More Nonsense from the Blow Ribbon Coalition

[JoseCuervo]

From Sunday's Statesman....

Blue Ribbon Diatribe

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Millions of acres have been devastated and will take decades to recover.

The Forest Service needs the flexibility to use existing travel ways to fight fires or be able to build roads to apply management to prevent such catastrophic events.

These are public lands, and we want to preserve the public´s ability to access them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It looks like the Blue Ribbers are now wrapping themselves in Forest Health, to push their agenda.

 

[Michaelr]

sorry gunner, I read nothing in that article that bothers me

In fact alot of it absolutly on the money.

what is it in that article that bothers you?

 

[Bullhound]

I don't see anything glaring in that article either. It doesn't appear as if anybody is asking that more places are opened up or anything.

 

[Ten Bears]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We are not advocating new roads for recreational access; we simply want to preserve access we currently have on existing roads and trails. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What's wrong with that?

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Many of these roadless areas are not truly roadless. They often have roads and trails, mostly primitive that are not part of the official Forest Transportation System. We are not advocating new roads for recreational access; we simply want to preserve access we currently have on existing roads and trails. These existing routes must be recognized and continued access allowed. The Roadless Rule does not allow any maintenance of existing routes, and we feel this is wrong. We are advocating continued access on these roads, and if maintenance is required, it should be allowed, to protect both access and resources."

Good statment,I couldn't agree more.
More Power to the BRC.

 

[FEW]

"The Roadless Rule does not allow any maintenance of existing routes, and we feel this is wrong. We are advocating continued access on these roads, and if maintenance is required, it should be allowed, to protect both access and resources"

I am not against leaving the trails open that are currently open, but I think maintenance of any trails in a roadless area should not be allowed. "Maintenance" is how a barely used, little 4x4 trail gets turned into an easily passable gravel road where anyone with a pickup or quad can get in.

 

[Nut]

Good point you made there FEW!

 

[Wally Dog]

Elkgunner...........
The truth hurts, doesn't it.
WD

 

[JoseCuervo]

Wally Dog,
I am not sure which "truth" hurts, that you are referring to. But, even when the "truth" hurts, it is still good for us. I would much rather be hurt by the "truth", then comforted by a "lie".

On Monday, due to the sleepy nature of Sportsmans Issues, I decided to start these three threads, that were all posted in Sunday's Statesman. The Statesman asked the question about the Bush administration "gutting" the Roadless Rule. I thought about combining all thee into one thread, but instead, changed, and set up 3 threads for people to comment on. This one, from Blue Ribbers, the one from the Forest Product industry (Chainsaw Gang), and the one from the Idaho Conservation League.

They generated 30+ posts for the 4 days, kept everybody reading something than all the issues on Varmits in the Daily Topics pages. So if that is what you mean by the "truth", then no, it doesn't hurt.

This one on the Blue Ribbers was the least commented one, and that is kind predicted, as the gutting of the Roadless Rule was to their advantage, and the commentary in the Statesman from the Blue Ribber was self-congratulatory, and lo and behold, Michaelr,Bullhound, TenBears, and MD4ME all agreed. Kind of a "preaching to the choir" responses from them.

FEW made a good point, and when you couple that with the movement that a "road" was anything that looked like a trail in the 1870's, you have a hell of an issue.

And I still think it is amusing that the Blue Ribbers, (ie.. the Japanese ATV Industry) is now wrapping themselves in the "Forest Health" flag. But, nobody else seems amused that they are promoting the access for ATVs as a way to save forests...

The other part that is kind of funny with these 3 threads that I started and other threads, is how quickly people start attacking me, as opposed to attacking my opinion. It is ammusing how many people can't or don't come up with their own opinion, or even think/develop opinions, and instead, just attack somebody else who has an opinion that makes them slightly uncomfortable.

Cheers....

 

[1_pointer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Many of these roadless areas are not truly roadless. They often have roads and trails, mostly primitive that are not part of the official Forest Transportation System. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If they are not part of the OFFICIAL travel plan, doesn't that make them illegal? If so, why should they remain open?

Remember the post a month or so ago about the Thoroughfare (sp?)? It stated that in the lower 48 the farthest one can get from a road is 28 miles. For me, that says that we have much of the country accessible to motorized travel. You can see most from a vehichle of some sort, if you want to see some of the rest you have to walk and I have no problem with that. To me that allows for true multiple use! I stand for not allowing anymore roads as I feel we have enough and for closing those not sactioned by the managing agency.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"but I think maintenance of any trails in a roadless area should not be allowed"

Think about it!!!

"ROADLESS" how do you do maintanace on something that isnt there?
If it's a roadless area I agree leave it alone.
What some of you arent understanding is that many of these area have road's and trail's that have been in use along time and now they want to close access to "MAKE IT ROADLESS."
Havent we been told by Ithaca that we cant make more wilderness? I agree we can't,and we can't MAKE roadless area's out of area's that have been being used and call it roadless.
You can close off access ,and call it what it is-------shutting off access to area's that have been in use for a long time because some greenie doesn't want you in there.
I have no problem with leaving wilderness area's alone or leaving roadless area's roadless,I have no problem with hiking only access in area's.
But when you have group's that are trying to pull the wool over people's eye's by lying about what make's up "Roadless area's" I do have a problem.
Many of these area's have a trail system that can only be accessed by a GOOD motorcycle rider ( im not talking about OK avarage rider Im talking pucker factor riding ) LOL or ,horse's or foot.
No way could a ATV or 4 wheel drive even hope to get into some of these area's.
It's not roadless,it's not wilderness.
It's remote.
Should we not keep some areas open for those that want to assess remote area's on a motorcycle? Or use one of the many remote 4X4 road's ? That have been in use many many year's?
The BRC isnt saying they want to build more road's into roadless area's or be allowed to ride off trail or road,they want access LEFT open as in not drawing a line on a map and calling it roadless or wilderness for the sake of keeping us out.

 

[1_pointer]

Were these roads and trails put there by the managing agency or there when the surveys were conducted for wilderness designation? In my limited dealing with Wilderness Study Areas, the answer is no. Yes, in some there are illegal trails now. However, if we allow those to stay open, what stops someone from blazing a new trail in a designated wilderness area, thereby opening it up for motorized access?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It's not roadless,it's not wilderness.
It's remote.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-27-2003 19:06: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Elkgunner, "The other part that is kind of funny with these 3 threads that I started and other threads, is how quickly people start attacking me, as opposed to attacking my opinion. It is ammusing how many people can't or don't come up with their own opinion, or even think/develop opinions, and instead, just attack somebody else who has an opinion that makes them slightly uncomfortable."

Their lack of ability to comprehend, think logically/rationally and post intelligently leaves them no choice. That's the problem with the Internet---it provides the same forum to everyone, and some use it to lower the standards as much as possible.

 

[Ten Bears]

Good post MD. IT, it's good to see that you still beg for the spotlight.

1-P, most of the undesignated roads around here were built for fire suppression, logging, and mining nearly 100+ years ago.