• RME Gear & Apparel

Booo! on Garfield County - "Deal aimed at paving famous Burr Trail switchbacks"

cruiseroutfit

cruiseroutfit

Cruizah!
Moderator
Vendor
Location
Sandy, Ut
Had a short but imo valuable meeting with Alan this morning. With capitol in session right now things were quite busy but we did have a chance to lightly discuss the Garfield County/Burr Trail issue, the BLM/Notom Road issue and also the OHV plate issue that has come up in the past. Alan repeated the words that have been said so many times by OHV users including here on RME, 'its a few rogue users ruining it for everyone' and with our current system there is little method to police our own short of on the spot confrontations. The Trail Patrol message was to work through non-confrontational means and if things escalated 'get a plate number' and report it... however given Utah's OHV tags consist of a 1/4" lettering that is literally impossible unless you are 6" from the machine. Now I know there were legitimate concerns from those opposed to the tags and I know there were many in the OHV realm including here on RME that thought they were a great idea (after all it was a 'friend of the OHV community' that put the law into place originally)... So for those with concerns. Why not lobby against license plates on cars? I mean there is a much, much greater chance of LEO's catching an automobile in the act of a crime yet we require they have front and rear visible plates. What am I missing?

I can tell you in my experiences that there absolutely have been times I wished I could have written down a tag number of a rogue OHV users and passed it onto authorities and in the case of street legal vehicles with plates I have turned in plates of rogue users. Remember the FJ Cruiser in Forest Lake video that was posted here on RME. Our own RME community turned that plate number into the FS and that user was reprimanded for his/her actions. Did that system not work?
 
S

scoutabout

None
The dirty secret being that some groups and protectors of access promote breaking the law and encourage riding anywhere and everywhere. If it's something that they don't agree with, they'd rather not acknowledge the law. Same reason increased penalties are opposed.

We know from experience that a new 'more moderate' approach to protecting access is required. The 'all or nothing' approach has gotten us here. When do we wake up and realize that we'll have to be involved in stewardship, protection and enforcement before we'll have a shot at protecting anything?

What was his response specifically about the paving of these historically dirt routes?
 
Last edited:
Herzog

Herzog

somewhat damaged
Admin
Location
Wydaho
scoutabout said:
The dirty secret being that some groups and protectors of access promote breaking the law and encourage riding anywhere and everywhere. If it's something that they don't agree with, they'd rather not acknowledge the law. Same reason increased penalties are opposed.
Click to expand...

I think there's a line in there somewhere. Traveling on a unreasonably (definition is relative I suppose) closed route is breaking the law but done in protest is civil disobedience. Where as blazing around a serene area with complete disregard to the area and surrounding natural elements & resources is also breaking the law, but is a completely different issue in my opinion.

I agree. We need to self police the "blaze anywhere" people who blatantly disrespect public lands. But I'm not going to turn in a group of good people for driving down an existing route (again, definition of existing in my book doesn't mean "a few tracks went that way", I'm talking routes that have existed for longer than most of us have been born). I will stop and ask why and to what purpose and I will try to prevent it through the reason of the probability of more lost trails, but I'm not going to go Sgt. Dick on them...

Last thing we need is more government telling us what we can't do. Common sense is king in these situations and I'm OK with a system of educators and rangers within our own group.
 
S

scoutabout

None
Herzog said:
Traveling on a unreasonably (definition is relative I suppose) closed route is breaking the law but done in protest is civil disobedience.
Click to expand...

Herzog said:
We need to self police the "blaze anywhere" people who blatantly disrespect public lands.
Click to expand...

Same people in my opinion and the eyes of the law. I see the distinction you're making, but travelling on an illegal route is travelling on an illegal route.

I'll add it's an interesting argument, but you already pointed out the stickiest point. The definition of what's unreasonably closed is highly subjective.
 
Last edited:
anderson750

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
The only update that I can give to this right now is that the Garfield County Comissioners have not returned any calls as of 10am this morning. Mike is expecting to see them on Capital Hill this week during the legislative session and will talk to them at that time. Right now the talk around the Capital with people who have some knowledge of the plans say that Garfield County is planning to do the praving for tourism purposes. ie, make it more accessible to normal cars.

I have never traveled this road, but from what has been described, this can be done now, unless there is a storm or flooding. Am I correct?
 
S

scoutabout

None
anderson750 said:
The only update that I can give to this right now is that the Garfield County Comissioners have not returned any calls as of 10am this morning. Mike is expecting to see them on Capital Hill this week during the legislative session and will talk to them at that time. Right now the talk around the Capital with people who have some knowledge of the plans say that Garfield County is planning to do the praving for tourism purposes. ie, make it more accessible to normal cars.

I have never traveled this road, but from what has been described, this can be done now, unless there is a storm or flooding. Am I correct?
Click to expand...

More or less. So what would USA-ALL's position be on the county's desire to pave?
 
S

scoutabout

None
Well that is pleasant to hear. Would USA-ALL put that on paper in a letter to Garfield county asking for the plans to pave the road to be scrapped?
 
cruiseroutfit

cruiseroutfit

Cruizah!
Moderator
Vendor
Location
Sandy, Ut
scoutabout said:
Sounds like it should be a quick vote. :)
Click to expand...

X2, Paul, is this somethig you can propose? Tacoma is working on a similar letter from the U4WDA. Would be nice to send them all together. Not looking to start wars and starve these guys but I think the motorized community needs to voice their opinion.
 
Tacoma

Tacoma

Et incurventur ante non
Location
far enough away
cruiseroutfit said:
X2, Paul, is this somethig you can propose? Tacoma is working on a similar letter from the U4WDA. Would be nice to send them all together. Not looking to start wars and starve these guys but I think the motorized community needs to voice their opinion.
Click to expand...


My letter will be going out via USPS Monday. I'll post up the text here and elsewhere. I think the good citizens of Garfield County will be safe from starvation because of my sentiment, and I have doubts that any wars will start, or fires start, but my objections will be heard and registered. ;)
 
cruiseroutfit

cruiseroutfit

Cruizah!
Moderator
Vendor
Location
Sandy, Ut
Tacoma said:
My letter will be going out via USPS Monday. I'll post up the text here and elsewhere. I think the good citizens of Garfield County will be safe from starvation because of my sentiment, and I have doubts that any wars will start, or fires start, but my objections will be heard and registered. ;)
Click to expand...

Would you please forward me a copy...
 
S

scoutabout

None
That is interesting.

From the article, there are several quotes attributed to Garfield County Engineer Brian Bremner:

Bremner said the county is looking at a range of options to upgrade the switchbacks that wind up a cliff on a milelong section of the trail owned by the county within the boundaries of Capitol Reef National Park.
Click to expand...

"An upgrade would probably include some kind of surfacing. A minimum-level surfacing would be a paving."

"We would still like to see it paved all the way through."

While the deal mentioned involved paying for engineering and planning work, the clear next step is paving (as indicated). So all of this was inaccurate or falsified? Garfield county has no desire to pave the entire road? A few other sources (besides the "cruddy Tribune") are providing a different answer.
 
anderson750

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
One of the Garfield County Commissioners finally returned a call on Saturday late afternoon. He was not happy with Bremmers quotes in the SL Trib article because of what he called "inaccuracies". According to the the commissioner the only work that they are planning on the switchbacks is to place some culverts to help with some erosion problems. As far as the Notom road, they are considering chip sealing it from the Wayne County Line where it is currently chip sealed to, on down to the park boundry.
 
cruiseroutfit

cruiseroutfit

Cruizah!
Moderator
Vendor
Location
Sandy, Ut
brokendownyj said:
Swenson Debunked this whole rumor Saturday night at WOTR.
All the county is doing is rechipping pavement all ready there. miles from any of the dirt trail.
Besides look at the source its the cruddy Tribune.
Click to expand...

Cruddy Tribune, the NPS, BLM field office and Bremmers history of wanting the route paved (he was instrumental in paving the upper portion of the Burr Trail). Dubunked? Sorry, I don't think the County needs $212k nor admittedly dodging the NEPA process to add culverts to a minor portion of trail. The NPS, environmental groups and myself don't object to that. Spot fixes and complete reconstruction are two totally different subjects. I'm no contractor so I could be wrong but my guess is they want it paved and are in fact working towards that, whether in one fail swoop or not. ;)

anderson750 said:
One of the Garfield County Commissioners finally returned a call on Saturday late afternoon. He was not happy with Bremmers quotes in the SL Trib article because of what he called "inaccuracies". According to the the commissioner the only work that they are planning on the switchbacks is to place some culverts to help with some erosion problems. As far as the Notom road, they are considering chip sealing it from the Wayne County Line where it is currently chip sealed to, on down to the park boundry.
Click to expand...

Chip seal = pavement. While its not quite a freeway interstate with 8" deep asphalt, its not the dirt existing their today. While its easy to rationalize the 'chip seal', it detracts from the experience and quality recreation of the OHV community, simple as that. They could 'chip seal' Buckhorn, North Fork, Nine Mile, or White Rim and I wouldn't feel any different about it, its a loss for the OHV community. Keep in mind the BLM project to pave (or chip-seal) from the County line to Sandy Ranch (or the park boundary which is actually more than had previously been discussed :eek:) is supported by Wayne County but actually a BLM project if I understand things correctly.

Which Commissioner was this? I'm still trying to get a hold of several, I'll be sure to report on that discussion. What is Usa-All's position on the paving (er I mean chip seal) on any portion of this route, semantics aside?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top