Rubicon Owners Forum banner

21 - 28 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
Well, I have an idea. If they are worried about the fish, stop fishing too. Being caught, cooked and eaten has been proved to cause death.

I know the mudd has a link to their deaths too and the illegal trails if any need to be fixed but closing the whole area is not the answer. Unfortunately it is to these close minded people. God forbid the public use public lands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
Well, if you maniacs in Jeeps would just stop competing with the "sports fisherman"... maybe they would leave our trails alone. I think they're just PO'd because we catch more fish than they do! :lildevil:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
I do not want to make this discussion political so I will keep it to this statement:

There is a difference between the two political parties and how much each one is influenced by the wacko environmentalists. Each of you has a say in which one holds power. The environmental nut jobs have figured this out, we should too.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,630 Posts
Jabuch said:
JRubi said:
Being both a Jeeper and a flyfisherman I can see both sides of the issue. Unfortunally from what I hear, both sides have the same problems. "Screw the trout, I want to wheel." "Screw the 4 wheelers, I want to fish." Wouldn't it be easier to compromise by building log bridges over the river, building catch basins to catch muddy water, and move some of the trail that are close to the river a 100 yds away. Both sides win. We still get to wheel, the trout habitat is protected from runoff. Seems to me if we started with that position, then if the enviromentalists refused,it would be easy to get the public opinion on your side. Seems like a resonable compromise. You could raise the fee to wheel in the park $1.00 and raise the cost of a fishing lisence $1.00 to pay for the materials and require both sides to supply the labor to build the stuff. Who knows maybe we could even convert some people to jeepers or some of us might enjoy flyfishing for trout.
Don't start using common sense, it doesn't work in the U.S.
This is what I've been saying for a long time. Negotiated multi-use areas work. My prime example being Sand Flats rec area in Moab. It houses Fins and Things, Hells Revenge 4wd trails, Porcupine rim bike and jeep trail and the slickrock bike trail and the Negro Bill Canyon hiking trail. The trails cross each other (except the hiking trail), but don't ride on top of each other. In more than 10 years that I've been going to Moab to bike, jeep and hike I have never seen a fight between 4-wheelers, cyclists or hikers in this area even though it houses high concentrations of all three. I have seen a very small number of issues in other areas of Moab where the trails are on top of each other.

Shutting down nature access doesn't make sense. Many people benefit from recreation on public lands. Closing down access forces higher concentrations of potentially damaging activity into smaller areas. Education and respect between users is the solution. I think education is the most important point for us four wheelers because it affects the image that other users have of four wheelers. I was at Holy Cross this weekend. What I'm about to say does not apply to anyone from ROF who was on the run and didn't apply to everyone at the creek. There were simply too many people drinking too much alcohol at the creek. There was a kid who might have been 21 passed out on a rock for a couple hours while we tried to fix one of our rigs. During the day, a small number of hikers came through. What would they think of four wheelers if all they saw were these jeeps lined up everywhere with people drinking so much alcohol on the trail? FS roads are legal roads and it is illegal to drink and drive on them just like any highway. Education needs to be part of the solution. The other part can be to make the area more pleasant and accommodating to multiple use groups. Something as simple as building a hiking trail parallel to, but seperated from a jeep trail can make a great difference in the enjoyment of an area for both groups.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,630 Posts
Bradlybob said:
The words of a tree hugger at a forest use planning meeting out here when asked why she hated mtn bikers so much say it all. "Your mere existance is an afront to me"
Its a shame there are so many of these people who hold extreme views, who just cannot accept other people and are filled with such hate. People with this personality have caused so much damage to the human race. Just change the term mountain bikers to an ethnic race or religious group and you can see that they are not so different from some of histories worst villains.

I wish I could know what the early national park advocates thought and what they would think of where we are today. People like Teddy Roosevelt, Muir, Norris, Moran and Mills. The creation of these national parks and the protection of these places from excessive development was on the greatest things I think our country did. It took the very best of what this country had to offer and made it accessible to our citizens then and in our future and was a great act of foresight. But did they mean for all of the western US to be returned to (or kept in) a wild state like some environmental extremists are pushing for? I sincerely doubt that was their intention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Being an animal lover I think the bears will love treehuggers and eviros but the those people run so fast it not easy to catch them. so when we bag one we have to tie him/her to a tree so they don't run again The bears really enjoy them, I think it may have something to do with the bacon grease we put in their hair. just wishfull thinking :giggle:.............But I do think that if one group is banned from a public land then it should be off limits to all groups and individuals.:mad:
 

·
Sarcastic Moderator
Joined
·
14,083 Posts
I wheeled Tellico when it was still open and it had great trails. Miss it.
 
21 - 28 of 28 Posts
Top