This seems to have been a bad summer for a lot of Moab merchants. Many Main Street businesses are reporting drops in sales. There is genuine concern out there that tourism is falling off, although visitation increases at Arches would hardly support such a notion. At the same time, Moab has been getting some negative press lately. From The Salt Lake Tribune to magazines like Inside. Outside..Southwest, we seem to have lost our charm.

What a surprise.

Rob Schultheis, in Inside. Outside, wrote that "Moab doesn't look like it fell off the back of a truck anymore; now it look like it fell off a thousand trucks. It's Big Sprawl instead of Little Sprawl. And boy are there a lot of people there. People and stuff. Too much of both."

For the purely economics-minded, profit/loss, bottom line type, the problem in Moab lately is that there is more stuff than there are people to buy the stuff. The town is overbuilt. There are more retail businesses than can survive a fluctuating tourist economy (and in a tourist economy, fluctuation IS the norm).

And most importantly, we have lost the weird, funky charm that made us an attraction in the first place.

Once again, I think it's worth remembering what Moab was like ten years ago. At the turn of the last decade, Moab was an ex-uranium town that had fallen on some hard times. A couple of ex-miners named Bill and Robin Groff were the unlikely promoters of a bicycle shop and the sport of mountain biking took off like a rocket. While the locals (including this grouch) grumbled and groaned about these lycra-clad freaks, it certainly made for interesting conversation.

Main Street was still predominated by locally-owned businesses and, best of all, locally owned restaurants and cafes'. There wasn't a Big Mac or a Whopper to be found in Moab. In 1989, I think there were about ten motels in town. We had wonderful and colorful politicians like Jimmie Walker and David Knutson who, even though I disagreed with them about 90% of the time, still managed to stimulate the electorate and keep everyone involved and plugged into the political process (can anyone today even name all the members of the city and county council?).

We were an ugly town, but in an honest and unpretentious way. And that is why people loved us--because we were so weird. We developed a certain cachet that became known throughout the land. Our cachet was our ugly, honest weirdness.

But cash killed our cachet.

We should have all known this would happen and it would probably have taken a wise and benevolent dictator to prevent it. But now the mainstay of our tourist economy, the regularly returning out-of-town visitors, come here and look at all the franchise pre-fab food shops and the modular motels and the goofy chairlifts and shake their heads and wonder where else they can go. Are there any honest weird tourist towns left out there?

If there are, and we find them, they won't be weird for long. They'll look just like us.

And that is the catch in having a cachet.

SIERRA CLUB UPDATE:
A GROUP WITH NO NAME...AND A GAGGED VOICE

If you are a regular reader of this publication, you know that I am not exactly Mr. Sunshine when it comes to maintaining an optimistic spirit about the future of the canyon country and beyond. I don't feel I'm quite as bleak and gloomy as some of you might think, but that's a discussion for another time. If ever.

So it was with uncharacteristic hope that, in the last issue, I spoke of an opportunity that many believe could make a positive difference here in southern Utah. Briefly, a group of citizens in Moab decided to create a Sierra Club Group...to be called the Glen Canyon Group. Working under the umbrella of the Utah Chapter, this group would become the only grass roots Sierra Club organization in the canyon country. Among its priorities are the passage of a decent Utah wilderness bill, an increased effort to stop efforts to turn southern Utah into a toxic/nuclear waste dumping site and...the restoration of Glen Canyon.

It was difficult to imagine that the third priority could cause us much of a problem with our fellow Sierra Clubbers. After all, in 1996 the national board of the Sierra Club voted to approve the decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam and restoration of the once splendid and currently drowned canyon that lies behind it. The new group felt there could not be a more noble goal than to support efforts to right a terrible wrong--truly the damnation of Glen Canyon is one of the worst environmental tragedies of this century.

Of course, we had all heard the rumors--that the Utah Chapter opposed the national board's position, and that they would fight us, tooth and nail, to prevent the Glen Canyon Group from pursuing this third priority. But I don't think anyone took the rumors seriously.

We were dead wrong. What has emerged in the last several weeks is as ugly and disturbing...and heartbreaking...as any environmental battle I have ever been a part of. And this struggle is with adversaries who are supposed to be our allies. It is unbelievable.

(Let me make one clarifying point here. The opinions that follow are my own. I do not attempt to speak for anyone in the Glen Canyon Group except myself.)

From the beginning, the Utah Chapter weaved and dodged and delayed our attempts to be ratified as a bona fide group. They didn't like our name and they didn't like our priorities and the Executive Committee (ExCom) delayed a vote until September.

Then many of us saw an email correspondence to two Sierra Club members, who recently moved to Moab from Salt Lake City, Mike and Jean Binyon. The email was from Mr. Dan Schroeder, head of the Ogden Group of the Utah Chapter and a member of the ExCom. Fortunately, Schroeder urged the Binyons to "forward this (email) to others down there who might be interested." Thanks Dan, we were very interested.

In his correspondence, Schroeder didn't equivocate at all and made his feelings crystal-clear. First, he announced that he simply would not allow us to be called The Glen Canyon Group. In his comments that followed, he referred to the group as the "Canyonlands Group," but added, "...you folks may prefer something else and I really don't care as long as it's not Glen Canyon."

Then Mr. Schroeder proposed a few resolutions. The first was called "Policy on public discussion of restoring Glen Canyon." You must read this; here is what it said:

Whereas, although the Sierra Club Board has approved a policy advocating the restoration of Glen Canyon, it has not yet approved any strategies for achieving this end; and

Whereas, scientific studies and impact analyses of the proposed restoration of Glen Canyon are not yet completed; and

Whereas, the restoration of Glen Canyon will ultimately be a national issue, requiring coordination of many Club entities at the national level; and

Whereas, premature media attention to this issue could have the effect of organizing the opposition and thus be detrimental to the final goal of restoring Glen Canyon,

Now therefore, it shall be the policy of the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club not to initiate public discussion or debate on the issue of Glen Canyon restoration at this time. "Public discussion" includes (but is not limited to) press releases, mailings, electronic communications, contacts with media, and events to which the public is invited. Should such public discussion be initiated by the media or other parties, those who speak for the Chapter shall endeavor not to participate in any official capacity. Direct questions from the media may be answered factually.

Chapter members who wish to work toward achieving the Club's goal of restoring Glen Canyon are encouraged to work with the Colorado River Task Force in formulating a long-term policy.

This policy shall remain in effect until repealed by the Chapter ExCom or superseded by national Sierra Club Policy. The Chapter ExCom may also, at its future discretion, grant exceptions to this policy on a one-time basis.

It was a gag order, plain and simple. The group would not be able to name itself. The group would not be allowed to publicly discuss one of its main priorities. It was simply unbelievable. At an emergency meeting in Moab, group members here wondered what to do; the ExCom planned to vote on September 13 and some thought it might be better to urge a delay. But finally, we decided it was 'sink or swim' time. We made it clear to the Binyons, who planned to attend the ExCom meeting, that we would not accept the Chapter's gag order resolution, nor would we allow them to change our name. Up or Down, we said. Support us or reject us--it was that simple.

And so on the evening of September 13, the ExCom voted unanimously to approve a new Moab group...

Finally, in the last issue of The Zephyr, I pointed out that once the Glen Canyon Group was established, according to the club's bylaws, citizens from outside its geographical boundaries could join the group. Yet another Schroeder-composed resolution knocked that idea down as well. This resolution says, in part: ...although Sierra Club bylaws allow individual members, upon request, to join a Chapter and Group outside their place of residence, the apparent intent of this policy is to accommodate isolated cases in unusual circumstances,

Now therefore, it shall be the policy of the Utah Chapter not to recruit Chapter members from outside the State of Utah, and not to recruit members of any Group from outside the official territory of that Group.

The interpretation of the national bylaw's "apparent intent" is apparently Schroeder's as well. At their meeting the ExCom referred to this as the "Anti-Stiles Resolution." Incredibly they even took issue with an independent effort to generate more interest in Utah issues. I think this is called "biting off your nose to spite your face."

So we all find ourselves asking one question. Why? Why is the Utah Chapter doing this? Why would they want to censor an enthusiastic group of southern Utah citizens and activists who merely want to publicly support an important policy of the Sierra Club's national board? We don't want to restrict their freedoms in any way. If the people in Salt Lake City and Ogden want to publicly disagree with our position--we can live with that. We welcome healthy and constructive and OPEN debate.

As for the name, we don't care what they call their groups. They can name themselves anything they choose and it wouldn't ruffle our feathers. They can name it "Stiles is a Horse's Ass Group," and I'd be honored--just as long as they get off our ass.

I believe that there is already a plethora of facts and information to support Glen Canyon Restoration. There is now a starting point to work from. In fact, the work of the Glen Canyon Institute and the data that it has already produced is one of the most compelling reasons we are here now trying to form the Glen Canyon Group. Had Rich Ingebretsen, the president of G.C.I., followed the timid and impotent philosophy of the Utah Chapter, he would not have even announced the Glen Canyon Institute's existence until all scientific studies were complete.

And there is one other fact to consider. Certainly, if Glen Canyon Dam is ever decommissioned, economic and scientific data will play a pivotal role in that decision. But...there are other considerations as well, and one in particular.

Glen Canyon Dam is morally reprehensible. It is a black mark on human civilization and we should never hesitate to support any effort to right such a terrible wrong. I can never feel ashamed of myself for trying to help resurrect Glen Canyon.

I urge the Utah Chapter to rescind its restrictive resolutions and let the Glen Canyon Group get on with the important work that lies ahead.