A win for the San Juans
- XMULE
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 28 Oct 2007, 10:05
- Location: Western PA
Re: A win for the San Juans
Read
by John McPheeEncounters with the Arch Druid
Se esmera, coracao
E confia
Na forca do amanha
E confia
Na forca do amanha
- sevenvii
-
- Posts: 316
- Joined: 23 Sep 2009, 20:33
- Location: Southeast CO
Re: A win for the San Juans
Very well said Garrett, much to the same point I have been trying to make without your eloquence 
- ajkagy
-
- Posts: 1782
- Joined: 07 Jan 2007, 21:34
- Location: Crested Butte, CO
Re: A win for the San Juans
Garrett wrote:Where to start on this. I say leave it open to all use and stop designating land as wilderness here and in other places. Wilderness designation is outdated and just an easy way for the governing agencies to avoid appropriately managing public lands. Why not address individual issues as they present themselves and actually manage public lands as individual user groups present themselves.
well said
I'm surprised the mtn bike community hasn't gotten together 1000 or so riders in protest and ridden a "wilderness" trail...then again the burning issue isn't necessarily with current wilderness, but rather the wilderness nuts taking more and more trails away.
http://www.resortbeta.com - An interactive ski/snowboard experience for all your favorite ski resorts.
- mattpayne11
-
- Posts: 993
- Joined: 09 May 2009, 23:23
- Location: Colorado Springs
Re: A win for the San Juans
Who'd have thought that a Wilderness Designation Act would get so much negative commentary on a forum dedicated to climbing mountains in those areas.
- Mark A Steiner

-
- Posts: 934
- Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 21:38
- Location: Lakewood CO and Desert Hills AZ
Re: A win for the San Juans
That's what forums are for - a medium to express a wide range of opinion among a select group (visitors to the 14ers and 13ers) - at least for now.
Good day.
- roguejackalope
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: 11 Jul 2011, 16:54
- Location: Erie, CO
Re: A win for the San Juans
mattpayne11 wrote:Who'd have thought that a Wilderness Designation Act would get so much negative commentary on a forum dedicated to climbing mountains in those areas.
I think there might be a silent majority that doesn't lean strongly in one direction or another, and feel they wouldn't add much to the conversation.
For example, I am in favor of adding wilderness protection to areas that have wilderness characteristics, are not currently used by user groups who object to the protections (MTBs and ORVs, etc), and where geography, geology, access, or use make resource exploitation prohibitive or undesirable. Areas should be excluded from wilderness protection when there is a legitimate reason. But I think the more wild we can keep wild the better.
If that convinced everyone, then we can all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" together.
That said, I think the prohibition against human-powered transport should be changed. A mountain bike is a tool you take with you when you leave, just like a stove or tent. For most trails, they cause less erosion than currently allowed modes of transportation. As in other, non-wilderness areas, they could be permitted or prohibited on specific trails, and it should be up the local forest service to make those determinations, rather than a blanket prohibition based on a weak interpretation of an outdated law. And I don't even mountain bike.
"Hiking is just walking where it's okay to pee" - Demetri Martin
- mattpayne11
-
- Posts: 993
- Joined: 09 May 2009, 23:23
- Location: Colorado Springs
Re: A win for the San Juans
roguejackalope wrote:mattpayne11 wrote:Who'd have thought that a Wilderness Designation Act would get so much negative commentary on a forum dedicated to climbing mountains in those areas.
I think there might be a silent majority that doesn't lean strongly in one direction or another, and feel they wouldn't add much to the conversation.
For example, I am in favor of adding wilderness protection to areas that have wilderness characteristics, are not currently used by user groups who object to the protections (MTBs and ORVs, etc), and where geography, geology, access, or use make resource exploitation prohibitive or undesirable. Areas should be excluded from wilderness protection when there is a legitimate reason. But I think the more wild we can keep wild the better.
If that convinced everyone, then we can all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" together.
That said, I think the prohibition against human-powered transport should be changed. A mountain bike is a tool you take with you when you leave, just like a stove or tent. For most trails, they cause less erosion than currently allowed modes of transportation. As in other, non-wilderness areas, they could be permitted or prohibited on specific trails, and it should be up the local forest service to make those determinations, rather than a blanket prohibition based on a weak interpretation of an outdated law. And I don't even mountain bike.
I honestly could not have said it better myself. I feel 100% the same.
- gb

-
- Posts: 645
- Joined: 12 Dec 2006, 15:17
- Location: crested butte
Re: A win for the San Juans
Yeah, roguejackalope gets it, 100%. That gives me a lot of hope looking forward.
- ChrisRoberts
-
- Posts: 462
- Joined: 17 Jul 2011, 17:31
Re: A win for the San Juans
Hike off trail. Problem solved.
Pass the peas--mash in the beans at a rally to gather his faculties
Read all about my schemes and adventuring at NoCo Chris Latest TR: UNs 8380A&B
Read all about my schemes and adventuring at NoCo Chris Latest TR: UNs 8380A&B
- kingdavid2012
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 31 Jul 2012, 23:33
Re: A win for the San Juans
We've got a lot of environment enthusiasm in here.
But people power is far from enough.Government and legislation bureau should do their job!
But people power is far from enough.Government and legislation bureau should do their job!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest







