Off-road activist says he's tossed in the towel

[stefan]

USAA's Huck
Off-road activist says he's tossed in the towel
He declares, after ruling, he'll no longer fight wilderness designations
By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune

A hard-line advocate for untrammeled motorized back-country adventure said Friday he would no longer fight efforts to turn federal land into wilderness, saying "stupid environmental pretexts" would always win the day in court.

Rainer Huck, former director of Utah Shared Access Alliance, said a federal ruling handed down Thursday that upheld motorized travel restrictions in the San Rafael Swell signaled the end of his efforts to thwart conservationists.

"It's like battling the Borg: Resistance is futile," Huck said during a phone call from Blue Notch, a desert region near Lake Powell's Hite Marina where he was dirt-biking with his family. "We might as well just designate all of Utah wilderness now and get it over with."

U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball's ruling Thursday actually said nothing about wilderness, but it did demolish every argument Huck, the Southeastern Utah OHV Club and seven individuals Huck described as "friends of the San Rafael" used to appeal the federal Interior Department's support for a Bureau of Land Management travel plan.

The BLM's Price district was the first in Utah to finish such a plan after the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance successfully sued them to satisfy an executive order President Richard Nixon issued decades ago.

After a long environmental review process that included on-the-ground surveys of all of the trails and roads in the Price district, the field office decided to close 468 miles of trail to motorized access but keep open 677 miles of disputed area that, added to existing highways and roads, left 1,977 miles open to OHVs and motorcycles.

Mark H. Williams, a plaintiff in the case Kimball decided, said the Southeastern Utah OHV Club helped with the BLM inventory but didn't like the results.

"We'd go out and show them a trail, and that was the one they closed down," he said.

Williams agreed some of the trails should be closed, but argued OHV enthusiasts wanted continued access to the Muddy River, Junes Bottom, Old Woman Wash, Iron Wash and other areas near Temple Mountain and Copper Globe.

Huck and Williams complained that hikers and bicyclists could ride ATV trails, but not necessarily the reverse.

Mike Swensen, director of Utah Shared Access Alliance, said his group didn't view the travel plan as "the worst thing on Earth," but did believe it too restrictive and called for congressional action to settle county road claims that now are handled under each state's laws.

Off-highway vehicle riders for the past 30 years have had unlimited access to more than 1,000 miles of dirt roads and double tracks through the San Rafael Swell's red sandstone reefs, white salt domes, slot canyons and washes that stretch across 1 million acres in east-central Utah.

As the number of OHV users has increased, so has the number of hikers and bikers who objected to environmental degradation. But BLM officials say conflicts over access were only part of the reason the roads and trails were closed.

Some trails were duplicates, some roads seemed to go nowhere. Threats to endangered species and cultural resources including historic structures and ancient rock art also figured into the BLM decision, as did potential wild and scenic river designations.

The off-road groups sued in 2005 after a rebuff from the the Interior Board of Land Appeals. Kimball's ruling upheld the IBLA, reaffirmed Interior's ruling that road claims had to be decided in court and swept aside new claims that the road and trail closures violated the federal Vocational Rehabilitation Act.

Huck said the ruling showed disregard for disabled people, and predicted that when the rest of the travel plans are finished, "the BLM lands will look exactly like a national park. It just breaks my heart."

Defendants in the lawsuit included BLM officials and the Secretary of the Interior. SUWA, the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club were allowed to intervene as defendants.

SUWA attorney Steve Bloch said Friday that Kimball's 23-page ruling, the second affirmation of the Price district travel plan, should serve as a model for other district offices as develop their travel regulations.

"This plan sets the standard. The BLM looked at every single mile of trail they were going to designate. They were on the ground," Bloch said. "This is the type of plan that SUWA and the public should expect."

[stefan]

okay all sorts of stuff in this article.

but how 'bout we start with "stupid environmental pretexts." this sort of dismissal is becoming unacceptable ... get over it. our society is slowly learning that there is more to the equation than what used to be the status quo ... as well it should.

[JP]

Ahhhh, just like illegal immigration; illegal ORV/OHV usage will continue to grow. Nothing will be stopping that.

[Rev. Coyote]

I hope the door didn't whack Huck on the ass too hard on the way out.

[orvis1]

I can totally understand his frustration. They closed of hundreds of miles of ATV trails to save one endangered catcus they found. This is the same kind of logic to knock down the dam at lake powell to save the colorado river chub. Use some common sense people! ATV's should not be allowed to go everywhere but where there are existing routes open that have been open for hundreds of years leave them alone! SUWA will not disclose where they get there funding, some poeple want public lands closed to public use. With the growing number of ATV riders in our state and the amount of money that is pumped ito the economy because of it, don't kill the golden goose!

[Rev. Coyote]

ATV's should not be allowed to go everywhere but where there are existing routes open that have been open for hundreds of years leave them alone!


I'd sure like to see those ATVs from "hundreds of years ago!"

http://www.pipeline.com/~bkyaffe/altfuel/image/fnwincar.jpg

[rockgremlin]

:lol8: Yabba-Dabba-Doooooo!!!!

[JP]

I'd sure like to see those ATVs from "hundreds of years ago!"

http://www.pipeline.com/~bkyaffe/altfuel/image/fnwincar.jpg

That's your Dodge thousands of years ago :lol8:

[Rev. Coyote]

That's your Dodge thousands of years ago.

Early Cummins

[stefan]

I can totally understand his frustration. They closed of hundreds of miles of ATV trails to save one endangered catcus they found. This is the same kind of logic to knock down the dam at lake powell to save the colorado river chub. Use some common sense people!


uh oh, just because people are finally thinking more about the environment, doesn't mean common sense isn't being used. sorry if you disagree. also, it's more than the cactus and the chub, but that's another matter.



ATV's should not be allowed to go everywhere but where there are existing routes open that have been open for hundreds of years leave them alone!


hundreds of years? um no. regardless, just because a route existed for one purpose doesn't necessarily guarantee it's use for recreation.



With the growing number of ATV riders in our state and the amount of money that is pumped ito the economy because of it, don't kill the golden goose!

it can't and shouldn't always be about economics. the growing number of ATVs should be of concern not necessarily of accommodation. for example, a growing number of skiers shouldn't necessarily translate into a growing number of ski areas or ski acreage within each ski area. again, just because roads exist out there doesn't necessarily mean that they should be open to recreational use or to accommodate increasing recreational use. just because the government was lenient on their use in the past, doesn't mean they SHOULD be open.

i am not saying roads shouldn't be open for OHV use, but i disagree with the sense of entitlement to all roads some of the OHV community touts.

[i am sure i'll have this thrown back at me in some form about being able to hike or canyon anywhere ... but again, apples and oranges, vehicles are different from two feet. but certainly ALL must take car to minimize impact in nature.]

[Rev. Coyote]

If I understand correctly, there's still over 1,900 mies of roads left open in the San Rafael backcountry. Seems a person would have adequate opportunities to enjoy both 4-wheeling and hiking with a bit of solitude thrown in with that kind of access. Why is this not enough?

[JP]

If I understand correctly, there's still over 1,900 mies of roads left open in the San Rafael backcountry. Why is this not enough?
How much more was open say, ten years ago? 1900 today, as time passes, 1700, 1200, 900... By downplaying it, still over 1900 miles, it doesn't seem all that bad. But it's a consistent pace, every year it's more and more closures. Those numbers will continue to dwindle.

[Rev. Coyote]

How much more was open say, ten years ago?.

Wish I knew. Anyone?

[James_B_Wads2000]

I'd sure like to see those ATVs from "hundreds of years ago!"

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2007/flintstones.jpg

James :moses:

[orvis1]

I can totally understand his frustration. They closed of hundreds of miles of ATV trails to save one endangered catcus they found. This is the same kind of logic to knock down the dam at lake powell to save the colorado river chub. Use some common sense people!


uh oh, just because people are finally thinking more about the environment, doesn't mean common sense isn't being used. sorry if you disagree. also, it's more than the cactus and the chub, but that's another matter.



ATV's should not be allowed to go everywhere but where there are existing routes open that have been open for hundreds of years leave them alone!


hundreds of years? um no. regardless, just because a route existed for one purpose doesn't necessarily guarantee it's use for recreation.



With the growing number of ATV riders in our state and the amount of money that is pumped ito the economy because of it, don't kill the golden goose!

it can't and shouldn't always be about economics. the growing number of ATVs should be of concern not necessarily of accommodation. for example, a growing number of skiers shouldn't necessarily translate into a growing number of ski areas or ski acreage within each ski area. again, just because roads exist out there doesn't necessarily mean that they should be open to recreational use or to accommodate increasing recreational use. just because the government was lenient on their use in the past, doesn't mean they SHOULD be open.

i am not saying roads shouldn't be open for OHV use, but i disagree with the sense of entitlement to all roads some of the OHV community touts.

[i am sure i'll have this thrown back at me in some form about being able to hike or canyon anywhere ... but again, apples and oranges, vehicles are different from two feet. but certainly ALL must take car to minimize impact in nature.]


Understand they are trying to prevent access to ALL users that will effect hikers as well the shared access alliance fights for your rights to! That is why we need to enforce staying on EXISTING trails and not deviate off them that is what causes the most damage. Realize that the taxes OHV users pay support search and rescue which if not mistaken helps hikers as well. Please understand in politics you follow the money that is where the policy is made, in this case SUWA has the money and surprise all the judgements go to them.... HMMMM......

[Rev. Coyote]

Realize that the taxes OHV users pay support search and rescue which if not mistaken helps hikers as well.

I'm not aware of any special tax OHV users pay. What am I missing?

[Jaxx]

Realize that the taxes OHV users pay support search and rescue which if not mistaken helps hikers as well.

I'm not aware of any special tax OHV users pay. What am I missing?

I think we both can figure out that he means registration taxes on the OHV.

[Rev. Coyote]

I think we both can figure out that he means registration taxes on the OHV.

Not me -- those things don't have to be registered in Virginia, since they aren't street legal.

[Jaxx]

wow. Do you have to register boats then? Is there alot of ATV use out there?

[Rev. Coyote]

wow. Do you have to register boats then? Is there alot of ATV use out there?

Oh yes, the boats are registered. Mine is documented, so I'm no longer having to deal with the state year-to-year. ATV use here is mostly on farms -- the modern-day horse. Mostly in Virginia they aren't toys HOWEVER we have very little public land.

[JP]

A little further up the coast from him, we have to register ATV's and all the way up through the rest of New England. Boats and PWC here also have to be registered and with boats and PFC, you need an license to operate them as well.

[stefan]

Understand they are trying to prevent access to ALL users that will effect hikers as well
precisely who are they that you are talking about?



That is why we need to enforce staying on EXISTING trails and not deviate off them that is what causes the most damage.

no argument there.



Realize that the taxes OHV users pay support search and rescue which if not mistaken helps hikers as well.

that's nice, but SAR is an insufficient reason to support a cause of this sort.



Please understand in politics you follow the money that is where the policy is made, in this case SUWA has the money and surprise all the judgements go to them

SUWA doesn't always win. and OHV groups like to tout the reasoning you suggest ... ALOT. maybe it's simply time the government gave a damn about the environment.


if you look at the number of roads that have increased over the past 100 years it's staggering. this is undeniable, despite what anyone says. even if roads are closed there is no shortage of roads. much of the landscape has changed over the past century, due to development of roads across the plateau. whatever their original intent, it doesn't necessarily mean they are for recreation now.

i will question this premise until the end. i hope others do too.

[ExpUt]

...if you look at the number of roads that have increased over the past 100 years it's staggering. this is undeniable, despite what anyone says. even if roads are closed there is no shortage of roads. much of the landscape has changed over the past century, due to development of roads across the plateau. whatever their original intent, it doesn't necessarily mean they are for recreation now....

While I'm not saying your wrong... I would love to see some data on this fact. Your right "roads" have increased over the past 100 years, but what about the last 50 years?? I would argue that roads and trails (not including paved routes) have actually decreased in the last 40-50 years. I can guarantee if for SL & Utah County, most likely for Summit County too. Meantime, usages of all persuations have grown nearly exponentially. There are roughly 30 times the amount of OHV's than there were just 15 years ago... and with a dwindling area to legally ride them, they are forced to recreate on a smaller number of trails. How is it an environmentally sound practice to corral usage to damaging levels & overuse. I truly beleive that motorized usage does not equate to damage, and SUWA must agree as just about ever WA & WSA in the state had motorized use of some degree.

Here are just a couple of "historical" trails here in SL County (courtesy of Chris Perri)

1) Mineral Fork: up until 1983, had a road very much passable by four
wheel drives. In fact there was a pair of old wooden bridges in one spot to
help 10 wheeled dump trucks negotiate the tight, steep switchbacks to access
the Wasatch Tunnel and Regulator mines at the top of the canyon. The
current road was built in 1936, but was actually the third generation road
(the second generation road was built prior to 1899). The bottom of the
present road was badly washed out in '83, taking the banks of earth and the
wood bridges along with it. Apparently the Forest Service never bothered
repairing it (big surprise). Due to the washout and lack of maintenance,
the canyon is open today to ATV's only. I find it wholly ludicrous that the
greatest numbers of registered ATV's in the state is found in Salt Lake
County, yet Mineral Fork is the ONLY legal trail in the ENTIRE COUNTY where
one can drive an ATV. I find this both astonishing and disheartening at the
same time. How can the county expect users to "follow the rules" and "stay
off the foothills", etc., when they only provide 2.1 miles of legal trails
to ride on??

2) Cardiff Fork: a.k.a. Mill D North Fork, also referred to as South Fork
Big Cottonwood Creek: This canyon has a long history of mining, since the
1870's. The first route up it was a trail known as the Goodspeed Trail,
built in 1870 to access the Reed and Benson Mine high on the ridge between
Cardiff Fork and Days Fork. The following year a road was built following
the same path. The largest mine in the canyon, the Cardiff Mine, began in
1901. Between 1905 and 1910 the Cardiff Mining and Milling Co. built a
better road to their mine located 3/4 of the way up the canyon. It mainly
paralleled the old road but did away with some of the steep grades so that
large Knox tractors could get to the mine, pulling six to twelve trailers
behind them to bring the ore down the canyon. Each trailer had a six ton
capacity. The Cardiff mine was worked well into the 1960's. From then
until 1992, the canyon was open to recreational four wheel drive vehicles
and motorcycles. In 1992 the canyon was closed to all motorized use with
the exception of private land owners. I have both hiked and driven Cardiff
fork on numerous occasions, including last summer. The roads in Cardiff are
still in excellent condition, despite being closed to the general public for
the last ten years. In 1991 the Storm Mountain 4x4 Club adopted the canyon
and provided maintenance with the oversight of the Forest Service before its
closure.

3) Days Fork: The Eclipse shaft was dug in 1880, and a road built up
Days Fork from the big Cottonwood Canyon Road during that time period to get
equipment to the mine. There is one dugway I remembered while hiking to the
mine two summers ago, and I later found out that it is called the Hirschman
Dugway, named after the mine's superintendent. I still do not know when
motorized traffic was suspended on this road, but I can tell you that
although very narrow, it wouldn't take much work to make it jeep worthy. If
fact, I wouldn't hesitate taking mine up it.

4) Silver Fork: The road to the top of Silver Fork was built in either
1870 or 1871. Another road from the Price of Wales mine high on the ridge
connected Silver Fork with Alta via Grizzly Gulch. Both roads remained in
operation until the mid 1930's. In 1913 a better road was built to the Alta
Tunnel (located not far up Silver Fork) which superceded the earlier road.
This later road wrapped around the mountain and joined the canyon highway
where Solitude's lower parking lot is today. Presently the road to the Alta
Tunnel is drivable by any passenger car. Above the mine the old road has
deteriorated a lot, but is certainly passable. It is easy to tell that it
was suitable for vehicles at one time.

[stefan]

While I'm not saying your wrong... I would love to see some data on this fact. Your right "roads" have increased over the past 100 years,

one stat that might be useful to you is that the largest continuous roadless area on the colorado plateau in 1932 was assessed at almost 9 million acres, in 1992 it was about 875,000 acres.




but what about the last 50 years?? I would argue that roads and trails (not including paved routes) have actually decreased in the last 40-50 years.

for whatever reason a road was constructed, it doesn't mean it should be used for recreation today. unless we make clear and regulate where are boundaries of recreation, more roads and trails will be frequented and become regularly used AND new tracks/"roads" will be generated (while some folks are quick to discount this, i don't see why one should rule out the likelihood, at least in the short term). while i believe OHV recreation should exist on the colorado plateau, i believe it's use should be highly curtailed. this is only part of my vision for the colorado plateau, i know offends many here. but, it is what it is.

and the roads you are talking about all haven't disappeared, so i don't know how you can argue that the number of roads and trails have decreased (some have degrade to some extent). are you talking about usage type and usage extent? then i would argue the recreational usage of many of these roads has skyrocketed over the 50 years. new roads have sprouted up and non-recreational roads are now used for recreation (some more than others).

just because a road was built in the past for a purpose doesn't mean that it should continue to be used, in particular, for the purpose of recreation. just because a road was used for recreation doesn't mean that it necessarily should continue to be used for recreation.

yes, ultimately i am very worried about the impact of our exploding population on the colorado plateau (as well as many other places, but the CP is the dearest to my heart). i believe decisions we make now can strongly affect the next hundreds of years (yes i care very much about the future). i think we need to set a precedent and be very conservative now (and this coming from a liberal, har!).

disclaimer: this opinions are not spoon-fed by suwa, they are my core, personally-reasoned opinions. i support suwa because their vision intersects my vision. i follow my own ideals and support who shares in those ideas.





How is it an environmentally sound practice to corral usage to damaging levels & overuse.


well, how is it appropriate to accommodate their growth? and do we keep accommodating in ten or 50 years when the number has exploded ... exponentially as you suggest? my response is no, i believe we should draw the line now and make it a hard line. the colorado plateau is simply too special of a place.

although i love skiing to death, i want ski area growth highly restricted.

[ExpUt]

...one stat that might be useful to you is that the largest continuous roadless area on the colorado plateau in 1932 was assessed at almost 9 million acres, in 1992 it was about 875,000 acres.

Hmmm, I would really love to see the data behind that. While there is no doubt the CP has sustained alot of "improvement" in the last 75 years (wit the majority of said impact as result of oil/gas/mining interests). I still can't picture where a 9 million acre roadless area could have existed, even in 1932? Thats roughly 125 miles x 125 miles... roads into Moab, the La Sals, Hanksville, Grand Junction, Sego Canyon, Nine Mile Canyon, The SR Swell and Henry Mountains, etc all existed in 1932.


...well, how is it appropriate to accommodate their growth? and do we keep accommodating in ten or 50 years when the number has exploded ... exponentially as you suggest? my response is no, i believe we should draw the line now and make it a hard line. the colorado plateau is simply too special of a place.

although i love skiing to death, i want ski area growth highly restricted.

Well, there is the problem... If you truly beleive we shouldn't accomodate and manage the growth, then your side needs to figure out a way to solve it. Aiming for the trails is NOT going to solve said issue, rather you need to find a way to curve ownership and even at a more fundemental level, curve population increase.

I guess it comes down to the perception one gets when recreating... Your side will say that the mere sound of an ATV or vehicle "ruins" their experience, where I'll say it just expands it. There are plenty of places to acheive your solace, just not everyplace. I don't think the site of a road into a desert destroy's its visual beauty, much like I don't think a scenic mine is a blur on a mountains serenity. I like it... I spend 50+ days a year in Utahs outdoors, I can't think of a single occassion in the last year... not close to enough. Through my travels I've seen overuse, I've seen litter, I've seen damage. But in almost all of those cases they are easily repaired.

Some think new laws and new restrictions are going to magically "save they land" from the damage they perceive. But newsflash, littering is already illegal, driving off the road/trail is already illegal, even in open designation areas damaging trees/shrubs is forbaden. All the new laws and restrictions in the world are not going to increase what is really needed, and that is enforcement, education and stewardship. All sides fail miserably at that... though I would like to think the pro-motorized factions have really pulled ahead in the last couple of years (recent National Public Lands Day events were some of the biggest in state history). Can you imagine how much enforcement could be added if all these lawsuits, costly RMP processes, etc could be streamlined and the money put on the ground?? It would be amazing... places like the greater Moab area could have 4-5 more full time rangers/LEO's, that would equate to ALOT more enforcement and education. I really think that is the key... not new restrictions... all it will do is force more users into less area.

[cmpbiker]

Here are just a couple of "historical" trails here in SL County (courtesy of Chris Perri)

Days, Cardiff and Silver are all shut down because of private owners, not Forest Service control. The problem with Salt Lake County is that private land tends to border and control access to the FS lands. Other mining areas and the access roads are no in the hands of Ski Resorts, locked down in a lease.

There used to be access to Sand Dunes near Butterfeild Canyon but Kennecott stopped that about 15 years ago.

It is interesting to me that many full access people complain about government regulation limiting access, if it wasn't for the government individual property owners would have shut down access years ago. It is only because of the high percentage of federal land that this argument even takes place.

I would give up on Salt Lake County, there is really limited opportunity for ATV trail development. The Uintas with many miles of official trails including ATV campgrounds would make most east coasters green with envy. There are also tons of 4x4 trails from the logging days still open. Just keep it on the tracks, drive reasonably and nobody has a problem.

[ExpUt]

...Days, Cardiff and Silver are all shut down because of private owners, not Forest Service control.

Wrong, the FS recently (2004?) cited property owners in Days Canyon for trying to access their property with a motorized vehicle. The pair were fined in court for repairing a section of the road. The Forest Service refused to issue permits for them to "reasonably" access their property. This road was closed to public access by the Forest Service... NOT the private owners.

Again with Cardiff Fork, the FS makes the current property owners apply for a conditional permit to access their own property. I have spoken with the FS agent responsible for motorized recreation (Steve Sheid?, I'd have to look it up). According to him the reason Cardiff and Mineral Fork were closed to public motorized access was due to "user conflicts"... aka hikers were angered that the ROAD they were hiking along actually had vehicles on it.


...I would give up on Salt Lake County, there is really limited opportunity for ATV trail development. The Uintas with many miles of official trails including ATV campgrounds would make most east coasters green with envy. There are also tons of 4x4 trails from the logging days still open. Just keep it on the tracks, drive reasonably and nobody has a problem.

Agreed, any "urban forest" will have similar issues as SL County and the BC/LC/MC canyons... however American Fork Canyon is not any different in many cases, yet the PG Forest district has done a much better job (IMO of couse) of preserving recreation opportunities on forest land. Similar to canyons in the Wasatch Front, many of the AFC trails have public easments through private lands. With the exception of Snowbirds and the Mineral Basin Trail, there are few instances where trails have been closed. The only other would be the Eagle-Earl (Upper Major Evans Gulch) in which private owners closed access to build a "hunting ranch" of sorts.

I will agree the Uintas have alot to offer, I have personally explored about 90% of the roads/trails on the Motorized Travel Plan for the Kamas District. Alot of neat stuff to check out for sure. The Uintas (western side especially) are an area I hold dear, I've participated and organized several large service projects in the canyon. I'm hoping these legal, existing routes don't fall the fate of similar routes in the Wasatch front due to the influx of populations in the Kamas Valley and special interest group pressuring the FS.

[orvis1]

...if you look at the number of roads that have increased over the past 100 years it's staggering. this is undeniable, despite what anyone says. even if roads are closed there is no shortage of roads. much of the landscape has changed over the past century, due to development of roads across the plateau. whatever their original intent, it doesn't necessarily mean they are for recreation now....

While I'm not saying your wrong... I would love to see some data on this fact. Your right "roads" have increased over the past 100 years, but what about the last 50 years?? I would argue that roads and trails (not including paved routes) have actually decreased in the last 40-50 years. I can guarantee if for SL & Utah County, most likely for Summit County too. Meantime, usages of all persuations have grown nearly exponentially. There are roughly 30 times the amount of OHV's than there were just 15 years ago... and with a dwindling area to legally ride them, they are forced to recreate on a smaller number of trails. How is it an environmentally sound practice to corral usage to damaging levels & overuse. I truly beleive that motorized usage does not equate to damage, and SUWA must agree as just about ever WA & WSA in the state had motorized use of some degree.

