Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Thread: Court order closes 42+ trails in the El Doradao National Forest (US - Sierra Nevadas)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    1,448
    Quote Originally Posted by cnynrat View Post
    During this time they were actively running pack mule trips in the Sierras where stock use is the primary cause of trail erosion.
    Funny you should mention that. The pack animal operations are now under attack:

    "In January, federal District Court Judge Richard Seeborg ruled that the National Parks’ General Management Plan violated the 1964 Wilderness Act because it didn’t specify how much commercial-stock use is “necessary” in the wilderness. His ruling came after the Lake Tahoe-based High Sierra Hikers Association sued the federal agency in 2009."

    More here.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sonoran Desert
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by xtatik View Post
    And, how ridiculous their ideas are regarding what is or isn't damage.
    This was a pretty funny thread to read thru. Personally, I find the greater OHV community's idea of what is and is not environmental damage is pretty ridiculous personally. The only loss in temporarily closing an area is personal recreation, which does not rank very high in the heirarchy of needs IMHO. If the closure is done justly in the name of watershed, wildlife, or soil conservation...I'm okay with that. I don't mind parking my truck or motorcycle in favor of keeping areas protected for the greater good and long term ecosystem health. Yeah, I realize this is not a popular opinion to have on this site

    I am glad the CBD is out there fighting for things that most people don't have a clue about. I just wish they would spend more effort on the impact of low quality development in cities. Poorly constructed buildings and urban sprawl are far bigger threats to our ecosystem than some trails in the wilderness. I have more confidence in the environmental ethics of the USFS and BLM than most of the municipal planning departments I have to deal with in my line of work.

    Anyhow, the writing style and language in your posts makes it hard to take any of what you say too seriously. Suprised you didn't throw a couple of enviro-nazis in there for good measure
    Jeff
    My Trips | Ride the AZ Traverse | Ipad + Inreach - A 30 day field test
    founder and sole member of the Southwest Fridgeless Camping Society

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by agavelvr View Post
    This was a pretty funny thread to read thru. Personally, I find the greater OHV community's idea of what is and is not environmental damage is pretty ridiculous personally. The only loss in temporarily closing an area is personal recreation, which does not rank very high in the heirarchy of needs IMHO. If the closure is done justly in the name of watershed, wildlife, or soil conservation...I'm okay with that. I don't mind parking my truck or motorcycle in favor of keeping areas protected for the greater good and long term ecosystem health. Yeah, I realize this is not a popular opinion to have on this site

    I am glad the CBD is out there fighting for things that most people don't have a clue about. I just wish they would spend more effort on the impact of low quality development in cities. Poorly constructed buildings and urban sprawl are far bigger threats to our ecosystem than some trails in the wilderness. I have more confidence in the environmental ethics of the USFS and BLM than most of the municipal planning departments I have to deal with in my line of work.

    Anyhow, the writing style and language in your posts makes it hard to take any of what you say too seriously. Suprised you didn't throw a couple of enviro-nazis in there for good measure
    Maybe you need to check out there web site. They have a map where the goal is to keep people off of about 2/3 of the United States. The enemy is humans. They are good at getting groups to fight amongst themselves too. There are worry they did not take care of the earth and will go to hell over it. But since they don't believe in Jesus, but more like an idle statues they are still lost and will not find peace.
    73 ScoutII on 38" tires

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sonoran Desert
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by ScoutII View Post
    Maybe you need to check out there web site. They have a map where the goal is to keep people off of about 2/3 of the United States. The enemy is humans. They are good at getting groups to fight amongst themselves too. There are worry they did not take care of the earth and will go to hell over it. But since they don't believe in Jesus, but more like an idle statues they are still lost and will not find peace.
    I have been on their website, long before reading this thread. Where is this ellusive map you reference? Where is the manifesto outlining their plans to wage war against humans and thier religious beliefs?

    The one thing that troubles me about these kinds of issues is that litigation costs money, which would be better spent on taking care of the environment and creating interpretive opportunities. But, it is a catch-22. The government organizations charged with taking care of the land are not always the most efficient at doing their job or have to deal with political pressure in doing it. Organizations like the CBD use the tools available to address the problems. It seems that thier efforts are in line with their mission and done in accordance with the law. I have no issue with their salaries, funding, or non-profit status...they are appropriate, especially when compared to like organizations.

