Here is a reprint of a Utah Trail Machine Association newsletter article on the Dixie RMP. The deadline has been extended to May:

DIXIE revisited.....

The Dixie Resource area occupies roughly the boundaries of Washington Country. Area managers began the planning process for a new Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 1986. The draft plan was completed in 1990. The legendary apathy of motorized users was elevated to new heights by the fact that not a single comment letter on our behalf was sent from inside Utah. In fact, the only pro motorized comment at all came from our friends to the north, the Blue Ribbon coalition. That plan would have reduced the area open to OHV#s from 496,000 acres to 53,000 acres and would have greatly increased the area limited to designated routes only. Due to appeals to the draft from Blue Ribbon Coalition, the UTMA, as well as environmental organizations, the plan was shelved and another five years spent on further studies. During this time, no effort was made to contact any of the motorized interest appellants for input and guidance. Now a new draft plan has emerged that is even worse than the original. The preferred alternative would reduce the open acreage from 496,000 to 2,000. No, this is not a misprint. Two thousand acres! And it is likely that most of this will be inundated following the construction of a dam. Talk about a dam plan. It will also geatly increase the size of closed areas and areas accessible through designated routs only. We don#t like designated routes very much because most of the time the designationa re made by people who don#t ride and don#t like riders. The BLM tells us that we should not mind sacrificing open access for confinement to existing and designated roads and trails. After all, they say, it#s not a good idea to go blasting across delicate and sensitive desert sand. We have to save the earth, you know. We should be happy with what we are being offered. Her are some of the problems with this reasoning:

1. They identify no prolems with current usage. Instead of suggesting closures in specific areas with documented impacts, they want to close it all.

2. Restricting open areas to existing routes only prevents the creation of new routes to serve user needds, and thereby reduces legitimate access.

3. This is just the first step towar total closure; a little sugar to make the p poison go down. Open areas are degraded to existing routes, then designated routes, then closed.

4. The plan applies only to motor vehicles, not to those other OHV#s that have been swarming over the land lately: bicycles. In this way it is blatantly discriminatory, since mountain bikes have much the same, if not, more impact on the ground as motorcycles. We have suggested to the BLM that they form some new, updated, OHV classifications in which bicycles and motorcycles be grouped together, but they don#t seem to be very interested.

So mountain bikers will continue to have unimpeded access to all these lands while we should be content to accept massive and continuing restrictions. Each and every one of us needs to get involved in this plan and comment on the draft. Below is a chart that compares the four alternatives that the BLM has provided for us and for the bicyclists. Alternative A, also dubbed the Ano action@ alternative represents the current status. The C Alternative is what the staff of the BLM would like to implement. Alternative D is included to make C look slightly less radical. Look at theses difference between A and C., showing just how bad C really is: C would reduce open areas from 496,000 acres to 2000 acres, a reduction of 99.6%. C would increase closed areas from 36,000 acres to 210,000 acres, an increas of 580%. C would increase areas open to designated routes only from 100 acres to 78,000 acres, an increase of 7800%. Is any substantive evidence presented to document a need for such sweeping changes? Absolutely not! These punishing changes are being proposed solely due to pressure from anti-OHV environmental groups who have a hatred of our form of recreation. Therefore, we must convince the BLM that we are not willing to give up our legitimate access without a fight. Each and every UTMA member eneds to submit a comment letter on this plan. It#s the only hope we have of turning the situation around. If we succeed here, future efforts such as the Henry Mountain RMP are likely to be more successful. The most effective letters are those you compose yourself. Listed below are some of the important points to emphasize.

1. You are a member of the UTMA and use the public lands for recreation.
2. You are addressing the issue of OHV use designations.
3. You feel that everyone has the right to access public lands, not just the young, strong, or those who wish to walk.
4. Alternative C represents a drastic break from past management practices, without presenting any evidence why such action is necessary.
5. The plan is flawed because it ignores the largest segmentof OHV activity: Mountain bicycles.
6. Mountain bicycles and motorcycles should be placed in a single classificaiton due to the similarity of their impacts on the ground.
7. Motorized users were ignored and/or excluded in the planning process.
8. You support alternative A, you oppose Alternative C and D.
9. You oppose creating additional Areas of Critical Environmental Concern because they are often used as a pretext to deny vehicular travel.
10. You oppose the designation of Awild and scenic rivers because they are nothing more than a Waterworld version of widerness.

Address your letter to David Everett:

David Everett
Dixie Resource Area
Bureau of Land Management
345 East Riverside Dr.
St. George, UT 84790