Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > MF Snoqualmie River Road Statement from FS
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostSun Jun 05, 2005 2:50 pm 
Quote:
It depends on what methods are being proposed to do so, for one thing. For example, we are told "protecting" the MFK means ending preferred access method for many folks, in favor of a trail when trail users already have a trail all their own on the other side of the river. Those supporting the closure want access they disagree with denied even when the access they prefer is already available, because they want ONLY methods they already approve of allowed.
I pulled this out of the Dose Road thread in order to keep the discussion here in the MfK thread. I'm very interested as to where this information came from, as it looks much more like an opinion than a statement of fact. I've never seen anything from the FS that backs it up. If I'm wrong, please state where the FS has said that they are eventually closing the upper section of the road in order to limit access.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostMon Jun 06, 2005 12:15 am 
Not necessarily the FS which was more of a puppet here. Rather the advocacy organizations who lobbied for the road closure. Just one quote from midfork.org:
Quote:
To provide more "backcountry" experiences, the Concept treats the Upper Valley, which is narrow and can't handle more development, as a roadless area. This will add wild country free from vehicles, and a much-needed multi-use trail for hikers, bikers, and horse riders

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostMon Jun 06, 2005 2:23 am 
Yes, but a non-profit club is just a group of like-minded people. You want to fight the clubs, either join one or create one. It's not a conspiracy or nuffin'! cool.gif

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostMon Jun 06, 2005 10:03 am 
Jeez, first you twisted MtnGoat's comment to imply he said the FS wanted to limit access, which isn't what he said at all. Then I provided a quote from one of many organizations supporting the road closure and you reply with "You want to fight the clubs, either join one or create one." Reminds me of "you dont like this country..." As far as "conspiracy", are you putting words in my mouth too? I don't recall ever using that word. I have used the word "coalition", which I think is a fair depiction of what went down. From midfork.org:
Quote:
Fifteen organizations have endorsed a gate at Dingford Creek. They include Alpine Lakes Protection Society, Backcountry Bicycle Trails Club, Biodiversity Northwest, East Lake Washington Audubon Society, Friends of the Trail, Middle Fork Outdoor Recreation Coalition (MidFORC), The Mountaineers, North Cascades Conservation Council, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Pilchuck Audubon Society, Seattle Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Washington Trails Association, Washington Trout, and Washington Wilderness Coalition.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostMon Jun 06, 2005 10:12 am 
You know, when all is said and done here, the decision's already been made, and all we can do is wait and see how this all impacts the Upper Valley in the long run. I know people get angry about this road closure, so I'm going to try to keep my mouth shut until the dust settles. I'm sorry to have ruffled any feathers.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostMon Jun 06, 2005 1:52 pm 
Back on topic. Based on conversations with the folks at Goldmyer, here is my understanding of what's going to happen to the road past Dignford before the FS can gate it next summer and pass on future mantenance costs to the inholders. The FS will need to bring the road "up to standard". Not sure what "standard" this is or how far up the road they will need do this, but the Goldmyer folks indicated it would make the road much more bikeable than it is today, so that is good news. Goldmyer will have a key, but will not be shuttling visitors back and forth. "Visitors" to the hotsprings will need to walk or bike the road (or trail). Building the footbridge at Goldmyer was apparently done to appease concerns that it would be "too far" to walk from Dingford (to the next footbridge) when the river was too high to ford at Goldmyer. I'm not sure I buy this argument since anyone forced to walk the road could always cross at Dingford. I suspect the footbridge concession might have been to done to appease those on the other end of the table with key access. wink.gif

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 > MF Snoqualmie River Road Statement from FS
  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