PDA

View Full Version : Salt Creek Canyon trail



MTpockets
09-25-2006, 12:36 PM
I was asked to share a few of my photos. To do that I had to join the forum so hi everyone.

The attached photo was taken during a wet year and just before it was closed. My '83 CJ5 has a 4' lift and 32 inch BFG's.

accadacca
09-25-2006, 03:51 PM
Awesome man! Keep em coming... :five: :popcorn:

fourtycal
09-25-2006, 04:19 PM
Very nice :hail2thechief: .
Man I wish I would have made Salt creek before it was closed.

Sombeech
09-25-2006, 06:00 PM
cool pic. a possible image bar candidate. :nod:

MTpockets
09-29-2006, 11:34 AM
Yeah, it was a great trip and I enjoyed the trail which went in and out and along the creek bed. I only remember one crossing where I actually got water in my jeep. There were 8 or 9 vehicles in the group. It is also where I learned that WD40 is a great tool for when your distributor gets wet.

I think that San Juan County is still fighting to gain some control over that road, which by the way used to continue past Angel Arch according to photos one of our group had from before Canyonlands became a park.

scoutabout
12-09-2006, 10:49 PM
Yes the road goes all the way to Angel Arch, and it was open even after the park was established. Unfortunately, some people don't want to share with others so the road is now closed. The county and Utah Shared Access Alliance are working to get the road re-opened to all forms of travel (using the previously established permit system to minimize impact). However, it's an uphill battle when fighting groups like SUWA and Wilderness Society.

stefan
12-10-2006, 05:23 PM
Yes the road goes all the way to Angel Arch, and it was open even after the park was established. Unfortunately, some people don't want to share with others so the road is now closed. The county and Utah Shared Access Alliance are working to get the road re-opened to all forms of travel (using the previously established permit system to minimize impact). However, it's an uphill battle when fighting groups like SUWA and Wilderness Society.

actually it's quite a nice hike. i think perhaps MUCH better than a drive. ahh, whatdya need a vehicle for up there anyhow? stretch those legs. :haha:

it's nice and quiet and peaceful that way. beautiful area to be sure.

Iceaxe
12-10-2006, 05:55 PM
If it doesn't use gas..... what good is it :lol8:

http://www.gifmania.co.uk/cars/jeeps/Jeep.gif

scoutabout
12-10-2006, 07:01 PM
Yes the road goes all the way to Angel Arch, and it was open even after the park was established. Unfortunately, some people don't want to share with others so the road is now closed. The county and Utah Shared Access Alliance are working to get the road re-opened to all forms of travel (using the previously established permit system to minimize impact). However, it's an uphill battle when fighting groups like SUWA and Wilderness Society.

actually it's quite a nice hike. i think perhaps MUCH better than a drive. ahh, whatdya need a vehicle for up there anyhow? stretch those legs. :haha:

it's nice and quiet and peaceful that way. beautiful area to be sure.

I hear ya. I certainly enjoy a good hike. I'm pro motorized access, but I advocate responsible motorized access where it makes sense. Definitely not everywhere. In this case, it has been a road for a LONG time. I'll fight to the death to get it re-opened.

Scott P
12-12-2006, 07:28 AM
In the case of Salt Creek, I'm actually neutral (no strong opinion one way or the other), and I've admit that I've driven Salt Creek too, and more than once at that. However, here are some points:


Yes the road goes all the way to Angel Arch, and it was open even after the park was established. Unfortunately, some people don't want to share with others so the road is now closed.

It is true that the road was there previously and was closed at a later time. Still though, there have been far fewer roads that have been closed than new tracks made by ATV'ers and other motorist. The motor crowd likes to complain when a road is closed, but they have no qualms making new ones. There has to be balance.


The county and Utah Shared Access Alliance are working to get the road re-opened to all forms of travel

All forms of travel is inaccurate. Once the road is opened to motorized travel it will drive everyone else out.


I'm pro motorized access, but I advocate responsible motorized access where it makes sense.

The reason Salt Creek was closed is because it is the only long year-round running stream in the entire Canyonlands National Park and surrounding area and the road went right through it. Oils and other materials were polluting the creek. Case in point: It is also where I learned that WD40 is a great tool for when your distributor gets wet.

Another reason perhaps(?) was that the Park Service was getting a lot of calls from people wanting to be towed out after they got stuck!

There still are many other 4wd roads next to Salt Creek that can be driven. Horse Canyon, Davis Canyon, Lavender Canyon, Canyonlands Overlook, Beef Basin, Elephant Hill, Bobby's Park, etc. are all recommended 4wd roads in the area. Below is my most recent album for Davis Canyon that were taken just a short distance from the 4wd road:

http://www.summitpost.org/album/249036/Davis-Canyon-Canyonlands-National-Park-.html

R
12-12-2006, 08:25 AM
While responsible motorized travel in the backcountry seems reasonable, the fact is that opening a road opens it to all operators, not just the responsible ones. The wilderness is fragile, and it doesn't take too many egomaniacle, half-drunk motorheads to rip the canyons a new corn hole.

I'm happy to see Salt Creek stay closed to vehicles, and it's near the top of my "must hike" list.

-Richard

scoutabout
12-12-2006, 09:25 AM
The motor crowd likes to complain when a road is closed, but they have no qualms making new ones.


This is where you are making a gross misstatement that is perpetuating the false image of the offroad community. No responsible offroad user wants to see an increase in illegal offshoot or user created trails.

Your comment is like saying all hikers are Subaru driving hippies who never shower. Obviously, both your comment and this one are false.



All forms of travel is inaccurate. Once the road is opened to motorized travel it will drive everyone else out.


This is completely untrue. Motorized, mechanical, equestrian, and bipedal travel can all exist in the same area. Look at North Fork in AF Canyon as an example.


Case in point: It is also where I learned that WD40 is a great tool for when your distributor gets wet.

His distributor got wet, but that isn't some kind of proof he was dumping chemicals in the creek. The miniscule amount of material that might come loose from a vehicle during one short creek crossing is barely worth mentioning. Give nature some credit. Three feet of dirt purifies water.


Another reason perhaps(?) was that the Park Service was getting a lot of calls from people wanting to be towed out after they got stuck!

I call BS on that. I KNOW it's the policy of the BLM and the FS that they legally CANNOT assist vehicles that become stuck on property they manage. It's a liability issue. I would bet money that the NPS has the same policy.


There still are many other 4wd roads next to Salt Creek that can be driven.

Yup, and there are many other hiking trails too.

Think of a hiking trail that you and your family have enjoyed for many years. Now, how would you feel if that trail was closed to you?

scoutabout
12-12-2006, 09:28 AM
While responsible motorized travel in the backcountry seems reasonable, the fact is that opening a road opens it to all operators, not just the responsible ones. The wilderness is fragile, and it doesn't take too many egomaniacle, half-drunk motorheads to rip the canyons a new corn hole.

I'm happy to see Salt Creek stay closed to vehicles, and it's near the top of my "must hike" list.

-Richard

I've seen another thread on this board about a caves being damaged by irresponsible users. Should all caves be closed to the public? Some irresponsible people drink and drive on the freeways. Should all the freeways be shut down?

There are irresponsible users in EVERY group (yes including hikers, backpackers, river runners, and cavers). Freedom requires responsibilty.

scoutabout
12-12-2006, 09:31 AM
Not everyone who drives a 4x4 vehicle is part of the motorized/offroad community. It's like saying everyone who walks is a hiker.

Scott P
12-12-2006, 10:58 AM
No responsible offroad user wants to see an increase in illegal offshoot or user created trails.

I said nothing about illegal offshoots, though many are being created. How about legal user created ones and others?

How about the new Bangs Canyon-Billings Canyon extreme off road trail south og Grand Junction? Constructed only a few years ago. This is a newly constructed one, not an old mining road or something. How about the one in Hunters Canyon in the Book Cliffs north of Grand Junction. Same exact thing.

Factory Butte is another good example. I know first hand that there were few off-shoots and user created trails, other than a few roads in the 1980

stefan
12-12-2006, 11:03 AM
All forms of travel is inaccurate. Once the road is opened to motorized travel it will drive everyone else out.


This is completely untrue. Motorized, mechanical, equestrian, and bipedal travel can all exist in the same area. Look at North Fork in AF Canyon as an example.
be careful how you use the word completely. it's very american to make large encompasing definitive statements. there are people who will use an area less because vehicles frequent it, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. sure they can coexist, but that really wasn't the point.


His distributor got wet, but that isn't some kind of proof he was dumping chemicals in the creek. The miniscule amount of material that might come loose from a vehicle during one short creek crossing is barely worth mentioning. Give nature some credit. Three feet of dirt purifies water.


hmm, are you serious with this one? it's also not only the minimal amount but the *potentially* large amount which could come out/off of a vehicle. and what are you using to support your claim that it doesn't pollute? and comparing to flash flooding and mud? apples an bowling balls, methinks.



Think of a hiking trail that you and your family have enjoyed for many years. Now, how would you feel if that trail was closed to you?

actually this happens ... areas are closed down for research. example goose creek in zion was recently closed. (though i have never been) i know it was a fantastic wilderness-canyoneering experience for those who did do it, one of the better areas in the zion backcountry. but you deal with it, that's how it goes. lower parunuweap as another example was closed.

dang ... things change, and people have to deal with change. everyone cannot be pleased. there are far more tragic things happening than the closure of salt creek. hell, you used to be able to drive all the way through it/well into it. but i'll tell you, now that it's overgrown and eroded and peaceful, i would never want it to revert back to that time ... and that was during the 80s.

Scott P
12-12-2006, 11:11 AM
Not everyone who drives a 4x4 vehicle is part of the motorized/offroad community.

One more question. Who are you to decide who is and who isn't a part of the motorized/offroad community? Just those whom agree with you and no one else? :ne_nau:

Because I drive 4wd roads and am a wilderness advocate, are you saying I can't be considered an off-roader?

Guess what? I am a wilderness advocate. No one has told me I'm not and none of the groups that I belong to and am a member of.

Guess what else? I am a highway engineer and live in a coal mining town. PS, I also have a mountain bike (and SUV as mentioned). Does that exclude me from being a wilderness advocate?

I'm glad to see the "communities" that I am a part of just might be more accepting than the one you belong too and they allow me to join and be a part of even though I'm a 4X4ing mountain biking red-neck living in a coal mining town highway engineer. :five:

I'm sorry, but I am a part of the 4X4 community unless you being all high and mighty might kick me out. :roll:

I admit I don't drive my SUV for day to day use due to gas milage. I've been putting only 3K to 4K miles a year. It sits in the driveway until I need to drive on rough roads. I ride my bike or walk to work. On the other hand, when I need to drive up into the Elkhead Mountains or into the Maze, you bet I start up my 4X4 and am on my way. Just because I own an SUV doesn't mean I don't try to minimize impact or vice versa.

scoutabout
12-12-2006, 12:31 PM
I said nothing about illegal offshoots, though many are being created. How about legal user created ones and others?


You and SUWA can work to change the law if you think too many roads are being created legally.



How about the new Bangs Canyon-Billings Canyon extreme off road trail south og Grand Junction? Constructed only a few years ago. This is a newly constructed one, not an old mining road or something. How about the one in Hunters Canyon in the Book Cliffs north of Grand Junction. Same exact thing.


Never heard of either. If they are created legally, then good for the users and land managers who are benefiting from these roads. If they are being created illegally, then they should be closed. Again, work to get the law changed if you think it's wrong.



Factory Butte is another good example.


I'm not an expert on Factory Butte, but it was an open riding area for many years. The open area has been reduced in size more than once. Each time, existing routes are kept on the maps for motorized use.



It does drive anyone looking for some peace and quiet completely out (see my post below).


I personally think ATV's, dirt bikes, and snowmobiles should have more stringent requirements for noise suppression.

In general response to your other comments:

Anyone leaking fluids shouldn't be driving on any backcountry roads until the leak is repaired. Water crossing or not.

Yes, you used the word perhaps. I was saying that the arguement does not apply, hypothetical or not.

[quote=Scott Patterson]
Happened to many hiking places I can think of. I will use the one literally in my back yard. We used to hike up Sandrocks Mountain (actually a small hill) every evening to watch the elk and deer. As recently as 2004, there was one ATV/motorcycle track up the hill. Now there are seven and the place is noisy almost every evening. All the elk and deer are gone because of the noise. We were completely pushed out. Isn

scoutabout
12-12-2006, 12:38 PM
actually this happens ... areas are closed down for research. example goose creek in zion was recently closed. (though i have never been) i know it was a fantastic wilderness-canyoneering experience for those who did do it, one of the better areas in the zion backcountry. but you deal with it, that's how it goes. lower parunuweap as another example was closed.


Yes I know it happens, which is why I posed the question. I'm trying to make the comparison so we can relate. When an area you visit is closed to you (I mean CLOSED, not just open for all uses thereby making it less enjoyable to YOU), it is a terrible feeling. That's how ohv users feel when an area is CLOSED to them.

scoutabout
12-12-2006, 12:39 PM
Not everyone who drives a 4x4 vehicle is part of the motorized/offroad community.

One more question. Who are you to decide who is and who isn't a part of the motorized/offroad community? Just those whom agree with you and no one else? :ne_nau:

Because I drive 4wd roads and am a wilderness advocate, are you saying I can't be considered an off-roader?

Guess what? I am a wilderness advocate. No one has told me I'm not and none of the groups that I belong to and am a member of.

Guess what else? I am a highway engineer and live in a coal mining town. PS, I also have a mountain bike (and SUV as mentioned). Does that exclude me from being a wilderness advocate?

I'm glad to see the "communities" that I am a part of just might be more accepting than the one you belong too and they allow me to join and be a part of even though I'm a 4X4ing mountain biking red-neck living in a coal mining town highway engineer. :five:

I'm sorry, but I am a part of the 4X4 community unless you being all high and mighty might kick me out. :roll:

I admit I don't drive my SUV for day to day use due to gas milage. I've been putting only 3K to 4K miles a year. It sits in the driveway until I need to drive on rough roads. I ride my bike or walk to work. On the other hand, when I need to drive up into the Elkhead Mountains or into the Maze, you bet I start up my 4X4 and am on my way. Just because I own an SUV doesn't mean I don't try to minimize impact or vice versa.

My point was that you shouldn't make generalizations about the 4x4 or offroad community and use the behavior of a 16 year old kid with a pick-up truck as an example of how we all act.

I am also a supporter of wilderness. There definitely should be places that are closed to motorized, mechanical, and equestrian use. However, I'm willing to share the land. Unlike groups like SUWA and The Wilderness Society.

Scott P
12-12-2006, 01:03 PM
Never heard of either. If they are created legally, then good for the users and land managers who are benefiting from these roads. If they are being created illegally, then they should be closed. Again, work to get the law changed if you think it's wrong.

Many did try to fight it (Colorado Mountain Club, Colorado Wilderness Coalition, etc.) and yes they were supposedly created legally. Good for whom?


This is not an example of something that was closed to you

If so, then neither is the closure of Salt Creek. Unless you are crippled in which case an exception might be in order, you can still go there. It was closed to your vehicle, not you. My two year and four year old could easily walk to Angel Arch. What

stefan
12-12-2006, 01:05 PM
Yes I know it happens, which is why I posed the question. I'm trying to make the comparison so we can relate. When an area you visit is closed to you (I mean CLOSED, not just open for all uses thereby making it less enjoyable to YOU), it is a terrible feeling. That's how ohv users feel when an area is CLOSED to them.

relate? i think many people can relate ... i don't think a lesson on empathy is necessary here. point is change is inevitable ... disappointment inevitable. we deal and we move on. we fight if we think it's unjust ... but come on this is a national park, it's a desert, the only year-round running springs/creeks in canyonlands national park, which is surrounded by canyons with roads into them ... buck up and deal with it. hell, i have to deal with the fact that everyday special parts of my national forests are closed and logged


and to go along with what scott is saying ... does being an OHV user mean the vehicle is physically attached to you? are you one with your vehicle until the terrain doesn't permit it? i agree with scott, when you say 'closed' your words are HIGHLY misleading and you misconstrue the circumstances. what you should be saying is it "CLOSED TO YOUR USING A VEHICLE" which i believe is what you carelessly mean by "CLOSED TO [YOU]" ... unless, as scott consciously adds, you are prevented by physical ailments which may not be otherwise overcome by improving physical fitness, eg. age/disability.

also using this jargon makes it sound as if this is the ONLY way the OHV crowd would ever consider accessing this land ... is this TRUE??!!

Sombeech
12-12-2006, 01:25 PM
Too much reading hurts my head. :crazy:

scoutabout
12-12-2006, 01:50 PM
Some people think motorized access is bad, and we're not going to change the world here.

I'll keep fighting for my side, and you should keep fighting for yours.