I am very curious as to how the members of this BB feel about this:


"The Bush administration, is about to hand a big victory to Westerners who want to use a post-Civil War-era law to punch dirt-bike trails and roads into the backcountry. "

"Untallied thousands of miles of long-abandoned wagon roads, cattle paths, Jeep trails and miners' routes potentially could be transformed into roads -- some of them paved. Many crisscross national parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas."


IMHO it would be kool if there was a practical vehicle available that emitted no nasty stuff, i.e. carbon monoxide, oil, noise, heat/sparks etc.

Bush opens up backcountry trails to vehicles

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/102348_roads01.shtml

RRR,

There already is a practical vehicle that emits no "nasty stuff" and works really well on backcountry roads. It's called a mountain bike.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

SO TRUE!!

Well over here on the west end we have put in over thirty miles of trails for quads and whatever else that will fit down these 48" trails. This is all volunteer work. Through both private and forest service. We put bridges across streams to protect fish runs. Was riding up on the North Fork of the Calawah today and saw hundreds of silvers spawning. If it wasn't for the trails that the North Fork Trail Brigade has made the fishery departments wouldn't be able to get up and check on red counts. Plus it is a way that puts access to thousands of acres of land in case of wildfires. These trails that they are talking about have to be made by hand and they wont be any asphalt on them. You have to keep the wild as wild as possible. They would be like the trails you hike on say,"In the Park on the Upper Hoh." It will have very little impact on anything environmental. Take a look at some pictures from the old days and see what they looked like then. It was disgusting. People changed with the times and they only want to be able to use the lands they pay for. So I think it is a great idea that our President Bush has decided on.

No way. This is an end run around the no logging in roadless forests. They are now trying to say that old trails made by miners are "routes" which are "roads". Therefore these aren't roadless wilderness areas and should be opened up for.....logging and mining. Oh, and of course for snowmobilers and off roaders whom this administration really couldn't care less about.

did someone say wildnerness=wasteland

I'm sure glad I wasted my vote on someone else. I didn't vote for this idiot. Every time he opens his mouth he tends to put his foot in it. As far as I can see he hasn't come thru on anything that you all voted him in for. And all he wants to do is talk war. Now that being said,does anybody know where all the Steelhead are.

I am all for getting more land opened up for quads and anythign else that can make us of the trails. Pat, how can i get in on helping to build trails?

I guess I'll say a word for the other side...

I strongly dislike the use of quads, snowmobiles and dirt bikes in the wilderness. IMHO, it takes away from everyone elses experience having to hear other people's toys- not to mention the huge environmental impact it has on the land.

As a final death blow as I'm sure very few agree with my views.. it should be illegal to hunt big game from quads unless you are handicapped. If you're too lazy to hike for your trophy, don't leave camp.

I don't ride to hunt, I ride for fun. There is nothing wrong with wanting a little more land to ride on. More and more gates go up resulting in less room to ride, I don't see any problem with some more unused land being opened up. Riding out in the woods doesn't hurt the animals as much as people think. I have been riding around with a herd of elk in the area for about a week and i dont seem to bother them too much. From what i have noticed, the majority of people that do not want land opened up, are people that do not ride.

Ol Man -- Well said, the man appears to be an idiot, as evident from our economy, lack of foreign policy, alienating most every nation, not to mention his single-minded pursuit of war w/Iraq while ignoring other nations (N. Korea, India, Pakistan etc) that are at least as threatening to peace and stability. Oh, yeah, and perhaps worst of all is his attitude and actions on environmental issues! OOPS!! This IS a fishing bb, isn't it?

CWUg -- Couldn't agree with you more!!

Josh -- I gotta disagree w/ya. I like to ride whether it's quads or dirt bikes.

I don't like what they do to trails, and I certainly don't like the noise.

On the flip side they sure are nice to get ya way up river, especially w/my bad knees.

Thanx fer the responses.

Take care

Sincerely,
Roger

What you see as "unused land" I see as wilderness that should be protected and cherished as a resource that is deminishing by the day. I'd much rather have it "unused" than land tarnished by motorized vehicles. Nothing I like to see more than those "no unauthorized vehicles beyond this" signs...

There is another perfectly practical "vehicle" than emits nothing nasty that isn't at least organic, and that's the good ol' horse. That's the only "vehicle" ever used on most of these pioneer "roads" the shrub is talking about. They are already allowed in wilderness areas on some, not all, trails. There is nothing better for getting that float tube into the only pristine fly fishing left on earth. Modern vehicles have no business being in these areas - it would then no longer be wilderness. But that's exactly what the agenda is - open it up for vehicles first and commercial resource exploitation is right around the corner.

This warmongering idiot has already ruined the economy and is rapidly working on ruining the environment. I didn't vote for the shrub and neither did the majority of Americans. Yet we got him. Free country, majority rules? Tell me another more believable tale like a fish story about the big one that got away (gotta make it fishing related)

I've never seen a trail that a dirt bike, jeep, quad or even a horse improved.

The gates aren't locked cause the timber companys are trying to protect the game.

They would just as soon the state kept its deer, elk, and bear off of their land, they damage and destroy a lot of product.

I know there are many (maybe the majority)
of riders who respect the wilderness but ,vandalism and destruction of equipment and product goes way down when the users have to walk.

I'd like to see the trails built , but not paved.
I,d also like to see the maintenance of them turned over to the users of them, ie leave it nicer or at least as nice as when you found it.

I've riddin dirt bike and rode in jeeps and on quads and snowmobiles, thats not gonna be the case if they are allowed on the trails.