Here are just a couple of "historical" trails here in SL County (courtesy of Chris Perri)

1) Mineral Fork: up until 1983, had a road very much passable by four
wheel drives. In fact there was a pair of old wooden bridges in one spot to
help 10 wheeled dump trucks negotiate the tight, steep switchbacks to access
the Wasatch Tunnel and Regulator mines at the top of the canyon. The
current road was built in 1936, but was actually the third generation road
(the second generation road was built prior to 1899). The bottom of the
present road was badly washed out in '83, taking the banks of earth and the
wood bridges along with it. Apparently the Forest Service never bothered
repairing it (big surprise). Due to the washout and lack of maintenance,
the canyon is open today to ATV's only. I find it wholly ludicrous that the
greatest numbers of registered ATV's in the state is found in Salt Lake
County, yet Mineral Fork is the ONLY legal trail in the ENTIRE COUNTY where
one can drive an ATV. I find this both astonishing and disheartening at the
same time. How can the county expect users to "follow the rules" and "stay
off the foothills", etc., when they only provide 2.1 miles of legal trails
to ride on??

2) Cardiff Fork: a.k.a. Mill D North Fork, also referred to as South Fork
Big Cottonwood Creek: This canyon has a long history of mining, since the
1870's. The first route up it was a trail known as the Goodspeed Trail,
built in 1870 to access the Reed and Benson Mine high on the ridge between
Cardiff Fork and Days Fork. The following year a road was built following
the same path. The largest mine in the canyon, the Cardiff Mine, began in
1901. Between 1905 and 1910 the Cardiff Mining and Milling Co. built a
better road to their mine located 3/4 of the way up the canyon. It mainly
paralleled the old road but did away with some of the steep grades so that
large Knox tractors could get to the mine, pulling six to twelve trailers
behind them to bring the ore down the canyon. Each trailer had a six ton
capacity. The Cardiff mine was worked well into the 1960's. From then
until 1992, the canyon was open to recreational four wheel drive vehicles
and motorcycles. In 1992 the canyon was closed to all motorized use with
the exception of private land owners. I have both hiked and driven Cardiff
fork on numerous occasions, including last summer. The roads in Cardiff are
still in excellent condition, despite being closed to the general public for
the last ten years. In 1991 the Storm Mountain 4x4 Club adopted the canyon
and provided maintenance with the oversight of the Forest Service before its
closure.

3) Days Fork: The Eclipse shaft was dug in 1880, and a road built up
Days Fork from the big Cottonwood Canyon Road during that time period to get
equipment to the mine. There is one dugway I remembered while hiking to the
mine two summers ago, and I later found out that it is called the Hirschman
Dugway, named after the mine's superintendent. I still do not know when
motorized traffic was suspended on this road, but I can tell you that
although very narrow, it wouldn't take much work to make it jeep worthy. If
fact, I wouldn't hesitate taking mine up it.

4) Silver Fork: The road to the top of Silver Fork was built in either
1870 or 1871. Another road from the Price of Wales mine high on the ridge
connected Silver Fork with Alta via Grizzly Gulch. Both roads remained in
operation until the mid 1930's. In 1913 a better road was built to the Alta
Tunnel (located not far up Silver Fork) which superceded the earlier road.
This later road wrapped around the mountain and joined the canyon highway
where Solitude's lower parking lot is today. Presently the road to the Alta
Tunnel is drivable by any passenger car. Above the mine the old road has
deteriorated a lot, but is certainly passable. It is easy to tell that it
was suitable for vehicles at one time.



Very well said! Stephan has made it clear that he is anti-atv on most PUBLIC lands. I pay taxes like everyone else and we all should have equal access to public lands. Groups like SUWA are battleing with groups like shared access allaince and blue ribbon colition. Where there are ATV usage now leave them alone, to many miles of trials get closed every year to an "endangered catucs" or a "spottle turtle" that we don't need east coast funded special intrest groups taking away more PUBLIC land away. If the atv community would police itself better we may not have to fight to keep what is rightfully ours to use. The lands should be open to all, after all they are PUBLIC lands!

[orvis1]

...if you look at the number of roads that have increased over the past 100 years it's staggering. this is undeniable, despite what anyone says. even if roads are closed there is no shortage of roads. much of the landscape has changed over the past century, due to development of roads across the plateau. whatever their original intent, it doesn't necessarily mean they are for recreation now....

While I'm not saying your wrong... I would love to see some data on this fact. Your right "roads" have increased over the past 100 years, but what about the last 50 years?? I would argue that roads and trails (not including paved routes) have actually decreased in the last 40-50 years. I can guarantee if for SL & Utah County, most likely for Summit County too. Meantime, usages of all persuations have grown nearly exponentially. There are roughly 30 times the amount of OHV's than there were just 15 years ago... and with a dwindling area to legally ride them, they are forced to recreate on a smaller number of trails. How is it an environmentally sound practice to corral usage to damaging levels & overuse. I truly beleive that motorized usage does not equate to damage, and SUWA must agree as just about ever WA & WSA in the state had motorized use of some degree.

Here are just a couple of "historical" trails here in SL County (courtesy of Chris Perri)

1) Mineral Fork: up until 1983, had a road very much passable by four
wheel drives. In fact there was a pair of old wooden bridges in one spot to
help 10 wheeled dump trucks negotiate the tight, steep switchbacks to access
the Wasatch Tunnel and Regulator mines at the top of the canyon. The
current road was built in 1936, but was actually the third generation road
(the second generation road was built prior to 1899). The bottom of the
present road was badly washed out in '83, taking the banks of earth and the
wood bridges along with it. Apparently the Forest Service never bothered
repairing it (big surprise). Due to the washout and lack of maintenance,
the canyon is open today to ATV's only. I find it wholly ludicrous that the
greatest numbers of registered ATV's in the state is found in Salt Lake
County, yet Mineral Fork is the ONLY legal trail in the ENTIRE COUNTY where
one can drive an ATV. I find this both astonishing and disheartening at the
same time. How can the county expect users to "follow the rules" and "stay
off the foothills", etc., when they only provide 2.1 miles of legal trails
to ride on??

2) Cardiff Fork: a.k.a. Mill D North Fork, also referred to as South Fork
Big Cottonwood Creek: This canyon has a long history of mining, since the
1870's. The first route up it was a trail known as the Goodspeed Trail,
built in 1870 to access the Reed and Benson Mine high on the ridge between
Cardiff Fork and Days Fork. The following year a road was built following
the same path. The largest mine in the canyon, the Cardiff Mine, began in
1901. Between 1905 and 1910 the Cardiff Mining and Milling Co. built a
better road to their mine located 3/4 of the way up the canyon. It mainly
paralleled the old road but did away with some of the steep grades so that
large Knox tractors could get to the mine, pulling six to twelve trailers
behind them to bring the ore down the canyon. Each trailer had a six ton
capacity. The Cardiff mine was worked well into the 1960's. From then
until 1992, the canyon was open to recreational four wheel drive vehicles
and motorcycles. In 1992 the canyon was closed to all motorized use with
the exception of private land owners. I have both hiked and driven Cardiff
fork on numerous occasions, including last summer. The roads in Cardiff are
still in excellent condition, despite being closed to the general public for
the last ten years. In 1991 the Storm Mountain 4x4 Club adopted the canyon
and provided maintenance with the oversight of the Forest Service before its
closure.

3) Days Fork: The Eclipse shaft was dug in 1880, and a road built up
Days Fork from the big Cottonwood Canyon Road during that time period to get
equipment to the mine. There is one dugway I remembered while hiking to the
mine two summers ago, and I later found out that it is called the Hirschman
Dugway, named after the mine's superintendent. I still do not know when
motorized traffic was suspended on this road, but I can tell you that
although very narrow, it wouldn't take much work to make it jeep worthy. If
fact, I wouldn't hesitate taking mine up it.

4) Silver Fork: The road to the top of Silver Fork was built in either
1870 or 1871. Another road from the Price of Wales mine high on the ridge
connected Silver Fork with Alta via Grizzly Gulch. Both roads remained in
operation until the mid 1930's. In 1913 a better road was built to the Alta
Tunnel (located not far up Silver Fork) which superceded the earlier road.
This later road wrapped around the mountain and joined the canyon highway
where Solitude's lower parking lot is today. Presently the road to the Alta
Tunnel is drivable by any passenger car. Above the mine the old road has
deteriorated a lot, but is certainly passable. It is easy to tell that it
was suitable for vehicles at one time.



Very well said! Stephan has made it clear that he is anti-atv on most PUBLIC lands. I pay taxes like everyone else and we all should have equal access to public lands. Groups like SUWA are battleing with groups like shared access allaince and blue ribbon colition. Where there are ATV usage now leave them alone, to many miles of trials get closed every year to an "endangered catucs" or a "spottle turtle" that we don't need east coast funded special intrest groups taking away more PUBLIC land away. If the atv community would police itself better we may not have to fight to keep what is rightfully ours to use. The lands should be open to all, after all they are PUBLIC lands!

[Rev. Coyote]

too many miles of trials get closed every year to an "endangered catucs" or a "spottle turtle" that we don't need east coast funded special intrest groups taking away more PUBLIC land away. If the atv community would police itself better we may not have to fight to keep what is rightfully ours to use. The lands should be open to all, after all they are PUBLIC lands!

There's that entitlement mentality ringing out again. You seem to feel it's OK to tear up our (yours and mine) public land with little ATV ruts. Access does not mean you should be allowed to scar the land and f*ck up the tranquility with the incessant buzz of 2-cycle toys. That's not necessarily a "right."

Here's an analogy: If I shared an apartment with a person that felt it was their right through contributing half the rent to leave skid marks on the sofa, their ass would be hitting the bricks.

So stop whining -- no one is trying to "take away" land (despite what the shrill harpies of the Blue Ribbon Coalition say).

I like my Blue Ribbon cold and in a can, by the way. The other can kiss my swinging nut sack.

Cheers,
Thurston Howell III
Eastern Elitist Pigfu*ker

[Rev. Coyote]

Please pardon me if I sounded like a dick.

[JP]

with the incessant buzz of 2-cycle toys.
They've been replaced by 4-strokes :haha: You know, environmentally friendly :lol8:

Nice yawning avi :mrgreen:

[Rev. Coyote]

with the incessant buzz of 2-cycle toys.
They've been replaced by 4-strokes :haha: You know, environmentally friendly :lol8:

Nice yawning avi :mrgreen:

Kinda like outboards? Well, I suppose they're quieter...

Glad you like the new avatar. I figured it was time for a new one, and this one struck me as particularly obnoxious.

[JP]

this one struck me as particularly obnoxious.
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

It's about time for me as well, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :mrgreen:

[orvis1]

Please pardon me if I sounded like a dick.


Nope you just sounded like any other anti-atv tree hugger I have ran into before. Most "ruts" are left by 4wd vehicles not you atv's that weigh under 700lbs and run on low pressure tires. Yes I do have a sense of entitlement they are my PUBLIC lands and restricting how I use them becuase you would rather ride a bike or hike on them is not o.k. with me. Most area's we ride in are places where the only non-motorized travel I run into are horseman. I do pull over my ATV shut it off and remove my helmet as not to scare the horse. I am not asking for access to ride through wetlands or right through moon lake just keep what is open and quit closing trails! I also own a boat surprise so the slam on motors also hits home and yes I run a 4 stroke on bolth. What is the next plan lets see if we can drain lake powell and stop boating to save a chub? Oh wait they have already tried that.

[Rev. Coyote]

Nope you just sounded like any other anti-atv tree hugger I have ran into before. Most "ruts" are left by 4wd vehicles not you atv's that weigh under 700lbs and run on low pressure tires. Yes I do have a sense of entitlement they are my PUBLIC lands and restricting how I use them becuase you would rather ride a bike or hike on them is not o.k. with me. Most area's we ride in are places where the only non-motorized travel I run into are horseman. I do pull over my ATV shut it off and remove my helmet as not to scare the horse. I am not asking for access to ride through wetlands or right through moon lake just keep what is open and quit closing trails! I also own a boat surprise so the slam on motors also hits home and yes I run a 4 stroke on bolth. What is the next plan lets see if we can drain lake powell and stop boating to save a chub? Oh wait they have already tried that.

A coule of things: I own both a 4WD truck and a boat (both diesel). What I want to see is a reasonable amount trails left open, not the current spiderweb of tracks. I use the truck (other than for basic transportation and wood-hauling) to get back to remote areas where I then hike.

As far as Lake Foul I say HELL YES, drain that son of a bitch. Boating on fake lakes is just silly. Would rather have Glen Canyon back and the canoeing opportunities. (Oh, and I cruise on the Chesapeake Bay.)

