btggraphix
Observer
Kurt's got a pretty good handle on this....
I knew exactly what you meant after that first post regarding 'real wilderness as congress mneant it to be'. You could take the argument furthur and suggest that if the cherry stem thing is required, it probably doesn't meet the definition of roadless, but I am OK with it as long as they keep that stem open. There are many good examples of that.
After riding out there last weekend, one thing that struck me as a real shame.....riding on a wonderful singletrack for dozens of miles that will be closed.....we had to detour for a few hundred yards to get around the trench and excavators putting in gas pipelins to the wells dotting the area. It really seems odd to have this little known, and little used trail get closed to both dirt bikes and mountain bikes, when the area is being drilled and accessed by heavy equipment.
I guess the other comment that comes from someone else as a generalization of the way the BLM put together the use plans around there. They really seem to like the "block" approach of saying, this block will be mt. bike focus, and this block will be MC use, and this block will be hiking/horse only. This kind fo fences off things.....there may b e reasons for it (controlled access and easier charging of fees? Easier to try to keep groups from mixing? I don't know...) but the effect is concerning....it eliminates to a large extent, the long distance trails and ability to do a long 'expedition' of sorts instead of endless short loops ending where you started. A good example of the blocks is the Soveriegn Trail system north of town. I think a lot of that was developed with motorcycling and for motorcycling (and the BLM can't change it anyway as it is state lands) but it has become an area very popular with mountain bikes and consequently much of (or the entire?) surrounding area has been identified as a mountain bike focus area by the BLM, which means none of the single track dirt bike trails in there can be linked by motorcycles with anything outside of it, unless you ride back out the road and go around. So in short, the BLM plan is very short on long distance single track usable by dirt bikes....which of course is probably a somewhat smaller group as compared with some of the others.
I got into a conversation in downtown Denver at the Patagonia store where they had a display up and were looking for volunteers to help with adding wilderness to some existing ones in Colorado. I asked a few questions, and he said they were looking for people to go out and help document that some things din't meet defintions of roads and taking pictures. I asked how they were getting to the spots where they were taking pictures and he said they were riding in vans. I said, let me get this straight, you are driving a van out on some old roads and taking pictures of the roads to help suggest they are not roads? He started looking a little sheepish and started realizing I was entirely for these sweeping wilderness additions they keep wanting to do.
Back to Kurt's comment, the Wilderness Act (1963?) was never intended to close areas that have existing roads and have already been significantly touched by human activity and shuold not be used for doing that IMO.
I guess I'm rambling here a bit - sorry....
I knew exactly what you meant after that first post regarding 'real wilderness as congress mneant it to be'. You could take the argument furthur and suggest that if the cherry stem thing is required, it probably doesn't meet the definition of roadless, but I am OK with it as long as they keep that stem open. There are many good examples of that.
After riding out there last weekend, one thing that struck me as a real shame.....riding on a wonderful singletrack for dozens of miles that will be closed.....we had to detour for a few hundred yards to get around the trench and excavators putting in gas pipelins to the wells dotting the area. It really seems odd to have this little known, and little used trail get closed to both dirt bikes and mountain bikes, when the area is being drilled and accessed by heavy equipment.
I guess the other comment that comes from someone else as a generalization of the way the BLM put together the use plans around there. They really seem to like the "block" approach of saying, this block will be mt. bike focus, and this block will be MC use, and this block will be hiking/horse only. This kind fo fences off things.....there may b e reasons for it (controlled access and easier charging of fees? Easier to try to keep groups from mixing? I don't know...) but the effect is concerning....it eliminates to a large extent, the long distance trails and ability to do a long 'expedition' of sorts instead of endless short loops ending where you started. A good example of the blocks is the Soveriegn Trail system north of town. I think a lot of that was developed with motorcycling and for motorcycling (and the BLM can't change it anyway as it is state lands) but it has become an area very popular with mountain bikes and consequently much of (or the entire?) surrounding area has been identified as a mountain bike focus area by the BLM, which means none of the single track dirt bike trails in there can be linked by motorcycles with anything outside of it, unless you ride back out the road and go around. So in short, the BLM plan is very short on long distance single track usable by dirt bikes....which of course is probably a somewhat smaller group as compared with some of the others.
I got into a conversation in downtown Denver at the Patagonia store where they had a display up and were looking for volunteers to help with adding wilderness to some existing ones in Colorado. I asked a few questions, and he said they were looking for people to go out and help document that some things din't meet defintions of roads and taking pictures. I asked how they were getting to the spots where they were taking pictures and he said they were riding in vans. I said, let me get this straight, you are driving a van out on some old roads and taking pictures of the roads to help suggest they are not roads? He started looking a little sheepish and started realizing I was entirely for these sweeping wilderness additions they keep wanting to do.
Back to Kurt's comment, the Wilderness Act (1963?) was never intended to close areas that have existing roads and have already been significantly touched by human activity and shuold not be used for doing that IMO.
I guess I'm rambling here a bit - sorry....
