Originally Posted by avalys
I looked at the maps and could not find any major trails that I'm familiar with that will be closed. It looks like most of these are relatively small additions to the existing wilderness areas. Some of them include lesser-known trails that the forest service is planning to close anyway.
If you look at the Overview map, you might see a few areas with fun trails that look like they will be closed (e.g. Grizzy Lake near Aspen). But if you look at the detailed maps, the wilderness area does not include the existing trail. I can't say I've checked every single one, but for the ones I have checked, it's not as bad as it seems at first glance.
It is a shame nonetheless, but the irresponsible behavior of a lot of people makes it harder and harder to fight this kind of thing.
I very much disagree!
First off, the vast majority of states do not have public lands as you do in Colorado. As and example, here in Texas except for parks and wildlife mgt areas, we have no public land and the we have highly restrictive access to the park land, if any access at all. Public land that is taken as Udall does has the same effect of making it private land, ie no public access except for a privileged few.
As a result, we have to go to NM, CO, etc to go jeepin. Now that public land is being limited.
As to the argument that the taking lesser know trails, I ask by who's opinion? I like the fun trails, but I also like the low profile, quite, trails where it is not common to see someone else. Would it be fair to take those trails from those who like that kind of jeeping just because it does not get a write up in publications, or not used as often?
Are we to believe that new jeep trails cannot be added? Are we limited to only the existing trails (except for the one being closed)? I would be more inclined to promote making addition trails. Udall's approach is that we, the public cannot be responsible, we need more limits, less assess. I DO BELIEVE MOST OF THE PUBLIC IS RESPONSIBLE, and I am very tired of a few misguided, self-righteous people given authority by the government have the right to take my freedoms away because a few other misguided not-righteous abuse their privilege.
Adding to existing wilderness areas:
I wont be fooled by that. Some time earlier, I looked at some "confiscated" land that Udall took west of Tellurede. The existing wilderness area was enlarged by adding new wilderness lands that "wrapped" around remaining public land so that the remaining public land had a narrow access. The remaining non-wilderness public land was surrounded and now much easier for the government to control, at least until they can take that area too.
I could go on and on. There is plenty of wilderness areas. We do not need more, with less access and more restrictions. I also dont care fore "self-righteous" people like Udall who are funded and controlled by large environmental groups who are in turn funded by OPEC and large oil companies.
I appreciate Yoda for pointing out the gross misguidance of confiscating public land for our own "good", that good defined by someone other than those affected by the decision.
Or maybe we can all just watch American Idol and convert our jeeps to Mall Crawlers, Udall would like that.
I hate myself when I rant, someone has to do it.
Now, I am headed out with the jeep for Big Bend for a long weekend. In my current attitude, I hope I dont run into someone wearing a smoky bear hat........chuckle chuckle.