When Did I Become Bad?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SinCityFJC

Adventurer
Some on ExPo suggested I should better express my personal views on land use & access rights. The following article is one that James & I did. We work great together, we brainstorm a topic, he writes & we rewrite till we get what we want. What is expressed in this article are some of the things I feel strongly about.

ps: As a practice of mine I rather not be included in bylines or credits.

This and other pieces James Hennegan & I work on we regularly send to BRC UFWDA & others. This is the 1st one to be picked up & published.

This was originally posted Jan 13th 2009 http://justgoodtrails.com/waiting/view_topic.php?id=313&forum_id=23

I added it to the JGT blog on Jan 26th 2009 http://justgoodtrails.blogspot.com/2009/01/when-did-i-become-bad.html

Published in the current issue of BRC magazine.
Source Link - http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?id=1721

When Did I Become Bad?

Editorial by James Hennegan

Let's look back at the history of this country. When we first started to come over and settle this country, we were considered explorers, settlers, pioneers, and we were looked upon as those who were forerunners and leaders. We used the skills we learned and developed to clear out areas and develop what are now our major population areas. We survived by hunting and fishing first, and then farming second. Our forefathers went into the wilderness and gleaned its resources.

As we became a more and more developed nation, and we needed less and less of the new lands, we set aside the open areas for our children to be able to see and use for recreation. Some of the first really strong advocates of national public lands being preserved were great hunters, such as Teddy Roosevelt, who enjoyed using the land under proper management. We then entered a time when we noticed we needed to set land aside. And we have. The amount of public land in America outweighs almost every nation in the world. We have more land under the BLM and Park Service than most nations have land.

I can remember as a child, packing up the 4x4 to go on a camping trip, or a picnic with my family, we would go deep into the lands following established trails. Most times we found areas for my father to fish and my brothers and sisters would play games, explore the outdoors, help my mother with picnic chores, and learn about the wonderful areas we visited. I was lucky, my father was a military man and we moved to different areas of the country a lot. So we had different types of land to explore, and I was shown and taught how to care for and protect where we would go and learned that the land came first.

We grew up and were looked upon by our friends and neighbors as outdoors people. We were respected for our ability to travel and do what others knew so little about. We would encourage others to come out and show them the outdoors in a way they would take away something with them. And we usually did it in a 4x4, going down back roads, looking for places that solitude was the norm.

I can remember the look on faces of those who rarely go out into these areas when you show them a site few have seen, perch them on the side of a mountain overlooking a desert. Shown some valleys I have seen grown men start to cry as they took in the beauty of what was presented before them. And at the end of a trip you would receive a thanks so big it made you happy you could share your love.

But now somewhere all has gone wrong. The current attacks I see on access to public lands increase on almost a daily basis. Just reading a forum in a site like JustGoodTrails.com and you will see posted up alert after alert of impending actions to shut down areas all over the country. All in the name of preserving the land.

I have become the enemy, I have become the person to protect the land from.

I volunteer many a weekend in San Bernardino National Forest in Adopt a Trail service, working side by side with a force of hundreds who toil to keep lands open to public use; we work on trails because we are needed by the Forest Service. I plan this year to expand that by also working with a group that goes and collects native seeds, germinates and care for the plants, planting them in areas to help the control of invasive species and planting seedlings over illegal trails.

I do not want anything new, no new trails, no new areas. I just want to preserve the access to what I have.

But somewhere I have become a bad person. Because I do not believe we should shut down any form of mechanical access to most areas, I have become bad. Because I do not want to deny most lands to most people, I have become bad.

Wilderness designation is a failure, it denies too much to too many, we need to push for and educate the public for the designation of Back Country, a designation that makes sense. Back Country preserves the lands, but allows access Wilderness does not. Denying access to the public never works.

Let us not become criminals for doing what we love. Let us be proud to maintain, enjoy and love the outdoors. Let us hold our heads high.

Go out and volunteer for a day on public lands and let your voice be heard.

After all, when did I become bad?

&#8212;Questions or comments regarding this article should be directed to the BlueRibbon Coalition: Phone: 208-237-1008, Fax: 208-237-9424. Email: <brmag@sharetrails.org>.
BlueRibbon Magazine, March 2009
 
Last edited:

SinCityFJC

Adventurer
I rec'd my BRC mag yesterday and this article was one of the first I read. Thanks....

Thanks for reading it, part of a interview of myself is on page 14, last couple paragraphs - http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article.php?id=1719

On another ride with the great folks from the Southern Nevada Land Cruisers (www.snlc.org) combined with some friends from Just Good Trails (www.justgoodtrails.com), we found desert scenery and vegetation that makes the southwest what it is a place of endless exploration and enjoyment. Brian Richardson of JustGoodTrails.com summed up the ride with this comment: "Spending relaxing and trail time with folks like Del and Stacie Albright from BlueRibbon Coalition, and Todd Ockert from United Four Wheel Drive Associations, is an experience you couldn't buy when it comes to learning about land use and saving our trails."

When asked about the bureaucracy of convention and meetings, Brian added this: "In spite of what can be long days and ongoing meetings, this is the place to voice your opinion and be part of your state association — democracy at its best."

Congratulations to CA4WDC for turning 50!

—For more information on the California Association of Four-Wheel-Drive Clubs and CA4WDC events, visit them online (www.cal4wheel.com). Or contact them at: 8120 36th Ave., Sacramento, CA 95824. Phone: (916) 381-8300. Fax: (916) 381-8726.
 

Jonathan Hanson

Well-known member
Wilderness designation is a failure . . .

Unfortunately, right there you lost me. If you truly believe that, and don't believe there is a place for wilderness in our country, a debate or even a discussion between us would be pointless.
 

ntsqd

Heretic Car Camper
"Wilderness" has become a tool for the Enviro-Socialist's to exclude vehicles from areas that already have roads within them. That, by itself should fail the area from qualifying as "Wilderness", but for reasons that elude me it does not.

I've been told to be careful what I ask for, but I think the designation process ought to be considerably more involved, and all existing "Wilderness" lands should be re-examined. The reason that I think this should be is that I think that if an area is going to be designated "Wilderness" that it should be off limits to everyone, not just those happen to use wheels to get where they are going. It should require the equivalent of a Federal Search Warrant just to enter the area or to fly lower than 5000 ft AGL within the area.


That isn't to say that I think wheels should be allowed on every trail, just that the "Wilderness" designation is grossly abused. For anyone who cares I can take you to a stretch of the Pacific Crest Trail (no wheels allowed) that was previously a motorcycle trail. How screwed up is that? Or how about the BLM "Wilderness" designating signs planted in the middle of several roads going up into the Argus Range? Where's the "Wilderness" there?
 
A

agavelvr

Guest
Wow...
Dodge the things you were called out on in the Reid thread...Copy paste more propaganda..."make it a practice not to be credited on (things published or writen)...
Wilderness is a failure??
Why do you even bother posting to a Conservation Thread when it is clear your intentions are to let vehicles run wild?
Seriously? I don't think you are capable of engaging in a legitimate debate on any of these topics. For that I am sad, because you are doing a lot of damage by mindlessly posting this propaganda to the various groups on the internet.
 

Connie

Day walker, Overland Certified OC0013
It is not you that is bad. Unfortunately it only takes a couple of people really messing up to ruin it for the rest. I personally don't want to pay enough taxes to be able to police entire areas to enable them to remain open when some yahoos go in and start decimating them. Sometimes the only way to protect an area is to keep people out of it. We have a local area that has been permanently closed, and rightly so, it was a mess! I know this isn't a popular view, and I am sad at what a few people can do.
 

Clark White

Explorer
I'll have to weigh in on both sides of this...I think the use of a wilderness designation and the restrictions therein are a great idea. I like the idea of having areas that I can go backpacking and not run into people and their vehicles, or mtn. bikes to get out of the way for, and don't think I would call it a failure as I greatly enjoy wilderness areas. That said, I am an avid 4x4 and mtn. bike enthusiast, and the way I see the wilderness designation being used is crazy. There are areas south of Prescott AZ that I have been driving for YEARS, then one day I went out to do a common trail run, and there are "wilderness area, road closed" signs in the middle of all the trail entrances. This isn't an area that is road less (there are tens of roads running through it), but it is not an abused area (there are no side trails from people driving off the trail, no trash, etc.), and is completely surrounded by ranches. Needless to say, that really ticked me off and it breeds a lack of respect for such things. There is no need to close that, or many of these areas off, it was done purely to win points with the environmentalists who don't want 4x4's allowed anywhere.

I agree with the original post, I don't want any more trails to be made. I will even happily agree that some trails do need to be closed due to abuse. If the area is road less, or has few roads going through, then that would make a great place for a wilderness designation. However, when there are many maintained trails through the area, leave it open and let people enjoy the trails. If idiots are going out and running wild over the area, then you close that area to 4x4, or better yet, make the abuse known and someone, like many of us on this forum, will take the time to go reclaim the damaged area.

Clark White
 

cnynrat

Expedition Leader
Why do you even bother posting to a Conservation Thread when it is clear your intentions are to let vehicles run wild?

Jeff - Please highlight the specific language in the OP that indicates his intention to let vehicles "run wild". I'm not finding it.
 

Jonathan Hanson

Well-known member
Dave, to respond to your question, this statement:

Wilderness designation is a failure, it denies too much to too many, we need to push for and educate the public for the designation of Back Country, a designation that makes sense. Back Country preserves the lands, but allows access Wilderness does not. Denying access to the public never works.

. . . overtly states that wilderness areas should be opened to vehicular travel. If that's not letting vehicles run wild, I don't know what would be.
 

Rev

Adventurer
The original argument in this thread seems to me to be based on sentiment rather than logic. It is not a matter of whether or not you are "bad," rather a rational discourse on protecting ever decreasing wilderness. There are many views on the subject, all of which should be carefully weighed and respectfuly discussed.
 

cnynrat

Expedition Leader
Jonathan -

Earlier in the article he says the following:

SinCityFJC said:
I do not want anything new, no new trails, no new areas. I just want to preserve the access to what I have.

That statement quite explicitly indicates he is not advocating removing Wilderness designation from any existing area. Very little room to interpret that any other way.

On the other hand, the excerpt you referenced primarily expresses the author's view in favor of having a Back Country designation available for land managers. No doubt, the 'Wilderness is a failure' phrase is over the top, and I don't agree with that thought on a stand alone basis either. Taken in the context of the overall article and balanced against the clear statement above I think it's safe to say he is not advocating anything close to letting "vehicles run wild".

I have the advantage of knowing Jim (who is the author of the article) quite well, and can say without a doubt that he has no desire to eliminate Wilderness areas, or to let vehicles run wild.
 

Jonathan Hanson

Well-known member
Well, I don't know the author. The only thing to which I can react is his writing. And when someone writes that "wilderness is a failure," that is deeply disturbing and frightening to me, not to mention flat-out wrong. There's very little to "interpret" in that statement except that the author is against wilderness. And if you're against wilderness and you think it is a failure, it's safe to assume you would remove existing wilderness designations if you could do so.

If this is not his stance, then he needs to be more clear if he's going to publish opeds and have his friends out them up here. It's not up to us to read between the lines.
 

1leglance

2007 Expedition Trophy Champion, Overland Certifie
Jonathan maybe it would help folks see your side of the debate if you offered your ideal end result of our current land use issues.
I know that a couple of times folks have ask me as a subscriber to Overland Journal how I feel on the issue. I think it would be great to hear how the editor of a vehicle based overland travel magazine balances the closure of 4wd access to remote areas with the promotion of that access that the magazine involves.

Most all the pics & stories in Overland Journal are on dirt, dirt roads & trails. I am not going to play the doom & gloom card and say "what will you do when there are no more trails to drive on" as I don't think we will ever reach that point. But someday we might find the articles in OJ as the only way to see certain areas (for those who can't hike, and I know you have mentioned knee issues).

I am not trying to pick a fight, I am not trying to argue. I just think it would help me understand how to present my stance of "keep the areas without trails/roads wilderness, and keep the trails/roads we have now open for access (of course close selected high abuse areas to send a message)".

Thanks in advance, and again I respect what you write & how you write it so I would like to have your point of view as reference.
 

jammyauto

Adventurer
To me the OP really came off as a five year old throwing a tantrum because life isnt fair. Comes off as a bunch of whining to me.

Sometimes thing do just happen to folks for no reason but this is not one of those times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
188,478
Messages
2,905,654
Members
230,428
Latest member
jacob_lashell
Top