Hole in the Rock Road to be paved?

[Bill]

Anyone else find the too many people arguement slightly hypocritical when considering the venue of this conversation. This site (and others like it) were founded on the basis of sharing information and helping people find new places. And here we are, yet again, talking about how we see too many people in the very same places we share.

 

[Nick]

Extremes all over the place. Can there not be a middle ground where people don't mind sharing photos and information but don't have to be on board with paving a path to get there? I just don't find that hypocritical at all.

 

[Nick]

I suppose it could also be argued that sharing photos and information can help protect a place that might otherwise get destroyed because people just didn't realize the wonders that were out there. See Glen Canyon.

 

[Udink]

Extremes all over the place. Can there not be a middle ground where people don't mind sharing photos and information but don't have to be on board with paving a path to get there? I just don't find that hypocritical at all.

Agreed. There's quite a distinction between generating more traffic due to the sharing of information, and generating more traffic because of a paved road. Both cause impacts that we may not want, but the former brings people willing to work a little harder for it.

 

[TannerT]

Agreed. There's quite a distinction between generating more traffic due to the sharing of information, and generating more traffic because of a paved road. Both cause impacts that we may not want, but the former brings people willing to work a little harder for it.

Harumph!!!

 

[TannerT]

That means agreed

 

[Bill]

Both cause impacts that we may not want.

and so we agree.

 

[Nick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

[gnwatts]

I don't trust the local county government to be good stewards of the land. Their desire to bring more people to the area is solely based on economic gain at the expense of the environment. Maybe they have moved on from previous dogma, and really feel that a more un-developed landscape is better. But i somehow doubt it.
When everything else in Utah is paved, they will have a little bit of road left as it was, and maybe be thankful for it.

 

[Laura]

Don't pave it. It's accessible enough as it is, yet preserves the openness and wildness that is emblematic of Utah. If you want paved roads, go to Zion and sit in the resulting traffic. Some places need to be kept wild. If we lose the wild areas, we lose a part of our soul and that which connects us to an ancient landscape.

I'll never forget the first time I visited the Great Gallery. I got up early and drove from Torrey, but the adventure really started when I hit the dirt road off the 24. My car was getting washboarded to death but it only enhanced the feeling of being out in the middle of nowhere, and it was exhilarating. I had to pee and realized I was the only person for miles so I just went by the side of the road-woohoo! As I drove on the wind was blowing, I was surrounded by surreal red rock formations rising up from the dirt, and no one in sight. If I could have disintegrated and become part of everything around me I would have-it was the most spiritual moment I've ever had. Can you have that type of experience when you make areas easily accessible and bring in people who just want to stroll around on their way to McDonald's?

 

[Laura]

I suppose it could also be argued that sharing photos and information can help protect a place that might otherwise get destroyed because people just didn't realize the wonders that were out there. See Glen Canyon.

Or Yosemite with Ansel Adams. I think that one can go both ways. David Muench once wrote that he wondered if by hiking out to remote areas and coming back with beautiful pics he wasn't endangering them. Ask any National Park ranger-more people accessing an area damages it. But ignorance and short-sightedness need to be fought by showing people the uniqueness of some areas and why they need protection, and photography is just perfect for that.

Just wondering, if California weren't paved over so millions could live here, would they still have dammed Glen Canyon?

 

[BJett]

On a somewhat related note, it seems the powers that be in the state of Utah are trying very hard to wrestle control of public lands from the feds, more so than in the recent past. Most RS2477 claims, and the current Transfer of Public Lands Act are a full on assault. It seems to me that all the money wasted on these futile efforts could be better spent.
Can't help but wonder if the county wants to pave the road as kind of a FU to the BLM/Feds, much like the Burr Trail.

People travel from all over the world for our parks and wild lands. Utah could still add more areas to the wilderness/park/monument systems and still have millions of acres to pave/mine/build/etc. Balance is a good thing.

 

[xjblue]

I'd say that is a directly related note BJett. But r.e. Most RS2477 claims, my position is opposite of yours. I am glad someone is looking out for our rights and getting after finding the solutions legally. The GSENM travel plan calls for closing a surprising many dirt roads that I got to drive once and would love to drive again, I don't agree with any of those handful of particular closures I'm personally familiar with.

The 'let's take back Utah movement' good or bad is a direct reaction by those who represent a great many of us who felt left out and totally helpless with the process when the GSENM was created by Executive decision. I have to applaud the Canyoneers for wanting to get a dialog before the government decision, so that they don't have to become a "perceived as radical 'anti government decision' group" after the fact in the same vein as the aforementioned.

If we don't first come together to hash out all the pros and cons, all the compromises and consensus, and go through the full due process, then we are probably doing it wrong in America. I believe the GSENM was done wrong. Hopefully we can still do parts of it, HITR road for example, correctly.

As much as I like Randy's idea of just letting it go non-maintained, I think the perfect example of how to manage a special and remote area against growing interest/visitation has also been mentioned several times which is the Maze District of Canyonlands and to a lesser extent the Needles District and the White Rim. Not the exact same template need be followed for HITR road, but following the same general guideline, leave existing roads in place as is i.e. dirt stays dirt, resist any further development beyond bare minimal facilities and as needed road maintenance, implement a proper permit system only as needed and only where needed to keep the numbers of visitors to the special areas reasonable and the experience in those areas and the general area as a whole as enjoyable at least as much as it is now. But It all depends on how many people ever start showing up in the middle of nowhere.

My neighbor took his family to Yosemite a couple of weeks ago - no parking, they drove it then got out of there as fast as they could. shudder

 

[BJett]

xjblue - We will agree to disagree on the RS2477 issue, I've seen the maps and many of the "roads" counties want to claim and its a bit ridiculous. On the other hand I understand the anti-fed sentiment is heavy out there, so the anti-environment/conservation crowd and the environmentalists like SUWA (which I support for the most part, they have good intentions but not always the best approach) and other similar groups both take it too far. Extremism gets nothing done, it only alienates the common sense, middle of the road, rational folks.

I totally agree with your last paragraph. Well said.

I don't live in Utah, so I shouldn't have as much say in these issues even though they are my public lands as much as yours, but I recreate there and should have a voice. My passion for the canyon country and protecting what we have left runs deep. But, the folks that live there shouldn't have to be forced to deal with decisions made by people living a thousand miles away without any input. Its a touchy issue, and not black and white.

 

[slc_dan]

Anyone else find the too many people arguement slightly hypocritical when considering the venue of this conversation. This site (and others like it) were founded on the basis of sharing information and helping people find new places. And here we are, yet again, talking about how we see too many people in the very same places we share.

I see this type of argument often on this site. There have been times I haven't shared something because I don't want more attention to it, yet I only found it because someone else did online-the ultimate hypocrite.

What I've decided is that in order to see most of the places we share, you really need a certain amount if skill to locate, and enjoy these places. If you send a first time backpacker down some of these trails it could be dangerous. Our community shares enough that those with the skill and know how can get out there.

The middle ground we all have to find in this argument is this: In order for something to be protected, it needs people who wish to defend it.

For many of us, solitude is a very important aspect of our outings, but if no on is willing to go somewhere, than even less see the importance of protecting it.

 

[powderglut]

When I first started exploring these places, we really were clueless. No internet and maybe some local information, (if they wanted to give it.) The BLM people were fairly helpful,( if any had been to some of the places.) A map and compass was your best friend. The locals in Escalante would look at you like you were here to steal something from them or take away more road access with this new national monument crap.

Obviously this area has been discovered and is used by many. There is no hiding it. Info is rampant on the net. It's hard not to use all the beta available. I think we all want that amazing feeling of going to a new place and hiking in solitude. That feeling of being the 1st to discover this slot or petroglyph. (At least that isolated feel). I think we all have a wee bit of selfishness, in that we want our individual trips to be just for us (please no other people!) Yet, we share our info with complete strangers we think are similar to us. The same folks you are likely to run into on your trail.

Will paving HITR rd bring more hoards out that road?? Probably. Seems like a new attitude in Escalante since I first went there (late 70's). They now seemed to embrace this popular area that brings folks to their town. I don't know the true local opinion. I'm sure there is a split on what is good and bad for the GSENM and for their town. Anyway it's not just us, there are a lot of people with opinions.

By the way anyone recognize this unpaved road?


Yep! It's near the summit of Boulder Mt. Hwy 12 between Torrey and Boulder. late 70's

 

[Laura]

I think we all have a wee bit of selfishness, in that we want our individual trips to be just for us (please no other people!) Yet, we share our info with complete strangers we think are similar to us. The same folks you are likely to run into on your trail.

Interesting points. But there's a big difference between running into someone on the trail who's worked as hard to get there as you did vs. the hordes that are drawn to areas that are easily accessible (Grand Canyon South Rim in summer, anyone?)

If I sound elitist, it's probably because I am. I think there are wild areas that should only be accessed by those who have done the work to get there, and it should be kept that way. You want to see it? Great! Put on a backpack, rent a 4WD (if you don't already have one) and be prepared to take care of yourself. That's why you go out there anyway. There are enough accessible areas already, it's the wild ones that are endangered.

 

[gnwatts]

If I sound elitist, it's probably because I am. I think there are wild areas that should only be accessed by those who have done the work to get there, and it should be kept that way. You want to see it? Great! Put on a backpack, rent a 4WD (if you don't already have one) and be prepared to take care of yourself. That's why you go out there anyway. There are enough accessible areas already, it's the wild ones that are endangered.

I agree completely.

Can't help but post this shot (I hope I haven't shared this in another post! Getting old.):

From our honeymoon in 1981, at the Crack in the wall "trailhead", which wasn't much of a trailhead (just a patch of dirt), no sign etc. The locals had taken down all of the signs along the Hole in the Rock road (or moved them to confuse all those backpacking hippies). It took forever to get there as the washboard was awful. So we just slowed way down and enjoyed the drive. My alternator bolt did work it's way out from the washboard vibrations, but that was easily fixed on my old Bronco.

We really wanted to get here. it took a long time, saw no one for 5 days, and we were screwed if anything went wrong. But that is what contributed to an amazing experience.

 

[Dave]

Stegner was prophetic on this point:

 

[Bill]

Sorry I offended so many people on this thread.

But there's a big difference between running into someone on the trail who's worked as hard to get there as you did vs. the hordes that are drawn to areas that are easily accessible (Grand Canyon South Rim in summer, anyone?)

I get what your saying but there's no grand canyon at the end of the hole in the rock road. Its wide, graded, and 4wd is no longer necessary. Most trail heads are a ways off the main road and I haven't heard anything that says all spur roads will be paved.

While I agree with what most of what you all are saying but in my mind, put a fork in this one, its done and its been done for awhile. Reminisce of what once was and focus our efforts on areas that are still wild before they get a graded 6 lane dirt highway.