Wilderness Acreage in Utah

[paulj]

"By the way, this land belongs to all of us, not just Utah residents"

Goody, so much for the rights of the States.....

These lands were in Federal hands before the state was created. The allocation of land was worked out as part of state creation process. In most of these western states, blocks of land were given to railroads as an inducement to lay tracks. Other land was given to states, generally for the purpose of supporting education. Those blocks are administered by the state Dept. of Natural Resources (or something like that). But as was the style in the 19th century, these allocations were made on a map, without much knowledge or regard to local geography.

One of the land bills that the Utah delegation supported this year involved a landswap between BLM and the state education lands. Part of the reasoning for such swaps is to consolidate holdings, rectifying the shotgun approach of previous centuries. I believe that in this case, the state got financially promising lands in exchange for giving up ones with more wilderness qualities.

I believe the Utah delegation has sponsored a number of bills giving federal lands to counties and towns. Such a give-away was the stimulus for the Washington Cty part of the March Omnibus.

So it could be argued that we - the people of the USA - have given, and are still giving, property and resources to the people of Utah. The same, of course, could be said for Washington, or other western states. Historically the feds have also been quite generous to private parties, whether it be the railroads, homesteaders, loggers, or miners.

 

[Ursidae69]

^^^:iagree::iagree:^^^

Well, for what it's worth, I disagree.

Good last post agavelvr, I like when you collect your thoughts more.

 

[teotwaki]

These lands were in Federal hands before the state was created. The allocation of land was worked out as part of state creation process. In most of these western states, blocks of land were given to railroads as an inducement to lay tracks. Other land was given to states, generally for the purpose of supporting education. Those blocks are administered by the state Dept. of Natural Resources (or something like that). But as was the style in the 19th century, these allocations were made on a map, without much knowledge or regard to local geography.

One of the land bills that the Utah delegation supported this year involved a landswap between BLM and the state education lands. Part of the reasoning for such swaps is to consolidate holdings, rectifying the shotgun approach of previous centuries. I believe that in this case, the state got financially promising lands in exchange for giving up ones with more wilderness qualities.

I believe the Utah delegation has sponsored a number of bills giving federal lands to counties and towns. Such a give-away was the stimulus for the Washington Cty part of the March Omnibus.

So it could be argued that we - the people of the USA - have given, and are still giving, property and resources to the people of Utah. The same, of course, could be said for Washington, or other western states. Historically the feds have also been quite generous to private parties, whether it be the railroads, homesteaders, loggers, or miners.

I'll quote a man who was much wiser than you, Abraham Lincoln

"the Federal Government is a Government of the people, by the people, and for the people"

and that would definitely include the people in the State Of Utah. Federal authority of the management of public lands is via the "Property" (Constitution:Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2) and "Supremacy" (article VI, paragraph 2) clauses. However, such authority is well understood to be a public trust and again, that trust includes the States.

 

[DurangoSteve]

Reality Check: The WSA lands under consideration in the Red Rock legislation are Federal Land. Some Utah counties, including San Juan and Kane, have illegally bladed trails closed to motor vehicles and removed road closure signs placed by the BLM. In the Kane County case, a Federal court ruled that the county had no jurisdiction over Federal lands.

Edit/addition: A panel of the 10 Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Kane County in September, affirming the lower court's ruling.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Reality Check: The WSA lands under consideration in the Red Rock legislation are Federal Land. Some Utah counties, including San Juan and Kane, have illegally bladed trails closed to motor vehicles and removed road closure signs placed by the BLM. In the Kane County case, a Federal court ruled that the county had no jurisdiction over Federal lands.

First, we are not discussing WSA lands, we are discussing the potential Wilderness lands. While WSA lands have become defacto Wilderness it is clouding the situation.

Second, they are not only Federal land, they also encompass thousands of acres of School Trust Lands, lands that are leased, sold and traded to fund our states school system.

Your absolutely right, there are county officials out there fighting for the rights of access under RS2477. The federal government made the law and now they want to pretend it never existed. While it was repealed, any and all routes of access prior to its repeal should be grandfathered. Law or no law... these lands are not in threat like some would have you believe. Federal laws allowed provisions for access, when those provisions were met the access should be granted. Some don't see it as such.

I for one applaud the efforts of Kane & San Juan Counties... absolute heroes of access to keeping public land public.

I'll ask you the same question I presented agavelvr. You apparently believe these areas need Wilderness classification to protect against motorized use on existing routes, so how do you marginalize your impact? I'm having a really hard time coming to grip with the hypocrisy of those that will travel these routes while open today yet applaud the efforts of those that want to shut them down for the impacts your inflicting.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...The BRC's suggested backcountry designation is a lose-lose. The public does not gain true wilderness, the critical areas do not get environmental protection, it does not create a mechanism by which OHV routes can be created or maintained thru legislation or relying on current trail designation law. It basically loosens the rules access rules within an area. That doesn't address help the environment or responsible OHV users...

And hence is the actual conundrum. Do we need true "Wilderness" to protect our lands? For the record I am a proponent of Wilderness, just not in giant un-defined blocks such as the ARWA. I think selective land bills like the recently successful Washington County Land Bill could prove to be the answer to these issues. However as I have already pointed out, the ARWA is all or none, they have made it very clear that there will be no compromise on their part. Read their own history, they shot down a 1.8 million acre proposal. Rather then get some protection for those lands then, they have continued to push for more and more. A brilliant fundraiser? So should BRC et all spend their time and money penning their own Wilderness Bill or spend their time and money taking a defensive position to the ARWA? Its pretty much a no-brainer imo. Given that this legislative session was likely the most hospitable in history for the Wilderness cause, I think BRC has been spot on with their decision making no?

...I think you need to separate the recreational use from the environmental protection aspect of this argument. In order to have both and create a win-win, you have to create methods that address both issues. That's why I advocate vehicular use corriders, cherry stems, and formal OHV trail recognition while also supporting wilderness protection. Where is the BRC in this argument. Why aren't they getting out there and defining specific routes of importance for historical recreational use? Define the routes and define the activities. This is one area OHV users could really work on...the horsemen, hikers, and mountain bikers all have very good strategies that address these things...that's why they get so many nice staging areas and trails. OHV users have to step up in the same way. We can't just point at a map and say "I want to drive all over hell's creation darn it, I'm an American and it's my rights..." Arguments like this will not win you any friends on the decision making level. You might get smiles and nods, but you won't get far. On the other hand, if an OHV organization approached land managers with a proposal for a system of trails for an area which allowed recreational access that addresses environmental issues, you'de be way ahead of the game.

You make it sound as if this isn't happening on some level. I don't work for BRC, I don't imply that BRC is the end-all solution, rather they are one cog in the wheel. The Utah State Parks & Recreation is working on many of the issues you have pointed out. They have developed map resources of the popular OHV routes throughout the state. They are using OHV registration money to build more OHV rec areas, staging areas, signage, etc. Likewise groups like the Utah Trail Machine Association, the Utah 4 Wheel Drive Association and the Utah Snowmobile Association are all doing the same, adopting trails, adding signage. What it comes down to is money and apathy.

What your forgetting though is all that work can be erased by a Wilderness or WSA designation. The ARWA simply doesn't recognize every trail, whether its 10 years old or 100 years old, their inventories are faulty. From the horses mouth "However, unmaintained roads constructed for one-time prospecting use decades ago, and never-constructed jeep trails "maintained" only by infrequent passage of tire tread, do not constitute roads within the intent of the Wilderness Act. The Utah Wilderness Coalition proposal does not consider a route used by vehicles to be a road unless it was mechanically constructed and has been regularly maintained for travel by the public." That alone removes vast amouns of epic trails in Utah. Who wants to spend all their travels on a bladed county road across BLM land? Its a good thing their definition has not been accepted by the BLM or the federal government, yet. I spent my Sunday riding my dirtbike on a cherry stemmed route of the Cedar Mountains Wilderness Area. 50 year old maps show routes penetrating the mountains, routes that can still be seen on the ground today, yet those are closed by the stroke of a pen by those that have never traveled the area?

...About trail accidents....Beware, a bit of chest puffing to follow so you understand my qualifications.

Your right... chest pounding with no actual stats or facts? I understand actual stats would be hard to come by so were are left to compare our own personal experiences. While I don't have the experience you have, let me beat my own drum. I volunteer as Trail Patrol on one of the busiest forests in the state of Utah (American Fork Canyon on the PG Ranger District of the Uinta National Forest). This forest is situated well under an hour from the metropolitan Wasatch Front and is extremely popular for equestrian, OHV, MTB & hikers, many of which share the same trail. Its arguably the busiest urban forest in the state. While it would be naive to say accidents haven't and don't occur, it would be a further stretch to use those isolated accidents as a reason to close existing motorized routes. If these number had any substance at all the anti-motorized groups would already have gathered them I'll agree that user conflicts are an issue on new trail planning and travel management plans, I have no clue why are we even discussing this? I've never been a proponent of opening every trail up to motorized use? Just leave the ones that are current motorized as such. Furthermore, how do the "heavily wooded/hilly" trails and terrain of Arizona compare to the wide open red-rock trails of Utah. Lets compare apples to apples here.

Lets talk about something more important imo. Coral a growing number of users onto a dwindling amount of trails and user conflicts likely will occur in greater number, not to mention increased environmental impact. How is that the responsible action?

...I've had a few overland trips to southern Utah. It's an amazing place I would like to visit again. On my trip in the summer of 2008, I ended up discovering the Paria River near the movie set ghost town. We had a gazateer and GPS to help us find the way, and neither indicated a route up the river. I really wanted to go up there and saw tire tracks. However, my conscience would not grant me passage, for desert riparian areas are very important...especially during the 100 degree + days I was visiting in June/July. Imagine my surprise when that fancy little river protest occured earlier this year. Folks who live there willing to trash their own back yard by assembling in mass to 'protest'...

Interesting take. So a historic route, approved and managed by the BLM for 50+ years of continuous use is "trashing their own back yard". I don't even know where to begin. Having actually driven the Paria River Route as well as hundreds of miles of other trails that would be closed to this sweeping Wilderness bill, I'll take your comments as such. Since we are both familiar with the Paria River route, lets discuss that one. If 50+ years of continuous motorized use don't preclude it from meeting the definition of Wilderness by the citizens inventory, then what is the real issue? What are we really protecting against?

Back to the question though... have you been on routes that would be closed to Wilderness?

 

[Rando]

I don't understand this. Are you advocating breaking the law and driving on legally closed trails? Isn't this completely contrary to tread lightly (not to mention federal law)?

I for one applaud the efforts of Kane & San Juan Counties... absolute heroes of access to keeping public land public.

 

[DurangoSteve]

First, we are not discussing WSA lands, we are discussing the potential Wilderness lands. While WSA lands have become defacto Wilderness it is clouding the situation.

Second, they are not only Federal land, they also encompass thousands of acres of School Trust Lands, lands that are leased, sold and traded to fund our states school system.

Your absolutely right, there are county officials out there fighting for the rights of access under RS2477. The federal government made the law and now they want to pretend it never existed. While it was repealed, any and all routes of access prior to its repeal should be grandfathered. Law or no law... these lands are not in threat like some would have you believe. Federal laws allowed provisions for access, when those provisions were met the access should be granted. Some don't see it as such.

I for one applaud the efforts of Kane & San Juan Counties... absolute heroes of access to keeping public land public.

Under the 1964 Wilderness Act, for lands to be considered for wilderness designation there's a 3-step process, including WSA designation.

RS 2477 was repealed in 1976 under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The repeal was subject to "valid existing rights", but since many RS 2477 road claims were never recorded, the "valid existing rights" clause has been left open to wide interpretation. That, of course, is an ongoing debate. The 10th Circuit Panel did not address Kane County's RS 2477 position, only that it had not proved that it had authority over the roads.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

I don't understand this. Are you advocating breaking the law and driving on legally closed trails? Isn't this completely contrary to tread lightly (not to mention federal law)?

Were they legally closed? The counties the state and the citizens maintain they were illegally closed and violated federal laws. Some were reopened (Devils Racetrack for example) when the counties pressed the issue. Others have landed the counties in hot water such as the Kane County situation.

As a Tread Lightly trainer I don't see where you are coming at on that angle. Yes you should follow the law. But this is a sticky situation in which County law and federal law collide. As far as the actual act of driving on these routes, no harm is being done to the environment, these are historic routes.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...RS 2477 was repealed in 1976 under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The repeal was subject to "valid existing rights", but since many RS 2477 road claims were never recorded, the "valid existing rights" clause has been left open to wide interpretation. That, of course, is an ongoing debate. The 10th Circuit Panel did not address Kane County's RS 2477 position, only that it had not proved that it had authority over the roads.

Exactly the debate. Validating such routes. Counties are now working tirelessly to prove the historic use. Should they be closed until proven open or left open until proven closed?

We are getting off on another major tangent. Wilderness is more than the local government versus the feds, remember that its the feds that are often being sued by SUWA for not protecting these 'wilderness like areas' and its the feds that did their own inventory and could only find 1/3 of the lands that the ARWA found. If anything they are a proponent in this regard. 6 of Utah's BLM districts just revised their Resource Management Plans, while they did close routes and access they were above all fair in my opinion. Sadly SUWA disagreed, they had threatened to sue before the decisions had even been made and sure enough followed through with their promises.

 

[DurangoSteve]

Exactly the debate. Validating such routes. Counties are now working tirelessly to prove the historic use. Should they be closed until proven open or left open until proven closed?

Determining "historic use" will be a long and costly process. There's a lot of ambiguity in defining that. RS2477 was written in 1866. Was the "historical use" a one-time wagon trail that hasn't been used since? Does that meet standards of the "valid existing rights" clause included in the repeal? One thing is certain: lawyers will be battling this for awhile. In the meantime, I personally will not be violating any road closures.

 

[paulj]

...
Second, they are not only Federal land, they also encompass thousands of acres of School Trust Lands, lands that are leased, sold and traded to fund our states school system......

The Redrock proposal maps show school trust lands - they stand out as 'sore thumbs' within proposed wilderness areas. As best I can tell, none of these blocks will be included in the wilderness - at least not without an agreed upon swap.

I'd have to look at the maps again to see whether any school trust blocks will be cut off from access by wilderness declaration. My guess is that if there is an existing road to such a block, it will be cherrystemmed.

If a school trust block does not currently have road access, and would be complete surrounded by wilderness, it would make sense to arrange a swap, to reduce fragmentation of the area.

There is also the question of whether any given block is generating revenue for the state. I suspect that many do not. Others might only be used for grazing, an activity which is often permitted in designated wilderness areas. The original state trust allocation was not based on potential productivity. It was either a scattered allocation based on limited map information, or a regular 1 block out of every 36 (or something like that). Along railroad corridors, land was often given out in a regular checkerboard pattern.

Does Utah have any policies regarding ORV use of state trust lands? How do they differ from surrounding BLM lands?

 

[Rando]

Well according to the federal appeals court they were legally closed, so it is not a sticky situation. As much as you may not personally agree with the law, does not mean you should violate it, or even worse encourage others to violate it. I am fairly sure this violates the principles of tread lightly. As a specific example the Paria River comes to mind. I am fairly certain the en mass ride up Paria earlier this year was a violation of the tread lightly principles.

Were they legally closed? The counties the state and the citizens maintain they were illegally closed and violated federal laws. Some were reopened (Devils Racetrack for example) when the counties pressed the issue. Others have landed the counties in hot water such as the Kane County situation.

As a Tread Lightly trainer I don't see where you are coming at on that angle. Yes you should follow the law. But this is a sticky situation in which County law and federal law collide. As far as the actual act of driving on these routes, no harm is being done to the environment, these are historic routes.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Determining "historic use" will be a long and costly process. There's a lot of ambiguity in defining that. RS2477 was written in 1866. Was the "historical use" a one-time wagon trail that hasn't been used since? Does that meet standards of the "valid existing rights" clause included in the repeal? One thing is certain: lawyers will be battling this for awhile. In the meantime, I personally will not be violating any road closures.

Your absolutely right, it will be a long and costly process. I think it goes without saying that the counties are not out fighting over a route that doesn't strike some chord of significance. While SUWA might lead you to believe they are fighting over old cattle paths this isn't the case. They are fighting over historic routes that have been used by hunters, hikers, bikers, ranchers, campers, explorers, etc for the last 50+ years.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...I'd have to look at the maps again to see whether any school trust blocks will be cut off from access by wilderness declaration. My guess is that if there is an existing road to such a block, it will be cherrystemmed...

Access is the issue and routes are not being cherry-stemmed in all cases, hence why the state is fully against this bill.

...If a school trust block does not currently have road access, and would be complete surrounded by wilderness, it would make sense to arrange a swap, to reduce fragmentation of the area...

If the AWRA had hopes of becoming law, it would make sense. You can see they are not too worried about swapping at this point.

...Does Utah have any policies regarding ORV use of state trust lands? How do they differ from surrounding BLM lands?

Case by case situation but for the most part OHV use is allowed. Places like Dump-Bump, Lions Back and UROC competitions took place on SITLA land. Area BFE in Moab was once SITLA land.