allterrain
AllTerrain
- Location
- Cedar Hills
Judges side with environmentalists in battle over Utah "roads" 
Story on KSL: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7765077
Story on KSL: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=7765077
Kane County gets a kick in the crotch
- Thread starter allterrain
- Start date
scoutabout
None
Seems to further support the idea put forth by a previous ruling that any county road claims had to be proven individually on a case-by-case basis.
Let's get on with it! Pick a road that is (in theory) protected by RS2477 and take it to court. Get it off-center one way or the other.
On a side note, I saw an interesting comment from a guy with 25+ years in the public land access fight. He observed that we would all be better off if they had just accepted the Wilderness inventories in the 80's. Instead, Wilderness groups are just gaining more and more momentum and adding more and more land to their proposals. Based on that, where do we think this ends up?
Let's get on with it! Pick a road that is (in theory) protected by RS2477 and take it to court. Get it off-center one way or the other.
On a side note, I saw an interesting comment from a guy with 25+ years in the public land access fight. He observed that we would all be better off if they had just accepted the Wilderness inventories in the 80's. Instead, Wilderness groups are just gaining more and more momentum and adding more and more land to their proposals. Based on that, where do we think this ends up?
Don B
formerly rebarguy
- Location
- Southern Utah
Yeah Steve, There are a lot of cases where people are trying to to do just that.
It's a bunch of bull crap that any county road must be proven in federal court to be valid. There are thousands of these roads across the western U.S.
The FLMPA act of 1976 stated that the BLM SHALL recognize all existing rights. Not that any existing right has to be proven in federal court.
The media continues to put the spin on that this is about ATV trails which is absolute BS. The federal courts (Tena Campbell) say that Kane County does not own one single road that crosses federal lands. That is pretty much the entire transportation system of Kane County.
It's a bunch of bull crap that any county road must be proven in federal court to be valid. There are thousands of these roads across the western U.S.
The FLMPA act of 1976 stated that the BLM SHALL recognize all existing rights. Not that any existing right has to be proven in federal court.
The media continues to put the spin on that this is about ATV trails which is absolute BS. The federal courts (Tena Campbell) say that Kane County does not own one single road that crosses federal lands. That is pretty much the entire transportation system of Kane County.
Last edited:
scoutabout
None
It is frustrating, but I can see the argument. The federal govt can't just take the county claims at face value. Presumably some kind of documentation is necessary. As we move further and further away from '76 it becomes more and more difficult to build this documentation, in some cases. It would've been incredible foresight to have documented every county claim immediately after FLPMA. I'm sure some of this happened, but if so, why is it that the federal govt has yet to recognize any local roads that should be protected under RS2477?
Totally. We often see the media refer to these roads as "wagon trails", "cattle trails", and "dry creek beds" to sway the public's perception of what this issue is really about.
I just wish we could pick a road and put our entire community behind it to make a "beach head" where we could advance this strategy.
Don B
formerly rebarguy
- Location
- Southern Utah
Why does the federal government not recognize a single RS2477 ROW? Because they don't want to.
I agree that it would be a good idea to put the entire community behind one road and push it through. We would need a non-controversial road that is accepted as a county road and not have wilderness or ATV issues to sidetrack the argument and allow the media and SUWA to spin for their propoganda.
I agree that it would be a good idea to put the entire community behind one road and push it through. We would need a non-controversial road that is accepted as a county road and not have wilderness or ATV issues to sidetrack the argument and allow the media and SUWA to spin for their propoganda.
scoutabout
None
Good points. I'd like to see this happen rather than the current strategy of spreading our incredibly thin resources across dozens of different things and accomplishing nothing.
Maverick
old-school
- Location
- Anywhere, thanks to my geeky droid
What happened to the Utah State efforts on 2477?
Regarding being better off with the 80's era wilderness proposals: No way, cuz they (anti-access) NEVER stop. NEVER. They keep wanting more more more more. Whatever they didn't get last time, they try for this time. There is NO END because even if some of the supporting members are satisfied, the machine needs more to stay alive.
Regarding being better off with the 80's era wilderness proposals: No way, cuz they (anti-access) NEVER stop. NEVER. They keep wanting more more more more. Whatever they didn't get last time, they try for this time. There is NO END because even if some of the supporting members are satisfied, the machine needs more to stay alive.
Don B
formerly rebarguy
- Location
- Southern Utah
We may have a test case for this theory. Washington County "settled" their wilderness issues with the designation of wilderness areas in Bennett's land use bill. We'll see now if SUWA leaves Washington County alone or goes back after more.
Any bets?
Maverick
old-school
- Location
- Anywhere, thanks to my geeky droid
It's already been tested.
High Uinta Wilderness. 1984. 456000 acres. Not enough.
http://www.hupc.org/Archive/2002%20Archive/ann_state.html
http://www.hupc.org/issueupdates.htm
1.9 million in initial BLM study. Not enough.
We could learn a lot from those who want it closed.
http://www.uwcoalition.org/about/history.html
High Uinta Wilderness. 1984. 456000 acres. Not enough.
http://www.hupc.org/Archive/2002%20Archive/ann_state.html
http://www.hupc.org/issueupdates.htm
1.9 million in initial BLM study. Not enough.
We could learn a lot from those who want it closed.
http://www.uwcoalition.org/about/history.html
Last edited:
- Location
- Riverton, UT
What ever happened to this idea? I notice the last thread was posted 9/2. I think this needs to be continued and U4WDA should carry the ball. I will help but we need a leader.
Don B
formerly rebarguy
- Location
- Southern Utah
The one about pushing one road through the courts?
We would need a willing county as an individual cannot make an RS2477 claim.
Kane County is in no position right now to begin another legal action but I can check into the quiet title actions that they already have in progress and see if it is something we could get involved in.
I believe Emery County has some actions in progress that I could check into also.
I noticed that SUWA has not taken Washington County off their proposed wilderness map and is looking at additional designations with the ARRWA. So much for the idea that they would be satisfied.
- Location
- Riverton, UT
Yes, pushing one road thru the courts. This is one of the things that would get my total support.
- Location
- Riverton, UT
What about the "Bronson Trial", is Salt Creek a RS2477?
- Location
- Riverton, UT
Saw another post today, the judge is mulling it over. Salt Creek that is.
After reading Judge Jenkins bio I don't hold out much hope for him making a good decision for us. He was a Utah State Democrat, appointed to the Fed bench by Jimmy Carter, and made what I consider to be a wrong decision on the Lesbian teacher case brought by the ACLU. It looks like he is a tree hugger.
After reading Judge Jenkins bio I don't hold out much hope for him making a good decision for us. He was a Utah State Democrat, appointed to the Fed bench by Jimmy Carter, and made what I consider to be a wrong decision on the Lesbian teacher case brought by the ACLU. It looks like he is a tree hugger.
Last edited:
