Bogley

[MTpockets]

I was asked to share a few of my photos. To do that I had to join the forum so hi everyone.

The attached photo was taken during a wet year and just before it was closed. My '83 CJ5 has a 4' lift and 32 inch BFG's.

[accadacca]

Awesome man! Keep em coming... :five: :popcorn:

[fourtycal]

Very nice :hail2thechief: .
Man I wish I would have made Salt creek before it was closed.

[Sombeech]

cool pic. a possible image bar candidate. :nod:

[MTpockets]

Yeah, it was a great trip and I enjoyed the trail which went in and out and along the creek bed. I only remember one crossing where I actually got water in my jeep. There were 8 or 9 vehicles in the group. It is also where I learned that WD40 is a great tool for when your distributor gets wet.

I think that San Juan County is still fighting to gain some control over that road, which by the way used to continue past Angel Arch according to photos one of our group had from before Canyonlands became a park.

[scoutabout]

Yes the road goes all the way to Angel Arch, and it was open even after the park was established. Unfortunately, some people don't want to share with others so the road is now closed. The county and Utah Shared Access Alliance are working to get the road re-opened to all forms of travel (using the previously established permit system to minimize impact). However, it's an uphill battle when fighting groups like SUWA and Wilderness Society.

[stefan]

scoutabout wrote: Yes the road goes all the way to Angel Arch, and it was open even after the park was established. Unfortunately, some people don't want to share with others so the road is now closed. The county and Utah Shared Access Alliance are working to get the road re-opened to all forms of travel (using the previously established permit system to minimize impact). However, it's an uphill battle when fighting groups like SUWA and Wilderness Society.

actually it's quite a nice hike. i think perhaps MUCH better than a drive. ahh, whatdya need a vehicle for up there anyhow? stretch those legs. :haha:

it's nice and quiet and peaceful that way. beautiful area to be sure.

[Iceaxe]

If it doesn't use gas..... what good is it :lol8:

[scoutabout]

stefan wrote: scoutabout wrote: Yes the road goes all the way to Angel Arch, and it was open even after the park was established. Unfortunately, some people don't want to share with others so the road is now closed. The county and Utah Shared Access Alliance are working to get the road re-opened to all forms of travel (using the previously established permit system to minimize impact). However, it's an uphill battle when fighting groups like SUWA and Wilderness Society.

actually it's quite a nice hike. i think perhaps MUCH better than a drive. ahh, whatdya need a vehicle for up there anyhow? stretch those legs. :haha:

it's nice and quiet and peaceful that way. beautiful area to be sure.

I hear ya. I certainly enjoy a good hike. I'm pro motorized access, but I advocate responsible motorized access where it makes sense. Definitely not everywhere. In this case, it has been a road for a LONG time. I'll fight to the death to get it re-opened.

[Scott P]

In the case of Salt Creek, I'm actually neutral (no strong opinion one way or the other), and I've admit that I've driven Salt Creek too, and more than once at that. However, here are some points:

Quote: Yes the road goes all the way to Angel Arch, and it was open even after the park was established. Unfortunately, some people don't want to share with others so the road is now closed.

It is true that the road was there previously and was closed at a later time. Still though, there have been far fewer roads that have been closed than new tracks made by ATV'ers and other motorist. The motor crowd likes to complain when a road is closed, but they have no qualms making new ones. There has to be balance.

Quote: The county and Utah Shared Access Alliance are working to get the road re-opened to all forms of travel

All forms of travel is inaccurate. Once the road is opened to motorized travel it will drive everyone else out.

Quote: I'm pro motorized access, but I advocate responsible motorized access where it makes sense.

The reason Salt Creek was closed is because it is the only long year-round running stream in the entire Canyonlands National Park and surrounding area and the road went right through it. Oils and other materials were polluting the creek. Case in point: It is also where I learned that WD40 is a great tool for when your distributor gets wet.

Another reason perhaps(?) was that the Park Service was getting a lot of calls from people wanting to be towed out after they got stuck!

There still are many other 4wd roads next to Salt Creek that can be driven. Horse Canyon, Davis Canyon, Lavender Canyon, Canyonlands Overlook, Beef Basin, Elephant Hill, Bobby's Park, etc. are all recommended 4wd roads in the area. Below is my most recent album for Davis Canyon that were taken just a short distance from the 4wd road:

http://www.summitpost.org/album/249036/Davis-Canyon-Canyonlands-National-Park-.html

[Richard Barron]

While responsible motorized travel in the backcountry seems reasonable, the fact is that opening a road opens it to all operators, not just the responsible ones. The wilderness is fragile, and it doesn't take too many egomaniacle, half-drunk motorheads to rip the canyons a new corn hole.

I'm happy to see Salt Creek stay closed to vehicles, and it's near the top of my "must hike" list.

-Richard

[scoutabout]

Scott Patterson wrote:
The motor crowd likes to complain when a road is closed, but they have no qualms making new ones.


This is where you are making a gross misstatement that is perpetuating the false image of the offroad community. No responsible offroad user wants to see an increase in illegal offshoot or user created trails.

Your comment is like saying all hikers are Subaru driving hippies who never shower. Obviously, both your comment and this one are false.

Scott Patterson wrote:
All forms of travel is inaccurate. Once the road is opened to motorized travel it will drive everyone else out.


This is completely untrue. Motorized, mechanical, equestrian, and bipedal travel can all exist in the same area. Look at North Fork in AF Canyon as an example.

Scott Patterson wrote: Case in point: It is also where I learned that WD40 is a great tool for when your distributor gets wet.

His distributor got wet, but that isn't some kind of proof he was dumping chemicals in the creek. The miniscule amount of material that might come loose from a vehicle during one short creek crossing is barely worth mentioning. Give nature some credit. Three feet of dirt purifies water.

Scott Patterson wrote: Another reason perhaps(?) was that the Park Service was getting a lot of calls from people wanting to be towed out after they got stuck!

I call BS on that. I KNOW it's the policy of the BLM and the FS that they legally CANNOT assist vehicles that become stuck on property they manage. It's a liability issue. I would bet money that the NPS has the same policy.

Scott Patterson wrote: There still are many other 4wd roads next to Salt Creek that can be driven.

Yup, and there are many other hiking trails too.

Think of a hiking trail that you and your family have enjoyed for many years. Now, how would you feel if that trail was closed to you?

[scoutabout]

Richard Barron wrote: While responsible motorized travel in the backcountry seems reasonable, the fact is that opening a road opens it to all operators, not just the responsible ones. The wilderness is fragile, and it doesn't take too many egomaniacle, half-drunk motorheads to rip the canyons a new corn hole.

I'm happy to see Salt Creek stay closed to vehicles, and it's near the top of my "must hike" list.

-Richard

I've seen another thread on this board about a caves being damaged by irresponsible users. Should all caves be closed to the public? Some irresponsible people drink and drive on the freeways. Should all the freeways be shut down?

There are irresponsible users in EVERY group (yes including hikers, backpackers, river runners, and cavers). Freedom requires responsibilty.

[scoutabout]

Not everyone who drives a 4x4 vehicle is part of the motorized/offroad community. It's like saying everyone who walks is a hiker.

[Scott P]

Quote: No responsible offroad user wants to see an increase in illegal offshoot or user created trails.

I said nothing about illegal offshoots, though many are being created. How about legal user created ones and others?

How about the new Bangs Canyon-Billings Canyon extreme off road trail south og Grand Junction? Constructed only a few years ago. This is a newly constructed one, not an old mining road or something. How about the one in Hunters Canyon in the Book Cliffs north of Grand Junction. Same exact thing.

Factory Butte is another good example. I know first hand that there were few off-shoots and user created trails, other than a few roads in the 1980’s. Who created all the user created and offshoots there? It was done legally for sure. There are several new ATV and offroad trails being built. I could name a few in my old backyard.

Quote: This is completely untrue. Motorized, mechanical, equestrian, and bipedal travel can all exist in the same area. Look at North Fork in AF Canyon as an example.

Just because someone does something does not make it desirable. Some ATV’s do use the county roads. It doesn’t mean that all ers only want to use county roads. Same with hikers. It does drive anyone looking for some peace and quiet completely out (see my post below).

Quote: His distributor got wet, but that isn't some kind of proof he was dumping chemicals in the creek. The miniscule amount of material that might come loose from a vehicle during one short creek crossing is barely worth mentioning.

It is proof that some oils were dumped in the creek, but there are far worse. Oil, transmission fluids, etc. can also easily contaminate the creek. I also admit that I myself have driven Salt Creek several times. I do remember an oily film on top of some of the pools.

Quote: I call BS on that. I KNOW it's the policy of the BLM and the FS that they legally CANNOT assist vehicles that become stuck on property they manage. It's a liability issue. I would bet money that the NPS has the same policy.

Read my post again and also note my use of the words “perhaps” and the question mark because I don’t know if it was a factor, I just said it could have been. Also read what I said in my post. I said Another reason perhaps(?) was that the Park Service was getting a lot of calls from people wanting to be towed out after they got stuck! I didn’t say they were towed, I said they called the NPS wanting to be towed. You are right about the policy, but I do know they get calls. I have personally witnessed three incidences and was a member of the group on one of them. The first was the Dollhouse when someone had a mechanical problem. I was a member of the group. The second was at the White Crack Campsite in Canyonlands NP. Someone with a dead battery called the rangers to come jump them. This they did. Unfortunately we were in the area, but didn’t make the short spur drive to the campsite. If we did, we would have helped them. The third incident was in Salt Creek itself. Someone called the rangers when they stalled after driving in a hole in the creek. The rangers made them get a tow service, I believe from the Needles Outpost? As I stated, the NPS does get a lot of calls from people wanting to be pulled out. I didn’t say they pulled them out, but I guarantee there are a lot of calls.

Quote: Think of a hiking trail that you and your family have enjoyed for many years. Now, how would you feel if that trail was closed to you?

Happened to many hiking places I can think of. I will use the one literally in my back yard. We used to hike up Sandrocks Mountain (actually a small hill) every evening to watch the elk and deer. As recently as 2004, there was one ATV/motorcycle track up the hill. Now there are seven and the place is noisy almost every evening. All the elk and deer are gone because of the noise. We were completely pushed out. Isn’t one ATV track up the hill enough? Is there a real need for seven? Despite complaints, the city refuses to do anything about it. To answer your question about how I feel about it? To be honest, pretty upset.

Quote: There are irresponsible users in EVERY group (yes including hikers, backpackers, river runners, and cavers). Freedom requires responsibilty.

Exactly. And furthermore, just because something is legal doesn't make it resonsible. Though I admit that I myself have driven Salt Creek, I would be hard pressed to claim that me doing so was environmentally responisible.