 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2008OFF ROAD VEHICLE USERS DESTROYING AMERICA
I'm for making illegal ORVing a felony with mandatory prison time. I don't believe in coddling criminals who destroy america. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/us/30lands.html?hp Off-Roading Stirs Dust and Debate in the West Sandy Huffaker for The New York Times Published: December 30, 2007 DURANGO, Colo. — In the San Juan National Forest here, an iron rod gate is the last barrier to the Weminuche Wilderness, a mountain redoubt above 10,000 feet where wheels are not allowed. But the gate has been knocked down repeatedly, shot at and generally disregarded. Miles beyond it, a two-track trail has been punched into the wilderness by errant all-terrain-vehicle riders who have insisted on going their own way, on-trail or off. From Colorado’s forests to Utah’s sandstone canyons and the evergreen mountains of Montana, federally owned lands are rapidly being transformed into the new playgrounds — and battlegrounds — of the American West. Outdoor enthusiasts are flocking in record numbers to lesser-known forests, deserts and mountains, where the rules of use have been lax and enforcement infrequent. The federal government has been struggling to come up with plans to accommodate the growing numbers of off-highway vehicles — mostly with proposed maps directing them toward designated trails — but all-terrain- vehicle users have started formidable lobbying campaigns when favorite trails have been left off the maps. Even with the plans, federal officials describe an almost impossible enforcement situation because the government does not begin to have the manpower to deal with those who will not follow the rules. To keep the lawbreakers in check, said Don Banks, the deputy state director in Salt Lake City for the federal Bureau of Land Management, the biggest land owner in states like Utah and Nevada, “You’d have to have Patton’s army.” The growing allure of the federal lands coincides with marked changes in how people play, with outdoor recreation now a multibillion-dollar industry. It also comes at a time, according to data compiled by Volker C. Radeloff of the University of Wisconsin, when more than 28 million homes sit less than 30 miles from federally owned land that millions of people increasingly view as their extended backyards. “Forty years ago when I was out cowboying I never saw a soul,” said Heidi Redd, who operates the Dugout Ranch near Canyonlands National Park in southeastern Utah. “Now it’s at a point where you realize the public land is not yours, you’re just one of the users. And whether it’s A.T.V.’s, horses or climbers, it’s a traffic jam.” Any user can contribute to the traffic jam, but the off-highway vehicles do damage disproportionate to their numbers. In addition to loud engines, they have soft tires and deep treads that bite more deeply than a foot or a hoof. When they go off-trail, consequences often follow: erosion, destruction of fragile desert soils or historical artifacts, and disturbance of wildlife habitats. (snip) >I'm for making illegal ORVing a felony with mandatory prison time. I don't >believe in coddling criminals who destroy america. And I'm all for seeing you gang raped by a bunch of AIDS infested Muslim birdwatchers. So, please, eat sh.t and live to eat more. I said "please". You didn't. ---- Go fast and aim for where the trees aren't. ---- > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:00:22 -0000, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Go fast and aim for where the trees aren't. > ---- I'd like to see off-roaders take over the world and ride pretty much everywhere... :) I feel no need to say please. :) dsc-ky: > > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:00:22 -0000, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'd like to see off-roaders take over the world and ride pretty much > everywhere... :) I feel no need to say please. :) DO you guys think you could point the vehicles towards Littleton, CO (the generally accepted locale of S&DDAM) and run it over a few hundred times?? Thanks.....  Signature"There's not a shred of evidence that the jerries murdered anything close to 7 million jooz. Another monstrous lie just like the 9-11 official story. " -- Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend (a.k.a Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS", 12/01/2004 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9oog5 Message-ID: <780ea958.0411302101.5ef25456@posting.google.com> scrape: > >I'm for making illegal ORVing a felony with mandatory prison time. I don't > >believe in coddling criminals who destroy america. > > And I'm all for seeing you gang raped by a bunch of AIDS infested > Muslim birdwatchers. Even better would be for SFB to be gang raped by a bunch of AIDS infected jewish bankers.... > So, please, eat sh.t and live to eat more. I'll second this take.... > I said "please". You didn't. > > ---- > Go fast and aim for where the trees aren't. Signature"The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the govt; it's a group of private banks and borrowing from them means the taxpayers have to pay the interest to the banks. This has been going on for nearly a hundred years and it's just stealing from the public and giving to the bankers. JUST PRINT THE DAMN MONEY. " --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend (a.k.a S&DDAM or SFB) 2/20/2005 ref: http://tinyurl.com/243bw5 Message ID: 1108881725.557954.264830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com On beautiful Long Island in New York, there are NO public areas where it is legal to ride your ATV (and I suppose other Off-Road-Vehicles), and no real effort in sight to designate any such areas - so instead residents and politicians whine and cry like little babies when ATVers make use of underused public lands. Apparently the utter failures in such similar campaigns as the 'War On Drugs' and alcoholic prohibition, where total bans of rather harmless indulgences (in moderation, of course - everything in moderation) such as liquor, marijuana, or, in this case, off-roading, are scoffed at and heavily evaded, failed to penetrate their little repitilian brains... I guess they'll never learn. >>I'm for making illegal ORVing a felony with mandatory prison time. I don't >> believe in coddling criminals who destroy america. I'm for making incoherent SADDAM posting a felony with mandatory prison time. I don't believe Aunt SADDAM would mind the 'Pound-In-a.s' aspect of prison life in America. Sir Ray: << reply limited to r.a.d >> > On beautiful Long Island in New York, there are NO public areas where > it is legal to ride your ATV (and I suppose other Off-Road-Vehicles), [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > evaded, failed to penetrate their little repitilian brains... > I guess they'll never learn. Just like the idiotic drinking age we have in this country. It has the exact opposite effect of what was intended. > >>I'm for making illegal ORVing a felony with mandatory prison time. I don't > >> believe in coddling criminals who destroy america. > I'm for making incoherent SADDAM posting a felony with mandatory > prison time. I don't believe Aunt SADDAM would mind the 'Pound-In-a.s' > aspect of prison life in America. Well, we could keep it locked up in Super-Max where it would have no human contact for 23 hours a day..... SignatureS&DDAM admits to being drunk and to possible drunk driving by way of a sentence with the poor grammar of the double negative: "I ain't not never been drunk none in my life. " --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS," a.k.a. LBMHB, lb-VH, Pride of America, aunt millie, Judy Diariya etc... May 1, 2007, 1331 hrs EDT Ref: http://snipurl.com/1j04u Message ID: 1QKZh.5840$Ut6.5643@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net > "S&DDAM" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm for seeing you gang raped by a bunch > of AIDS infested Muslim birdwatchers. I'm for stopping the suppression of influenza by banning the production of flu vaccines. Everyone needs a periodic reminder that "THERE IS A GOD, AND YOU AIN'T IT!" . . -- >I'm for making illegal ORVing a felony with mandatory prison time. I don't >believe in coddling criminals who destroy america. Then why don't you get off your lazy a.s and do something about it, byatch? -- Ask me about drunk driving for fun and profit! > I'm for making illegal ORVing a felony with mandatory prison time. I don't > believe in coddling criminals who destroy america. Would you also consider this penalty for those that take away the rights of those to use public lands by false claims and use of endangered species acts, global warming, wilderness designation where not proper, ect???? Or are you a hypocrite??? endurodog: > Would you also consider this penalty for those that take away the rights > of those to use public lands by false claims and use of endangered species > acts, global warming, wilderness designation where not proper, ect???? S&DDAM? Of curse not. > Or are you a hypocrite??? You just answered your own question. S&DDAM (or SFB as I like to call it) is the epitome of hypocrisy. SignatureLoco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend (a.k.a. SADDAM) admits to being a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler: "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (S&DDAM)), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj On Dec 29, 10:00�pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: When they go off-trail, consequences often follow: erosion, > destruction of fragile desert soils or historical artifacts, and > disturbance of wildlife habitats. > > (snip) Wow! To think I started a new Grand Canyon with my erosion is amazing. Hank <~~~~lighting up a cig to kill more > When they go off-trail, consequences often follow: erosion, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hank <~~~~lighting up a cig to kill more If we all work together, we could make one in WVa... "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I'm for making illegal ORVing a felony with mandatory prison time. I don't > believe in coddling criminals who destroy america. Snipped the rest. When your ilk stop using every specious excuse and ruse to close LEGAL riding areas that force us to find other alternatives, maybe you'll have a cohesive argument. But you won't. >"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in >message [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >close LEGAL riding areas that force us to find other alternatives, maybe >you'll have a cohesive argument. But you won't. Cohesive argument? From SADDAM? Obviously you're new here. -- Sarcasm is my sword Apathy is my shield "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" < > Cohesive argument? From SADDAM? Obviously you're new here. Of all the groups this was cross-posted to I only read rec.moto.dirt. Not familiar with SADDAM, but they sound like every other eco-nazi group I am familiar with. > "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" < > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > familiar with SADDAM, but they sound like every other eco-nazi group I am > familiar with. Not true, some people concerned with ecological matters are actually intelligent. SADDAM is demonstrably not. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" < >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Not true, some people concerned with ecological matters are actually >intelligent. SADDAM is demonstrably not. SADDAM's not interested in ecological matters; SADDAM's sole interest is trolling. -- Sarcasm is my sword Apathy is my shield > Not true, some people concerned with ecological matters are actually > intelligent. Often they mean well but their knowledge and actions are not always intelligent. Many of these people against ALL ORV activity are unaware of the large numbers of ORV'ers who belong to outdoor clubs and what those clubs do. These clubs do considerable work towards keeping the forests etc. clean. They have outings to improve (not destroy) the outdoors. They leave the area in better shape than when they got there and do more for the outdoors than many of these so called conservationists who are clueless. An AZ off road club spent last summer cleaning and restoring hiking and camping areas along several creeks in northern Arizona. These areas were heavily damaged by campers and not ORV'ers. These activities by such clubs go unnoticed by the media. Yes theres a few idiots on ORV's that go off trail and do damage they wilderness. The organized ORV groups are strongly against them and want the current laws enforced. But they also want legal ORV'ing protected. > > Not true, some people concerned with ecological matters are actually > > intelligent. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > wilderness. The organized ORV groups are strongly against them and want > the current laws enforced. But they also want legal ORV'ing protected. As a hunter, I am very familiar with the tendency to paint everyone in a group with a bad image, based on the misdeeds of a relative few. Some of the hunters even use ORVs... I kinda like ORVs. They can be useful. They can be used to haul equipment and game when larger vehicles are more expensive, use more fuel, have a bigger footprint, etc. However, whether it is a monster pickup or an ORV, I am firmly in the camp that ALL vehicles belong on trails and roads that the forest service or BLM or other agency designate as appropriate. A bogged-up meadow is damaged. It no longer supports as much vegetation as it did; the drainage can be affected; repair by nature may take many years. Snowmobiles are fun. But large animals lose valuable energy attempting to run from them, and in any serious snow this is a lot of work. I have no problem designating limted areas for the use of these vehicles, after ensuring that game herds, endangered whatevers, and sensitive lands aren't harmed. The very nature of the image of ORVers is to find some place that doesn't have tracks, and make them! Even if nature can tolerate it, and eventually repair it, it's still an eyesore. If someone like to see lots of tracks where there aren't any now, or thinks a tracked up landscape is not harmed, perhaps they should go home to their own yards and turn doughnuts in an ATV. Nope, not likely to happen. They don't damage their OWN turf... Which brings up another point. Public land is available (generally) for the use and enjoyment of ALL of the public. It is not there for a handful of people to damage or destroy (in the view of the vast majority) for their own very limited sense of enjoyment. > Which brings up another point. Public land is available (generally) > for the use and enjoyment of ALL of the public. It is not there for a > handful of people to damage or destroy (in the view of the vast > majority) for their own very limited sense of enjoyment.- Hide quoted text - I am part of all the public. All I'm asking for is my piece of this public land to enjoy ... not all of it. As I said in another post in this thread, I believe every national park/forest should provided something for just about everyone... including dirt bikers, atv riders, etc. In some cases that should apply to State Parks as well. It would be much better (damage wise) to have adaquate public riding areas than for every individual to set up their own. Much of the damage (that is not directly attribuitable to irresponsible acts) is cause by overuse. There are too many riders and not enough land to ride on... a recipe for disaster. I beleive thre are good models to go by. first is the Hatfield-McCoy system in WVa. there's alwo some good things happening in Arkansas where they are developing maintanable trail systems that are a part of the forest rather than a scourge on it. While some people may see a trail as an ugly scar on the earth... many riders see them as a thing of beauty. They certainly are no more ugly than a paved interstate, parking lot or strip mall... I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. > > Which brings up another point. Public land is available (generally) > > for the use and enjoyment of ALL of the public. It is not there for a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > All I'm asking for is my piece of this public land to enjoy ... not > all of it. A piece of it I will grant you. I will not grant that all public land should be open to being tracked up, desecrated, and scarred for years by the