LHC Restoration work w/WLRV 9-22-07

[ArloGuthroJeep]

Today up at LHC we had the Trail Ridge 4-runners stringing cable and the WLRV crew (91 of us) restoring the land on the now cabled off land.

I'll start off with saying: I really wish more OHV users had attended. As far as I know only one other 4-wheeler came up. I was able to pursuade (Lobby?) 7 of the 8 members in my crew (me being the 8th member) to believe that not all 4-wheelers are bad and in fact most are good people. I drove 4 of them up to the old restoration area and on the way encountered one ass who wouldn't yield and after a mini-altercation I told my crew "Sorry, you probably have a bad impression of all 4-wheelers now". One lady responded "No, I had a bad impression before and you changed my mind". The other lady in my Jeep agreed. Luckily the 10-12 other OHV users we encountered on the trail after that were all very courteous:)

It would have been great to see 10 OHV users up there split into the ~10 crews to be able to represent the OHV community and give them a different perspective. They were certainly skeptical at first but were willing to listen and discuss everything:thumbsup:

Yada yada yada, I am sure a lot of you have seen what post & cable looks like, however this was the first time I have seen what a restoration area looks like a year after it has been worked on.

I was up at the LHC restoration last year and went back to the same spot today to take some after pics.

This is what it looked like exactly one year ago:
http://arlojeep.com/Trip-Reports//WLVR-LHC-9-23-06/Weberized/P9230715.jpg

There is seeding, fertilizer, and matting laid down and everywhere else is seeding, fertilizer, and straw.

This is what it looked like today, exact same spot:
http://arlojeep.com/Trip-Reports//WLRV-LHC-9-22-07/Weberized/IMG_2543_resize.JPG

This entire meadow was also seeded last year and looks a lot better now:
http://arlojeep.com/Trip-Reports//WLRV-LHC-9-22-07/Weberized/IMG_2545_resize.JPG

One of this years restoration areas:
http://arlojeep.com/Trip-Reports//WLRV-LHC-9-22-07/Weberized/IMG_2540_resize.JPG

This years restoration work was mainly for erossion control. As you can kind of see, it is VERY steep in the sections we were working. 40deg is what I heard.
http://arlojeep.com/Trip-Reports//WLRV-LHC-9-22-07/Weberized/IMG_2532_resize.JPG

By far, the parts of the trail closed down were spurs that went no where or spurs that went to the same place another trail went to. This is probably the most notable closure:
http://arlojeep.com/Trip-Reports//WLRV-LHC-9-22-07/Weberized/IMG_2524_resize.JPG

And of course, we got hungry and WLRV was nice enough to provide lunch for everyone:
http://arlojeep.com/Trip-Reports//WLRV-LHC-9-22-07/Weberized/IMG_2513_resize.JPG

http://arlojeep.com/Trip-Reports//WLRV-LHC-9-22-07/Weberized/IMG_2508_resize.JPG

Pics from this year:
http://www.arlojeep.com/Trip-Reports/WLRV-LHC-9-22-07/

Pics from last year:
http://www.arlojeep.com/Trip-Reports/WLVR-LHC-9-23-06/

There will be these restoration projects through the WLRV for MANY years to come as there is a lot of work left to be done up there. Next year, same weekend, same work...try and make it next year folks!

[scottycards]

I've gotta tell you, I'm torn on this one. They sure closed a lot of trail with that project. Some good routes. I've only been going to LHC for about 20 years, and I've seen some good closures that needed to be done, but what I saw yesterday really scared me.

I don't know what to think- keeping people on trials is one thing, closing trails is another. From what I saw up there yesterday, it looks to me like they just closed a lot of trails.
My opinion of "post and cable restoration project" is not what it was prior to yesterday.

One of the best camping spots is now closed, one of the best challenging little sections of trail is now closed, and a whole loop that was a good challenge is also now closed.

Was this "restoration", or was this "significant trail closures- permanently" up there...............?

Sorry to be negative, but I just don't see the value of closing trails and camping spots that have been there for a very long time.............

[ArloGuthroJeep]

Well to be fair, it isn't the WLRV group closing down the areas as far as I know, they are just doing the restoration work. What camping spot are you referring to which is closed? There were a couple spots that had multiple routes to them and were still open, just limited to one entrance. There was one that I was surprised was closed since it didn't appear to have any erosion damage. It shot down to the left and made a loop at the bottom around a couple tree's...

The routes that were closed were user created routes (to the best of my knowledge, all of the numbered routes are still there).

The value to closing the spurs isn't in preventing people from camping in a specific spot, it is in preventing erossion of the hillside which was causing sedimentation of the creeks. They currently have turbidimeters stationed above and below the LHC area to see whether the restoration work on the hill sides is effective or not. The way I am rationalizing it is realizing that not every trail out there is autonomous and either they can be repaired(best case) to be useable to need to be shut down because of simply poor design. From the point of erosion, any trail that shoots straight up a hill side (which is what these were) are bad designs from the POV of water drainage.

:shrug: Or maybe not, one can also take the attitude that any closure is bad even if keeping it open negatively effects others. That view is hard to walk away from (understandable) since that means shutting down some of our own trails:(

One could also look at this from the POV of the USFS investing into this area and as intentions of keeping the area open; instead of shutting it down completely:shrug: *ucking gray areas of life...

[scottycards]

User created routes is a misnomer. How can, by definition, a non-user create a route? ALL of the routes up there are user created.

As for turbidity- it's an off-road area- of course there is going to be sediment that is disturbed, and it's gonna run down the hillside and into the drainage. Trails go UP hills, so to say any trail that runs up a hill is also to say any trail is bad by design. It's probably best to exercise caution, and apply the test of common sense to these situations. What they're telling us is that trails are bad, and they want them closed.

Man, it's concerning to hear people who use these trails starting to buy into the zero-impact idealologies that some groups are starting to apply to our lands.

I see nothing grey here- these routes have been there for years, and now they're closing them under the false guises of erosion and dirt in the streams. The more I think about this, the more concerned I get.

The one camping area I'm referring to is likely the one you're also thinking of, Arlo. Complete BS that it was shut down. I camped there in high school, which was a pretty long time ago, and it looked the same as in high school, up until yesterday.

They need to understand that by closing these routes, they're just pushing the traffic into other areas. The OHV industry is growing, and people aren't just going to park their OHV's in the garage because of a few signs and cables. IMO, they are very likely creating a problem by not allowing access in an area that is already impacted by trails. I don't condone people going elsewhere, and I won't do it myself, but again, common sense dictates that people will just continue to find other (very likely less impacted areas, currently) places to go. In essence, they're just pushing the traffic onto other lands.........

[ArloGuthroJeep]

Well since you sound like you know the area fairly well, why don't you go up and take a look at exactly which spurs were closed down before judging whether it closed down enough to drive users elsewhere? I'll admit, 286C I have never been on (nor did I know it existed) and a couple of the spurs leading from 286C to 286 were shut down.

Edit: Oh, and a user created route is just a nice way of saying a bypass or an illegel route. The forest is no longer an open traval forest (where you can just create routes anywhere you want to) so essentially when that became so, all existing trails were frozen from being created without going through a real trail creation process.

I also said specifically "straight up hill" as opposed to up. Short section can and do go up hill, however an entire trail going straight up is asking for trouble. I want to see Black Bear Pass w/o switchbacks:flipoff2: :D

[vb]

scottycards,

you do a much better job of objecting then i do. its nice to see you ask these questions. they were my point on another post about this project.

i still take objection to what is called "user created"

arlo,

you are incorrect about how the fs views "user created". the fs calls 150 year old roads "user created " and many in the system are gone in 2 years. please believe me on this. i had a meeting last monday with the leaders of the fs in that area.

[ArloGuthroJeep]

You're right, I wasn't saying (or at least I didn't mean to infer) what the FS defines user created as. It was my own definition. Sorry for that confusion.

My personal view is to use old mining roads as a way to get back into historical areas of the back country. I don't see a need for 10 spur routes to get to the same spot the main trail already goes:shrug: I would MUCH rather see a spur route cut off then when I go hiking and notice I am on an old shut down mining road which I was never able to drive.

[vb]

thanks.

as scottycards points out, every road in the system (for the most part) is a user created route. i understand what you are saying about the spurs. i might agree on some. i also do like the idea of loops and alternatives. in an OHV area, i expect to have alternatives. when this is all done there will be 286 and a few opertunities for quads and dirt bikes. thats it.

the odoption of the terms and spin promoted by the antis is the nails that are killing us. im asking folks to stand up and say "no, im not buyin it" "show me", etc......

just something like adopting "user created" as being something negitive and to be closed leaves every road in the forrest on the chopping block. "user created is not, by itself, a negitive

same goes for sediment, erosion, etc.. the talk of "sustainable"? its totally subjective. please reconcider excepting their terms

[ArloGuthroJeep]

Just for a point of reference on where I come from...I worked for Mountain Parks for a few years maintaining & building hiking trails and saw just as much erosion damage from hikers who cut trails. Every group out there has their problem routes.

[scottycards]

vb-
I owe you an apology, as I kinda got into it with you in another thread awhile back, and I realize I got the wrong impression. I now understand that you're well versed in these situations, and again, I apologize.

Arlo- I did go up there. I checked it out. I just think we're on different ends of the opinion spectrum regarding this issue. I'm in favor of wheeling, spur routes for varying levels of challenge, and the LHC area is not one to go for scenic backroad tours, like the Ouray area- it's an area where people can go to challenge their rigs. I also understand that you're not really into rockcrawling, so possibly there's a disconnect in that regard, because your goals when running trails may be different from mine.

But I will keep in mind, and make sure to let others know my experience when someone posts up on this forum that there's a "restoration" project planned. I'll be sure to chime in, and cite the numerous routes that were closed this weekend.

I felt deceived, and I also felt that the information posted was not accurate with regards to the scope of the project/closing of trails.

[ArloGuthroJeep]

I enjoy rock crawling...49% rock crawling, 51% scenery :D It isn't a secret which routes will be closed. Attend the BRD OHV meeting this Thursday @ 5pm at the BRD FS office;) It isn't really fair to complain if you don't bother attempting to inform yourself at the source...

[jimfoo]

Just some of my thoughts since I worked on this as well. Now I have only driven LHC once and Carnage once, so I don't know what the trails were like back in the day. The way I see most of the closed off routes, they were created because someone drove the trail and it wasn't hard or exciting enough for them, so they decided to see if they could drive up this hill or that hill, where if they wanted more challenge, they should have just gone elsewhere where the trail was harder to begin with. The only campsite I saw was by where 286C forked off. It may have been temporarily closed until cable was placed, but was remaining open according to the ranger. Some of the trails closed off, the ones going straight up, were stupid trails in the first place and would have ended up eroding so much that people would have had to create parallel roads to keep going up the same way.. I didn't see every spur trail that was closed, but I didn't see anything wrong with the ones that were. If the FS is having a hard time maintaining trails, it is far easier for them to maintain the one trail than the 10 newly created routes and the main trail, especially if the 10 newly created ones are going to get the crap dug or eroded out of them. Don't get me wrong thought. I don't like closing trails, especially valid ones. Or closing trails in burn areas then not reopening them, like Top of the World. Although I have yet to be asked to help since I signed up, I have volunteered to help reopen Hackett and Longwater. Well, I'm starting to ramble a little, so I'll just shut up now.

[vb]

scottycards,

you've done a great job of describing this. thanks for the apology. im glad that youre here!

arlo,

attending thos meetings still does not fully inform. you get information on the need to know basis, and its dictated to you, and never fully givin. those meeting should be about setting the brd on notice and getting what we want, not what the antis want.

i fear that you are too close to the oposition.


and yes, i know that i come across harsh. im tired of the closers and the lies and deception on the part of the fs. ive been around too long and have been deeply involved for many years at a much higher level the yourself.

[vb]

Just some of my thoughts since I worked on this as well. Now I have only driven LHC once and Carnage once, so I don't know what the trails were like back in the day. The way I see most of the closed off routes, they were created because someone drove the trail and it wasn't hard or exciting enough for them, so they decided to see if they could drive up this hill or that hill, where if they wanted more challenge, they should have just gone elsewhere where the trail was harder to begin with. The only campsite I saw was by where 286C forked off. It may have been temporarily closed until cable was placed, but was remaining open according to the ranger. Some of the trails closed off,

the ones going straight up, were stupid trails in the first place and would have ended up eroding so much that people would have had to create parallel roads to keep going up the same way.. subjective statement. stupid to you maybe. you are predicting what you "think" might happen at some later date, not a fact. and the intire statment is the words of the anti crowd.





I didn't see every spur trail that was closed, but I didn't see anything wrong with the ones that were. If the FS is having a hard time maintaining trails, it is far easier for them to maintain the one trail than the 10 newly created routes and the main trail, especially if the 10 newly created ones are going to get the crap dug or eroded out of them. the fs does not maintain trails other then by closer. they no longer get out there and work. too hard. too much red tape. it is far preferable to them to close every thing. stop this madness and tell them "no more"






Don't get me wrong thought. I don't like closing trails, especially valid ones. validity is in the mind of the fs and has nothing to do with law or anything other the their own personal preference. again, another term adopted and not questioned. its subjective to the whim of the lead rangers. and thats it. in an OHV area i would think that any and all routes have a valid use if it gives the users a route to travel. regardless of where the route goes.



Or closing trails in burn areas then not reopening them, like Top of the World. Although I have yet to be asked to help since I signed up, I have volunteered to help reopen Hackett and Longwater. Well, I'm starting to ramble a little, so I'll just shut up now.


please rethink your position

[ArloGuthroJeep]

Wow, Vern just labeled me a greenie:eek: :rolleyes:

[vb]

not exactly:cool:

[Red_Chili]

The first time I went to LH it was such an armpit I thought I would NEVER return. People driving everywhere, straight up hills that were gouged beyond belief, it was a nightmare. And heavy rains washed all that right into Jamestown's water supply. It was not gray area at all. It was off the charts. A free for all.

The last time I was there it was like a different place. I have issues with the BRD, but their treatment of LH is amazing in that they have not simply shut the &@##@$% place down. I'm not sure I wouldn't have.

When we get the work packages defined in doable chunks and the grants written, the rock crawl area is gonna be way cool, as well as the trials loop for bikes. BRD has agreed not to close Carnage before opening the new routes, another amazing thing.

These are the sorts of pieces of information dictated to us on a need to know basis at the BRD OHV meetings.

Guess that colors me green.:cool:

[EEJEEP]

VB, I see you criticize people?s efforts, but rarely offer what you think us wheeler should be doing. What is your solution? The only think I can glen out of your replies is the do nothing approach. I want to get my hands dirty doing some volunteer work, but I don?t want to be chastised by the 4-wheeling community because many think the work is wasted.

[jimfoo]

Originally Posted by jimfoo View Post
Just some of my thoughts since I worked on this as well. Now I have only driven LHC once and Carnage once, so I don't know what the trails were like back in the day. The way I see most of the closed off routes, they were created because someone drove the trail and it wasn't hard or exciting enough for them, so they decided to see if they could drive up this hill or that hill, where if they wanted more challenge, they should have just gone elsewhere where the trail was harder to begin with. The only campsite I saw was by where 286C forked off. It may have been temporarily closed until cable was placed, but was remaining open according to the ranger. Some of the trails closed off,

the ones going straight up, were stupid trails in the first place and would have ended up eroding so much that people would have had to create parallel roads to keep going up the same way.. subjective statement. stupid to you maybe. you are predicting what you "think" might happen at some later date, not a fact. and the intire statment is the words of the anti crowd. It is a fact. just look how some of the other areas already closed off are now 5' deep ditches.





I didn't see every spur trail that was closed, but I didn't see anything wrong with the ones that were. If the FS is having a hard time maintaining trails, it is far easier for them to maintain the one trail than the 10 newly created routes and the main trail, especially if the 10 newly created ones are going to get the crap dug or eroded out of them. the fs does not maintain trails other then by closer. they no longer get out there and work. too hard. too much red tape. it is far preferable to them to close every thing. stop this madness and tell them "no more"They were up there helping when I was there. It's just that one ranger and a few helpers have an entire forest to cover. They can only do a tiny bit.






Don't get me wrong thought. I don't like closing trails, especially valid ones. validity is in the mind of the fs and has nothing to do with law or anything other the their own personal preference. again, another term adopted and not questioned. its subjective to the whim of the lead rangers. and thats it. in an OHV area i would think that any and all routes have a valid use if it gives the users a route to travel. regardless of where the route goes.I agree that some rangers are far too close happy as opposed to others. There should be some oversight in my opinion, and a standard, not just "I don't like people driving here, so I am going to close the trails."



Or closing trails in burn areas then not reopening them, like Top of the World. Although I have yet to be asked to help since I signed up, I have volunteered to help reopen Hackett and Longwater. Well, I'm starting to ramble a little, so I'll just shut up now.
please rethink your position
The problem is that if people didn't tear the crap out of areas, the greenies would never have had a leg to stand on. What about the far left route on Poughkeepsie? That never used to be there. Now it's 3 feet deep and getting deeper. I don't like trails that have been around for a long time getting closed, but with exceptions, I don't think people should be able to drive where ever they want. There are a lot more people out driving than there were 20 years ago. Back then if someone went driving off somewhere, you probably would have never not=iced. Now do it and hundreds of people will follow you. The thing I don't like is that they do close good trails, some for BS reasons, some not, but how many times do they ever open a new trail. At least the BLM allows trails to be created. I agree that with more people out and about we need more trails, not less. But we need trails that will be around for a long time, not ones that will be washed out or dug up in 10 years.

[Red_Chili]

The problem is that if people didn't tear the crap out of areas, the greenies would never have had a leg to stand on. ... I agree that with more people out and about we need more trails, not less. But we need trails that will be around for a long time, not ones that will be washed out or dug up in 10 years.
And that there, is the balanced approach we need to take. Along with responsibility for having created the impetus for closure in the first place. Well said.

The BRD is trying to keep LH open in part to contain the impact - they know that if they close it, all the crap (and I could use stronger terms) will spread to other remaining areas that will be destroyed. It's a negative perspective on a larger problem, close more trails and the increasing usage will be concentrated on a smaller footprint, with a greater ecological impact.

But leave the trails alone, let them go to hell, and you haven't done any better. That's the balancing act.

[scottycards]

The problem is that if people didn't tear the crap out of areas, the greenies would never have had a leg to stand on...... I agree that with more people out and about we need more trails, not less. But we need trails that will be around for a long time, not ones that will be washed out or dug up in 10 years.

X2. Well stated, 'foo! :)

[wileec]

I need to head up there again. It has been a long time, but like Scottycards wwe used to go up there in HS more years ago than I want to know about, but at that time there was no closures except for a few switchback shortcuts just past what once was called the "meadow" This was when Carnage was a motocycle trials coarse (only 1 track). We had trouble getting a YZ up it and never even though of a jeep.

[ArloGuthroJeep]

VB, I see you criticize people?s efforts, but rarely offer what you think us wheeler should be doing. What is your solution? The only think I can glen out of your replies is the do nothing approach. I want to get my hands dirty doing some volunteer work, but I don?t want to be chastised by the 4-wheeling community because many think the work is wasted.

Well vb, going to answer his question?

[vb]

Originally Posted by EEJEEP http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.colorado4x4.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=886327#post886327)
VB, I see you criticize people?s efforts, but rarely offer what you think us wheeler should be doing. What is your solution? The only think I can glen out of your replies is the do nothing approach. I want to get my hands dirty doing some volunteer work, but I don?t want to be chastised by the 4-wheeling community because many think the work is wasted.



i dont agree that i am critizes peoples efforts.
and i do offer what i think us wheelers should be doing. i think that ya'll need to re-read my post. i think its great that folks want to get involved. i think that to adopt the position of the folks that do not want vehicles in the woods is a mistake. to close and not add doesnt seem to me to be headed in a good dirrection. the antis meet the fs in the courts, i think thats where the good or the bad is done. excepting spin and subjective points of view as fact is not good in my mind.
i have no clue where this poster gets the do nothing approach from my post. it seems to me that hes just talking with no understanding.

as far as chastizing and wasted work: this thread is an example of different perspectives. scottycards feels mislead etc...... arloguthrojeep and some others feel that the OHV area needs to be limited to just a couple of roads. i think that one of the problems for anyone trying to effect change in the OHV community is that its so hard to get action or involvement out of the OHV community in general. the orgs that do try to get into the courts dont have the resourses to effect change like the antis. is it a waste to close trails? not if you hate the use of vehicles in the woods. is it a good idea to try to suck up to those that want you out of the woods? is it a good idea to continue to throw money and time at "reclaimation" and not toward adding new trails to the area? my own thought is that its not.

