Comments about ‘Kane County wins 10th Circuit decision over roadless rule’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 11 2011 8:21 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
newslover
Salt Lake City, UT

... but who's mischief?

RKC
American Fork, UT

Finally common sense.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

This is a big win for Southern Utah as well as the entire west. SUWA goes down in flames. YESSSSSSS!

Blue Bolshevik
Salt Lake City, UT

Oh well, looks like I'm spending my recreation money somewhere else. Buh bye.

wonderwhy
Salt Lake City, UT

I love my 4-wheelers and dirt bikes, but I love the serenity of the high Uintas wilderness as well. I'm glad there are places for both activities. So while I don't want SUWA to be able to close all the off-roading trails, I don't want to lose the opportunity for quiet "getting away from it all" either!

  • 7:06 a.m. Jan. 12, 2011
  • Like (3)
  • Top comment
lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Blue Bolshevik
you would have been spending it elsewhere anyway, the BLM wants these lands inaccesible. Besides, bolsheviks spend all their leisure time waiting in line to see Lenin's tomb, so we know yours is a hollow threat.

Good to see federal courts actually make a decision in favor of the locals over the outside interests. Makes you wonder about judge Campbell and the two dissenters on the courst of appeals when all the rest said they were wrong.

Lyle
Springville, UT

The issue of whether or not unsupervised children on ATVs can tear up our wilderness lands is important, but the big issue is about who can sue in cases like this. It partially answers the question I often find myself asking: "Why are *they* sing?"

watchman
Salt Lake City, UT

This is a great move. It brings the responsibility and determination back where it rightfully belongs....the local entities.

thebig1
SLC, UT

bye blue and take all your friends somewhere else with you, thanks we will miss you and the crew

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Finally! An environmental case in which a court applies common sense!

Here's hoping it'll catch on.

county mom
Monroe, UT

We are thrilled but NO ONE in southern Utah trusts SUWA. They will not keep this rulling, they will with thier millions of dollars, continue to try to force us all out of southern Utah. They want "not a trace wilderness". Which means not one foot print from mankind. This fight started years ago and they have been able to get large amounts of donations from it. Why would they let this big money maker go?

casual observer
Salt Lake City, UT

Let the ORV eco-vandalism begin!

Johnny Triumph
American Fork, UT

Embattled citizens finally win one. Now it's too bad Lee is gone to the Senate...

tom_e
Kaysville, UT

If Kane County lost they would have to pay court costs. Since SUWA lost do they have to pay court costs?

davidroy
Flagstaff, AZ

For too long these elitist environmental groups have been determining what the
majority of us taxpayers can and can not do. The irony of it is that they are not necessarily motivated by the environment but rather by money, our tax money. How many know that our federal government pays them to sue under the Federal Access to Justice Act. Over the last decade $35 million of taxpayer dollars was paid out to 13 environmental groups and another $5 Billion in taxpayer money was paid out to their law firms. Check out the Western Legacy Alliance for reference. Time for the general public to wake up and take action against these so called environmental groups.

L
Central Utah, UT

Having not read the decision of the court, it leaves me wondering if the an individual (as a partial property owner) would have standing with the court. If so that only means that the local ATV club nor the SUWA, or other organizations, can't sue using the name of the group.

As I read this article nothing was decided on whether Kane County does or does not have a right-of-way on a particular road or trail under RS2477. It only says who cannot file an action.

This may be a case where "winners" & "loosers" are yet to be determined. Some years ago (before earmarks were discouraged) on a trip to another state there was a conversation with a"congressional aid" indicated they would work hard to see that Utah's (and other states) favorite and proposed legislation or funding was defeated. I don't know if they are still around, but there are a lot nationwide with similar feelings. I think it was the same occassion where someone talked about limiting road funding only to roads being maintained (by the county) to a certain standard.

I don't think this is the final action on this.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

"davidroy" - THANKS for the insight. Looks like another 5 billion that we (hopefully)can eliminate from the federal budget!
As others have stated: SUWA has REAL DEEP pockets. They can pay for their own lawsuits, NOT the taxpayers!!

high desert
Hurricane, ut

This is absolutely GREAT! It puts the emphasis on roads and travel planning back to the local level and away from the "environmental ambulance chasers" like SUE-YA. They sue to keep their staff of lawyers employed - not because they really care about the landscape. If you really think they are concerned about the "environment" just watch and see what would happen if they had to spend their own money to file and fight cases such as this. If there wasn't money in it they wouldn't be doing it.
Commissioner Habbeshaw and Rep. Noel are owed a huge THANKS from everyone who enjoys reasonable access to the public lands.

Duckhunter
American Fork, UT

Excellent ruling. Of course it makes perfect sense and that is why the boshevik dislikes it. I didn't realize bolsheviks had their own money anyway but let's pretend he does and is "taking it elsewhere". That's fine as I'll soon be heading south with my ATV and taking it down there. My guess is I have more to spend than he does and will more likely spend it. That is a net win.

SLC Grandma
Salt Lake City, UT

In our travels around Utah by car and on foot, we have found many responsible ORV users on the roads and certainly appreciate the respect shown for other people and the environment. However, there are too many instances where you see the hillsides eroded from obvious ORV excursions off-road, causing great damage to the vegetation and stability of the hillsides. And the ORVs who boom along dusty canyon roads (often with the riders wearing dust masks) and don't slow down when passing other vehicles, which would diminish the amount of their trail dust drifting through car windows, really bother me because of their discourtesy. I believe in wide access to primitive, natural settings so all those desiring to enjoy the beauty and peace of the wilderness areas can do so but with every privilege comes responsibility - littering, damaging, and perverting in any other way the stability and beauty of nature cannot be tolerated. Local authorities need to keep better control and enforce wise-use policies and regulations.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments