Inclusive land use...
Dec 06, 2012 | 3289 views | 0 0 comments | 26 26 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Let us voice our great disappointment with the Outdoor Industry Association’s letter, how it was formulated and how it was presented. We, like everyone on both sides of this letter, enjoy Utah because of its diverse recreational opportunities, some of which involve motorized off-road vehicle use.

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.

—Olaf Kilthau


Copyright 2013 The Times-Independent. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

report abuse...

Express yourself:

We're glad to give readers a forum to express their points of view on issues important to this community. That forum is the “Letters to the Editor.” Letters to the editor may be submitted directly to The Times-Independent through this link and will be published in the print edition of the newspaper. All letters must be the original work of the letter writer – form letters will not be accepted. All letters must include the actual first and last name of the letter writer, the writer’s address, city and state and telephone number. Anonymous letters will not be accepted.

Letters may not exceed 400 words in length, must be regarding issues of general interest to the community, and may not include personal attacks, offensive language, ethnic or racial slurs, or attacks on personal or religious beliefs. Letters should focus on a single issue. Letters that proselytize or focus on theological debates will not be published. During political campaigns, The Times-Independent will not publish letters supporting or opposing any local candidate. Thank you letters are generally not accepted for publication unless the letter has a public purpose. Thank you letters dealing with private matters that compliment or complain about a business or individual will not be published. Nor will letters listing the names of individuals and/or businesses that supported a cause or event. Thank you letters about good Samaritan acts will be considered at the discretion of the newspaper.