genuine question.....not trying to troll
kermit
Although it may be taken as such, the question I have for the group is not
intended as a troll or as flame-bait. Here it is:
Why is it that when the OHV 4x4 clubs around my area sponsor a "Clean Up
Day", only the 4x4 users show up?
This has happened several times that I can attest to (and yes, I can give
dates, times, locations,and pictures). Each time my club sponsors a clean
up day, my kids and I go along and spend the day cleaning up other people's
garbage from trails and campsites around central Arizona. Even though the
events are advertised, the local environmental groups never attend. Why is
this? Are they afraid that if they associate at all with members of the OHV
community they will appear tarnished? Even if it's for a good cause?
This has really been bugging me. I have been (and I'm sure that I will
continue to be) considered an "enemy" of these groups simply because I
choose to enjoy the outdoors from the drivers seat of a Jeep. I and all of
the people that I travel with are dedicated to the idea of treading
lightly.......leave nothing but tracks (which will be gone after the next
rain), pack out MORE than you pack in, stay on established trails, respect
wildlife, etc. While it's true that there are a lot of 4x4 users that think
it's OK to throw empty beer cans all over the place and tear up the land,
there are also a lot of us that don't. My kids (ages 7 and 8) are learning
early to enjoy the wonders of nature with respect, yet they've been
criticized at school when they've told their classmates about what they've
seen -- all because of how we got there.
Is this why the "greenies" won't come help us when we do a trail clean up?
Do they/you think that we are all a bunch of beer guzzling throttle junkies?
Or is it that by joining us in a clean up effort they would be admitting
that we aren't all bad?
As I said before, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I would really like
to talk with some of the folks on the "other team" about this, because I
think we (the responsible OHV users) aren't really that far off from where
you are. We don't like the throttle junkies and beer can throwers any more
than you do. We all want to see our public lands preserved.......the main
difference is that we don't want it locked up so that the only way to see it
is on foot.
Any comments or thoughts are welcome. Flames will be ignored. :-)
Len Sullivan
Phoenix, AZ
doc
Furthermore, I rarely see trash in areas where I backpack. Backpackers
generally respect the wilderness areas that I use. Even (animal) packers do
not leave paper, plastic, or most other forms of trash (animal dung is the
major exception) behind in more remote areas. It might have something to do
with most of my backpacking destinations being wholly unaccessible to 4x4
vehicles. Also, when I do see some trash in the backcountry it is usually
within the first 5 miles of a trailhead and I pack it out on the way out
from a trip. On some shorter "shuttle" trips I've even been known to pick
it up on the way in and carry it for the duration.
If you are seeing lots of trash in the areas where you go off-roading, then
maybe there is a correlation between easy access and easy littering.
Don't misunderstand: I have nothing against 4-wheel drive vehichles, their
drivers, or even using them in certain backcountry areas. Heck, I've even
driven a 4-wheel drive on a dirt road before. I just tend to see more beer
bottles and food wrappers in places where they can be easily tossed from a
vehicle or within a short walking distance of such easy access.
One more thing, I think that 4x4 vehicles cause more erosion than than one
might think. The next rain that comes along probably takes more soil with
it than would be washed away had the 4x4 not passed through. This is not to
say that such impact should not be allowed, just to explore to true cost of
vehicle assess to more remote areas.
Many backpackers are beginning to explore their choise of footware and total
loads carried to help minimize their impact on foot trails. Running shoes &
10 pound loads cause less impact than heavy boots & 50 pound loads.
What does a typical 4x4 weigh? How nobby are typical off-road treads?
Should one wait for a trail to dry completly before driving on the mud
(which would otherwise permit much greater erosion the next time it rains on
that trail)? Should we be asking such questions of ourselves?
In the spirit that you mention, no flaming is intended. If you see merit in
my comments, I hope you will share this posting with your kids for
discussion.
Regards,
doc.
Chuck Simmons
>
> One more thing, I think that 4x4 vehicles cause more erosion than than one
> might think. The next rain that comes along probably takes more soil with
> it than would be washed away had the 4x4 not passed through. This is not to
> say that such impact should not be allowed, just to explore to true cost of
> vehicle assess to more remote areas.
>
> Many backpackers are beginning to explore their choise of footware and total
> loads carried to help minimize their impact on foot trails. Running shoes &
> 10 pound loads cause less impact than heavy boots & 50 pound loads.
>
> What does a typical 4x4 weigh? How nobby are typical off-road treads?
> Should one wait for a trail to dry completly before driving on the mud
> (which would otherwise permit much greater erosion the next time it rains on
> that trail)? Should we be asking such questions of ourselves?
>
> In the spirit that you mention, no flaming is intended. If you see merit in
> my comments, I hope you will share this posting with your kids for
> discussion.
>
> Regards,
> doc.
He said central Arizona. The reference is not completely clear as it
might mean mountain areas north of Phoenix or mostly flat desert to the
south. You mentioned mud. In the desert, that is rare indeed. Even
during monsoon mud is not a problem in the Arizona-Sonora Desert. It is
a problem in rim country and sometimes in the plateau country in
northern Arizona. The description seemed to indicate the desert. Erosion
in the desert, at least when I lived there, was not a big problem. The
ground is bare anyway and subject to erosion whether driven on or not.
In some parts of the desert, the desert punishes for leaving the
established trail. Cholla cactus can penetrate off road tires and
produce leaks for months after. As to weight of 4x4s, because of sand in
stream beds and the like, very low unit loading tires are required. 35
years ago, I used aircraft tires on a 4x4 to get the unit loading down.
It was a 4000 pound Dodge weapons carrier but it produced lower unit
loading than a Honda Civic.
However, the original poster's point is a valid point. Back in my 4
wheeling days in Arizona, trash was not a problem. Few people had 4x4s
back then. I remember driving up to a police road block in north Phoenix
at a flooded section of road during monsoon and being waved through
because the police figured my Dodge could make it. I had the only 4x4 in
the 50 or so cars stopped and turning around at the flood. That would
not be the case today. Thus more people are getting out in the hard to
reach areas and there are always litterers in a crowd even though most
people trouble to carry a trash bag in the vehicle. It would seem that
the cleanup outings should be of interest to all that haunt the back
country in that area whether on foot, bike, motorcycle or 4x4.
Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons chr...@webaccess.net
Don Rolph
days why is there an apparant lack of 4X4 participation?
The reality is that all these groups need to work at keeping the backcountry
clean, and it would appear that a rational approach of having each group look
after the areas which they are most suited for has evolved.
As a first order of concern, getting the plastic and metal out of the
backcountry is a necessary but not sufficient step. Sounds like all sides are
in agreement with this!!!
kermit wrote:
--
Regards.
Don Rolph w-r...@ds.mc.ti.com WD3 MS10-13 (508)-236-1263
Eugene Miya
kermit <nor...@noreply.com> wrote:
>Although it may be taken as such, the question I have for the group is not
>intended as a troll or as flame-bait. Here it is:
It's a troll.
If not, then you want no one to respond?
>Why is it that when the OHV 4x4 clubs around my area sponsor a
>"Clean Up Day", only the 4x4 users show up?
Your question, and your choices to get here are somewhat self-selecting.
1) "your area"
2) if only the 4x4 clubs get asked, why do you expect others?
Consider for instance, that you didn't cross-post rec.autos.4x4.
I am not saying that you should or should not have. I have the Isuzu FAQ.
And the group is largely boring to me, filled with awannables.
>This has happened several times that I can attest to (and yes, I can give
>dates, times, locations,and pictures). Each time my club sponsors a clean
>up day, my kids and I go along and spend the day cleaning up other people's
>garbage from trails and campsites around central Arizona. Even though the
>events are advertised, the local environmental groups never attend. Why is
>this? Are they afraid that if they associate at all with members of the OHV
>community they will appear tarnished? Even if it's for a good cause?
AZ. Well, I can think of a number of possible reasons by just geography alone.
You have to get specific about "groups." But foot traffic and road
traffic have a degree of incapability. You might consider how much you
know about these groups. If you nothing about them, then you might be
clueless about their's activities. Do you know of their activities?
Have you heard the expression (about heat) "Mad dogs and Englishmen?"
How good in the air conditioning in your 4x4?
The concept of needing a "clean up" strikes some groups as strange.
These latter groups note that "wilderness management" strikes them as an
oxymoron. The road is self-selecting.
>This has really been bugging me. I have been (and I'm sure that I will
>continue to be) considered an "enemy" of these groups simply because I
>choose to enjoy the outdoors from the drivers seat of a Jeep. I and all of
>the people that I travel with are dedicated to the idea of treading
>lightly.......leave nothing but tracks (which will be gone after the next
>rain), pack out MORE than you pack in, stay on established trails, respect
>wildlife, etc. While it's true that there are a lot of 4x4 users that think
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it's OK to throw empty beer cans all over the place and tear up the land,
^^^^^^^
>there are also a lot of us that don't. My kids (ages 7 and 8) are learning
>early to enjoy the wonders of nature with respect, yet they've been
>criticized at school when they've told their classmates about what they've
>seen -- all because of how we got there.
Oh, the tread lightly campaign (and it is that) is entertaining.
I get that literature from my ownership.
>Is this why the "greenies" won't come help us when we do a trail clean up?
>Do they/you think that we are all a bunch of beer guzzling throttle junkies?
>Or is it that by joining us in a clean up effort they would be admitting
>that we aren't all bad?
I suspect the answer to 1 is: self-selection. You are seeing what you
see and what you want to see. I don't have enough information, like
how far do you clean from your roads. They aren't trails. We have to
get into legal terminology, scratch trails, say single track (now).
I suspect 2 is a few to a degree.
I specific 3 is a few to a dergee as well.
>As I said before, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I would really like
>to talk with some of the folks on the "other team" about this, because I
>think we (the responsible OHV users) aren't really that far off from where
>you are. We don't like the throttle junkies and beer can throwers any more
>than you do. We all want to see our public lands preserved.......the main
>difference is that we don't want it locked up so that the only way to see it
>is on foot.
>
>Any comments or thoughts are welcome. Flames will be ignored. :-)
Two things.
One, I get called to volunteer on Sierra Club work parties.
My first impression of your honest opinion is that you have to realize
that the spectrum of your observations is based on how far you get from
your vehicle: working or entertaining. For a single say artificial
object, its size limits movement say old big tires, new methods, more
people to move it come into play, but the point it that these other
people are more likely to be working further in that you walk. That
distance, I can't tell.
As a reference, I include the DW excerpt from Fletcher's Inverse Law of
Appreciation.
I have come upon the works of various 4WD clubs. Some are okay,
rebuilding track, etc. Some are clueless, well meaning people (one
group left cans of juice as emergency food in one of our huts (it's our
hut, we've had a lease on the land over 50 years). Sounds good?
Think winter, thermal expansion, think a mess after the first hard freeze.
That's okay, we drank or hauled out the juice.
What you see if like chromatography, some particles go further, and
you are seeing a selection.
The separate social issue of two disparate groups not communicating.
I work in the world of computers. I moved to the SF Bay Area oh, some
18 years or so ago. Computers were developed for three basic things
initially: ballistic trajectories, cracking codes, and designing nuclear
weapons. There's a major nuclear weapons Lab (LLNL) in the area.
One of my friends started working there (before I moved), so I got
to know these guys, a spectrum of hawks and peace-thur-deterence guys
(a few women). These guys have great guy stories vaporizing islands in
the Pacific, but I get ahead of myself. Oh, and they occasionally
ask me to consult, offer an opinion thing of thing.
I also got a bit into the nuclear freeze movement in the computer industry.
Nice well meaning guys trying to find other uses for computers besides
the initial ones (Stanford, XEROX PARC, Apple, etc.).
On BOTH sides, they attend church, and they talk about "the other guys."
But they don't talk to and with their political opponents. They hear
what they want to hear and see what they want to see. Like the Rock Man
in The Point (a Harry Nielsen film).
Eventually, I introduced a nuclear weapons designer (did the ABM warhead
on the Spartan missile, 1 MT yield, enhanced radiation; at least two
other sets of friends including my ex-officemate [now] declined as not
being allowed to speak in public). And both sides went away feeling
that they convinced the other of their opinions (like a section in Ed
Abbey's Desert Solitare). And no one really changed. But I expected that.
Fundamental values.
Frankly, don't worry about being too polite.
So if you are not capable to opening your eyes, to see that yes, you are
trolling for an answer, then you don't see the answers to your other
questions even if were staring at you in the face.
References
Excerpts from The Complete Walker:
There is a cardinal rule of travel, all too often overlooked,
that I [Fletcher] call "The Law of Inverse Appreciation."
It states: "The less there is between you and the environment, the
more you appreciate the environment."
Every walker knows, even if he has not thought about it, the law's
most obvious application: the bigger and most efficient your means of
travel, the further you become divorced from the reality through which
you are travelling. A man learns a thousand times more about the sea from
the "Kon Tiki" than from the "Queen Mary;" euphorically more about space
at the end of a cord than inside a capsule. On land, you remain closer
in touch with the countryside in a slow moving old open touring
car than in a modern, air-conditioned, tinted-glass-window,
80-miles-per-hour-and-never-notice-it behemoth. And you come closer
in touch on a horse than any car; in closer touch on foot than on any horse.
But the law has a second and less obvious application:
your appreciation varies not only according to what you travel "in"
but also according to what you travel "over." Drive along a
freeway in any kind of car and you are in almost zero contact with the
country beyond the concrete. Turn off onto a minor highway and you are
a notch closer. A narrow country road is better still.
When you bump slowly along a jeep trail you begin at last to sense those
vital details that turn mere landscape into living countryside. And not
long ago, on the East African savanna -- where it was at
the time not considered destructive to drive cross-country over the pale
grasslands -- I discovered an extending corollary to my law:
"The further you move away from any impediment of appreciation,
the better it is."
It is less obvious that these same discrepancies persist when you are
travelling on foot. Any blacktop road holds the scrollwork of the country
at arm's length: the road itself keeps stalking along on stilts or
grubbing about in a trough, and your feet travel on harsh and
sterile pavement. Turn off onto a dusty jeep trail and the detail moves
closer. A foot trail is better still. But you do not really
have to break free until you step off the trail and walk through waving
grass or woodland growth or across rock or smooth sand or (most perfect
of all) virgin snow. Now you can read all the details,
down to the print. Drifting snow crystals barely begun to blurr the four
footed signature of the marten that padded past this lodgepole pine.
Or a long-legged lizard scurries for cover, kicking up
little spurts of sand as it corners around a bush. . .And always, in snow
or sand or rock or seascape grass there is, as far as you can see in
any direction, no sign of man.
That, I believe, is being in touch with the world.
--Colin Fletcher
"Technology gets in the way."
--Don Norman, Apple Fellow, UCSD Professor Emer.
"Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine,"
Voyager First Person Books-on-CD series
See "The All in One Knife" in
'The Gallery of Undefinable Things'
An Exhibit from the Collection of Jacques Carelman
Fletcher would like this.
Back to Fletcher:
Other foot notes
* It would probably be a good thing if you reread this paragraph at least once
-- and tried to remember it later on. This is essentially a "know-how"
book, but we must never lose sight of the fact that what matters in the end
is the "feel how" of walking.
* Frankly, my advice to those genuinely interested in walking has always been
to forget the books and to get out and get on with it. Relying on the
two finest teachers in the business, trial and error. I'm not at all sure
a piece of me that doesn't still stand by that advice.
"Once you become a walker, you become a conservationist: no one can walk
for days on-end through wild and unspoiled country and then stumble on some
man-perpetrated horror without having his blood start to boil.*
*At least, I used to think this was so. I'm afraid I am no longer
so sure.
Eugene Miya
doc <d...@home.spamfree> wrote:
>I do not recall having heard of such events being sponsored by 4x4 clubs.
Depends where you are.
There is a reasonable Club in Fresno, CA. Strangely, I've had one bad
run in with the Fresno chapter Sierra Club on a ski trip. Now that's
a limited sample. The Fresno 4x4 club could do dumb things, it's just
that I've not seen them yet.
And there are others.
>Furthermore, I rarely see trash in areas where I backpack. Backpackers
>generally respect the wilderness areas that I use. Even (animal) packers do
>not leave paper, plastic, or most other forms of trash (animal dung is the
>major exception) behind in more remote areas. It might have something to do
>with most of my backpacking destinations being wholly unaccessible to 4x4
>vehicles. Also, when I do see some trash in the backcountry it is usually
>within the first 5 miles of a trailhead and I pack it out on the way out
>from a trip. On some shorter "shuttle" trips I've even been known to pick
>it up on the way in and carry it for the duration.
Shadow Lake in the Sierra is closed to camping due to both backpacker
trash and horse packer trash. Some of both groups do leave trash.
And trash is not the only issue.
>If you are seeing lots of trash in the areas where you go off-roading, then
>maybe there is a correlation between easy access and easy littering.
>
>Don't misunderstand: I have nothing against 4-wheel drive vehicles, their
>drivers, or even using them in certain backcountry areas.
Cars are a general problem in the US, but this topic is secondary to that.
A fine thread.
>One more thing, I think that 4x4 vehicles cause more erosion than than one
>might think.
I think 2 wheeled motor bikes, and 4x4 ATVs are a bigger problem.
Larger vehicles still have to usually confind themselves to 2-tracks.
You still lurking Vic?
>What does a typical 4x4 weigh? How nobby are typical off-road treads?
>Should one wait for a trail to dry completly before driving on the mud
>(which would otherwise permit much greater erosion the next time it rains on
>that trail)? Should we be asking such questions of ourselves?
They will range from 500 lbs to over 9,000 lbs. depending on loads.
We have to ask these questions. We are the humans. Mostly.
>In the spirit that you mention, no flaming is intended. If you see merit in
>my comments, I hope you will share this posting with your kids for
>discussion.
Please edit out the old attributed text.
John Paul Minda
wrote on 1/19/01 1:15 PM:
> kermit <nor...@noreply.com> wrote:
> They hear
> what they want to hear and see what they want to see. Like the Rock Man
> in The Point (a Harry Nielsen film).
"Did you ever see a pterodactyl?"
"No"
"Did you ever _want_ to see a pterodactyl?"
"No."
"There you go, you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to
hear"
If you ever bring back DW, Nilsson's "the Point" could go in the references.
Paul
------------------------------------
John Paul Minda
Beckman Institute
The University of Illinois
405 N. Mathews Ave.
Urbana, IL 61801
(217) 333-2012
mi...@beckman.uiuc.edu
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~minda
------------------------------------
Eugene Miya
John Paul Minda <mi...@beckman.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>in article 3a689261$1...@news.ucsc.edu, Eugene Miya at eug...@cse.ucsc.edu
>
>hear"
>
>If you ever bring back DW, Nilsson's "the Point" could go in the references.
I think that it might be there.
If not, I'll add it.
I own the sound track on tape.
Pete Hickey
>> in The Point (a Harry Nielsen film).
Listening to the scratchy vinyl just the other day. Unfortunately, I lost
the book that came with it.
>"Did you ever see a pterodactyl?"
>
>"No"
>
>"Did you ever _want_ to see a pterodactyl?"
>
>"No."
>
>"There you go, you see what you want to see and you hear what you want to
>hear"
He's got a point there!
--
Pete Hickey | Pe...@mudhead.uottawa.CA
Communication Services | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
University of Ottawa | XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Ottawa,Ont. Canada K1N 6N5| Contents of sig censored by management
kermit
Thank you for taking the time to respond. After reading some of the
Mountain Bike threads in this NG, I wasn't really sure what kind of
responses I would get. :-)
I would like to say that all 4x4 clubs sponsor clean up days, but
unfortunately that isn't true. Not all off-highway groups take the time to
clean up after themselves and others. For them, I apologize........and
please believe me that those people within the 4x4 community that are not
responsible are detested by those that are -- perhaps even more so than
they're detested by the greenies because they make all of us look bad.
I don't know where you're from, but hopefully somewhere around you there is
a club that does this kind of thing. I can't speak for them, but they may
have the same problem getting the word out that my club does: money. Since
we are a non-dues organization, all advertising for our clean up days is
donated by members ($$ for flyers) or done as PSA's on local radio stations.
I'm sure that the lack of turnout from the backpacking and biking community
to our events is mainly due to a lack of knowledge that the event is even
happening.
The Sierra Club however, was publicly invited to attend a clean up day at
the last BLM comment meeting for the Roadless Initiative held in
Phoenix........and yes, there were SC members at the meeting. For whatever
reason, the SC did not have a single representative at our cleanup. The
lack of attendees from the general backpacking and biking community can
probably be solved by a change in advertising placement on our part. It's
the refusal of the SC to participate that bothers me.
I'm quite happy that you DON'T see a lot of trash in the areas you frequent.
I do agree with you that there is a definate correlation between easy access
and litter. Saguaro Lake Recreation area here in Arizona is a very good
example. There is a public rec area that is accessed via a paved road that
contains picnic tables, bathrooms, and many trash cans. Even though it has
trash cans and dumpsters, this area usually looks very similar to the city
dump despite the efforts of the Park Service. On one side of the rec area
there is a dirt road/trail that leads around to the back side of the lake.
The first portion of this road is just dirt and sand, and can be driven on
with a normal passenger vehicle.......and is usually full of trash. Not as
bad as the paved area, but bad. As the road winds around the lake it
becomes progressively worse, with large rocks and steep hills. These
obstacles act as filters and keep the "city folks" in their SUV's out of the
area.......and subsequently reduce the amount of litter. If you can imagine
a "trash map" of the area superimposed on a topographical map, the
difficulty of the terrain directly relates to the amount of garbage.
I won't insult you by saying that my truck has no impact on the
environment....it does. However, I will open the point of "degrees of
impact" for discussion. Take this example: My truck weighs about 5500 lbs
and does have big knobby tires. I also have "lockers" (traction aiding
devices) in both axles to prevent wheelspin (a spinning tire has no
traction). When I climb a hill, the lockers and knobby tires (along with
low gears) allow me to do so without spinning the tires in the dirt.......no
big ruts, no holes, just a set of waffle-pattern tracks. A lightweight SUV
or pickup with street tires is not able to do this. They don't have enough
weight to plant the tires effectively, the axles are not set up to send
equal power to both wheels, and the tires do not "grab" the dirt...they
simply spin on top. This means that this typical vehicle has to use
excessive speed and large amounts of power to "burn" it's way up the
ll -- leaving large ruts behind it. To my way of thinking these ruts are
particularly offensive, as I'm sure they are to you also. I could also make
a case that the waffle pattern tracks left by my truck (and others like it)
actually help REDUCE the amount of run-off from soft dirt hillsides by
trapping the water in the waffle pattern long enough for it to soak
in...........please bear in mind though that I live in Arizona where 1/10 of
an inch of rain is considered a lot. With such loose dirt and so few plants
as we have here, anything that helps prevent run-off is a good thing.
I'm afraid that I can't comment on your mud question, since the only "mud
pit" I've ever seen that wasn't man made was less than 20 feet
long........another hazard/benefit of living in the desert.
Again, I'd like to thank you for a well thought out answer and I hope we can
continue the discussion.
Len
doc wrote in message ...
kermit
Most of my writing energy was spent on the novel I just wrote in response to
Doc, so forgive me if I'm a bit brief in aswering you.
Yes, I'm in central Arizona. Most of my off-pavement time is spent in the
foothills around Phoenix. This area is not "desert" in the sense of large
sand dunes, but it is very limited in vegetation and is mostly rocks, dirt,
and cactus / cholla. The biggest cause of erosion around here is wind, and
as you said, the area is subject to erosion whether it's driven on or not.
You are absolutely correct about the desert punishing those who stray off of
the established trails.......I've seen tires that look like pincushions and
cannot be patched due to some idiot thinking he could drive over a Jumping
Cholla unscathed.
I also agree with you about the increase in trash being directly related to
the number of vehicles capable of traveling off pavement. Just because the
vehicle is capable of going there doesn't necessarily mean that the driver
is though.
happy trails
Len
>
>He said central Arizona. The reference is not completely clear as it
>might mean mountain areas north of Phoenix or mostly flat desert to the
>south.
<<<<snipped>>>>
kermit
the same problem the 4x4 groups do: lack of funds for advertising. We
don't come to yours and you don't come to ours......internal advertising
versus external advertising. Anybody want to collaborate on a website
dedicated to clean up efforts? It could be organized by state, and clean up
days (no matter who sponsors them) could be listed. No political or
idealogical discussions allowed........just clean up information for those
who want to do something. I realize that this is just treating the symptom
and not the disease, but it's something that we can all agree on and help
with.
It would probably evolve into a "yours and mine" situation anyway, but if
there is just one person who "crosses over" and gets to know some of the
folks on the "other side" (no matter which side they go to), wouldn't it be
worth it?
Len
Don Rolph wrote in message <3A683F2D...@ds.mc.ti.com>...
Cricket
most people who don't do off road wouldn't show up due to previous
experience with the majority of our local off roaders (note: I enjoy the
occasional off road foray, being exteremely careful how and where I travel,
so I'm not knee jerk against it.)
I'm sure there are folks around here like you, but I have never heard
of any 4-wheeling group near here having a clean up. I've encountered a
fair number out in the woods who should have done some cleaning up when they
sobered up. Are they representative? Probably (hopefully) not. Are they
what most people encounter most often around here? Unfortunately yes. And
of course loud stupid and scary makes one big impression, which pretty much
overrides anything else.
I can understand the feeling of the "greenies", having been
mock-threatened (I hope!) with being run down more than once, even my cocky
self exercises some caution in approaching people out in the woods with
brush bars and boggers.
Part of the reason I don't off road much anymore is that the people I
used to go with, nice, give you the shirt off their backs folks all,
absolutely refused to believe there was any importance in worrying about
where you went and what you did (and dumped) there. Didn't know and didn't
want to hear. Frustrating for me, I'm sure far more so for those being
tarred with the same brush.
Don't know the solution. Policeing your own, of course, but you're not
their keeper, and you can't force sense. Dialog with the other land users,
initiated well before any joint efforts are suggested, aimed at showing them
that your group, at least, has sense and shares goals. Or maybe magic, who
knows? Good luck.
kermit <nor...@noreply.com> wrote in message
news:t6fpr4d...@corp.supernews.com...
kermit
Eugene Miya wrote in message <3a689261$1...@news.ucsc.edu>...
>It's a troll.
>If not, then you want no one to respond?
Point taken. I think of trolling as purposefully posting offensive material
to provoke a heated response....usually without any intention of ever
responding to the responses. I DO want responses, but my intent was not to
offend. Considering where I'm posting, my views might be offensive to some.
I didn't do this to start a war.....I really do want to hear your side,
because I think we aren't really that far apart.
>
>>Why is it that when the OHV 4x4 clubs around my area sponsor a
>>"Clean Up Day", only the 4x4 users show up?
>
>Your question, and your choices to get here are somewhat self-selecting.
>1) "your area"
>2) if only the 4x4 clubs get asked, why do you expect others?
Another good point. Our advertising is rather limited, but we did manage to
get a couple of PSA's from radio stations. My main concern is that the SC
was publicly invited (at a BLM meeting) and chose not to attend.
>
>Consider for instance, that you didn't cross-post rec.autos.4x4.
>I am not saying that you should or should not have. I have the Isuzu FAQ.
>And the group is largely boring to me, filled with awannables.
>
I decided not to cross post this one to the 4x4 groups because I wanted to
get the "other side" of the story. I've floated the idea of starting a
dialogue with the "greenies" a couple of times on closed 4x4 mailing lists,
so I have a fair idea of what kind of reaction I would get.......especially
from an open NG full of wannabe "trail heroes."
>
>AZ. Well, I can think of a number of possible reasons by just geography
alone.
>You have to get specific about "groups." But foot traffic and road
>traffic have a degree of incapability. You might consider how much you
>know about these groups. If you nothing about them, then you might be
>clueless about their's activities. Do you know of their activities?
>Have you heard the expression (about heat) "Mad dogs and Englishmen?"
>How good in the air conditioning in your 4x4?
>
I don't know much about them at all...........that's why I'm here, posting
to this group: to learn. Oh, and my truck doesn't have air conditioning.
I grew up here.......after 30 years the heat doesn't bother me much anymore.
120 degrees is a bit uncomfortable, but with a dash mounted fan and plenty
of water to drink it's bearable.
>
>I suspect the answer to 1 is: self-selection. You are seeing what you
>see and what you want to see. I don't have enough information, like
>how far do you clean from your roads. They aren't trails. We have to
>get into legal terminology, scratch trails, say single track (now).
We generally clean out as far as from the edges of the trail as possible,
depending on the terrain and the vegetation (or lack thereof). In Arizona
that can range from 100 yards to maybe a couple of feet. Out of curiousity,
how far away from your trails do you clean? Our usual method is to bring
more people than vehicles - the vehicles crawl down the trail while the
extra folks scour the area to both sides and put the trash into bags and/or
into the vehicles.
Regarding terminology: I will try to get used to your terms (like "single
track") and use them more often, but it's not what I'm used to and may take
a while. The way I'm used to referring to various thoroughfares is as
follows:
Road: paved, gravel, or hard packed dirt. Passable by 2wd passenger
vehicles
Trail: unpaved, difficult to traverse, 4wd required
Path: suitable for bike or foot traffic only
I'll try to use your terms if you'll try to bear with me and not nitpick
when I forget.
>
>The separate social issue of two disparate groups not communicating.
>
Agreed. That's why I'm here.....trying to communicate.
>On BOTH sides, they attend church, and they talk about "the other guys."
>But they don't talk to and with their political opponents. They hear
>what they want to hear and see what they want to see. Like the Rock Man
>in The Point (a Harry Nielsen film).
Again agreed. To some extent I do see and hear only what I want to, and I'm
sure you do also. While my core fundamental ideas may not change, I AM
trying to expand my point of view a bit. Perhaps I'll learn something,
perhaps some of the other folks here will.
>
And no one really changed. But I expected that.
>Fundamental values.
I don't expect everyone here to start chanting "4x4 are great" anymore than
I expect myself to throw mine away and start hiking everywhere. I do
believe that there is a middle ground that we can agree upon and accomplish
more good through working together than we can through working at cross
purposes.
>
>Frankly, don't worry about being too polite.
>
>
I'm not worried about it, but a polite "aggreement to disagree" is much
better than an arguement, IMHO.
>So if you are not capable to opening your eyes, to see that yes, you are
>trolling for an answer, then you don't see the answers to your other
>questions even if were staring at you in the face.
>
Point already conceded at the start of this post. Like the "trail"
definition, I had a different view of exactly what 'trolling' constituted.
And no, I don't see the answers. That's why I asked.
>
Thank you for the Fletcher excerpt. It would appear by his definition that
I am closer to the environment than most folks, but not as close as I could
be. I accept that and agree. It does create a question though: It appears
that he is advocating cross-country no-trail (or path)
hiking.........doesn't that cause more disturbance than hiking on
trails/paths?
Thank you for your response........I'm looking forward to more
Len
Chuck Simmons
>
> Hi Chuck
>
> Most of my writing energy was spent on the novel I just wrote in response to
> Doc, so forgive me if I'm a bit brief in aswering you.
>
> Yes, I'm in central Arizona. Most of my off-pavement time is spent in the
> foothills around Phoenix. This area is not "desert" in the sense of large
> sand dunes, but it is very limited in vegetation and is mostly rocks, dirt,
> and cactus / cholla. The biggest cause of erosion around here is wind, and
> as you said, the area is subject to erosion whether it's driven on or not.
I am familiar with the area. I was born in Phoenix and spent the first
20 years of my life there. My 4x4 experience ranged quite widely.
Monument Valley, Canyon De Shelly, the Mogollon Rim country, the Bagdad
area, the Kofa Mountains, the Superior area and more. I drove a CJ-5 (I
learned to drive in that), a 1964 Wagoneer, a 1942 Dodge 1/2 ton weapons
carrier (the first vehicle I owned) and on visits to Phoenix after I
moved away, a Ford Bronco. I have a 1966 Bronco that I drive almost
every day. I have a bit of experience of Arizona four wheeling.
> You are absolutely correct about the desert punishing those who stray off of
> the established trails.......I've seen tires that look like pincushions and
> cannot be patched due to some idiot thinking he could drive over a Jumping
> Cholla unscathed.
Jumping cholla is a sort of hell. It works through tires, It works
through boots and it hurts like hell to pull it out of your skin. A
first aid kit for the area must include pliers to pull out jumping
cholla.
> I also agree with you about the increase in trash being directly related to
> the number of vehicles capable of traveling off pavement. Just because the
> vehicle is capable of going there doesn't necessarily mean that the driver
> is though.
>
> happy trails
>
> Len
There are several issues in this. In the old days when 4x4s were rare,
there was little mess because the people who had them recreationally did
not like mess. The extreme popularity of SUVs has changed the picture a
bit in so far as who is four wheeling. I have a little bit of
backpacking experience in Colorado and I see the the same effect on very
popular trails which seem to collect a bit of litter. However, on a
couple of occasions, I took my children for day trips to a very little
known state park that was always quite free of litter - it was cleaner
than the first couple of miles on popular wilderness trails. This purely
points to high traffic changing the average character of the users of
trails, back roads and other recreational areas.
On the other hand, I see lots of 4x4s without a scratch on them. These,
of course, have not been off pavement. The Wagoneer mentioned above,
before it was a year old had bashed rocker panels from high centering, a
messed up rear bumper from hanging the bumper going down in washes and a
bashed front bumper from getting out of washes. A 4x4 with no body
damage hasn't been anywhere.
kermit
Since y'all seem to be more willing to actually hold a conversation than the
folks in alt.org.sierra-club, I wanted to copy one of my posts to that group
here. Some of the ideas I expressed in the copied post have already been
presented here....some haven't. Hopefully it will provide more food for
thought.
Len
--copied post below--
jzsw...@my-deja.com wrote in message <94a43t$una$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> ... (stuff removed for space)
>
>
>Since I'm here in CA, I'm not exactly sure of your situation in AZ.
>
>Do the "greenies" as you call them,
>even know about your clean up days?
>Perhaps it's just a matter of publicity?
>
>You say your clean-ups are well advertised ...
>but are they really? Does the required infor
>get into the greenies news letters?
>
I didn't say that they were WELL advertised.....just that we do advertise.
My club does not charge dues, so there is no budget for this kind of thing.
All advertising is donated by club members or done as PSA's with radio
stations.
I'm sure that publicity and the "target audience" is the most significant
factor RIGHT NOW. When we change our target audience for what advertising
we do have, I (and you) may have revised opinions.
>Have representatives from your club
>visited the club meetings of the greenies
>to personally extent the invitation?
>
Visisted the club meetings? Not yet. Invited them personally? Yes. At a
BLM meeting.
>(Are the "greenies" in your area all that organized?
>To contact the Sierra Club chapter in the Phoenix AZ
>area, see http://www.sierraclub.org/chapters/az)
>
I will do so.
>Perhaps the greenies have their own clean up days,
>which they'd prefer to attend ... since of use greenies
>don't like being around noisy, fuming 4x4's.
>
Quite possible, and to some extent the feeling is mutual. I've meet several
greenies that could be described as "noisy and fuming". (That was an
attempt at humor.......)
>
>There's also a rather large cultural divide between the two groups.
>Greenies like to be in the solitude of the wilderness, away from
>vehicles
>and anykind of man-made noise ... other than maybe water falls
>and singing birds.
>
I'm very aware of the division between us........I'm just hoping that
perhaps there are some moderate greenies that are willing to work together.
While our fundamental philosophies are different, I do believe that in
certain areas (education, reclamation, clean up, etc) we can accomplish more
together than seperately.
>Also, we all have a limited amount of time ...
>especially if you've got kids, a job, a house, etc., etc.
>
So do we. Our clean up runs are usually scheduled months in advance.
>Perhaps the leaders of your club should make
>a deal with the leaders of the greenies clubs,
>in your area, and to both attend each other's
>clean-up functions?
>
It's been tried, but neither side really put forth the effort of
understanding necessary to make it work. The radicals on BOTH sides will
probably never be able to really work together, but I'm hoping that there
are enough moderates (on both sides) that something can be accomplished
together......like your next suggestion.
>Perhaps you can combine clean up days.
>You take the greenies to the borders of their
>favorite parks ... and they can do clean up work
>just inside the park where vechiles aren't allowed ...
>while the non-greenies do clean up outside the park.
>
>Greenies always need vechicles to get to wilderness trailheads.
>
>
>It might help to bridge the cultural divide.
>
That's exactly what I'm trying to do. There are many greenie ideas that I
agree with, but there are many that I don't. I'm sure that some of my
dis-agreements are simply because I won't understand. I'm trying to change
that and start a dialogue that may bring at least a small portion of the two
groups together. I don't expect the folks in this group to start chanting
"4x4's are great", but I do hope that we can learn something from each
other.
I'm trying to be a realist....whether or not I'm succeeding remains to be
seen. I freely admit that I'm not at "green" as some of you are, but I do
feel that I am more in tune with the environment than most city folks who
never travel beyond pavement. It bothers me to see the trash and
destruction brought about through the irresponsible use of public
lands..........and it bothers me more that even though they were invited to
help clean up some of it, the SC would not do so while we were there.
Here is my point of view: Even if the radical green groups succeed in
closing all public land to any type of vehicle, the land will never truly be
closed. The idiots who spread the trash and don't care about the land will
still go do their thing because by definition THEY DON'T CARE. A couple of
signs and a small fine IF they get caught won't deter them, any more than
fines and jail time deter drunk driving. There are responsible drivers who
call a cab when they have to much to drink, but there are still ones out
there who don't care and drive while they're drunk. The same thought
process applies to land closures.......the only folks who will be kept out
are the responsible portion. The ones who pack out more than they pack in.
The ones who care enough to have clean up days. The idiots will always be
there, but if the lands are closed to the responsible people who will clean
up after the idiots?
These posts are my personal attempt at taking the first step towards
bridging the cultural gap. My question was probably considered offensive
and inflammatory by some, but I really do want to know WHY the green groups
don't seem to want to work together with us. If I don't know why, how can I
attempt to fix it?
The first step is rather obvious: change the target audience of our
advertising. Sometimes something is SO obvious that it is never thought of,
and that's what happened to me. We have a great network of 4x4 shops and
clubs, but I honestly don't know if anybody put any flyers in the mountain
bike or hiking shops. That will be fixed next time, thanks to your response
and ones gathered from other groups.
The next step is to actually start an exchange of ideas. If the only
communication between our two groups is inflammatory rhetoric, how are we
ever going to be able to do anything except butt heads?
You might actually be quite surprised at some of the ideas that we (the 4x4
folks) have discussed around the campfire. Things like off-highway
licensing with it's associated fees going to help pay for BLM and Forest
Service expenses. Mandatory education to receive the off-highway license.
Mandatory participation in clean up runs to keep the license. Windshield
stickers for license holders.......any vehicle without a sticker
automatically escorted back to pavement by law enforcement. The responsible
4x4 folks are so tired of the idiot 4x4'ers screwing up things for the rest
of us that we are willing to talk about regulation of our pastime. Most of
our other hobbies (ham radio for example) are licensed and regulated......if
it will improve things, why not?
Obviously I can't speak for ALL off-highway enthusiasts, but there are some
of us who think this way. Even within my own club ideas like the ones I
just listed (or even talking with greenies) are wildly resisted by some
people.........but after spending a day cleaning up other peoples garbage
the level of disgust with our fellow man is high enough that compromise is
likely.
Here's the problem though: in order for compromise to truly work, there has
to be compromise on both sides. If the willingness of part of the 4x4
community to work with you (the greenies) is seen as a weakness or as "the
greenies are winning" and the 4x4 folks feel that they are being taken
advantage of, there will be a knee jerk reaction back to the hard line
position and we'll be right back to butting heads. The middle ground of
"responsible use" would be much easier to reach than either extreme: "no
use" or "idiot abuse".
We will always fight the "no use" policy........but we'll work with you on a
"responsible use" policy.
Before we can work together, we have to start talking. And before we start
talking, we have to understand more about why we aren't
talking..........hence this discussion.
Thanks for the time and thought given to this subject........I'm looking
forward to more.
Len
georgec...@nospam.msn.com
the other guys shoes. Here's a 4x4 group going out to clean 4x4 trails of
garbage left by other 4x4ers. Why should the non 4x4ers help clean up the
4x4ers messes and images to boot? As my mom would say, "They made their bed
now they can go sleep in it". I suppose you would be justified in calling the
enviros hypocrites in not putting their supposed concern for the planet into
practice, but then would they not be justified in asking you if you had ever
participated in a trail maintenance event put on by a hiking club on a non
motorized trail? And if not, why not?
No one who has spent any time in the backcountry would ever maintain that
just because somebody backpacks or canoes it makes them into an envirosaint.
The trashed campsites that are too common in the non motorized backcountry
attest to the reality of slobs amongst us. But, at least out here in
Wisconsin, the amount of trash on the foot, bike and ski paths pales in
comparison to the dreck that piles up on the legal and illegal orv trails.
If you're really serious about organizing a broad based clean up effort then
do it under the auspices of a "neutral" organization, such as a State or
County Conservation Dept.. Or call the environmental orgs in person to see if
you cant get together on mutual clean up day. That way everybody gets credit
for the work not just your club.
By the way, if all 4x4ers operated like your group does there would be a lot
less tension between user groups.
G.Cleveland
In article <t6fpr4d...@corp.supernews.com>, kermit <nor...@noreply.com>
writes:
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Pete Hickey
kermit <nor...@noreply.com> wrote:
>Why is it that when the OHV 4x4 clubs around my area sponsor a "Clean Up
>Day", only the 4x4 users show up?
Because different groups concentrate their efforts in different
areas? MTBers concdentrate their efforts on trails they use,
Hikers on trails they use,....
How many 4x4 ers are there when there is a river cleanup, for
example (OK, you probably don't have them in your area, but leave
it at that to illustrate a point.) When my group has a trail
improvement day, and we have to haul tools (by foot) for 10 miles,
we don't have 4x4ers showing up.
Given that a person has x days a year to work on volunteer trail
fixup projects, it is more likely that the person will work
with a group they are most closely associated with, and not have
time for others.
This kind of cleanup work is also a bit of a social event, and
I suspect that plays a part in the people it attracts as well.
4X4 groups aren't the only groups doing some kind of trail improvement
work. It looks like you're trying to imply that 'greenies' are
all talk and no action since they don't show up for your work.
You have to look at the work done by groups, not by the kind of
people showing up for an individual event.
doc
Looks like its turning out to be a lively (and polite) thread.
After getting a newsreader with excellent filtering capabilities, I am
uninvolved at any significant level with the mountain bike related threads
or with any rabid participants in that thread. Thankfully. :-)
That is actually a bit of a shame because I do enjoy going off-road with my
mountain bike, but have only found 2 places nearby where I am comfortable
with the impact of off-roading. Anyway, there are many mountain bikers who
miss out on a nice forum due to one irrational poster and his perpetual
string of trollees who feed his illness.
When I read your first message, I must admit I was not picturing a desert
environment. Although I have spent time in the desert backcountry, I was
picturing a more mountainous region with more dirt-like soil on sloped
surfaces since that is where I spend the vast majority of my backcountry
time. Mostly, I was discussing what I felt are some of the issues with
geographic areas of my greatest experience.
Rather than asking a bunch of follow-up questions without really replying to
the issues you raised, I made some assumptions--some of which have proved to
be false. It is clear that you have less rain and less potential mud than I
was envisioning.
Regardless, it is my opinion that rough places (such as would be created by
knobby tires) would tend to wear down faster than smooth places during heavy
or moderate rains. For 1/10 of an inch of rain with fairly rapid absorbtion
or evaporation, I would suspect that your view may be more correct with
regards to the potential for erosion from rain. Wind was mentioned in
another part of this thread, and I would suspect that wind would be able to
"catch" on the uneven places created by knobby tires. However, not having
walked extensively through desert places, I am not as "in tune" with their
ecology as I am with mountains and forests.
I might suggest that you try walking a few roadless days and spending a few
isolated nights in your preferred places and see how your ecological views
might further develop. After a even few days away form trails or even
tracks, see if just viewing those tracks has a different impact on you. You
might notice a significant change after a few such trips due to increasing
comfort with being independent (vehicleless) in the wild.
I am not trying to point fingers, but still trying to explore "true cost" of
certain uses of our precious resources. I know, for example, that when I am
using a foot trail through the mountains I am very aware that that very
trail has significant impact on the region that I am enjoying.
One of the reasons that I likely have not heard of 4x4 club clean up
programs is that I generally try to be unavailable to most advertisements.
There are only a few ways to reach me with mass media with any effect.
Posting in this newsgroup is one of those few.
In general, I try to have a constant low level of positive impact on my
environment. Although I do participate in organized clean-ups on occasion
(for example dive club underwater beach & harbor cleanups), I am unlikely to
seek out new clubs to join for such purpose.
In my view, the Sierra Club does some good work that needs doing. It also
appears to be a very political organization. A political organization may
choose to distance itself in certain ways from groups that it might view as
potential conflicting actors within the political arena. Another
possibility is that a political organization that sponsors its own events
might prefer to organize them in accordance with its own preferences. Yet
another that the representatives you mention might not have been the
appropriate officials for the organization. Regardless, this all
conjecture. You would probably have to ask those who were present for the
invitation to get the most correct answer.
You might consider having your club members informally join Sierra Club
cleanup events. As far as I know Sierra Club is open to everyone.
Non-members can even join for hikes. You could also try direct communication
with the leaders of the local chapter.
Thanks for a solid backcountry thread in a rather politically charged period
for this newsgroup. It is interesting to note that for the most part, the
participants in the mountain biking tirade and the numerous election related
threads are not otherwise regular participants in this newsgroup.
Regards,
doc
Don Rolph
am struck by the thought that ou are really asking a deeper question than the
question which is apparent in your oringial post.
If I might paraphrase, it sounds like you are saying "since both groups are
trying to help the outdoors, why don't we work together to preserve it". This
is, however, a differnect question than why don't we all work together on each
others cleanup efforts.
I answered the way I initialed did because I was trying to focus on the area of
agreement. Both your model and my model is lets get the trash picked up.
But there is also a divergence. I have spen many years working to learn how to
safely and with minimal impact explore the back country. I find the presence of
4X4s in the backcountry troubling for several reasons, which need notbe
discussed here, and so there will be a divergence of opinion. The important
realization is that this is a difference of opinion generally based on
differences in our assumptions.
I applaud you on your efforts at cleanup of the backcountry. I will work on
this as well. When the opportunity comes for either of us to cooproerate on our
mutual objective I look forward to it.
Cheers!
kermit wrote:
--
Regards.
The Rolph's ro...@110.net
Pat O'Connell
>
> In article <t6fpr4d...@corp.supernews.com>,
> kermit <nor...@noreply.com> wrote:
>
> >Why is it that when the OHV 4x4 clubs around my area sponsor a "Clean Up
> >Day", only the 4x4 users show up?
>
> Because different groups concentrate their efforts in different
> areas? MTBers concdentrate their efforts on trails they use,
> Hikers on trails they use,....
I _do_ own a 4WD Toyota pickup truck, but am noty a member of a club,
and don't generally go "4 wheeling" except when necessary to get to or
from a trailhead, campsite or a caving area. Yes, that's sometimes
necesssary in New Mexico and elsewhere.
When I day hike or primitive camp, I often bring along a bag to pick
up trash I find, and bring it back to the truck. Generally I don't do
roadside pickups, unless the trash is right around where I'm parked or
camped.
> How many 4x4 ers are there when there is a river cleanup, for
> example (OK, you probably don't have them in your area, but leave
> it at that to illustrate a point.) When my group has a trail
> improvement day, and we have to haul tools (by foot) for 10 miles,
> we don't have 4x4ers showing up.
Except of course the canoe people and hikers that happen to drive a
4WD, of course.
> Given that a person has x days a year to work on volunteer trail
> fixup projects, it is more likely that the person will work
> with a group they are most closely associated with, and not have
> time for others.
>
> This kind of cleanup work is also a bit of a social event, and
> I suspect that plays a part in the people it attracts as well.
>
> 4X4 groups aren't the only groups doing some kind of trail improvement
> work. It looks like you're trying to imply that 'greenies' are
> all talk and no action since they don't show up for your work.
> You have to look at the work done by groups, not by the kind of
> people showing up for an individual event.
Cavers also do regular cave cleanups for heavily visited wild caves.
I've participated in some of those, too. Try dragging a full trash bag
(inside a burlap vegetable bag, in case you were wondering) down a
crawlway sometime.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Pete Hickey
>Pete Hickey wrote:
>>
>> In article <t6fpr4d...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> kermit <nor...@noreply.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Why is it that when the OHV 4x4 clubs around my area sponsor a "Clean Up
>> >Day", only the 4x4 users show up?
>>
>> Because different groups concentrate their efforts in different
>> areas? MTBers concdentrate their efforts on trails they use,
>> Hikers on trails they use,....
>
>I _do_ own a 4WD Toyota pickup truck, but am noty a member of a club,
>and don't generally go "4 wheeling" except when necessary to get to or
>from a trailhead, campsite or a caving area. Yes, that's sometimes
>necesssary in New Mexico and elsewhere.
Maybe people differ on definitions, but to me, ownership of a 4WD
does not make you a 4X4er. For you, Pat, it is a means to an
end. For a 4x4er, it is the end itself. Big difference, IMO.
>Cavers also do regular cave cleanups for heavily visited wild caves.
>I've participated in some of those, too. Try dragging a full trash bag
>(inside a burlap vegetable bag, in case you were wondering) down a
>crawlway sometime.
I would love to. Next time I'm down your way, invite me along.
cy...@tiny.net
behind them. That's the sort of thing that started Ducks Unlimited
and caused hunters who were aware of the game shortages caused by over
hunting and loss of habitat to get laws passed limiting themselves for
the good of their later years and their future generations. Imagine
the conversations the ones who just wanted to shoot all they could had
with the ones who wanted limits.
Last summer I was sitting at my campsite listening to a 20 something
guy who'd dropped in from the next site over trying to talk to me
about how 4 X 4ing should be allowed in all State Parks. Whenever
he'd slow down, or I'd stop him with using the examples of horse camps
and so forth, as to why some things should be segregated and why it's
better for them, not just PC for the hikers, or mention that he should
start working for more specially set up 4 x 4 areas, I'd hear the
quiet talk from the site on the other side, where some very political
outdoors 40 and 50 something guys were deciding what they'd be
bringing up at the next round of DNR meetings. I didn't catch whether
they were on the official or outside, but they sounded as if they knew
that what they were deciding was likely to happen.
Campfires are good conversational/social tools. Keep your coals
glowing, Kermit.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:46:23 -0700, "kermit" <nor...@noreply.com>
wrote:
>
>You might actually be quite surprised at some of the ideas that we (the 4x4
>folks) have discussed around the campfire. Things like off-highway
>licensing with it's associated fees going to help pay for BLM and Forest
>Service expenses. Mandatory education to receive the off-highway license.
>Mandatory participation in clean up runs to keep the license. Windshield
>stickers for license holders.......any vehicle without a sticker
>automatically escorted back to pavement by law enforcement. The responsible
>4x4 folks are so tired of the idiot 4x4'ers screwing up things for the rest
>of us that we are willing to talk about regulation of our pastime. Most of
>our other hobbies (ham radio for example) are licensed and regulated......if
>it will improve things, why not?
>
>Obviously I can't speak for ALL off-highway enthusiasts, but there are some
>of us who think this way. Even within my own club ideas like the ones I
>just listed (or even talking with greenies) are wildly resisted by some
>people.........but after spending a day cleaning up other peoples garbage
>the level of disgust with our fellow man is high enough that compromise is
>likely.
---
rbc: vixen Fairly harmless
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
doc
My comments were a reply to the thread originator. My comments seemed to be
well understood and appreciated by that originator. So in answer to your
first question: I think he cared for my responses.
As for the rest of your hostility, I shall ignore it and any further
messages originating from the handle "Bizbee." Should you wish to
communicate with me further in this forum, please use a different handle and
try to associate it with a modicum of civility.
In other words, "plonk!"
doc
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:38:42 -0800, bizbee <tub...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Yn erthygl <borf6t0gso9770gga...@4ax.com>, sgrifenws doc
><d...@home.spamfree>:
>
>>I do not recall having heard of such events being sponsored by 4x4 clubs.
>
>Who cares what you've heard? They happen all the time. Try looking in
>a 4X4 newsgroup, or calling a local club. They haul out wrecks,
>garbage, and other little items like washing machines and sofas left
>behind by people doing neither backpacking <or> fourwheeling.
>
>>Furthermore, I rarely see trash in areas where I backpack. Backpackers
>>generally respect the wilderness areas that I use.
>
>Yeah, right. Of course, since four wheelers aren't allowed into
>wilderness areas, your point is moot. Now go look at the garbage in
>your local county parks, and the riverbanks in your locale, where
>every shmoe around has access.
>
>In Yosemite I was sitting with my girlfriend on Sentinel Dome when a
>husband and wife with two kids sat down and proceeded to eat from a
>bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. The kids simply threw their garbage
>down the side of the rock. My girlfriend went <apeshit> (almost to the
>point of embarrassment.... except she was absolutely right...), jumped
>up and started screaming at the kids, then unloaded on the parents,
>followed up with "I don't care which one of you assholes goes down
>there and gets that shit, but if you don't, I'm getting a cop!"
>Note: These people were not four wheelers. They were slobs. There are
>slobs everywhere.
>
>>Even (animal) packers do
>>not leave paper, plastic, or most other forms of trash (animal dung is the
>>major exception) behind in more remote areas.
>
>...partly because most of them are part of supervised trips, and
>outfitters are running under the constant threat of losing their
>permits if they screw the place up.
>Hike up to Junction Meadows in King Canyon sometime.... a beautiful
>grove of quaking aspens, little to no garbage on the ground....
>however hundreds of trees have been carved into with people wanting to
>"leave their mark" on the wilderness for the last hundred or so years.
>Litter comes in many forms, some of it never goes away.
>
>> It might have something to do
>>with most of my backpacking destinations being wholly unaccessible to 4x4
>>vehicles.
>
>Gee... nahhhh... ya <think>???? Somehow the men's room at the gas
>station isn't littered with used tampons either... suppose that it
>might have something to do with not being a place women are normally
>allowed?
>
>> Also, when I do see some trash in the backcountry it is usually
>>within the first 5 miles of a trailhead and I pack it out on the way out
>>from a trip. On some shorter "shuttle" trips I've even been known to pick
>>it up on the way in and carry it for the duration.
>>
>So what's your point? Those were hikers. Personally nothing pisses me
>off more than being with someone who doesn't pick something up on the
>ground when they walk past it. One idiot was throwing cans in the
>fire, insisting that they would burn!
>By the way, if you pick it up on the way in and you aren't making a
>through-trip, cache it, and pick it up on the way out.
>
>>One more thing, I think that 4x4 vehicles cause more erosion than than one
>>might think. The next rain that comes along probably takes more soil with
>>it than would be washed away had the 4x4 not passed through. This is not to
>>say that such impact should not be allowed, just to explore to true cost of
>>vehicle assess to more remote areas.
>>
>I think this goes whithout saying... however, if we're talking
>wilderness here, let's forget about 4X4's and talk about horses....
>I'm not too concerned with some erosion from a <road> that thousands
>of tons of dirt were moved to create in the first place.
>
>>Many backpackers are beginning to explore their choise of footware and total
>>loads carried to help minimize their impact on foot trails. Running shoes &
>>10 pound loads cause less impact than heavy boots & 50 pound loads.
>>
>and are wonderful for a 14 day trip.
>
Jeff Wilson
could get those groups to co-sponsor the next cleanup. In general, when I see a
notice that reads "The High Hills 4X4 club is meeting on Saturday to clean up
the Eagle Lake 4X4 area. Meet at the staging area at 9 am. All welcome," I
assume they want other 4X4s, not hikers. If you want them, then ask the groups
personally.
kermit wrote:
> Hello all
>
> Although it may be taken as such, the question I have for the group is not
> intended as a troll or as flame-bait. Here it is:
>
> Why is it that when the OHV 4x4 clubs around my area sponsor a "Clean Up
> Day", only the 4x4 users show up?
>
> <<SNIP>>
--
Jeff Wilson
jrwi...@thegrid.net (yes, a real address!)
"And now these three remain; faith, hope and love. But the greatest of
these is love."
...... Seek harmony and balance in the mountains.
Find harmony and balance within.....
Steve Cosner
eug...@cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) wrote:
> In article <borf6t0gso9770gga...@4ax.com>,
> doc <d...@home.spamfree> wrote:
>
> Depends where you are.
> There is a reasonable Club in Fresno, CA. Strangely, I've had one bad
> run in with the Fresno chapter Sierra Club on a ski trip. Now that's
> a limited sample. The Fresno 4x4 club could do dumb things, it's just
> that I've not seen them yet.
Ok, Eugene, I'm curious. As a Fresno resident, SC member/trip leader,
mtn biker AND occasional 4-wheeler, I would sure like to hear a
description of the run-in. Care to describe it? When was it?
Steve Cosner
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Eugene Miya
Oh, sure.
Oh, a few years back, some friends and I rented a well known ski hut
(experienced skiers in CA an elsewhere) will know where this is (it;'s
in guidebooks, name is not important).
The group I went with came from a long line of skiers starting an annual
trip since 1950 (I started about 1979 with them or so (4th gen.)). We
have always rented this cabin in toto. The Fresno SC chapter this
particular weekend (quite snowy, but not overly windy) scheduled a
snowcamping trip, but they expected to use the hut during the evenings
and even during the day (arguing that it was a public building).
This would not have been an issue were the conditions an emergency and
these people (a good number beginners) more ill prepared. Most of us
already were SIerra Club members ourselves, but it appeared up to that
point in time, that this mooching (serious money is involved in a rental)
was a recurring behavior. It appears that the general technique was to
appear to blend in with 2-3 smaller groups of smaller parties.
We were able to tell because we knew every one in our party.
The incident reflected bad on Club chapter leadership.
Eugene Miya
kermit <nor...@noreply.com> wrote:
>Eugene Miya wrote in message <3a689261$1...@news.ucsc.edu>...
>>It's a troll.
>I DO want responses,
Lots of words edited out.
Tell me a joke. Any joke.
>>>Why is it that when the OHV 4x4 clubs around my area sponsor a
>>>"Clean Up Day", only the 4x4 users show up?
>>
>>Your question, and your choices to get here are somewhat self-selecting.
>>1) "your area"
>>2) if only the 4x4 clubs get asked, why do you expect others?
>
>Another good point. Our advertising is rather limited, but we did manage to
>get a couple of PSA's from radio stations. My main concern is that the SC
>was publicly invited (at a BLM meeting) and chose not to attend.
I'm not quite certain that I'd consider this a public invite.
For instance, I don't own a radio in my truck.
>>Consider for instance, that you didn't cross-post rec.autos.4x4.
>>I am not saying that you should or should not have. I have the Isuzu FAQ.
>
>I decided not to cross post this one to the 4x4 groups because I wanted to
>get the "other side" of the story. I've floated the idea of starting a
>dialogue with the "greenies" a couple of times on closed 4x4 mailing lists,
>so I have a fair idea of what kind of reaction I would get.......especially
>from an open NG full of wannabe "trail heroes."
Oh.
>>AZ. Well, I can think of a number of possible reasons by just geography
>alone.
>>You have to get specific about "groups." But foot traffic and road
>>traffic have a degree of incapability. You might consider how much you
>>know about these groups. If you nothing about them, then you might be
>>clueless about their's activities. Do you know of their activities?
>>Have you heard the expression (about heat) "Mad dogs and Englishmen?"
>>How good in the air conditioning in your 4x4?
>
>I don't know much about them at all...........that's why I'm here, posting
>to this group: to learn. Oh, and my truck doesn't have air conditioning.
You passed that variable in my query.
Neither mine, too.
>I grew up here.......after 30 years the heat doesn't bother me much anymore.
>120 degrees is a bit uncomfortable, but with a dash mounted fan and plenty
>of water to drink it's bearable.
AC is more useful for humidity.
>>I suspect the answer to 1 is: self-selection. You are seeing what you
>>see and what you want to see. I don't have enough information, like
>>how far do you clean from your roads. They aren't trails. We have to
>>get into legal terminology, scratch trails, say single track (now).
>
>We generally clean out as far as from the edges of the trail as possible,
>depending on the terrain and the vegetation (or lack thereof). In Arizona
>that can range from 100 yards to maybe a couple of feet. Out of curiousity,
>how far away from your trails do you clean? Our usual method is to bring
>more people than vehicles - the vehicles crawl down the trail while the
>extra folks scour the area to both sides and put the trash into bags and/or
>into the vehicles.
Well, you caught onto some things and not others.
>how far away from your trails do you clean?
begs the question that we have to pick up trash.
I'm called in as a specialist to handle chain saw, torches (some metal
work), etc. We do that some times some fraction of miles from a trail.
>Regarding terminology: I will try to get used to your terms (like "single
>track") and use them more often, but it's not what I'm used to and may take
>a while. The way I'm used to referring to various thoroughfares is as
>follows:
>
>Road: paved, gravel, or hard packed dirt. Passable by 2wd passenger
>vehicles
>Trail: unpaved, difficult to traverse, 4wd required
>Path: suitable for bike or foot traffic only
>
>I'll try to use your terms if you'll try to bear with me and not nitpick
>when I forget.
Well, the terminology isn't my choice either. It comes from the people
who chose to do legal actions, and that brings in USGS maps and
definitions, and lawyers, etc. etc.
Roads: Sure, except the last bit.
Trails. Well designed "jeep trails" might be trails. More trails tend
to be foot oriented.
Path is largely not a legal term.
Our definitions are fairly close.
>>The separate social issue of two disparate groups not communicating.
>
>Agreed. That's why I'm here.....trying to communicate.
>
>I don't expect everyone here to start chanting "4x4 are great" anymore than
>I expect myself to throw mine away and start hiking everywhere. I do
>believe that there is a middle ground that we can agree upon and accomplish
>more good through working together than we can through working at cross
>purposes.
We are generally living the middle group right now.
There's sort of separate and overlapping areas: Parks, Forests,
Xxx areas where Xxx is some legal term. Prohibitions very.
The reality, however, is that there is more control (by budgets)
by the people who don't "use" these areas recreationally (urbanites)
than either side will admit or understand.
>>Frankly, don't worry about being too polite.
>>
>I'm not worried about it, but a polite "agreement to disagree" is much
>better than an argument, IMHO.
Don't worry about it.
Continue editing out old understanding and resolution.
Bring it back only when necessary.
>Thank you for the Fletcher excerpt. It would appear by his definition that
>I am closer to the environment than most folks, but not as close as I could
>be. I accept that and agree. It does create a question though:
>It appears that he is advocating cross-country no-trail (or path)
>hiking.........doesn't that cause more disturbance than hiking on
>trails/paths?
Does Colin advocate this? Yes. It's a matter of degree.
He is a well known cross country hiker. Disturbance occurs with mass
travel. A good example are the five lane trails in some sections of
Yosemite which get caused by slight early season variances of people
walking and avoiding getting their feet wet. It takes a few dozen or
hundred people walking on the same place, but that doesn't usually
influence the wider forest or slope.
>Thank you for your response........I'm looking forward to more
The first thing that you have to pick up is that
picking up trash isn't the only form doing service out there.
You edited that out. Perhaps, too casually. The degree of trash
out in American Parks and Forests isn't like say the outlying areas of Mexico.
That in fact that kind of trouble is indicative of other more serious problems.
That there exist serious degrees of people who (many not on the net)
think that wilderness management is an oxymoron, that you can't management.
It's invasive. That if trash is there on hiking trails, then
Hikers usually can't afford to drop stuff, because then they couldn't
afford the energy to carry it in in the first place. This does NOT mean
that hiking novices don't litter, but the nature of the activity is
somewhat self limiting because that stuff has to be carried (limited)
by their backs in the first place.
Some people even regard the road (some followers of Ed Abbey) as the
greater crime, and they toss bottles out on roads (especially paved ones).
Frankly, I can't quite bide by that, but you wanted to know more.
You still with me?
I think that if you want to understand the SC more, you have to lerk in
their dens, and try some of their trips. But observe, ask questions of
some of them. Carefully of this latter. Observe first a lot.
You will almost get to be a spy. The SC is far from the only group.
They vary widely.