Huge land closure proposed for Sierra Nevada range.

[E350]

Before this turns into a big political argument, I want to say a few things:

1. The governments are confiscating your rights, and selling them back to you.

2. Nearly 80% of all income earning activity in California requires permission from the government (i.e., a permit or a license, etc.)

3. This is not a Democrat/Republican thing.

4. It is a Democrat thing.

5. Ya'll keep voting Democrat if this is what you want. Less freedom more restriction. I remember when Clinton started closing down the Nat. forests. So, vote Hillary if you want more of this.

[BroncoHauler]

Many times the agencies don't have money to maintain the roads, and once they fall into disrepair, the agencies have the power to close them as they are not useable anymore as roads. Whether this is a deliberate strategy or not I don't know, but one of the best counter-strategies is to work with the local agency to adopt/maintain the road.

Though this might only be a drop in the bucket compared to possible road closures, do you think it might be viable for some of us to adopt a trail? The Bronco group I belong to (SoCal Broncos) has a couple trails adopted up in Big Bear, and the Forest Service is thrilled to have the help. That said, a lot of the 'burden' of working on the trail is shouldered by a few individuals who live up in Big Bear.

I would be willing to hit a special area and do some maintenance work once or twice a year.


Herb

[daveb]

It's not running a trail, it's camping that's being shut down. There are still spots open though...I think. A couple of the trails had nothing to do with camping,trash or erosion. This is one:


I've been going up here since the 70's and last year it didn't look any different than it did in the 70's.

Most of the paths off the main trails (the spurs to small camps) are the ones they are closing and several deal with water. I'll admit there have been times that I've cleaned up camps but if people didn't, there would be so much trash that nobody would have came back. This spot is one of about 10 that they shut down along one of the trails. Rarely did I see trash around the area although people seem to always throw crap into the fire pits

They didn't just shut down the camps close to the river but also several that were well over about 500' or more above the river. If they would have just kept the upper camps I wouldn't be as concerned.


I understand controlling camping close to water but as mentioned these spots have been open since the 1940's and last year I didn't see a problem with the sites. Just because I can drive to the river doesn't mean I'm destroying it. The fact is the Dept of Ag wants to cut vehicle access to waterways. Like the ranger told me, I should be happy because now I can camp anywhere within 6 feet of any trail...that's open. You just gotta love boon docking where others fly by leaving you in the dust provided you can even find a spot to pull off at. A problem I see is if the spurs off the main trails close there will be no reason to go in and the trail will eventually overgrow.

I don't really know how political this is and blame it more on the type of people running the agency. The gal that is actually shutting things down in that ranger district was my neighbor for years and a personal friend. The forest service people (at least many of them) don't agree with the memo coming down but have to follow guidelines so the question is how to turn around the agency from the top.
There should some half way meeting point. The MVUM is what they called a living document and can change from year to year I was told. That scares me because I don't see any relaxing of regulations.

[dick]

Originally Posted by E350

Before this turns into a big political argument, I want to say a few things:

1. The governments are confiscating your rights, and selling them back to you.

2. Nearly 80% of all income earning activity in California requires permission from the government (i.e., a permit or a license, etc.)

3. This is not a Democrat/Republican thing.

4. It is a Democrat thing.

5. Ya'll keep voting Democrat if this is what you want. Less freedom more restriction. I remember when Clinton started closing down the Nat. forests. So, vote Hillary if you want more of this.

That is the most asinine thing I have read on this forum! Was your intention to not start a "big political argument"? You want to talk about loss of freedom: how about TSA & Homeland Security - Not "a Democrat thing"...

While there needs to be balance of closure and protection, I'm really quite surprised how little sensitivity to conservation there is on the forum. As a 5th generation Utahn I hope we get the 10 million acre wilderness bill passed... in the meantime "Ya'll" please keep voting republican, they are doing such a great job for merican freedom.

[E350]

Originally Posted by dick

That is the most asinine thing I have read on this forum!

While there needs to be balance of closure and protection . . .

I hope we get the 10 million acre wilderness bill passed...

Dick: With all due respect, that is just ignorant.

I, myself, have posted way more asinine things on this forum than that.*

But back to huge land closures, let’s review the facts as we know them:

1. You do not vote Republican.

2. You “hope we get the 10 million acre wilderness bill passed...”

So, can’t we all agree that people who want millions of acres of national forest closed, should join with you in not voting Republican?

Besides agreeing that voting Democrat means more road closures, we also share a common disgust for Republicans.

Personally, I am most recently disgusted by that Thad Cochran scumbag who enlisted Democrats to help him win the “Republican” primary in MS (what legislative goodies funded by taxpayer dollars did he promise the unions and civil rights organizations in return for their support...?) but older examples include Charlie Crist out of FL, Arlen Specter of PA, David Dewhurst of TX, Lindsey Graham of SC, and John Mcain of AZ.

What I meant about the “Democrat/Republican thing,” is that it is all fake. It’s just another version of the World Wrestling Federation. It’s not about Democrats vs Republicans. It’s about the Government vs You and Your Family.

Road closures are just part of the forthcoming reductions of your freedoms. Other examples include artificially high fuel prices. NSA? Yes we agree again.

Fiscal Responsibility. Constitutionally limited government. Free markets. ** Sound good? Then vote TEA Party and if there is no TEA Party candidate hold your nose and vote Republican.

Or follow Dick’s lead for millions of acres of wilderness closure and ... vote Democrat.


* For instance, I once accused Gnarvan of putting his 5 camber chains on backwards. (In my defense, I was a little tipsy after celebrating the Giant’s World’s Series win and looked at the picture wrong. But it was asinine nonetheless.)

I also said that BajaSportsmobile’s Twin Traction Beam van front suspension was based on the Dana 44, when it is based on the Dana 50. (That was not only asinine, it was borderline slanderous given the fact that he is a Four time Baja 1000 winner and four time Baja 500 winner and prides himself in his suspension design.)

** The TEA Party does not want to close your roads. They only want those three things. That’s it. Nothing to do with abortion, religion, gay rights, or road closures.

*** BroncoHauler I respect you. You have posted info that has helped me with my Bronco and with my van. But you are a Californian, so you know better. Remember 2 years ago when California didn’t have money to fund Parks and Rec and they were threatening to close parks if taxes weren’t raised, and citizens were organizing to "adopt a park," and then the Sacramento Bee investigated and found that Parks and Rec was hiding $53,000,000 off-budget, and although the head of Parks and Rec resigned, no one has gone to jail? Your Government thinks California taxpayers are softheaded, well-meaning, chumps.

**** Finally, instead of a "balance of closure and protection" (uh, where's the "balance" in that?) how about a balance of "protection and freedom?" I for one would like to hear a lot less about Mother Nature and a lot more about Father Freedom.

[BajaSportsmobile]

It is the very nature of a bureaucracy and government, they think they have to do something to justify their existing, so they restrict because it's easier to do that than to leave open.

[daveb]

There is no reason to throw the political aspect into this. None of us really knows what goes on behind closed doors. This closing of public lands has gone on for years under several administrations. Also there is no reason to point fingers at another members personal political viewpoints... we all support our team and have our own beliefs so keep that part of it to yourself.

But I do see the closing of lands as an issue that threatens the SMB lifestyle for many of us and a reason it was started in the first place. The fact is I still do not know what will come of these closures. We all have our views and it's a touchy subject. I'd like to keep the discussion civil. If you don't like what's going on contact you local representative or congressman and state your concerns.

If this turns into a political finger pointing I'll lock the thread which would be a shame considering how important this subject might be now or for the future.

[twogone]

daveb for President!

[photographix]

Originally Posted by twogone

daveb for President!

Naw, then he'd have to join a political party and do politician things, and half the people wouldn't like what he was doing no matter what he did.

Daveb's much more useful here on the forum, and everyone likes him.

[TraceyAZ]

Originally Posted by E350

Dick: With all due respect, that is just ignorant.

I, myself, have posted way more asinine things on this forum than that.*

But back to huge land closures, let’s review the facts as we know them:

1. You do not vote Republican.

2. You “hope we get the 10 million acre wilderness bill passed...”

So, can’t we all agree that people who want millions of acres of national forest closed, should join with you in not voting Republican?

Besides agreeing that voting Democrat means more road closures, we also share a common disgust for Republicans.

Personally, I am most recently disgusted by that Thad Cochran scumbag who enlisted Democrats to help him win the “Republican” primary in MS (what legislative goodies funded by taxpayer dollars did he promise the unions and civil rights organizations in return for their support...?) but older examples include Charlie Crist out of FL, Arlen Specter of PA, David Dewhurst of TX, Lindsey Graham of SC, and John Mcain of AZ.

What I meant about the “Democrat/Republican thing,” is that it is all fake. It’s just another version of the World Wrestling Federation. It’s not about Democrats vs Republicans. It’s about the Government vs You and Your Family.

Road closures are just part of the forthcoming reductions of your freedoms. Other examples include artificially high fuel prices. NSA? Yes we agree again.

Fiscal Responsibility. Constitutionally limited government. Free markets. ** Sound good? Then vote TEA Party and if there is no TEA Party candidate hold your nose and vote Republican.

Or follow Dick’s lead for millions of acres of wilderness closure and ... vote Democrat.


* For instance, I once accused Gnarvan of putting his 5 camber chains on backwards. (In my defense, I was a little tipsy after celebrating the Giant’s World’s Series win and looked at the picture wrong. But it was asinine nonetheless.)

I also said that BajaSportsmobile’s Twin Traction Beam van front suspension was based on the Dana 44, when it is based on the Dana 50. (That was not only asinine, it was borderline slanderous given the fact that he is a Four time Baja 1000 winner and four time Baja 500 winner and prides himself in his suspension design.)

** The TEA Party does not want to close your roads. They only want those three things. That’s it. Nothing to do with abortion, religion, gay rights, or road closures.

*** BroncoHauler I respect you. You have posted info that has helped me with my Bronco and with my van. But you are a Californian, so you know better. Remember 2 years ago when California didn’t have money to fund Parks and Rec and they were threatening to close parks if taxes weren’t raised, and citizens were organizing to "adopt a park," and then the Sacramento Bee investigated and found that Parks and Rec was hiding $53,000,000 off-budget, and although the head of Parks and Rec resigned, no one has gone to jail? Your Government thinks California taxpayers are softheaded, well-meaning, chumps.

**** Finally, instead of a "balance of closure and protection" (uh, where's the "balance" in that?) how about a balance of "protection and freedom?" I for one would like to hear a lot less about Mother Nature and a lot more about Father Freedom.

Love it.