"But There's No Place To Ride"...
Re: "But There's No Place To Ride"...
Sal, it's always rider(s) #B that always seem to try ripping up a hill or whatever to leave a mark. Somehow it makes them cool. As a rider I always tried my best to educate others. Some get it, but unfortunately many will not. (seem to chose not). Mike C. Brea, Ca.
-
Mrs.Oroblanco
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:40 pm
- anti-spam detector: No
- The middle number please (4): 4
Re: "But There's No Place To Ride"...
Mike C. wrote:Sal, it's always rider(s) #B that always seem to try ripping up a hill or whatever to leave a mark. Somehow it makes them cool. As a rider I always tried my best to educate others. Some get it, but unfortunately many will not. (seem to chose not). Mike C. Brea, Ca.
Sal, it's always rider(s) #B that always seem to try ripping up a hill or whatever to leave a mark. Somehow it makes them cool. As a rider I always tried my best to educate others. Some get it, but unfortunately many will not. (seem to chose not). Mike C. Brea, Ca.
Is it not true, and I have seen this many, many, many times in the desert - a wind blows, a rain comes and goes, and so do all the marks and crevices made by man? (and almost everything else).
That is one of the #1 reasons why it is very difficult to track a lost person after a little while. Whether on foot, or horseback or something with wheels, within days, the disturbances disappear.
We have a claims in the desert - every time we go there, the road (otherwise known as a wash), is --- washed back in.
The big difference that I have noticed, since they have curtailed a lot of off road vehicles, is that the snakes are much more numerous. Gotta love those mojaves.
Beth (Mrs. O)
Re: "But There's No Place To Ride"...
OHV tracks in the desert will last for many years. Where they have impacted the surface, water runs off rather than soaks in. Winds lift dust that would have normally been part of the crust. It's easy to follow OHV tracks they are indelible for a long time.
On the other hand, footprints almost immediately disappear. If it weren't for the long lasting effects to the scenery and environment, I could accept the nuisance impact. I hate to consider limiting ANYONE'S freedoms, but, as we have seen here, if we don't do something OHV'ers will just continue to get out of hand and not concern themselves with their impacts. Most likely this is because riders mainly come from and return to an urban environment and don't notice their impacts.
On the other hand, footprints almost immediately disappear. If it weren't for the long lasting effects to the scenery and environment, I could accept the nuisance impact. I hate to consider limiting ANYONE'S freedoms, but, as we have seen here, if we don't do something OHV'ers will just continue to get out of hand and not concern themselves with their impacts. Most likely this is because riders mainly come from and return to an urban environment and don't notice their impacts.
-
Mrs.Oroblanco
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:40 pm
- anti-spam detector: No
- The middle number please (4): 4
Re: "But There's No Place To Ride"...
Why is it that when someone says:
" I hate to consider limiting ANYONE'S freedoms", it is ALWAYS followed by the word "BUT".
For over 22 years, we have been going to our claim in the desert - they used to have thousands of off-roaders. And, every year, the tracks are gone. No tracks, except the ones happening at the moment. Sand, in the desert, like water, fills in the voids. It seeks its own level. Hey, here is an idea - instead of spending millions putting up no tresspassing signs, how about if they spend the money refilling the imaginery holes? The government gets paid to take care of our public lands, not to spend it keeping 1/3 of the population out.
The water deal is BS - yea, I know water follows indentations. But, by that reasoning, maybe we shouldn't be grading dirt roads, cause the water puddles there, and runs down the roads, so nobody can bring anything but their feet in - oh wait, that's what the environmentalists want, isn't it?
I suggest that nobody builds anything, even on private property, because you well draws water away from the desert, your driveway changes the topography, if you plant a tree or some bushes, that would change the ecology.
When, when, when - do people become part of the environment?? I mean, really, golf courses change nothing in the desert? The big yearly car race does nothing to the desert? Ski resorts doesn't change topography and/or water run-off.
What's the difference? Somebody gets to make money on the car races, somebody makes money on the golf courses, somebody makes money on the skiing, somebody (and this particular somebody are environmental groups) makes money taking people on "hikes".
It's politics as usual. If they want to take away public use from the deserts - then I suggest we take away every single thing - no houses, no government houses for rangers, no toilets, no driveways, no hiking, no walking, no environmentalists or government agencies having access and/or building signs and campgrounds - nothing. Oh, and let's build a glass wall around all the "protected" areas - it would have to tall enough to keep helicopters or planes from stirring up the ground, but, I think we could make a no-fly zone overhead.
Let's make it "ALL OR NOTHING" - If someone can't go ride their off road vehicle there, then you cannot go in there your way either - that's fair. It is, imo, bordering unconstitutional, to make laws AGAINST a certain class of citizen. Also, maybe its a good idea for every off-road vehicle that is NOT allowed, they don't have to pay taxes, since taxes go to maintaining (maintaining meaning hiring and paying people to put up NO TRESSPASSING signs - while they are driving in their 4 wheel vehicles, putting up the signs), so, why pay for something that someone is not allowed to use. Would you pay real estate taxes on a home you don't own? I wouldn't - so, for every person not allowed to use "their" land (also called a 5th amendment taking), they get to not pay taxes on that. At least it would be "fair".
Beth (Mrs.O)
" I hate to consider limiting ANYONE'S freedoms", it is ALWAYS followed by the word "BUT".
For over 22 years, we have been going to our claim in the desert - they used to have thousands of off-roaders. And, every year, the tracks are gone. No tracks, except the ones happening at the moment. Sand, in the desert, like water, fills in the voids. It seeks its own level. Hey, here is an idea - instead of spending millions putting up no tresspassing signs, how about if they spend the money refilling the imaginery holes? The government gets paid to take care of our public lands, not to spend it keeping 1/3 of the population out.
The water deal is BS - yea, I know water follows indentations. But, by that reasoning, maybe we shouldn't be grading dirt roads, cause the water puddles there, and runs down the roads, so nobody can bring anything but their feet in - oh wait, that's what the environmentalists want, isn't it?
I suggest that nobody builds anything, even on private property, because you well draws water away from the desert, your driveway changes the topography, if you plant a tree or some bushes, that would change the ecology.
When, when, when - do people become part of the environment?? I mean, really, golf courses change nothing in the desert? The big yearly car race does nothing to the desert? Ski resorts doesn't change topography and/or water run-off.
What's the difference? Somebody gets to make money on the car races, somebody makes money on the golf courses, somebody makes money on the skiing, somebody (and this particular somebody are environmental groups) makes money taking people on "hikes".
It's politics as usual. If they want to take away public use from the deserts - then I suggest we take away every single thing - no houses, no government houses for rangers, no toilets, no driveways, no hiking, no walking, no environmentalists or government agencies having access and/or building signs and campgrounds - nothing. Oh, and let's build a glass wall around all the "protected" areas - it would have to tall enough to keep helicopters or planes from stirring up the ground, but, I think we could make a no-fly zone overhead.
Let's make it "ALL OR NOTHING" - If someone can't go ride their off road vehicle there, then you cannot go in there your way either - that's fair. It is, imo, bordering unconstitutional, to make laws AGAINST a certain class of citizen. Also, maybe its a good idea for every off-road vehicle that is NOT allowed, they don't have to pay taxes, since taxes go to maintaining (maintaining meaning hiring and paying people to put up NO TRESSPASSING signs - while they are driving in their 4 wheel vehicles, putting up the signs), so, why pay for something that someone is not allowed to use. Would you pay real estate taxes on a home you don't own? I wouldn't - so, for every person not allowed to use "their" land (also called a 5th amendment taking), they get to not pay taxes on that. At least it would be "fair".
Beth (Mrs.O)
Re: "But There's No Place To Ride"...
Beth
It's not about abolishing activities, it's about controlling them. Homes, wells, golf courses, all have to get permission from the County to build. OHV's can and do impact areas much more than digging the foundations for a house, yet they do that with no permission.
I see you don't believe that water runoff is a problem. Roads are built so people can drive through the desert . They are designed to do as little erosion as possible and the county periodically comes by and grades them and also grades little escape streams so the roads don't catch all the water. They are made with permission from the county. OHV tracks, especially those up a hill, gather and channel the water, further eroding the hill, robbing water from the habitat area and making puddles where it collects and evaporates back into the sky instead of irrigating the soil.
If the tracks are gone from the area around your claim, that's good. I've seen tracks that have been there for 25 years and even though rarely ridden, they don't disappear, they just get more eroded every year.
Exposed sand in the desert is rare exept in the sand dune areas. The rest of the desert sands are covered with a thin layer of soil and lots of desert plants. Once the plants and soil is wasted away by vehicle tracks, the dust begins to blow and the sand is exposed.
"all or nothing" sounds a little extreme to me. All I'm asking for is a way to control the effects of a recreation that has proven impossible to control for over 30 years.
cheers,
Sal
It's not about abolishing activities, it's about controlling them. Homes, wells, golf courses, all have to get permission from the County to build. OHV's can and do impact areas much more than digging the foundations for a house, yet they do that with no permission.
I see you don't believe that water runoff is a problem. Roads are built so people can drive through the desert . They are designed to do as little erosion as possible and the county periodically comes by and grades them and also grades little escape streams so the roads don't catch all the water. They are made with permission from the county. OHV tracks, especially those up a hill, gather and channel the water, further eroding the hill, robbing water from the habitat area and making puddles where it collects and evaporates back into the sky instead of irrigating the soil.
If the tracks are gone from the area around your claim, that's good. I've seen tracks that have been there for 25 years and even though rarely ridden, they don't disappear, they just get more eroded every year.
Exposed sand in the desert is rare exept in the sand dune areas. The rest of the desert sands are covered with a thin layer of soil and lots of desert plants. Once the plants and soil is wasted away by vehicle tracks, the dust begins to blow and the sand is exposed.
"all or nothing" sounds a little extreme to me. All I'm asking for is a way to control the effects of a recreation that has proven impossible to control for over 30 years.
cheers,
Sal