Its really that bad...

[anderson750]

More damaging is the fact he promotes it, puts in on a very public forum with very polarized users, many of which are anti-motorized. Now consider that his kind are not as we rare... and when they help justify it to others with similar ethics, bad things result.

One bad user negates the work of 100 good users. Organizations such as SUWA get a lot of mileage out of people like this posting on forums.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Back to HITR:
I spent some time on the phone today with Brian Sweatland, the rec planner for the GCNRA. We had spoken almost a year ago about the Rincon Trail and I wanted to follow up with him on the progress.

1. The Rincon Trail is closed, just as it has been since at least 1979 when their last management plan was devised, the history between 1979 and the earlier creation of the park isn't 100% clear though I didn't spend much time asking, its kind've moot. The reasoning behind the closure isn't quite clear either, Brian is relatively new to the area, so he's just trying to catch up on 40 years of policy. They have been asked by the county (who is claiming this as a potential RS2477 claim) to revisit the decision on this route but is a low priority given all the other disputed routes that the feds and the county are debating. Until that ever happens (and thats if it ever happens) its considered closed to all motorized travel by the GCNRA and they can and have ticketed.

2. Non street licensed vehicles in the GCNRA. Their policy on this is firm, with the exception of the one play area, once you hit GCNRA property you are to be street licensed, this can be a full size vehicle, a ATV or dirtbike that has gone through the process. This is why there was a big push by the OHV community a couple years back to allow street legalization for OHV's, it seems the counties knew their RS2477 claims could not trump the use classifications of the jurisdictions of these areas (GCNRA, Canyonlands National Park, Uinta National Forest, etc.). Again they can and will ticket for this.

We resumed our chats about doing a run from Bullfrog so that Brian can see the recreational value of the entire HITR trail, particularly the Rincon. We are going to resume talks about this in the coming weeks and additionally we are going to chat about getting some qualified user comments on the HITR and Rincon trails to help him push the issue within the NRA administration. I'll keep everyone posted if/when we are ready for comments.

 

[Don B]

Thanks Kurt,

Keep us updated

 

[Greg]

Nice work Kurt, thanks for stepping up and tackling this. It would be great to see the Rincon re-opened.

 

[rollover]

Kurt we all owe you a debt of gratitude for all you do to keep us correctly informed.

Thanks again.

 

[anderson750]

In an effort to muddy the waters.......

We just talked to one of the County Comissioners from San Jaun County and here is the counties take on HITR:

San Jaun County considers the HITR trail and the trails leading to it and from it an RS2477 right of way. This includes the Rincon trail down to the shores of Lake Powell. He also said that they have a verbal agreement with the Superintendant of GCNRA on the RS2477 issues. I am not sure what that exactly means. Also to the county comissioners knowledge, the only citations that have been given in regards to HITR and rincon have been for off-route travel.


I guess what this discussion ultimately boils down to is whether you believe in the counties RS2477 rights of way or whether you believe in the NPS closure.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Paul, how far does San Juan County's RS2477 claim go towards the lakes edge? It used to be driveable 100% to the then river, now it is stopped quite a distance from the lakes edge though it is possible others are driving further. Thoughts on this?

An RS2477 claim on the Rincon might be difficult to persue, sadly its my guess that the county will eventually drop in and persue "bigger fish". The trail was only legally open for 10-20 years, that if it were ever legal at all... It could have been a private mine access route for its first few years. We'll see what they can do, fingers are crossed.

 

[Bart]

This is why there was a big push by the OHV community a couple years back to allow street legalization for OHV's, it seems the counties knew their RS2477 claims could not trump the use classifications of the jurisdictions of these areas (GCNRA, Canyonlands National Park, Uinta National Forest, etc.). Again they can and will ticket for this.

I was reading this bill today in hopes that it would allow buggies that pass the specified OHV rules to be in compliance. Alas, this is not to be. While they may meet all the other criteria, the maximum size tire for this classification is 26". Bummer.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I was reading this bill today in hopes that it would allow buggies that pass the specified OHV rules to be in compliance. Alas, this is not to be. While they may meet all the other criteria, the maximum size tire for this classification is 26". Bummer.

And they are furthermore refining the bill to further exclude bigger OHV's.

 

[scoutabout]

In an effort to muddy the waters.......

