Will your child (or grandchild) have the same opportunity?

[DashRiprock]

Use of public lands is always changing. IF baby boomers are very interestrdin in off road ebiking and they spend likewise there will be some compromise on use.

From someone who has witnessed the manner in which motorcyclists have denied access to 'their' trails and refused to even create parallel routes for decades now...I would have to disagree. The general attitude today among wheeled enthusiasts of all kinds today is as follows"
If something 'should' happen, it will...whether I get off my butt and make it happen or not (the same attitude of most abled bodied presently on assistance here in America).
In the meantime, I'm going to ride whatever is out there...and expect somebody else to keep it that way whether they are flat broke or not.

The trend in this country is to buy private land and make it public so that it can be preserved. That is what The Conservancy attempts to accomplish here and worldwide. And I fully support them.

Is there any agreement between 'non-profits' such as The Conservancy...to open said (now non-taxable) land up to cutting edge forms of organized recreation such as ebicycle trails or any other motorized method which allows the poor, young, old and disabled to truly access them...so as to make up for the critical revenue lost when money is arbitrarily taken away from the public at large?

 

[DashRiprock]

Land is purchased by the government as a means of preservation (which means keeping it in a state of stasis). Policy regarding public lands is governed by local or federal boards/committees/agencies assigned to create rules for use. These policies are in effect to prevent reckless use of the land by those whose behavior subjugates the benefit and joy of the populous as a whole. Policy on use of public land is a social contract not an individual contract. As communities whose values evolve over time and from generation to generation, so too will public land policy.
I fail to understand how the concept of "ours" gets so easily translated into "mine."

If you fail to understand how "ours" gets so easily translated into "mine"...perhaps you should analyze the 100% unelected and unaccountable federal boards/agencies and committees you so admire who have become expert in doing just that.

"..These policies are in effect to prevent reckless use of the land by those whose behavior subjugates the benefit and joy of the populous as a whole..."

As I've asked before...who exactly are these people? Do they straddle a certain machine? Are they of a particular political bent? Perhaps somebody who simply can't physically travel to the same areas in the 'privileged zone' as their more healthy or monied fellow citizens? What is your definition of 'reckless' and who are presently the worst offenders? Is it the whole group of them..or a measure of reality?

"..Policy on use of public land is a social contract not an individual contract..."
How can one construct a contract between an owner and a 'manager'...if the owner (us) isn't the leading partner in the process? (see recent moves by the EPA to usurp this fact on more levels than any other agency in world history).

I think that we are simply on the opposite sides of the fence in regards to the power that citizens wield not only from their inalienable rights given to us by our creator but what the Constitution (in my opinion) spells out pretty clearly in states vs federal rights on public lands.

 

[DashRiprock]

We all want better trails that are sustainable. I don't think tort reform has anything to do with that, and there is no evidence that non-profits or government management is unsuccessful or unsustainable.

Thanks for the opinion, Mark and I will certainly reply at a later date to your points.
In the meantime, perhaps you can speak to my first one and a question by which all others are based...
Where did the money come from to build these trails in the first place...and are we simply borrowing MORE money to maintain them in the future...at the expense of what critical projects and whose future?

With the second being...why is my point ignored regarding the tactics used by those seeking to keep others off of 'their' trails...which is most always "liability" related in nature?

 

[DashRiprock]

Perhaps it would be easier to simply flush out the die hard "my government knows better than me" types and ask the following:

"Where do you believe that an electric bike or similar conveyance for the poor, young, elderly, disabled, (etc.) shouldn't be allowed (as we can make trails pretty much anywhere)...and why?

Do you trust an unelected and unaccountable individual to make this decision for you.. or do you consider that person as working for you in regards to your public land ideally and continually redesigned to serve just as many Americans as possible?

 

[MarcD]

Trails have been built with all sorts of money. Many by government, both Federal and Local. Here in Cincinnati, the city has invested heavily in bike infrastructure. Which is open to ebikes, I might add. Similarly, we have some great rail trails in Ohio, the Little Miami Scenic trail being one of the best. 73 miles of uninterrupted public trail for walking, running or biking. Most of the development came from the railroad industry - they have to reclaim the land after abandoning the tracks. One of the financially beneficial ways is to partner with a 501(c)3, give the not-for-profit the money, the not-for-profit gets the trail built, and the expense is tax advantaged for the railroad. Government funding is being used to finish some of the other rail trails.

As for borrowing more money, the amount of money spent on recreational infrastructure is so infinitely small it is a nit. The 2014 spend on Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance by the Dept. of the Interior was $9.9 million. The federal budget is $3.8 TRILLION. Trail conservancy was 0.00026% of the federal budget. This idea that we are leveraging our future due to government involvement in trails etc, is simply false. The entire Dept. of the Interior budget is less than a 1/4 of 1% of the federal budget.

Here's the deal - if you want to discuss how to make trails better, then I am all for that. If you want to spew ideology and get into some political pissing match because you hate government, I am not going to participate. It is entirely possible that nobody has addressed your other points because they are ideology - not plans, proposals, facts, or solutions. I don't blame them. I hope we can talk about the practical solutions, whatever ideology they are based on, but enough of the BS comments like, "Perhaps it would be easier to simply flush out the die hard "my government knows better than me" types and ask the following:". This is an bike forum, and one with some great people. Let's not eff it up with personal crusades.

 

[Deleted member 803]

If you fail to understand how "ours" gets so easily translated into "mine"...perhaps you should analyze the 100% unelected and unaccountable federal boards/agencies and committees you so admire who have become expert in doing just that.

"..These policies are in effect to prevent reckless use of the land by those whose behavior subjugates the benefit and joy of the populous as a whole..."

As I've asked before...who exactly are these people? Do they straddle a certain machine? Are they of a particular political bent? Perhaps somebody who simply can't physically travel to the same areas in the 'privileged zone' as their more healthy or monied fellow citizens? What is your definition of 'reckless' and who are presently the worst offenders? Is it the whole group of them..or a measure of reality?

"..Policy on use of public land is a social contract not an individual contract..."
How can one construct a contract between an owner and a 'manager'...if the owner (us) isn't the leading partner in the process? (see recent moves by the EPA to usurp this fact on more levels than any other agency in world history).

I think that we are simply on the opposite sides of the fence in regards to the power that citizens wield not only from their inalienable rights given to us by our creator but what the Constitution (in my opinion) spells out pretty clearly in states vs federal rights on public lands.

I don't know who these people are. I just hope and pray they are democrats....LOL

 

[Deleted member 803]

Trails have been built with all sorts of money. Many by government, both Federal and Local. Here in Cincinnati, the city has invested heavily in bike infrastructure. Which is open to ebikes, I might add. Similarly, we have some great rail trails in Ohio, the Little Miami Scenic trail being one of the best. 73 miles of uninterrupted public trail for walking, running or biking. Most of the development came from the railroad industry - they have to reclaim the land after abandoning the tracks. One of the financially beneficial ways is to partner with a 501(c)3, give the not-for-profit the money, the not-for-profit gets the trail built, and the expense is tax advantaged for the railroad. Government funding is being used to finish some of the other rail trails.

As for borrowing more money, the amount of money spent on recreational infrastructure is so infinitely small it is a nit. The 2014 spend on Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance by the Dept. of the Interior was $9.9 million. The federal budget is $3.8 TRILLION. Trail conservancy was 0.00026% of the federal budget. This idea that we are leveraging our future due to government involvement in trails etc, is simply false. The entire Dept. of the Interior budget is less than a 1/4 of 1% of the federal budget.

Here's the deal - if you want to discuss how to make trails better, then I am all for that. If you want to spew ideology and get into some political pissing match because you hate government, I am not going to participate. It is entirely possible that nobody has addressed your other points because they are ideology - not plans, proposals, facts, or solutions. I don't blame them. I hope we can talk about the practical solutions, whatever ideology they are based on, but enough of the BS comments like, "Perhaps it would be easier to simply flush out the die hard "my government knows better than me" types and ask the following:". This is an bike forum, and one with some great people. Let's not eff it up with personal crusades.

Thanks for the laugh.................I agree with you all the way.

 

[DashRiprock]

"Dash, I think everyone here agrees that trail use rights are important to e-bikers and that people that share Van Abel's views are misguided. I don't, however, believe that non-profits and government are inherent evils in the conservation legacy.."

The above statement pretty much sums up my point (thanks for making it for me).

If ebikers ever seek to realistically (not 'let's stare at our navel and discuss') physically exercise their trail use rights...it will take a LOT more than them simply 'describing' those in their very own community presently standing directly in their way of that right as "misguided". Similarly, it will require those in any serious discussion of ANY type to put their pipe down long enough to admit that this country is multi-trillions broke/in debt...and that all solutions henceforth include that fact before they are seriously considered.

I'll respond to your later comments...yet it is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation with those (still) defending ongoing attempts to get blood out of a turnip (money from governments for 'my inflated salary first!' non-profits)...while at the same time refusing to get squarely/loudly/PUBLICLY behind people such as Larry who is literally doing battle right now with the devil himself in regards to ebike access. Who do you believe will be Larry's main nemesis (later) in regards to keeping us off of these trails when he gets beyond our own supposed brother-in-arms?(VanAble)

You guessed it...every government official and corrupt non-profit who received that initial trail money...with the full understanding and expectation that they would fight tooth and nail any organization who ever 'dares' seek expanded access to their (cough) 'public' resource.

...seriously...do we all appear to be that dumb?

 

[Brambor]

Dash, put down the Ayn Rand pipe and step away from the Tea Party coolaid ;-) just kidding. Hope you can take a joke. Anyway, behind almost every government program is a lobbyist for private business interests. It's time to start paying attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

[DashRiprock]

Dash, put down the Ayn Rand pipe and step away from the Tea Party coolaid ;-) just kidding. Hope you can take a joke. Anyway, behind almost every government program is a lobbyist for private business interests. It's time to start paying attention to the man behind the curtain.

I'm not certain that the tea party (90% of who are as old or older than me) would have me.
Older people don't like young(er) people demanding recognition that 1) our country is broke (see the denial in this thread alone)...or 2) that their 'check' is just as vulnerable as anybody else's in immediately/properly tackling the (phantom) crisis our children face (they really hate it when you mention their grandchildren's future as well).
Believe me, the mere mention of 'shared sacrifice' at a Tea Party will get you shouted down and attacked verbally immediately (don't ask me how I know this).

 

[Brambor]

dash you're a good egg. Thanks for giving me a pass on a joke I wasn't sure about. I'm out, before I stick a foot in my mouth

 

[DashRiprock]

Trails have been built with all sorts of money. Many by government, both Federal and Local. Here in Cincinnati, the city has invested heavily in bike infrastructure. Which is open to ebikes, I might add.

Do you mean this Cincinnati?
http://watchdog.org
Do you mean these federal funds?
http://www.usdebtclock.org

, we have some great rail trails in Ohio, the Little Miami Scenic trail being one of the best. 73 miles of uninterrupted public trail for walking, running or biking. Most of the development came from the railroad industry - they have to reclaim the land after abandoning the tracks. One of the financially beneficial ways is to partner with a 501(c)3, give the not-for-profit the money, the not-for-profit gets the trail built, and the expense is tax advantaged for the railroad. Government funding is being used to finish some of the other rail trails.

Isn't that the same trail which can only fund trail improvements through FOUR to one matching grants from the state of Ohio...this Ohio?
http://watchdog.org

for borrowing more money, the amount of money spent on recreational infrastructure is so infinitely small it is a nit. The 2014 spend on Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance by the Dept. of the Interior was $9.9 million. The federal budget is $3.8 TRILLION. Trail conservancy was 0.00026% of the federal budget. This idea that we are leveraging our future due to government involvement in trails etc, is simply false. The entire Dept. of the Interior budget is less than a 1/4 of 1% of the federal budget.

You're right...who cares exactly how much we borrow from our children's future to do anything! Whatever amount it is...there's got to be something that we can point to that is destroying it just as much...or more!

Here's the deal - if you want to discuss how to make trails better, I'm all for that.

That is exactly what this thread is all about. I have repeated these solutions...you have disagreed with those very solutions several times. Obviously, any opinion other than your own...results in the following:

...If you want to spew ideology and get into some political pissing match because you hate government, I am not going to participate. It is entirely possible that nobody has addressed your other points because they are ideology - not plans, proposals, facts, or solutions. I don't blame them. I hope we can talk about the practical solutions, whatever ideology they are based on, but enough of the BS comments like, "Perhaps it would be easier to simply flush out the die hard "my government knows better than me" types and ask the following:". This is an bike forum, and one with some great people. Let's not eff it up with personal crusades..."

...I will repeat the BS comment (simple question) that you conveniently left out (again) for clarity:

"...Where do you believe that an electric bike or similar conveyance for the poor, young, elderly, disabled, (etc.) shouldn't be allowed (as we can make trails pretty much anywhere)...and why?

Do you trust an unelected and unaccountable individual to make this decision for you.. or do you consider that person as working for you in regards to your public land ideally and continually redesigned to serve just as many Americans as possible?.."

Personal crusade? No
Common sense?...I'll let others make that call.

 

[Clark]

Dash, In my daily life I find myself caught up in these arguments about where our country stands on so very many things, I'll just say this - I admire your passion.

Clark

 

[DashRiprock]

Dash, In my daily life I find myself caught up in these arguments about where our country stands on so very many things, I'll just say this - I admire your passion.
Clark

I'm guessing that any passion I exhibit is merely somebody else guiding me to point out the facts. I have been so blessed in this world that I not only own an ebike for heavens sakes but use it to recreate. There are public trails that I have been able to access over the years which younger people will never see if they take the attitude that their tainted educations have intentionally programmed them to accept.
I'm just like anybody else who has responded here in that I want the best for others on down the road.
We just look at the gathering storm in a completely different light as to what generation 'the well running dry' is going to truly affect...and what the consequences will be for those forced to live through it.