Forum Index > Stewardship > Middle Fork Decision
Previous :: Next Topic  

Do you support alternative E?
I support alternative E
22%
 22%  [ 9 ]
I support something other than alternative E
77%
 77%  [ 31 ]
Total Votes : 40

Author Message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1455 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostTue Nov 18, 2003 10:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman wrote:
Brian, "The law is the law" is no reason for the law. The reasons for a law must exist on their own.

I gave you the reason. Mtn bikes didn't even exist at the time the law was written therefore there could be no accommodation made for them. I was specifically responding to your assertion that the reason bikes are banned is bigotry which was certainly not the case when the law was drafted. It has nothing to do with amount of impacts of one user group vs another. If you want my opinion then I agree with much of what you say. I have many more problems with horses then I do with bikes. OTOH, I've hiked extensively in parts of the country where horses have, historically, been the primary way to access the wilderness. This is not the case here in western WA, or even eastern WA. As much as I HATE horses (and I hate them a LOT) I think it would have been a crime to cut off horse use in wilderness in a good portion of the country. That access is extremely important to a lot of people.

Quote:
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?

Opening the Wilderness Act for amendment would be a huge can of worms. I don't think the benefits are worth the risks.

Quote:
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!

I agree that roads should be fixed for all cars or closed. It has never made much sense to me that an elite class of people should be able to have better access then other people. But I'd much rather see roads closed then improved for passenger vehicles. In some ways this road is no different then other roads. It isn't the only road being closed. In other ways this road is different. It is special in two primary ways. The first is that it is a dagger stabbing into the heart of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Having a wilderness with the low valleys excluded makes absolutely no sense and that is the case in the midfork valley. The second reason is that it is right off the freeway and very close to a lot of people who would like to use that road. Some for good (recreation) and some not so good (garbage dumping) reasons. The needs of wilderness vs the wants of users is the reason there is controversy in this stretch of road. In my opinion the convenience of hikers and other recreationalists should take a back seat to the needs of the wilderness. Recreation is not the prime reason for a wilderness to exist. This opinion seems to put me in the minority on this site. The  road should have been cut off at the Taylor and turned into trail, just like the Taylor River Road. I'm not happy with the current compromise.

Quote:
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.

I agree. The FS has 377,000 miles of roads. The entire Interstate system is only 42,843 miles. That is a huge road maintenance bill. That is much more then I want to pay for, as a taxpayer. Trust funds would be a good idea to pay for road maintenance. Or make the timber companies pay to remove the roads when they are finished so they are not a continued expense. The FS clearly does not have the funds to maintain all those roads. What should the FS do to pay for their upkeep? I'm assuming for the sake of this discussion, that your trust fund idea couldn't be applied to existing roads.
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: 22846 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob
PostTue Nov 18, 2003 11:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
I agree that roads should be fixed for all cars or closed

I absolutely do not understand you people.  As an OUT OF DOORS kind of guy I purposely bought a vehicle that could HANDLE the DIRT DIRT DIRT DIRT DIRT read that DIRT roads that I KNEW I WOULD encounter!

How RESPONSIBLE is it of YOU to REQUIRE that the roads that you want to (read need to) drive to get to trail heads be piss ant PAVEMENT POUNDER suitable?

Good lord, that is totally ridiculous.

You have a hobby that is hiking, backpacking, out doors activities.  You KNOW what to expect, you have a RESPONSIBILITY to buy a vehicle capable of handling those CONDITIONS!  You do NOT have a RIGHT to expect that every damn road be made suitable for you CAR!

This is just stupid!  ridiculous.  You're DAMN lucky to have ANY roads at all.  Let alone roads suitable of your grocery getters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn.  By your logic ALL roads should be paved to SUIT your needs!


TB

--------------
"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: 1455 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostTue Nov 18, 2003 11:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
BPJ, I own a 4x4 vehicle for precisely the reasons you mention. My comments have absolutely nothing to do with selfishness or making the roads suit my needs.
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
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 15990 | TRs

Slugman
Slower than ever
PostTue Nov 18, 2003 11:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Joe, why do you keep using the word "stupid" when you obviously don't even read the posts you're attacking? Every road I've ever driven on was passable except this one. Are you telling us you bought your vehicle for just this one road? That would be stupid. Every road already is passable to my car, they just need to fix this one road. I did buy a car suitable for hiking. It has four wheel drive and decent ground clearance. I have never turned back from a trip due to my car before, ever. Didn't I mention that even roads with nasty reputations are passable to my car? It's funny how you cry "elitist' at anything you don't like, then you turn into an elitist at the first opportunity! Maybe we should all buy Hummers, so the Republican Party can sell us out to another Saudi Arabia. Maybe you think environmental destruction is preferable to fixing one lousy road, but I don't. When I say "fix it or close it", I mean fix it to be as good as other bad roads, not make it perfect. I never asked for any other road to be improved. You say I'm "lucky" to have any roads at all. This is baloney and you know it. We wouldn't need any roads at all through our national forests if the forests weren't cut down. I just want to get to the real forest on the other end of the road!

--------------
Just another tequila sunrise....
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
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15410 | TRs

Tom
Admin
PostTue Nov 18, 2003 11:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sluggo and Brian, why stop with roads?  I think the FS should be required to maintain trails to tennis shoe standards (or close them to all foot traffic) because not everyone can afford hiking boots.  Digital cameras with 1 GB cards should also be banned for the same reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 15990 | TRs

Slugman
Slower than ever
PostTue Nov 18, 2003 11:42 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian, thanks for the constructive criticism. I was looking for a reason the law still says what it does. You have provided an answer of sorts, that being basically inertia. Since it already said bikes are banned, they still are. OK, I buy that.

As far as why this road is different, you gave a good answer for that as well. Major freeway, close in, deep into Alpine lakes wild, etc. I'll buy that, too.

No, the trust fund idea needed to be done before the timber sales were approved. We can't change the rules after the deal is done.

Thanks for actually answering my questions, which I figured were rhetorical. I think we agree on most points.  agree.gif  up.gif

--------------
Just another tequila sunrise....
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
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 15990 | TRs

Slugman
Slower than ever
PostTue Nov 18, 2003 11:49 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Now, Tom, that is a distortion of our point. I don't want every road improved, just this one, or close it. Also, your analogy doesn't hold water for other reasons. People don't have to wear their hiking boots all the time because they can't afford two pairs, but most folks can't buy, insure and maintain a high-ground-clearance vehicle for just hiking this one trail! I have to drive the same vehicle every day. And the digital camera analogy is completely out in left field. As Brian pointed out, this road is different, so now I have learned something. If this road merits special treatment, then I guess I can live with that. I'm not too old to change my opinion if new info comes to me!

--------------
Just another tequila sunrise....
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: 1455 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Nov 19, 2003 12:17 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom, I agree with your central premise that not everything in life needs be made fair or equal. But I do think that if you are going to build trails they need to be maintained to certain standards, and if you are going to build roads they ought to be maintained to certain standards. Both trail and road building are tax payer funded activities and that means the government agency has responsibilities toward all taxpayers. Digital cameras are not taxpayer funded so the minimum or maximum standard memory card should be left up to the marketplace.
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
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 13802 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostWed Nov 19, 2003 12:37 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
In my opinion it is the definition of mechanical transportation which is arbitrary and capricious. At the time the law was passed there were no mountain bikes but there were ox carts wheelbarrows and conestoga wagons all of which were OK. The legislative intent was to ban cars 4x4's and motorcycles (scooters then). The bikes were banned after people hearing about the early repack rides in Marin thought all mountain bikers were downhill manics with a death wish added them to the list. In truth6eh mountain bikes crawl on steep switchbackiung trails just like 4x4's on the middlefork.

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12304 | TRs
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostWed Nov 19, 2003 12:45 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian, I agree with you that the Wilderness thing is more about the legacy and less about the recreation. We just get to visit the Wilderness, because it is a living legacy, and not primarily our playground.The fact that a lot of trails are closed to stock attests to the fact that others feel the same way.

I'm sure I've said this before, but I would not be heartbroken if the FS stopped maintaining all of the Wilderness trails. They are in my opinion and incursion on the living legacy.

MC, as far as I know, wheelbarrows have always been prohibited in Wilderness.

--------------
www.allisonoutside.com

follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 15990 | TRs

Slugman
Slower than ever
PostWed Nov 19, 2003 12:46 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You go, Brian! Standards, yeah, that's it, standards!

--------------
Just another tequila sunrise....
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: 10404 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Nov 19, 2003 12:56 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
I agree that roads should be fixed for all cars or closed. It has never made much sense to me that an elite class of people should be able to have better access then other people.

I'll pick on Brian though several others have expressed this sentiment, he just has the most handy quote.

The reason it may cost so much to maintain so many roads is precisely because some insist all be maintained to the same standard. The WNF was doing a study recently where they found they could keep more roads in the system by concentrating funds on a few to a high standard and merely keeping others open at a basic level.

Demanding all roads maintained to the passenger car standard or nothing would mean losing access to a large percentage of roads on the east side which are rocky, such as Umtanum, upper Manashtash, Colockum, many in the Nachez for example, and only because an arbitrary standard of passenger car or nothing is proposed here, when if merely allowed to be open to basic travel at *user* choice,  they suffice for decades.

There is no "elitism" in allowing differing standards, because *anyone* who wishes to ante up for a rig to drive on poor roads can do so. no "class" of people is forced into or out of this demographic, as there is the same price range of cheap to expensive for 4x4's as there is for any other car, you can get a cheap junker or an expensive one.

Taking this position (that resource use by "class" or "elite") is based on what we choose to spend on means I should demand all public, light aircraft airports should be closed unless I buy an airplane. Public and municipal marinas should be closed unless everyone can buy a boat.

We are not talking space shuttles here, we're talking a basic expenditure within reach of nearly anyone merely given the desire to do so, which certainly is not the case for many boats and even less so for planes, yet I am not calling for the closure of either because that is not where I choose to spend my money, yet I don't begrudge them their choices. I think elitism is present in the "if I can't use it, close it" attitude personally.
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: 1455 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Nov 19, 2003 1:19 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MC, you inspired me to do some reading so I'll muddy the waters here a bit. In 1965 the department of Agriculture handbook for wilderness said that only mechanical devices "powered by a non-living power source" were to be excluded. It wasn't until 1984 that that interpretation was changed to reflect a more literal interpretation of the wilderness act and exclude bicycles. Certainly x-country skis are mechanical devices used for transport and they are allowed in wilderness.

In 1990 the Americans with Disabilities act said that wheelchairs are allowed in wilderness, but that managers are not required to build infrastructure to accommodate them.
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
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 15410 | TRs

Tom
Admin
PostWed Nov 19, 2003 1:32 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sluggo, almost all analogies are distortions.  So what?  It was the easiest way to illustrate why the "because not everyone can drive it" argument doesn't hold water.  My left field example was only there for satirical purposes.

Brian, if a trail isn't "maintained to minimum standards" should it be closed to everyone?

Some of these arguments give me as much of a chuckle as the meth lab, dumping ground, rampant crime, environmental study, etc. smokescreens loobbed by the FS and company.  Can't they just come out and friggin say it!  The FS supports the closure because they don't want to maintain the road.  The WTA supports it because they'll get to build trophy trails close to Seattle, showcase the area, and turn it into a circus like the rest of I-90.  Yippee!  It's obvious why the horsemen support it.  According to the WTA article, these groups have been in bed together and formulating "the plan" for almost a decade.  We've been sold down the MFK if you ask me and there's not a h@ll of a lot we can do about it now.

Like others here, I wrote letters.  Before I sent them I knew what the FS response would be.  As far as "protesting" further, I don't hold out much hope.  I'm coming to the realization that acquiring a high(er) clearance vehicle next summer to take advantage of the remaining window will be far more productive than wasting my time writing more letters and showing up at meetings, but I likely will.  moon.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
Slower than ever



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 15990 | TRs

Slugman
Slower than ever
PostWed Nov 19, 2003 2:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom, I agree with most everything you said, but not quite all. It is my belief that the forest service isn't maintaining the road, that's why it's so bad.

Mtn Goat, I haven't driven those other roads you mention. Are they passable? Or are they really as bad as the MFK? I have no problem with bad roads. I have driven many of them. I don't think we should be spending money to make passable roads better, but we should be making the worst road at least a little better. Public marinas charge fees for boat launching. Bad analogy. So do airports (charge fees). Elitism is in your every word. The average taxpayer pays for the roads, but only an elite few can drive the MFK. Other roads are different, since they are not as bad, at least I hope. There is no possible elitism in asking the government to do the job we pay them to do. No one is asking for a general road upgrade across the system. If someone said "I can't use it, so close it", that might be considered self-centered, but cannot be elitism. Closure affects everyone equally, and that is the opposite of elitism.

--------------
Just another tequila sunrise....
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 > Middle Fork Decision
  Happy Birthday outdoorgirl, wildernessed!
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