62 replies to this topic

[Bill Z]

Some cases --maybe so---but comparing a pyro nut to all hikers to make a point that all hikers are worse on nature than off roading vehicles is pretty lame. Actually, the more I think about it--it aounds VERY LAME.

Soooo...now hikers who have campfires are "pyro nuts"? Classy. Way to paint with a broad brush.

This is too funny!!! You want to know who the pyros are, visit the fire department.
Here's my little story.
I've been backpacking for decades, and my fires typcially get wood that is 2 to 3" in diameter fueling big logs that maybe 4 to 6" in diameter and the fire pit is rarely larger than 3 ft diameter. Then a couple of years ago, my friend invites his son, the fireman. This kid has worked the summer forest fires as well as city fires. We put him in charge of campfires.
Guess What?! That's him and his "campfire" a couple of summers ago.
Please note 5 ft long tree trunk about 10 inches in diameter sitting on top.
[attachment=1801:campfire.jpg]
Every fire pit we found, he disassembled because he felt they were all too small.
BTW, that's me in the Red GoreTex Parka. We had raging flash flood waters surrounding our little "island" about an hour after this photo was taken. but that's another story.

[supermom]

Exactly, Bill and remember, this doesn't take into account all the similar amount national prairie and grassland open space that's also controlled by the USFS.

For those others that may think I'm being hard-nosed, please understand that I'm just saying things should be put into true perspective before jumping on the political correctness bandwagon and rallying against an extremely small demographic of people who use--and for the most part, respect--the national forest lands.
I don't think you're trying to change "me" I think you're trying to change "everyone". It's a constant haranguing on issues, whether it's sub prime loans, karate versus an intruder, firearm use, traffic accidents or this issue. Rather than adding something to the discussion, you offer your opinion as fact. I'm just saying, take a moment to look something up before you opine and we'll all benefit, don't you think? After all, you have a world of information at your fingertips, via the internet.

Another great example of the "I don't like it so people shouldn't be doing it" camp. I guarantee you the people engaging in these activities, aren't all out there tearing through the forest running down bunny rabbits. They stay to the paths and roads that are assigned. It's a challenge for them, against nature, against engineering, against machines. They aren't doing high speed runs up there. To say they are "destroying the forest" is asinine.

Soooo...now hikers who have campfires are "pyro nuts"? Classy. Way to paint with a broad brush.

Well...you didn't read, but I did mention that above.

Didn't say you shouldn't. I said it would be nice if you at least attempted to make it somewhat informed before spewing forth the inaccuracies and just being part of the overall campaign of mis-information problem.

Feels pretty good to open your mind, doesn't it?



Wow....just...wow.

your getting so worked up over something you don't care about?

Ha ha ha ha ha

I can see why you retired so early.

You like coming off as the guy to police up the internet?

You don't like what someone else has to say--so you get irritated and think they should conform to the way you want them to?

Pot call kettle black.

Oh, BTW--the hiker I'm referencing---yup, 8 year old pyro. Geez you fell for that hard.

'member we were talking about him--what 2 or 3 months ago?

So, what's really up here? you really have that much beef with another person--put them on ignore. I'm totally ok with you ignoring me!

Ha ha ha ha ha

[Darthvader]

your getting so worked up over something you don't care about?

Ha ha ha ha ha

I can see why you retired so early.

You like coming off as the guy to police up the internet?

You don't like what someone else has to say--so you get irritated and think they should conform to the way you want them to?

Pot call kettle black.

Oh, BTW--the hiker I'm referencing---yup, 8 year old pyro. Geez you fell for that hard.

'member we were talking about him--what 2 or 3 months ago?

So, what's really up here? you really have that much beef with another person--put them on ignore. I'm totally ok with you ignoring me!

Ha ha ha ha ha

Wow, SUPERmom tossing out troll bait? What has this board come to now? Me and Chippy need to step it up....

[jafount]

your getting so worked up over something you don't care about?

Ha ha ha ha ha

I can see why you retired so early.

You like coming off as the guy to police up the internet?

You don't like what someone else has to say--so you get irritated and think they should conform to the way you want them to?

Pot call kettle black.

Oh, BTW--the hiker I'm referencing---yup, 8 year old pyro. Geez you fell for that hard.

'member we were talking about him--what 2 or 3 months ago?

So, what's really up here? you really have that much beef with another person--put them on ignore. I'm totally ok with you ignoring me!

Ha ha ha ha ha

When you can't respond with fact, respond with vitriol covered up in nervous "ha ha ha" internet laughter.

I'm hardly worked up and I've explained in detail I have no "beef" with "you". I just think that when a person is uninformed about an issue, they should take the time to get informed before engaging in vocal (or keyboard) diarrhea. Unfortunately, you've demonstrated clear inability to do so time and time again and give credence to the question, "why do those that know the least, know it the loudest?" Even when confronted with actual facts, actual numbers, you fail to comprehend and respond in kind. None of this has anything to do with the pot calling the kettle black.

I don't think you should conform to what I say. I think it's everyone's responsibility to take a moment to fact check before they start spouting off. Then again, it's also your right to consistently barf up your opinion even in the face of overwhelming factual data in direct contradiction to your opinion.

Your direct attack on my character or psyche is proof positive you can't engage in a discussion or debate without lashing out. I've said it over and over...I didn't "attack you". I brought into question your assertions, provided supporting data and anticipated your response. You failed to support your position, failed to comprehend the factual data and ultimately lashed out with your "I see why you retired early" comment. As well, I anticipated the ultimate sign of failure which is "if you don't like it put me on ignore". It's not that I don't like it. Quite the contrary, in fact. I enjoy a little verbal judo every now and again, I'd just prefer it be with someone who can keep up.

Oh and for a little edification, my bone crushing, life changing accident you and people like you enjoy making light of, which resulted in my early departure from law enforcement has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. For the record, when I'm worked up, there's no questioning it. You'll know. In the meantime I'll resort to a tactic better suited to you..."I'm rubber and your glue".

[FolsomFrogGuy]

The whole reason this occurred is because Karen and her late husband (he of course was an avid dirt bike trail rider) purchased a plot of land in the Georgetown Divide area right next to an off-road legal park without knowing it. Karen wanted to shut down the place and created many non profit organizations to help facilitate the land grab (she now runs the PEER and CNSC). Karen in the past used to spike the trails in the region in order to keep the riders away from her "sanctuary". These trails were legal at the time so Karen proceeded to sue the FS and force a travel management policy in the Rock Creek area. She then sued the EDNF using the same arguments. Karen is not an environmentalist as she would have you believe, Karen sold much of the timber on her 20ac's to a logging company, she is an exclusionist. Karen and her groups are preparing their appeal over the current forest proposal (modified b)Final Report and will no doubt attempt to lock everyone out. This includes not only the off-road community but those that used to use dirt roads to get to their favorite hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, bird watching, cycling areas. You can no longer park your car off of the road and must be within a few feet of the allowed travel road. I have seen the arguments about saving the environment, closing access to the forest doesn’t accomplish that. Reducing what you purchase, how far you drive, what you eat, travel etc will accomplish that. People always speak of off-roaders as rednecks and are bastardized by the elitists. Just so you know I have my engineering degree from Cal Poly, have been a vegetarian for 16 years, and I ride an off-road motorcycle. I respect the environment and all of my fellow riders do the same. We work on the trails, clean up after others (Every group has its bad apples), educate others, and enjoy the outdoors. For those of you that want “quiet” recreation, you have your special designated wildernesses (The Forest Service can’t even fight fires or fly in helicopters in these areas). National forest are meant to be enjoyed by Americans, National Parks are meant to be preserved, please don’t assume one is the other.

And her political connections?

Forrestry management budgets have been cut so much, it's not surprising to me that public use areas of our National Forests are getting hit in order to compensate. OHV trails require maintenance not just for the trash, vandalism and other damage left by the few bad apples you and others bring up, but for the inherent damage to the landscape, which is further made worse by seasonal rainfall. I wonder how much these costs have weighed in to the decision making process. If left unmitigated, thses may have a range of impacts including those to streams and the watershed.

I do think that there is a place for OHV trails on public lands, but they must be appropriately maintained.

[chris v]

And her political connections?

Forrestry management budgets have been cut so much, it's not surprising to me that public use areas of our National Forests are getting hit in order to compensate. OHV trails require maintenance not just for the trash, vandalism and other damage left by the few bad apples you and others bring up, but for the inherent damage to the landscape, which is further made worse by seasonal rainfall. I wonder how much these costs have weighed in to the decision making process. If left unmitigated, thses may have a range of impacts including those to streams and the watershed.

I do think that there is a place for OHV trails on public lands, but they must be appropriately maintained.

Who maintains the natural trails that wild animals create?

[supermom]

When you can't respond with fact, respond with vitriol covered up in nervous "ha ha ha" internet laughter.

I'm hardly worked up and I've explained in detail I have no "beef" with "you". I just think that when a person is uninformed about an issue, they should take the time to get informed before engaging in vocal (or keyboard) diarrhea. Unfortunately, you've demonstrated clear inability to do so time and time again and give credence to the question, "why do those that know the least, know it the loudest?" Even when confronted with actual facts, actual numbers, you fail to comprehend and respond in kind. None of this has anything to do with the pot calling the kettle black.

I don't think you should conform to what I say. I think it's everyone's responsibility to take a moment to fact check before they start spouting off. Then again, it's also your right to consistently barf up your opinion even in the face of overwhelming factual data in direct contradiction to your opinion.

Spouting off? I have consistently said that off road vehicles should have their own land useage--which does not have a place in the middle of a park--where conservancy programs are working to better the forrests. That is an opinion. I have no interest in researching to try to prove anything about this opinion. I am perefectly happy with this opinion. Get over it, we disagree about the way the forrests should be maintained. As for your "reason" for getting out of law enforcement--I totally forgot. That was insensitive of me. I am truly sorry for that remark. Stupid, stupid, stupid--I really do feel bad about forgetting about that. I'd offer to buy you a beer; but if I was you/ and you were me--I wouldn't accept. That offer is on the table, though.


Your direct attack on my character or psyche is proof positive you can't engage in a discussion or debate without lashing out. I've said it over and over...I didn't "attack you". I brought into question your assertions, provided supporting data and anticipated your response. You failed to support your position, failed to comprehend the factual data and ultimately lashed out with your "I see why you retired early" comment. As well, I anticipated the ultimate sign of failure which is "if you don't like it put me on ignore". It's not that I don't like it. Quite the contrary, in fact. I enjoy a little verbal judo every now and again, I'd just prefer it be with someone who can keep up.

Oh and for a little edification, my bone crushing, life changing accident you and people like you enjoy making light of, which resulted in my early departure from law enforcement has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. For the record, when I'm worked up, there's no questioning it. You'll know. In the meantime I'll resort to a tactic better suited to you..."I'm rubber and your glue".

[Bill Z]

Who maintains the natural trails that wild animals create?

Specially trained and hired little animals.
I've heard the pension plan for rabbits is awesome,




if the rabbit can avoid being eaten before retirement age.

[buick24]

The trails are maintained by both the users and by the green sticker funds in California (grants). With the passing of sb 742 %50 of the funds are now allocated to maintance. This bill also got rid of the special interest OHV board that squandered the funds for thier special projects. How many here have seen an off road motorcycle trail? If you havent they are mostly single track, low impact trails that are shared by horses, bikes, and hikers.

[jafount]

I have consistently said that off road vehicles should have their own land useage--which does not have a place in the middle of a park--where conservancy programs are working to better the forrests. That is an opinion.

wait...are you talking about national parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite or are you talking about US Forest land? I'm certainly not opposed to keeping off roaders out of designated parks, but forest land seems different.

[buick24]

Good point, people assume that all Forest lands are designated parks or wilderness. The forest is activily logged (Check your house, I bet its made of weood) and this is thier largest money maker. It's all about management and the Forest Service chooses closing trails rather then mananging them. As for Karen Schambach's political ties, she is California's PEER.org representative and has in the past worked on the California's OHV board and Rubicon Society. She is a hateful person.

[Orangetj]

Great topic and one that hits close to my own heart. The notion that OHV's "destroy" nature is largely hogwash. As an earlier poster said, if you haven't seen a motorcycle trail in the forest, perhaps you should do so before talking about the level of impact they have. I've backpacked virtually all of my life and have recently taken up offroad motorcycling. The motorcycle trails I've seen are virtually indistinguishable from the backpacking trails I've hiked or the mountain bike trails I've ridden. A two foot wide (or even a 10 foot wide) path through the forest does not "destroy" the natural environment, despite what exclusionists like Karen S. would have us believe. OHV's do not need to spin tires and chew up the dirt to move forward. The "knobby" looking tires actually have exactly the opposite effect as they provide traction and minimize wheelspin. Keep in mind that the Forests are already subject to logging and other "fuels reduction" efforts. Does anybody really believe that OHV's cause more damage to the natural environment than logging? Ever seen a tractor-piled stack of logs and the surrounding terrain?

The off road "playgrounds" (such as Prairie City) are fun but nothing like trail riding, as trail riding actually allows a person to get a long way out into the forest to actually see some of the natural beauty that's out there.

Go to any OHV oriented forum (try ThumperTalk) and you'll invariably find threads about trail maintenance work parties, clean up trips, etc.. These people are not the drunken, hillbilly, redneck, nature destroying folks some would like you to believe. For the most part, they are people who appreciate the beauty of nature and enjoy being able to get out in it to have fun.

The National Forest is a different thing than National Parks or Wilderness areas, both of which already prohibit motorized travel and cover some pretty vast expanses of land. Within the National Forest, OHV operators are required to stay on designated trails, so the idea that people are just out tearing through the forest willy-nilly is inaccurate.

[Orangetj]

The bottom line is, every group is guilty of being "messy" because of a few stupid individuals, this does not mean that singling out one or two specific groups and taking away their rights is going to solve the problems. There are parts of the El Dorado Naitonal forest where OHV have never been allowed.

This is an excellent point. I'll go further by saying that the parts of the EDNF where OHV have never been allowed are the VAST majority of it. Further reducing the miles of available existing trail will only force more people into less area and ensure that fewer people get a chance to experience the beauty of nature in these forests.

I wonder if the folks who believe it's wrong to ride a motorcycle on a trail through the forest feel guilty when they drive their cars on a road that has permanently obliterated the natural surface below to their home that was built on land that was once natural open space. When they enjoy a nice drive up hwy 50 to Tahoe, do they think of the impact hwy 50 has had on the natural environment along the way? Do they mourn for the loss of wildlands all along the shore of Lake Tahoe and for the pine forests flattened to allow the construction of the hotels and casinos?

[buick24]

This is an excellent point. I'll go further by saying that the parts of the EDNF where OHV have never been allowed are the VAST majority of it. Further reducing the miles of available existing trail will only force more people into less area and ensure that fewer people get a chance to experience the beauty of nature in these forests.

I wonder if the folks who believe it's wrong to ride a motorcycle on a trail through the forest feel guilty when they drive their cars on a road that has permanently obliterated the natural surface below to their home that was built on land that was once natural open space. When they enjoy a nice drive up hwy 50 to Tahoe, do they think of the impact hwy 50 has had on the natural environment along the way? Do they mourn for the loss of wildlands all along the shore of Lake Tahoe and for the pine forests flattened to allow the construction of the hotels and casinos?

Spot On Orangetj.

[EDH Jen]

I wonder if the folks who believe it's wrong to ride a motorcycle on a trail through the forest feel guilty when they drive their cars on a road that has permanently obliterated the natural surface below to their home that was built on land that was once natural open space. When they enjoy a nice drive up hwy 50 to Tahoe, do they think of the impact hwy 50 has had on the natural environment along the way? Do they mourn for the loss of wildlands all along the shore of Lake Tahoe and for the pine forests flattened to allow the construction of the hotels and casinos?

.......driving their Prius's from the Bay Area up to Lake Tahoe to hike these trails they believe should be theirs alone.
I find the environmentalist liberals the biggest hypocrites of them all.
Some of us have been conserving, recycling, and respecting nature our entire lives - we were raised that way. But now that Al Gore and a bunch of celebrities have decided we need to 'Go Green" they're all telling me what I need to do in order to do my part. Hmmm...I've been doing my part for 42 years, and you just jumped on the bandwagon? I believe I've done my part and then some.
I'll be glad when this fad is over and they all move onto the next big issue to spout off on.