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


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 2775 | TRs

Dante
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 12:12 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I want to change my vote.

If the road will be paved to a campground at Taylor, then I vote to close it at Taylor or Dingford Creek.  Otherwise, too many people will get to the end of the road one way or another, which wil put too much pressure on the area at the end of the road.  I'd just walk up the south shore trail--just not very often.
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
Sandy McKean
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 33 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Sandy McKean
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 12:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
How many people are going to hike all the way to the Dutch Miller trailhead from where the road will be closed?  NOBODY that's who.

I think this is over stated.

If the road is closed at the Taylor, there is no reason the road to Dingford can not be graded etc (and it will stay that way without the cars) and thereby left as decent access.

Next, one could run a shuttle service in a small bus from Taylor to Dingford as they do in other high volume places like Yosemite or Zion.  If this is not available at all, or on weekdays, one could always use a bicycle to negociate that now decent road.  Perhaps even motorbikes, say under 150cc, could be used.  OTOH, Brian's wilderness argument might persaude me to limit access to bicycles.

Also I think the road has to stay because of access to Goldmeyer is legally required.
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
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23162 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 12:42 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ok, if you are going to keep it open to Dingford, keep it  open all the way!  Where's the sence in that argument?  Close it at the Taylor junction.  If you allow anything beyond feet you have to allow everything.  You just cant discount the fact that there are other forms of recreation worthy of respect and consideration out there.

As far as blaming Slade Gorton, ok I can see that.  I hold WAY more blame on THESE organizations: Alpine Lakes Protection Society, The Mountaineers, and the Washington Trails Association.  They are WAY more responcible!  

What a joke.  How in anyway is it PROTECTION of the APL by paving the middle fork?  Alpine lakes protection society my ass!

They just lost my support!

--------------
"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: 11018 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 12:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Keeping a well graded road back to the Taylor isn't enough, some wiseacres decided the road needed to be paved, which will dramatically increase traffic, then to reduce the impact of the choice to make the road a shining example of federal money, now it's time to push for closing everything beyond it. Every step to increase usage in one place, is cast as a benefit and then then used to justify decreasing access to somewhere else because of the crowding increase due to the first decision! You can't win against thinking where the same folks who want to increase traffic want to decrease the impact of increasing the impact. What the heck?

Close access, close dispersal, and wonder why where usage *is* allowed the density skyrockets. This leads to more arguments about high use and more closures, which leads to more density... a dandy situation. When do our access opportunities cease to *shrink*? There is *never* new access added, it's always removed and more territory is ceded to folks with lots of time off and everyone *else* gets left out.

It must be pretty nice for people with lots of time, because it really benefits them nicely. Everyone else loses for the sin of actually wanting to be able to have some range for shorter trips, because the balance of the opportunites shifted to long rangers comes right off the table of everyone elses opportunities.

All I know is that in the last 15 years Rat lakes (the chantments) has been made tougher to get into, they discussed enforcing limited permits in the Snoq Pass area, now it's the gate at the Taylor or Dford and by this time next year we'll be fighting over closing out yet more opportunities for anyone but hikers in the Sky region. Add to this the continual support by some for wholesale road closures elsewhere and you have yet another whole range of restrictions.

The areas in which long hikes and new restrictions are created grows, and the people who cannot or do not want to access those areas are *then* limited further because when they go elsewhere, to roaded areas, the *same* freakin people want to close them too. Don't drive here, we need it for wilderness and nice long hikes, don't drive there, because we don't like roads there either, what the heck is up with that? Where are people supposed to go?

Just where is it those who make *other* choices for the outdoors get to have *their* desires for recreation be top priority? Why should hikers get to continually add to their board while taking from everyone else? Who ceded who "should" be in the mountains and how they "should" recreate to hikers?

--------------
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: 1499 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 1:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
As you so wisely said earlier in the thread, MtnGoat, we are just talking about this one area. And in this one area dispersed recreation has utterly failed so they are trying something different.

But you are confusing me. On the one hand you complain that recreational access is shrinking while on the other hand argue that a lot more people are going to be up there recreating. Which will we have, more recreating or less?

--------------
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
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23162 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 1:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Good question Mr. Goat.  It's ELITISM!  To many lefty greeners dont want anyone to experience anything!  No horses, no cars, no motorcycles, no 4x4's. Hell, these bastards dont even want mountain bikes!  Someday these people are going to get their's, and this is all going to be turned back on them when PEOPLE will be kept from areas to keep them more wild!

--------------
"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
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1499 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 1:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mountain bikes are now allowed on the Middle Fork trail as are horses.

--------------
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
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23162 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 1:22 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
For now MAYBE!  Soon they wont be.  Horses and bikes used to be allowed in the tiger area too.  Then the elitists bitched about it and now they are not!

I CANT wait until PEOPLE start getting excluded from areas.  Oh how the elitists will cry and scream.  It will serve them right!

--------------
"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
Sandy McKean
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 33 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Sandy McKean
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 1:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
You can't win against thinking where the same folks who want to increase traffic want to decrease the impact of increasing the impact

What I think you are missing here is that the MF is not your normal wilderness area.  It is obviously unbelievably close to a major urban area.  (We should consider ourselves lucky to be so close since it provides some close-in opportunities others can only dream of.)

So the idea is to do something we would not ordinarily do.  One is to actually encourage use from that urban area.  This does 3 things:

1. grows the consituiency for wilderness protection

2. keeps the "causals" and "learners" out of the true wilderness areas further away

3. provides a "graduated" experience for those newbies till they learn enough to go to a more wild place.

The MF is perfect for this.  So we provide paved to Taylor.  Even grandma in her Lincoln can go there.  Then a step more wild: a well graded dirt road to Dingford for bicycles, easy walking, horses, etc.  Then easy trail to where to road ends now.  Then true trail beyond.

Heck one could get a mountain education on only that one line of the map!

As far as hikers getting it all.  It isn't about who gets to recreate in what form, but what is the impact of *that* form of recreation in *that* setting.  4-wheelers who don't like this "plan" will have to understand that there will be more and more restrictions on them in regard to wilderness areas (or near to wilderness areas) not because people are against them, but because of the impact (engine noise for example).  Just as we all today support the ban on any old mining company building a road anyway they liked in the 1800's, today we are restricting some more "heavy impact" uses as population densities increase.  This is a natural progression.  If Seattle population densities were what they were in 1920 say, none of this would be being talked about.

Where can you go you ask?  I suppect there are many, many roads all over the state (not in the heart of a wilderness area) that provide opportunity.  I also suspect that this sort of discussion is NOT happening in Alaska where the population densities are still low.

One must go where one's favorite recreation is appropriate, and realize that what's appropriate will change over time as a place gains more and more people.
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: 11018 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 1:32 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
"As you so wisely said earlier in the thread, MtnGoat, we are just talking about this one area."

That's true. And closing this one area adds to the effect I noted above. Closing just this one area adds yet another piece to one groups opportunities while closing out all others.

"And in this one area dispersed recreation has utterly failed so they are trying something different."

Utterly failed? By what standard? It seems many persist in applying decades of past conditions as "proof" the same will occur in the future. I know those in favor of closure love to repeat and repeat stories of old washing machines and bullets, but that's simply not the case anymore with any regularity, nor will it ever be again. If the standard is junk on the roadside, we clean it up, no closure needed. If the standard is bad roads, we fix them, no closure needed.

And this isn't "trying" in the sense you use it in IMO, because once this is "tried", the chance it will be untried, for something else is exactly nil. closures are permanent for all intents and purposes. If we "tried" this for a couple years, that's one thing, "trying" something permanent doesn't carry the connotation I expect when I see that phrase.

"On the one hand you complain that recreational access is shrinking while on the other hand argue that a lot more people are going to be up there recreating. Which will we have, more recreating or less?"

No, I complain that access *diversity* is shrinking, while *one* user group makes all the gains. There may be more people for example at the "new" trailhead, but they'll belong to a limited group of users who have coopted the choice and opportunity for other groups of users. Especially galling since they can excercise *their* choice *now*, on the S shore trail, without a closure.

if you're going to argue environment, you can make a case, IMO, if you're going to argue access, closing this road is purely exclusionary and benefits only a group which *already* has the options it seeks, save keeping others out that is.

--------------
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: 23162 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 1:35 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Come on, what a bunch of blather!  Nobody is talking about building new roads.  But this politcal correct crap of 4wheelers "must understand" is a bunch of crap.  People make ahell of a lot more adverse impact on the environment (snow lake, rampart lakes) than do 4x4's on EXSITING ROADS!  We didnt build these roads.  It just so happens that you CANT have wilderness boundry when a previous road exsists in that area.  That's why the boundry goes around the roads.  I'm not against making trails for people.  Hell Im not against anything other people want to do out there.  I sick and tired of having to defend my recreational uses against people all the time.  It just so happens that the lefties have the media, have the voice right now.

Good point Mr. Goat.

--------------
"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: 11018 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 1:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You make a good point Joe, what I come away with here is how it always seems to work out, the one philosophy that will not tolerate other choices pushes to get it's way while the others who, don't mind other choices, are pushed onto the defensive just to maintain access. It's aggravating.

--------------
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: 1499 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 1:52 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
"No, I complain that access *diversity* is shrinking, while *one* user group makes all the gains."

So all those hordes of people going up the paved road will be from one single user group? Not in a million years. Those people camping in the campground will be happy because they have a new recreational opportunity that wasn't there before. Grandma in her Lincoln will have a new recreational opportunity. But apparently you'd rather exclude those people from the valley in favor of your preferred recreational opportunity.

if you're going to argue environment, you can make a case, IMO, if you're going to argue access, closing this road is purely exclusionary and benefits only a group which *already* has the options it seeks, save keeping others out that is.

I have argued all along that recreation is only one part of the equation that needs to be taken into account. You are the one who repeatedly steers the conversation back to recreation. As long as my other points are made I'm happy to discuss the recreation aspect. I don't consider it the most important thing, but since it interests you I'm perfectly happy to play along.

Just as it isn't only about recreation, it isn't only about closing the road at the Taylor. It is in concert with the paving and campground project. All those new users coming up  the road will not be hikers. Many of those people coming up the road will be using the valley in ways it hasn't been used in years. Perhaps it just isn't the way you like to use it. But it is the way they like to use it. If in the end more people benefit from this project and there are wilderness benefits then It looks like a winner to me.

--------------
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
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23162 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 1:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Yes I know how agrivating it is.  I'm a hiker, backpacker, motorcycle rider, 4x4 wheeler.  My example of how rediculous/F***** up it all is is the example of the lefties not wanting snow mobiles anywhere around their little cross country ski trips.  Or anywhere else on the snow for that matter.  ITS SNOW FOR GODS SAKES!  It's going to melt in months and you wont be able to tell the snow mobiles were even there!  BUT NO, that's not good enough for the lefty elitists!

Bull####! Someday it's going to backfire on them and THEY'LL be excluded!

--------------
"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
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23162 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 2:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You dont NEED paving to drive a car there!  BUT paving it will guarantee cars and lots of them will be there.  You dont need to pave it to increase access.  Why not pave EVERY old logging road?  How about paving the suiattle?  How about paving the Illabut creek road?  Lets pave the North fork of the Snoqualmie!  Let's pave the Icicle to the end!

Paving REMOVES the wilderness aspect of the place!

--------------
"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
  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 HundsSolo!
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