Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ruins

Expand Messages
  • matt_andersao
    OK I floated this idea a while ago...I want to hike to the ruins along the East Fork. With the recent Utah Supreme Court decision (according to my fly fishing
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 22, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      OK I floated this idea a while ago...I want to hike to the ruins along the East Fork. With the recent Utah Supreme Court decision (according to my fly fishing buddies who fought the state legislature from changing the decision) any stream, river, creek, etc is public land along with the land underneath it and the high water marks to be used for floating, fishing and even hiking (this interpretation could be wrong). Thus I could legally hike up the East Fork of the Virgin (I think). My initial response from this forum was even if it was legal to hike upstream the area is a wilderness study area for bighorn sheep (in part). I conversed with a ranger at the backcountry desk in Zion a while back. He thought that the only reason I could not hike up the East Fork was due to private property rights. After I mentioned the Supreme Court decision he basically said he could see no reason why I could not hike to the ruins. What are your thoughts?
    • bruce silliman
      IMHO the decision by the Utah Supreme Court only relates to land owned privately or by the State of Utah, not Federal land. bruce from bryce
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 22, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        IMHO the decision by the Utah Supreme Court only relates to land owned privately or by the State of Utah, not Federal land.
         
        bruce from bryce

        On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM, matt_andersao <matt_andersao@...> wrote:
         

        OK I floated this idea a while ago...I want to hike to the ruins along the East Fork. With the recent Utah Supreme Court decision (according to my fly fishing buddies who fought the state legislature from changing the decision) any stream, river, creek, etc is public land along with the land underneath it and the high water marks to be used for floating, fishing and even hiking (this interpretation could be wrong). Thus I could legally hike up the East Fork of the Virgin (I think). My initial response from this forum was even if it was legal to hike upstream the area is a wilderness study area for bighorn sheep (in part). I conversed with a ranger at the backcountry desk in Zion a while back. He thought that the only reason I could not hike up the East Fork was due to private property rights. After I mentioned the Supreme Court decision he basically said he could see no reason why I could not hike to the ruins. What are your thoughts?


      • JoeB
        I would agree with Bruce s assessment--Federal land is not what the decision applies to. Continuing that logic, I still can t legally descend Goose Creek
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 22, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I would agree with Bruce's assessment--Federal land is not what the decision applies to. Continuing that logic, I still can't legally descend Goose Creek either, nor can I hop through the Left Fork without a permit to do some fishing. Federal policy takes precedence here. You do at least have grounds to argue that you can hike up the East Fork to the border of the park. (Well, that's my interpretation.)

          --- In Zion_National_Park_Hiking@yahoogroups.com, bruce silliman <weabruce@...> wrote:
          >
          > IMHO the decision by the Utah Supreme Court only relates to land owned
          > privately or by the State of Utah, not Federal land.
          >
          > bruce from bryce
          >
          > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM, matt_andersao <matt_andersao@...>wrote:
          >
          > >
          > >
          > > OK I floated this idea a while ago...I want to hike to the ruins along the
          > > East Fork. With the recent Utah Supreme Court decision (according to my fly
          > > fishing buddies who fought the state legislature from changing the decision)
          > > any stream, river, creek, etc is public land along with the land underneath
          > > it and the high water marks to be used for floating, fishing and even hiking
          > > (this interpretation could be wrong). Thus I could legally hike up the East
          > > Fork of the Virgin (I think). My initial response from this forum was even
          > > if it was legal to hike upstream the area is a wilderness study area for
          > > bighorn sheep (in part). I conversed with a ranger at the backcountry desk
          > > in Zion a while back. He thought that the only reason I could not hike up
          > > the East Fork was due to private property rights. After I mentioned the
          > > Supreme Court decision he basically said he could see no reason why I could
          > > not hike to the ruins. What are your thoughts?
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.