SummitPost.org

MikeTX wrote:I'd rather places be restricted to a few roads only accessible by FS employees than left open for developers to litter the area with shopping malls and condos.

...Or sold to mining and gas companies. Let see the general public get to use the land when its got a shopping mall or an oil derrick on it.

MikeTX wrote:edit: kinda ironic that the architect and the civil engineer are here arguing FOR preservation:)

I know, kind of funny huh? I guess we will never be rich that way

Dingus.....

Thank you for pointing out the fact that the BLM had no legal authority to close that road.

It's the loss of basic freedom that I hate.

If we allow our government to run us over without the law being followed where will it end?

So Dingus I see it like this......

"when they came for my neighbors gun, I said nothing".... in fact I cheered.

"when they came for my neighbors ATV, I said nothing".... I cheered.

"when they closed that road and told me - "you cant go there" ..... I ?????????

"when I asked why?" .....

I was arrested for being a terrorist.

We all have a right to live under the Law.

The government should at least follow the law, heck they make the rules, they should at least follow it.

gk

Guyzo wrote:The government should at least follow the law, heck they make the rules, they should at least follow it.

Yup.

Guyzo, I'd be curious about the place you're talking about. Is it indeed
1) a federally designated wilderness
2) with non-emergency use of motorized and/or wheeled vehicles by the government?

Motorized SAR is allowed in a federal wilderness but not even the government is supposed to use motors or wheels in non-emergency settings.

[A few sites are exceptions by rule -- Cabeza Prieta NWR is a designated wilderness that allows motorized use by the Border Patrol, for example, by statute.]

Art......

For starters, The east bank of the South Fork of the Kern river.

BITD..... about 10,000 cattle roamed around along with the small ranches, this was the access to the Domeland wilderness. Now the boundary is 8 - 9 miles back from the river. Dirt roads cris cross the arid landscape, the scars of cattle ranching are everywhere. If you wish to go it's a long walk and even farther to the Domelands. One thing you will notice is the tire tracks on the dirt roads, seems like the rangers get to use cars and trucks to get around, but NOT you.

I think it's stupid to try to return to the wild state what is no longer wild.

GK

When the snow melts.....

Dingus.... I agree that in some cases returning a place to a wild state is a good cause.

I could get behind the effort, if it was not so one sided.

Regular users never get to go to the "meetings" because the feds hold them at ridicules times, 10.30 am on a Wednesday, in Trona....... is not going to be well attended by the weekend users, who have jobs.

I don't think it is an oversight by the managers, it is on purpose.

And how about all the recent "closures". Closures that have been implemented without any input from us.

Williamson Rock. Closed so they can do a study.... but its been what, 6 years, and still no study.

Closing down the Hermit to all climbing activities with out any real scientific studies is just wrong.

Next it will be the Needles, one biologist and a ranger, have the power to shut that down.

I don't recall ever voting to give the NPS or the FS the power over our land and it's use.

Just saying, love the discussion.

gk

Guyzo wrote:BITD..... about 10,000 cattle roamed around along with the small ranches, this was the access to the Domeland wilderness. Now the boundary is 8 - 9 miles back from the river. Dirt roads cris cross the arid landscape, the scars of cattle ranching are everywhere. If you wish to go it's a long walk and even farther to the Domelands. One thing you will notice is the tire tracks on the dirt roads, seems like the rangers get to use cars and trucks to get around, but NOT you.

If that's the case, then it's not the rangers.

Grazing is an allowable use of a wilderness. I don't approve, but it was a key compromise in 1964.

Holders of grazing allotments have some rights to use motorized vehicles. For example, they can haul supplies to repair fences. (Ironically, the forest rangers would not be allowed to do this to repair government property, in my understanding.)

So if my interpretation is right -- and I don't know the location so I could be wrong -- those aren't government rangers destroying the land, those are private ranchers with allotments *legally* destroying the land.

Take it up with Congress. It's a dumb outcome IMHO.

For me it's any place where the trail has run out, you haven't seen anyone for at least 3 days, and if you don't have a map and compass, you may never find your way back.

chicagotransplant wrote:

MikeTX wrote:I'd rather places be restricted to a few roads only accessible by FS employees than left open for developers to litter the area with shopping malls and condos.

...Or sold to mining and gas companies. Let see the general public get to use the land when its got a shopping mall or an oil derrick on it.

Agreed with both of you. Restrictions and fees can be a pain in the ass, and sometimes wilderness or monument or whatever designation attracts more people, but I'd rather put up with all those things than see the land be "developed" or otherwise trashed.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but SPers have pretty high standards for what it takes to be wilderness.

A friend said, "any place where the animals are in charge." She explicitly mentioned Alberta Falls (RMNP), which I don't think any of us would include.