iain Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I agree we share some common interests (enjoying our national forests, as you mentioned). There is a point at which politeness doesn't quite cut it at times. My case study is Dutchman's Flat outside of Bend, Oregon. Snowmobilers there are polite and courteous as well, but with the sheer amount of them distributed throughout the area, it becomes a touch intolerable. Yes, one can avoid them after about 5 miles, but those first 5 miles can be a brutal ordeal of smog and constantly checking your back (they have groomed track, but frequently are off it at great speed). I have trouble seeing them as allies at these times. Anyways, I think both sides of these issues are frequent victims of the commitment heuristic, where we have a desire to be consistent with ethical commitments and decisions we have made in the past. I'm as guilty as the next. Instead of viewing the information objectively and case-by-case we make the same decisions again and again about each other because we want to appear consistent with our beliefs. It makes life's decisions a lot less complex, but it doesn't get us anywhere. Good to see a so-called "liberal" breaking out of it, though I have some fundamental issues with the ARC, of which a great many members are motorized recreationalists (dare I say all?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 The commitment heuristic, btw, was applied to choices made by avalanche victims in a very interesting avalanche seminar the other weekend up on Hood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 there are some issues on which our interests coincide and besides not paying fees what are the interests that will make us overlook our fundamentally opposite approach to the outdoors? orv users don't have much more clout than that afforded by riding machines with famous brand names, and the interest of these industries to sell as many of these machines as possible. I am personally not interested in selling my soul to the devil even if it means losing the fee battle, as a matter of fact I'd rather pay the fees than have to deal with more machines and their impact in the outdoors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 (edited) J_B- Those that ride ORV's or dirt bikes or whatever are individual users who just want to be able to go out to the woods and enjoy their Saturday -- just like you and me. And they have rights, just like you and me. Further, their interests are probably no more in line with Yahama then are yours with The North Face or REI. If you cannot acknowledge that, you MAY BE narrow minded and you are certainly being dogmatic and providing evidence to support the complaints raised by Sisu and Fairweather. Think about it: we are all pawns on the same chessboard even if some are black and others white. -Matt Edited January 28, 2003 by mattp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 who just want to be able to go out to the woods and enjoy their Saturday -- just like you and me I don't think so, I am neither ruining it for everyone not riding a machine within a couple miles radius, nor is my impact on the environment even comparable. This is not the Kmart of the outdoors where everyone is free to consume as much as they want according to their desire to spend. their interests are probably no more in line with Yahama then are yours with The North Face or REI well I beg to differ on this too. Sorry to be narrow minded and all, but Yamaha has the same interests as orv'ers which is to open as much land as is possible to their activities, and with as little restrictions as possible. just an example: http://www.kettlerange.org/orvreport/ExecSummary.htm And it appears that REI is the good side of the fence most of the time w.r.t. caring for the environment so I am not too bothered with the thought that their interests may be in line with mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_J Posted January 28, 2003 Author Share Posted January 28, 2003 I am not saying that any one group give up use area to another. I am saying that if all groups work together to get rid of fees it would be better. Many small groups joining hands together make one large group. One large group is more of a threat because ther are more votes out there. Votes mean jobs to public employees and their bosses. Washington, DC, state gov't, local gov't are all aware of VOTES!!!! Was this clearer for all the people with myopic eyes. Matt Perkins I will address your remark about nature on natures terms at a later date. Its not appropriate in this thread. I believe you are drifting from the main forum and should amend your comments. Sisu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 J_B- REI's interest (might just as well be N. Face or Lowe or whatever) is in selling product. If you think they are inherently eco-friendly as a corporation, I believe you would be seriously dissapointed to sit in on one of their board meetings. Don't let the fact that they have defined their market group fool you: for the most part, they are simply pandering to people like you and me who think we are environmental warriors when we drive our SUV's to Smith Rock for the weekend, pick up a couple pieces of trash while we are there, and then take a side trip over to Mt. Bachelor only to complain about the snowmobiliers in the snowpark that is probably paid for by their organized lobby. I think you ought to listen to more Zappa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 (edited) Sisu- I agree that I don't see it as a matter of compromising our desire to enjoy the mountains or crags in some semblance of quiet and clean air so that they can be taken over by snowmobiles and dirt bikes. That is why I pointed out the Mount Baker and Lake Wenatchee areas as examples of where I don not begrudge motorized users their access. However, Jon and J_B may see it as a "zero sum game" so that if we gain, the motorized users lose (or the other way around). Even if there is some truth to that view, I still think we should recognize that these other groups are not all comprised of ignorant fat destroyers of the earth and I think we should seek common ground where it may exist. We don't want fees and I bet most of the individual snowmobile riders, ORV people, fishermen, and etc. do not either. All of us probably want more funding for long term recreational use of the National Forests and we would probably all benefit from having areas managed such that the snowmobiler doesn't have to worry about coming around a corner to suddenly find a couple of cross country skiers in the middle of the road and the cross country skiers don't have to worry about whether they are going to get run over when one is trying to help another with a binding problem. In suggesting that some climbers like to present themselves as superior, and stating that I hear them describing their exploits as "facing nature on nature's terms," I am trying to make it clear that I do not agree with such a portrayal of our sport vs theirs. Is your point about my use of the phrase "on nature's terms" that we have no right to claim we are doing this when we drill holes in the rock or rip grass out of a crack system? If so, you are right, a debate of the environmental ethics of climbing may be a distraction from the topic at hand but there too I bet we could find plenty of common ground though you and I may well disagree on some fundamental issues. In my view, it is not asking to sleep with the devil to show respect for other user groups and to inquire whether there may be some areas where individual recreational user's needs may not be served by business interests or governmental policies. -Matt Edited January 28, 2003 by mattp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I think we have different definitions of 'care' and 'environment'. Anyone who advocates the systematic burning of gas in an engine for recreation in the outdoors should reassess their understanding of these 2 words. You ever take a car to a climbing spot???? Is the gallon of gas you might burn on the way any less polluting because you care so much? The amount of pollutants put out by even the worse gaz guzzling SUV is nothing compared to what a 2-stroke snowmobile dishes out. THe 4-strokes are much better, but they still don't have anything like what a modern car does to reduce emmisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvs Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Matt's comments have made me think beyond my typical response to news of snowmobiliers, their smog, and their noise. I'm an urban dweller who sees the wilderness as a kind of church that should remain unspoiled. That makes it easy for me to demonize the motorized user groups. Thinking about what we have in common is more productive, especially with fee proliferation thundering across the land, as seen here: "two! minutes! to fee proliferation!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 This quote is taken from the Blue Ribbon Coalition Web Site: In areas, such as Wilderness and developed sites where funding is inadequate to maintain recreation experiences, and funding is not available from other user-supported programs, we support the implementation of user fees, subject to the following: * Fees should be for a specific facility or discrete physical area, not just access to public land in general. * Fees should be returned to the area from which they are collected. * Distribution of funds to various projects should be done with full public involvement. The Blue Ribbon Coalition is one of the leading groups advocating for ORV interests. It appears that they support user fees. As for this whole discourse on arogance and climbers, I have to respectfully disagree with the argument that climbers and hikers are more arogant than the rest of the backcountry users. That argument holds little more weight than the typical conservative argument that liberals all want to impose their values on others, while the conservatives want to tell everyone how government should be run. The hikers and climbers are not the only arogant or most arogant user groups. The ORV'ers, snowmobilers, horseback riders, mountainbike riders, hunter, fishermen etc. all display levels of arrogance, and they ain't all liberals. I think there should be two guiding principles behind manging competing user groups: 1. Manage to minimize environmental impacts; and 2. Manage to protect the integrity of the experience for all user groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Winter: Isn't the Blue Ribbon Coalition an industry group? If so, that would be like having a climber's lobbying group led by REI and The North Face -- I am sure they would end up supporting some policies that you and I might not be completely psyched about and that might include user-fees. Anyway, even in your reference to the BRC I see some things I can agree with: if there are going to be fees, the revenue generated should be spent to actually maintain some kind of facility or trail in the local district and the program should be publicly accountable. I'm not 100% sure anybody has said that climbers are more arrogant than all other user groups, though Fairweather said he was ashamed to admit his affiliation with climbing sometimes, but I sure do know a lot of climbers who think they are real cool but hunters or fisherman are real uncool. And lots of those uncool people don't even use 2 stroke engines. I agree with managing public forest lands (or deserts or rivers) to (1) minimize environmental impacts; and (2) protect the integrity of the experience for all user groups. I wouldn't be surprised if there were lots of hunters and fisherman, and maybe even some ORV users out there who would also agree. Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North_by_Northwest Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 These annoying little parking fees are a direct result of funding cuts. The Gov chops what the FS, PS or whatever agency gets and the agency is forced to charge us in order to keep its head above water and continue providing services. True: as climbers or hikers we get very few services for what we pay for. This money goes to pay for the things we don't want to see: garbage removal, fixing washed out trails, eliminating unnecessary trails and destructive campsites, erasing the marks of errant ORV and horse users, etc. When you hike in an area that sees a lot of traffic but still looks beautiful (Enchantments) don't say: "Ohh, I paid $10 a day to be here and there isn't even a decent toilet." Instead notice how little the area has been impacted for the number of people that have visited it over the decades. It didn't always look this good, it has been worse in the past. Your fees go to keep it up. I hate the fees too and I would like to see an end to them, but it has to come from the top down. Protesting like Necro suggests will not lead to change. Voting is the only way to get the funds our lands need (with this many people out there they can't take care of themselves anymore.) As far as different user groups: there is a place for everything. I like to go four-wheeling just for the hell of it and I think there should be areas where that's acceptable. I also like to backpack and climb in places where there is no sign of motorized use. I would never think of going four-wheeling where I hike or climb, or hiking where I like to go four-wheeling; it wouldn't be appropriate. I think that areas like Yellowstone should be rid of snowmobilers: it's just not an acceptable place for motorized use. Some see it as taking lands that are theirs to use, but permission to snowmobile in Yellowstone was given long before snowmobiling was what it is today. The first people to sled there had no where near the power, noise and destructive capability that those who ride today do. Laws and restrictions need to adapt with technology. I agree there are some really arrogant and stuck-up climbers and hikers out there. The 100 Hikes books (Ira Spring) are full of the kind of snotty B.S. that I just can't stand. A lot of climbers do feel that they are above the law, even in relation to the environment. A prime example is the Mountaineers lobbying to place permanent bolt anchors in designated wilderness areas. That goes against the laws and principles of wilderness areas, but they support it because they think they are too important. At the same time they also publish Ira Spring's books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 North, Actually it is Harvey Manning that does the ranting in the 100 hikes series. I think Ira, from what I've read and seen, is a bit more fair-minded. It is funny that you cite the "100 Hikes" series as an example of stated arrogance. The anti-everyone-but-us rantings therein are exactly what I was refering to. Unfortunately, slaming old-man Harvey is blasphemy 'round some parts. He wrote the books showing us all "how to get there", and now that he's had his fun, wants to lock us all out! (or so it sometines seems) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North_by_Northwest Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 As far as user groups and lobbying goes, what I'd really like to see is some sensibility and compromise on both sides. Hikers and climbers need to realize that it can't all be pure wilderness and that many more people enjoy nature from the seat of a motorhome, ORV or 4X4. They need to be allow some areas to be open to ORVs and let it alone. ORV groups need to realize that there are many places where their sport is completely innappropriate (Yellowstone) and very destructive. They need to stop fighting for the right to use these areas because they should know they don't belong there. What it all comes down to really is a compromise between what people want to do in the outdoors and what is best for nature. If everyone decides to do what is best, in terms of their sport, for nature we can't go wrong. If we keep butting heads over relatively small issues and refusing to budge we are all just wasting time. Maybe this is what Sisu is trying to say with groups working together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North_by_Northwest Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Yeah, I think it is Manning. I just remembered Spring first. What really bugs me is when he rants about banning ORVs from some areas in Eastern Washington. A lot of these areas are not good for hiking but are perfect for ORVs. Manning goes on and on about writing letters, the "four-wheeled terrors", etc. when hikers never go there to begin with! It's not like the areas are unusual or pristine in any way either-it's just miles and miles of broken basalt and scrub brush-the same stuff you find everywhere east of the cascades! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allison Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 N x NW: Whaddaya mean we don't get much for our money? Trail Maintenance is extremely expensive! Plus if you get out with any regularity, the per-use fee on a NW Forest Pass is pennies per day. Having said that, I hate the parking pass, especially when I am somewhere that the FS is not spending any $ to care for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I'm starting to think that it is better to pay for the access so that those in Washington DC see that we are invested in keeping these areas beautiful, if not pristine. Better us than extractive industry...... Just as long as it does not lead to a and hot cider bar on top of Rainier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Smart man B'goat. I think you're on the fast track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I'm starting to think that it is better to pay for the access so that those in Washington DC see that we are invested in keeping these areas beautiful, if not pristine. Better us than extractive industry...... Just as long as it does not lead to a and hot cider bar on top of Rainier. Hey seriously, what do people think about this angle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I think if the NP Service is going to open a cider bar atop Rainier, they should allow a competitive bidding process. Furthermore, the cider bar should be operated in an environmentally friendly manner and only shade-grown coffee should be sold, with a 10-cent tax on each cup going to shelter homeless pets. The extention cord that runs from the Paradise parking lot to the cider machine at the summit should be esthetically pleasing and fit into a Northwest motif. A public hearing should be scheduled and 4 options, including the preferred (already decided upon) option should state that the cord is NOT to be orange. The cider girl should be cute, but not drop-dead gorgeous...and appropriately dressed in clothing that expresses the local flavor of the region. And she should wear nipple warmers, as it can get very cold up there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 That is some straight up PC shit Do you work in the Federal Government or in one of those touchy feely consulting firms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleblebleb Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Rumor has it he is in state government, that's why he knows his shit so well. I want a drop-dead-gorgeous cider girl though. Either that, or it could be Allison and Kaia together, but then they'd only get one set of nipple warmers to argue over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Fleb, you need to lay off the espresso, man. You're going nuts today. Or maybe you just need to go climb something and release all your nervous energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North_by_Northwest Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 (edited) N x NW:Whaddaya mean we don't get much for our money? Trail Maintenance is extremely expensive! No fucking kidding huh Allison? I thought it was free What I'm saying is that we don't get a whole lot of visible SERVICES for what we pay. The money goes to make things the way they should be: maintenance rather than additions. If you read my post you can see that's what I'm saying (If I don't respond to you on other threads you should know that it's because you're a waste of time. There was always one kid like you in every class: nothing to say but can't stop raising that hand.) Fairweather is funny as all Hell with his cider cart plan. Funny that Fleb gets so crazy online, but is totally laidback on the phone... And he's not going climbing, so I predict more espresso-fueled wildness over the next few days. Edited February 11, 2003 by North_by_Northwest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.