Revised Statute 2477

With the latest addition of wilderness land (https://www.ksl.com/article/46509650/trump-signs-massive-lands-bill-with-key-utah-provisions) I think RS 2477 is an important statute in keeping our public lands accessible to all. Every year more and more trails are being closed down. I know it's not a big issue to most, especially those that don't have publics lands nearby to recreate on.

@NYCO I saw your post on expedition Utah(http://www.expeditionutah.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-did-we-lose-what-did-we-gain.6496/) with some good info about whats going on with the latest bill. Curious if you have any insight or your translation of this statute.

From my interpretation of the attached file, Rollins Pass should be protected by RS 2477.

I'm hoping there are some on this forum that are involved with fighting to keep our lands open that could shed some of there insight on things. Hopefully it doesn't become too political.

 

What's this about Rollins Pass?

 

There's a very short section that is closed making it illegal to drive from Winter Park to Nederland via that route. I think RS 2477 should allow this to remain open. From what I've heard Boulder County refuses to open it back up, going as far as using pictures of trestles that are irrelevant to the ones on Rollins stating they are in disrepair. The current road doesn't even use the trestles but is blocked by the collapsed tunnel. It wouldn't be difficult to make a bypass around this. Both Gilpin and Grand counties are for reopening it.

 

I'm for keeping it closed. You want to traverse the 15 miles over the Divide? Mountain bike it or walk it.

 

Yes, I'd much prefer to drive that than try and make it over to the front range on a busy Sunday weekend where traffic is backed up to the top of Berthoud Pass. It would also have an economic benefit for WP and Nederland. It's a big historic land mark for the area.

Curious why you want it to remain closed?

 

not sure RS 2477 would work with re-routes... established right-of-ways should remain open yes, but creating a new route would be stretching it... the old wagon trail bypassing the tunnel on the other hand... i believe roads have to be designated a RS 2477 road for it to be in the equation too... not sure the full history of rollins and it's designations.

you see RS 2477 roads a lot in UT and i'd imagine in WY, NV, NM and other states with large chunks of open public lands with old roads.


i stopped reading (long article and not enough time), but this person seemed to do a lot of research into the matter within CO, https://cozine.com/2001-march/rs-2477-old-roads-and-new-controversies/


there are some maps available for UT i know that show the RS 2477 roads that have been mapped and protected... not sure if CO did a full inventory of these roads...

 

That was an informative read. It seems to me if it's been documented as a road between 1888 and 1976, had some construction involved and wasn't National Forest land prior to its creation, it's protected by RS 2477. Then there's the debate on what has access to it, motorized or non motorized.

Not too make this all about Rollins but here's an article on it. https://www.skyhinews.com/news/rollins-pass-hearing-does-little-to-bridge-divide/

Sounds like it's in the James Peak Wilderness Act that it should be repaired to a passable state.

 

I'm fine with how things are now.

 

That was a good article and pretty much covers the controversy. I think it's just a can of worms that I don't want opened.

 

Nice article.

"RS-2477 is a classic conflict: federal vs. local government; motorized vs. non-motorized transportation; recreation and environmental lobbies vs. development interests; and private vs. public property rights. So it won’t go away until we all agree on all those matters — and that’s not going to happen during this millennium."