naches/manastash memorial day???

[Money Mark]

your a pain in the ass :kissmyass:

:haha: That too.

 

[Mark m.]

Its funny that you use the word "we" when refering to yourslf as a hiker/climber :haha: Didnt you just start the climbing thing about a year ago:eeek: Hardly makes you a part of "their" "we" now does it.Fact is your just a pot stirrer/ Dramagueen with no real side anymore and anyone that dosent see that in you just sees you as a troll or even worse a turncoat that just gave up :booo:


But then again all I know you by is what I see you post :haha:

:haha::haha::haha::haha:

 

[whatthe?]

Really? Where is your proof? Sounds like a value judgement to me...



I'm going to be honest, this closure sounds logical to me. This is because of a wetter, later spring that we are seeing this year and last (we can look at last spring, and assume that the same thing will happen this spring because we see similar conditions). I do not support it, but at the same time I see where the land managers are coming from. If I was in thier position, I would probably make the same call.

Exactly my point, the FS is making value judgement on what is "damage". Wheelers made the mistake of agreeing with them. They have no proof that a trail is causing damage, it could never be proved with out using some kind of value judgement. Science can't prove it. My value judgement is no damage is being caused. It's only logical if you agree with the FS definition of "damage" or "unacceptable" for a closure reason. I don't.

 

[boardbysled]

Exactly my point, the FS is making value judgement on what is "damage". Wheelers made the mistake of agreeing with them. They have no proof that a trail is causing damage, it could never be proved with out using some kind of value judgement. Science can't prove it. My value judgement is no damage is being caused. It's only logical if you agree with the FS definition of "damage" or "unacceptable" for a closure reason. I don't.

No, the FS is making a factual judgement; topsoil erosion is resource damage, timber damage is resource damage. Those are two that cannot be argued, and I am sure I could drum up 10 more that are on site resource damage (looking downstream is a totally different situation). Of course they have management practices which stipulate just how much erosion or timber damage can happen due to motorized recreation.

They are looking at the facts and what protects thier lands and the future of motorized use upon it.

Damage is damage, whether you believe it is or not. Saying that a trail section that lost 3 vertical feet of soil is not damage is asinine. They have thier BMP's which they have to follow.

 

[Money Mark]

Science can't prove it.

:haha: Oh man, now that is funnay.

 

[whatthe?]

No, the FS is making a factual judgement; topsoil erosion is resource damage, timber damage is resource damage. Those are two that cannot be argued, and I am sure I could drum up 10 more that are on site resource damage (looking downstream is a totally different situation). Of course they have management practices which stipulate just how much erosion or timber damage can happen due to motorized recreation.

They are looking at the facts and what protects thier lands and the future of motorized use upon it.

Damage is damage, whether you believe it is or not. Saying that a trail section that lost 3 vertical feet of soil is not damage is asinine. They have thier BMP's which they have to follow.

That's an opinion that it's damage and unacceptable. You're making a value judgement. It absolutely can be argued. Topsoil erosion is resource damage by who's definition? If a creek erodes 3 vertical feet, is that damage? The same thing has happened. So because people did it, it's more significant? Sounds like a value judgement. You've just accepted their definitions. Sure they have their rules/law they have to follow, do you know any other rules/laws that are asinine? BTW it's not "their" lands, it the publics land held in trust.

 

[Ty.]

That's an opinion that it's damage and unacceptable. You're making a value judgement. It absolutely can be argued. Topsoil erosion is resource damage by who's definition? If a creek erodes 3 vertical feet, is that damage? The same thing has happened. So because people did it, it's more significant? Sounds like a value judgement. You've just accepted their definitions. Sure they have their rules/law they have to follow, do you know any other rules/laws that are asinine? BTW it's not "their" lands, it the publics land held in trust.

I almost posted the exact same thing...

YOU sir must be a- - - -Genious.

 

[Money Mark]

The one thing I've always loved about you hillbilly redneck low-life scumbag wheelers (I'm being ironic, settle down).......when you realize you're loosing, you just fight HARDER!!!

:beatdeadhorse:

It's rad.....and sad.

 

[boardbysled]

That's an opinion that it's damage and unacceptable. You're making a value judgement. It absolutely can be argued. Topsoil erosion is resource damage by who's definition? You've just accepted their definitions. Sure they have their rules/law they have to follow, do you know any other rules/laws that are asinine? BTW it's not "their" lands, it the publics land held in trust.

Look at it this way, I take 3 feet of soil out of the your front yard, in my opinion, thats not damage. But, in your opinion it is damage. That is whats happening here.

Either way, the land managers look at all sides of the case, trying to take in everyones values and the nonjudgemental, scientific facts, and decide what is best for thier managed land. Even if closing it for the long weekend violates some users values, but in the scope of things, is better for the managed land, and the future of that land (and the recreation on that land), then closing it for that weekend makes sense.

If closing it for the long weekend is against your values, then tell the land manager about it! Write them a letter, call them, meet with them in person! Don't be an ass, be reasonalbe, calm headed, and logical and they will value your input.

All I am trying to do is make everyone see the other side, a side which many of people have an illogical view of as portrayed by the greenie/obama bashing above. I am trying to show the land managers side of things.


Also, calling the ranger districts office, and insulting the land managers does not help matters. Don't give in to "knee-jerk" reactions. It makes the rest of us look like ****ing asses.

 

[Bill]

if the front yard was a trail....rock on it is just getting broke in!

 

[boardbysled]

That's an opinion that it's damage and unacceptable. You're making a value judgement. It absolutely can be argued.

You think I am making a value judgement, but thusly, I am not.

Topsoil erosion is resource damage by who's definition?

Both Forest Services Forest Practices and Washington States Forest Practices.

If a creek erodes 3 vertical feet, is that damage?

Yes, natural damage.

The same thing has happened. So because people did it, it's more significant? Sounds like a value judgement. You've just accepted their definitions. Sure they have their rules/law they have to follow, do you know any other rules/laws that are asinine?

Yes, it is different, especially when you take a sport like ours that is a form of luxury recreation.

Trail evolution and trail damage are two different things. Trails evolving is not a bad thing, trails being damaged is a bad thing. Different people have different perspectives on what defines the difference between these two.

I could tell you several other laws and regulations that are asinine, but this is not one of them.

BTW it's not "their" lands, it the publics land held in trust.

It's thier land to manage. And remember, we are a minority in the general public.


Believe me, involving the public in land managment is no fun (but essential to making fair decisions), and this discussion is just scratching the surface.

 

[crash2]

I understood....

 

[boardbysled]

The truth hurts, the facts hurt harder. Luckly, we are not discussing a total trail shut down, yet...

 

[dirtygoat]

The one thing I've always loved about you hillbilly redneck low-life scumbag wheelers (I'm being ironic, settle down).......when you realize you're loosing, you just fight HARDER!!!

:beatdeadhorse:

It's rad.....and sad.

What ever, you Bellevue Yuppie Tip Toeing Threw The Tulips Hiking Homo...:kiss:

 

[Money Mark]

...a sport like ours that is a form of luxury recreation.

Another good one.:awesomework: You're on fire tonight!

 

[whitetrashfab]

why are you on this site again?

 

[boardbysled]

Another good one.:awesomework: You're on fire tonight!

You don't want to know how much I payed to learn these terms.

why are you on this site again?

He is looking for a man-date, will you be his huckleberry?:kiss:

 

[Money Mark]

why are you on this site again?

I need to leave or be banned.:worship:

 

[whatthe?]

You don't want to know how much I payed to learn these terms.
QUOTE]

But believing in their terms, and definitions was free. Like I stated earlier. Wheelers lost this debate decades ago when they agreed to the FS terms. Damage, luxury recreation, unaccptable are all "value judgements" ie opinions. Just because it's stated by the gov doesn't make it correct, it makes it their opinion. They have the power of law but it still doesn't always make it right. Like I said, wheelers have already lost, we are just slowing the process down. Our kids might be running through an alpine meadow singing "the hills are alive" with Money Mark's kids after the last trail is closed.

 

[boardbysled]

Got an email today from Rep. Hans Zeiger stating that SB 5366 Died in the Transportation committee this afternoon and will likely not be voted on in the House.

I still need to research as to what happened to kill it.

Wrong thread.:flipoff:

But thats good/bad to hear.