[GlacierGlider]

You know what is this about boosting the economy?? I think that every member of this forum should take that money and put it into a fund to rebuild these roads so that we have access to our pristine areas. Now, I know I am going head to head with some people on here, but come on, if this multi-billion dollar package is possible, then why can't we get the miniscule amounts to do road maitenece in our National Forrests of WA State. If I had the capital on hand I would personally pay to have access back to the Suiattle drainage. I mean I am not against a road walk to get where I want to go, but I have children and their legs just are not long enough to feasably walk from 12 mile to the Suiatle trail head and beyond for a day hike that I may have enjoyed 20 years ago. We can write letters to this committee or that, but what is it really going to do, stall some thing that they have already made their minds up about? What needs to happen is awareness needs to be made, about what potentially can be lost if these roads are closed. I know some of you are totally agianst "giving up your secret places", but hey if you want to hike for 5 days to get somewhere that took 2 days 5 years ago, fine thats your peroggative. For you climbers getting to Dome or Glacier or Illabot or what ever, Your guide book is goiung to say the route to the top and then oh yeah dont for get there is a 26 mile raod walk also. Now I may be being out there ewith my comments, but hey it could happen. Case and point; 30 years ago the trail the Boulder and Pear Lakes was Two miles shorter than it is now, now it is even further. For those of you that like to fish the hi-lakes, well if access is not possible how are the fish going to survive the 2 days it takes to plant your favorite secret lake that before took a TRAILBLAZER 6 hours to get to. Now it takes two days and the lake is not getting planted. You will not be able to take your son/daughter on that awsome climb, or nice fishing trip, w/o taking 5 days off from work, which you cannot feasably do because gas is $5/OUNCE (exxagerated of course)and you need to work 3 days just to pay for the gas to get to the paved old road that is now the trail head to walk on a road for 26 miles that you should be able to drive. I mean come on, I would give up the secret places that I know and even show pictures if that is what it takes to get public support and make it so that the funds can be procured in order fix the Suiattle and Tenas creek roads, oh yeah what about the Green Mtn. Approach. Gamma Hot Springs could be comfortably accomplished in 3 days, not now, what a waste, I do not know about you, but I do not want to go off of just memories in order to remember these places that I have been. I do not want to have to have a 4x4 in order to get to a certain trailhead. Yes I am one of those that does have one, heck I could make a fortune as a taxi person on the Suiattle road taking people to the trailhead, but I would just donate the funds to fix the roads. Yeah Kennedy is gone, but the forrests and vistas and views are still there. The average person is not interested in making a five mile extra trip in order to get there though. We are not getting any youger and some people jsut can't make the treck that they used to be able to do. yeah it makes the trails have less people on them than they used to, but I want my children to be able to enjoy what I enjoy and I cannot even get to some simple day hikes because it is just easier to cloase a road than fix it. If I were a Billionaire this would all be fixed, but I am not, but if more people knew what was happenening and what potentially is not going to be available, then we might be able to get somewhere. Raise awareness, that is what needs to happen. Any news people out there or people with access to the media or Radio? We need to get moving before the government takes out what so many take for granted and what so many others enjoy. Yall say save this and save that, well lets save the access so when can concentrate on saving the other things in these areas. I could start a guide service and take paying customers to these secret areas, give proceeds to a fund that could be used keep maitenece cost at a level where the Forrest service could manage these roads, well allright I have said my two cents..... Questions and comments are welcome, and yes I have made some outlandish stements with some of these ideas, but that is just that they are ideas. You will say what you want, and have your own opinion on it, and that is fine. BUT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE AND I WANT HELP FIGURING OUT HOW TO DO IT! So please take a minute to think about it. Mike Blodgett

[Tom]

A noble cause but the best use of your $1200 is probably to convert your mountain bike into a stealth e-bike. The reality is the advocacy groups are more interested in cutting their own deals and converting these roads to trails (and claim victory) than preserve reasonable access to these places.

