Mill-D Update- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: Mill-D Update

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    150

    We the people ... Mill-D Update

    Hey all,

    I just got off the phone with Carl from SOC and got the latest info regarding their wilderness proposal.

    Mill-D is officially out of their proposal. They have a 400 foot corridor (200 feet on each side of the existing trail) that is excluded. The land to the East of Mill-D is a separate area that they are referring to as the "Beartrap Edition". It's 2600 acres, which does fall below the 5k acre normal area designation, but they're proposing it as that anyway.

    He also mentioned they met with the IMBA leaders at the Park City summit and IMBA now endorses the proposal modifications.

    I'll try and continue to watch the progress of this but encourage all of you to continue to follow it as well.

  2. #2
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by TheProf
    Hey all,

    I just got off the phone with Carl from SOC and got the latest info regarding their wilderness proposal.

    Mill-D is officially out of their proposal. They have a 400 foot corridor (200 feet on each side of the existing trail) that is excluded. The land to the East of Mill-D is a separate area that they are referring to as the "Beartrap Edition". It's 2600 acres, which does fall below the 5k acre normal area designation, but they're proposing it as that anyway.

    He also mentioned they met with the IMBA leaders at the Park City summit and IMBA now endorses the proposal modifications.

    I'll try and continue to watch the progress of this but encourage all of you to continue to follow it as well.
    AWESOME!!!!! I've ridden that trail about 15 times already this season out of fear we might lose access to it. So happy to hear they have made the modifications and are keeping WAFTA and IMBA interests and mtb rider interests in general in mind.

    Thanks for the update. I'm going to go ride it tonight again to celebrate this good news.

    B
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 07-30-2008 at 08:29 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  3. #3
    Bored Carp
    Reputation: chuky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,596
    Great news. I would imagine that everyone's letters and phone calls made a difference. Something to keep in mind for next time.


    Thanks for all of your efforts, S.
    C
    I only attempt to change the world in the appropriate World-Changing venues and forums.

  4. #4
    Err
    Err is offline
    Calm like a bomb
    Reputation: Err's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,539
    This is great news! Now if they would just drop the rest of their proposal...

  5. #5
    Talentless Hack
    Reputation: Idiot Boy 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    186
    Finally, some good news on the trail acess front!
    Sierra Club Sucks

  6. #6
    Chumley for prez!
    Reputation: mr. welcorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    445
    Good news. Thanks out to the WAFTA, IMBA, and everyone who called and wrote. I honestly didn't think SOC was going to budge on this, but I am really glad they did.

  7. #7

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Err
    This is great news! Now if they would just drop the rest of their proposal...
    If we would, then ... what?

  8. #8
    Homer's problem child
    Reputation: Bortis Yelltzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    If we would, then ... what?
    Don't you have enough on your plate over at those other threads on the other forums?

    Please Dave, Err is a well respected member of WAFTA and has done tons to help the mtb community keep and build trails here in UT in the time he's been here. Please let this thread stay positive and celebrate the fact that WAFTA, IMBA and SOC are working together.

    Thanks,
    B
    Last edited by Bortis Yelltzen; 07-30-2008 at 08:58 PM.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro....

  9. #9

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Right, I'm re-holstering my keyboard now ...

  10. #10
    Dr. Pepper drinker
    Reputation: catch22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by TheProf
    Hey all,

    I just got off the phone with Carl from SOC and got the latest info regarding their wilderness proposal.

    Mill-D is officially out of their proposal. They have a 400 foot corridor (200 feet on each side of the existing trail) that is excluded. The land to the East of Mill-D is a separate area that they are referring to as the "Beartrap Edition". It's 2600 acres, which does fall below the 5k acre normal area designation, but they're proposing it as that anyway.

    He also mentioned they met with the IMBA leaders at the Park City summit and IMBA now endorses the proposal modifications.

    I'll try and continue to watch the progress of this but encourage all of you to continue to follow it as well.
    Any mention of the fate of White Pine? Would really suck to lose that when Red Pine is already off limits.
    Sipping the Knolly Whisquillappa

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by catch22
    Any mention of the fate of White Pine? Would really suck to lose that when Red Pine is already off limits.
    White Pine will soon be lost to Dick Bass and Snowbird.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TheProf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    150
    Sorry, catch22 - don't know the status of White Pine. The map that was forwarded to me is too small to determine. If I get a few, I'll give Carl another call.

    David W, do you know? trackhead, any details you care to share about Snowbird?

    Thanks

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,104
    Good to hear it, nice work..!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SingleWhiteCaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    152
    Yeah, this is great news. Big-ups to eveyone on both sides who moaned and groaned and felt like they had to compromise on something. Much appreciated.

  15. #15

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by TheProf
    David W, do you know?
    The SOC & SLCPU Wilderness proposals include White Pine from the creek on up, trail included. Bass has his eye on White Pine (and owns some property up there too.) He's been held at bay for decades. Snowbird's interest may be shifting towards Mary Ellen / Mayor Evans Gulches, but it's all speculation until they make up their minds & play their cards.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    545

    A word to the wise

    I wanted to wait on my response so's not to sound too negative.
    If you remember SOC position on bicycles, their main complaint was right-of way issues, and this isn't only SOC that feels this way. If were not careful and don't pay attention to this issue, the FS could still close our trails. We've lost more trails due to this issue than wilderness proposals, and the FS can do it quietly and without congressional approval.
    Jus tryna keep ur tralz opin

  17. #17

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    FYI:
    SOC's position on bikes has nothing to do with who yields to whom when or why, if that's what you mean by "right of way".
    It has everything to do with the fact that you can't designate an area as Wilderness and allow bikes in it.

  18. #18
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,868
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    The SOC & SLCPU Wilderness proposals include White Pine from the creek on up, trail included. Bass has his eye on White Pine (and owns some property up there too.) He's been held at bay for decades. Snowbird's interest may be shifting towards Mary Ellen / Mayor Evans Gulches, but it's all speculation until they make up their minds & play their cards.
    eh how about you go like 200 yard from the creek so that I could support wilderness in white pine.

    Honestly noone really cares about losing access to white pine trail although crazies like me ride up but this proposal takes away one of the best trails in the area by limiting access from white pine....

  19. #19

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    I know the other three crazies who ride WP occasionally. One is a SOC board member, another is a long-term strong contributing member, the third is ... crazy.

    Do you mean cherry-stem the white pine road itself, or are you talking about a 200-yard corridor around LCC creek?

    I'm sure you know there are no legal trails between the end of the LCC Pipeline trail and the White Pine trailhead, and the USFS's plan for that area is to keep it trail-free (to the extent that they can afford to enforce & rehab illegal trails, which is between zero and not very much). FWIW, I agree with their assessment of the less-disturbed value of that floodplain area.

    Or are you concerned about links between the White Pine trailhead and the Snowbird trail system? Again, I'm sure you know this, but: USFS would like to work with whoever they can in the MTB community in order to serve that need legally, balanced with other options and impacts.

    Ironically, at least half the show-up on that issue is from SOC MTBers.

  20. #20
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,868
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    I know the other three crazies who ride WP occasionally. One is a SOC board member, another is a long-term strong contributing member, the third is ... crazy.

    Do you mean cherry-stem the white pine road itself, or are you talking about a 200-yard corridor around LCC creek?

    I'm sure you know there are no legal trails between the end of the LCC Pipeline trail and the White Pine trailhead, and the USFS's plan for that area is to keep it trail-free (to the extent that they can afford to enforce & rehab illegal trails, which is between zero and not very much). FWIW, I agree with their assessment of the less-disturbed value of that floodplain area.

    Or are you concerned about links between the White Pine trailhead and the Snowbird trail system? Again, I'm sure you know this, but: USFS would like to work with whoever they can in the MTB community in order to serve that need legally, balanced with other options and impacts.

    Ironically, at least half the show-up on that issue is from SOC MTBers.
    what about when the trail is older than the road?

  21. #21

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    I doubt the USFS will care.

    But at least it would give you a foundation to argue from, and the USFS isn't the only player at the table. Do the research, map the trail, prove its age & historical use, then take it up with the USFS, County, LCC scenic designation project et al. SOC successfully used that kind of research to bury rs2477 claims in SLCo.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    333
    Has anyone ever poached Butler Fork? I hiked it a few years ago and kept thinking it would be one of the best rides in the Wasatch....I've been tempted to poach it ever since then.

  23. #23
    SP Singletrack rocks
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,868
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    I doubt the USFS will care.

    But at least it would give you a foundation to argue from, and the USFS isn't the only player at the table. Do the research, map the trail, prove its age & historical use, then take it up with the USFS, County, LCC scenic designation project et al. SOC successfully used that kind of research to bury rs2477 claims in SLCo.
    not doing that sounds like a good way to get something closed...

    why dont you lobby to get the wilderness designation changed to allow MTBers? I mean you keep saying your pro mountain biker and I bet alot of Utahan Mountain bikers would be pro SOC and Wilderness if you guys could do that

    ....ot bad its too hard

  24. #24

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA
    why dont you lobby to get the wilderness designation changed to allow MTBers?
    My ego may dwarf the Hindenburg, and my arrogance may tower over Sequoias that were old before Jesus was born ...
    ... but I ain't crazy.

  25. #25
    ride more.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    604

    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    My ego may dwarf the Hindenburg, and my arrogance may tower over Sequoias that were old before Jesus was born ...
    ... but I ain't crazy.
    Well said...

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4
    I just rode up white pine fork for the first time last night. I had been deterred from riding it because I had heard that was just a steep double-track, hike-a-bike. While it is technical and maybe not for everyone, it is now one of my favorites in the area. It is one of the few legal places that we have to ride in that type of alpine terrain. I suggest riding it before we lose it. Like many others have already said, I would love to support wilderness, but not if it means losing access to trails..

  27. #27
    Dr. Pepper drinker
    Reputation: catch22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by GoBikinEh
    I just rode up white pine fork for the first time last night. I had been deterred from riding it because I had heard that was just a steep double-track, hike-a-bike. While it is technical and maybe not for everyone, it is now one of my favorites in the area. It is one of the few legal places that we have to ride in that type of alpine terrain. I suggest riding it before we lose it. Like many others have already said, I would love to support wilderness, but not if it means losing access to trails..
    Totally agree with this, maybe not a ride for everyone but a great technical ride for some folks with a nice reward at the top. I'm certainly not the xc-racer/climbaholic type either. Ridden it twice this year on my 30+ pound bike and haven't bothered with doing the Crest yet. It kills me to hike Red Pine and know that I will never be able to ride it, would hate to see the same happen to White Pine.
    Sipping the Knolly Whisquillappa

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,135
    Wow, very cool to hear this! I missed this thread somehow. Thanks David and the rest of SOC for compromising and working with instead of against the greater mtb community.

    As for White Pine, eh, you can have it. It's just not good bike terrain. Thank goodness wilderness areas don't exclude backcountry skiing.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jro75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    91

    Update?

    Looks like this mill D "corridor" is still not on SOC's website maps. Just wondering.

  30. #30

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by drboudreaux
    Well said...
    Thank you.

    I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by [email protected]
    Looks like this mill D "corridor" is still not on SOC's website maps. Just wondering.
    Update on the way.

  31. #31

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    There it is.
    'Preciatecha lettin' us know.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    There it is.
    'Preciatecha lettin' us know.
    I can't really tell from the map ... It looks to me like maybe another KEY piece of trail ( from Big Water back over Dog Lake and over to Mill-D) is included in the Wilderness proposal? Is it just on the edge? I can't quite tell.

    Do you have a more detailed version?

    Thanks

  33. #33

    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    49
    I don't have a more detailed map. At this point, I think it's safe to assume that a boundary drawn on a trail leaves the trail outside the proposed Wilderness designation. As I understand it, the whole point of the Mill-D adjustment was to keep the loop options open, not to leave Mill D open as a cherry-stemmed in & out.

    But assumptions & second hand info aren't worth their weight in electrons, so - give Carl Fisher a call at 801 363 7283 & find out for certain.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by David Witherspoon
    I don't have a more detailed map. At this point, I think it's safe to assume that a boundary drawn on a trail leaves the trail outside the proposed Wilderness designation. As I understand it, the whole point of the Mill-D adjustment was to keep the loop options open, not to leave Mill D open as a cherry-stemmed in & out.

    But assumptions & second hand info aren't worth their weight in electrons, so - give Carl Fisher a call at 801 363 7283 & find out for certain.
    nah, if its on the internet, it must be true. the more i looked at it, the more i realized that must have been the point. thanks for the extra info and avenue to verify.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.