The stacking of comment periods for six different plans on top of each other last fall was a new low in BLM's public participation efforts, no doubt at the orders of the Bush administration. For those of us reviewing the plans in our spare time, it meant less time to look at site-specific issues and find constructive solutions.

To answer his question this 'we' does want continued access to public lands by those who can only access it using off road vehicles. I follow good 'no trace' policies and am a good steward of this rare and beautiful land that I have love. Yes, I do want to be able to use this land now and set it up for my children and grand children to come!

Lets quit playing the blame game on Bush and the oil industry. The oil industry is by a better steward of public land than all the environmental groups combined. Take a good close look at Al Gore and tell try to tell me he is an environmentalist. Bush admistration would not give any such orders. Take a good long look at your self and luxuries you enjoy
lights, running water, and a vehicle to drive. Everything was done legal and by the book.

Call it what it is: No blue collar riff raff! In other words sea kayaking and hiking: YES@ But off-roading and hunting: NO! This "environmentalism" is nothing less than yet another battle in the culture war. It is also most similar to the enclosures in England where we serfs were moved off the land so that the Lords could make a better profit. But in this ridiculous case, we are being prohibited from using the public land only so that the Lords can go out onto the land and read Emerson, Whitman, and Thoreau unmolested by we hoi palloi. If you, my fellow fools, continue to buy into the idea that big, bad republicans are trying to pull a fast one and that Mr. Clinton's former aide is somehow here to help you, don't be surprised when you are left with nothing more than the "right" to travel from your home, to work, and then home again on your bicycle and have to get a permit costing over a week's pay to go anywhere else... all in the name of "environmentalism"!

Hurray! Most of the protected land in our state is really only accessible via off road vehicles. Let's make it more accessible, not less.

I'm tired of out of staters trying to control how we want to use our land.

I'm in favor of more aceess.

Yikes, another hit on the next generation by the evil conservatives, but on the positive side, can't these short sided policies be thrown out by the incoming Obama administration?

Hooray for the Bush Adminisration. Finally doing something right.

I remember the gift that Pres. Clinton left us here in Utah in his 11th hour, the Grand Staircase, hopefully Bush will be successful and balance the scale a bit as he leaves office. Most articles I read in the D-News having to do with land use portray the OHV enthusiast as the bad guy. I am curious to know why. I have been a public land users for 43 years and have raised my kids to be responsible. All the people I associate with that use public lands are very responsible and aware of the potential impact of misuse. Anyone that has been to Arches and hiked the trails know that there will always be a few choice individuals that leave the designated trails and damage surroundings. Does that mean we close the entire park to foot traffic? STAY IN YOUR VEHICLES ON PAVED SURFACES!

Your comments aren't persuasive. ATVs get a lot of bad press because of the long-lasting and vividly obvious damage they do to soil, water, and vegetation. After 20 years of foot traffic and horse traffic into the Uintas, the meadows I visit aren't noticeably suffering. But one year of ATV lawlessness creates massive erosion that won't be healed for years.