SL County "manned" up...

[cruiseroutfit]

They asserted their county road claims... hoping they will assert more.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11112003/utah/110003.asp

I can think of the ones I want, the rest of you are SOL....

 

[bobdog]

Maybe I am missing something but I fail to see how a paved road and a year round resort is good for the offroad community.

 

[bobdog]

Reading the very bottom of the article I can see some hope for other trails but I would put money on the general public never driving on dirt in cardiff fork again.

 

[EZRhino]

First, the county claiming right of way does not mean the road will be paved...I just don't understand where this false logic comes from...oh wait I know! I always hear that from the greenie weenies!


Secondly, if this Canyon Ventures company wants to do something on their own private property they should be allowed to do so. It's called private property rights.

Personally I think the road should be open to motorized travel with the caveat that vehicles do not leave the established roads and respect private property. I think it would be easy enough to accomplish with volunteer patrols, etc. The canyon was open prior to 92 or 93 and this bogus "protect the watershed" argument was never a problem then.

EZ

 

[bobdog]

First, the county claiming right of way does not mean the road will be paved...I just don't understand where this false logic comes from...oh wait I know! I always hear that from the greenie weenies!


Secondly, if this Canyon Ventures company wants to do something on their own private property they should be allowed to do so. It's called private property rights.

Personally I think the road should be open to motorized travel with the caveat that vehicles do not leave the established roads and respect private property. I think it would be easy enough to accomplish with volunteer patrols, etc. The canyon was open prior to 92 or 93 and this bogus "protect the watershed" argument was never a problem then.

EZ....a pretty crappy ISP!!!!!

I agree with everything you say I beleive if they own the land they should be able to do what ever they want within reason. It is not false logic to say that if a resort is developed the road will be paved. My point is that in Salt Lake County over the last 50 years just as many or more four wheeling oportunities have been lost to private development as have been lost to forest service closures. Who on the County Council is pro OHV? I know most are pro development. I am not a greenie weenie it is just that I see other threats to the hobby of four wheeling than just greens.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Always naysayers....

To begin:

1. The county claiming the road is a better than the USFS having control of the road... The USFS shut down the road to ALL motorized access.

2. The counties claim in the situation will in NO way enable there to be a paved road... That would hae to be approved by the USFS which it WOULD not. Any developments on the land would also have to be approved by the USFS, which I'm sure they will fight.

This question goes to bobdog...

Why have you given up? You have no hope... All I hear is bad things... did you write a letter?

 

[EZRhino]

Ah! That's where the paved road thing came from....OK I see your reasoning there. And I suspect you probably know that I was certainly not calling you a greenie. Good points about developers. Foothills are full of trails, foothills get made into subdivisions, no more trails. I don't know about this Canyon Ventures thing. In order to build a structure up there, there are a list of things a mile long that have to be approved first, such as: Road not to exceed a certain grade, waterlines for fire hydrants, water shares for drinking, sewer, electricity.....the list goes on and on. There is no way in hell that a building permit would be giving to anyone in that canyon without either some serious changes to zoning codes and/or building codes. I've checked into a this just enough to know that it would price you (me) completely out of the realm of possibility to try to build.

EZ

 

[bobdog]

Always naysayers....

To begin:

1. The county claiming the road is a better than the USFS having control of the road... The USFS shut down the road to ALL motorized access.

2. The counties claim in the situation will in NO way enable there to be a paved road... That would hae to be approved by the USFS which it WOULD not. Any developments on the land would also have to be approved by the USFS, which I'm sure they will fight.

This question goes to bobdog...

Why have you given up? You have no hope... All I hear is bad things... did you write a letter?

I have not given up but I have little hope. I would love to have some opportunities to get of the paved road in the Jeep in Salt Lake County. I can be a pessamist and I am distrustfull of SLCounty government. Does anyone have any reason to beleive that our county has any interest in seeing any former four wheel drive routes opened for the purpose of four wheeling? In Salt Lake the majority of votors would be against any OHV use in the canyons. The counsil is mostly interested in increasing their tax base and taking care of their campain war chests (four wheelers will do neither).
Just because I doubt that any wheeling opportunities will come from this does not mean I don't wish they would. I beleive that in other more rural counties trails may be saved or even reopened to four wheelers because of the recent agreements but Salt Lake County has too many powerfull interests that do not want to see fourwheeling in the canyons.