Forum Index > Stewardship > closing middle fork rd at dingford crk - in favor or not--speak your mind now
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11167 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 9:49 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Yup, I too favor keeping the road open, shocker huh? If you want to walk the entire distance to the DM trailhead, that's what the S shore trail is for.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1511 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 11:15 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Shut it down. Preferably at the Taylor. That is the only way we can reclaim some of our wilderness. I really don't understand wanting to keep the road rough. It should either be open and maintained so everyone can drive it, or it should be shut down. Just leaving the road with a trail on the other side of the river doesn't help to reclaim the wilderness so I don't think that suggestion goes far enough. Why not open up the Taylor River road to the end? We could build a trail on the other side of the river for those folks who like to walk and it would be a short hike for old folks and kids to get to Snoqualmie Lake. They could drive to Otter Slide Falls.

Valley bottoms should have been a part of the Alpine Lakes wilderness in the first place and cutting off that road would be a big step toward creating the wilderness we have been cheated out of all these years.

--------------
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11167 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 11:42 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'd be surprised if you can see the road at all from the trail, and I'm certain you can't hear it. When you can't see it, and you can't hear it, and you desire a long walk in the woods without intrusion, seems to me that fits the bill.

If not, and what ruins the experience is the knowledge that there's a road, not any sign of it's presence nor sound, there's something else at work. The existence of the road makes *zero* impact on the 13 miles or whatever of trail, IMO.

Curtailing access to favor only one access method when two exist independent of each other, and undetectable from each other, is merely a lockout that favors one fraction of users at the expense of many, many others.

If I honestly thought they'd reopen Taylor and Quartz Mtn, I'd be in favor of it. That they won't, and that it's not even on the table, is *precisely* why I oppose the Upper Mid Fk closure. Once these closures happen varied users irretrievably lose access modes and a resource that can serve all kinds of users with all kinds of access choices becomes a single access area.  

Like some proposals for the Sky wilderness, which I haven't yet seen a detailed map of (and not for lack of trying), this is another effort to shut people out who do not conform to one user group's idea of who access belongs to.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1511 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 12:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It isn't about the users, it is about the Wilderness. Why do we have any places that are wilderness? We could build roads up one side and trails up the other side and everyone would be happy?

I say either cut off the road or pave it. As it stands many users can't access the end of the road because they can't drive it.

--------------
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11167 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 12:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I'm not sure about a need for paving, when well constructed dirt can last a long time for a lot less cash.

If we're going to question the "why wilderness" scenario in that vein, we can also ask why every square foot outside of cities has any non foot access whatsoever, why can't it all be wilderness? I'm not insisting that there be no wilderness or all wilderness, only that the situation we have now leads me to argue for some portions to remain the way they are. I'm just laying out my arguments for this reasoning like anyone else!

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1511 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 1:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
There are over 27,700 miles of roads on Forest Service Lands in the state of Washington. If we shut down the Middle Fork road there will still be 27,700 miles of roads for people to recreate on. I think it is too expensive both monetarily and environmentally to maintain all those roads and I'd like to see some of them shut down. If it makes some of my hikes longer then I will have to suffer. I think they've built too many roads. How many are enough? I don't know, but I don't consider any road sacred.

--------------
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11167 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 2:23 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
"There are over 27,700 miles of roads on Forest Service Lands in the state of Washington. If we shut down the Middle Fork road there will still be 27,700 miles of roads for people to recreate on."

But there's only 13 miles of road in the MFK. Where the other 27k are don't matter when we're discussing the MFK.

Using this tack, I could say, well, there's plenty of valley hikes elsewhere, not having this one still leaves you all the rest. The problem being of course, that no one is discussing removing this valley from hiking access, so that's already a given. No one wants to remove the trail or close it. What's being attempted is for hikers to kick out other access. That way hikers can have what they want, while all other groups get the shaft, so to speak.

The point is that the location of the resources we discuss is the issue, not that there are more elsewhere. The location is what makes each resource unique and worthy of discussion. If location didn't matter, we'd scarcely see the fireworks over this one road. Especially when another issue is that those elsewhere are *also* under threat of closure, sometimes for good reason, others not.

I get the impression that there's two sides angles being played here, "you can always go elsewhere" played against " those places elsewhere should be closed too". I'm not saying this is you, but I run into this all the time. The tendency I see is for hiking only supporters to seemingly decide that anyone else shouldn't have other modes of access to pretty places hikers like. I hike a lot too. I like these places and think they're as cool as anyone else does, and as deserving of decent management and preservation.

But that doesn't mean I support new exclusions placed on users who don't recreate like I do. I don't measure my outdoor experiences based on what other folks like to do. If I want to hike a trail I could care less if there's a road on the far side. I may oppose a *new* road on the same basis you might, but for existing situations I don't have a problem with it. If some one else never ever hikes but loves driving a jeep, that's A OK by me, they should have some access to the same kinds of places I hike to *especially* if they have had access in the past. Bottom line: I stand against *closures* very, very often.  