[wamtngal]

What about the Legacy Roads and Trail Remediation Initiative then, Tom? There are many advocacy groups behind this Rep. Dicks bill. Please don't lump all advocacy groups into one pot. Yes, LRRI also covers road decommissioning, but for the most part, many of those roads were not being used any longer. It also covers road repairs though and that shouldn't be ignored. Check out Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative - it includes a list of advocacy groups and a couple state agencies who are part of WWRI. The problem does not lie only with the advocacy groups, but with our government/Bush Admin who does not see it fit to provide the Forest Service with a decent amount of funding to cover road/trail maintenance. Instead they provide more money to wildland fire fighting and cut the FS budget even more.

[GlacierGlider]

It is not just bush administration, it also the current state government also, government officials are worried more about re-election and how to cut down on traffic. Looking for that catch statement to grab votes. A perfect example, fix these roads so more people can enjoy the hi-country then there is less people in the cities gettting fat and being bored because it is to much trouble to access our mountains. Spend more time on creatting the funds needed and less time creatting committee to wast tax dollars on brainstorming ideas on which roads to decommision. I could do that all day and not for profit. I would go out and create access to get past these washouts and what not but there is to many rules and regulations set up that it is against the law. All I need id a shovel and a little muscle and add a few people and there is a way past the washout just past the boundary bridge. Sheesh it is not that hard, except it is against the law.

[Tom]

[GlacierGlider]

If the funding was set aside for a certain project, say on a project/project basis then the adequate funding could be used to fix each road that needs fixed

[wamtngal]

GG, my mention of the Bush Admin was due to discussing the Forest Service, which falls under their jurisdiction, not states. EDIT: Just noticed your new post, GG. Actually the funds that come from LRRI, for our region, are specific projects and must meet certain guidelines to be provided the funding. Tom, you highlighted 'decommissioning' but left 'maintenance' alone. Both fall in the same sentence - is this a case of reading what you want to read? Interpreting how you want to interpret? WWRI's mission statement reads: Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative is dedicated to reestablishing and maintaining healthy aquatic and forest ecosystems in Washington’s national forests through maintenance, repair, and decommissioning of forest roads and fish culverts. So their mission statement even states maintenance and repair before decommissioning. I agree that not all advocacy groups are out there preaching the good gospel of keeping roads open, but I also know, personally, that there are other groups who are. Lumping all into one bucket isn't fair to those orgs who do work for restoration. Just trying to keep all sides visible.

[Tom]

Right, the stated goal is to "restore watershed integrity" not access. Translation: they will fix the roads they want to and decommission the roads they don't want to citing "watershed integrity" as the justification (instead of the real reason which is lack of funding leading to cutting deals / compromise).

[GlacierGlider]

Tom, Case and point...then if we raise awareness, the people can overide thsoe making decisions. It would be the next best thing short of getting violent, which never works in the long run because then they are spending money that could have been used for roads on prosecuting people.

[wamtngal]

[GlacierGlider]

My point still stands, the roads need to be fixed not forgotten, I could care less about watershed issues, just fix the roads so myself and every one else can have access. Where is my $30 year for parking going....not where it was first intended when they started the Trailhead Parking Pass thing.....

[Tom]

WMG, I agree, restoring watershed integrity does not equal road closure. Let's follow the chain of logic here. First, help me understand what would cause road X to be targeted for decommission. Does cost factor into the equation or is it a "given" regardless of cost or budget?

[GlacierGlider]

5 points for Tom's side.... Cost is always the underlying reason....

[Tom]

I wasn't really asking the above question to score points for one side or the other. I'm more highlighting the issue of whether "watershed integrity" is a dependent or independent variable. For example, in the case of the Dosewallips road those advocating for decommission point to watershed impacts. The cost to rebuild is not the issue for them. In other words, even if funding existed, the road would still be decommissioned. That is why I highlighted above that one needs to pay very close attention to the logic being applied. On the other hand, if "watershed integrity" depends on the level of funding, then it becomes a somewhat arbitrary decision as to what roads to keep open and what roads to decommission.

[wamtngal]