We just talked to one of the County Comissioners from San Jaun County and here is the counties take on HITR:

San Jaun County considers the HITR trail and the trails leading to it and from it an RS2477 right of way. This includes the Rincon trail down to the shores of Lake Powell. He also said that they have a verbal agreement with the Superintendant of GCNRA on the RS2477 issues. I am not sure what that exactly means. Also to the county comissioners knowledge, the only citations that have been given in regards to HITR and rincon have been for off-route travel.

I wonder what the "verbal agreement" is. If the officials with GCNRA are telling inquiring visitors that the Rincon is closed and that GCNRA routes are only open to street-legal vehicles, then it sounds like the county RS2477 claims are not being recognized.

I keep hearing about the counties and their RS2477 claims, but I haven't seen much action other than the recent signage attempts in the Kanab FO.

When will one of these counties go to the mat and win a claim? When will Washington County openly support the Canaan Mountain Sawmill Road as an RS2477 right of way and put money towards defending it?

I saw the proposed state bill to allow a portion of maintenance funds to go to RS2477 defense, hopefully this idea gets traction.

I guess what this discussion ultimately boils down to is whether you believe in the counties RS2477 rights of way or whether you believe in the NPS closure.

It's about what can be enforced. We believed in Washington County's RS2477 claim on the Canaan Mountain Road, but after $60K+ invested the county remains silent.

 

[anderson750]

Paul, how far does San Juan County's RS2477 claim go towards the lakes edge? It used to be driveable 100% to the then river, now it is stopped quite a distance from the lakes edge though it is possible others are driving further. Thoughts on this?

An RS2477 claim on the Rincon might be difficult to persue, sadly its my guess that the county will eventually drop in and persue "bigger fish". The trail was only legally open for 10-20 years, that if it were ever legal at all... It could have been a private mine access route for its first few years. We'll see what they can do, fingers are crossed.

The comissioner that AP talked to was up at the legislature and did not have a lot of time to talk. So the converstion was very brief and the only question that was able to be asked was "does SJ County claim it as RS2477". He said when he gets back, he will tackle the original email that was sent and provide more information.

On thing to keep in mind in regards to RS2477, is that it has nothing to do with trails or roads. It has to do with "Rights of way" that were granted by the federal govt. The rincon was a right of way granted to access a uranium claim. I do not know where that claim is, but I am assuming it is below the water level. Therefore, I would think the RS2477 claim goes all the way to the water. I am only making an assumption.......but we all know what assume spells

 

[anderson750]

I wonder what the "verbal agreement" is. If the officials with GCNRA are telling inquiring visitors that the Rincon is closed and that GCNRA routes are only open to street-legal vehicles, then it sounds like the county RS2477 claims are not being recognized.

I hope to have more information on this when the commissioner gets back to SJ County. As soon as I have the information I will pass it on.

I keep hearing about the counties and their RS2477 claims, but I haven't seen much action other than the recent signage attempts in the Kanab FO.

When will one of these counties go to the mat and win a claim? When will Washington County openly support the Canaan Mountain Sawmill Road as an RS2477 right of way and put money towards defending it?

I saw the proposed state bill to allow a portion of maintenance funds to go to RS2477 defense, hopefully this idea gets traction.

It's about what can be enforced. We believed in Washington County's RS2477 claim on the Canaan Mountain Road, but after $60K+ invested the county remains silent.

That is a very good question. I hope Washington County will step up to the plate. What I will say is that SJ county is very aggressive towards their RS2477 claims. They are probably the most aggressive counties in the state.

 

[anderson750]

I was reading this bill today in hopes that it would allow buggies that pass the specified OHV rules to be in compliance. Alas, this is not to be. While they may meet all the other criteria, the maximum size tire for this classification is 26". Bummer.

I think to get Utah to point where they will consider larger OHV's street legal, is going to take a couple of steps. I believe it is going to be a matter of getting the first bill passed that includes smaller OHV's. Then I am not sure if it is a matter of an ammendment to the orginal bill or a new bill, but getting it to include larger OHV's. Were not going to hit a home run on ever at bat and get everyone included, but getting this initial bill passed is at least a double.

You've got your opportunity to make your voice heard on Feb. 6.

 

[phatfoto]

On the street legal OHV note, CAN-AM has the snowmobile looking Spyder. How hard would it be to get a 4 wheeler to that point? The larger motored ones ought to be able to do city street speeds... Just thinking.