KSL - State, county leaders push for park expansion in San Rafael Swell

Please call your state legislators and ask them to oppose this idiocy.

Why don't we just pave a strip right up through Little Wild Horse and build mini-escalators to get the out-of-shape up over the six-foot dryfalls? God forbid. It was bad enough they paved it all the way out there. I thought those that couldn't get their vehicles through the foot-deep sand at the mouth of Chute kind of deserved to not hike it.

Which rescues exactly are they referring to? How many people get stuck in Little Wild Horse?

I bet Dennis @Udink is laughing at all the suckers that are pissed about this, since he wouldn't set foot near this traffic jam unless it was a weekday in December.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=32299144&nid...s_cid=queue-22


HANKSVILLE — Emery County has its eye on some wild country currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management in the San Rafael Swell.

The county is collaborating with the state's Division of Parks and Recreation on an expansion of Goblin Valley State Park, but that idea has met with some resistance.

"I know there are people who look at this and refer to it as a land-grab, and it’s just the state wanting to get their hands on land. That’s not the case at all,” Emery County Public Lands Director Ray Petersen said. “This is about making good land use management decisions.”

County leaders contend the Swell has come under heavy use from its growing popularity and they believe the Bureau of Land Management can't manage the traffic. Search and rescue efforts into the Swell can prove timely and costly, given its remote location and the complicated terrain. The county and Goblin Valley State Park often assist with those rescues.

“Someone gets lost and search and rescue is knocking down the door of the state park to come assist the rescue and they do,” Petersen said.

The proposal would extend state land ownership from Goblin Valley's borders into the San Rafael Swell.

“Since they have a presence there they can move quickly and get some management in place quite soon,” Petersen said.
If approved, the land swap would trade about 130,000 acres of land from federal protection to state ownership. It's likely to be rolled in with a larger public lands management project currently being spearheaded by Rep. Rob Bishop.

Just leave it alone!

I'd like to get a little more information before I take a stand either way. KSL is the worst for presenting all the facts and getting them straight.

Personally, I tend to side with the local people on such issues and I believe there must be a pretty good reason for them to go to such effort.

I haven't looked into the details of the final proposal, but if it's what was being discussed about a year ago I'm all for it. The state does a good job managing Goblin Valley. While Little Wild Horse, which is managed by the BLM is currently a clusterfck.

YMMV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

... Little Wild Horse, which is managed by the BLM is currently a clusterfck.

YMMV

---

And you're willing to pay up for this good management? What exactly is wrong with the way it's managed now?

I wonder if it might be something like Dead Horse Point, which is managed by the state as a state park and I hear is not charged an entrance fee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sun Dance

And you're willing to pay up for this good management? What exactly is wrong with the way it's managed now?

---

Yes, I'm willing to pay a couple extra bucks for GOOD management.

As for what is currently wrong... how about you visit LWH on a nice Saturday or Sunday next spring and than we can talk about the dozens of things you saw wrong with the current management systems. If you really want to witness a train wreck visit on Easter weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sun Dance

I wonder if it might be something like Dead Horse Point, which is managed by the state as a state park and I hear is not charged an entrance fee.

---

FWIW- Dead Horse Point charges $10 per car.

And yes... Dead Horse Point and Goblin Valley are managed by the same people.

On a side note before I made the Goblins Lair canyoneering route public I had to work with the Utah State Parks group to completely rewrite their rules to allow the use of ropes for canyoneering inside Goblin State Park. When I started I thought the process might be impossible as technical gear for climbing is banned inside the park. Those in charge listened to what I was proposing, took the time to understand how climbing and canyoneering were different, and worked hard to make sure what I was proposing added value to the park with minimal impact on the environment. I really have nothing but good things to say about the Utah State Parks system and the timely manner in which they operate.

YMMV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

...how about you visit LWH on a nice Saturday or Sunday next spring and than we can talk about the dozens of things you saw wrong with the current management systems.

---

Been there, done that. So you're saying that overcrowding is the problem? I don't have a problem with state management (they do a great job elsewhere), but do you really think that charging people to get in is going to decrease numbers? All you have to do is look at the Alpine Loop, upper AF Canyon, or either main Timpanogos trail to disprove that theory. All you're doing at that point is pissing people off.

Are you proposing a quota system, like the Subway or Paria? Is that really what we want there?

I think the answer is to let the hordes descend on the weekends and let those that know better enjoy it during the week. It's always been that way for those that want to see a popular feature in relative solitude. But for goodness' sake, don't start money-grubbing.

Your reply is an over simplification of some of the problems so I'll give simplistic answers to the problems you raised....

Uncontrolled hordes create nothing but problems, chaos and destruction.

