SnoFalls
Well-Known Member
I for one like that there is "another" voice than that of pnw4wda.
I suspect that the mud4funtoy grassroots appeal will have as much (or more) impact than *just* the pnw4wda.
So, "divided we fall" ... perhaps
Or, "United we must" ... but not only via pnw4wda it appears
Don't get me wrong. If the *only* voice being heard is pnw4wda, at least that is some voice that gets heard. In cases where that's the only voice, at least it's something, and better than nothing (and why I support pnw4wda for what they attempt to do).
Then again it's becoming obvious that the pnw4wda isn't speaking for everyone.
I keep hearing about the "past" accomplishments of the pnw4wda, but that's the past. The statement of "you would have nothing if it wasn't for us" is valid, but what is the future?
So, what about the future? With all the changes going on with the USFS and DNR today, why not push for *more* ORV areas?
I for one am glad to see a grassroots organization happening.
If mud4funtoy can get an "organization" of people formed without "dues", isn't that as effective as (or even better than) the pnw4wda organization? I think all would agree that 100 phone calls (or hundreds more) to a DNR rep are probably something that will be considered as much, or more, than one pnw4wda "rep". Sadly it seems to only happen when a "firestorm" occurs (and no one would even know about it if it wasn't for the pnw4wda).
Personnally, I'd like to see some organization take on the offensive! I do NOT see the pnw4wda doing this (and sure nuf no-one else). If the pnw4wda is going to step up and go "offensive" GREAT!!! Otherwise we can all sit and watch this defensive stance of "well, we just have to bend over because nancy says so".
One part of the underlying problems is the fact there are so few usage areas for ORV users (4wd, atvs, etc). The "over use" of the few areas causes much of the problems the DNR and USFS sees.
Just a FYI, some of the foot trails along I90 are also feeling the "over use" problem (yuppers, foot traffic can cause trail erosion). And, yuppers there are foot trails being discussed as being "restricted". Ya know what the USFS is considering a solution to rectify that ... they'll ADD trails!
Wouldn't that suck if suddenly some of the FS roads they want to abandon could become ORV use only. Also, how many thousnads of acre of DNR land could be considered for ORV use?.
Ya wanna fix the problem with busywild? Here's a thought, open up other areas for people to use so they don;t *have* to try to fit their rig down one of the only trails in the south sound.
I suspect that the mud4funtoy grassroots appeal will have as much (or more) impact than *just* the pnw4wda.
So, "divided we fall" ... perhaps
Or, "United we must" ... but not only via pnw4wda it appears
Don't get me wrong. If the *only* voice being heard is pnw4wda, at least that is some voice that gets heard. In cases where that's the only voice, at least it's something, and better than nothing (and why I support pnw4wda for what they attempt to do).
Then again it's becoming obvious that the pnw4wda isn't speaking for everyone.
I keep hearing about the "past" accomplishments of the pnw4wda, but that's the past. The statement of "you would have nothing if it wasn't for us" is valid, but what is the future?
So, what about the future? With all the changes going on with the USFS and DNR today, why not push for *more* ORV areas?
I for one am glad to see a grassroots organization happening.
If mud4funtoy can get an "organization" of people formed without "dues", isn't that as effective as (or even better than) the pnw4wda organization? I think all would agree that 100 phone calls (or hundreds more) to a DNR rep are probably something that will be considered as much, or more, than one pnw4wda "rep". Sadly it seems to only happen when a "firestorm" occurs (and no one would even know about it if it wasn't for the pnw4wda).
Personnally, I'd like to see some organization take on the offensive! I do NOT see the pnw4wda doing this (and sure nuf no-one else). If the pnw4wda is going to step up and go "offensive" GREAT!!! Otherwise we can all sit and watch this defensive stance of "well, we just have to bend over because nancy says so".
One part of the underlying problems is the fact there are so few usage areas for ORV users (4wd, atvs, etc). The "over use" of the few areas causes much of the problems the DNR and USFS sees.
Just a FYI, some of the foot trails along I90 are also feeling the "over use" problem (yuppers, foot traffic can cause trail erosion). And, yuppers there are foot trails being discussed as being "restricted". Ya know what the USFS is considering a solution to rectify that ... they'll ADD trails!
Wouldn't that suck if suddenly some of the FS roads they want to abandon could become ORV use only. Also, how many thousnads of acre of DNR land could be considered for ORV use?.
Ya wanna fix the problem with busywild? Here's a thought, open up other areas for people to use so they don;t *have* to try to fit their rig down one of the only trails in the south sound.
Last edited: