[Backpacker Joe]

First off Quark, mellow out a little. My opinions and or thoughts shouldn't piss you off either way. Whos cares right? Secondly, the FS has an agenda, period. Most of the employees subscribe to that agenda or they wouldn't LAST in the FS. That agenda follows the political ideals of the idea of this plan, of the extreme political correct ideals of the FS. If you don't think that in talking with the employees of that ranger station I'm getting a good representation of the FS intent of that project you aren't being very practical. Who says that I have refused to go to anything? You don't know. I have written both emails AND letters on the subject to the proper addresses given me. I've also made phone calls and personal appearances at the ranger station that has responsibility over this area. Think about it, this area has been bombarded with false innuendo and crap journalism in the media as a HELL ON EARTH place for years. Come on, I've been going there since before I could drive and haven't had to deal with all the crap PC BS that has been touted about this place. They made it into something it wasn't to make CHANGING it easier! This thing was set in stone from the beginning. You may not think so, but that doesn't change the fact. Tom B

[Slugman]

I still have never heard any logical reason horses are allowed in the wilderness while bikes are not. The "mechanical" argument is useless, since machines in general are not banned, such as stoves. The "ancient" argument is no good, since wheels are thousands of years old. The "transport" argument doesn't fly since they let in kayaks and such. The "trail damage" argument is no good, since mtn bikers do much less than horses do. The "human powered" argument supports bikes, but undercuts horses, since bikers are "paddling their own canoe" but equestrians are more like motorcyclists, getting a free ride and polluting up a storm. No, the reason is pure bigotry against bikes based on the false premise that mtn bikers are all crazy bmx'ers going 100 mph and killing hikers. I have run across several mtn bikers on non-wilderness trails, and they have all been polite and safety conscious. Plus, they don't leave mountains of poop on the trail and defile campsites and water sources like equestrians do. PS- The argument that the rules say no bikes, and give some of the phony reasons stated above, is no logical justification at all for why the rule says what it does. I think bikes should be banned in 80-90 percent of wilderness, based on the fragility of the territory, and the unsuitability of the trail, but horses should be banned there as well. What ever happened to letting circumstances dictate the rules, so that they make sense? If you want absolutely pure wilderness, then all trails should be banned, as well as all people. All they need to do is change "mechanical" to "motorized" and define a horse as a motorized vehicle, and we'd be there! As far as the MFK decision, we were betrayed. It makes no sense to keep the road open past where most vehicles can go. Either fix the road, or close it. I strongly oppose any solution that keeps things as they are, meaning some can drive to the trailhead but others cannot. It is elitism at its worst. If they would maintain the road to the gate, I would support that. If they would keep the whole thing open AND maintained, I would support that. Or they could close the whole thing and make it into a trail. Leaving it even partly open but undriveable to most vehicles is ridiculous in my opinion. The bottom line is they don't care what we think, and if 100 million people said they wanted things a certain way, the beaurocrats (?)would do what they want anyway. Look at the "roadless rule", the most commented-upon rule in FS history, 95% in favor, since overturned for partisan political purposes. They falsely claimed it needed more time for public comment. Now it seems to be back in force, but for how long? The will of the people counts for nothing. I think it's time to consider doing away with representative government and going to direct votes of the people. Look at how well that's worked in CA and WA!

[Stefan]

[Stefan]

[Backpacker Joe]

Sluggo, I damn well agree with you. But this makes no sense:

[Malachai Constant]

BTW the "new" Dutch Miller Gap Trail would be primo Mountain Biking territory.

[Slugman]

Now Joe, relax before you blow a gasket. I never said anyone was evil or bad. I just think any open road should be maintained for the standard American car. It is disproportionate beyond belief that I should have to drive an unsafe gas-guzzler 365 days per year just to go hiking on one trail. My car can make every other open FS road in the state as far as I know, with hundreds of examples proven so far by the fact that I made the trailhead. Why is this one road different? Either everyone can drive it, or no one. That is perfectly fair and reasonable. The situation now is unfair and unreasonable. Even notoriously bad roads like FS7174 to Corral Pass are driveable. The Forest Service is stealing our NW pass money and other tax money by not doing their job and fixing the road. I would be perfectly happy to hike the length of any road if the FS hadn't allowed the forest to be clearcut. It was their decision to allow clearcutting that made the road necessary to begin with. They now have an obligation to maintain the road to the boundary of the clear cut areas. They should require clearcutters to set up a fund for permanent road maintenance before they sell our property to them at below market value. If every forest service road was this bad, and the cost of fixing them all was billions, I would buy an unsafe gas-guzzler. But since every other road is maintained (or closed), why not this one?

[Brian Curtis]

Slugman, the reason bikes are banned has nothing to do with bigotry against bikes. The wilderness act was passed in 1964, long before people were thinking in terms of mountain bikes in wilderness. As the law is written bikes are clearly not legal. The only way to change that would be to amend the wilderness act. Also, the NW forest pass money has nothing to do with road maintenance. It is not to be used for road maintenance.

[Allison]

Slug, I have to point out once again that virtually no FS trees are being currently harvested in WA. There's not much that is viable due to previous overcutting, and beyond that public sentiment strongly opposes it. Given the public sentiment, I don't think we could even enter into a long-term arrangement with timber companies to assure road maintenance, as there is no guarantee that public sentiment about logging on public land in this part of the country will change anytime soon.

[Slugman]

Brian, "The law is the law" is no reason for the law. The reasons for a law must exist on their own. Maybe an amendment to the wilderness act is needed. Some trails would be perfect for bikes, most would not. Why can't a determination be made on an as-required basis? Whether the FS is stealing general funds or our NW pass money is immaterial. They are stealing SOME money by not doing their job. I pay the fee to park at trailheads. If I can't get to the trailhead, my money was taken for no benefit to me, hence the "stealing". I still would like to know why this one road is different from every other road in the state. My car is four wheel drive with slightly-better-than-average ground clearance. If I can't make it, 150 million or more other Americans can't, either. Its not like I drive a Corvette or something. Fix it or close it, I say! ML, my point was that they should have been making the timber companies set up a road maintenace trust fund all along. Then the folks who made the road necessary would be paying for its upkeep.

[-lol-]

[Slugman]

Hey "2", how you doing? Haven't heard from you lately. (2 is my nickname for 2drx ) If it wasn't for your boss truck, I never would have been up to Dutch Miller at all!

[MtnGoat]

I already have one in on a key, and I guess given the fix it or close it sentiment of some, don't really mind if you're up for keeping yourself out. Less traffic at a nice place for me. It's your choice.

[Slugman]

I can't get there now, so no difference for me either way. Besides, what I want counts for nothing anyway. However, if you have the key and are heading up ... I'll be hitch hiking!

[Quark]