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 2:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Oh well--I guess I'll get as much hiking as I can near the top of the middle fork before they pave and gate the road.  Then I'll have to explore more places further away...need to broaden my horizons anyway.

So is this a done deal, or is there someone I can write?
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: 10929 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 2:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
"So all those hordes of people going up the paved road will be from one single user group? Not in a million years."

Yup. Foot access only. Modes of access are just as valid as actual activity in discussion of both.

"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."

How is that? I'm not against a campground. I'm not against the trail, and it already exists. The exclusion here is clear, and it's a situation where we go from foot access by choice and vehicle access by choice, to only foot access and no choice. I'm all for GMa's new campground. I'm all for hikers using the trail and others using the road. If you're concerned about exclusion of choices, there's one position here where all choices continue to be met, and one where many are removed.  

"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."

Good enough.  

"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."'

Again we arrive at the same darned point. Nothing I favor here excludes any of these choices, what you favor reduces them. Currently every single user has multiple choices, if this plan is implemented it reduces the range. How I "like to use it" *includes* people who wish to walk. How the other side "likes to use it" specifically excludes people. I see a difference in these positions. Broken record time here again, only *one* of these groups insists on only it's choices being allowed.

**********************

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

I'm not sure that's true, because some of us have no problem with all kinds of users and access. They'll never know what it's like to be kicked out from area after area, because unlike them, the folks they are fine excluding actually don't mind uses others than theirs.

--------------
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
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10929 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 2:22 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
They actually getting quite a lot of heat for this access grab (eek.gif ) and it's not as certain as many actions like this can be. There was determined resistance from what I read about the meetings, I wish I could have gone. After this thread, I'm darned well going to be there if there's another, as I suspect Brian is! smile.gif

It's so sad I have to disagree so much with folks I'd rather get along with 100%, but when they try to cut folks out, that's where I have to push back.

--------------
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: 1486 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 2:22 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The paving is pretty much a done deal, but the EIS has not yet been filed. Information on where to comment on the EIS is available here http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2001/April/Day-27/i10539.htm. The draft (I think) Access Travel Management plan for the valley is due out any day. There will be a comment period as soon as that comes out. A gate at the Taylor or any where else is not a done deal.

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



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1486 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 2:33 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Actually, no, I won't be going to any meetings. I might write a letter, but I don't feel that strongly about it. I just enjoy a good discussion and I learn from having discussions like this so that's why I have them.

BJ, I disagree that paving a road ruins the wilderness experience. A road is a road and neither one is wilderness.  I'd rather they paved the roads you mentioned if it was affordable (which it isn't). It would allow more people to recreate in those areas and allowing more recreational opportunities is what you guys are after, right?

--------------
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
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3052 | TRs

Damian
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 3:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Labeling a person (lefties, idiots, elitists, …) because of their views is an oversimplification of human intelligence and an unnecessary judgement against a person's integrity.  This has a counterproductive effect on the discussion.  This observation is offered in the spirit of improving this great discussion on an issue dear to many of us.  All laws result in restrictions against practices of someone or some group.  So they must be implemented sparingly and wisely, or not at all.  Someone in favor of a new law is not necessarily evil or simpleminded.  Or elitist.  And yet that conclusion is too readily reached on this forum.  

Land management is a balancing act and efforts must be made to reasonably accommodate diversity in recreational uses.  These uses include the wilderness backpacker looking for solitude from any evidence of people, noise, machines, pollution, non-native animals or plants and even light.  Fortunately places like this exist today and good laws are in place to keep these places unchanged.  I would not consider anyone wanting to protect this type of experience to be elitist, lefty, or idiot.  On the other hand,  I feel just as strongly that land must be sufficient apportioned to accommodate users of recreational machinery such as bicycles, motorcycles, 4x4's, snowmobiles, and ATV's.  The challenge is in optimizing the balance of impacts that user groups have on each other, and on the land.  Achieving this balancing act while respecting the dignity of those with opposing views is an even higher calling for those of us that appreciate this great land we are so lucky to have in our back yards.

I personally use only my feet for transportation in the backcountry after I reach the trailhead, yet I have always been in favor of keeping the MF and several other roads open in their current state. (I have favored the closing of other roads, depending on specific issues relevant to each case.)  Like most people, I reach this position after balancing pro's and con's relevant to the actual situation.  Like most people, I expect people to respect my thought process and opinion and not place a label on me.  Like most people, I react a bit less rationally when labeled and am less likely to be of value in the decision process while in this state of mind.

This discussion has brought out many excellent points.  Rather than finger pointing, lets spend some energy getting these views heard by the decision makers responsible for the MF road's fate.  I am in the process of finding out who is on the front line and have some calls in to the FS.  Lets speak up while public comment is accepted.  I hope all that have contributed to this forum will speak up and make their voice count on this issue.
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: 1486 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 4:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Just saying that recreation opportunities are being taken away is too much of an oversimplification to be be useful in evaluating the big picture. I will grant you that some recreation opportunities will be lost (and a few gained, I would imagine mtn bikers would like to ride the road with no cars). It iss but one of many considerations including abuse from over use, money, and the environment that all have to be taken into account. To me it isn't about hikers vs other recreationalists. I know people who will never be able to hike in there that feel the road should be closed. They don't want it cut off because it increases their hiking opportunities and shuts other people out. They want it because they think it would be a good thing for the ALW and that's how I feel. If it cuts out some recreation opportunities then that is a price I will have to pay, and one I am willing to pay (obviously you aren't). I think recreation is a good and legitimate use of wilderness, but I don't think it is its primary function, and this road strikes at the heart of this wilderness. The loss of some recreation opportunities is the cost of healing the wound.

It isn't about me trying to take your recreation opportunities away. That's the last thing I want to do. I'm the one who was defending BJ's 4-wheeling on the old board. I'd like to see more 4x4 areas, or motorcycle areas, etc. set aside. I just see this as an opportunity to increase wilderness and get rid of a road that I don't think should have been built in the first place.

--------------
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: 23122 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 6:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Look, I understand where people come from.  Political correctness be damned.  You absolutely can label this.  The Lefties have been after other forms of recreation for two-three decades.  You dont see conservatives wanting to ban other forms of recreation. Sorry but that's just a fact.  I've been battling it for years.  Those who scream diversity are the absolute LEAST forgiving and the least understanding and the least diverse!  Unless of course that diversity is PC!  I didnt call anyone and idiot.  You will never convince me that those people who are against other forms of recreation are not elitists!  They are, period.  I'm damn sick and tired of continually having to stand up for, and protect those things that I love to do.  But I will never stop doing it.

--------------
"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
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3052 | TRs

Damian
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 7:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I have indeed known plenty of conservatives who have favored limiting mechanized recreation in certain areas, particularly in the Okanogan and other areas of Eastern Wa.  I don't usually agree with them, but I don't think right or left has a monopoly on the right answers.
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: 23122 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 9:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
At the risk of simplifying things, TYPICALLY conservatives conserve.  I've been very actively involved in backpacking and outdoor interests for 25 years.  I've been a political junkie for 20 years.  Again typically lefties tend twards hyper enviromentalism and dislike diversity in outdoor recreation.  Especially and including but not limited to motorized recreation.  I give you Harvey Manning and the Issaquah ALPS freaks who forced mountain bikes and horses out of the lake tradition plateau including Tiger mountain and its network of trials.  The founder or enviromentalism then called properly conservation was a republican.  Teddy Roosevelt.  I'm not an enviromentalist, I'm a conservationist.  I want to conserve not only those lands of beauty but our ability to enjoy them in so many ways!

--------------
"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
Beave
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 276 | TRs
Location: Woodinville
Beave
  Top

Member
PostThu Jan 10, 2002 9:26 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
"Man, and I thought I got bad! Here I thought we were talking about leaving a dirt road open, now I find I'm sugarcoating it! And supporting signs, tour buses to visitors centers, paved TH's and more! News at 11."

Breaking News... I wasn't referring specifically to what you said...

"Cripes. I just support leaving a dirt road open. I don't support paved trailheads nor tour busses. Am I filling in what I don't want, which is what you don't want, minus one dirt road?"

Cripes. I support closing it... smile.gif

And the garbage??

"I agree. We can handle this by cleaning it up. This is a legacy problem from past neglect, it will subside."

Another great option is to close the road... I'll beat my garbage drum again and say that I imagine it's difficult to haul a washing machine up there without a motorized vehicle. Beat it one more time?? Ok, I imagine it's difficult to pound two cases of Bud with your buddies, shoot the bottles and still hike back to your car... lol.gif
Oh yeah, and, I don't remember you being appointed as the chairman for forecasting future garbage dumping volumes.... I don't understand how garbage dumping relates to any kind of past "legacy"?! confused.gif

"Now that's getting near the edge for me. Adding 14 miles each way is a bit more than a bother. I put in the effort to do a fair amount of stuff, and that "bother" effectively shuts the door on all of the trips in that region for me personally on a regular basis. Equating peoples enjoyment to who "bothers" to go where when they're making the effort, kind of galls me."

Sorry that it limits what you can do in a day... Shall I call someone in congress and have the PCT shortened so you can do it in a day??

Maybe "bother" was a poor choice in words... Personally, I am not swayed by longer than normal  approaches... Some people are, but then some people also don't like hiking more than 2 miles anyway... Thats fine, go to Tiger!

Closing the road may "shut the doors" to you and others... But you got hands right?? See that doorhandle?? I am not trying to be an elitist and say who goes where... I am just all for reclaiming anything possible, especially such a wonderful area as is the MFK... Some people want a backyard wilderness, some people want a REAL wilderness.... Closing the road will only preserve what we have left for a longer time... What's wrong with that??

confused.gif

Craig

--------------
Craig
http://www.flickr.com/photos/climbercraig66/sets/
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
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5123 | TRs

MCaver
  Top

Founder
PostFri Jan 11, 2002 12:27 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
After working my butt off at the new job for a week, I'm finally getting a chance to catch up on the forum. This is a good discussion, full of good info from different viewpoints. I would recommend to Tom aka Backpacker Joe, however, that you should lay off the stereotypes and broad generalizations about people. Life is rarely so binary, and people rarely so categorizable. I, for example, lean to the left and consider myself an environmentalist, yet from reading your posts I would bet we agree on a lot more that you think. Were I to make a similar but opposite generalization to yours, I'd say "rightwing fascists" (to counter your "lefty environmentalists") are only interested in destroying the wilderness for their own gain. Yet I know this to not be the case with a vast majority of conservatives I've met. There are extremists on both sides, and I prefer to let them scream and kick at each other while us normal people have rational, intelligent conversations without resorting to their strawman tactics.
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: 23122 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostFri Jan 11, 2002 12:48 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Hey Mac, if you're going to stereotype me do it right!  Fascists were/are socialists!  Fascism is to the extreme LEFT of the scale bub!  You may refer to me as a CLASSICAL liberal!  You know, John Locke, Adam Smith.  The free market.  Besides, that doesnt discount my life experiences with lefty greeners and the fight I have had to fight to keep my recreational interests alive!  I've had to be active politically to keep alive what these AL GORE-rilla lefties have tried to stop.  I still do.  So that said, I will fight the good fight until I breathe no longer!  I never directed my polically incorrect and wonderfully biased statements of fact twards anyone in particular anyway.  

Keep the road open and gravel!  I guarentee you this, if the road is gated, someone will cut a 4x4 trail around it.  It wont be me, but someone will.

--------------
"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
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5123 | TRs

MCaver
  Top

Founder
PostFri Jan 11, 2002 1:19 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I see you've missed my point completely.
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: 1486 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostFri Jan 11, 2002 1:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Hey Mac, if you're going to stereotype me do it right!  Fascists were/are socialists!

Oh my. This is drifting so far off topic it isn't funny. But  the above statement is so far off the mark I can't help my self. Fascists certainly aren't/weren't socialists. Fascism developed in Europe (mainly Italy) after WW1 as a reaction against the spread of socialism (and communism). It was a mixture if right and left wing ideas that emphasized intense nationalism, the need for a strong leader, elitism, and antisocialism. An "ideal" socialist state has no government, democratic control by all, common ownership, and free access to anything. A fascist state, OTOH, is an absolutely totalitarian state. They couldn't be more different.

--------------
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
  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 trailjunky!
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