Blue Ribbon

To quote the BRC website: "The BlueRibbon Coalition was born in 1987 shortly after Clark Collins, Founder and first Executive Director, was told by then Idaho Governor John Evans that recreationists were not politically significant and implied that Wilderness was more important than motorized access to public lands. Clark gathered and worked with other recreationists in a huge undertaking to educate all users of public lands in Idaho just how our resources were not being preserved FOR the public, but rather FROM the public. Thus, we have the seeds of what would ultimately become the BlueRibbon Coalition".

Imho, the BRC doesn't come close to embodying the spirit of what wandering the West is about, so I'll join the others above in declining to lend my support to the organization. I believe there was/is much truth in what Gov. Evans (allegedly) stated. Again, my $0.02, let the flames begin, hehe...

Rico.
 
RicoV said:
To quote the BRC website: "The BlueRibbon Coalition was born in 1987 shortly after Clark Collins, Founder and first Executive Director, was told by then Idaho Governor John Evans that recreationists were not politically significant and implied that Wilderness was more important than motorized access to public lands. Clark gathered and worked with other recreationists in a huge undertaking to educate all users of public lands in Idaho just how our resources were not being preserved FOR the public, but rather FROM the public. Thus, we have the seeds of what would ultimately become the BlueRibbon Coalition".

Imho, the BRC doesn't come close to embodying the spirit of what wandering the West is about, so I'll join the others above in declining to lend my support to the organization. I believe there was/is much truth in what Gov. Evans (allegedly) stated. Again, my $0.02, let the flames begin, hehe...

Rico.
Click to expand...
2X. I've spent to many years advocating the ideas of multi use of public lands, the BRC seems to suggest a much more one sided use.

Smoke
 
I am not much of a fan. So while I understand their mission, they tend to be on the opposite side of several issues I care strongly about - such as the sham 'review of national monuments' and slashing the size of existing national monuments in Utah. This seemed odd to me as both Bears Ears and GSENM provided excellent opportunities for 4WD exploration in some really wild country, and removing their monument status only really opens them up to development, not increased public access.

That being said, I am not really convinced they are much of a concern - they are a small, apparently are having some funding and staffing issues, and their resources appear to be pretty amateurish compared to other organizations.
 
I do not support the BRC. I have seen too much of the lasting effects of the results of such activity to ever support more widespread similar uses. In fact, at the risk of annoying some people, to whom I apologize in advance, I support significant reductions is such uses on our public lands.
 
Just a bit confused, if they are working to keep trails open, whats the problem? I like to take my truck out on trails and camp. A lot of land is being closed up. Is this a liberal/conservative thing?
 
I don't think it is a liberal/conservative thing as much as a balance thing.

I also like to take my truck out on trails/roads and camp, but I (and most other folks on WtW) also like to hike, ski, bike, raft, canyoneer and climb in wild areas. Of all those activities the there are far more public lands with roads to camp on then there are wild areas left for the other activities.

I strongly support protecting the last wild areas that we have left, so while I appreciate the BRCs stated mission, I don't agree with their opposition to protecting lands like Bears Ears and Grand Stair Case Escalante National Monuments. They only seem to care about one mode of public access, where I care about many forms of access and see the value in preserving some fraction of the land in as wild as possible a state regardless of access.
 
Dirt Rider said:
Just a bit confused, if they are working to keep trails open, whats the problem? I like to take my truck out on trails and camp. A lot of land is being closed up. Is this a liberal/conservative thing?
Click to expand...
I am not confused. Many people on this site may not like your avatar. They may not say so but will use code words like "such uses" without saying motorcycles. I am a almost 70 year old life member of the American Motorcycle Association. I have seen so many areas closed to ORV use. Or they have been improved to the point you can drive your motorhome to them. There are less places in CA when you can drive your jeep or motorcycle to and get away from the crowd. Maybe those days are gone for ever, if so it is sad. Now it is drive your motorhome to a place you can go hiking and not much else. The Blue Ribbon Collation is at least trying. I am a realist you will not see areas closed opened again. I will advocate against any more areas being closed.
 
There are more people, with increasingly sophisticated machines using the public land for more seasons than ever before. As said above, balance is needed. Right now the balance is firmly tilted to increased use of public lands. Unless human populations take a nose-dive, which I do not see happening anytime soon, the use of public lands will continue to increase. Where four or five motorcycles a day on a trail is no big deal, four or five hundred on the same trail, every day, is a big deal in the sense that the noise and habitat stress fundamentally changes the experience from being wild to an amusement park.

Even long time motorcycle riders that enjoy being in the middle of nowhere cannot say they enjoy having to eat the dust of a group of motorcycles in front while being pressed to hurry it up by the group right behind.

The only way to keep wild areas from being overrun is to reduce or eliminate unrestricted access to those areas. Nothing else works.
 
More and more people are using public lands. Can't stop that. Forcing more people to recreate on smaller pieces of land isn't the answer.
 
Guess i'm just a bit naive, I like to ski, hike, camp, fish, ride horses, mountain bike and hunt or just sit by the fire and do nothing, as long as it's outdoors i'm happy, thought we were all on the same page?
 
Only about 2% of our public land is wilderness where motor vehicles are not allowed. I drive on dirt roads some of the time but I have a hard time supporting a group whose users are inclined to threaten me with things like - oh, death - when I speak in defense of wilderness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads - WTW

R
Overland Route - Georgia Adventure Trail
Casa Escarlata Robles Too
Casa Escarlata Robles Too
R
Overland Route - Trans New Jersey Trail
Casa Escarlata Robles Too
Casa Escarlata Robles Too
R
Overland Route - Kofa Pioneer Trail
lqhikers
L
R
Overland Route - Cross Pennsylvania Adventure Trail
goinoregon
G
R
Overland Route - Organs Loop
dr.tucson
dr.tucson

New posts - WTW

Back
Top Bottom