"I think it is too expensive both monetarily and environmentally to maintain all those roads and I'd like to see some of them shut down."

If a road *itself* causes severe erosion and is no longer heavily traveled, I can go with that. If a road can be maintained but costs too much, I don't see why it shouldn't be available for "adoption" by four wheel clubs as long as they meet normal roadbed standards for maintaining it.

"I don't know, but I don't consider any road sacred."

I don't either, but I don't consider feet sacred either. I just think the road should be kept open.  wink.gif

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23293 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 2:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Look, there are PLENTY of roads in this great state of ours that do NOT allow lake access.  Close some of those.  It isnt realistic to think/expect people to hike nearly 30 miles to access the dutch miller gap trail head.  If you close the road at Dingford creek, then you'd have to walk ten miles.  If you want to keep the road open to Dingford, then keep it open the whole way!  Cost wise the difference just isnt great enough to warrent keeping the road going to Dingford, but not the rest of the way.  Look, let's just not build anymore roads ok, dont close those roads that are actively being used year round.

--------------
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."

— Abraham Lincoln
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11167 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 2:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
That's a good point, I'm not in favor of building more roads either. In the rare instance when a road *is* built though, it should be public access.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23293 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 3:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Agreed.  The middle fork road IS public access.  If you(whomever) dont have a car that can (safely to the car)access it, well then that's your fault.  It doesnt take a tank to use the middlefork, but then you shouldnt take a new car there either.  You need a trail capable rig.  You dont have to be rich to have one of those either.

--------------
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."

— Abraham Lincoln
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11167 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 4:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The problem with demanding every single road be maintained so every single car can make it anywhere in the road system is that it places a huge burden on maintainance costs. In the WNF website they discuss this and have decided to tier the road maintainance standards in order to preserve access. They can maintain lots of road at moderate to rough standards, or a few roads at a very high standard. Allowing users to choose which vehicles they use, for what destinations they like to visit, allows more access than insisting a Yugo or Acura be able to make it to the very end of every single road.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16015 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 6:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Who's demanding that?  Don't forget, acrua makes 4x4's too biggrin.gif.  I've driven my realtively new "grocery mobile" down the middle fork (certainly faster than 1/2 mile an hour) and I'm pretty courteous to pull over (and "get the hell out of the way" wink.gif) when I see a faster vehicle approaching.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Scrooge
Famous Grouse



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6948 | TRs
Location: wishful thinking
Scrooge
  Top

Famous Grouse
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 7:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat makes the case for open access for multiple users more eloquently than I could, so I won't try to restate that position. ..... And then he goes and blows it by joining the "access for specialized vehicles" camp, which is just as elitist as Brian's all or nothing position.

What I can afford is my Mazda, and I can tell you that I really resnt seing ANY of my tax money being spent to maintain roads to 4X4 standards, but not spending enough to give me access too.

The MFK should be open to poor fishermen and young families - and me - and not just wealthy backpackers.

--------------
Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you....... Go and find it. Go!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11167 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 8:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
:"And then he goes and blows it by joining the "access for specialized vehicles" camp, which is just as elitist as Brian's all or nothing position."

As I mentioned before, the WNF for example has decided they can maintain a few roads for every car, or many for most. I don't mind improving some or even most roads for everyone, but when it cuts into keeping a lot more roads open, I don't care for it. If it's a matter of open, and rough, or rough and closed, I vote for open.

"What I can afford is my Mazda, and I can tell you that I really resnt seing ANY of my tax money being spent to maintain roads to 4X4 standards, but not spending enough to give me access too."  

I can see how that's a problem, but on the flipside then do you think any road you can't make should be closed? Can't we settle on maintaining many to a good standard and allowing some to be not so good to keep more open?

"The MFK should be open to poor fishermen and young families - and me - and not just wealthy backpackers."

I agree. The one assumption that I don't quite get is that you need an expensive rig to drive bad roads. All you need is some clearance and you can get that without a big outlay.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
polarbear
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 3683 | TRs
Location: Snow Lake hide-away
polarbear
  Top

Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 8:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
First, I have not been up the to or beyond Dingford Creek since I was knee high to a grasshopper.  Still, when I get the time (or courage) I think I will try it.  Is the road presently being maintained to 4WD standards?  I always thought it had pretty much been allowed to deteriorate, and while it may be 4WD at this point, it's just a phase that the road is passing through on it's way to oblivion.  I'd prefer to see it graded and graveled.

--------------
...and a window that looks out on Corcovado...  Corcovado Hill
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > closing middle fork rd at dingford crk - in favor or not--speak your mind now
  Happy Birthday elkendo, nuclear_eggset!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy