[Guiran]

I would rather see a smaller, better maintained road network that serves all forest users, rather than a large road network navigatable only by users with high clearance vehicles. Since I only hike on the weekends and would only need a high clearance vehicle for a small fraction of the trips I take, I have a really hard time justifying the additional cost and fuel consumption. However, I don't necessarily see why unmaintained spur roads should be gated unless there is a compelling law-enforcement arguement for limiting the mileage of backcountry roads or there is a concern that bootleg repairs would cause significant (and who knows how to define that) environmental damage. If all roads will remain open, but only a small portion will be maintained from the FS budget, I still don't know what a reasonble criteria is for determining which roads "deserve" maintenance dollars.

[Quark]

[Conrad]

[Dave Workman]

Quark: Actually, you've got that a bit wrong. My list included what some might consider wastes and others might consider necessities.. Trails? You guys answer that one. Campgrounds? Doesn't look that way. Roads? Surely you jest (unless speaking of that boondoggle they're going to perform on the MFK Road.) Salaries and benefits? Hmmmmm Forest fire fighting? Pretty sure of that, but the reported costs seem sometimes far in excess of what costs ought to be. Trails: I left that up to the forum to answer, because I've seen some great improvements on some trails, while others have gone straight to hell. Campgrounds: Subjective, because in other regions, campgrounds are getting spruced up, if only for the purpose of charging fees. Roads: There's the clinker.. Salaries and benefits: we're on that subject now Fires: Damn right I think paying for fire fighting, but the announced costs seem a little on the high side to me, because I don't understand what they could be spending a gazillion dollars on.

[Quark]

[Allison]

I think it's pretty pathetic when people speak of the needs of the handicaped and the elderly as an excuse for keeping a road or place open when it's entirely too obvious that the person speaking merely wants it open for their own personal use. Call it what it is, and don't insult old folks or handicapped folks by attempting to use them as pawns in bolstering your argument.

[aestivate]

[Dayhike Mike]

But Marylou, if not for the elderly and infirm, do it for the CHILDREN... Personally, I think the elderly and infirm are a good enough reason. And I'll submit that a crappy, rocky road is a piss poor substitute for a trail. If you can't drive it in your car, buy a truck or borrow a friend's vehicle. If you can't afford a high-clearance vehicle and/or don't have any friends, better get out and start walking.

[Scrooge]

Quark said:

[MtnGoat]

I've got to say some of this cracks me up, i mean it's lousy some screwheads toss beer cans off the road, but it's kinda funny to build a logging road to enable a clearcut of xx acres.. and then find the damage from some beer cans beyond the pale.

[Conrad]

Getting back to important stuff (what I said) for a minute...

[Malachai Constant]

Perhaps the most absurd example I ever heard of was Meadow Mountain in the 70's. There used to be a perfectably acceptable though steep trail from the Whitechuck. The FS then justified a timber sale up there by saying the road necessitated by the sale would increase recerational opportunities. The road reduced the hike to the ridge to about a mile and a few hundred feet of elevation gain. The result was the area became a haven for nere do wells and partyers and the meadows became overused. The solution was to close the road to cars. Hardly anyone goes there now as you first must hike 4 mi. or so through clearcuts to the new old "trailhead".The original trail head was abandoned and is now a class 5 bushwack.

[Quark]

[Dave Workman]

[Dayhike Mike]