By designating the “Greater Canyonlands” area as a national monument, it would no doubt close areas to responsible motorized use, and people who would not be able to enjoy the area by any other means would be denied access to the wonders and beauty within the area.
Many of the companies that signed on to this letter, based on their responses to us, are under the impression that this letter was only to address the problem of resource extraction, rather than to attack off-road vehicle use. However, the letter clearly states: “Federal land use plans inappropriately open scenic and undeveloped land to drilling and mining and fail to address exploding off-road vehicle use that is damaging riparian areas, cultural sites, soils and solitude.”
How can the off-highway vehicle community get behind this? How can anyone who is agreeable to fair/equal access for all types of recreation agree with this letter? Have you reviewed the list of 114 companies behind this letter and asked why not one creates or sells products specific to motorized vehicular recreation? Why was there never a discussion with the off-road community if there really is a motivation for a balanced approach to managing the land for all types of recreation?
Why didn’t the OIA ask motorized off-road businesses to be involved in formulating this letter since nearly half of the quoted $646 billion/year in outdoor recreation spending comes from motorized recreation? (See 2012 OIA - Outdoor Economy Report, page 18.) Several of the companies that originally signed the letter are now researching the issue and at least one, Camp Chef, has asked to be removed from this letter.
Additionally, as a corporation in Utah, we cannot, in good conscience, support any business that would knowingly exclude people such as our elderly parents, disabled veterans and/or anyone else with special needs from enjoying what this great land has to offer. In the future, we will look to support only businesses and organizations that openly promote inclusive and responsible land use.