momentary passage of thousands of ATVs and other vehicles whose only purpose is to leave tracks where previously there were none. That's destruction for the sake of destruction. > As I said in another post in this thread, I believe every national > park/forest should provided something for just about everyone... > including dirt bikers, atv riders, etc. Parks need to provide for those who go to parks for the things the Parks provide. That's not quite the bad logic it sounds like. If I go to a dirt bike park (whatever they are called) on public land, I probably don't expect to find an airstrip for my use, or an established shooting range. I would expect to find, well, dirt bikes, and bike parts vendors, and first aid stations. Parks tend to be for park-like things. BLM and forest land tends to be for lots of things, unfortunately some of which involve damage even without the deliberate damage of ORVs and trucks, etc. >In some cases that should > apply to State Parks as well. It would be much better (damage wise) to > have adaquate public riding areas than for every individual to set up > their own. Much of the damage (that is not directly attribuitable to > irresponsible acts) is cause by overuse. There are too many riders and > not enough land to ride on... a recipe for disaster. I have no problem with set-aside areas for dirt-bikers to destroy. I used to drive by such an area daily in Colorado. A wonderful, large area for them to run, jump, turn, kick dirt and make lots of noise and dust; it was absolutely useless for any other living thing. These are exactly the type of activities that most folks do NOT want to see when they go to a National or other park. In those places, the general intent is to enjoy the Quiet forms of outdoor recreation; to actually get to see some wild critters, hear streams and waterfalls, and in general appreciate the non-human side of nature. If they wanted to hear more screaming riiiingg-riiiingggg-RRRIINNNNGGGGG of dirt bikes and other vehicles, they probably would have stayed home and sat next to the freeway. I remember hiking in the mountains in Colorado one fine day, on an unmaintained forest service road. It was nice and quiet. But then I heard from a mile away, the approach of a dirt biker. Screaming, whining, hell-bent-for-election, coming from behind me. Heard him a long time after he went by, too. It didn't make any difference to him where he was--he wasn't seeing any of it anyway. Oh well, at least he was on the road. That's better than bashing through the brush. 'Course, he didn't do the elk and deer much good... Machinery noise is already prevalent in most populated areas. The Parks are one place where we have set aside an area to get AWAY from that. And now you insist on going there too? > I beleive thre are good models to go by. first is the Hatfield-McCoy > system in WVa. there's alwo some good things happening in Arkansas > where they are developing maintanable trail systems that are a part of > the forest rather than a scourge on it. The operative phrase there is "trail system". I have little problem with ATVs that stay on designated trails, any more than I have trouble with pickups that stay on designated forest service roads. I have a severe dislike for either ATVs or pickups that run off the roads to wherever they want to go, frequently with the intent of damaging the territory just to "make new trails". > While some people may see a trail as an ugly scar on the earth... many > riders see them as a thing of beauty. They certainly are no more ugly > than a paved interstate, parking lot or strip mall... I guess beauty > is in the eye of the beholder. I can't disagree with sentiments about the pavement; not any more anyway. And a TRAIL is a nice thing. It's the criss-cross, anywhere, all-over, hey-look-here's-another-untrampled-spot-let's-trample-it type of trail that is despised. It's trail in the sense of "Appalachian Trail" that is respected. Trail in the sense of another muck-running schmuck took his ATV/truck through the swamp and made a mess, that's another thing. As for the parks, dirtbiker tax money helps fund them just the same as non-riders... should be a little something there for all to use. Same for the forrest lands, etc. there should be lots of places to ride... and lots of places you can't ride or hear anyone that is riding... share and share a like. > I can't disagree with sentiments about the pavement; not any more > anyway. And a TRAIL is a nice thing. It's the criss-cross, anywhere, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > muck-running schmuck took his ATV/truck through the swamp and made a > mess, that's another thing. My least favorite kind of place to ride is usually one that is criss- crossed with intersections. That is because you ride a few hundred yards, stop, gather up the group, repeat all day long and want to puke before it's over. My favorite kind of place to ride is a single trail that starts at point A and winds around x many miles and winds up back at point A with very few or zero intersections along the way. :) >> "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" < >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Not true, some people concerned with ecological matters are actually >intelligent. SADDAM is demonstrably not. Not concerned with ecological matters AND not intelligent. Signature"Over the past few weeks, I've let a close friend (Eric) label certain MTR and RAD individuals as homosexuals. I do want to take this opportunity to apologise, for not taking my part in stopping this ignorant behaviour." - Carl Rogers, Message-ID: <HxG%i.17$AR7.6@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com> Rider: > "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" < > > Cohesive argument? From SADDAM? Obviously you're new here. > > Of all the groups this was cross-posted to I only read rec.moto.dirt. Not > familiar with SADDAM, but they sound like every other eco-nazi group I am > familiar with. S&DDAM may sound like one of the eco-nazis, but all S&DDAM really is is a garden vareity hypocrital k0oK with a big mouth. SignatureLoco Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend (a.k.a. SADDAM) admits to being a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler: "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/ laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj >"Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" < >> Cohesive argument? From SADDAM? Obviously you're new here. > >Of all the groups this was cross-posted to I only read rec.moto.dirt. Not >familiar with SADDAM, but they sound like every other eco-nazi group I am >familiar with. SADDAM's not an eco-nazi group. SADDAM is a retarded poster. -- Sarcasm is my sword Apathy is my shield "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote in message > SADDAM's not an eco-nazi group. > > SADDAM is a retarded poster. The distinction is minimal from what I've seen. > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > close LEGAL riding areas that force us to find other alternatives, maybe > you'll have a cohesive argument. But you won't. No, we must make room for all...ahhh the glory of nature, trees, the outdoors and trail management. Trails are becoming more scarce every day...especially for the well hated dirt bike rider. I ride dirt bikes more than bicycles but love them both. Sometime we think we control nature when all the time it is nature that controls us. No matter how mighty we build ourselves out to be...we all bow to nature in the end. But isn't that how things have always been? One group hates another? The tree hugging hikers hate the bicycles the bicycles hate the horse riders the horse riders hate the ATV's and they all hate the snowmobilers! Alan Watts use to say we define ourselves by our enemies. We define ourselves by what we are not. He used the example of 'Beatniks and Squares' which were the in fad opposites back in his day. I guess it is just human nature. Myself? I feel the world is a big place, so I try to make room for all. And if people don't reciprocate and make room for me...I just make my own way. But I'm an old skateboarder (longboarders actually) so am used to taking a little piece of turf to find some peace within. Also used to cleaning up my