Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

SUWA Again!

Recommended Posts

SUWA is up to their tricks again. They have been seeking names of people who claim they did not visit certain areas in Southern Utah because the areas were "overrun" with OHV users. They want to use this information to try and convince local businesses that they would attract more dollars to their economy if OHV users were removed from public lands and replaced with non-motorized land users.

They also want to report these names to the BLM office as evidence that OHV users are not only damaging the wilderness but they are bad for local economies.

If you have been to Southern Utah recently, indicate where you went and about how much money you spent in the local community and I will send a total number of visitors and total dollars spent number to the local BLM office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to Southern Utah too many times to count for riding purposes and have spent too much dinerito (the green stuff) to put a $ amount to! I went to Dixie College for two years and that's what my buddies and I did for entertainment and as an escape from school! We've ridden all over, we used to love the Sand Hollow area but since it's become a state park there's too much damn traffic and the rangers are pricks! We ride all over in the Bloomington Hills and the old race track. We love that area! Please let me know what I can do to help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a post this winter that directed you to the Governor's questionaire about recreational use, money spent, where etc. What happened with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Hanksville count? I know that they liked us making the trek out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just there about three weeks ago, I spent atleast $150 dollars there in St. George.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just there with sako and my family spent around 1200 bucks :applause: I could have piped my bike... oh well it was fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utahfire,

Moab. April this year. 8 of us from out of state (CA). We spent over 3,500. Condos, Resturants, Gas, and..um...welding shops. :applause:

Good luck. Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should conduct our own survey :-)

This is so stupid, how much polution in this world is from OHV vehicles, this is BS, they just want to sell the land to these large industries that will cut down the trees and develop new businesses and houses in the area,these rich guys out there are in for money and have power and are trying to get rid of our riding places, that's BS!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy if you were trying to get me fired up that link to the ksl website and the polls just did a good job! Those damn bastards always get their poll numbers skewed in their favor. I'm all for the sharing of trails and respect and ediqite for one another but these guys seem to want all the land for themselves and not want to allow us to ride! We need to do more to protect our trails!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Dan Jones poll is interesting. I am writing Dan Jones to get the questions that were asked, sample size, demographics and methods. The news loves to quote polls as fact. One thing about getting a Masters degree in statistics demonstrated to me is that a well crafted "poll" can prove any point you want.

Also interesting is that 75% of Utahns polled did not participate in OHV activities on public lands. What I would want to know is what percent of these Utahns never do anything on public lands. Do you think they are all hiking on these lands. I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts I commented to Dan Jones on was exactly that. Who is going to hike in 30-60 miles to visit Utahs serenity? How many fat*ss Utahns can even hike 30 - 60 miles. There are designated OHV trails throughout Utahs serenity... this is practically the only way to visit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never believe in statistics, it's all bull. Especiall newspaper and news statistics, it's bull. They have some stupid intern run a survey by some losers politicians and people who want to build houses and businesses where OHV sites exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked to the Dan Jones "project leader" on this SUWA poll. He was very informative. It was just as I suspected. SUWA designed the poll and owns all rights to it. A careful examination of the questions shows they were designed to get the response they wanted. Most of the questions were worded in such a way that most people would agree with them. For example, most people are going to agree that open space is important and that "some" areas need to be protected. I agree with that. However, there were conveniently no questions about how large an area should be "protected". SUWA wants over 9 million acres of Utah's most prime land designated as wilderness. There were no were no questions like "would you support restricting 9 million acres of Utah's most beautiful backcountry to all but hikers and horses (no mountain bikes)"? Or "do you think historically popular OHV areas should be closed even if it meant many rural businesses would have to close and people would be out of work?" Here is one for you; "Do you agree that long time existing trails and roads should be closed even though the most hardy hiker would physically not be able to access many areas?" And my favorite; "Do you support higher taxes to make up for the lost revenue which is currently being paid by OHV registration and OHV property taxes?"

The biggest problem with this poll is the conclusions that were made. SUWA thinks that this poll shows that large areas should be closed to all but hikers and horse back riders. Most OHV users see this as a problem of OHV community education, and improved public land management.

Some of the other problems with this "poll" are:

-Questions were "designed" for a specific response.

-Too small sample size (438) to be statistically significant.

-No breakdown by gender.

-No explanation was given that the "wilderness" SUWA is taking about is a legal definition which is the most restrictive land use definition that exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...