im not clear what eejeep is asking. it looks to me as though hes more interested in slaming me than anything, since his remarks dont resemble my posts.

i hope that what is understood from me is that ive been there, done that, tried it, found it lacking. the nature of the folks in the fs and the brd in particular is not toward the motorized crowd. the action that id like to recommend to folks is to tell the fs that enough is enough. look on the topic at all the different ways that motorized is being addressed and assulted. there is a large picture here. the plan is already made. the phasing out of motorized use has been going on since 76. the last little bit has been set up carfully and is being implimented. the only way to have any place to go is to fight for those last crumbs. we take a limited amount of money from the OHV registrations and put that toward the projects of the antis? lets add some milage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lets keep some places!!!!!!!!!! there is nothing wrong with deep ruts. just because they are deep ruts. there is nothing wrong with driving in mud and streams. grass and bushes and trees grow back at alarming rates. heck, the first restoration phase, whatever seeds the wlrv folks provided were weed seeds. talk about a mess!!!!!!!!

ever look at the press releases? its wlrv.... not the trailridgerunners. the trr folks deserve the credit. maybe just a minor point . but, ed makes it no secret that he hates motorized. he uses us to transport and uses our labor to eventualy rid the woods of us.

this is a small portion of my rant but im sure itll be enough. i dont see the question as one really wanting a real answer but more just a taunt

[vb]

this is how much clout the antis have and how scared and goofy the fs is.

a micro burst comes along and levels thousands of log pole in route national. it happens in a wilderness or wilderness study area (there is no destinction between the two in reality) the trees are limbed (for the most part) and stacked by the wind. all that needs to happen is to scoop the trees up and put em on trucks. the fs anounces plans to do just that. the antis take em to court. noone can even start a chain saw. the trees are to be left where they fall. the resulted pine beetle haven is the place where [(all)please disregard this word] the pine bettle problems originated from! so today the pine bettle kill that everyone is talking about is the complaint that i had the day the courts stopped any action to remove all the downed trees. the fs is that scared of the antis. they are no where near that scared of the motorized crowd. untill we fight the same way, we are kidding our selves. the red tape the keeps the fs bound is the result of the antis. we need to have that same leverage, to force the fs to tell the antis to drop dead and let the fs "manage" the resourses. management is not about leaving the forrest as kindling ready to be set ablaze. management is about cutting timber that is ready to harvest and using that timber. its not about just letting things burn!

when you all are ready to cut locks and sit in front of equipment and climb trees to save them and resist arrest and do the civil disobeidance thing as the anti activist, then we have something. when you are ready to stake everything on the idea of liberty and not license to get into the kings forrest then we might have something to discuss. over the years ive done exactly that. taking a weekend day to volunteer is great but its like giving a couple hours to protect the alamo.

[Steve]

the trees are to be left where they fall. the resulted pine beetle haven is the place where all of the pine bettle problems originated from!

Dude, the pine beetle problem statewide did not all come from the downed trees in the Routt National Forest. I understand what you're trying to say, but you gotta get a bit more credible with the stuff you post or nobody's gonna believe you.

[vb]

Dude, the pine beetle problem statewide did not all come from the downed trees in the Routt National Forest. I understand what you're trying to say, but you gotta get a bit more credible with the stuff you post or nobody's gonna believe you.


so, because you "say" that that is not where the problem came from, we are to believe that you know something????


where do you "think" the problem came from and why? show us

i remember well the descussions at the time about exactly that. lets examine the pattern of infestation. and see where the highest consentrations are. how many years do you spoze it takes the bettles to move?


heres a place to start http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/mbr/resources/BarkBeetles/index.shtml

check the time line for the increase, and the build up of response. i still believe that im correct. show me where you find your informayion. your credibilty aint all that good with just your statement


id call special attention to the mention of old dense forrest. seems that my claim to improper management and letting the forrest get out of hand seems to sit well.

[vb]

another one of my points is that i refuse to call the antis anything resembling environmental or green. they are niether. the agenda has nothing to do with evironment except that they cry environment to get the legislation that they want. their end result has been a disaster in sooooo many ways.

[Steve]

so, because you "say" that that is not where the problem came from, we are to believe that you know something????

Nope, there's more than enough info out there about the pine beetle problem, and it's easy to find. Does leaving deadfall on the ground make it worse? Without a doubt, yes. Would there still be pine beetles in CO killing pine trees if the blowdown had been cleared out or never even happened? Without a doubt, yes.

Making over-the-top claims about how the entire beetle problem is because of the blowdown in the Routt National Forest is no different than the over-the-top claims the anti-access groups make with little or no facts to back them up.

[Steve]

another one of my points is that i refuse to call the antis anything resembling environmental or green. they are niether. the agenda has nothing to do with evironment except that they cry environment to get the legislation that they want. their end result has been a disaster in sooooo many ways.

I agree with you 100% on this point.

[vb]

ok, so i should remove the word all. id agree to that.

[EEJEEP]

i dont agree that i am critizes peoples efforts.


Maybe "maybe critizes peoples efforts" wasn't the most tactful statement. I should have said disagree with peoples efforts without offering an alternative.


and i do offer what i think us wheelers should be doing.

I tend to disagree. Your post are very typical very cryptic. It is very hard to figure out what kind of action the average joe can do to help out.


i think that ya'll need to re-read my post. i think its great that folks want to get involved. i think that to adopt the position of the folks that do not want vehicles in the woods is a mistake. to close and not add doesnt seem to me to be headed in a good dirrection. the antis meet the fs in the courts, i think thats where the good or the bad is done. excepting spin and subjective points of view as fact is not good in my mind.
i have no clue where this poster gets the do nothing approach from my post. it seems to me that hes just talking with no understanding.



Your right I don't understand, but I am starting to understand where you are coming from now. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to work with BRD because it can be perceived as helping out restricting access, but you still didn't offer an alternative. I guess what I am looking for is you saying something like "I think your volunteer efforts would have been better utilized helping out with... alternative A, or B, or C and this is why." To me if someone is going to say "you shouldn't do that", then offer a different solution.


as far as chastizing and wasted work: this thread is an example of different perspectives. scottycards feels mislead etc...... arloguthrojeep and some others feel that the OHV area needs to be limited to just a couple of roads. i think that one of the problems for anyone trying to effect change in the OHV community is that its so hard to get action or involvement out of the OHV community in general. the orgs that do try to get into the courts dont have the resourses to effect change like the antis. is it a waste to close trails? not if you hate the use of vehicles in the woods. is it a good idea to try to suck up to those that want you out of the woods? is it a good idea to continue to throw money and time at "reclaimation" and not toward adding new trails to the area? my own thought is that its not.


Again can you offer a better alternative. If working on reclaimation projects isn't the best option, then what else can I do?????



im not clear what eejeep is asking. it looks to me as though hes more interested in slaming me than anything, since his remarks dont resemble my posts.


Can you offer some suggestions of where our time and money would be better spend to help open access rather than close it? Incorrect, I am not trying to slam you, but trying to get you to offer more suggestions.


i hope that what is understood from me is that ive been there, done that, tried it, found it lacking.


If you been there and done that, they tell us what kind of projects work inorder to open access rather than close it.


the nature of the folks in the fs and the brd in particular is not toward the motorized crowd. the action that id like to recommend to folks is to tell the fs that enough is enough. look on the topic at all the different ways that motorized is being addressed and assulted. there is a large picture here. the plan is already made. the phasing out of motorized use has been going on since 76. the last little bit has been set up carfully and is being implimented. the only way to have any place to go is to fight for those last crumbs.


Again, how do we fight for the last crumbs? What can the average joe wheeler do?


we take a limited amount of money from the OHV registrations and put that toward the projects of the antis? lets add some milage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lets keep some places!!!!!!!!!!

Again IYO, how do we do this?


i dont see the question as one really wanting a real answer but more just a taunt

Wrong, I just want to you to post some alternative activites.

[EEJEEP]

when you all are ready to cut locks and sit in front of equipment and climb trees to save them and resist arrest and do the civil disobeidance thing as the anti activist, then we have something. when you are ready to stake everything on the idea of liberty and not license to get into the kings forrest then we might have something to discuss. over the years ive done exactly that. taking a weekend day to volunteer is great but its like giving a couple hours to protect the alamo.

This is more of what I was looking for, but a little extreme for most. I kinda of see now why your are a little secretive on the internet.

So, when is the next sit in at the FS service offices? :D