    If the greater overland community was truely concerned about protecting access to the places and the environment that draws us there, why don't we have our own special interest group looking out for us? Oh, that's right...there is one that is trying to protect motorized access, but they don't really pay attention to the environment, science, or the values of non-motorized trail users. Everyone of these groups uses lobbyist and lawyers to advance their agendas, because in this country, that is the way business is done. I can make a difference with my vote, but that has very limited effect in such a complicated system. Kind of makes me sad, but I keep voting.
    Jeff
    My Trips | Ride the AZ Traverse | Ipad + Inreach - A 30 day field test
    founder and sole member of the Southwest Fridgeless Camping Society

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by agavelvr View Post
    This was a pretty funny thread to read thru. Personally, I find the greater OHV community's idea of what is and is not environmental damage is pretty ridiculous personally. The only loss in temporarily closing an area is personal recreation, which does not rank very high in the heirarchy of needs IMHO. If the closure is done justly in the name of watershed, wildlife, or soil conservation...I'm okay with that. I don't mind parking my truck or motorcycle in favor of keeping areas protected for the greater good and long term ecosystem health. Yeah, I realize this is not a popular opinion to have on this site
    I have a few problems with this point of view. For one, these closures are frequently temporary in name only. Here's a link to a notice of extension of a "temporary" closure in the Angeles National Forest. This closure has been in effect since 2005, supposedly to protect "critical" yellow legged frog habitat. It represents the total closure of 1000 acres, about 1.6 square miles. There is no human access allowed in this area. So, point one, temporary isn't always what it appears.

    My second problem is that I don't see any effort to analyze the issue from a balanced perspective. I understand that we may at times want to take actions to protect certain species. But, where is the tradeoff against the value of allowing humans to continue to access one of the prime hiking areas in the San Gabriel mountains? Does that have no value? Where is the tradeoff that shows that a total closure is the right action, as opposed to simply limiting access to existing trails? How do we trade that off against the value of protecting a species that has no known value save for it's mere existence?

    Species become extinct every day. They will continue to do so with or without our efforts to control that process, and in fact if all humans vanished from the Earth tomorrow species would continue to become extinct.

    As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe the Endangered Species Act and many other environmental laws have become tools to accomplish other objectives. Science is not perfect. Statistics can be mistaken, misunderstood, and yes, even manipulated to create a desired outcome. If you can manage to have a court declare the yellow legged frog endangered, you can close an area altogether. That this area was known to be a place where certain Forest users complained about the nuisance created by rock climbers on Williamson Rock may or may not be a coincidence.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    120
    This is not the map I was looking for, they must have updated there website.

    But this one works too. Note the read is little to no Human use.

    Last edited by ScoutII; 05-07-2012 at 10:56 PM.
    73 ScoutII on 38" tires

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sonoran Desert
    Posts
    647
    Quote Originally Posted by ScoutII View Post
    This is not the map I was looking for, they must have updated there website.

    But this one works too. Note the read is little to no Human use.

    You do realize that the map you posted was created by an anti-environmental group right? Any cartographer or historian will tell you that this map is a prime example of cartographic propaganda. The colors were puposefully chosen to skew the visual data. This particular map pertains to the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity, 1997. Not sure what it has to do with the Center for Biological Diversity, other than the abreviations of the names lend themselves to confusion the issue.

    So, where's that evil map the Center for Biological Diversity actually made?
    Jeff
    My Trips | Ride the AZ Traverse | Ipad + Inreach - A 30 day field test
    founder and sole member of the Southwest Fridgeless Camping Society

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    1,155
    CBD is more about getting others visions implemented. The maps referenced that I've seen come from the wildlands project, now known as the wildlands network. http://www.twp.org/wildways
    They've toned down their rhetoric dramatically. Even Dave Foreman seems to be mellowing in his old age (somewhat).
    2004 Dodge 2500 CTD 4WD FWC
    1960 Jeep CJ5
    KK6AUI
    Member CA4WDC, BRC, UFWDA, Tread Lightly
    "The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience"
    - Albert Camus

  9. #19
    Redline's Avatar
    Redline is offline Overland Training Alumni
    Expedition Portal Moderator
    Likes to Drive and Ride
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,510
    I appreciate the posting of this information. While I try to stay up on many public land issues there seems to be much more than I can keep track of these days. Though I don't often recreate there, the El Dorado Forest is very close.
    More closures is just a bummer, continuing to concentrate more users over less area. Maybe someday there will be an equal number of 'openings'?
    Last edited by Redline; 05-08-2012 at 09:35 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    120
    The other map is a couple years old, I'm sure I could find it, but its a mute point.

    "Wild Lands" Protecting public lands from the Public.


    That's the new bumper sticker.
    You need to get out and do some camping / exploring this summer. You will find a lot of places that were open 5 years ago are now closed. There is a movement against all people that use R.V's, you do know its wasteful use of gas and creates green house emission. Oh wait breathing does too, good thing plants like CO2.

    You do realize were just talking un paved roads, not some romp in the mud or meadow crap.
    You won't find one person here that would promote that or condone that behavior. But were talking driving in the forest, or desert, on routes that have been open for a long time which are now closed.
    We all like to get out and see America, vs looking at it through a screen

    There is no sarcasm icon or I would have used it.
    73 ScoutII on 38" tires

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •