Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Good news on the Middle Fork decision?
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 11:28 am 
Quote:
What a load of BS. I'd like to know what "opponents" claimed a gate at Dingford "would prevent access to the upper Middle Fork by the elderly, disabled, and families with small children".
Whoever did claim it, they were 100% correct. This gate will end our family trips up there for my mom, for one. Not being comfortable with the facts of what supporting a lockout on users does, doesn't change it's effects.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 11:32 am 
Quote:
Wilderness is a tiny fraction our country
Slugman Im not talking about the United States, Im talking about Washington state. Horses are allowed in a VERY small proportion of wilderness. Im sorry if I pointed you out specifically, I didnt mean to. It simply gets frustrating, to have interests that are on the decline because of bias attacks against them. I am for wilderness (we have a lot of it) but I am also for other types of recreation. Bicycles, motorcycles, 4x4, snow machines, etc etc etc. They all deserve to exist. I guess I should have entered this into the Saloon because my point is that there is a highly disproportionate amount of wilderness and areas designated "stay away" from for feet only. The problem is, if you consider all the other forms of recreation there are more total people with interests outside of wilderness area requirements. Here we are designating all this wilderness while the population is increasing. We are effectively locking out way more people than we are addressing. In response to Brian, I can understand your point, but if not for the people what is it all about. Sure you can say wilderness isn't about recreation and people, but the point has alway been saving for future generations. I mean sure, people have said that the earth would be a better place without us, but that's irrational and ridiculous. 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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 11:48 am 
Quote:
No one is being shut out.
That will certainly come as a surprise to those who are.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 12:14 pm 
BPJ, I never said wilderness wasn't about people, I said it wasn't about recreation. Ultimately, it is all about people but recreation is just one piece of the pie, not the primary purpose or function of wilderness. We could really take things to the extreme and allow wilderness to be accessed by all kinds of users. Build a tram to the top of xyz mountain and users who want to pay to ride up can. Build a 4x4 road to the top and 4x4ers can go up. Build a trail up the other side and hikers can go up. Scramblers can take x-country routes. Bikers can have their own trail on another side. The users need never meet except at the top so there will be no conflicts. Everyone has a choice. Everyone should be happy. But that is looking at recreation in a vacuum. Wildlife would be impacted, views would be diminished. Light, air, water, and noise pollution would increase. Erosion problems would occur. Invasive weeds would be imported. You wouldn't have wilderness. I'm not saying we should keep people out of wilderness, or that the world be be better off without people. I'm saying that areas should be protected and that convenience of recreation should not be a primary consideration that is discussed in a vacuum without considering other factors. MtnGoat, why will it end your mom's trips up the Middle Fork? She can get a horse. Any smart person who wants to get up there can rent or buy a horse and go, even if they can't walk. If you desire to get there you can. It is kind of like 4x4 roads. If you want to get up those you need to buy, rent, or borrow a 4x4, or walk. Same deal on the Middle Fork. Access isn't closed, you just need to arrange for appropriate transportation. If you don't want to use a horse then that is your choice.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 12:38 pm 
And Im not saying that wilderness is some how bad. My point was simply that with wilderness areas should come some multiple use areas. Right now the wild sky area supports bicybles, motorcycles, 4x4's, and atv's. If it closes there wont be any place even semi local for these people to go. Whereas there are wilderness areas all around us and that area. Brian, I want to use a CAR to get to the end of the middle fork. Im not asking for more roads to be built, just not to kill the ones that exist now. 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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kiliki
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2310 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 12:43 pm 
While the percentage of wilderness in the state may sound impressive, the vast majority of that is rock and ice. We have very little wilderness that includes lowland forests, since the FS has long drawn wilderness boundaries in such a way to appease timber interests. My understanding is that the Wild Sky includes lowland forest, which makes it unique and valuable. It also means increased access for more folks-not everyone can make it up to existing wilderness areas, since there is usually a certain number of miles one has to hike before they enter wilderness.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kiliki
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2310 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 12:46 pm 
Also, the middle fork road now only allows access to those with high clearance or 4wd vehicles. That means the rest of us are already denied access. And yes, I have driven this road, but never again. I can't believe I didn't lose anything off the bottom of my car.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Captain Trips
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Mar 2002
Posts: 437 | TRs | Pics
Captain Trips
Member
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 12:53 pm 
Does anyone know the name of the Middle fork snoqualmie trail I mentioned earlier, the one with new trail improvemtents.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
H. Hound
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2003
Posts: 1205 | TRs | Pics
Location: Exit 32
H. Hound
Member
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 12:55 pm 
I think it is the CCC trail. Look on the WTA site for more info, they did a bunch of work on it.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 1:02 pm 
Quote:
Also, the middle fork road now only allows access to those with high clearance or 4wd vehicles. That means the rest of us are already denied access.