runs...especially in the fall. I use a blower for it to clean up my downhill runs. http://www.stihlusa.com/blowers/BG55.html All these activities I mentioned promote a Zen like meditative state, so whether you hike, bike, trike, board or schlep around horse manure...its all good. (although I prefer dirt bikes to horse crap any day!) In any case...I take over ANY trail as I please and manage it accordingly. Although this looks like a big tree in your photo, my Stihl 192t with 12 inch bar would take care of it as long as it was under 24 inches diameter. [url]http://www.woodsmanequipment.com/product.php?productid=MS%20192T[/ url] My Stihl 192t is a stripped down model and weighs about 7 pounds. It fits in my backpack so I can hike or bike with it. I took off the anti kickback safety on it to make it fit better and be lighter (not recommended unless you are experienced tree feller...so don't complain if you get hurt by this mod) I also carry around a couple of felling wedges if I pinch the chain. A first aid kit, work gloves, sharpening files, extra gas in a SIGG bottle. If my arborist saw is too puny, I'd bring in the big guns, as I got 2 more Stihls up to a 20 inch bar for 40 inch trees. I encounter obstacles all the time on the trail, albeit on dirt bike riding trails. I manage many miles of trails near my house. (all adopted or confiscated or whatever you wish to call it...they call me the parasite...something along the lines of Digger of North Shore / NSX fame. But I don't build anything I just take over land and make trails!) I also use a Stihl break apart trimmer in a large back pack duffle when my trails need clearing (takes 3 weeks in July do the whole thing...albeit part time work not full time.) http://www.stihlusa.com/multitask/KM90R.html A retractable rake is real handy in the fall. http://www.outdoorgardenfurniture.net/browseproducts/Retractable-Rake.HTML When not carrying around my backpack chain saw I never leave home for a trail ride without my North Face Hammerhead trail pack (with hydration bladder removed). I just have a few light tools in it, a Gerber mini back pack axe, anvil style branch cutter, a bottle of water, bug spray and a first aid kit. All sorts of vines and crap come down on the trail and I can clear the way many a time with my little hand tools. http://www.fernknives.com/gerber/back-pax-mini-axe/323/index.html http://www.orchardsedge.com/tools.jsp?type=handpruners If a big tree is down (usually one or two a month) I turn around and skip that trail and next time bring out the Stihls. My Honda CRF 250 X has a chain saw carrier on it if I need the big guns, Otherwise I use my backpack Stihl 85% of the time. BTW, if money is no problem and you wish to buy a backpack saw, get this one. A little more power, but a lot more bucks. Nothing wrong with the 192t, I've used it for years on some of the toughest trees. But sometime I wish I had a few extra bit of power on those tough cuts. [url]http://www.stihlusa.com/chainsaws/MS200T.html[/url] I also recommend you buy an ATV with brush hog to clear the trails and not weed whack it like me...if you got an extra $7000. http://www.drpower.com/TwoStepChapterPage1L.aspx?Name=FieldBrush2Step&Chap=FABTo wBehindChapter&Page=FABTowFast&SiteEntryMode=1&BC=0%3aHome&LinkType=3 Now, I am not going to misrepresent things and say I would bring an ATV and brush hog on some public trail system, but I sure wish I could afford one and the extra garage to house it is for my own trail system. And as far as trail mods? My motto is to just keep em clear for passage. The least work the better. Happy Trails V (Male) Agnostic Freethinker Practical Philosopher Futurist Urban Homesteader Agnostic minister of secular humanism to the mind- manacled...spiritually sick...defiance based atheist. AA#2 In article <d321a313-42be-4bc3-a923-b3d858e72114@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > No, we must make room for all...ahhh the glory of nature, trees, the > outdoors and trail management. Trails are becoming more scarce every [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > cleaning up my runs...especially in the fall. I use a blower for it > to clean up my downhill runs. Nice to hear from you, V If you have some time to waste, stop on by rmd every once in awhile, sounds like you'd be welcome there. SignatureCharles '99 YZ250 > I'm for making illegal ORVing a felony with mandatory prison time. I don't > believe in coddling criminals who destroy america. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > (snip) Destroying america? > southeastern Utah. “Now it’s at a point where you realize the public land > is not yours, you’re just one of the users. Welcome to reality. It never was yours, it's always been (the) public('s) land. > And whether it’s A.T.V.’s, horses or climbers, it’s a traffic jam.” Stop whining, work Sundays, take time off mid-week. Conflict solved. HTH Rowdy. Turns out I'm and ecologist. I really hate it when parts of a trail get so washed out you have to find a way around it... and then eventually, you have to find a way around that too... and eventually you have to find a way around that too... :) It's a wonder that we keep riding. :) People are worried about destroying the environment. Never fret, it's not possible. The environment was here long before any of us and it will still be here long after we are gone... :) >Turns out I'm and ecologist. I really hate it when parts of a trail >get so washed out you have to find a way around it... and then >eventually, you have to find a way around that too... and eventually >you have to find a way around that too... :) It's a wonder that we >keep riding. :) A friend of mine with a large grassed area in front of his country property used to keep it nicely mowed and trimmed, unfortunately a lot of drivers with very small penises kept driving over it and tearing the grass up leaving big grooves in it. He grew so tired of it that he let the grass grow about 9 inches high and put a set of spike harrows upside down in it. (Like the road spikes the police use) The first night two of the very small penis brigade went to do spin outs in the area and punctured all four of their car tyres irrepairably. Several days later the local police came to visit him and in between gales of uncontrollable laughter said they didn't want to know anything about what happened. It seems the small penis brigade had gone to the police and complained about the spikes being in the grassed area. They were quite blatent about it, they told the police that they had gone to rip the lawn up and the owner had set a trap for them. The police told them that as it was private property there was nothing they could do about it and ticketed them for wilfull damage. Perhaps the same could be done for the entrances of wilderness areas and national parks. ... > He grew so tired of it that he let the grass grow about 9 inches > high and put a set of spike harrows upside down in it > Perhaps the same could be done for the entrances of wilderness > areas and national parks. Nope... what they should do is open up about 90% of all public land for off road trail development. Then they should have a lottery for big game hunters (about 1 per square mile for all the open areas). The big game hunters would be assigned to roam their assigned area and shoot all irresponsible idiots. Problem solved. :) Then we auction off whatever they were riding and the money goes back into trail creation/ maintenance and for ammo for the hunters. :) There is absolutely no reason to preserve deep wilderness in it's pristine condition if the tax payers can't get to it to see it or use it. It's useless, it's a waste and it's just pure stupid. So it needs to be maintaned in a useable state... which means you gotta have roads and/or trails for access. Roadless is stupid... plain as day. Every single national park/national forrest should be forced to have a developed and maintaned trail system for various types of off-road vehicles, horses, people, etc. There should be something in every park/ forrest for EVERYONE. It should be a law. You can put the motorized areas on one side of the park and the nature areas on the other, etc. Keep them separate. The further away extrmeme tree huggers are from normal folks... the better. When the asteriod hits or the supervolcaneo errupts or the nuclear winter comes... it won't make any difference if the areas are pristine and wild or criss-crossed with trails. So open them up and let the chips fall as they may.:) That's why I nominate Jim Cook for POTUS... :):):) Seems like we been here once before. :) > There is absolutely no reason to preserve deep wilderness in it's > pristine condition if the tax payers can't get to it to see it or use > it. It's useless, it's a waste and it's just pure stupid. So it needs > to be maintaned in a useable state... which means you gotta have roads > and/or trails for access. Roadless is stupid... plain as day. Considering the numbers of people who visit parks and forests, it's not surprising that a lot of maintenance and restrictions are necessary to prevent us from "loving something to death". Deep wilderness does not need maintenance. It only needs to be left alone. You don't need roads, you don't need firefighting, you don't need a lot of things. It has done fine for eons without us; leave it alone and it will do fine for eons more. A handful of people on foot won't hurt it; a large number of people, with an effect multiplied by machinery, will have a major effect. Neither Roaded nor Roadless is stupid. Either works, depending on the purpose. In either case, keep vehicles on the road as designated. > Every single national park/national forrest should be forced to have a > developed and maintaned trail system for various types of off-road > vehicles, horses, people, etc. I am not aware of any National Park that does not have maintained roads and trails--perhaps some in Alaska yet. However, I've been to a number of Parks, and they have extensive roads and trails, and you can walk nearly anywhere off-trail you want. >There should be something in every park/ > forrest for EVERYONE. It should be a law. Pretty much is, and it pretty much is. > When the asteriod hits or the > supervolcaneo errupts or the nuclear winter comes... it won't make any > difference if the areas are pristine and wild or criss-crossed with > trails. Yeah, but in the meantime..... > So open them up and let the chips fall as they may.:) You mean, the world is going to end one day, so let's destroy it now??? On Jan 6, 10:49 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote: > > There is absolutely no reason to preserve deep wilderness in it's > > pristine condition if the tax payers can't get to it to see it or use [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > won't hurt it; a large number of people, with an effect multiplied by > machinery, will have a major effect. That renders it useless... we don't need useless... let's use it. > Neither Roaded nor Roadless is stupid. Either works, depending on the > purpose. In either case, keep vehicles on the road as designated. It's stupid if it renders it useless... let's use it. > > Every single national park/national forrest should be forced to have a > > developed and maintaned trail system for various types of off-road [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > number of Parks, and they have extensive roads and trails, and you > can walk nearly anywhere off-trail you want.\ It's funny how you ignored... vehicles, horses, etc and only saw people. Says a whole lot about you I think... > >There should be something in every park/ > > forrest for EVERYONE. It should be a law. > > Pretty much is, and it pretty much is. Bullshit. > > When the asteriod hits or the > > supervolcaneo errupts or the nuclear winter comes... it won't make any > > difference if the areas are pristine and wild or criss-crossed with > > trails. > > Yeah, but in the meantime..... Let's use it... > > So open them up and let the chips fall as they may.:) > > You mean, the world is going to end one day, so let's destroy it > now??? More like the world is going to end some day... so let's use it now... while we still can. >>A handful of people on foot > > won't hurt it; a large number of people, with an effect multiplied by > > machinery, will have a major effect. > > That renders it useless... we don't need useless... let's use it. Sounds like you only consider something "used" or "useful" if someone destroys it. That's not very useful, and it's lousy stewardship. I have used many miles of National Forest and BLM land. Except for a couple times before I wised up, you can't tell where I was--no tracks, no remains of a campsite, no trash. No one comes after me, cussing me out for destroying the place. I leave it as I found it, and expect others to be as responsible. > > Neither Roaded nor Roadless is stupid. Either works, depending on the > > purpose. In either case, keep vehicles on the road as designated. > It's stupid if it renders it useless... let's use it. I DO use it. I don't destroy it. There is a huge difference. If you pass through after a lot of people like me have used a place, you won't find much evidence. If others pass through after a bunch of ATVs and off-roaders have munched everything up, there's nothing BUT evidence. It's just a big, torn up, dirt parking lot. Way to go. > > I am not aware of any National Park that does not have maintained > > roads and trails--perhaps some in Alaska yet. However, I've been to a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people. > Says a whole lot about you I think... I saw trails for people, some for horses. I also see designated trails/roads for vehicles. What's your point? Keep vehicles where they are designated. The whole point of most National Parks is to allow people to wander and see the things that are there to be seen. The point is NOT to change or destroy it. You get to go see geysers in Yellowstone; you don't get to do doughnuts in your ATV in the paint pot springs. I get to wander almost anywhere, anytime, on foot on BLM land. There are exceptions: I am required to stay away from breeding grounds of prairie chickens during breeding season, for example. Sounds like you'd go blasting right through them, and call it "using the land". Even "people trails" get closed if the traffic damage warrants it. If I hike up a hill, or cross a meadow, you probably can't tell (unless you are a good tracker...) When someone follows me with an ATV, especially the monster my neighbor has, you CAN tell. Actually, you can't miss it. > > >There should be something in every park/ > > > forrest for EVERYONE. It should be a law. > > > Pretty much is, and it pretty much is. > > Bullshit. Eloquent. Not. But it's probably the best part of your argument... Says a whole lot about you I think... The Parks, Forests, and BLM lands have places for hikers, campers (all sorts), many sorts of driving vehicles, etc. You are allowed to drive your vehicles--including ATVs--on pretty much all of the roads. The only thing you are usually disallowed from doing is driving your atv OFF THE ROADS. The problem is you seem to insist that you should be allowed to destroy anything, anywhere. > > > When the asteriod hits or the > > > supervolcaneo errupts or the nuclear winter comes... it won't make any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Let's use it... I am. But let's not destroy it. > > > So open them up and let the chips fall as they may.:) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > More like the world is going to end some day... so let's use it now... > while we still can. The end of the world is projected to be on the order of billions of years away. You seem to be in a hurry to destroy it today. We can use the outdoors. And if you don't destroy it, we--and those who follow you--can enjoy it tomorrow as well. Leave it as you found it. It's the most you can do. On Jan 7, 10:25 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote: > >>A handful of people on foot > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sounds like you only consider something "used" or "useful" if someone > destroys it. Well I certainly think you must at least be able to get to it and see it, if not actually walk on it, or drive/ride through it... I do not equate use with destroy. That is your twisted definition. > That's not very useful, and it's lousy stewardship. > I have used many miles of National Forest and BLM land. What about the millions of acres set aside by the roadless bullcrap that are very remote and very few humans have ever been there? >Except for a > couple times before I wised up, you can't tell where I was--no tracks, > no remains of a campsite, no trash. No one comes after me, cussing me [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I DO use it. You aren't using the parts I'm talking about... > I don't destroy it. There is a huge difference. > If you pass through after a lot of people like me have used a place, > you won't find much evidence. We had a place that we use to ride. Private farm. We rode just about every Sunday from about September to May. By may you could easily follow the trail... But by the next September, you couldn't even find it if you didn't know where it was. Use does not destroy... overuse does. your'er so proud that you can walk and not leave a trace. Hell I can ride a dirtbike just about anywhere in KY and within a week, you''d be dammed lucky to find a track. Foot traffic can cause a real mess too... when enough people are involved. > If others pass through after a bunch of ATVs and off-roaders have > munched everything up, there's nothing BUT evidence. It's just a big, > torn up, dirt parking lot. Way to go. The key word in that sentence is "bunch". A "bunch" of people can also cause damage. > > > I am not aware of any National Park that does not have maintained > > > roads and trails--perhaps some in Alaska yet. However, I've been to a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I saw trails for people, some for horses. I also see designated > trails/roads for vehicles. What's your point? That there are very few parks that have trails for dirt bikes, ATVs, etc despite that the fact that Dirt bikers and ATVers pay taxes tto support those parks too. > Keep vehicles where they are designated. > The whole point of most National Parks is to allow people to wander [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > The problem is you seem to insist that you should be allowed to > destroy anything, anywhere. Actually I want something less civilized than a road. I'm not looking to destroy the whold forest, etc. Trails systems to not have to destroy if they are properly designed in areas that can support them, maintained and created in large enough quantities to prevent overuse. > > > > When the asteriod hits or the > > > > supervolcaneo errupts or the nuclear winter comes... it won't make any [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The end of the world is projected to be on the order of billions of > years away. Noone really know when the end will come... > You seem to be in a hurry to destroy it today. I'm in a hurry to use some of the way I want to use it. > We can use the outdoors. And if you don't destroy it, we--and those > who follow you--can enjoy it tomorrow as well. > Leave it as you found it. It's the most you can do. To do that, we would have to remove the road you used to get to the parks you visited, We'd have to remove the walking bridges, the sky lifts, the lodges, and everything else man-made. You dont' seem to have a problem with the man-made sh.t that suits your fancy... just a man-made trail system or anything else that suits ours. prettier than our man made trail. > On Jan 7, 10:25 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it, if not actually walk on it, or drive/ride through it... I do not > equate use with destroy. That is your twisted definition. Preservation of an ecosystem is a use. Seeing a meadow and then bogging it until it's a useless ugly mudhole is destruction, and it is that kind of destruction--and attitude--that ticks so many people off, getting them willing to shut down huge areas to motorized traffic. One hundred people running across a meadow won't do the damage that one hundred ATVs will accomplish, along with the added noise, etc. > What about the millions of acres set aside by the roadless bullcrap > that are very remote and very few humans have ever been there? Not everyplace needs a road. Most of the Forest Service roads were built for logging (which has problems which I will avoid here). Many areas have been set aside as wilderness, sensitive areas, endangered species environment, etc. There are enough FS roads that you couldn't possibly travel a sizeable percentage of in several lifetimes. Why destroy more area with more roads? > > > > Neither Roaded nor Roadless is stupid. Either works, depending on the > > > > purpose. In either case, keep vehicles on the road as designated. > > > It's stupid if it renders it useless... let's use it. > > > I DO use it. If you go off road, and destroy the land and vegetation, you are ABusing it. > We had a place that we use to ride. Private farm. We rode just about > every Sunday from about September to May. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > KY and within a week, you''d be dammed lucky to find a track. Foot > traffic can cause a real mess too... when enough people are involved. The operative phrase there was "private farm". Do as you wish. And as you point out, if the land can recover quickly, it is less of an abusive situation. Of course, continued use by multiple ATVs would render the damage more permanent. > > If others pass through after a bunch of ATVs and off-roaders have > > munched everything up, there's nothing BUT evidence. It's just a big, > > torn up, dirt parking lot. Way to go. > > The key word in that sentence is "bunch". A "bunch" of people can also > cause damage. YEP. That's why the services can close road and trails, and such closures should be heeded. Still, an ATV does much more damage than a pair of feet, and it is the multiplier effect that is so important. > > I saw trails for people, some for horses. I also see designated > > trails/roads for vehicles. What's your point? > > That there are very few parks that have trails for dirt bikes, ATVs, > etc despite that the fact that Dirt bikers and ATVers pay taxes tto > support those parks too. Parks are not usually intended for that type of recreation! And ATVs are not compatible with the quieter pursuits of hiking, camping, nature walks, etc. There are millions upon millions of BLM and Forest Service lands that are open to ATVs. Use a muffler, stay on designated trails, and have a ball. > Trails systems to not have to destroy if they are properly designed in > areas that can support them, maintained and created in large enough > quantities to prevent overuse. This whole thread got started by some forgotten persons who advocated tearing up the land OFF the trails. What you are talking about is a completely different situation, and one for which I have less animosity. >I'm in a hurry to use some of the way I want to use it. You can. Don't destroy it. > To do that, we would have to remove the road you used to get to the > parks you visited, We'd have to remove the walking bridges, the sky > lifts, the lodges, and everything else man-made. You dont' seem to > have a problem with the man-made sh.t that suits your fancy... just a > man-made trail system or anything else that suits ours. > prettier than our man made trail. 1. I believe there is too much development in many places. 2. Such development is limited, though it seems not, sometimes. 3. I have no problem with a trail system, as I've said before. It's the wanton, random, everywhere stuff that is destructive. > If you go off road, and destroy the land and vegetation, you are > ABusing it. Most offroaders do not abuse the land. It's the offroad clubs who do most of the clean up work on trails and campgrounds trashed by hikers, campers etc. Sure theres damage done by some ORV'ers. Trouble is the enviroMENTALists slam the public with propaganda showing one are and extrapolating it to the country. They never show the trashed campgrounds where no ORV'ers ever were. Why not? On Jan 9, 10:10 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote: > > On Jan 7, 10:25 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Parks are not usually intended for that type of recreation! I know... let's change that. :) > And ATVs > are not compatible with the quieter pursuits of hiking, camping, > nature walks, etc. Shoudl be room for both in larger parks... :) >There are millions upon millions of BLM and Forest > Service lands that are open to ATVs. Not anywhere around here... > Use a muffler, stay on > designated trails, and have a ball. I could live with that... > > Trails systems to not have to destroy if they are properly designed in > > areas that can support them, maintained and created in large enough > > quantities to prevent overuse. > > This whole thread got started by some forgotten persons who advocated > tearing up the land OFF the trails. I thought it got started by someone wanting the death penaty for illegal riding? > >I'm in a hurry to use some of the way I want to use it. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 3. I have no problem with a trail system, as I've said before. It's > the wanton, random, everywhere stuff that is destructive.- Hide quoted text - If every rider actually did ride ramdomly through the forest and noone ever rode the same track twice... that woudl probably be a good thing. It's when multiple people ride the same track that trails form and problems can start. > If every rider actually did ride ramdomly through the forest and noone > ever rode the same track twice... that woudl probably be a good thing. > It's when multiple people ride the same track that trails form and > problems can start. The vegetation might recover. The fauna would not. Many species wouyld shortly die out from the stress of noise and disturbance. On Jan 10, 9:08 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote: > > If every rider actually did ride ramdomly through the forest and noone > > ever rode the same track twice... that woudl probably be a good thing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The vegetation might recover. The fauna would not. Many species > wouyld shortly die out from the stress of noise and disturbance. I ain't buying that at all... it's BS... On , , Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:57:31 -0800 (PST), Re: OFF ROAD VEHICLE USERS DESTROYING AMERICA, dsc-ky <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: >On Jan 10, 9:08 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I ain't buying that at all... it's BS... The forest floor is also a micro environment, many insects and small animals live on the forest floor that are essential to the preservation of the forest eco system. People randomly riding off road vehicles through a forest cause immeasurable damage that can take decades to recover from. Lets face it, we don't need people riding around on or in any type of off road vehicle, we need the forests and all the eco system to keep the planet green. Trade your smoke belching vehicle in for a good pair of tramping boots and walking pole. You will feel better for walking and the environment will too. On Jan 12, 11:13 pm, Yeah Right <twoe...@freewhatever.forwhyever> wrote: > On , , Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:57:31 -0800 (PST), Re: OFF ROAD > VEHICLE USERS DESTROYING AMERICA, dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > boots and walking pole. > You will feel better for walking and the environment will too. LOL. I love satire. E.P. On , , Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:15:46 -0800 (PST), Re: OFF ROAD VEHICLE USERS DESTROYING AMERICA, Ed Pirrero <gcmschemist@gmail.com> wrote: >On Jan 12, 11:13 pm, Yeah Right <twoe...@freewhatever.forwhyever> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >LOL. I love satire. Only a fool would consider what I wrote as satire. >>> The forest floor is also a micro environment, many insects and >>> small animals live on the forest floor that are essential to the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Only a fool would consider what I wrote as satire. Yep. I thought it was pretty f.cking stupid. Everyone knows that walking poles smash the sh.t out of micro-insects. And God knows how many worms and such are killed each year by good tramping boots. Satire should be clever at the very least. ---- Go fast and aim for where the trees aren't. ---- > >LOL. I love satire. > > Only a fool would consider what I wrote as satire. Only a fool would write what you wrote and NOT consider it satire. JayC >> >LOL. I love satire. >> >> Only a fool would consider what I wrote as satire. > >Only a fool would write what you wrote and NOT consider it satire. I pity you and everyone who is forced to be in contact with you. Bye. "Yeah Right" <twoever@freewhatever.forwhyever> wrote in message >>> The forest floor is also a micro environment, many insects and >>> small animals live on the forest floor that are essential to the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Only a fool would consider what I wrote as satire. Only a fool would consider you anything less than a fascist. On Jan 13, 6:43 am, Yeah Right <twoe...@freewhatever.forwhyever> wrote: > On , , Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:15:46 -0800 (PST), Re: OFF ROAD > VEHICLE USERS DESTROYING AMERICA, Ed Pirrero [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well, you'd have to be a fool to believe that unconditionally at face value... On , , Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:24:16 -0800 (PST), Re: OFF ROAD VEHICLE USERS DESTROYING AMERICA, dsc-ky <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: >On Jan 13, 6:43 am, Yeah Right <twoe...@freewhatever.forwhyever> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >Well, you'd have to be a fool to believe that unconditionally at face >value... I KNOW it, I have seen the damage done by uncontrolled Off Road Vehicles on the forest floor. It destroys valuable eco-systems. >I KNOW it, I have seen the damage done by uncontrolled Off Road >Vehicles on the forest floor. It destroys valuable eco-systems. Ecosystems are completely overrated. ---- Go fast and aim for where the trees aren't. ---- http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922 "Yeah Right" <twoever@freewhatever.forwhyever> wrote in message You said "bye" in one of your post, can you please go away now, BYE > "Yeah Right" <twoe...@freewhatever.forwhyever> wrote in message > > You said "bye" in one of your post, can you please go away now, BYE Don't you know that do-gooder tree-hugging liberal greenies are just as hardy as the micro ecosystems they worry so much about? They're like roaches... they never go away and they get fat on agent-orange. :) On , , Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:58:57 -0700, Re: OFF ROAD VEHICLE USERS DESTROYING AMERICA, "endurodog" <endurodog@comcast.net> wrote: >"Yeah Right" <twoever@freewhatever.forwhyever> wrote in message > > You said "bye" in one of your post, can you please go away now, BYE I've decided not to, I changed my mind after reading the continuing posts. In future remove alt.true-crime from your header line. > On , , Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:58:57 -0700, Re: OFF ROAD VEHICLE > USERS DESTROYING AMERICA, "endurodog" <endurodog@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > continuing posts. > In future remove alt.true-crime from your header line. How bout you remove rec.motorcycles.dirt >> In future remove alt.true-crime from your header line. > > How bout you remove rec.motorcycles.dirt Seconded. ---- Go fast and aim for where the trees aren't. ---- "Yeah Right" <twoever@freewhatever.forwhyever> wrote in message > I KNOW it, I have seen the damage done by uncontrolled Off Road > Vehicles on the forest floor. It destroys valuable eco-systems. You're still here. Unfortunately. On Jan 13, 2:13 am, Yeah Right <twoe...@freewhatever.forwhyever> wrote: > On , , Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:57:31 -0800 (PST), Re: OFF ROAD > VEHICLE USERS DESTROYING AMERICA, dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Lets face it, we don't need people riding around on or in any > type of off road vehicle, Says you... and other do-gooder tree-hugging greenie extreemist... > we need the forests and all the eco > system to keep the planet green. Keep trying... I'm still not buying it... > Trade your smoke belching vehicle in for a good pair of tramping > boots and walking pole. > You will feel better for walking and the environment will too. No thanks... On , , Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:23:16 -0800 (PST), Re: OFF ROAD VEHICLE USERS DESTROYING AMERICA, dsc-ky <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote: >On Jan 13, 2:13 am, Yeah Right <twoe...@freewhatever.forwhyever> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Says you... and other do-gooder tree-hugging greenie extreemist... It is the truth, trying to disparage me as an extremist is risible, I am anything but a "tree hugging greenie". >> we need the forests and all the eco >> system to keep the planet green. > >Keep trying... I'm still not buying it... I don't want your money, I want you to think. But somehow I think parting you from your money would be easier by your posts so far. >> Trade your smoke belching vehicle in for a good pair of tramping >> boots and walking pole. >> You will feel better for walking and the environment will too. > >No thanks... Lose some weight, join a gym and build up your cardio fitness and you won't view walking as such a tiresome task. You can then hear the birds and insects in the forest rather than destroying them and their habitats in such a mindless vandalistic manner. On Jan 14, 4:19 am, Yeah Right <twoe...@freewhatever.forwhyever> wrote: > On , , Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:23:16 -0800 (PST), Re: OFF ROAD > VEHICLE USERS DESTROYING AMERICA, dsc-ky <Dudley.Corn...@eku.edu> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > It is the truth, trying to disparage me as an extremist is > risible, I am anything but a "tree hugging greenie". To think that the earth cannot tolerate some amount of riding is extreme thinking. To think that a bike trail (that is not overused) is that much worse than a well worn foot path or game trail is extreme (if not nuts). The forest is littered with well defined game trails and yet the micro eco- systems you hold so imporant just keep on keeping on. > >> we need the forests and all the eco > >> system to keep the planet green. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't want your money, I want you to think. But somehow I think > parting you from your money would be easier by your posts so far. It would be very easy... just open a riding park within a short drive of my home and I'll gladly pay you and stay on your marked trails. No problem. I can think just as well as you... I just don't agree with you. I'm never going to agree with you and you are never going to agree with me. That's just how it is. I do see your view on riding and it's impact on the forest as a bit on the extreme side. I feel that most of the destructin you cite is caused by over use and/or stupidity. > >> Trade your smoke belching vehicle in for a good pair of tramping > >> boots and walking pole. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the birds and insects in the forest rather than destroying them > and their habitats in such a mindless vandalistic manner.- Hide quoted text - Could stand to lose a few pounds, but I belong to a gym and I use it and i'm in pretty good shape despite be a little heavier than ideal. Walkng is no problem... and I do plenty of it and work and on the golf course. Walking is not riding (if you aren't a rider, you probably can't understand that). > On Jan 10, 9:08 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I ain't buying that at all... it's BS... Without even looking it up again: desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, sage grouse, elk, ad infinitum. If ORVs were allowed everywhere, anytime, wildlife would take a big hit. Our numbers and machinery have a major impact on wildlife that is frequently unable to deal with it for one reason or another. That's why boats are kept from great blue heron nests, aircraft are kept from bald eagle territory, land vehicles and sometimes pedestrians and horses are kept from sage hen breeding grounds. On Jan 13, 4:24 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote: > > On Jan 10, 9:08 pm, websu...@cox.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > bald eagle territory, land vehicles and sometimes pedestrians and > horses are kept from sage hen breeding grounds. No deserts in Ky... no big horn sheep, Not sure about sage grouse, but doubt it, I think they just re-introducd elk (they are doing fine). Pretty much all the wildlife here is doing fine (with a few exceptions), despite a very high rate of off-roading. Leave the forest as you found is unnatural. Nothing in naure (plans, animals, wind, water, etc.) ever leaves the forest like as it was. Burrowing animals make millions of holes all over the place. Some of them actually make very well worn paths which resemble bike trails, etc. Various kind of dear destroy small trees with their antlers just before and during the rutting season. They also make well defined trails that anyone can see and follow. Beavers CUT down trees and damn up sreams, etc. Wild boars root up the forest floor. Some types of plants take over and choke out all other varieties. Bears flip rocks over in sreams (if a dirt biker flipps a rock over ina stream, greenies hae a cow). Leave it as you found it is unnatural... tread lightly is much more natural. Speaking of that. I'd make any of you bet that I could ride off trail a fairly short disance somewere here in KY and place a ribbon on a tree. The next day, I'll show you where I left the trail... you won't find the ribbon. There are areas that cannot support trails for any useful amount of time without breaking down to the point of being unuseable. These aren't the places where trails should be built. Most riders want sustainable trail systems.... which means they need to be planned out fairly well, put in places where the ground makeup can handle it, etc. >> There are millions upon millions of BLM and Forest >> Service lands that are open to ATVs. > > Not anywhere around here... Not here in AZ either. ATV's are not allowed on forest service land except if licensed as a legal street vehicle and driven only on forest service roads and not off road. Most of AZ's state trust land is off limits to ORV'ers. There are a few areas where a permit can be purchased to allow riding on trust land. However, most trust land is closed to ORV'ers even with a permit. <snip> > Every single national park/national forrest should be forced to have a > developed and maintaned trail system for various types of off-road > vehicles, horses, people, etc. There should be something in every park/ > forrest for EVERYONE. It should be a law. You can put the motorized > areas on one side of the park and the nature areas on the other, etc. > Keep them separate. <snip> And just when are you going to propose a _workable_ method to make the yo yo's stay on those maintained trails? So far no one has found a method. From reading this thread it appears that every ORV user posting here is in the "let's destroy it group". Harry K > road spikes the police use) The first night two of the very small > penis brigade went to do spin outs in the area and punctured all > four of their car tyres irrepairably. 1 OffRoad motorcyclists don't do spinouts, only the imbecile Quad gangs and apparently some Jeepsters do. 2 OffRoad motorcyclists use BibMousse instead of air tubes. Thus they'd ride over said spikes for miles and not get flat tires. See? You're barking at the wrong tree, two wheeled OffRoaders are victims from collateral damage caused by the misbehaviour of the more than two wheeled crowd. Rowdy [snip] > Any user can contribute to the traffic jam, but the off-highway vehicles do > damage disproportionate to their numbers. In addition to loud engines, they > have soft tires and deep treads that bite more deeply than a foot or a > hoof. When they go off-trail, consequences often follow: erosion, > destruction of fragile desert soils or historical artifacts, and > disturbance of wildlife habitats. Maybe, maybe not. So why close existing logging and mining roads to recreational vehicular traffic? The roads are already there. They have been built to accommodate far heavier traffic than RVs. I'm not so sure about how much worse vehicular impacts are on wildlife than foot traffic. I used to drive quite a few local logging roads and see plenty of deer, bear, cougar, eagles, etc. Once they closed the area and turned it over to the hikers, they scared all the animals off. Animals don't like people. They don't pay much attention to vehicles. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message