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

[anderson750]

Don, thanks for posting that.

So who's correctly informed?

To say it's all "debunked" or "much ado about nothing" seems inaccurate.

Nobody has completely debunked the potential objectives of Garfield County......the premise of the whole thread has centered around the current issue of what they are planning on doing with the Notom Road and Burr Trail Switchbacks......which we have had some answers to from the Garfield County Commissioners. The County seat interview raises a few questions about future intentions and I am working on getting some answers.

I know where you want to go with this Steve so go ahead and start throwing potshots from the outside .

 

[scoutabout]

Nobody has completely debunked the potential objectives of Garfield County.

That claim was made falsely earlier in the thread? And made falsely at WOTR by Mike Swenson in person (according to a poster in this thread)?

.....the premise of the whole thread has centered around the current issue of what they are planning on doing with the Notom Road and Burr Trail Switchbacks......which we have had some answers to from the Garfield County Commissioners.

Certainly thanks for relaying the county commissioners public line that they do not intend to pave. We already know this information isn't correct. So are you passing along misinformation? Actually no, I think you're passing along the information you have. I'm telling you that your information is not that accurate and you shouldn't claim that it is.

The County seat interview raises a few questions about future intentions and I am working on getting some answers.

Certainly it does raise questions. The same ones we've already raised here.

I know where you want to go with this Steve so go ahead and start throwing potshots from the outside .

Here's a potshot. How many years in a row is updating your website going to be the #1 priority? Two years running at least.

Where is it going? BRC, SUWA, the SL Trib, Bremnam and a public interview say one thing (future intent to pave), USA-ALL says something else (no intent to pave). So try and marginalize your "haters" or whatever excuse is in vogue these days, but you can't blame this on someone else. It's been 3+ years since I was president of USA-ALL. Get a new excuse.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

"Develop the Hole in the Rock Road"...

Given the fact it is passible by car in all but wet weather with the exception of the last couple miles means only one thing... Pavement. Chalk up another major loss for the OHV community!

"95% of tourist have 2wd and most of them are European..."

Funny, its those same Europeans that come here to hike, which afterall is the only way to see that blasted monument.

I can't make this crap up, absolutely ridiculous. The OHV community stands to lose more to pavement if its like this have their way paving the west than we do to Wilderness, seriously. I venture to say I've studied the various Wilderness inventories and bills as much as the next guy and even the most gross misrepresentation of Wilderness doesn't scare me as much as a paved HITR road and Buckhorn.

You thought I was emotional about the allegedly 'debunked' plans to pave the Burr and then this vent wants their RS2477 claim on HITR to allow them to pave. Who represents the greatest danger to the OHV community in the next 5 years? I'd argue its our 'allies'.

I have lost all faith in our current efforts and system, the best intel I'm getting is from the folks I'm told are out to 'close' our trails, turns out they don't want to pave them either

 

[Stephen]

"Develop the Hole in the Rock Road"...

Given the fact it is passible by car in all but wet weather with the exception of the last couple miles means only one thing... Pavement. Chalk up another major loss for the OHV community!

"95% of tourist have 2wd and most of them are European..."

Funny, its those same Europeans that come here to hike, which afterall is the only way to see that blasted monument.

I can't make this crap up, absolutely ridiculous. The OHV community stands to lose more to pavement if its like this have their way paving the west than we do to Wilderness, seriously. I venture to say I've studied the various Wilderness inventories and bills as much as the next guy and even the most gross misrepresentation of Wilderness doesn't scare me as much as a paved HITR road and Buckhorn.

You thought I was emotional about the allegedly 'debunked' plans to pave the Burr and then this vent wants their RS2477 claim on HITR to allow them to pave. Who represents the greatest danger to the OHV community in the next 5 years? I'd argue its our 'allies'.

I have lost all faith in our current efforts and system, the best intel I'm getting is from the folks I'm told are out to 'close' our trails, turns out they don't want to pave them either

Its a sad turn of events, to be sure. These counties that have been "on our side" are now showing their true intentions. I'm hoping that its not true across the board, but I 100% agree with Kurt that paving the trails is a greater threat than Wilderness designation. But looking on the bright side, it could be a good thing. If we can work with groups like SUWA to help keep trails from being paved, perhaps it will get a positive chain reaction. As has been stated before, to all the groups 4-Wheelers have been the odd ones out. Groups that supposedly represent us are more focused on ATV and dirt bike access, and groups that are against us focus on those as well. And now that the counties that have been fighting for trails are getting some traction, they are going to ignore our chosen form of recreation and pave the roads that we travel. And we're supposed to take it because they'll keep some single track open.
If we as a user group can show thats not gonna fly, and also show that we are willing to work across the aisle if you will, then we might be able to form some lasting alliances that could benefit us in the long run.

 

[anderson750]

Stephen.......just spent an hour responding to your post.....only to have it come up blank. I will put my thoughts back together tomorrow when I am not so tired from being up since 5 am.:sick:

 

[jackjoh]

Well said.

I too had this conversation with Brian H as you know, of course he was more interested in checking my pulse by going for my throat I kid, it was fun to discuss with him but I don't think any of us walked away from that conversation with any different stance or intended course of action... even if I am forced to leave Utah

Where are you going to go??? I left California and came here partly because Utah was the last frontier of four wheeling. As I said in a precious post just look at Europe if you want to see the future. What we need is wilderness that allows motorized access.

 

[anderson750]

Where are you going to go??? I left California and came here partly because Utah was the last frontier of four wheeling. As I said in a precious post just look at Europe if you want to see the future. What we need is wilderness that allows motorized access.

Jack, what is your definition of "motorized access" in wilderness? Wilderness would get rid of all single track for mountain bikes and motorcycles, all atv routes and all roads that were not cherry stemmed. Do you really think that you would get a bunch of roads cherry stemmed? If you look at how wilderness is defined by Congress, the fact that you want motorized access to be maintained in an area designated as wilderness automatically excludes it.

 

[Stephen]

Where are you going to go??? I left California and came here partly because Utah was the last frontier of four wheeling. As I said in a precious post just look at Europe if you want to see the future. What we need is wilderness that allows motorized access.

You dont hear about this much anymore, but BRC used to push for Back Country Designation.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Where are you going to go??? I left California and came here partly because Utah was the last frontier of four wheeling. As I said in a precious post just look at Europe if you want to see the future. What we need is wilderness that allows motorized access.

I was being facetious. Brian H. insisted I could be forced to leave Utah if I started this war with the counties. Given the tone of our conversation I'm guessing he was being a bit facetious himself.

 

[jackjoh]

Jack, what is your definition of "motorized access" in wilderness? Wilderness would get rid of all single track for mountain bikes and motorcycles, all ATV routes and all roads that were not cherry stemmed. Do you really think that you would get a bunch of roads cherry stemmed? If you look at how wilderness is defined by Congress, the fact that you want motorized access to be maintained in an area designated as wilderness automatically excludes it.

It of course would have to be defined to suite our needs. The basic idea would be to do away with all wilderness and have defined routes of travel in specific areas and you would have to stay on these routes. (sound familiar) Think of it as what we have now and everyone follows the law and the law is enforced by agencies and the users. I know this is wishful thinking but it would sure be nice. Something like BRC's Back Country Designation. You can not go back to the good old days where we went wherever we wanted but I don't think we have to accept what happened to Europe. The idea of laying out new routes or trails will have to be severely curtailed (which in itself will increase traffic on existing trails) and will cause much consternation. This also means it would have to be managed by the Federal government because I believe the States would try to sell the land to increase their income through land sales and additional taxes. Once it is in private ownership it should be whatever the owner wants to do with the land.

 

[scoutabout]

Paul, wilderness can exist on the left side of the road, and the right side of the road. Plenty of examples out there.

 

[anderson750]

Paul, wilderness can exist on the left side of the road, and the right side of the road. Plenty of examples out there.

I know about cherry stemming, but it is everything else that is lost in between.........mountain bike trails, motorcycle trails, atv trails, 2 track full size trails. Sounds like a lot of trail loss.

 

[jackjoh]

If a 4x4 will fit on the trail all the others would fit as well. I do not think there should be single use trails in this instance. There are quite a few of them out there allready. This would be trails that everyone could use within the specified area.

 

[anderson750]

I do not think there should be single use trails in this instance.

So if I understand you right, you want to put all users onto a single "trail"? Lets use the San Rafael Swell around Temple Mountain as an example. You would be for a wilderness designation that would put all of the users onto cherry stemmed roads throughout the area? So, instead of those of us here on RME who enjoy riding motorcycles, we should ride the roads that have been cherry stemmed instead of the single track system? How about the people who ride ATV's like Herzogs parents......they should give up their ATV trail system for cherry stemmed roads?

That almost seems as one sided as SUWA's philosophy. Jack, didn't you recently approach BRC and some of our elected delegation about some type of cherry stemming project and their response was not to favorible?

 

[jackjoh]

What you say is true. The Wilderness Society and SUWA did not like it also. This would only be used in so called Wilderness areas and would not affect what is already out there. You know that almost all single track roads follow old two track and horse trails and that would not change. Again this would not change what is already there. You could also cherry stem existing single track trails but it might be hard to get around the tree huggers. What galls me is all of the two track trails out there that we can not use but the hikers can.

 

[anderson750]

This would only be used in so called Wilderness areas and would not affect what is already out there.

How can you say this will not affect what is already out there? There is a lot that will be lost out there. Still taking the San Rafael Swell as an example, take a look at the travel plan for the 2008 RMP. Look at the the amount of single track, atv trails and 2 track full size trails. Also look at the amount of maintained county roads. You cannot honestly tell me that these would not be affected by a proposal like this and that you would be able to cherry stem everything.

You know that almost all single track roads follow old two track and horse trails and that would not change.

While this might be true for some single track trails, it is hardly the case for "almost all" single track. Almost all of the single track trails that are on the travel plan for the San Rafael are user created. there may be sections that utilize old 2 track roads, but it is a very small amount.

You could also cherry stem existing single track trails but it might be hard to get around the tree huggers

If I am wrong, please correct me, but I am not aware of any examples of motorized single track that has ever been cherry stemmed into wilderness.

What galls me is all of the two track trails out there that we can not use but the hikers can.

Do you realize how much single track and atv trail there is out there also that we cannot use but hikers can? I know you really don't care much about single track and atv trails but I find it disheartening how easily you write it off. We are all in this fight together and when one of us loses, we all lose. When they successfully eliminate one user, it won't be long before they are going after another.

 

[jackjoh]

How can you say this will not affect what is already out there? There is a lot that will be lost out there. Still taking the San Rafael Swell as an example, take a look at the travel plan for the 2008 RMP. Look at the the amount of single track, atv trails and 2 track full size trails. Also look at the amount of maintained county roads. You cannot honestly tell me that these would not be affected by a proposal like this and that you would be able to cherry stem everything.
I am proposing that this be used in existing wilderness areas only. All present areas that are not wilderness would have to be negotiated one at a time for all users.


While this might be true for some single track trails, it is hardly the case for "almost all" single track. Almost all of the single track trails that are on the travel plan for the San Rafael are user created. there may be sections that utilize old 2 track roads, but it is a very small amount.
Thanks for the correction but if all single track are new since 1976 you will have a hard sell and will have to fight to keep one trail out of many (if that is the case) going to the same destination.



If I am wrong, please correct me, but I am not aware of any examples of motorized single track that has ever been cherry stemmed into wilderness.
I am not aware of too many double track either and in fact would have to research this to name one. That is the reason for the so-called cherry stemming proposal. I do not want to close any existing routes of travel but believe they should have a purpose and destination in mind and not be multiple routes going to the same place unless there is a good reason for all user groups individual needs.




Do you realize how much single track and atv trail there is out there also that we cannot use but hikers can? I know you really don't care much about single track and atv trails but I find it disheartening how easily you write it off. We are all in this fight together and when one of us loses, we all lose. When they successfully eliminate one user, it won't be long before they are going after another.

I agree and think your reading 4x4 only into some of my statements that was unintended by me. It is the old saying, We hang together or we will surely be hanged separately. There are places that are suitable for only one user group and places that two or more could use. Unlike the hikers that want exclusive use of wilderness I believe it should be open on specific routes to everyone within existing wilderness and future wilderness should be designated only after all user groups have been considered.

 

[scoutabout]

I know about cherry stemming, but it is everything else that is lost in between.........mountain bike trails, motorcycle trails, atv trails, 2 track full size trails. Sounds like a lot of trail loss.

You can call it cherry-stemming, but that's a dumb term. I would rather say that a road (yes a road, not a trail) would be a wilderness boundary. If the remaining piece isn't large enough to make into a wilderness unit, then it isn't.

But what's the point of this thread now? Just to argue about what Jack thinks should be done? I think there'd be more concern about these paving projects if ATVs and MCs were also affected. They're not, so it's no loss in the opinion of some. Same old story.

 

[Stephen]

So updates? Has anyone heard anything more?

 

[Tacoma]

We are all in this fight together and when one of us loses, we all lose. When they successfully eliminate one user, it won't be long before they are going after another.

Given this sentiment, which I agree with, I find, say, Brian's stance on this project, and USA-ALL's historical lack of perceived concern regarding 4x4 trails a little bewildering.

To me, this issue is about preserving a historically dirt route, the paving of which has certain detrimental effects, and which poses certain issues for land-use ethicists, and NOT whatever Jack Johnston proposes. While I appreciate Jack's sentiment and rationale, this is not really the thread for it.

Stay focused.