Wisely and intelligently spent money can cure just about any problem if you have enough of it.

I don't think the real issue has anything to do with overcrowding, land management (or lack thereof), or anything else except for the state trying to cash in. It's one of the most popular areas in the Swell and a LOT of people are camping for free on BLM land. I'm sure the state wants in on that action.

Have you seen the size of the proposed expansion? Here's a screenshot, but you can check it out in detail in Google Earth using the attached KMZ file.

Attachment 76821

That's a HUGE chunk of land to turn into a fee area. And why--because Little Wild Horse gets crowded on weekends? Because a lot of people camp for free on BLM land? Eff that, man. I'm not payin' $10 to hike and explore areas where I've spent years doing so while seeing very few people.


https://maps.google.com/maps?q=http:...sic&dg=feature

Quote:

---

How many people get stuck in Little Wild Horse?

---

Apparently quite a few. Getting lost there is fairly common, though I never understood why. So far has been only one death that I know of.

When I read the SAR bit in the KSL article, I don't think it was directly referencing specific events in the proposed area. Rather I read it as saying that mobilizing SAR in general is slow and pricey as compared to mobilizing rangers--people already deployed in the area.

It's a simplified emotional argument as the rangers will only be able to handle relatively simple "rescues" and anything requiring a helicopter evac or rope rescue is still going to need a full SAR call out. Nevertheless, there is still some benefit to earlier response.

In general, I'm not thrilled by an extra government level overlay, as i voiced in the GSNM thread recently, or in Greater Canyonlands discussion, though I don't think I posted in any thread on that. I suspect this proposal is partially motivated as a response to Greater Canyonlands to show that the state is involved and taking action on such topics. Also as part of the effort to bring more federal land under state control as has been proposed recently as well. Those topics give momentum to this proposal I think.

Little Wild Horse has become like Delicate Arch in many ways. Easy access to a high pay off experience for most people who aren't outdoors a lot. Some management seems reasonable at LWH. Though the map seems to have what, Ding/Dang, Crack/Chute and those others that will probably need some management within a decade as spillover from LWH.

I think there's more politics at play than true resource management, but resource management probably needs to be in discussion for that area in the medium term. Besides the canyons, this is a high ATV use area as well which will play in to how it's all managed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott P

Apparently quite a few. Getting lost there is fairly common, though I never understood why. So far has been only one death that I know of.

---

I've rescued two different groups doing LWH while I was doing Ding-Dang and both groups made the same mistake. They missed the turn where Bell and LWH meet and continued hiking up Bell believing they were in LWH. Once they hit the back side of the reef they turn west looking for Bell.

Two groups is a lot to rescue considering I've only done Ding-Dang three times.

On another note just charging a fee will have a large impact on thinning the crowds.

Since Mill Creek and AF Canyons were mentioned I can tell you that the crowds in both are nothing like they were before the fees were implemented. The fees dispersed the crowds to other area's. Guys like Udink are a perfect example of the "I'm not going if they charge me" crowd. Guys like that just go elsewhere.

If LWH becomes a fee area look for visitation to places like Moonshine Wash, Baptist Draw and Upper Chute to increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

Two groups is a lot to rescue considering I've only done Ding-Dang three times.

---

This is anecdotal evidence...a logical fallacy. How many thousands of people have gone through without needing rescue? Your argument implies that because 66% of the time you've been to Ding/Dang you've had to rescue someone, the percentage of visits vs. actual rescues is fairly high. Present some authoritative data on rescues and that argument might start holding some water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Udink

Have you seen the size of the proposed expansion?

---

Where did you get this KMZ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Udink

Have you seen the size of the proposed expansion?

---

Holy shit. That's a full fifth of the entire Swell. You want to talk about a land grab, this is it. Get enough people pissed at the feds and they'll bend over and take it up the arse from their own state reps all day long. This is just like when the Germans were so upset about their economy in the 30s that they all went crying to Hitler and said, oh, yes, give it to me! And boy, did he!

It's also interesting which canyons they avoided claiming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

On another note just charging a fee will have a large impact on thinning the crowds.

Since Mill Creek and AF Canyons were mentioned I can tell you that the crowds in both are nothing like they were before the fees were implemented.

---

That may be, but it hasn't done anything to the Timpooneke or Aspen Grove trails. They're freeways. In this case, LWH (a feature with a narrow concentration of people) will be the exact same. Expect dispersed campsite visitation to decline, but you simply won't get rid of the hordes by charging. Now if you're going to implement a permit system and make it like the Subway, there you have more control. But again I ask: is that what we want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sun Dance

Where did you get this KMZ?

---

I made it, based on the map in this article: http://etv10news.com/emery-county-co...ley-expansion/