Bogley

[stefan]

Scott Patterson wrote: All forms of travel is inaccurate. Once the road is opened to motorized travel it will drive everyone else out.
scoutabout wrote:
This is completely untrue. Motorized, mechanical, equestrian, and bipedal travel can all exist in the same area. Look at North Fork in AF Canyon as an example.
be careful how you use the word completely. it's very american to make large encompasing definitive statements. there are people who will use an area less because vehicles frequent it, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. sure they can coexist, but that really wasn't the point.
Quote:
His distributor got wet, but that isn't some kind of proof he was dumping chemicals in the creek. The miniscule amount of material that might come loose from a vehicle during one short creek crossing is barely worth mentioning. Give nature some credit. Three feet of dirt purifies water.


hmm, are you serious with this one? it's also not only the minimal amount but the *potentially* large amount which could come out/off of a vehicle. and what are you using to support your claim that it doesn't pollute? and comparing to flash flooding and mud? apples an bowling balls, methinks.

Quote:
Think of a hiking trail that you and your family have enjoyed for many years. Now, how would you feel if that trail was closed to you?

actually this happens ... areas are closed down for research. example goose creek in zion was recently closed. (though i have never been) i know it was a fantastic wilderness-canyoneering experience for those who did do it, one of the better areas in the zion backcountry. but you deal with it, that's how it goes. lower parunuweap as another example was closed.

dang ... things change, and people have to deal with change. everyone cannot be pleased. there are far more tragic things happening than the closure of salt creek. hell, you used to be able to drive all the way through it/well into it. but i'll tell you, now that it's overgrown and eroded and peaceful, i would never want it to revert back to that time ... and that was during the 80s.

[Scott P]

Quote: Not everyone who drives a 4x4 vehicle is part of the motorized/offroad community.

One more question. Who are you to decide who is and who isn't a part of the motorized/offroad community? Just those whom agree with you and no one else? :ne_nau:

Because I drive 4wd roads and am a wilderness advocate, are you saying I can't be considered an off-roader?

Guess what? I am a wilderness advocate. No one has told me I'm not and none of the groups that I belong to and am a member of.

Guess what else? I am a highway engineer and live in a coal mining town. PS, I also have a mountain bike (and SUV as mentioned). Does that exclude me from being a wilderness advocate?

I'm glad to see the "communities" that I am a part of just might be more accepting than the one you belong too and they allow me to join and be a part of even though I'm a 4X4ing mountain biking red-neck living in a coal mining town highway engineer. :five:

I'm sorry, but I am a part of the 4X4 community unless you being all high and mighty might kick me out. :roll:

I admit I don't drive my SUV for day to day use due to gas milage. I've been putting only 3K to 4K miles a year. It sits in the driveway until I need to drive on rough roads. I ride my bike or walk to work. On the other hand, when I need to drive up into the Elkhead Mountains or into the Maze, you bet I start up my 4X4 and am on my way. Just because I own an SUV doesn't mean I don't try to minimize impact or vice versa.

[scoutabout]

Scott Patterson wrote:
I said nothing about illegal offshoots, though many are being created. How about legal user created ones and others?


You and SUWA can work to change the law if you think too many roads are being created legally.

Scott Patterson wrote:
How about the new Bangs Canyon-Billings Canyon extreme off road trail south og Grand Junction? Constructed only a few years ago. This is a newly constructed one, not an old mining road or something. How about the one in Hunters Canyon in the Book Cliffs north of Grand Junction. Same exact thing.


Never heard of either. If they are created legally, then good for the users and land managers who are benefiting from these roads. If they are being created illegally, then they should be closed. Again, work to get the law changed if you think it's wrong.

Scott Patterson wrote:
Factory Butte is another good example.


I'm not an expert on Factory Butte, but it was an open riding area for many years. The open area has been reduced in size more than once. Each time, existing routes are kept on the maps for motorized use.

Scott Patterson wrote:
It does drive anyone looking for some peace and quiet completely out (see my post below).


I personally think ATV's, dirt bikes, and snowmobiles should have more stringent requirements for noise suppression.

In general response to your other comments:

Anyone leaking fluids shouldn't be driving on any backcountry roads until the leak is repaired. Water crossing or not.

Yes, you used the word perhaps. I was saying that the arguement does not apply, hypothetical or not.

Scott Patterson wrote:
Happened to many hiking places I can think of. I will use the one literally in my back yard. We used to hike up Sandrocks Mountain (actually a small hill) every evening to watch the elk and deer. As recently as 2004, there was one ATV/motorcycle track up the hill. Now there are seven and the place is noisy almost every evening. All the elk and deer are gone because of the noise. We were completely pushed out. Isn’t one ATV track up the hill enough? Is there a real need for seven? Despite complaints, the city refuses to do anything about it. To answer your question about how I feel about it? To be honest, pretty upset.


This is not an example of something that was closed to you, but rather something you had to start sharing with other users. Again, I think ohv's should have better noise suppression. No there shouldn't be 7 routes when 1 is adequate. If the routes were created illegally, then you should definitely pursue a legal response. If the land manager is refusing to uphold the law, get one of the anti-access groups involved and force them to live by their own standards. Welcome to my world. Land managers constantly close motorized routes illegally. The pro-motorized access community has about 1/100 of the budget on the other side. We have a hard time keeping things open, even when the law is on our side in some cases.

[scoutabout]

stefan wrote: actually this happens ... areas are closed down for research. example goose creek in zion was recently closed. (though i have never been) i know it was a fantastic wilderness-canyoneering experience for those who did do it, one of the better areas in the zion backcountry. but you deal with it, that's how it goes. lower parunuweap as another example was closed.


Yes I know it happens, which is why I posed the question. I'm trying to make the comparison so we can relate. When an area you visit is closed to you (I mean CLOSED, not just open for all uses thereby making it less enjoyable to YOU), it is a terrible feeling. That's how ohv users feel when an area is CLOSED to them.

[scoutabout]

Scott Patterson wrote: Quote: Not everyone who drives a 4x4 vehicle is part of the motorized/offroad community.

One more question. Who are you to decide who is and who isn't a part of the motorized/offroad community? Just those whom agree with you and no one else? :ne_nau:

Because I drive 4wd roads and am a wilderness advocate, are you saying I can't be considered an off-roader?

Guess what? I am a wilderness advocate. No one has told me I'm not and none of the groups that I belong to and am a member of.

Guess what else? I am a highway engineer and live in a coal mining town. PS, I also have a mountain bike (and SUV as mentioned). Does that exclude me from being a wilderness advocate?

I'm glad to see the "communities" that I am a part of just might be more accepting than the one you belong too and they allow me to join and be a part of even though I'm a 4X4ing mountain biking red-neck living in a coal mining town highway engineer. :five:

I'm sorry, but I am a part of the 4X4 community unless you being all high and mighty might kick me out. :roll:

I admit I don't drive my SUV for day to day use due to gas milage. I've been putting only 3K to 4K miles a year. It sits in the driveway until I need to drive on rough roads. I ride my bike or walk to work. On the other hand, when I need to drive up into the Elkhead Mountains or into the Maze, you bet I start up my 4X4 and am on my way. Just because I own an SUV doesn't mean I don't try to minimize impact or vice versa.

My point was that you shouldn't make generalizations about the 4x4 or offroad community and use the behavior of a 16 year old kid with a pick-up truck as an example of how we all act.

I am also a supporter of wilderness. There definitely should be places that are closed to motorized, mechanical, and equestrian use. However, I'm willing to share the land. Unlike groups like SUWA and The Wilderness Society.

[Scott P]

Quote: Never heard of either. If they are created legally, then good for the users and land managers who are benefiting from these roads. If they are being created illegally, then they should be closed. Again, work to get the law changed if you think it's wrong.

Many did try to fight it (Colorado Mountain Club, Colorado Wilderness Coalition, etc.) and yes they were supposedly created legally. Good for whom?

Quote: This is not an example of something that was closed to you

If so, then neither is the closure of Salt Creek. Unless you are crippled in which case an exception might be in order, you can still go there. It was closed to your vehicle, not you. My two year and four year old could easily walk to Angel Arch. What’s your physical disability? If you have one, then I do indeed have much sympathy. Don’t tell me that it was closed to you though, unless you really do have a physical handicapp, in which case, you have my genuine sympathy.

Quote: If the routes were created illegally, then you should definitely pursue a legal response.

Have and nothing is done. First time (which wasn’t very long ago) I reported illegal use on BLM land I was asked if it were my private land. When I said no, they told me not to worry about it. I’m not the only one either. Read the below on the Tushar Mountains:

http://www.summitpost.org/object_discussion.php?type=vote_comments&object_id=214539

Quote: If the land manager is refusing to uphold the law, get one of the anti-access groups involved and force them to live by their own standards.

Most wilderness advocates (vast majority) are not anti-access. That is a myth. They are anti-vehicles in some areas, but not anti-access. They want people to go there and enjoy, not destroy the land.

Quote: Welcome to my world. Land managers constantly close motorized routes illegally.

I would bet more illegal tracks are created than routes closed illegally. Would you like to bet on this? :ne_nau:

Quote: When an area you visit is closed to you (I mean CLOSED, not just open for all uses thereby making it less enjoyable to YOU), it is a terrible feeling. That's how ohv users feel when an area is CLOSED to them.

Once again, unless they or you are unfortunately handicapped, in which case perhaps some exceptions might be made for them, closing a road does not close an area to YOU. Maybe your vehicle, but not YOU.

I already have said that my four year old can easily walk, under his own power completely across any wilderness area or proposed wilderness area in Utah or surrounding states. He is not locked out because vehicles are. Why are you?

Quote: My point was that you shouldn't make generalizations about the 4x4 or offroad community and use the behavior of a 16 year old kid with a pick-up truck as an example of how we all act.

I and even SUWA agrees that responsible motorized access is perfectly OK. Where they disagree and admittedly never will is what is and isn’t responsible motorized use. That is really where the disagreement lies.

On another note: It si a proven medical fact that Americans in general need more excesize. It is a benifit to society as a whole. Although off-roading is indeed fun, what society benifits does it actually have?

[stefan]

scoutabout wrote:
Yes I know it happens, which is why I posed the question. I'm trying to make the comparison so we can relate. When an area you visit is closed to you (I mean CLOSED, not just open for all uses thereby making it less enjoyable to YOU), it is a terrible feeling. That's how ohv users feel when an area is CLOSED to them.

relate? i think many people can relate ... i don't think a lesson on empathy is necessary here. point is change is inevitable ... disappointment inevitable. we deal and we move on. we fight if we think it's unjust ... but come on this is a national park, it's a desert, the only year-round running springs/creeks in canyonlands national park, which is surrounded by canyons with roads into them ... buck up and deal with it. hell, i have to deal with the fact that everyday special parts of my national forests are closed and logged


and to go along with what scott is saying ... does being an OHV user mean the vehicle is physically attached to you? are you one with your vehicle until the terrain doesn't permit it? i agree with scott, when you say 'closed' your words are HIGHLY misleading and you misconstrue the circumstances. what you should be saying is it "CLOSED TO YOUR USING A VEHICLE" which i believe is what you carelessly mean by "CLOSED TO [YOU]" ... unless, as scott consciously adds, you are prevented by physical ailments which may not be otherwise overcome by improving physical fitness, eg. age/disability.

also using this jargon makes it sound as if this is the ONLY way the OHV crowd would ever consider accessing this land ... is this TRUE??!!

[Sombeech]

Too much reading hurts my head. :crazy:

[scoutabout]

Some people think motorized access is bad, and we're not going to change the world here.

I'll keep fighting for my side, and you should keep fighting for yours.