Is this the "if I can't/won't, no one else should" argument? Anyhow, I think it's time to push for closure at the end of the pavement at it's current location. Making access times way, way longer and limiting usage to only those with extra days or weeks of time to visit can only improve the wilderness. Now I'm sure this could be seen as extreme by some, who only want to limit someone elses access a little bit as they see it, but to those who do not have the luxury of extra days you may as well just keep them out permanently, because that's exactly what is going to happen. Yes, apparently the fact that my mom could rent a horse and take days off to visit her favorite places, which she will never have time to do, instead of just visiting in her sons truck, makes this not a closure. Yes, that surely changes the fact that she'll never go there again. Nice, and thanks. In spite of all the talk, no amount of verbal juggling changes the fact that cutting out users is not an increase in access.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 1:05 pm 
Quote:
the middle fork road now only allows access to those with high clearance or 4wd vehicles. That means the rest of us are already denied access.
Untrue, if you yourself drove that road your statement is invalid. Besides, you are responsible to have the correct equipment to handle whatever condition that you'll run into. When it snows at the pass and chaines are required you must have them, if you dont you cant go there. Is mother nature at fault for keeping you away from Snoqualmie pass? The answer is no. You are required to handle the conditions. The middlefork isnt the ONLY forest service road out there that requires a 4x4 (or should have one) to properly navigate. Good point Goat. If you're going to gate it, do so in the very begining. Motorcycles are still the answer. Throw a camo net over it at the trailhead. 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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kiliki
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2310 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
kiliki
Member
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 1:08 pm 
Nope, it's not a "if I can't, no one should" argument. Personally, I'd like to see the road open and maintained. It's a point that should be taken into account by all of the people who are saying the gate will deny access to (the public, old people, kids, whoever)-you should remember that currently, the road is NOT accessible to many of us. BPJ, your analogy doesn't work-you're equating an act of man with an act of god, and the purchase of tire chains to the purchase of a vehicle. And, if people were complaining about being unfairly denied access to some other 4wd road, yes, I would also point out that many other users were also being denied access.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 1:11 pm 
Quote:
the road is NOT accessible to many of us
Yes it is. You CHOOSE not to drive it. As long as the road is open, it's open to EVERYONE. You just have to choose a vehicle that supports your interests. 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 Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 1:11 pm 
Where ever they are, BPJ, rest assured the elitists will come to close them as well, as soon as they're done with this one. You'll see the same arguments all over again in each case, and bit by bit being able to enjoy a wealth of differing resource uses will be restricted by puritans.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor



Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 769 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bothell
Steve
Phlogiston Purveyor
PostWed Dec 17, 2003 1:21 pm 
I am personally disappointed by the decision of the FS to close this road. I first went up to hardscrabble lake in 1989 and have been in the area several times since. It will not be the end to adventures in the area, but will make it more difficult to get to. Although many of us on this board like going up there, there is probably too little interest in total numbers to justify spending the money to keep it open. All the same I think it is worth the $5k annual budget to keep the road in its current poor condition. As far as not being able to navigate it, we first did the road to the end in a '66 mustang. We ended up with a cracked exhaust manifold. The road has deteriorated since 1989 though and I doubt we could do it again.

Despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Good news on the Middle Fork decision?
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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