IMHO!

herm

Fisrst of all, you that didn't vote for Bush voted for that other idiot. He would of been no better. Second why not open up a little area for people to ride and enjoy the outdoors in their own way. Not everyone fishes or hunts or birdwatches. Riding is a way out to some folks. If we wanted to preserve this area we would of stopped californians from overpopulating us years ago. That is the biggest problem we have to date.( too many darn people in this state)

I absolutely disagree. We wouldn't be on the verge of war...Iraq, Korea, another cold war. When the fake energy crisis happened Gore would have stepped in immediately. Bush could have done so but refused to. There would have been no Klamath fish kill. Clean air and water laws would be safe. Our national forests would be much better off. The EPA would actually mean what the letters stand for. Our tax dollars wouldn't be going to "faith based" groups. We would still have foreign relations. We wouldn't be spending trillions on a missile defense system that does not work. There's too much to list and it's only been two years. What is this guy capable of in another two? It's all coming down fast while the sheep are worried about their jobs and war.

Why don't you tell us how you reall feel stlhed?


herm

CWUgirl, I can kind of see where you are coming from. But intead of protecting and preserving that land, why not just conserve it? Building trails that make sure that the land is conserved like Pat was talking about would cut back on "destroying" the land. That way everyone could get use out of it. Not just the bike and horse riders.

I'll come back one more time and then say no more. Do you ever drive that road from Goldbar to Index thru the woods. It used to be dirt/gravel and now it's paved. Now it gets much more used than before. And as for quads and other moterized vehicles. The woods in that area are shot as there are deep ruts going thru the woods and when it rains the water runs down these ruts and washes all of the top soil off. And now that it's paved the people that dump their garbage in the wood have more places to dump now.

No I'm against opening the woods up to every Tom, Dick,Or Harry To spread their garbage around.

My problem with is is why open up Wilderness areas so people can go puttzing around on their quads? The forest service is blocking off and tearing up all kinds of roads due to the maintenance costs and erosion.
Why not put the trails on this land?

And you know as well as I do that some yay-hoo is gonna go tearing everything up and not stick on the trails. Why do you think all those gates are going up everywhere? It was your people that caused it. Not that you act like them but if you'd do more self-policing of them you'd have more places to ride.
All it takes is a couple bad apples.

Old man you and Sinker said it much better than I did!

Good Job to uou both!

It seems a bit silly that so many of you are so opposed to any kind of vehicle access to any forests when most, if not all, of you have not acknowledged the parrallel to using vehicles on our prestine rivers, lakes, estuaries, and other sensitive aquatic areas. Would there be an uproar on this board if boating access to our favorite spots was threatened by government bureaucrats?
This debate is like so many others where I find do-gooders in public office coming up with regulations that punish everyone for the negligent actions of a few.
If we, as folks that have a love affair with the outdoors, were more proactive in keeping the deviants from ruining it for all, such as the wonderful clean-up at Blue Creek ( ), we would not need Aunt Sam to lock us in our room until we promise to be good.

I agree with some of the thoughts in this thread.

I thought I'd add to the commotion a little and maybe even see if I could get "flamed" on this one...

The shrub is good for nothing...that being said - lets move on

I go jeepin as well as fish. What differentiates me from the Tom, Dick, and Harry is that when we do go out in the woods, whatever I bring or anyone else in our club brings gets packed out - NO EXCUSES. I know this is a far cry from the average land abuser. Also, by being in an organized club with other inspired off-roaders, we often get other clubs together and maintain many of the established off-roading areas. Yes, this does mean we pickup a LOT of trash. Another thing we do is maintain the trail system out there. Folks, I'm here to tell you - many times this means some serious physical labor building/repairing bridges, trails and lavatory facilities. I can't beleive some of the damage I've seen - caused by a bunch of idiots.
We do this primarily because if we didn't DNR would shut down those trails and there would be nothing but "outlaw" 4 wheelin left. MOST of us beleive in "Treading Lightly" - and not ruining the outdoors so our kids or others can enjoy it as well.

So, while I may not agree with Dubya on this one, heck - I dont agree with anything he's done, it only takes a few bad apples to mess the whole thing up and give us a bad name.

IMO, they shouldn't be opening up any more land to ORV'ers until today's issues of vandalism, dumping garbage, and destruction by jerks is dealt with.

so - have fun, be safe, and flame away...

This isn't about trails for offroaders or snowmobilers. It isn't about state claims. It is about suing states and the federal government for the right to mine and log in otherwise inaccessible areas. This will give industry that ammunition.

"And in Alaska, the state government contends that even some section lines -- the imaginary grid that marks off every square mile in the nation -- are subject to the provision and can be claimed as roads. Until now, proving that would likely have involved an arduous legal battle."

"But under the new policy, if states, counties or others are able to establish a network of legally recognized "highways" through those acres -- even if the highways are dirt roads or something less -- it would give those fighting the so-called "roadless" proposal ammunition."

In a nut shell if you can show that a couple of miners made a small trail, even if it was a hundred or more years ago, then you can sue to have that area opened up because it is no longer considered roadless.

I just started using a quad 2 yrs ago, am disabled, some, but still hiked the last few hundred yards in to area. Hurt like hell, but did it. Got a 6x5 bull was a pleasure, and my son and I try not to infringe on others hunting, only to have motorcycles run thru the meadows ri9ght at shooting time. Have been on both ends, but am very grateful for the ability to use this mode of trans. now-otherwise my hunting would be very restricted.USFS can't keep up the roads they have now-not to worry about new ones