The Freddies released their long anticipated Roadless Rules today and they are full of gems such as a “long term temporary” road, whatever that is. You can read it here.

On a local note to Lou and others in the Roaring Fork Valley, read this from the Aspen Times.

This will give you motorized folks more roads to drive on, but you’ll have to share them with speeding oil-field trucks (We’ve got a real problem with these down here in Durango), lots of random gates and “no trespassing” signs (energy companies are allowed to keep you off of your public lands if they have a well pad on it) lots of noise from the compressors at each well pad, the constant smell of gas and chemicals, toxic seeps in the streams from “fracing” (the companies don’t have to tell anyone what chemicals that they use), and hunting bans (hate to put a bullet through a high-pressure gas well), not that there’ll be much wildlife left in the area. So, in this case, is the roadless area a good thing or a bad thing?

Fires are good and a far more cleansing way to manage a forest than say logging. But like the little Bostoner who decided that he wanted a house in the mountains–and then whines like a little puppy when the deer eat their flowers, the elk tear up their yard, the mountain lions eat their pets, the bears rummage through their garbage, the Wal-mart is too far away–so too goes fire mitigation.

The mountains are getting crowded and landowners send up a clarion call whenever the neighboring forest is listed for a prescribed burn, “What if the winds kick up? What if the fire takes my house? What if, What if…” Well the logical response is that “At least if we start it and manage the fire your house is reasonably safe whereas a wildfire offers no such safety net. (especially if the trees are touched by beetle kill/drought etc.)”

Lou wants immediate plowing of any and all roads that lead to spring ski destinations. Joe Blow wants to take his motorcycle on any trail his machine can manage. Jake Jeeper wants to rock crawl Sopris in his two mile a gallon beefed up, jacked up, $25k modified pos. The Partridge Family wants to spend their family time touring the Colorado Trail on four wheelers. The Brady Bunch wants to dredge the Colorado so they can water ski from Glenwood to Moab. But you can’t please everybody all the time so its the line where the compromise is made? Is that line reachable? As a mtn biker I want to ride trails that are closed to me…should I cry and blame the government or the Sierra Club or should I say, there are plenty of trails already? As a skier I don’t mind hiking but if a snowmobile could make a two day trip a day trip then I wouldn’t mind if the govt said, ok, we’re opening up x and y to snowmobile traffic…but if they do the summer moto crowd would want access to the same terrain…there is give and take and its already been made. There are hundreds of jeep spots in CO, hundreds of mtn bike trails, hundreds of thousands of acres of snowmobiling and atv’ing…at some pt you just have to be happy with what you have. Nature is going to burn some land, we’re going to destroy some land, but in the end…if we want wilderness at all, we’re going to have to say “these areas are sacrosanct from all man made damage” just to leave future generations wilderness areas to enjoy. Can’t bike it, drive it, ride it?…HIKE it and stop bitching about who is getting the raw deal. You think horses suck but you want to access non-motorized areas…buy a horse!

Around Carbondale certain people think it is ok to widen, improve, expand existing trails without regard to legality. Some trails are cut that cross private property. Some people brag about great “poachable” trails. Some people brag about faster access pts to spring skiing regardless of the fencelines they have to cross.

When I hear a biker or skier talk about poaching I assume they are riding or skiing or accessing biking or skiing via private property without permission to do so. So many on this site think that everything is DOT or DOW or FS or BLM’s fault…well, I look at it a different way…we all know the government isn’t responsible BUT if I can’t even expect my fellow citizens to be responsible as far as respecting boundaries and land use laws then why should I expect anything better from a bureaucratic cesspool like the Forest Service?

Laws are passed for a reason. I don’t agree with all of them but it is my job to abide by them no matter how dumb those laws may seem to be. If I’m riding a trail and come to a fence without a gate I turn around and ride out. Property rights should be acknowledged and respected above all else. I have friends who knowingly snowmobile in wilderness areas, all I can do is say, ‘that ain’t cool’…but I’m not big brother and not my brother’s keeper…what works for some doesn’t work for others. Personally I’d like all pollution spewing vehicles banned from CO..including my truck and especially RFTA. (might make workforces a local thing once again)

Nothing says “I hate you” more than the look I give to the motorcyclist or ATV rider or Jeep that empties its exhaust in my lungs, breaks the silent enjoyment of being in a forest, and kicks up clouds of dust for my sinus cavities to enjoy making new and weird forms of nasal discharge. But, I recognize that just because I choose to bike or hike not everyone does…though the people that don’t visit this blog wouldn’t be so damn fat if they traded in the motor for monocog.

Before everyone jumps on me, I DO NOT WANT EVERYTHING ROADED. But I think there are places where we could have a few more backcountry “motorized trails.”

I also say we should keep many of the trails rough. That slows people down and limits some of the use.

As for charging to use roads on public land, wow, that sounds terrible!