Ya, that's mature. I guess they removed the restriction then, because the signs were there. I saw them with my own eyes.PPS. Kiss my ass, ****er.
Did you specify the short section between 70 and 7065? This is the forest service after all...
Ya, that's mature. I guess they removed the restriction then, because the signs were there. I saw them with my own eyes.PPS. Kiss my ass, ****er.
PS. For future reference, lets get the facts straight and go off THE RIGHT MAPS before we start yelling at eachother.
You must have called in as a concerned tree hugger is why she sided with you. :haha:Ok, I just got off the phone with Susan. Karl or anyone else, if you don't believe me then call her back and she will tell you herself. She looked it up in their rules and discovered that what she told you was WRONG. NO, that section between 70 and 7065 IS NOT open.
Maybe next time you'll put some value and trust in what I tell you. :fawkdancesmiley: :kissmyass:
Which steep are you talking about? Off to the right edge of that map? IIRC the road that leads up to that is closed off.
I think that was the way we when up Naches Trail in 1989. I was kind of lost when I came down the west end part last July. Nothing looked the same.
No Markers then or now. It is so much easier to know where the trails are on the East side of the past.
Why are you continuing to argue this? It is not a seasonal closure. Just admit that you were wrong. If there is anyone here who should feel attacked at this point it's me.You must have called in as a concerned tree hugger is why she sided with you. :haha:
What is with you and this little stretch of trail anyway? If it isn't blocked it will be used by others that aren't reading your post as it has been use heavy in the passed. If it is closed then lets talk to the forest service to close it as the next section is. That is the only way to let the world know not to drive on it. I am not sure why they would even close that part of the trail after the opening date. Maybe the signs you saw were for seasonal closers.
Let it go man!
It's the same location as you referenced with 'pack' Is this where there's a hill climb? The route USED to start below the cliff, and up over the FS70 road, over the 7065, and up this hill.
I know that the trail off of the FS70, and across the 7065 were closed off a few years ago, but I noticed my last time through (06) there that the trail has a Y that takes you down below the hill climb, and folks have been still climbing it.
Just trying to understand, thanks for you feedback & patience
She was going to get back to you and let you know, but you didn't leave any contact info.I just got off the Phone with Susan. And yes, she confirmed that it is Closed. She told me that she has been letting folks know it is okay for motorized use for YEARS. That may be where this problem stems from. Folks get the okay to go play there and other folks are trying to keep it closed.
If the forest rangers are gonna tell me one thing, and the same ranger tell you another? I blatantly asked her to look that up, and even confirmed with her supervisor just to make sure. That really makes my blood boil.
You and me both, trust me you're not the only one pissed off about the misinformation.I do a lot of work keeping trails open; be it actually attending work parties, getting permits for wheeling activities, attending meetings, talking with FS/DNR rangers, rescue missions, trail cleanups, etc. This kind of crap where the folks in charge don't know what's going on totally pisses me off.
If you need help with a work party, let me know. I'll be more than happy to come out there and make a STOUT blockade with some signs. Until then expect that portion of trail to be run, as not only the asshats, but law abiding trail users will continue to drive on that portion of trail.
Wow man you can't let it go can you? I posted I was wrong for being there and offered to help pass the word it was close. I posted I would help with a work party with you. What else you want me to do? :kissmyass:Why are you continuing to argue this? It is not a seasonal closure. Just admit that you were wrong. If there is anyone here who should feel attacked at this point it's me.
Good job. Who needs environmentalists to close trails when you've got skrause. If a trail is not signed closed, not blocked, shows clear signs of regular use, isn't causing resource damage and the FS says it is open (until badgered by skrause), why would you press the issue? FYI, under the current travel management rules, trails and roads are considered open unless they are signed closed, blocked, use causes resource damage, or you are within a special travel management corridor (Little Naches for example). You should be happy when the new rules go into effect where everything is closed unless it is marked open on a map.
No attitude here.:wtf: is there for me to let go of? I think it's you who can't let it go, lose the attitude dude and stop taking **** so personally.
Cody, stfu.
Good job. Who needs environmentalists to close trails when you've got skrause.
Wow. We "lost" 300' of trail that wasn't ours in the first place. Hell of a lot better than losing the whole thing.
I guess by your way of thinking if we rip out all the signage and blockages then anything we want to have open is.
This has gotten fully e-tarded, some of you just don't get it. I'm done.