Forum
Buying gear? Please use these links to help 14ers.com:

More info...

Other ways to help...

A win for the San Juans

Colorado 14ers access and fee issues only, please
User avatar
Posts: 1122
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 7:11 pm
Location: Centennial, CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Floyd » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:10 am

Bean wrote:
Jon Frohlich wrote:Nope, and the question wasn't answered. You're making an emotional argument. I'm asking a logical question based on the areas marked on the map. You can't lose something that wasn't there in the first place.

You elitist walkers just don't get it. Where is the logic in your call to ban bicycles? Your entire argument is "you don't mountain bike there so you should be fine with banning it." I have not been there and as such am not familiar with the area; I assume there is at least one hiking trail in the area, what logical reason do you have to ban bicycles from areas that hikers and horses are allowed?


I think you helped make Jon's point about the emotional response...

As an "elitist", I do like the fact I don't have to worry about some jacka$$ biker flying around a blind corner which has happened to me several times on "your" trails - so there is a safety aspect there. As for horses/stock, I can't defend that, but that is the law. If you're looking for support for your cause, may I suggest being slightly more tactful in the manner in which you approach those whose opinions you are attempting to sway.
"Athletes express themselves physically, this is their art. As an athlete, exhausting oneself on the field or or on the track or on the trail or on the mountain brings calm and satisfaction. Thrashing about… our expression." - Steve Gleason

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Jon Frohlich » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:19 am

In case anyone is curious here is IMBA's stated position on wilderness:

http://www.imba.com/resources/land-protection/frequently-asked-questions-wilderness-and-imba

Sounds like the mountain biking community needs to be pushing their own organization to modify their stance if they want this issue changed.

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:24 am

Floyd wrote:I think you helped make Jon's point about the emotional response...

As an "elitist", I do like the fact I don't have to worry about some jacka$$ biker flying around a blind corner which has happened to me several times on "your" trails - so there is a safety aspect there. As for horses/stock, I can't defend that, but that is the law. If you're looking for support for your cause, may I suggest being slightly more tactful in the manner in which you approach those whose opinions you are attempting to sway.

I think you're wrong. "You can't lose what was never there" exactly illustrates my point.

The vast majority of cyclists I encounter are very polite and courteous, same with hikers and equestrians. There are discourteous "jacka$$es" in every segment of the population, including hikers and equestrians. Maybe we should just ban all mixed-use areas everywhere. Hiker-only, equestrian-only, and cyclist-only trails. Maybe then I wouldn't have to worry about some elitist walker stringing up fishing line across trails.

I am not a tactful person. Have you not noticed this yet? If you are looking for support for your cause, I suggest you bring cyclists into the fold instead of forcing them to side with O&G, mining, and logging interests.
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:34 am

Jon Frohlich wrote:In case anyone is curious here is IMBA's stated position on wilderness:

http://www.imba.com/resources/land-protection/frequently-asked-questions-wilderness-and-imba

Sounds like the mountain biking community needs to be pushing their own organization to modify their stance if they want this issue changed.

In 2005 they were in support of opening Wilderness to bicycles. The leadership has gone the wrong direction, and there's a reason I'm not an IMBA member.
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

User avatar
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Southeast CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby sevenvii » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:46 am

Floyd wrote:
Bean wrote:
Jon Frohlich wrote:Nope, and the question wasn't answered. You're making an emotional argument. I'm asking a logical question based on the areas marked on the map. You can't lose something that wasn't there in the first place.

You elitist walkers just don't get it. Where is the logic in your call to ban bicycles? Your entire argument is "you don't mountain bike there so you should be fine with banning it." I have not been there and as such am not familiar with the area; I assume there is at least one hiking trail in the area, what logical reason do you have to ban bicycles from areas that hikers and horses are allowed?


I think you helped make Jon's point about the emotional response...

As an "elitist", I do like the fact I don't have to worry about some jacka$$ biker flying around a blind corner which has happened to me several times on "your" trails - so there is a safety aspect there. As for horses/stock, I can't defend that, but that is the law. If you're looking for support for your cause, may I suggest being slightly more tactful in the manner in which you approach those whose opinions you are attempting to sway.


And I am sure you could appreciate if an elistist cyclist would be happy if us jackass hikers werent always in their way. And elitist hunters didnt have to worry about us jackass hikers scaring away their prey. So many people with blinders on who think that their agenda is the only one worth protecting and damn the rest. So far in all my time outdoors this year the two places that have been the dirtiest and most littered were past the maroon lakes, and up at south colony lake. Amazing a place that bikers, ATVs and snowmobiles arent allowed, but littered to hell. 8-[

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:50 am

sevenvii wrote:And I am sure you could appreciate if an elistist cyclist would be happy if us jackass hikers werent always in their way.

At the risk of appearing reasonable, I'll say that I have no problem with encountering hikers while mountain biking, be it up hill, downhill, going the same direction, or opposite. Or equestrians. Or other cyclists.
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

Online
User avatar
Posts: 752
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: crested butte

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby gb » Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:03 pm

Jon Frohlich wrote:
screefieldstevie wrote:More like a BIG loss....IMO


Loss of what exactly?


Loss of opportunities. Speaking in a general sense about Wilderness (not this specific proposal), Sugar Madison and his trail running friends will never be able to race in an area once it's Wilderness. Nobody will be able to build a multi-use trail once it's Wilderness (this is the case with one of the proposed Hidden Gems near CB). A paraglider will never be able to soar off a summit legally. to name a few. And here's my biggest issue- cows and sheep will still be there. Wilderness or not, ranchers can still do just about whatever they please (from the 1980 Congressional Grazing Guidelines):

“[W]ilderness designation should not prevent the maintenance of existing fences or other livestock management improvements, nor the construction and maintenance of new fences or improvements which are consistent with allotment management plans and/or which are necessary for the protection of the range….

“The maintenance of supporting facilities, existing in the area prior to its classification as wilderness (including fences, line cabins, water wells and lines, stock tanks, etc.), is permissible in wilderness. Where practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance or other activities may be accomplished through the occasional use of motorized equipment. This may include, for example, the use of backhoes to maintain stock ponds, pickup trucks for major fence repairs, or specialized equipment to repair stock watering facilities…. The construction of new improvements or replacement of deteriorated facilities in wilderness is permissible if in accordance with those guidelines and management plans governing the area involved.”


I spoke with a paid staffer of the hidden gems last spring and brought up some of these inconsistencies. For the staffer to look me in the eye and say "Yeah, but we'd never get anything passed without the ranchers." is a problem for me. I also said, "Don't you think MTBing is a quiet human-powered activity that should be allowed?" Answer: "Yeah, but we'd never have the support of big-money organizations like the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club."

There you have it- that's why I simply cannot support any new Wilderness designations. One other question to ask is "when is there enough Wilderness?" For a lot of supporters I think that answer is "there can never be enough."

User avatar
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:20 am

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Sugar Madison » Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:31 pm

gb wrote:
Jon Frohlich wrote:
screefieldstevie wrote:More like a BIG loss....IMO


Loss of what exactly?


Loss of opportunities. Speaking in a general sense about Wilderness (not this specific proposal), Sugar Madison and his trail running friends will never be able to race in an area once it's Wilderness. Nobody will be able to build a multi-use trail once it's Wilderness (this is the case with one of the proposed Hidden Gems near CB). A paraglider will never be able to soar off a summit legally. to name a few. And here's my biggest issue- cows and sheep will still be there. Wilderness or not, ranchers can still do just about whatever they please (from the 1980 Congressional Grazing Guidelines):

“[W]ilderness designation should not prevent the maintenance of existing fences or other livestock management improvements, nor the construction and maintenance of new fences or improvements which are consistent with allotment management plans and/or which are necessary for the protection of the range….

“The maintenance of supporting facilities, existing in the area prior to its classification as wilderness (including fences, line cabins, water wells and lines, stock tanks, etc.), is permissible in wilderness. Where practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance or other activities may be accomplished through the occasional use of motorized equipment. This may include, for example, the use of backhoes to maintain stock ponds, pickup trucks for major fence repairs, or specialized equipment to repair stock watering facilities…. The construction of new improvements or replacement of deteriorated facilities in wilderness is permissible if in accordance with those guidelines and management plans governing the area involved.”


I spoke with a paid staffer of the hidden gems last spring and brought up some of these inconsistencies. For the staffer to look me in the eye and say "Yeah, but we'd never get anything passed without the ranchers." is a problem for me. I also said, "Don't you think MTBing is a quiet human-powered activity that should be allowed?" Answer: "Yeah, but we'd never have the support of big-money organizations like the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club."

There you have it- that's why I simply cannot support any new Wilderness designations. One other question to ask is "when is there enough Wilderness?" For a lot of supporters I think that answer is "there can never be enough."


Exactly.

Wilderness isn't saving a damn thing from <insert your most evil special interest group like climbers>, it's simply excluding smaller (smaller being less politically relevant in terms of either votes or dollars) groups to appease the larger groups with the votes and dollars. If they want to stop mining, make it a SMA and be done with it.

Compromise and getting along with one's neighbors has gone out the damn window in this country. It's all about "me, me, me, me" at the expense of everyone else's freedoms these days.

- Sugar.
(Trail runner, hunter, hiker, climber, backcountry skier, mountain biker, half-ass fly fisherman, and mountaineer, even pro-timber/mining/ranching if carefully done... and willing to share the land w/ all the others while I'm doing my chosen activity that day).

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:36 pm

Sugar Madison wrote: - Sugar.
(Trail runner, hunter, hiker, climber, backcountry skier, mountain biker, half-ass fly fisherman, and mountaineer, even pro-timber/mining/ranching if carefully done... and willing to share the land w/ all the others while I'm doing my chosen activity that day).

So what you're saying is, you'd be cool with banning those damn swimmers, kayakers, and non-fly fishermen? Those jerks are always ruining my day by making me see them.
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

User avatar
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:14 am
Location: Golden

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby madbuck » Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:58 pm

Sugar Madison wrote:Compromise and getting along with one's neighbors has gone out the damn window in this country. It's all about "me, me, me, me" at the expense of everyone else's freedoms these days.
.


I agree, but wait -- what if that means sacrificing competitive events to some degree?
Although my name will be going into the Hardrock lottery, just because I enjoy it (the fact that it's grandfathered in) doesn't mean I'm personally 100% opposed to the concept of restricting numbers/competitive endeavors generally in Wilderness Areas. Living in Colorado, it's easier to keep the major event schedule in mind when planning quieter hikes with my wife, but I do feel a bit bad for visitors from out of town on a dream trip to Colorado that might run smack into a major event. I can only imagine more events every weekend if they were allowed.

Similarly, much as I like mt. biking, I've enjoyed riding on one edge of the Snowmass-MB WA on the classic 401 trail, and enjoyed running/hiking on the other side on the Maroon Bells loop in vast expanses above treeline with zero concern of a significantly faster user coming behind me or around a blind corner.

That is to say, I think it's quite possible to enjoy some activities at the same time as valuing some restrictions. All of these proposals are difficult trade-offs, to me, on a case-by-case basis, as no perfect law or mechanism exists that meets all of my or most anyone else's land-use goals.

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby mtnfiend » Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:06 pm

habaceeba wrote:So you would prefer these areas still be open to exploitation by mining and logging interests....


When I first read the posts my initial thoughts were a bit different from the majority of subsequent posts - sorry Bean, I'm not fired up either way about mtn bikes in wilderness areas. But what I do get fired up about is, as far as I'm concerned, mining and logging interests are our interests. Let me explain.

First, I'm sure this group of people don't own any climbing guide books, or any books for that matter, cause guess where the paper to make those books comes from......yup, trees (which is a renewable resource by the way)!! Second, none of us participating in this forum own or use a computer because guess where the metals and plastics that comprise the computer and cables that connect us all together come from......yup, mining!! Also - most plastics today are still derived from oil - as in liquefied dinosaur bones. And let's face another fact. Worldwide demand for stuff that contains paper, metal, and plastic is only going to increase (just observe what's happening in China, India, etc.). One of my favorite bumper stickers of all time is: If it can't be grown, it's gotta be mined.

And one more "inconvenient truth". Let's not forget why we in Colorado enjoy, and are privileged, by such relatively easy and prevalent access to our favorite mountain areas....yup, mining!!!

Having said all that, I'm not sure I want mining in some of those areas, but using wilderness designation as a shield and means to push an anti-mining agenda isn't cool. Lastly, I think we need to realize that these companies are not ruthless rapists acting for their sole benefit, cause let's face it, we as consumers are the drivers for, and ultimately benefit from, their actions.

:detonate: Ok, I'm done now.
Didn't I ever tell you.....Bumble's bounce!!!

User avatar
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:26 pm
Location: Red Lodge, MT

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Matt Lemke » Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:18 pm

mtnfiend wrote:
habaceeba wrote:So you would prefer these areas still be open to exploitation by mining and logging interests....


When I first read the posts my initial thoughts were a bit different from the majority of subsequent posts - sorry Bean, I'm not fired up either way about mtn bikes in wilderness areas. But what I do get fired up about is, as far as I'm concerned, mining and logging interests are our interests. Let me explain.

First, I'm sure this group of people don't own any climbing guide books, or any books for that matter, cause guess where the paper to make those books comes from......yup, trees (which is a renewable resource by the way)!! Second, none of us participating in this forum own or use a computer because guess where the metals and plastics that comprise the computer and cables that connect us all together come from......yup, mining!! Also - most plastics today are still derived from oil - as in liquefied dinosaur bones. And let's face another fact. Worldwide demand for stuff that contains paper, metal, and plastic is only going to increase (just observe what's happening in China, India, etc.). One of my favorite bumper stickers of all time is: If it can't be grown, it's gotta be mined.

And one more "inconvenient truth". Let's not forget why we in Colorado enjoy, and are privileged, by such relatively easy and prevalent access to our favorite mountain areas....yup, mining!!!

Having said all that, I'm not sure I want mining in some of those areas, but using wilderness designation as a shield and means to push an anti-mining agenda isn't cool. Lastly, I think we need to realize that these companies are not ruthless rapists acting for their sole benefit, cause let's face it, we as consumers are the drivers for, and ultimately benefit from, their actions.

:detonate: Ok, I'm done now.


Thank you very much...If only everyone thought the way you do. Mining companies these days have been doing fantastic jobs about restoring land to its original state...if not better than it was before mining. Peak-bagging in CO would be a lot harder if the old day miners didn't make all those roads that many of us have a love-hate relationship with.

I'm from the Cascades in WA where there is no mining history and the FS closes all other 4WD roads for ever which pisses me off because it makes most of the WA Bulger list peaks like multi-day climbs with 6000+ feet elevation gains. I'm all for long beautiful hikes but when it's all forest for 20++ miles I get bored...plus I'm lazy and want to get to the good stuff ASAP! Plus, 4WD vehicles are basically useless there since the FS keeps the roads they WANT open very well maintained. A good trip isn't the same without nearly getting stuck in your 4WD!

Thats my rant. Not saying we should mine everywhere but we need to be smart about it.
Lemke Climbs
The Pacific Coast to the Great Plains = My Playground
"Take risks not to escape life, but to prevent life from escaping"
"When you come to face what you fear, let the creator guide you"

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests