PLEASE: Do not let this stray into hot air. Keep it focused on the issue.

I just read a proposal letter (started by SUWA.... don't get me started on them ) that expanded the Canyonlands NP to an area of of 1.4 million acres (as a National Monument). This area would include some of our most beloved UT airstrips including Mineral Canyon, Dirty Devil, Angel Point, Happy Canyon, and many others.

Proposal letter: http://www.delalbright.com/Access/Canyo ... letter.pdf
Proposed map area: http://www.suwa.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... ds_Map.pdf
SUWA Greater Canyonland page: http://www.suwa.org/issues/greatercanyonlands/

My questions are:
1) How will this effect the airstrips already in existence? (If under a National Monument title.)
2) What is UBCP and RAF doing about this? Who can we contact?
3) What can we do? Are there other organizations we can support to oppose this proposal?

Thanks in advance, any info would be great!

MM

lets tellem how we feel

https://secure2.convio.net/suwa/site/Ad ... ion&id=627

Glidergeek wrote:lets tellem how we feel

https://secure2.convio.net/suwa/site/Ad ... ion&id=627

Russ, that link is in favor of the proposal.

I found this which is opposed to the proposal, but it is OHV oriented, not aviation oriented:
https://secure3.convio.net/arra/site/Ad ... 82.app332a

Perhaps this isn't even realistic and only something that the SUWA created as a PR stunt?

mountainmatt wrote:

Glidergeek wrote:lets tellem how we feel

https://secure2.convio.net/suwa/site/Ad ... ion&id=627

Russ, that link is in favor of the proposal.

I found this which is opposed to the proposal, but it is OHV oriented, not aviation oriented:
https://secure3.convio.net/arra/site/Ad ... 82.app332a

Perhaps this isn't even realistic and only something that the SUWA created as a PR stunt?

Ya I see there is a templet statement but it can be backspace erased why not do both?

On their (SUWA) web pages, they decry the access to the area by air for the energy industry, and write about how great it is to fly into a SUWA meeting on another.

There is a long history to this business with SUWA...calling a bill from 10 years or so ago by a Salt Lake Republican representative to keep the strips open 'a federal drug smuggling bill' (given the history 20 years' prior of Angel Point and other places).

So many people use these places...they'd be shutting down significant economic aviation activities.

Not sure how or why this has happened, but we are surrounded by fun haters.
If they don't like having fun, wish they would just stay home, or move somewhere they dcan't have fun, and leave us alone.

Sincerely
Gary

shortfielder wrote:Not sure how or why this has happened, but we are surrounded by fun haters.
If they don't like having fun, wish they would just stay home, or move somewhere they dcan't have fun, and leave us alone.

Sincerely
Gary

You know what the haters are saying?

We're not happy until your not happy!!

We're not happy until your not happy!!

i thought that was the FAA
I have the shirt to prove it

I am posting the following on behalf of the Utah Back Country Pilot Board of which I am a member.


As MountainMatt mentioned there is a proposal submitted by some outdoor-oriented corporations and supported by many environmental groups that asks the President to create a new National Monument in Utah. This new Monument would contain 2.4 million acres surrounding Canyonlands National Park and is begin called "Greater Canyonlands." Many of Utah's backcountry airstrips are in the proposed monument including: Mineral Canyon, Happy Canyon, Dirty Devil, Angel Point, Fry Canyon, Browns Rim, Dark Canyon, Simplot, Below Buckacre, Robbers Roost, Twin Coral Flats, Moqui Fork, Horseshoe Canyon, Rustler Canyon and Poison Springs. Utah Back Country Pilots is aware of this proposal and has been following its development. UBCP has also been in communication with the Recreational Aviation Foundation and contacts in Washington DC who are also following the Monument proposal. As far as we are aware, there has been no official reaction from Washington to the proposal.

At this point, it is difficult to asses the impact on back country aviation a new Monument would have, although the underlying premise of the proposal seems to generally legislate more stringent public access restrictions. Of course we oppose any new restrictions with respect to access to public lands by aviation enthusiasts. UBCP and the RAF will continue to monitor any new actions concerning this proposal and try to keep pilots informed as there are any developments. We will pass along anything we learn in the coming months, and appreciate the input and involvement by BCP members.

Feel free to contact Utah Back Country Pilot President and Utah Liaison to the RAF Steve Durtschi with questions or comments. [email protected]

UBCP Board Members

Prepared Pilot wrote:I am posting the following on behalf of the Utah Back Country Pilot Board of which I am a member.


As MountainMatt mentioned there is a proposal submitted by some outdoor-oriented corporations and supported by many environmental groups that asks the President to create a new National Monument in Utah. This new Monument would contain 2.4 million acres surrounding Canyonlands National Park and is begin called "Greater Canyonlands." Many of Utah's backcountry airstrips are in the proposed monument including: Mineral Canyon, Happy Canyon, Dirty Devil, Angel Point, Fry Canyon, Browns Rim, Dark Canyon, Simplot, Below Buckacre, Robbers Roost, Twin Coral Flats, Moqui Fork, Horseshoe Canyon, Rustler Canyon and Poison Springs. Utah Back Country Pilots is aware of this proposal and has been following its development. UBCP has also been in communication with the Recreational Aviation Foundation and contacts in Washington DC who are also following the Monument proposal. As far as we are aware, there has been no official reaction from Washington to the proposal.

At this point, it is difficult to asses the impact on back country aviation a new Monument would have, although the underlying premise of the proposal seems to generally legislate more stringent public access restrictions. Of course we oppose any new restrictions with respect to access to public lands by aviation enthusiasts. UBCP and the RAF will continue to monitor any new actions concerning this proposal and try to keep pilots informed as there are any developments. We will pass along anything we learn in the coming months, and appreciate the input and involvement by BCP members.

Feel free to contact Utah Back Country Pilot President and Utah Liaison to the RAF Steve Durtschi with questions or comments. [email protected]

UBCP Board Members

Thank you and the RAF and UBCP for the effort.
HC

Thank you Steve and Prepared Pilot for posting that. It's great to know that there are people out there with our best interests in mind. Please keep us updated and let us know if we can help in any way.

Matt

When I saw this about a month ago I was really upset. Not just because of the proposed expansion but also because of the companies that support it. Now I have to find new companies to buy almost all my outdoor gear from

Glad to hear RAF is informed and tracking it.

Would someone please post the companies that support this park expansion so the rest of us can make up our minds as to weather we will continue buying from them or to boycott them.

Rick

Here's the list of companies that cosigned this letter:

http://www.suwa.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... Letter.pdf

Outdoor Industry Association
Black Diamond Equipment
Backcountry.com
Eastern Mountain Sports
Petzl
Western Spirit Cycling
Patagonia
PROBAR LLC
Gregory Mountain Products
Mountain Hardwear
Canyon Voyages Adventure Company
Rim Tours
Teva
Moki Mac
Moab Cliffs and Canyons
Jansport
Lost River Clothing Company
Skinny Tire Events -- Road Cycling in Moab
Red Wing Shoes
Canyonlands Field Institute
Miguel’s Baja Grill
Camelbak
Magpie Adventures
Ekletica Cafe
Prana
Moab Destination Management
Moab Coffee Roasters
Osprey Packs
Horny Toad Activewear
With Gaia Design
Marmot Mountain, LLC
North Face
Nichols Expeditions
American Recreation Products
Nikwax Waterproofing
White Horse Residential Homes
Bergans USA, LLC
The Conservation Alliance
Desert Bistro
Aspen Skiing Company
Backbone Media LLC
High and Wild
Adventure Bound River Expeditions
Ute Mountaineer
Far Out Expeditions
Loki Outerwear
Whitewater West
Bryce Valley KOA Kampground
4 Corners Riversports
Pine Needle Mountaineering
Imlay Canyon Gear
Mountain Waters Rafting and Adventure Co.
Deer Hill Expeditions
Red Desert Adventures
Kling Mountain Guides
Open Sky Wilderness Therapy
Wasatch Touring
Verde PR and Consulting
Venture Snowboards
The Family Outing
New Belgium Brewing
Neptune Mountaineering
International Mountain Equipment
La Sportiva
Scarpa
Trio Restaurant Group
GTHI
The Access Fund
SOAR Communications
Stohlquist WaterWare
Outside Adventure Film School
Outdoor Utah Adventure Guide
Veterans Expeditions
Fishpond Inc.
Excalibur Distribution/DMM Inc.
American Alpine Club
Stonewear Designs
SNOCRU
NRS
Chalk Bag Specialist
Quality Bicycle Products
Asana Climbing
Wild Iris Mountain Sports
Alpine Sports
Oceanmedix.com, LLC
The Base Camp
Thompson Manufacturing Inc.
Outdoor Research
International Mountain Guides
Logan Outdoor Products/Camp Chef
Far Bank Enterprises
Mountain Gear
Ultralight Adventure Equipment
Peak Sports
Montrail
Treasure Mountain Inn
Mountain Tools
Mammoth Mountaineering Supply
Christoph & Company
Wilson’s Eastside Sports
Desert Rock Sports
Grassroots Outdoor Alliance
Midwest Mountaineering
River Sports Outfitters
Burton Snowboards
Jetboil, Incorporated
Mammut Sports Group
Penguin Brands
River Runner Outdoor Center
Pack and Paddle
Pack Rat Outdoor Center
Rabbit Mountain
Equip
Exped

The list of businesses hoping to benefit financially by petitioning the president for a new monument designation goes on to state in their suggested letter format all the other business type interests they hope to deprive of future access. One business's interest is then supposed to be somehow greater to the national interest than the other they oppose? Like their business dollars are more important to the economy than the dollars of another business. This list of companies who want to make money off the designation seems to have nothing in common with the their reasons stated for the proposed protection.(I reference the link provided by glidergeek) Because of business opposing business I find it hard to take them seriously in their case for the designation. The list of businesses suggests involvement in what looks more like a case of Citizens United gone wrong.

A letter in support of preserving present status with many uses that serve the recreation minded public while conserving and reserving both mineral and natural resources for this and future generations would be my suggested approach. It should come from individuals and the organizations of those individuals who do actually use this area or ever hope to. Businesses soliciting for business does not serve the same end as a petition for the public good. Statement not rant.

Dirtstrip, please do a Google search on SUWA and you'll quickly find that these people do not have the normal US citizen in mind. They are very "extreme" in their views and approaches. BUT, they have money, and lots of it.

As previous resident and having worked for and worked with a number of the companies on the list, I can say there is a large threat to their business from land extract interests. Land extraction is short term and keeping open space for land recreation is long term. I would hate most of the area to fall victim to more oil/gas/etc as nothing worse than landing at a back country airstrip to be greated by an natural gas rig. My opinion is that getting involved on a positive note, not bashing will have the greatest effect to insure strips stay open.

Aviation should not be lumped into OHV crowd.

Flame away.

29singlespeed wrote:My opinion is that getting involved on a positive note, not bashing will have the greatest effect to insure strips stay open.

I agree. It's not the effort to protect an area from the kind of jaw-dropping extractive industy impacts that scar less sensitive areas in the region that is concerning. It's uneven messaging from the sponsor. SUWA has proclaimed airstrips as highly unwelcome on the one hand:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/744074/Hansen-bill-tosses-airstrips-into-Utah-wilderness-battle.html?pg=all

...and proclaiming how nice they are with the other hand:

http://www.suwa.org/2012/09/27/a-glorious-weekend-in-the-san-rafael-swell/

So I'm left scratching my head. But can anyone point out where back country airstrips have been allowed under Park management? I can't recall any...perhaps others can chime in (and I'm not talking about Bullfrog or other developed strips).

Their message simply doesn't seem clear on this issue...perhaps someone could contact SUWA and the NPS and find out from the get-go what the policy stance is going in to a proposed change.

Red Tail Aviation should be on that list to have a voice. I will bring it up to people I know their - since they all play in the canyonlands when not flying.

lesuther wrote: But can anyone point out where back country airstrips have been allowed under Park management? I can't recall any...perhaps others can chime in (and I'm not talking about Bullfrog or other developed strips).

The Chicken Strip in DVNP and multiple strips in the Wrangell St. Elias: http://www.nps.gov/wrst/planyourvisit/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=305390 come to mind.

CAVU