Debate on Roadless Rule heats up again [Archive]

goodtimes

09-23-2005, 06:26 AM

I take exception to #2 Scott. There are certain circumstances where new roads could, and should be created. It is well known that an entire trail can be closed if even one section of it becomes unsustainable. For example if a endangered species is being threatened by vehicles driving through a specific river crossing, the whole trail gets closed. But what if that trail provided the only access to a historically significant area (mining encampment, etc). Should that area be lost to public access, or should a new trail be constructed to protect the endangered species while still providing public access?

This very thing is happening in California. River crossings are being closed off, and new sections of trail are being created to protect the river and still provide access. Heck, it is happening right here in AZ too. Look at Char. Gap. When we ran it last year, the FS or BLM or who ever manages that area had taken a blade through there to re-establish the trail. After the fires in '03, the trail was pretty much gone, and people were driving everywhere. It was unsustainable, so river crossings have been fenced off, and new sections of trail were cut. The result is a better managed trail. IMO, nothing wrong with that.

Of course, this should not be taken as me saying that we should just start blazing trails everywhere we want to go, I'm just saying that there are certain circumstances that could justify a new trail.

JMO....

Scott Brady

09-23-2005, 01:20 PM

I'm just saying that there are certain circumstances that could justify a new trail.

JMO....

I think you make some great points here Brian. That is the problem with the position I posted. I appears to ridged.

So, in you examples of re-routing a trail, or making the trail better and more sustainable by creating a new road, that would be a good solution. I know this has been done a few times on the Rubicon to save the trail from closure, and I certainly applaud that move.

I guess the most important reason why I support this type of approach, is that it allows us to inventory and KEEP what we currently have. I am just concerned that in the current state there is too much opportunity for closure, as management is so varied throughout the country. In AZ we are blessed, as OHV is recognized and has been shown to be a multi billion dollar industry in the state, so we get lots of support here. In CA, it is the opposite.

goodtimes

09-23-2005, 02:48 PM

Your right Scott...rules are rigid, and in most cases they are probably intended to be bent or broken. I think a big part of the problem is that people will not recognize this. On the OHV user side, we hear "no new trails", and think, "no new trails, period". So when that river crossing becomes unsustainable, we are going to lose a trail. On the other hand, the eco-nazi sees "no new trail, unless we decide to make a new trail", and they think "these guys are out there driving where ever they want". When in reality, probably 80% of the people on both sides are satisfied with the trail being re-routed to protect *whatever* it was that needed protection.

But, much like any political debate, the people at the extreme ends of each side are the ones who take advantage of any compromise, which leads both sides of the arguement not trusting the other side.

Good example: Route inventory. There are groups here in AZ who oppose holding a route inventory because they are afraid that once the greenies have that, they they will have a list of trails that they just need to find a excuse to close. We don't trust them with the information. I'm sure 90% of *them* would not use the inventory against the OHV user in a manner to close trails that have no reason for being closed...but there is that 10% who, IMO, would likely try....so, because of that 10%, they aren't trusted by everyone. Of course, there is the flip side to that coin.....the OHV users have a certain amout of idiots out there who arent' to be trusted by the eco-nuts as well.....

Jonathan Hanson

09-23-2005, 05:20 PM

Goodtimes brought up a vital point: There are self-centered jerks in all areas of human interest, and they're the ones who make trouble for the rest of us, who would otherwise get along just fine and be happy to compromise.

I know several "environmentalists" who would happily outlaw all off-highway driving. And I have talked to several "4x4 enthusiasts" who believe that all wilderness areas in the country should be opened to motorized traffic. The former believe the latter are all Bud-Lite-swilling rednecks, and the latter believe the former are all dreadlocked tofu-eaters.

I agree that within roaded areas, common sense should dictate when a trail needs to be maintained, improved, or re-routed. The Roadless Rule attempts (and obviously it's not perfect) to protect the remaining areas within National Forest lands that are essentially roadless and provide something close to a wilderness experience. The claim that this "locks up" vast areas of public land is wrong on several counts. First, the total percentage of all land in the U.S. designated by Congress as wilderness is 4.7 percent--and over half that is in Alaska. If the 50,000,000-odd acres of roadless areas in the National Forests are managed as defacto wilderness, that percentage increases to about seven. I don't see how anyone could claim that it is unreasonable to preserve seven percent of our country in something close to its pristine natural state.

Second, the only thing one needs to enjoy a wilderness area is a good pair of shoes. You don't need to undertake a two-week backpacking trip (although those are fun too); just walk a half-mile into the area and enjoy the silence. I'm amused when I get into arguments with militantly anti-wilderness 4x4 drivers who boast about tackling trails only passable in vehicles augmented with thousands worth of dollars of lockers and gearing, and who then acuse me of being an "elitist" because I favor wilderness protection. Since a good pair of hiking shoes can be had for less than $100, I wonder who's really the elitist?

My bottom line is that once a wilderness is gone, it's usually gone forever. So I will always err on the side of protection--especially when I know that 93 percent of the country is open to me and my Land Cruiser.

datrupr

09-23-2005, 05:39 PM

This is a great topic Jonathan. You have all made valid points. I am all for the conservation of our wilderness areas, but I am also for making these areas accessable to those who wish to ENJOY it. I love getting out into the bush, exploring, camping, etc. But at the same time, it just earks the heck out of me when I go to enjoy these areas and places and find that they have been vandalized, defiled, littered, etc. But that is where I take it upon myself to try and clean up other peoples messes so that I can further enjoy the area in a more pristene condition and to hopefully let others enjoy it the same way. I own a 4X4 for one reason only, to get to places that other vehicles will not take me. Now I know that a majority of people that partake in the same activities as myself behave in much the same manner as I do, there is still that percentage of Bud Light swilling rednecks that choose to chuck their trash out anywhere they see fit and spray paint their signature all over ruins and artifacts that I deem precious to myself and my children. These people IMO should be shot on site. But then as you have stated the other end of the spectrum are the "greenies" that hate us for treading all over mother nature in our fossil fuel burning SUV's, pick ups, etc with oversized tires destroying a preacious nearly endagered stone by rolling over it with our earth killing monstrosities. I do agree with the roadless rule as most of us in this forum probably do, but I think Brian as a valid point in new roads for the purpose of conservation, not more damage. This response became much longer than I had initially intended it too, and all I am doing is repeating what has already been stated. Sorry. :rolleyes:

DesertRose

09-23-2005, 05:46 PM

There are groups here in AZ who oppose holding a route inventory because they are afraid that once the greenies have that, they they will have a list of trails that they just need to find a excuse to close. We don't trust them with the information. I'm sure 90% of *them* would not use the inventory against the OHV user in a manner to close trails that have no reason for being closed...but there is that 10% who, IMO, would likely try....so, because of that 10%, they aren't trusted by everyone. Of course, there is the flip side to that coin.....the OHV users have a certain amout of idiots out there who arent' to be trusted by the eco-nuts as well.....

Hi Goodtimes -
Regarding the quote above, I think it's interesting to note that the so-called greenies you mention ALREADY HAVE 100% inventory of all roads (legal and illegal) on all of the Coronado National Forest and about 45% of BLM lands in southern Arizona - they've had it done for about 3 years.

I know, because I was executive director of one of the groups that did the inventories, under cooperation with the Forest Service and BLM.

And - although the "greenies" have the information (all of it, excellently mapped in GIS with photopoints) - the sky did not fall in for 4x4 enthusiasts.

The reason is simple: the only roads that can be legally closed have to be closed by the land agency or by a group working under contract to the land agency. Legal roads - that is, roads that were planned, mapped, engineered, and built by the land agency - cannot be closed without a HUGE amount of review and input.

The only "roads" that have been closed down here are those that were illegally created by 1) drug runners and illegal immigrants; 2) the Border Patrol chasing #1; and 3) irresponsible ORV or 4x4 owners who drive off roads and then those tracks are followed by the next guy or gal.

The reason many of these roads need to be closed are from a land and wildlife management standpoint. Illegal roads often erode badly, foul up good trout streams, or allow access to areas that are important breeding habitat for deer or bears, which really shy away from roads. Some fabulous quail hunting habitat in Las Cienegas was destroyed by illegal roads - once those were closed, the quail returned and it's great hunting again!

Although I'm guilty of often using epithets to label people, "greenies" or otherwise, it's probably a good idea to realize that some of the so-called "greenies" are people like me and Jonathan who are environmentally rather radical and also love to hunt, explore the backcountry by vehicle AND on foot. It was a good education for me to be head of a conservation group and learn just how damaging it is to make assumptions about people's political or environmental stance just based on what they looked like, what they drive, what they eat, or what political party they belong to.

Roseann, a greenie who also loves great trucks, eats (and shoots) meat, carries a gun, and usually votes Republican

goodtimes

09-23-2005, 05:48 PM

You are right on the cost of a pair of shoes....well, close anyway. They are getting expensive (and I need a new pair).

Personally I love wilderness areas. The first backpacking trip I did was in the South San Juan Wilderness area.....packed along a portion of the continental divide trail....horrid trip. Absolutely miserable. Rain, not really knowing what we were getting into, my pack wasn't set up properly, my sister hadn't broken in her boots completely, and we hiked 17 miles w/3000' elevation gain on day #1. I've been hooked ever since. (yes, I'm sick). But the whole time, we saw 3 groups of people, no mechanized vehicles, and didn't even see a airplane. It was simply awesome. For those reasons, I support wilderness areas. I like roadless areas as well, for many of the reasons Jonathan stated. But I also believe that there should be resonable access to areas of significant interest. Not everyone is able to don a pack and head 30 miles into the wilderness to get there. What about the guy who lost his leg in a war? What about the person who has a birth defect preventing them from walking? Should they be automatically excluded from visiting certain sites, based on their disability?

Now, the thing about wilderness areas...as far as I know, there are no historically significant sites within them. There are no roads (established hiking trails, but no roads), there likely isn't a reason to establish a road. But state trust land, forest service land, BLM land....those all have a significant number of historical sites, and access should be allowed. What happens when someone "discovers" a previously unmapped mining camp that holds some historic value? Should a road be created? More specifically, should the road to that location be revitalized/reopened? (there obviously was a road at some point....otherwise the camp would not be there).

**disclaimer---since not everyone knows me personally.....I like to play the devils advocate in a effort to stimulate debate and critical thinking on both sides of a issue. I enjoy thought provoking conversation, even if I don't agree with what someone else is saying. So, please do not hesitate to tell me you disagree with me (even if you are wrong :P ).

Scott Brady

09-23-2005, 05:50 PM

Roseann, a greenie who also loves great trucks, eats (and shoots) meat, carries a gun, and usually votes Republican

Pretty much sums me up too :ylsmoke:

Jonathan Hanson

09-23-2005, 05:59 PM

Oh, and . . .Ursidae69 asked about handling negative stereotypes from the OHV community, which reminded me of a story. I beg your indulgence.

Roseann was the Executive Director of the Sky Island Alliance for two years. SIA works to identify and preserve wildlife movement corridors between the big mountain ranges in Arizona and southwest New Mexico. Part of their activities includes surveying and closing illegal wildcat roads on public land within these recognized corridors.

Wildcat roads might be the biggest problem relating to OHV usage on public lands. They begin with one selfish jerk who cuts a new trail across virgin terrain. Another jerk follows the first--but soon there is enough usage that the trail appears to be a legitimate road, and everyone starts using it. Then when a group such as SIA comes along and closes it--usually at the request of the BLM or Forest Service--the 4x4 community understandably wails about the "greenies" locking up public lands. It's a huge PR problem for everyone.

Anyway, Roseann once decided to tackle the problem head-on, and called the president of a well-known local four-wheel-drive club to meet with him. He reacted suspiciously, but agreed--and then showed up at the restaurant with three of his friends, thus tactically outnumbering Roseann. The four sat opposite her and looked pugnaciously at the "greenie," until Roseann said, "So, when you guys go out on trail rides, do you make the Land Rover owners bring their own spare parts cars?"

Roseann described four mouths dropping open in perfect unison. Then she said, "By the way, that nice Land Cruiser you saw on the way in? That's mine."

The four looked at each other, then almost fell out of their chairs laughing. The ice was broken, and everyone had a great time talking about mutual interests, agreeing to disagree on some things, but agreeing that the single biggest problem facing all southern Arizonans who enjoy the outdoors is the TOTAL LOSS OF OPEN SPACE TO DEVELOPMENT.

datrupr

09-23-2005, 06:03 PM

Pretty much sums me up too :ylsmoke:

hear hear to that. Though not a registered Republican, my more conservative party has yet to put up someone in any race worth voting for.

goodtimes

09-23-2005, 06:07 PM

Roseann, you are right. I probably use terms like "greenies" and "eco-nazi's" too often. It is nothing more than stereotyping a group of people, and in many cases it is inappropriate. Compound that with the fact that I can't use "smilies" on this site, it is hard to determine how sarcastic I am being (or not being). In this instance, I am referring to the extremist segment of the conservation movement....those that wish to end all OHV travel at any cost.

Unfortunately, it is not difficult at all to get a road closed. I can close down pretty much any OHV route I want within about a week. All I have to do is file a lawsuit claiming that the road is a immediate threat to the enviroment. I can site studies conducted by "Goodtimes' group that wants OHV travel outlawed", I can make crap up.......and as I understand the law, the gov't is bound by law to close the road until they conduct their own studies to refute my claims. This has been happening out in Glamis for years (Pearsons milk vetch....). 50K some odd acres was close off for years. Finally it was re-opened after govt studies showed that the milk vetch's survival was not dependant on the area remaing closed. Less than a week later, it was closed again because of another lawsuit. Granted, this is a open riding area, not a specific trail (I don't like open riding areas...too many rednecks----but I understand the need for the open areas....just like I understand the need for extreme rock crawling trails----but that is a different subject alltogether...).

On the subject of trail inventory, I would be interested in seeing what all is contained in it sometime. If for no other reason than to find new areas to explore. I base my trips primarily off of USGS 7.5' topo's, which we all know are often out of date with regards to roads and trails.....many times I go out to explore a area only to find a road that *looks* like it has been closed off...but no signs are around stating that...so, did someone steal the sign..is the road actually open just not used enough to make it look open....am I actually just lost and looking at something that was never a road?????

....crap.....I gotta get moving....next class is on the other side of campus and coming up soon.....more later.

*********************
quick edit.....stop posting while I am typing! Now I have more responses to make, and am already running late!!!!!! (insert sarcastic smilie of some sort here)

DesertRose

09-23-2005, 06:21 PM

Now, the thing about wilderness areas...as far as I know, there are no historically significant sites within them. There are no roads (established hiking trails, but no roads), there likely isn't a reason to establish a road. But state trust land, forest service land, BLM land....those all have a significant number of historical sites, and access should be allowed. What happens when someone "discovers" a previously unmapped mining camp that holds some historic value? Should a road be created? More specifically, should the road to that location be revitalized/reopened? (there obviously was a road at some point....otherwise the camp would not be there).
.

Great discussion points!

First, Jonathan is giving me grief for doing this instead of working (we both work at home, on our computers, in separate offices....) but I see HE has been posting, too! Besides, i'm printing a bunch of stuff... i can't work while I have to monitor the printer :D

As for historic sites in Wilderness - I think there are. In the Rincon Wilderness, there is Manning Camp, I think. It's on the National Historic Register. There was a road going up there in the early part of the last century. But I'd have to say: NO! We should not re-open it. Such a road would rip open one of the biggest Wildernesses in southern Arizona. It's accessible by horsepacking for those who can't hike there.

So that brings up the point: the open-all-wild-areas-to-roads people often cite handicapped people, even bring wheelchair-bound folks to public meetings and parade them around, as reasons to bust open wilderness or roadless areas.

But there's always horsepacking! I'll have to think about that one some more....hmm.

Someone said COMMON SENSE should be what we use to decide land management issues. Hear-hear. All the stakeholders in public lands should have a say in what happens - within the limits of common sense, including the sense to save biodiversity even if it means we self-restrict our own access to places because there is a more important purpose to its existence than driving access.

But common sense a concept that works poorly in reality: we're talking about GOVERNMENT for goodness sake! ;)

Oh, and one point about state trust lands in Arizona: they are not public land. They belong to the TRUSTS which benefit from money from their management (leases for mining, grazing, or hunting) or their sale (for development). We the public are allowed to use them by the grace of the owners of the trusts (most of which are education institutions).

Roseann

Scott Brady

09-23-2005, 06:29 PM

hear hear to that. Though not a registered Republican, my more conservative party has yet to put up someone in any race worth voting for.

None of the parties have put up someone worth voting for. I always feel like I am having to pick the least "evil" :smileeek:

DesertRose

09-23-2005, 06:44 PM

quick edit.....stop posting while I am typing! Now I have more responses to make, and am already running late!!!!!! (insert sarcastic smilie of some sort here)

School? You don't need to go to class! It's much more educational to spend your time debating important issues here....with the rest of us who AREN'T WORKING.

Everything we learned that's useful we learned in the field or on the job....

Just kidding (well, not really) - don't tell whoever's paying your school fees I said that.

Seriously - I do know there are groups that abuse the courts and other legal maneuvers (bottling up precious resources and time with zillions of FOIAs, for example, is a common tactic) to get their way without going through the more democratic, and more difficult, process of stakeholder consultation and consensus. Consensus sucks for most of us because it means YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO OTHERS' POINTS OF VIEW AND BEND YOUR MIND A LITTLE!

Extremism on both ends of any debate often spoils the process for everyone - and gives things like reasonable conservation a bad name.

Oh well, back to work - we can't solve all the world's problems today.

better yet, it's the perfect time for a little backcountry drive in the Buenos Aires NWR - it's beautiful fall down here!

Roseann

Jonathan Hanson

09-23-2005, 06:46 PM

I'm glad Goodtimes brought up the handicapped access issue, which he obviously means sincerely. I feel qualified to comment on it for two reasons. First, I've had three major knee operations in the course of my life, to attempt to repair a congenital leg and foot defect that doctors told my mother might prevent me from walking at all. Happily that wasn't the case, but I've spent over a cumulative year on crutches.

Second, a couple of years ago I wrote a story for Bugle, the magazine of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, about handicapped hunters. The hunters I spoke to ranged from those with one artificial foot to quadriplegics who still bowhunt using chair-mounted crossbows with releases operated by a mouth tube. These people deal with obstacles none of us can imagine, yet they were without exception less sorry for themselves than any group of humans I've ever met.

They were scattered all over the country and few knew each other personally. Yet every single one, at some point in our talk, brought up the same subject on his own: their outrage when physically able people use the "handicapped access" argument as a blatantly selfish ploy to avoid having to get off their own fat asses and walk somewhere. It was the only thing I heard any of them sound truly angry about. NONE of these guys expects society to build roads to give them access to every square inch of the country.

As an interesting aside, the advent of full-size trucks with extended cabs and reverse-opening doors has finally given handicapped outdoorsmen an escape from the standard wheelchair-accessible van. I met several who have well-prepared trucks with lifts that raise and lock their chairs into the cab.

Ursidae69

09-23-2005, 08:37 PM

But I also believe that there should be resonable access to areas of significant interest. Not everyone is able to don a pack and head 30 miles into the wilderness to get there. What about the guy who lost his leg in a war? What about the person who has a birth defect preventing them from walking? Should they be automatically excluded from visiting certain sites, based on their disability?

I don't think the ADA should be any part of the debate regarding wilderness. There are many national parks that cater to those with disabilities where one can experience nature from their car or paved wheelchair accessible paths.

The public land is mandated by law to be multiple use. That includes recreation by foot, car, hunting, fishing, mineral extraction, oil extraction, logging, cattle grazing, wildlife and more I can't think of. It's difficult to manage all the interests because many of the interests negatively impact the others. I'd hate to be the decision maker in charge. They have zero budget for enforcement and no way to make everyone get along. All the parties hate each other and label each other nasty names and try to get corrupt politicians to send through bills to help their cause. Makes me sick, tragedy of the commons on grand scale.

Jonathan Hanson

09-23-2005, 08:56 PM

It's okay, Chuck. Just take a deep breath.

Ursidae69

09-23-2005, 08:58 PM

It's okay, Chuck. Just take a deep breath.

Sorry, :o I do get worked up easily these days... :wavey:

datrupr

09-23-2005, 09:47 PM

I don't think cutting any new roads to get to places that aren't accessible to vehicle travel. I thin the roads that are here are enough. Perhaps too much. It is possible to close a couple of roads that lead literally to nowhere so they can be revegitated. I know this has been done on a few trails in Colorado. The primary problem IMO is getting the people who don't care about treading lightly and respecting some our nations historical treasures that aren't marked historical, i.e. mining camps, ghost towns, indian ruins, etc. If this kind of disregard and disrepect is eventually going to ruin the entire experience for those of us who do tread lightly, don't spray paint ruins, and don't dump our garbage out in the middle of the national forest. As I have stated in my last post, it ticks me off severely when I see this blatant disrespect for our environment and our nations history. Why would one want to spray paint their name on a ruin that dates back more than 100 years, and leave all of their beer bottles, cheeto's bags, and shotgun shells all over the forest floors? I enjoy being in the forests and seeing the ruins and exploring them. It brings me into a different state of mind and takes me back mentally to what it was like in this old mining camp or indian village and I am usually awe struck, and then I am taken back to reality and infuriated when I see "Bubba was here 12/19/04" spray painted on one of the ruin walls :( . And if I can not get there with my truck I see no problem with getting out and hiking to it if I want to get there badly enough. And on top of it all, I like to leave it as I found it so other people can possibly enjoy it in the same manner as I do. But I do not think any new roads need to be cut to get there.

And to Scott, I know what you mean, these days it is always about voting for the lesser of the evils.

Jonathan Hanson

09-23-2005, 10:05 PM

Funny, we JUST had two morons drive up our road (past the private property sign) to look around, then turn around and leave, tossing a fast food cup out the window. I watched them turn the corner of the road as they went, about two hundred yards away. I have a Rigby .275 that easily prints sub-two-inch groups at that distance . . .

datrupr

09-23-2005, 10:19 PM

As I said before, people that do this should be shot on site, or at least beaten severely with a good wooden stock with a solid twelve guage attached. I get so angry when I see this. Part of the reason I take extra garbage bags on my adventures. However, I do not always participate in the practice of picking up everyone elses garbage, but I do try when the opportunity presents itself. :D

goodtimes

09-23-2005, 11:57 PM

... I have a Rigby .275 that easily prints sub-two-inch groups at that distance . . .

Now now....no need to make a mess. :D

Chuck, you have some valid points, but I do think that access for handicapped people should be *A* consideration. Not *THE* consideration, but one of them. We should not make EVERY wilderness attraction handicap accessable, not even a majority of them. But I feel that every roughly geographical region should have some access for handicapped people. There should be places that someone can take their 95 year old father who is confined to a wheel chair, so they can enjoy nature without having to drag him across stumps, and rivers, and through heavy brush, etc. These area's don't need to be in the heart of a wilderness area...but they should not be overly-developed either. There are many places that fit the bill already, and my arguement is not that we should do this everywhere, but it is something that should be kept in mind as the debate about access continues.

One really annoying professor I had years ago brought up something that I have found quite enlightening, and in all honesty, quite helpful when dealing with many situations. It was during a philosophy class.....the idea of a "wall of ignorance". The exercise went something like this. You are given a arguement that you have to settle, your decision is final, no questions asked. The catch was, you had to put yourself on the other side of this theoretical wall, so when you made the decision, you had no idea which side of the arguement you were on. For example, my mother and I were debating the usefullness of daytime running lights. She thinks it is a crock of s#!t, and if people want them on, they can turn them on. So, I put her behind the "wall of ignorance" and asked her if it would be worth it if DRL's saved one single life. She said "no". Then I asked her if it would be worth it if that one life was mine. I still don't have a answer. So, Chuck, do you still think that there should be no handicap access? What about if you were the handicapped person?

datrupr, you are right. In many areas, there are too many roads already, and they could probably be thinned without inpeding access. But you have to be careful to maintain access....we don't want to lose it completely.

Roseann, should we open access to Manning camp via vehicle? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the details as you appear to. You bring up horsepacking....not a bad idea for those unable to go in via foot. I in no way am suggesting we blindly open up access for vehicle travel to any historic spot. I just think that it needs to be considered, and debated. It may well be that opening it up will do more harm than good. I'm OK with that decision, as long as people on both sides of the arguement opened their minds to the possibility that the other side was right, and proceeded with a open mind. As for not needing to go to class....yea, well......considering that at this point I am paying my own way....I try not to miss any classes. They cost too much, and if I knew it all already, I wouldn't be spending $6,000/year to be able to sit in that little room and listen......

And finally to Scott.....yes, it always seems to be a choice of the lesser of 2 evils. Do you know what you call 10,000 lawyers (which 99% of politicians are) at the bottom of the sea?

--A good start!

Keep the opinions coming...this is a good thread.

Jonathan Hanson

09-24-2005, 12:36 AM

I remember when Roseann and I went to pick up the Four-Wheel Popup camper for her truck at the factory in Sacramento. We left heading east, and wound up in a huge traffic jam in Lake Tahoe on a holiday, surrounded by thousands of short-tempered Californians pushing each other out of the way and honking because they were in a big hurry to RELAX, DAMMIT!

We got out of there and fled into Nevada. That night we camped where we pleased on some pretty well-used BLM land, with cows mooing in the background. Never been so happy to be around cows in our lives.

The point is, there is a huge cross-section of outdoor recreational opportunity available in the U.S., from the Tahoe/Yosemite/Yellowstone-type madness to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-type isolation. Lots of places accessible to motor homes and those not fully mobile. The true wilderness experiences are the rarest and have been vanishing the quickest, so those are the ones that need the most diligent protection.

Incidentally, I know a sea kayaker with an artificial leg who paddled the entire west coast of the United States, solo. Access is what you make of it!

DesertRose

09-24-2005, 12:42 AM

Now now....no need to make a mess. :D

Yes, especially since I came upon them just moments later, arriving home in my truck. I HATE cleaning up after Jonathan: "Honey, would you please stop leaving your dirty socks by the closet door and dead rednecks on the state road?" But at least we have a deep vertical mine shaft on our property.

:elkgrin:

I like the concept of Wall of Ignorance, although it reminds me too much of the endless collaborative conservation meetings I have had to chair, where what you talk about (everyone gets a say) happens (these are fascinating meetings where ranchers and environmentalists and birdwatchers and ORVers and scientists all tried to reach consensus without use of weapons): seemed to me that too often many of the participants appear to live permanently behind a wall of ignorance... :p

This whole discussion brings up a broader issue that I am very interested in: our (the human race's) concept of humans in the wilds. Once upon a time wild-lands and our home-lands were not separate, they were the same. "Civilization" has been separating us over millenia. Western religions have helped solidify the "dominion of man over Nature" such that now, so-called industrialists would have us strip it clean, and - keeping with the separation theme - even so-called environmentalists would have Wilderness be a place where we only visit, in awe.

In Africa, Jonathan and I have learned a lot about other cultures' attitudes about protected places, where humans have been on the land a helluva lot longer than here in the recently settled Northern lats.

Humans and nature are still one-in-same in Africa, but they are starting to have the same conflicts we have here, much of it caused by poverty and the growing schism between wealthy visitors who are WESTERNERS and who want to see "pristine nature" (which may or may not exist) and the people who still must make their living from the land and don't see themselves as separate from it. These aren't recreational-use debates: they are literally life and death debates. Gives one perspective....

Ack - someone stop me, please. It's Friday, and I must stop using this computer now!! :wavey:

Have a great weekend.

Roseann

Scott Brady

09-26-2005, 05:25 AM

If this kind of disregard and disrepect is eventually going to ruin the entire experience for those of us who do tread lightly, don't spray paint ruins, and don't dump our garbage out in the middle of the national forest.

It already has... :(

It breaks my heart to see the condition of historical places that have been damaged, looted over the last 10 years in AZ.

Scott Brady

09-26-2005, 05:31 AM

Jonathan Hanson

09-26-2005, 02:22 PM

If you run, you'll only die tired . . .

Ursidae69

09-26-2005, 09:15 PM

Chuck, you have some valid points, but I do think that access for handicapped people should be *A* consideration. Not *THE* consideration, but one of them. We should not make EVERY wilderness attraction handicap accessable, not even a majority of them. But I feel that every roughly geographical region should have some access for handicapped people. There should be places that someone can take their 95 year old father who is confined to a wheel chair, so they can enjoy nature without having to drag him across stumps, and rivers, and through heavy brush, etc. These area's don't need to be in the heart of a wilderness area...but they should not be overly-developed either. There are many places that fit the bill already, and my arguement is not that we should do this everywhere, but it is something that should be kept in mind as the debate about access continues.

It already is *A* consideration, most National Parks have handicap access. When I went to Denali NP in 2002, they actually bus people in, I saw a couple hundred caribou, and several grizzley bears, from the comfy bus seat. That's as wilderness as it gets for handicapped or anyone else. The argument your making I won't buy, not even for a dollar.

goodtimes

09-27-2005, 06:58 AM

Not even for a dollar? Man, that's harsh! But hey, I'll give you a f'in cookie for sticking to your story. :D

(you had to be there to understand that comment.....Super Chukuck will get it ;) )

The BN Guy

09-27-2005, 01:34 PM

If you run, you'll only die tired . . .

One of the best quotes I've seen in a long time!

awalter

09-27-2005, 02:23 PM

Chuck,

That isn't the only way to enjoy Denali. There are plenty of areas that are open for wilderness hiking & camping. All you have to do is get off the bus! I must admit the majority of folks won't.

By the way, this year the caribou herd count was way down & nobody has come up with an explanation.

Scott Brady

09-27-2005, 06:25 PM

At the end of the day, it comes down to entitlement...

Some feel they are entitled to drive anywhere, and everywhere and by whatever means they consider appropriate. (these are often the same people who feel they are entitled not to work, and receive compensation).

However, there are some of us that believe we cannot be selfish, and all consuming. That maybe we should not tap ANWAR this generation, but save it for my nephews generation. That maybe an area should never have a road built through it, and remain untouched. I want to visit these places, park my truck and walk through a narrow opening into another place, with no quads or trucks, just animals and trees and quiet.

No one questions the sensibility of educating our youth, improving technology, and saving money for retirement. It is the same principal. We must save these places for those that come after us, as well as for ourselves.

Ursidae69

09-27-2005, 07:26 PM

At the end of the day, it comes down to entitlement...

What is entitling them Scott? They must be given it somehow from somewhere to feel it. Who do you think has entitled these people to act this way? Themselves? Their friends? A website? Their government? Their God?

Scott Brady

09-27-2005, 07:37 PM

Ursidae69

09-28-2005, 01:57 AM

By just being "American" many individuals believe that ALL public land should be at their disposal, and that NO ONE should infringe on their right to exploit it for monetary or recreational use. That is why people drive off trail, or cut lumber illegally, or poach, or wildcat dumping.

How many times have you heard someone say "I pay taxes, I can drive anywhere I damn well please"? They believe they are entitled to use the land in whatever fashion they choose, if it is legal or not.

I think these people should answer a higher question and not cop out by saying they pay taxes. I want to ask these people why they think it is right to do certain things, like throw litter carelessly. I don't throw my can out the window because it is just wrong, why do I know that and they don't?

Just so people know, I'm not advocating some hands off approach to everything, I think mineral extraction, oil, grazing, 4x4, and everything else can all coexist if they are all done sustainably. Things like oil where you are getting a non-renewable product by definition is not susatainable, but in those cases I mean the extraction methods should be sustainable.