I heard rumor that access is no longer being granted by the private property owner. Anyone else able to verify and know backstory for the change?
Printable View
I heard rumor that access is no longer being granted by the private property owner. Anyone else able to verify and know backstory for the change?
By law it would be difficult for access to The Narrows to be shut down, but someone might be forced to take it to court to keep it open. If the public can prove a trail or access road has been used for at least 10 years, they can establish rights to access across private property through what's known as a prescriptive easement.
What's the canyon coalition or whatever it's called up to these days? This should be number one on their to-do list if access is closed.
:cool2:
According to FOX 13 access is closed and the park is no longer issuing permits.
Climb-Utah.com
No upstream travel above big springs. Got to hold to them rules. I guess it has become a defacto RNA
Shaun
I think no upstream travel past big Spring has always been the rule.
key word--upstream
https://twitter.com/erinalberty/stat...937687553?s=12
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
From Zion
Effective immediately, Zion National Park has stopped issuing Wilderness permits to hike the Zion Narrows Top-down. This includes the 16-mile day hike and all overnight use.
The route crosses private land and the landowner has revoked permission for public access. “Private Property, No Trespassing” signs have recently been posted.
Day hiking from the Temple of Sinawava is open to Big Spring. Upstream travel beyond Big Spring is not allowed. Zion National Park is working with the landowner to resolve access issues.
We will update our website and social media when we know more.
“I work for the current owner of Chamberlain Ranch property where the trail head sits. We welcome all hikes and have full access through our property. Please don't confuse the Chamberlain Ranch with the several other landowners who also have property between the trail head and the Park.”
-Tim Belmont
https://www.facebook.com/14366406233...4947265202902/
Yes and I know. Missing key word stupid rule. And now that top access is denied instead of modifying rule for out and back hike, keep to the ruleQuote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Since there has been know history of white water access with the north fork of the virgin, could we be ok as long as we stay in the stream bed give utah supreme court ruling in 2017?
How much money you got?Quote:
Originally Posted by trackrunner
I'll check my couch cushionQuote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
I see this as a power play by the owner.
The narrows is a crown jewel of Zions.
There will be a settlement and the owner will be paid handsomely.
in 3-2-1----
This is from 2 days ago from a guy on FB named Kenneth Steinsapir.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...507c39d024.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
^^^^those are the exact signs to use if trying to sell a 1 million dollar piece of real estate for 50 million+
^^^THIS^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Yeah...they wish they could get $50 million. I dont think they ever get that kind of money from the emergency alerts....given how constant they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Probably the planning is in order to send over the deranged...excuse me, umm...peace loving people, to talk and negotiate with the Bullochs. At a restaurant they visit seems to be the go to place to "talk". How soon can Soros approve it?
^^^Welcome to Bogley
I'm still trying to figure out what happened to the prescriptive easement.
[emoji106]
Thanks for providing the forum!
I suppose they had a revocable easement? What Im going by is a zoning for agriculture with some kind of development rights. I would think the revocation would happen upon development but Im clueless on that.
Anyways, there is a willing seller at an appraised price by an outsider, thus hardly "greedy".
The system is working on the seller side..they want to move the property as is....its a potential buyer who is talking about who knows what.
Can this only happen if other money is chipped in? And if so how much...it sounds like with ZNP foundation, conservancies and all the rest that the difference is within reach.
So Im highly optimistic this is not a grave situation. Especially if we can accelerate the govt speed on resolving it.
Easement would be more incentive for the govt to do nothing about land in great condition that is basically a no-brainer addition to the park.
The way the prescriptive easement becomes enforceable is via a lawsuit and the declaration of a judge that it exists. So it is there, but only enforceable after a lawsuit, which could take awhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
T
added: overall, probably cheaper for the Park to just pay him off, rather than take it to court. Certainly cheaper overall.