# Deer Creek ATV Problem



## americanforkdude (Sep 13, 2007)

So after reading the never ending posts and being a little upset of deer creek's atv/snowmobile ban I emailed the Parks Service and this is what they said: 

Deer Creek State Park is managed through cooperative agreements between several entities/agencies. The water from Deer Creek Reservoir is used for culinary water in many large communities. The water owners have determined that in order to protect water quality standards for drinking water, motorized vehicles are prohibited below the high water line to prevent contamination by oil, gas, antifreeze, etc. Motorized vehicles are also not allowed off of roads, in order to prevent soil erosion and further help protect water quality. Therefore, off-highway vehicle use (including snowmobiles) is not permitted in the park. 
Prior to about 1971 the only activity allowed on the reservoir was fishing. Other types of boating activities have since been allowed, but park activities are monitored carefully, with water quality protection remaining the top priority for the water owners.


Now correct me if I'm wrong, do boats not pollute the water 10 times as much as a 4 wheeler or snowmobiles? I know my boat does, maybe it's rare. What about Wave Runners? So why the ban on JUST snowmobile/ATVS??? I'de say it's to keep the state parks with money which sorry to say i think is a bunch of bull ****. Your comments?


----------



## Poo Pie (Nov 23, 2007)

I agree man, I don't see the diff. motorized vehicles are motorized vehicles whether it has wheels/track, or a hull. 
Anyways probably don't want a quad on deer creek right now. Puddles and I were there yesterday and he fell through around the edge up to his waist, he's maybe a buck fifty and was on foot. :shock:


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

I think that's a good explanation of what goes on at Deer Creek... ...At least we're 'allowed' to use the lake for water and fishing sports...
I really don't mind there reasoning, I've noticed the last few years the State Parks Dept. has spent a lot of time, effort and money to help keep the Parks clean. So I guess if all those rules are helping to keep the lake and surrounding area's cleaner....I'm all for it.


----------



## schaueelab (Dec 30, 2007)

I agree my boat is horrible it is way worse than any atv or sled not a very good excuse if you ask me


----------



## fishmanjustfish (Oct 29, 2007)

The people that create such regulations own boats! They don't own ATV's and snowmachines. That's it in a nut shell! Must be nice to be in power, but, hey, really, the people in power could care less. As I get older, I find myself dwelling on stuff like this more and more. I really have to try and mentally move on. 

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy! (Ben Franklin)


----------



## great googly moogly (Jan 26, 2008)

I think its a great rule ! Sorry i hate atv's out in the semi-wilds, sand dunes, sure go ahead...

the reasons are probably just as much tearin up the area as water quality issues . . .


----------



## sillyphil (Nov 26, 2007)

A motor vehicle is a motor vehicle,therefore BOATS need to be included also.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

So, if motorized vehicles are not allowed below the high water line, then the only times boats can be launched by a towing vehicle is when the reservoir is full, right? I am all for protecting the water quality but there seems to be some irony, incosistancy and rather narrow thought in the regulations.


----------



## scott_rn (Sep 11, 2007)

It's also the same watershed as Jordanelle, so I'm sure a lot of drinking water is contaminated by all the boats that max that place out every weekend in the summertime. It also makes it sound like everyone in Provo drinks urine every time an ice fisherman takes a leak out on the ice :shock:


----------



## great googly moogly (Jan 26, 2008)

maybe atv's spit out more pollutants ?

maybe on a heavy use day theres 50 boats and 400 atv's ?

maybe people want to fish and camp without a bunch of juveniles acting like kids with a mini-bike tearing a$$ all over, ruinng everthing for everyone but themselves. . .


----------



## great googly moogly (Jan 26, 2008)

scott_rn said:


> It's also the same watershed as Jordanelle, so I'm sure a lot of drinking water is contaminated by all the boats that max that place out every weekend in the summertime. It also makes it sound like everyone in Provo drinks urine every time an ice fisherman takes a leak out on the ice :shock:


two words : water purification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_purification


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

great googly moogly said:


> maybe atv's spit out more pollutants ?
> 
> maybe on a heavy use day theres 50 boats and 400 atv's ?
> 
> maybe people want to fish and camp without a bunch of juveniles acting like kids with a mini-bike tearing **** all over, ruinng everthing for everyone but themselves. . .


Actually, GGM has a valid point. I don't think ATVs should be allowed on the beaches of state parks in the summer time either. But I doubt there are many campers and picknickers on the beaches of DC when there is enough ice to support ATVs or snowmobiles. The irony, inconsistancy and narrow thought in the regulations is in wording (and inforcement) of regulations the wording of which tries to be inclusive of year round regulations. Allowing motorized vehicles ON the lake in summer but prohibiting them ON the lake in winter just does not make sense. Inforceing the letter of the rules ( applying them to motor vehicles below the water line in winter but allowing vehicles to launch boats in the summertime also makes the invorcement of the rules inconsistant). I have to believe that the regulations and the arbitrary inforcement of those regulations could easily be made to reflect more inellegent thought and still protect the water quality and the summertime recreationist. Why could regulations not be different for winter use than summer use or allow ATVs and snowmobiles to drive dirrectly on or off the lake maybe even at the boat ramps just like Forest Service campground regulations and still prohibit environmental dammage to the shorline?


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

One more thought: I was just thinking in defense of the State Parkes, how many times in the past ten years has there been ice on Deer Creek thick enough to support vehicles? It might be as simple as that no one has had to go through this thought process before.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Okay folks, I agree that OHVs should not be given Carte Blanc to wander at will all over our state parks; especially on the land portions of same. However, some very valid points have been raised as to inconsistencies in enforcement with regard to OHVs vs. boats. We can vent all we want here and on other sites, but the only real answers are going to come from the state, specifically the Park Service. Therefore, I also wrote them an email and raised a couple of points I think they need to address with a little more detail. I shall post any response (or the gist of a response) when/if I get one. Here is a copy of the words I wrote to them.



> It has come up for discussion on the Utah Wildlife Network (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3890) that OHVs are not being allowed on Deer Creek. One person emailed the Utah Park Service about this situation and received the following answer from the Utah Park Service Office:
> 
> _Deer Creek State Park is managed through cooperative agreements between several entities/agencies. The water from Deer Creek Reservoir is used for culinary water in many large communities. The water owners have determined that in order to protect water quality standards for drinking water, motorized vehicles are prohibited below the high water line to prevent contamination by oil, gas, antifreeze, etc. Motorized vehicles are also not allowed off of roads, in order to prevent soil erosion and further help protect water quality. Therefore, off-highway vehicle use (including snowmobiles) is not permitted in the park. Prior to about 1971 the only activity allowed on the reservoir was fishing. Other types of boating activities have since been allowed, but park activities are monitored carefully, with water quality protection remaining the top priority for the water owners._
> 
> ...


----------



## Improv (Sep 8, 2007)

I too would agree that there is a lot of inconsistently with regards to the DC watershed. I remember back in 1986 fishing off the bank just east of the DC dam when a fish cop motored his gas powered boat right up to where I was fishing and told me I was trespassing and that I was not allowed to fish on the other side of the buoys- because of the same reason they are saying now – it’s culinary water, blah, blah, blah. It wasn’t until later on when I starting fishing the lower Provo that I realized the whole watershed argument is truly inconsistent. There is an entire population of fisherman and inter-tubers that wade and float the lower Provo – yet somehow they are not contaminating the water, weird.

Scofield is also culinary water and yet they don’t have the same restrictions, why? The answer is simple and it’s spelled out in the email you received, it says, “…The water owners have determined…” This is not a government agency decision; this is Mr. Water-Right/landowner flexing his mussels while simultaneously sticking his tongue out saying “nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, you can’t play here cause I said so”. My Uncle use to be the manager of Mountain Dell reservoir, which is Salt Lake City watershed, part of his many responsibilities included treating the reservoir with various chemicals. Guess how he went about doing it – that’s right – with a gas powered motorboat. 

The landowners need to tell the truth with regards to DC and stop hiding behind this watershed BS. They just need to come out and say “we don’t like snowmobiles and ATV’s so therefore we have outlawed them on the lake”. At least it would be the truth.


----------



## americanforkdude (Sep 13, 2007)

Well said Improv. Its not that i have an issue with not having a 4 wheeler on deer creek, i never have and i probably never will but when they hide behind a stupid poor-put excuse like that it just irritates me.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

This is the same lame excuse they use to prohibit dogs in the park. I'm sure that the wildlife that uses the park _never_ defecate or urinate anywhere near the water. The next thing they will try to do is prohibit the fish from eliminating in the water.


----------



## Improv (Sep 8, 2007)

Loke said:


> This is the same lame excuse they use to prohibit dogs in the park. I'm sure that the wildlife that uses the park _never_ defecate or urinate anywhere near the water. The next thing they will try to do is prohibit the fish from eliminating in the water.


Your statement is very true! This has to do with personal preferences and not actual facts, but when you're rich you get to make the rules.


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

You knew I would have to throw my 2 cents in on this point. At least they are consistent in banning sleds and atv's from the ice banning one and not the other made no sense to me in the previous post. I don't think atv's should be allowed on beach at dear creek there is not enough land to ride on and it would tear up the shoreline and interfere with shore fisherman. The logic of protecting the watershead from fuel and oil makes no sense to me due to the fact they allow motorized boat travel on the lake. This is poor logic and I think the previous poster is right that we don't like atv's or snowmobiles so we are not going to let them out on "our" water is correct, I thought this was a state park? I would respect them more if they did come out and state it that way vrs the leagal B.S. in the explanation you recieved.


----------



## troutfisher2 (Sep 11, 2007)

so I guess it is okay for the fish to relieve themselves in the lake HUH? I know that there is water purification, but that only filters out so much. Give it enough time and all motors will be banned from the water. If you have the money, you make the rules. Enjoy it while you can.


----------



## americanforkdude (Sep 13, 2007)

Question for you guys, do water users actually own the resevoir or just the water shares that come out of it?


----------



## huntducksordietrying (Sep 21, 2007)

My old two stroke took a 16:1 oil fuel mix. This was to lube the lower unit. When the lower unit was full it would just spill out the oil into the water (and all over my driveway). I dont know how other two stroke boat motors work but if my atv or snomobile lost that much oil the last thing I would need to worry about is getting a ticket from a park ranger, it would be dragging my atv off the ice before it melted.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Here’s an update. I received an email yesterday from Mr. Fred Hayes, the OHV Program Coordinator for the Utah Division of State Parks and Recreation. Americanforkdude received the response as well. In my opinion, his response was a reiteration of the response that Americanforkdude posted at the beginning of this thread. More of the ‘It’s the water owners fault.’

I wrote him back today and restated my questions and asked him please answer my questions with something a little more substantial than the public relations boiler plate we’ve been given so far. I’ll let you know what his response is after I get one. Maybe we’ll even find out who the water owner is and we can then direct some reasoned responses to them as well.

Some of you may recall we were able to accomplish a very workable compromise last fall with the folks involved with the management of Cutler Reservoir when we presented them with some reasoned arguments.


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Good luck, keep us posted on how it goes!


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

dubob said:


> Here's an update. I received an email yesterday from Mr. Fred Hayes, the OHV Program Coordinator for the Utah Division of State Parks and Recreation. Americanforkdude received the response as well. In my opinion, his response was a reiteration of the response that Americanforkdude posted at the beginning of this thread. More of the 'It's the water owners fault.'
> 
> I wrote him back today and restated my questions and asked him please answer my questions with something a little more substantial than the public relations boiler plate we've been given so far. I'll let you know what his response is after I get one. Maybe we'll even find out who the water owner is and we can then direct some reasoned responses to them as well.
> 
> *Some of you may recall we were able to accomplish a very workable compromise last fall with the folks involved with the management of Cutler Reservoir when we presented them with some reasoned arguments*.


