| Author | Message | ||
     Kirk Thibault (Kirkt) Member Username: Kirkt Post Number: 76 Registered: 11-2002 |
Hey folks - just curious if any of you that have recently been wheeling out west in Moab and the like have experienced any run ins with the current debate over RS 2477 Rights-of-Way issues. Apparently local authorities want to claim control over rights-of-way that range from cattle trails to ORV routes on federal, public property and conservationists want to claim the same areas to be set aside for preservation. I'm sure the Blue Ribbon Council has more info about this, just an interesting piece of fallout from our ancestors who headed west long ago. From the RS 2477 homepage: RS 2477 rights-of-way are property rights originally granted by the federal government to establish the transportation network essential to settlement of the western frontier. Generally, these rights-of-way grants were made to local governments and are held in trust by them for the public. Today, they continue to provide virtually all the public access to and across the hundreds of millions of acres of public lands in the West and Alaska. | ||
| Curtis N (Curtis) Senior Member Username: Curtis Post Number: 481 Registered: 05-2002 |
Yeah - sort of in a roundabout and non-direct fashion. Nothing in Moab, but Salt Lake is pretty restrictive in our beautiful canyons. I have a friend who owns some land. The road that accesses the land crosses BLM property was blocked from avalanche debris. They rented a small dozer and cleared the BLM part to get access to the property. Caused a big stink with the granolas and made the papers for a few weeks. He is currently fighting the feds, but is well funded by donations from other RS2477 supporters. He will probably win, but faces major jail time if he loses. | ||
| Kirk Thibault (Kirkt) Member Username: Kirkt Post Number: 77 Registered: 11-2002 |
Curtis - What were your friend's "legal" alternatives? Would he have to petition the BLM to have them come out with a dozer and clear the debris? How else would he be able to access his legally-owned land? That seems silly - in essence he's doing the BLM a favor (unless somehow he caused major damage to the blocked portion of the BLM road). It's interesting that the presence of the road didn't cause a big stink with the granolas, but your friend's maintaining the road did. Fascinating.... | ||
| Jaime (Blueboy) Senior Member Username: Blueboy Post Number: 651 Registered: 02-2002 |
there are a few trails the local authorities in the Moab area are claiming in order to keep them open. we were on a few where a dozer had been though just to keep up appearances. Moab realizes the economic benefit of the 4wd crowd and is doing its part to keep trails open. pretty cool concept actually as the trails had county road sign markers on them such as Kane Creek which used 191 if I remember right. Jaime | ||
| Curtis N (Curtis) Senior Member Username: Curtis Post Number: 483 Registered: 05-2002 |
Kirk, Actually he used his legal alternative...sort of. Technically speaking the BLM was supposed to clear the land for him to allow him access. He had tried for two years to get them to do it, but the land manager would not cooperate. Thus he (and some other property owners) did it themselves. They will certainly win in court, but it will cost a lot of money to defend thier actions. The clearing was planned though and they knew what trouble it would cause. However, they felt it was worth the trouble because otherwise they would lose the road and the access. They are definately fighting a philosophical and political battle. The granolas could not get upset about the existence of the road since it was there well before 1977. |
