we know yours is a hollow threat.Good to see federal courts actually make a decision in favor of the
locals over the outside interests. Makes you wonder about judge Campbell and
the two dissenters on the courst of appeals when all the rest said they were
The issue of whether or not unsupervised children on ATVs can tear up our
wilderness lands is important, but the big issue is about who can sue in cases
like this. It partially answers the question I often find myself asking:
"Why are *they* sing?"
This is a great move. It brings the responsibility and determination back where
it rightfully belongs....the local entities.
bye blue and take all your friends somewhere else with you, thanks we will miss
you and the crew
Finally! An environmental case in which a court applies common sense!Here's hoping it'll catch on.
We are thrilled but NO ONE in southern Utah trusts SUWA. They will not keep this
rulling, they will with thier millions of dollars, continue to try to force us
all out of southern Utah. They want "not a trace wilderness". Which
means not one foot print from mankind. This fight started years ago and they
have been able to get large amounts of donations from it. Why would they let
this big money maker go?
Let the ORV eco-vandalism begin!
Embattled citizens finally win one. Now it's too bad Lee is gone to the
If Kane County lost they would have to pay court costs. Since SUWA lost do they
have to pay court costs?
For too long these elitist environmental groups have been determining what the
majority of us taxpayers can and can not do. The irony of it is that they
are not necessarily motivated by the environment but rather by money, our tax
money. How many know that our federal government pays them to sue under the
Federal Access to Justice Act. Over the last decade $35 million of taxpayer
dollars was paid out to 13 environmental groups and another $5 Billion in
taxpayer money was paid out to their law firms. Check out the Western Legacy
Alliance for reference. Time for the general public to wake up and take action
against these so called environmental groups.
Having not read the decision of the court, it leaves me wondering if the an
individual (as a partial property owner) would have standing with the court. If
so that only means that the local ATV club nor the SUWA, or other organizations,
can't sue using the name of the group.As I read this article nothing
was decided on whether Kane County does or does not have a right-of-way on a
particular road or trail under RS2477. It only says who cannot file an
action.This may be a case where "winners" &
"loosers" are yet to be determined. Some years ago (before earmarks
were discouraged) on a trip to another state there was a conversation with
a"congressional aid" indicated they would work hard to see that Utah's
(and other states) favorite and proposed legislation or funding was defeated. I
don't know if they are still around, but there are a lot nationwide with similar
feelings. I think it was the same occassion where someone talked about limiting
road funding only to roads being maintained (by the county) to a certain
standard.I don't think this is the final action on this.
"davidroy" - THANKS for the insight. Looks like another 5 billion
that we (hopefully)can eliminate from the federal budget!As others have
stated: SUWA has REAL DEEP pockets. They can pay for their own lawsuits, NOT
This is absolutely GREAT! It puts the emphasis on roads and travel planning
back to the local level and away from the "environmental ambulance
chasers" like SUE-YA. They sue to keep their staff of lawyers employed -
not because they really care about the landscape. If you really think they are
concerned about the "environment" just watch and see what would happen
if they had to spend their own money to file and fight cases such as this. If
there wasn't money in it they wouldn't be doing it.Commissioner Habbeshaw
and Rep. Noel are owed a huge THANKS from everyone who enjoys reasonable access
to the public lands.
Excellent ruling. Of course it makes perfect sense and that is why the boshevik
dislikes it. I didn't realize bolsheviks had their own money anyway but let's
pretend he does and is "taking it elsewhere". That's fine as I'll soon
be heading south with my ATV and taking it down there. My guess is I have more
to spend than he does and will more likely spend it. That is a net win.
In our travels around Utah by car and on foot, we have found many responsible
ORV users on the roads and certainly appreciate the respect shown for other
people and the environment. However, there are too many instances where you see
the hillsides eroded from obvious ORV excursions off-road, causing great damage
to the vegetation and stability of the hillsides. And the ORVs who boom along
dusty canyon roads (often with the riders wearing dust masks) and don't slow
down when passing other vehicles, which would diminish the amount of their trail
dust drifting through car windows, really bother me because of their
discourtesy. I believe in wide access to primitive, natural settings so all
those desiring to enjoy the beauty and peace of the wilderness areas can do so
but with every privilege comes responsibility - littering, damaging, and
perverting in any other way the stability and beauty of nature cannot be
tolerated. Local authorities need to keep better control and enforce wise-use
policies and regulations.