Wasatch Trails 2015

[joetron]

Of bigger concern to me is the effort to permanently close the Wasatch Crest to mountain biking. For the environment. Because, you know, mountain bikes are destroying the place. Yay. I'm surprised that the local mountain biking community isn't really making a fuss about this, but again if you close the Crest, there are still many hundreds of other trails to ride.

Please elaborate.

I kinda think you are full of shit on this one. If anything, there is going to be more trails and connectivity built in the upper reaches of the Wasatch in the future.

[itsnowjoke]

Please elaborate.

I kinda think you are full of shit on this one. If anything, there is going to be more trails and connectivity built in the upper reaches of the Wasatch in the future.

That's the problem. You only "kinda think," Jong!

Kidding aside,

http://mountainaccord.com/media/resi...untain-accord/

The former proposed Beartrap Wilderness area was to maybe stop short of the ridgeline, possibly sparing the Wasatch Crest Trail. I say maybe, because it depended on what map you looked at. The current proposal --as relayed in the attached article- would have the Wilderness Area spilling over into Summit County. The Wasatch Crest would not be spared the wilderness designation, and as you know, mountain biking is strictly forbidden in wilderness areas, it always has been. Look at the paragraph labeled recreation:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm...rness_FAQ.html

As relayed in the article, the Save Our Canyons minions attended the Summit County meeting, everyone thinks turning the Wasatch Crest into Wilderness is a great idea. As usual, I dissent.

[Shredhead]

The Wasatch Crest would not be spared the wilderness designation, and as you know, mountain biking is strictly forbidden in wilderness areas, it always has been.

Actually it wasn't until 1984, when the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society convinced the U.S. Forest Service to publish a regulation that broadened the ban from motorized to include mechanized transportation.

[muted]

Interesting......a more recent article hints that they are going to start pushing for the wilderness designation: http://www.parkrecord.com/park_city-...us-environment

I'd like to see a map of the area, anyone got one?

[itsnowjoke]

Actually it wasn't until 1984, when the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society convinced the U.S. Forest Service to publish a regulation that broadened the ban from motorized to include mechanized transportation.

Yes. Around the time mountain bikes started to become somewhat popular. Before 1984, they weren't really a "thing." I'm still trying to figure out why horses with all of their shit and erosion are allowed but bikes aren't, but it is what it is.

[joetron]

Well, I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up. We are getting a new trail organization going on the SLC side and looks like we've got something to do.

[snowaddict91]

Well, I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up. We are getting a new trail organization going on the SLC side and looks like we've got something to do.

Keep us updated on here with news on this. New to the area but have some experience building/maintaining trail and would like to get more active in the riding community here.

[muted]

Well, I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up. We are getting a new trail organization going on the SLC side and looks like we've got something to do.

If you guys are looking for something to do, please build a trail going up/down Parleys on the south side of it, ending at the Grandeur Peak trailhead. Thanks!

[My Pet Powder Goat]

If you guys are looking for something to do, please build a trail going up/down Parleys on the south side of it, ending at the Grandeur Peak trailhead. Thanks!

That would be sick! Maybe not the peddle up, but the down would be amazing, and it's not like any of that land is being used or developed.

[Canada1]

Mountain Trails has nothing to do with openings, closures, or routes. They've stated time and time again that they simply maintain and build trails at the landowner's whim. You may be butthurt that the Colony somehow screwed you, but you are allowed to ride the trails there because of the generosity of the Colony in letting you ride there at all. Mtn. Trails has publicly stated this many times, and Charlie Sturgis (the director) wishes folks wouldn't publicly disparage the generosity of said landowners. But this is TGR.

Why is the Park City mountain bike scene so incredible? Because the large majority of trails are indeed on private property, allowing them to be routed, connected, flow, etc., any way that can be imagined. If we were dealing with public land, there would be much less options. So insofar as the PC mountain biking scene is concerned, praise be on the landowners who let us on their property. Yes, the Mid-Mountain and Pinecone are experiencing some closures, but the closures are only temporary.
.

I could have tied that project up for a decade with a constructive easement argument, and a compromise would have been reached. I believe he dropped the ball with the "more is better" argument and when I've asked about in the two years following the travesty, he was rather apologetic. That of course could be because I'm an aggressive type a, and he just wanted to move on. I know the lady he was up there with when they put in the colony sucks switchbacks acknowledged "it sucks". So they put in scar and did the renames the following year. So, I agree mountain trails is great, Charlie is a hell of visionary with what he has accomplished, but on this one trail, he and they totally blew it.

[joetron]

I only rode that original alignment once, but must say, I do love Ironman loop...mostly because nobody rides it.

Grandeur Peak, check. First focus will likely be City Creek/Ensign/Shoreline/U related. Maybe with some Emigration connectivity.

[muted]

City Creek/Ensign/Shoreline/U?

There needs to be a 'Highline' version of the shoreline trail, going from the City Creek ridgeline to a bit past Carrigan Canyon. Or even a small part of trail on that stretch would be rad.

[detrusor]

There is supposedly a connect going in from the summit park trails to the mid mountain. Out the lambs ridge line to Murdock to hunters mid. Anyone heard anything about that progress?

Also, as far s a trail on the south side of parleys, I've been told there is some dick hole who owns property between the golf course and the summit who won't play ball. Any info on that?

[itsnowjoke]

Well, I stand corrected. Thanks for the heads up. We are getting a new trail organization going on the SLC side and looks like we've got something to do.

I'm glad someone's on it. It would be a shame to lose Mtn. biking privileges on it. It's a damn fine mtn biking trail.

[Canada1]

[QUOTE=detrusor;4516433]There is supposedly a connect going in from the summit park trails to the mid mountain. Out the lambs ridge line to Murdock to hunters mid. Anyone heard anything about that progress?

The trail has existed for years. When they widened hunters and mid mountain, they posted it. I was not aware they had been given legal access. again pointing out the tons of good mountain trails does.

[Sirshredalot]

There is supposedly a connect going in from the summit park trails to the mid mountain. Out the lambs ridge line to Murdock to hunters mid. Anyone heard anything about that progress?

Also, as far s a trail on the south side of parleys, I've been told there is some dick hole who owns property between the golf course and the summit who won't play ball. Any info on that?

Basin rec is wrapping up their management plan for the toll canyon parcel. Trail improvements will probably be part of it. But I haven't seen any work going on up there yet. If you want to go up to the cirque at the top of lambs and check it out, I would be up for the jaunt.

[detrusor]

Absolutely!

[muted]

I love LOVE the response to Type A bitchy Park City bikers that Mountain Trails posted on their site recently:

"When we’re whiny and entitled, it shows little insight into the complexities and nuances of acquiring access, and actually building trails on these private lands."

Taking no shit and doing great work for the community!

I read that mid mountain got extended from DV to 4point/Deer Crest. I rode all around that area Friday, didn't see it, but I didn't know it existed either so I wasn't looking for it. Is it a real attached extension from the mid mountain or does it take a small break to cross the lift serviced trails and start on the east side of the Silver Lake buildings?

[Dantheman]

Mountain Trails has nothing to do with openings, closures, or routes. They've stated time and time again that they simply maintain and build trails at the landowner's whim. You may be butthurt that the Colony somehow screwed you, but you are allowed to ride the trails there because of the generosity of the Colony in letting you ride there at all. Mtn. Trails has publicly stated this many times, and Charlie Sturgis (the director) wishes folks wouldn't publicly disparage the generosity of said landowners. But this is TGR.

Why is the Park City mountain bike scene so incredible? Because the large majority of trails are indeed on private property, allowing them to be routed, connected, flow, etc., any way that can be imagined. If we were dealing with public land, there would be much less options. So insofar as the PC mountain biking scene is concerned, praise be on the landowners who let us on their property. Yes, the Mid-Mountain and Pinecone are experiencing some closures, but the closures are only temporary.

Yes massah, thank you massah! The dogshit re-routes of previously great trail are very much permanent. You never fail to be an insufferable twat.

Of bigger concern to me is the effort to permanently close the Wasatch Crest to mountain biking.

http://mountainaccord.com/media/residents-support-wilderness-designation-tied-in-with-mountain-accord/

The former proposed Beartrap Wilderness area was to maybe stop short of the ridgeline, possibly sparing the Wasatch Crest Trail. I say maybe, because it depended on what map you looked at. The current proposal --as relayed in the attached article- would have the Wilderness Area spilling over into Summit County. The Wasatch Crest would not be spared the wilderness designation

Ahem:

Three other designation alternatives are being considered, in addition to a Wilderness designation: National Monument, Conservation Management Area and Conservation and Recreation Management area. Any land exchanges and federal designations will require an act of Congress.

Brad Barber, chair of the Mountain Accord Federal Designation Task Force, said there was a federal bill several years ago to expand the wilderness in this particular area, but it never gained traction.

Multiple designation options are on the table that would not exclude bikes. Also, let's remember that the State of Utah is currently suing the federal government to try and take over all the federal land in the state. With Matheson gone I'd give slim odds at best of any new Wilderness being designated. Really, who in Utah's current congressional delegation is going to sponsor a Wilderness bill?

[Sirshredalot]

Yes massah, thank you massah! The dogshit re-routes of previously great trail are very much permanent. You never fail to be an insufferable twat.






Ahem:



Multiple designation options are on the table that would not exclude bikes. Also, let's remember that the State of Utah is currently suing the federal government to try and take over all the federal land in the state. With Matheson gone I'd give slim odds at best of any new Wilderness being designated. Really, who in Utah's current congressional delegation is going to sponsor a Wilderness bill?

I read the lawsuit and the posturing around it as evidence that the politicians are nuts and/or do not give a fuck about access for sportsmen and recreational users. It's a move that is pretty transparently just for the oil and gas people who write them big checks. Thay puts their interests at odds with ours.

On the other hand, congress passes almost no legislation these days. So we've got that going for us.

[muted]

Also, let's remember that the State of Utah is currently suing the federal government to try and take over all the federal land in the state. With Matheson gone I'd give slim odds at best of any new Wilderness being designated. Really, who in Utah's current congressional delegation is going to sponsor a Wilderness bill?

Good point. So basically Flowtron doesn't need to devote time to this issue and can concentrate on all the trails I want done?

[joetron]

The latest map I saw for proposed designations does not show anything new above Mill D in BCC. There are a few spots: 1 down by Lone Peak, 1 around Grandeur - which is of concern to some of us thinking of a master plan. The south side of Parleys with its number of potential access points and connectivity between SLC and PC caught the attention of a few key people.
Although the possibility of a Wilderness Des. proposal coming out of Utah congress person is quite low, there is always a chance, especially if there is some sort of 'trade' involved, then they just hide it in some military spending bill or something that is guaranteed passage.

Muted, just send me a list of trails you want and I'll get right on it.

[Dantheman]

Although the possibility of a Wilderness Des. proposal coming out of Utah congress person is quite low, there is always a chance, especially if there is some sort of 'trade' involved, then they just hide it in some military spending bill or something that is guaranteed passage

Agreed. All-hands-on-deck type action doesn't seem necessary right now, but it's definitely something we should keep an eye on.

[muted]

Muted, just send me a list of trails you want and I'll get right on it.

Wow, someone is actually listening to me. This is great! Thanks, man.

Besides what I already mentioned, all I got left (and don't want to give you too much work) is the obvious Big Water to Pipeline connection in BCC, and then having the furthest west part of Pipeline connecting to the base of Grandeur in SLC. But as you probably know, Pipeline to Grandeur is part of the shoreline extension that has been planned for a long time.

[ski_adk]

If we can get that lamb's canyon trailhead, next all we need is a connector to the top of Emigration to connect down to BST (I've seen several mentions now of a trail running on the north side of emigration.) Imagine riding from the Zoo, up Emigration, over to Lambs, up to and across mid mtn, up to the crest, and then back down Millcreek...mmm