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
Online
User avatar
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:10 am

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby habaceeba » Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:24 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...



Well said mtnfiend. I'm guilty. That brings up one of the biggest problems of all - consumerism to excess. We need to find more efficient ways to reclaim the crap we throw away instead digging/pumping/cutting more. The other option (and I'm all for it) simply doing with less.

User avatar
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Crested Butte, CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby ajkagy » Fri Sep 30, 2011 1:44 pm

damn just saw this...more wilderness, more access cut off...bummer

bigger map
http://www.sheepmountainalliance.org/uploads/map.sjmwa.pdf
http://www.resortbeta.com - An interactive ski/snowboard experience for all your favorite ski resorts.

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby metalmountain » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:16 pm

mtnfiend wrote:
habaceeba wrote:
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!!!

:detonate: Ok, I'm done now.


Just because mining is one of the reasons the roads were built in the first place doesn't justify anything. The same companies that built those roads have also been those in charge of basically destroying some of those areas. I don't think that just because miners built the roads mean we somehow owe them something. We don't "owe" them anything for doing a job they were paid to do, its not as if they decided "oh, we should build some roads so people can climb these mountains". It was just business. And just because things have been done a certain way in the past doesn't mean they can't or should not be changed.
"The greatest battle is not physical but psychological. The demons telling us to give up when we push ourselves to the limit can never be silenced for good. They must always be answered by the quiet, steady dignity that simply refuses to give in. Courage. We all suffer. Keep going." - Graeme Fife

"I found that nothing truly matters, that you cannot find for free." - The Gaslight Anthem

Posts: 174
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 11:10 am
Location: Evergreen, Colorado

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby JE242 » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:30 pm

Sweet. The more place we HAVE to walk, the better. (BTW, I too Mountain bike, wheel, and snowmobile. Just love wilderness more).

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:39 pm

Mountain bikes? Unconscionably destructive. Huge herds of cattle? No problem.

Can any of you Wilderness advocates explain this apparent conflict without looking like a hypocrite?
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

Posts: 174
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 11:10 am
Location: Evergreen, Colorado

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby JE242 » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:51 pm

yes and no

Online
User avatar
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:54 pm
Location: Erie, CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby roguejackalope » Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:15 pm

gb wrote:“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.”

Motorized equipment to repair stock facilities... ok. Motorized equipment for forest management... unconscionable.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110821/NEWS01/708219945

It's an interesting article for that and other reasons though.
"Hiking is just walking where it's okay to pee" - Demetri Martin

Online
User avatar
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Littleton, CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby climbing_rob » Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:16 pm

JE242 wrote:yes and no
Perfectly and eloquently said.

User avatar
Posts: 783
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Oman » Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:41 pm

Bean wrote:Mountain bikes? Unconscionably destructive. Huge herds of cattle? No problem.

Can any of you Wilderness advocates explain this apparent conflict without looking like a hypocrite?


Have you ever worked in politics? Being righteous and firing potshots at the other side can be fun, but it doesn't get anything done.

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:51 pm

climbing_rob wrote:
JE242 wrote:yes and no
Perfectly and eloquently said.

You have, in the past, stated that you block my posts. You clearly are aware of who the post you quoted was poorly attempting to respond to. Are you a liar, or just a grumpy old CMC instructor with a problem being consistent?
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

Re: A win for the San Juans

Postby Bean » Fri Sep 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Oman wrote:
Bean wrote:Mountain bikes? Unconscionably destructive. Huge herds of cattle? No problem.

Can any of you Wilderness advocates explain this apparent conflict without looking like a hypocrite?


Have you ever worked in politics? Being righteous and firing potshots at the other side can be fun, but it doesn't get anything done.

I'll put you down as a "no."

Any other takers? climbing_rob maybe?
gdthomas wrote:Bean, you're an idiot.

http://throughpolarizedeyes.com

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 4:02 pm

Bean wrote:
Oman wrote:
Bean wrote:Mountain bikes? Unconscionably destructive. Huge herds of cattle? No problem.

Can any of you Wilderness advocates explain this apparent conflict without looking like a hypocrite?


Have you ever worked in politics? Being righteous and firing potshots at the other side can be fun, but it doesn't get anything done.

I'll put you down as a "no."

Any other takers? climbing_rob maybe?


I think that makes the aggregious assumption that us "wilderness advocates" are also pro-stock. Again, it's not the additional wilderness lands that you seem to be against, but the distinction that bikes are not allowed in them. I am perfectly comfortable in my opinion that I support additional wilderness lands (regardless whether or not it excludes bikes) and, at the same time if I had my way, changing the definition to exclude stock. Unfortunately (for both of us to different degrees apparently), that's how the law is currently interpreted and doesn't seem to be changing any time soon. If you want to change the distinction for cattle/horses/llamas/etc and bikes, then that is a seperate fight. But it appears that the voices for additional lands are much louder than those attempting to change the way the law is interpreted (or at least going about it in much more cordial methods).
"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

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests