Instagram     

Go Back   PNW Moto > PNW Moto > Adventure Riding

Adventure Riding Adventure riding, dual sports, and dirt bikes

Like Tree41Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Nov 5th 2017, 10:05 AM   #61
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
I fear we will be there all too soon.
Nov 5th 2017, 06:22 PM   #62
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel
Money as the sole criterion for - everything - is just a fucked up value system.
And if you think that's bad, just wait till you try the alternative! (not on your TV, but for real).

I have. I'll take money every time. You would too.
Nov 5th 2017, 06:25 PM   #63
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
Nominal means it is not fee for servce but some agreed on fee that serves whatever purpose the administrators feel is necessary. I said no more than $30 at the high end but preferably less to not exclude based on ability to pay. But I was permitting some leeway for things I had not considered, like heavy use and waiting access times. But a better way to deal with that is probably a lottery system or just a scheduling system as with camping spaces.
Still not clear how do you arrive at the distinction that $70 somehow crosses the threshold of the acceptable. Guess it's just emotional reaction to evil Trump doing evil Trumpisms, rather than a rational response. Which is Ok, as long as you are self-aware of it and don't try to present it as some absolute truth.
Nov 5th 2017, 06:27 PM   #64
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasl
You must have a much different, and rather superficial, definition of what is a good thing for the average citizen, as well as a very limited tactical view on wilderness preservation.

Let's look at the whole concept of the "wilderness" that our hypothetical family under discussion actually experiences and impacts. While they do enjoy the opportunity to drive, hike, and camp amongst the huge trees, the areas to which they are primarily restricted are by no means truly wilderness. Maintained campsites, toilet facilities, wide trails that can actually meet ADA standards, etc. should be a huge tell that it is not actually wilderness. It is wild country, but not wilderness. Those corridors into the national parks that a vast majority of visitors see are actually managed lands, albeit land that is hopefully managed in a minimal manner. The people using those corridors, as well as the corridors themselves, need to be protected from the ravages of nature, so dangerous trees are taken out, check dams to reroute runoff are constructed, and trails are designed to allow controlled access and viewing.

The vast majority of visitors are quite satisfied to stay on the beaten track and "ooh" and "awe" over the wonders that are artfully meted out, with no urge to actually venture into the wilder, more closely wilderness, areas of the parks. Furthermore, circling back to our families under consideration, which I will call the "Joe Sixpacks" of the world, they are not going to be able to pony up the money to gear up and head into the back country. Putting a fiscal tool in place to "protect" the "wilderness" in place would be wastefully unnecessary because, as stated before, the Joe Sixpacks of the world are not leaving the managed and developed corridors anyway. The people who are actually going into the back country have already committed hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to the project, and by far and away have already bought their annual pass, thereby being fiscally invisible to the proposed new fee structure.

Anyone who is truly committed to the preservation of our wild areas should not be willing to financially seal the Joe Sixpacks of the world out of those areas. Doing that does absolutely nothing to bring home the message that these areas deserve preservation or establish the feeling of ownership in those excluded, it does exactly the opposite. It gives rise to the attitude of "If they won't let me in, why should I be worried about protecting their playground?" and fosters short sightedness in policy advocacy. Remember, the average person votes the "What's in it for me?" (WIIFM)ticket as much as they vote with their wallets. Never underestimate the power of magical family memories to get future generations involved in the preservation of our finite wild areas.

Forcing the Joe Sixpacks of the world to settle for the crowded, heavily taxed state park system by putting up financial barriers to visiting the national parks does nothing good. It over burdens the state park system, widens the economic divide, making those less financially well off feel like lesser members of society, and robs our national park system of some of the grass roots support that is so desperately needed.
We can go deeper into this, but do you really believe that Joe Sixpack can even tell the difference between the state park and the maintained corridor into the wilderness at the national park?
Nov 5th 2017, 08:02 PM   #65
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberpolly
Still not clear how do you arrive at the distinction that $70 somehow crosses the threshold of the acceptable. Guess it's just emotional reaction to evil Trump doing evil Trumpisms, rather than a rational response. Which is Ok, as long as you are self-aware of it and don't try to present it as some absolute truth.
Well, we can always observe the Twitter poll of 300 listeners noted in the broadcast. Only 3% of people would pay the $70 proposed fee while three-quarters would pay up to a $30 fee. Not scientific, but it may indicate that the large majority agree with me that $30 or less is reasonable and the proposed fee is likely to significantly curtail attendance.

Interesting that the entire National Parks budget is 1/16th of one percent of our National budget.

Edited by Transported on Nov 5th 2017 at 09:04 PM
Nov 5th 2017, 11:40 PM   #66
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transported
Well, we can always observe the Twitter poll of 300 listeners noted in the broadcast. Only 3% of people would pay the $70 proposed fee while three-quarters would pay up to a $30 fee. Not scientific, but it may indicate that the large majority agree with me that $30 or less is reasonable and the proposed fee is likely to significantly curtail attendance.

Interesting that the entire National Parks budget is 1/16th of one percent of our National budget.
Logical fallacy highlighted.
Nov 6th 2017, 06:00 AM   #67
 Texasl's Avatar
Moderator
 
  Jan 2016
  Northeast Olalla

  07 Guzzi
Quote:
Originally Posted by liberpolly
We can go deeper into this, but do you really believe that Joe Sixpack can even tell the difference between the state park and the maintained corridor into the wilderness at the national park?
If he cannot then he is too blind to be driving.
Nov 6th 2017, 03:51 PM   #68
 tod701's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Stanwood

Quote:
Originally Posted by liberpolly
We can go deeper into this, but do you really believe that Joe Sixpack can even tell the difference between the state park and the maintained corridor into the wilderness at the national park?
There is some truth to this.

A survey about a decade ago found that about 50 percent of the population of this state thought that they had visited a Wilderness Area in the last year, but the real number was closer to one percent.

Sadly enough, most people don't understand the differences between State Parks, National Parks, Wilderness Areas, National Forests, State managed public lands, etc.
Nov 6th 2017, 04:40 PM   #69
 Sentinel's Avatar
 
  Jun 2016
  Poor Tortured

  2015 Kawasaki Concours 14 - The Origame Sea-Dragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tod701
There is some truth to this.

A survey about a decade ago found that about 50 percent of the population of this state thought that they had visited a Wilderness Area in the last year, but the real number was closer to one percent.

Sadly enough, most people don't understand the differences between State Parks, National Parks, Wilderness Areas, National Forests, State managed public lands, etc.
Sadly, visitors always damage what they visit and it is best to keep people out as much as possible. Whether that should be or should not be is irrelevant. I would keep vehicles out altogether.

Sent via Nexus 6P
MotoDan likes this.
Nov 6th 2017, 09:16 PM   #70
 Transported's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Portland

  2006 FZ1, 1999 R1
An excellent book about the value of national parks from someone who worked in the parks is Edward Abbey's Desert Solitare: A Season in the Wilderness.

Wiki:

Based on Abbey's activities as a park ranger at Arches National Monument in the late 1950s, the book is often compared to Henry David Thoreau's Walden and Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac.[1] It is written as a series of vignettes about Abbey's experiences in the Colorado Plateau region of the desert Southwestern United States, ranging from vivid descriptions of the fauna, flora, geology, and human inhabitants of the area, to firsthand accounts of wilderness exploration and river running, to a polemic against development and excessive tourism in the national parks, to stories of the author's work with a search and rescue team to pull a dead body out of the desert. The book is interspersed with observations and discussions about the various tensions – physical, social, and existential – between humans and the desert environment. Many of the chapters also engage in lengthy critiques of modern Western civilization, United States politics, and the decline of America's environment. Although written as a memoir, the book also includes partially and fully fictionalized anecdotes.
Nov 6th 2017, 10:11 PM   #71
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasl
If he cannot then he is too blind to be driving.
Most people are. If they don't see a friggin motorcycle riding right into them, do you expect them to notice the different kinds of trees on the sides of the road?
Nov 7th 2017, 07:21 AM   #72
 Texasl's Avatar
Moderator
 
  Jan 2016
  Northeast Olalla

  07 Guzzi
Quote:
Originally Posted by tod701
There is some truth to this.

A survey about a decade ago found that about 50 percent of the population of this state thought that they had visited a Wilderness Area in the last year, but the real number was closer to one percent.

Sadly enough, most people don't understand the differences between State Parks, National Parks, Wilderness Areas, National Forests, State managed public lands, etc.
True, but it is not a reason to economically sea them out of the National Parks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel
Sadly, visitors always damage what they visit and it is best to keep people out as much as possible. Whether that should be or should not be is irrelevant. I would keep vehicles out altogether.

Sent via Nexus 6P
And give Joe Sixpack even less incentive to support protection of the areas? Getting back to the whole WIIFM point of view, if he has no real, personal stake in protection of the land, he sees no compelling reason to worry about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liberpolly
Most people are. If they don't see a friggin motorcycle riding right into them, do you expect them to notice the different kinds of trees on the sides of the road?
It is way more than the types of trees on the side of the road. I'm beginning to get the impression that you have not really explored any of the national parks.

Either that or you just like pulling my chain.
Nov 7th 2017, 04:00 PM   #73
 tod701's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Stanwood

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasl
True, but it is not a reason to economically sea them out of the National Parks.
Agreed.
Nov 7th 2017, 08:36 PM   #74
 liberpolly's Avatar
 
  Jan 2016
  Seattle

  Ducati Diavel, Triumph Street Twin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texasl
It is way more than the types of trees on the side of the road. I'm beginning to get the impression that you have not really explored any of the national parks.

Either that or you just like pulling my chain.
No, it's my *optimistic* estimate of what most people may notice.
Nov 7th 2017, 09:43 PM   #75
 cgt1229's Avatar
 
  Feb 2016
  Bellingham

  Suzuki
More bang for the buck doing trackdays then it seems.

No RV's or weekend warriors to get stuck behind, that always spoils a ride.

Last time I rode thru a National Park, I got a triple ticket in one stop, a trip to court in Tacoma, haven't been back since. I was just "touring" thru.

I even waited in a small line of cars to get into the park only to leave with hefty fine.
Reply

  PNW Moto > PNW Moto > Adventure Riding

Tags
fee, increase, massive, parks



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2017 Parks Canada - Free Discovery Pass bcj Ride Reports 16 Feb 24th 2017 03:43 PM
Massive Coronal Ejection KillerMondoDude Mechanical and Technical 2 Mar 6th 2016 08:28 PM
OR speed limit increase Willow Motorcycles 4 Mar 1st 2016 09:46 AM




Copyright © 2017 PNW Moto. All rights reserved.