And before you jump the gun, yes, I am a bit of a hypocrite. Just wanna see some balance, and there is none. And I'd rather err on the side of MORE trail closures than less. I don't mind walking.

[ExpUt]

Please pardon me if I sounded like a dick.


Nope you just sounded like any other anti-atv tree hugger I have ran into before. Most "ruts" are left by 4wd vehicles not you atv's that weigh under 700lbs and run on low pressure tires. Yes I do have a sense of entitlement they are my PUBLIC lands and restricting how I use them becuase you would rather ride a bike or hike on them is not o.k. with me. Most area's we ride in are places where the only non-motorized travel I run into are horseman. I do pull over my ATV shut it off and remove my helmet as not to scare the horse. I am not asking for access to ride through wetlands or right through moon lake just keep what is open and quit closing trails! I also own a boat surprise so the slam on motors also hits home and yes I run a 4 stroke on bolth. What is the next plan lets see if we can drain lake powell and stop boating to save a chub? Oh wait they have already tried that.

Sorry orvis1, but blaming "most ruts" on 4x4's is not only wrong, but absurd at the same time. Both, when used inappropriately can cause "ruts", but ATV's are far more prone to tear up the ground, as well as attract those who think its OK. I don't care to debate this with you, I see no reason... no amount of convincing can overcome what I have seen in the field. I spent alot of time in Utahs public lands, I also spend alot of time repairing them. My eyes don't decieve

[JP]

Sorry orvis1, but blaming "most ruts" on 4x4's is not only wrong, but absurd at the same time.
Yea, I found that to be a little absurd as well :nod:

[orvis1]

Sorry orvis1, but blaming "most ruts" on 4x4's is not only wrong, but absurd at the same time.
Yea, I found that to be a little absurd as well :nod:


If you use a little common sense you would understand. Look at how wide apart the ruts are, if you can fit an ATV in it than we did it. If it is to wide for an ATV it was a jeep or a truck. Because the weight of an atv is much less it does not tear up the ground as much or leave deap ruts like a jeep or truck does. I am glad to hear that you do help fix the land, I to love to pick up others garbage left on the trail. We should all do our parts to keep the lands we enjoy clean.

[JP]

Because the weight of an atv is much less it does not tear up the ground as much or leave deap ruts like a jeep or truck does.
:ne_nau: Any jacka$$ with a heavy throttle can tear up ground. So by your theory motorcycles would leave no ruts what so ever because they're just above weightlessness?

[Rev. Coyote]

What about this?!?

[ExpUt]

...If you use a little common sense you would understand. Look at how wide apart the ruts are, if you can fit an ATV in it than we did it. If it is to wide for an ATV it was a jeep or a truck.

You should author a book on "Detecting and Classifying Off-Road Ruts - Vol. 1". Seriously, your assuming that every truck and every 4 wheeler has a locked rear axle, which is NOT the cases, your assuming that every rut is discovered shortly after it is created. Add some rain/water into the mix and you'll never know where a rut came from. And where are these "ruts" that are even a significant issue? The issue is people driving off of the trail, in illegal areas, etc... not ruts IMO. Ruts are easily repaired when needed, in most cases a winter repairs them naturally. Illegal trail construction and trail weaving does not... I stand by my thesis that "most" OHV "damage" is caused by the 4-wheeler and side x side crowd. I'm being as bold not to call it an opinion, rather an official stance.


...Because the weight of an atv is much less it does not tear up the ground as much or leave deap ruts like a jeep or truck does ...

Again, your logic escapes me, but I'll wait for the book. I'm sure you'll take into account all the aspects of the 4wheeler such as increased instance of wheel-spin, overly aggressive tires, etc.

[Rev. Coyote]

And where are these "ruts" that are even a significant issue?.

It's an issue in San Juan County.


Ruts are easily repaired when needed, in most cases a winter repairs them naturally.

Not the ones off-trail (and I hope you're not suggesting that). I lot of the plant species take years to come back. Krypto crust is particularly hard to reestablish.

[orvis1]

...If you use a little common sense you would understand. Look at how wide apart the ruts are, if you can fit an ATV in it than we did it. If it is to wide for an ATV it was a jeep or a truck.

You should author a book on "Detecting and Classifying Off-Road Ruts - Vol. 1". Seriously, your assuming that every truck and every 4 wheeler has a locked rear axle, which is NOT the cases, your assuming that every rut is discovered shortly after it is created. Add some rain/water into the mix and you'll never know where a rut came from. And where are these "ruts" that are even a significant issue? The issue is people driving off of the trail, in illegal areas, etc... not ruts IMO. Ruts are easily repaired when needed, in most cases a winter repairs them naturally. Illegal trail construction and trail weaving does not... I stand by my thesis that "most" OHV "damage" is caused by the 4-wheeler and side x side crowd. I'm being as bold not to call it an opinion, rather an official stance.


...Because the weight of an atv is much less it does not tear up the ground as much or leave deap ruts like a jeep or truck does ...

Again, your logic escapes me, but I'll wait for the book. I'm sure you'll take into account all the aspects of the 4wheeler such as increased instance of wheel-spin, overly aggressive tires, etc.



The point is the wheelbase lengh is different for a atv and a vehicle. Anyone with eyeballs can see that, look at the width of the rut and you can tell how it was created. I never stated that irresponsible OHV riders don't blaze new trials and that is the problem. If you give those riders less area to ride imagine what the riding area's will look like. I hope I am speaking english here, common sense dictates heavier machines will sink further in the mud. Or are you expecting some kind of physics lesson on how that works. Get over yourself the atv community does a lot for the land as well. Do you think biker/hikers don't leave trash? And where the hell did you get my family photo's?

[orvis1]

Because the weight of an atv is much less it does not tear up the ground as much or leave deap ruts like a jeep or truck does.
:ne_nau: Any jacka$$ with a heavy throttle can tear up ground. So by your theory motorcycles would leave no ruts what so ever because they're just above weightlessness?


Wow thanks for adding so much to the conversation! Your comments just lowered the collective IQ of everyone wasted 1 min to read them. Weightless 4-wheelers what color is the sky where you live?

[Rev. Coyote]

The point is the wheelbase lengh is different for a atv and a vehicle. Anyone with eyeballs can see that, look at the width of the rut and you can tell how it was created. I never stated that irresponsible OHV riders don't blaze new trials and that is the problem. If you give those riders less area to ride imagine what the riding area's will look like. I hope I am speaking english here, common sense dictates heavier machines will sink further in the mud. Or are you expecting some kind of physics lesson on how that works. Get over yourself the atv community does a lot for the land as well. Do you think biker/hikers don't leave trash? And where the hell did you get my family photo's?

A lot has to do with tire width and pressure as to how much impact is made. The theory of "floatation."

[orvis1]

The point is the wheelbase lengh is different for a atv and a vehicle. Anyone with eyeballs can see that, look at the width of the rut and you can tell how it was created. I never stated that irresponsible OHV riders don't blaze new trials and that is the problem. If you give those riders less area to ride imagine what the riding area's will look like. I hope I am speaking english here, common sense dictates heavier machines will sink further in the mud. Or are you expecting some kind of physics lesson on how that works. Get over yourself the atv community does a lot for the land as well. Do you think biker/hikers don't leave trash? And where the hell did you get my family photo's?

A lot has to do with tire width and pressure as to how much impact is made. The theory of "floatation."




You still never told me where you snapped my photo at!

[Rev. Coyote]

You still never told me where you snapped my photo at!

I have people working for me. Let's just leave it at that.

[orvis1]

You still never told me where you snapped my photo at!

I have people working for me. Let's just leave it at that.


Let's just hope they aren't able to catch a pic of me in my swimsuit at lake powell! I would hate to be harponed again.... LOL>.. :roflol:

[JP]

Wow thanks for adding so much to the conversation! Your comments just lowered the collective IQ of everyone wasted 1 min to read them. Weightless 4-wheelers what color is the sky where you live?
No, it's the BS you attempted to cast over you're recreation being the least destructive. Don't get all pissy because you were called on it.

[ExpUt]

The point is the wheelbase lengh is different for a atv and a vehicle. Anyone with eyeballs can see that, look at the width of the rut and you can tell how it was created.

Your right, the wheelbase is different, but then again wheel base has nothing to do with width, track width does. You have your theories, I have my experience.


I hope I am speaking english here, common sense dictates heavier machines will sink further in the mud. Or are you expecting some kind of physics lesson on how that works.

Not a physics lesson, you've already proven your not qualified to give that ;) It has nothing to do with the "weight" of the vehicle... it has to do with the pressure said vehicle exerts in the mud. A fat mans foot exerts more psi on the ground than a wide offroad tire, again, its about the pressure, not weight. Now add the increased instance for wheelspin on a 4-Wheeler (more power to weight ratio)... all factors your original sweeping generalization didn't account for.


Get over yourself the atv community does a lot for the land as well. Do you think biker/hikers don't leave trash?

Marginal at best... beleive me, I work with the ATV community on a regular basis... a recent survey showed that less than 9% of ATV users took part in any club, service, association, etc. I know hikers and bikers leave trash... but you didn't call them out, you called out 4x4's, and that who I am here to defend ;)

[quote=orvis1] And where the hell did you get my family photo's?

Huh???

[ExpUt]

...Not the ones off-trail (and I hope you're not suggesting that). I lot of the plant species take years to come back. Krypto crust is particularly hard to reestablish.

My comments are not aimed at illegal use... rather legit use as I beleive orvis1 was referring to. Your right it can take years to repair, we've been working on some areas for just that long... in some cases (AF Canyon for example) we plantet hundereds of new trees in order to curve off-trail driving (Snowbird donated the trees). In many cases we will fill the ruts by hand, cover the area with natural debris (ie big rocks, down trees, etc). The FS has had constructions come in and "erase" trails in many instances (Bay State Mines in AFC, Josephine Mine in Uintas, etc)... they do an amazing job at making it look like there was never a road there.

[Rev. Coyote]

Your right it can take years to repair, we've been working on some areas for just that long... in some cases (AF Canyon for example) we plantet hundereds of new trees in order to curve off-trail driving (Snowbird donated the trees). In many cases we will fill the ruts by hand, cover the area with natural debris (ie big rocks, down trees, etc). The FS has had constructions come in and "erase" trails in many instances (Bay State Mines in AFC, Josephine Mine in Uintas, etc)... they do an amazing job at making it look like there was never a road there.

Nice work. I can't wait until I live out there full-time and have a chance to get into hands-on voluneer projects. Here in VA, I've done river cleanups and a little trail maintenance on the AT.

Keep up the good work.

[orvis1]

The point is the wheelbase lengh is different for a atv and a vehicle. Anyone with eyeballs can see that, look at the width of the rut and you can tell how it was created.

Your right, the wheelbase is different, but then again wheel base has nothing to do with width, track width does. You have your theories, I have my experience.


I hope I am speaking english here, common sense dictates heavier machines will sink further in the mud. Or are you expecting some kind of physics lesson on how that works.

Not a physics lesson, you've already proven your not qualified to give that ;) It has nothing to do with the "weight" of the vehicle... it has to do with the pressure said vehicle exerts in the mud. A fat mans foot exerts more psi on the ground than a wide offroad tire, again, its about the pressure, not weight. Now add the increased instance for wheelspin on a 4-Wheeler (more power to weight ratio)... all factors your original sweeping generalization didn't account for.


Get over yourself the atv community does a lot for the land as well. Do you think biker/hikers don't leave trash?

Marginal at best... beleive me, I work with the ATV community on a regular basis... a recent survey showed that less than 9% of ATV users took part in any club, service, association, etc. I know hikers and bikers leave trash... but you didn't call them out, you called out 4x4's, and that who I am here to defend ;)

[quote=orvis1] And where the hell did you get my family photo's?

Huh???


Wow more insults, I can't belive it.... I guess I didn't get the memo that you are god and much smarter than the rest of us.... I will just agree to disagree with you and as an FYI I do belong to an ATV club and pack out trash when I ride. My wife, daughter and I stay on designated trails and wear helmets when we ride. I guess you would look at us as "responsible" 4 wheel owners. I feel as though I have as much rights to use public lands as any other use group and will continue to contribute to orginizations that support my beliefs.





This is humor... A joke between me an the good Rev about the fat guys on motocycles he posted... ... I didn't expect you to catch it....

[JP]

I guess you would look at us as "responsible" 4 wheel owners. I feel as though I have as much rights to use public lands as any other use group
Well said :2thumbs: