- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 4,429
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't live in Garfield County, but close enough that this bleeds over. Garfield County's commissioners would like to pave or at least keep open every single road (actual road or not) in their county and everywhere else too. This is an old battle that unfortunately is being given renewed steam by the current federal administration. The Garfield County "leaders" are also known for closed-door meetings with high-up officials, a la the recently departed Interior Secretary, to further their goals of trying to bring back mining, coal, and expand the rampant grazing of cattle everywhere. Leland Pollock is well-known for not mincing words. In other words, welcome to the wild west, where the leadership seemingly would like to be above the law.
Sure, we've got more people coming to these places, and they get lost and hurt and stuck all the time. However, that does not mean we should pave every single road, or even a majority of them. I've just started to re-read Desert Solitaire again, so my dander was already up.
I could go on, but this is a public forum. Zipping it for now.
I'm very sad about this, but in reality, it's mostly paved anyway. What scares me the most is what they pave next, specifically Hole-in-the-Rock...
Yes, but paving more of the Burr Trail can be seen as a slippery slope kind of thing that leads directly to more laser focus on paving HITRR and similar. There were some good comments on the Trib article about seeing what happens now on Burr Trail with, say, over-sized motorhomes attempting to crawl down past where they should. Humans being human, they will zoom in droves to where perhaps they should not.I'm very sad about this, but in reality, it's mostly paved anyway. What scares me the most is what they pave next, specifically Hole-in-the-Rock...
Yes, but paving more of the Burr Trail can be seen as a slippery slope kind of thing that leads directly to more laser focus on paving HITRR and similar.
I think that plan was in Stewart's proposal to turn it over to the state.
Gotcha. And agreed. What's most irking about it is the under-the-cover-of-night way this was done by the BLM and the county. Per usual.Agreed, and that's exactly my point. Finishing off those last few miles itself isn't that big of a deal, IMO, it's where it goes next. And the heavier traffic, RV's, etc. is definitely a big concern.
Oh my - just read the article. I think I need "sad" and "angry" emojis instead of just clicking on "like." I don't live nearby but care very much about these public lands. I wish it were mandatory for policy makers to spend time hiking and camping out there before making decisions...@Janice, while this HCN article isn't specifically about the road topic, it adds more political info on the area if you're interested. Excellent read.
One of the major issues is that policy-makers in Utah are often not driven by an appreciation for the land merely for the sake of the land. They instead are driven by economic interests and a historical urge/mandate to utilize the natural resources solely for the use of humans, without thoroughly considering (or, perhaps, even caring about) the long-term impacts of such uses. That clearly has created quite a mess, and strife, in many areas such as southern Utah.Oh my - just read the article. I think I need "sad" and "angry" emojis instead of just clicking on "like." I don't live nearby but care very much about these public lands. I wish it were mandatory for policy makers to spend time hiking and camping out there before making decisions...
This all makes lots of sense. I understand that there are many competing interests, particularly for locals. I guess I was thinking about policy makers at the top (Secretary of Interior, etc.) needing to spend time outside...One of the major issues is that policy-makers in Utah are often not driven by an appreciation for the land merely for the sake of the land. They instead are driven by economic interests and a historical urge/mandate to utilize the natural resources solely for the use of humans, without thoroughly considering (or, perhaps, even caring about) the long-term impacts of such uses. That clearly has created quite a mess, and strife, in many areas such as southern Utah.
As for local policy-makers, a lot of them actually have spent a lifetime hiking and/or camping in their local area, but in general most of them were also doing that for economic reasons. Tending to cattle, mining, that sort of thing. There tends to be a fascinating disconnect between local and "outsider" perspectives on how land should be "used." I know of some local people in my county who had extremely little exposure to the natural beauty of the area while growing up. That of course is a generalization, and it is not meant to paint all locals as being evil or idiots. (Just a few of them. Heh.) Of course, very many if not most locals also deeply love their surrounding landscape, but they often tend to view it through a very different lens than those "outsiders" who come to these places and marvel at them.
Indeed it was. And that god awful state park idea too...
the attitude that "outsiders" (an African American President, Native Americans, ....) shouldn't tell them what to do. .
I think it's that a paved road is likely to result in significantly higher visitation, which can lead to much quicker physical degradation of the place. More people on the trails, more vandalism, more litter, more disturbed wildlife, more unauthorized camping, etc. Of course it's not a guarantee, but definitely more likely.What's the difference if a fossil-fuel guzzling 4x4 dragging a trailer craps up the environment via a dirt road or a paved road? Lowers the bar of entry? Makes it accessible to those who can't afford expensive 'camping' toys?