What was that all about ? :?

I need to fish Cutler this spring ( soon ) and need all the information I can get on the place...


----------



## americanforkdude (Sep 13, 2007)

I've recieved a few emails. They have pretty much said it is "ALL" on the water owners hands. Fred emailed me back and stressed his concern and feelings on the issue as well. He is in the same boat all of us are, he stated its ridiculous as well that the water users make up lame excuses like the pollution. Bottom line, they don't want ATV's on their water. I think the public owns that water, but apparently i was corrected that i'm wrong.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

.45 said:


> What was that all about? I need to fish Cutler this spring ( soon ) and need all the information I can get on the place...


That had to do with the wakeless speed and motor size restrictions. It was brought up at the start of the waterfowl season and through give and take with the manager (Pacific Power) via the internet, a compromise was worked out and the motor size was adjusted to allow up to I believe 35 hp on the southern part. This allowed most long shaft mud motors to be used there for ducks and goose hunting. I think the southern part of the reservoir (below some bridge) is wakeless as well.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

dubob said:


> .45 said:
> 
> 
> > What was that all about? I need to fish Cutler this spring ( soon ) and need all the information I can get on the place...
> ...


Well Thanks dubob !!  After driving the 'long' way to Logan once in a while, I'm getting kind of interested in the fishing up there...Honestly, I've never seen the place...yet.


----------



## lionhunter (Sep 11, 2007)

I didnt read any of the other posts but if you think you can get a wheeler on that lake go on ahead and try. I was up there last weekend and the slush was thick. Plus when I hit the shore I stepped off the trail made by people walking and I was up past my knee in slush. :?


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Well, it’s been over a week since I emailed Fred Hayes and I have not received any reply from him or any of the other five Park Service employees that were info copied the same email. I resent the email again today with an additional request for a response. I’ll let you know what they say, if they respond. So far, it doesn’t seem like they want to respond to my questions. I’d really like to find out who the real water owner is and get a campaign started to get them to reconsider their position on the use of OHV’s vs. boats.


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Dubob are you going to the atv rally at the capital? I can't make it due to work but my wife and kids are going to show up to it. Go to utahatv.com for more info.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Thank you for the heads up Orvis1. I didn't even know about this group until I saw your post. I will be putting this site in my favorites list.

Unfortunately, my day is already full and I will not be going to Salt Lake City for the rally. But I will be monitoring this site in the future for information on things such as this rally to schedule attendance in the future.

Still nothing back from the Park Service.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

For anybody that may still be interested in this issue, I received a response from Mr. Hayes this morning. While it does not change anything with regard to the OHV restrictions at Deer Creek State Park, it does offer some insight into the process that was used to arrive at the policy position now in effect for OHV use at state parks statewide.

While you may not agree with the reasoning behind the decision to restrict OHV use at Deer Creek (as do I), you now know that the decision was based on a process that did allow for public input. The response does not say what that public input was or if there even was any. But public input was allowed.

I guess now it would be up to those directly affected by these restrictions to decide if it is worth their time to pursue this further by petitioning the Board of Parks and Recreation regarding a change in this rule. A contact point is given in the response I received if any person or group wishes to pursue this. I'm wondering if any of the ATV groups such as 'ATVUTAH' or 'UTAH ATV' are interested in, or perhaps are already, pursuing this through their membership. I would think it would be of some interest to them as some of them are undoubtedly fisherpersons that also ice fish.

Anyway, without further ado, here is the response from the State Parks & Rec on my specific questions.



> Dear Mr. Hicks:
> 
> Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions regarding ATV use on Deer Creek Reservoir. I know you have been waiting for this reply and I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I will address each of your questions individually. First, however, I feel it is important that I clarify a couple of items.
> 
> ...


----------



## orvis1 (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for the info, I know those resource management plans come up for review about every 10 years or so. The southern utah plan has been contested for being to restrictive for the atv community and to pro suwa.


----------

