Utah BLM closing around 1/3rd of the trail miles near Moab

[Apparition]

BlueRibbon Coalition Announces Support for Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act​

SALT LAKE CITY - Today BlueRibbon Coalition announced its support for the Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act, which was introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Mike Lee (R) UT. The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) is a national 501c3 that advocates for Americans to be able to access and enjoy the benefits of outdoor recreation on public lands. BRC represents hundreds of thousands of outdoor recreation enthusiasts through its individual and organization membership program. The Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act would require federal land managers to analyze and evaluate the impact of road closures on Americans with disabilities. Motorized recreation creates meaningful access to the health and social benefits of outdoor recreation, and restrictions on motorized access create a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on Americans with disabilities. Land managers are not currently required to analyze the impacts of motorized route closures on disabled Americans, and the legislation would require land managers to maintain route density targets on public lands that would balance the needs of disabled Americans with other management priorities. "On behalf of our members with disabilities, I would like to thank Senator Lee for his leadership on this issue. Federal land managers are required to analyze the impacts of their decisions on dirt, but they have no requirement to ensure that their decisions don't hurt disabled Americans. Every time decisions are announced to close more of our backcountry roads, I hear from our disabled Americans that they feel discriminated against and ignored. Our federal land managers need strong guidance form Congress to manage our public lands in a way that benefits all Americans, and this legislation provides necessary and powerful protections." Ben Burr - Executive Director, BlueRibbon Coalition “As President of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, it has been very disappointing to watch the unprecedented amount of public land closures to motorized vehicle use over the past few years. These closures do not contemplate the diverse needs of those who use the land. I am excited to see this piece of legislation from Senator Mike Lee. We all have a right to enjoy public lands and this is a sure step in the right direction and an obvious solution to the challenge of access to those with disabilities.” Ranch Pratt - President, BlueRibbon Coalition Read the statements of support from numerous other outdoor recreation organizations and disabled spokespersons: https://www.sharetrails.org/release-blueribbon-coalition-announces-support-for-outdoor-americans-with-disabilities-act/ Read more information, the full text of the bill, and encourage your members of Congress to support this important piece of legislation: https://www.sharetrails.org/support-the-outdoor-americans-with-disabilities-act/

 

[Wildman]

Important developments are underway this week as the District Court in Salt Lake City has approved a joint motion to consolidate BlueRibbon Coalition’s lawsuit with the State of Utah’s legal action. This consolidation means that our case will now proceed along with the State of Utah as co-plaintiffs. This marks a significant step forward in our efforts to protect and preserve access to our public lands. The consolidation with the State of Utah case strengthens the case and brings additional expertise to challenge the Moab trail closures. Key dates have been adjusted in this legal challenge to accommodate the consolidation. BlueRibbon Coalition and the State of Utah will submit their Opening Briefs on September 6, 2024. This will be a critical opportunity for us to present our arguments and evidence in a comprehensive manner. Following this, the defendants will submit their Response Briefs on November 5, 2024. This exchange of briefs will set the stage for the next phase of the legal process. As the year progresses, we anticipate significant developments in this case. Our legal team is working tirelessly behind the scenes, preparing for the upcoming deadlines and strategizing for the challenges ahead. This is a complex and demanding effort, and we are committed to fighting for the interests of our members and the broader community. We could not undertake this important work without the steadfast support of our members. Your contributions, engagement, and advocacy are invaluable to our mission. Together, we are making a difference and standing up for the rights of recreation enthusiasts and public land users. Thank you for being a part of this journey with us. We will continue to keep you updated on the progress of the case and any new developments as they arise. Your support fuels our determination and success. Ben Burr Executive Director

 

[Apparition]

 

[Apparition]

A Historic and Potentially Transformative Lawsuit: Utah Claims Federal Land Ownership Unconstitutional​ ​ ​

This week I was invited to attend a public announcement and press conference for a major public lands lawsuit that was filed by the State of Utah. The complaint that was filed directly to the Supreme Court, makes the claim that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to hold and manage public land indefinitely that is not already appropriated for any of the federal government’s enumerated powers. As a result, the lawsuit contests that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to own 18.5 million acres of Utah’s over 37 million acres of public land. If Utah wins this challenge, the federal government will still retain ownership of National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, Military Installations, and federal buildings - which amounts to 18.8 million acres still left in federal control. The complaint was written by Paul Clement, who is one of the most talented and successful attorneys at winning major cases - such as this one - before the Supreme Court. I think it’s worth 20 minutes for everyone to read through the complaint to better understand the Constitutional questions that are being raised: >>>> Read the Complaint Here <<<<​ The questions I have, and that many of our members likely have, is if Utah prevails, what will this mean for public access to these lands in Utah moving forward? Here are my key takeaways: If Utah wins it would dramatically change land ownership in all Western states. If FLPMA is unconstitutional, then the relief Utah is seeking would apply to all states where the federal government is indefinitely holding unappropriated lands. Each state will likely react in their own unique ways. The fight for access to this land will continue, but it will shift to new battlefields The federal government has been no friend to maintaining broad and diverse recreation access to public lands. It is currently susceptible to substantial capture by numerous special interest groups that want to close millions of acres of public land. Federal land managers in Washington D.C. are constantly conjuring up new regulatory and administrative tools to restrict public access and meet the demands of their environmentalist lawyer overlords. They are forced to divert their resources to lawsuits, never-ending environmental planning, and kicking against the pricks of the mismanagement that results from all of this in the form of fighting catastrophic wildfires. We fight the best we can to preserve the interests of our members in this system that is fundamentally flawed as it chases terrible incentives. We would welcome any change that breaks the monopolization of federal control of these lands that also allows them to continue to be managed as public lands. The complaint is relatively quiet about what will happen to these lands if Utah wins The complaint seeks relief in the form of essentially declaring unconstitutional the provisions of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 that state that it is the policy of the United States to hold unappropriated federal public land indefinitely. As such, relief would require the federal government to dispose of these lands. The complaint cites historical precedents that suggest the lands would be disposed to the either the State of Utah or private individuals. It’s too early to say what that would look like, but even in this period where the policy is indefinite retention of federal lands, there are disposal programs that allow federal lands to be given to Alaskan Native American veterans or to the city of Las Vegas. A decision in favor of Utah would require new policies to be developed to determine the future of how these lands would be allocated. The State of Utah would most likely retain for itself the vast majority of these lands. Utah leaders recognize the value of outdoor recreation in many rural Utah communities, and they would likely manage these lands in a way that would expand and enhance outdoor recreation. Utah manages state parks that get visitation levels and economic impact levels of even the largest national parks, and it would likely find ways to prioritize outdoor recreation just like it has with its state managed lands. Utah’s complaint cites the financial damages that it suffers because the United States reaps all the financial benefits of mineral development on these lands, so Utah clearly wants to play a bigger role in natural resource utilization. There are abundant examples of natural resource utilization and outdoor recreation being uses that can both exist on the same landscape. The complaint doesn’t require privatization of these lands, but it also wouldn’t prevent it. The biggest privatization threats to public lands right now are the BLM’s illegal conservation leasing rule and the proposals like Natural Asset Companies, which would have privatized even the National Parks. Conclusion Overall, if you like how Sand Hollow is managed better than how Labyrinth Rims is managed through excessive unnecessary closures, then Utah winning this lawsuit will be a good thing. The Constitutional questions are important, and Western states with lands dominated by federal control deserve to have these questions addressed. If Utah wins, we will likely see efforts at BRC shift away from federal lawsuits to a deeper focus on state policies. Because the complaint excludes lands included in National Monuments, National Parks, and National Forests, challenges with the federal government will continue. BRC is currently a co-plaintiff with the State of Utah in our challenge to the federal government’s abuse of the Antiquities Act, which is in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. We are also partners with them in the challenge to the federal government’s trail closures in Labyrinth Rims in Moab. If we were to judge by the lawsuits we are already fighting together, we believe we could work well with the State of Utah and its current leaders in creating a bright future for these lands if they prevail in this case.

Defend Your Ground, Ben Burr Executive Director

[td]

[/td]
[td]

[/td]​

 

[Apparition]

​ [td] Save Moab Milestone: BRC Files Opening Brief in Federal Court​ We are excited to share an important milestone in our fight to overturn the closure of 317 miles of our trails in Moab. After several months spent reviewing thousands of pages of records BlueRibbon Coalition, and our legal team at Texas Public Policy Foundation, filed our opening brief against the Bureau of Land Management in federal court this week. This last Tuesday while Americans were tuned into the election, our legal team put the finishing touches on our exhaustive arguments that expose many of the deficiencies in the BLM’s plan. We encourage our members and supporters to read it. Here are some highlights of our case: Constitutional Violation: We argue that BLM’s decision violates the U.S. Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Only properly appointed officials should have the power to decide such impactful closures, especially when the closures carry substantial penalties for those who enter these areas. Illegal Buffer Zone: By closing popular routes such as Hey Joe Canyon and Dead Cow Loop, the BLM’s plan violates the Dingell Act by effectively creating a “buffer zone” around the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness. Our legal team highlights that Congress specifically forbids using restrictive management in non-wilderness areas to limit noise and visual impacts to wilderness areas, yet BLM’s decision does exactly that. Arbitrary Closures: The closures are not only unconstitutional but also arbitrary. They disregard essential Congressional mandates that require BLM to prioritize public recreation, and we document numerous instances where routes were unjustifiably closed despite no evidence of environmental harm. Environmental Policy Concerns: Finally, the plan bypassed essential requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Such a sweeping decision should have undergone a full Environmental Impact Statement due to the significant implications for the human environment. Ignoring Recreation Mandates: Our lawsuit highlights that BLM's decision fails to consider the statutory mandate to prioritize recreational access on public lands, a point reinforced by a recent Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron Deference precedent. This landmark decision emphasizes that agencies cannot disregard specific Congressional instructions—yet, by treating all use as inherently harmful, BLM’s approach effectively ignores the directive to balance recreation with conservation. The State of Utah also filed their opening brief on the same day, which we have also made available for you to read. The federal government has until January 10, 2025 to reply to our brief, which will be the next step in this challenge. We believe many recent changes in legal precedents and a strong shift in political winds bode well for the future of this challenge. We are proud to stand on the front lines to defend our access to our public lands, and our active engagement has positioned us to be ready to take advantage of recent opportunities. Texas Public Policy Foundation has done exceptional work as our partners in this case. >>>Read the Brief<<<​ This legal action isn’t just about trails; it’s about preserving the rights of Americans to experience and enjoy their lands for generations to come. Your support is what makes our work possible. Together, we’re pushing back against unnecessary restrictions and closures to ensure that everyone has the chance to experience the beauty and adventure of these landscapes. Thank you for standing with us. Defend Your Ground! Ben Burr Executive Director ​

​

[/td]

 

[Apparition]

 

[Stinkbug]

Which side of this issue does the city of Moab fall? I imagine the off-road community is one of the largest, if not the largest, contributor to their local economy,

 

[NashvilleTJ]

Which side of this issue does the city of Moab fall? I imagine the off-road community is one of the largest, if not the largest, contributor to their local economy,

Definitely against. Their main position is that the closure is a federal overstep, and that these decisions should be left to the state / local governments.

 

[1904-06LJR]

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7445835204347956522

 

[Apparition]

Link here if you don’t like the color

https://mailchi.mp/sharetrails.org/weekly-newsletter-issue-102?e=7cc79dd8a3

12 Days of Legal Updates - Day 12 -​ ​ The Next Steps for a Grand Reopening of Moab​ ​

At 3:12 p.m. on New Years Eve, the BLM in Utah released their final decision for the San Rafael Swell, which announced the closure of 665 miles of routes in that area. That is more than double the number of routes that were closed in Moab a little over a year earlier. The most common question we see after closures like this are announced is “why did they decide to close these routes?” Our comment threads are filled with debates discussing theoretical impacts and justifications. During the last year, our work has uncovered the real reasons we are seeing these closures. On November 5 we filed our Motion for Summary Judgment in our challenge to the Moab closures. This was completed after spending the summer reviewing an administrative record that included over 40,000 pages of documents. We also spent the fall navigating combining our challenge with the challenge from the State of Utah while incorporating new legal precedents. You can review our opening brief here:

While we identified numerous legal problems with the Moab plan, one of the legal arguments we researched throughly was that the BLM was arbitrary and capricious - or in other words, they didn’t base their decision on valid information. For example, one of the criteria we looked at was the BLM’s claims that it was protecting scenic/visual resources by closing routes. One of the routes that BLM insists it needed to close to protect the scenic values of the area was route D1652. Here is a satellite image of route D1652 (the route in red) that gives you an idea of the kinds of important scenic values that could only be protected by closing the route:

Here is a close-up of the route to give you a clearer picture of the other disturbances that are in the area:

This route basically runs adjacent to what appears to be a dumping/storage area for oil and gas infrastructure. The experts at the BLM spent years analyzing every route in this plan and concluded that they needed to close a primitive two-track road that accesses this site to protect the scenery. That was their primary reason for closing the route. Nonsense like this wasn’t just limited to this route. Once you apply this basic level of scrutiny to many of the hundreds of routes that were closed, the justifications for the plan fall apart. The state reasons for closure just do not match the reality of what’s happening on the ground. We put together a strong case that this plan wasn’t based on justifiable application of information analyzed by those with expertise. It appears that these closures were motivated by something else. We also made the argument that the Moab closures violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution that requires major executive actions to be decided by those appointed by the President - not some local field manager of the BLM. If you’re wondering if the BLM is worried about this argument, unlike the Moab plan, the San Rafael Swell plan wasn’t signed by a local manager in Utah. The plan for the Swell was signed by Steve Feldgus, who is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, who works in Washington D.C. Steve Feldgus was a former staffer for one of the most radical anti-access members of Congress, and he is a direct report to the Secretary of the Interior. For years we’ve been told that local managers and experts who know the land best are the ones who make these decisions, but now we know that was all just a lie. These decisions have always been political decisions made by leaders in Washington D.C. who have little to no connection to the lands they close and the communities they hurt. Their allegiance is to a political agenda. The reason these trails are being closed has nothing to do with protecting scenery, or soils, or vegetation. All of those things can be protected through reasonable management solutions that still keep trails open. The BLM is scheduled to respond to our initial brief next week, and our litigation will move forward over the coming weeks. The release of the San Rafael Swell plan will likely increase the urgency for the new Congress to pass the Historic Roadways Protection Act to defund these plans. New leaders at the Department of Interior will likely have very different priorities than the current anti-access folks that are there now, and they could reverse many of the bad decisions we’ve seen in recent years. We’ve said from the beginning that we will exhaust all options to get these trails back open, and that is going to continue to be our plan moving forward. We don’t think the Moab closures or the San Rafael Swell closures will be permanent. We set a fundraising goal to raise $150,000 in the month of December to help us hit the ground running in 2025. With some strong results in the last few days of the month, we significantly exceeded our goal, and we are rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. Thank you all for your support for the Grand Reopening of our public lands!

[td]

[/td]​

[td]

[/td]​

[td]

[td]

Read the Brief​

[/td]​

[/td]​

[td]

[/td]​

[td]

[/td]​

 

[Apparition]

Moab Update:​

On March 7, BlueRibbon Coalition and the State of Utah filed two response briefs on our legal challenge to reopen the 317 miles of roads that were closed in Moab.



These briefs were a response to briefs filed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.



We have had recent inquiries about the progress of this case, and it is moving forward. We invite your all to read it to see first-hand how we are fighting hard with our partners at Texas Public Policy Foundation to restore your access to these cherished trails.

>> Read the Brief Here <<​

 

[Apparition]

Link https://mailchi.mp/sharetrails.org/weekly-newsletter-issue-118?e=7cc79dd8a3

The Truth About Moab’s Road Closures​

[td] [td] ​ ​ [td] ​ ​ [td] ​ ​

We’re sending this newsletter a day late, because our team has been busy through the weekend. We had a strong presence at the Boise Off-Road Expo. I also spent the last two weekends in Moab to attend Easter Jeep Safari and Cruise Moab. I am grateful for the support we get from these events and their members. I also always enjoy exploring new areas in Moab, and I took several days to go document the status of several of the trails we are fighting to reopen. We have our next court date in the fight to reopen the 317 miles of trails that were closed in Moab on May 22. As we’ve reviewed the record of why the trails in Moab were closed and discussed the history of the public feedback process with locals, there are two important documents that truly illustrate why these trails were closed. The first was a letter sent by the Grand County Commission on May 18, 2021. It’s worth noting that at the time the commission was controlled by representatives who sympathized with wilderness advocates. They generally adopted aggressive anti-motorized recreation positions. In the letter they encouraged BLM to close routes in canyon bottoms, along canyon rims, and within the Green River corridor. They also asked BLM to close routes in riparian areas. They also included this guiding principle, that needs to be directly quoted: “The west side of the Labyrinth Canyon is designated wilderness, and Grand County has endorsed wilderness for the east side in the past. We think the travel plan should be consistent with a likely future wilderness designation in Labyrinth Canyon.” As I’ve documented the closed routes, almost all of the best routes that were closed fall in the category being routes that lead to scenic dispersed campsites on canyon rims and trails that explore the bottoms of canyons. They also aggressively closed all motorized routes that provide primitive motorized access within the Green River corridor - even though Congress designated this portion of the Green River to allow primitive motorized access. We’ve also said all along that the primary reason these routes were closed was because the wilderness advocates want to turn the vast majority of this area into a designated wilderness area where no motorized access would be allowed. According to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance’s introduction to what “wilderness” is, these two definitions are important: “The Wilderness Act prohibits such activities as mining, chaining, water development, and timber harvest (although mining may occur where there is a valid pre-existing right to mine). The Wilderness Act also prohibits use of motorized vehicles in wilderness except under emergency circumstances. This means that chain saws, trucks, cars, bulldozers, off-road vehicles, helicopters, and other motorized equipment cannot be used within wilderness areas. Mountain bikes are not permitted in wilderness areas.” “Wilderness areas are defined as roadless areas on public lands that have been designated by Congress to be preserved in a primitive condition.”

It is clear from Grand County’s letter, that designating a substantial portion of this area as wilderness has always been the long term goal. But there is a huge problem with wanting to turn areas with hundreds or even thousands of miles of roads into wilderness. In order for this to occur, the area has to be roadless, as SUWA has pointed out. Curiously, SUWA’s guideline document for wilderness also says this: Only areas which are currently roadless and undeveloped qualify for wilderness designation. Areas with constructed, regularly maintained roads do not qualify for wilderness and are not included in the Citizens’ Wilderness Proposal for Utah, (America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act.) Yet, when you look at their proposed map for the America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, you see that this is a complete and total lie.

The brown areas in this map contain thousands of miles of constructed, regularly maintained roads. These are at very areas where we are currently in litigation to keep these constructed, regularly maintained roads open. Ultimately these closures aren’t about protecting soils, or vegetation, or wildlife, or reducing user conflict, or preventing damage to landscapes. These closures are an attempt by wilderness advocates and their allies in the government to make their lies come true about these areas being roadless. We need your help to spread the truth about these wilderness proposals by taking action to oppose the Red Rock Wilderness Protection Act today. Defend Your Ground, Ben Burr

[td]

​

[/td]​

[td]

​

[/td]​

​

[/td]

[/td]

[/td]

[/td]

[td]

​

[/td]​

 

[Apparition]

https://blueribboncoalition.org/sav...omply-with-the-explore-act-and-reopen-trails/

 

[OffroadTreks]

Actually, FUCKing Side by Sides.

This. Times a million. I was on Metal Masher when some asshat rides up and goes "looks like this is where you turn around" then proceed to go around the obstacle through bushes and off trail. I'm like WTF dude!

Side by Sides in Moab are bad. Mostly blame rentals as no one gets proper education and everyone thinks rip roaring in them is what you do.

 

[MBDIAGMAN]

It’s pretty interesting that us and our jeeps are so tough that we are able to damage indestructible rocks.

I remember in the early 70s the complaints of the desert racing damaging the desert. That was equally ridiculous because there’s nothing in the desert where we were racing that could be damaged.

It’s about control of the people.

 

[Apparition]

Not Moab

 

[Apparition]

Link to their link below.

https://blueribboncoalition.org/support-the-grand-reopening-of-our-off-road-trails-in-moab/

 

[sab]

Comments sent!

 

[Abendage]

Comments sent!

 

[Apparition]

https://mailchi.mp/blueribboncoalition.org/weekly-newsletter-issue-10230084?e=7cc79dd8a3