# Wilderness Trail Building?



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Putting the cart well ahead of the horse...

So, if no motorized equipment is allowed in the wilderness areas, can we be assured that there will be no flow trails or pump tracks built? ...just due to the extra time and environmental disturbance involved?
(I realize they _could_ be built by hand, but at what cost in manpower for what yield?)
I think that would be a *fantastic* selling point. ...Back to the "traditional"(?) ~18 inch tread and ~36 inch corridor with no structures except maybe bridges. I think a lot more detractors would be more tolerant of that than someone trying to build a bike park. I am pretty sure those detractors/opponents would not differentiate if it wasn't explained to them.

-F


----------



## twright205 (Oct 2, 2011)

I could be totally wrong on this...

I think the only new trails that do get built are ones by horse folk and pack mules blazing their way, where ever and however they desire... from the limited amount that I know on the subject, miles of old trails are being lost due to no on going ability to keep the corridors open... I think it's more like the idea of free range, as long as you are on foot or on hoof, wander about where ever you want, I have no idea on how they protect archeological or environmentally sensitive areas, I have no idea how it's policed or protected..

there is only so far volunteers can walk in with tools and walk back out....so unless I am told different, I think the hope is that the majority of trails that were given up on after Wilderness designation will disappear


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Pump tracks in wilderness? Can't imagine. Can they even use wheelbarrows?


----------



## Chalkpaw (Dec 28, 2007)

I know that National Park wilderness trail crews are interesting places to work. Kind of like being in the 1930's. Block and tackle, crosscut saws, Horses bring in equipment and help some of these crews maintain what they are responsible for. Read the book "Dirt" by Christine Byl to gain a better understanding.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

I think there are people in this discussion weighing in on wilderness issues with no experience nor understanding what wilderness is. I also think, "wilderness" means different things around the country. In the midwest, wilderness means no human artifacts. No motors, no campsites, no stairs, no structures, no lights, no power, no aircraft and for a large part, no trails. In the west, I think it is quite different, perhaps because there is so much open land. Here in Arizona, I can drive 20 miles and be in the middle of the desert, entirely out of sight of any sign of civilization and virtually no chance of seeing or hearing another human. In other places like Southern California, you can't put a step down without being somewhere private. Sure complicates the discussion when people seem to be talking about the same thing , but really aren't. 

Bikes in wilderness don't seem like a conflict with the concept of wilderness use anymore than a tent, backpack or good boots. On the other hand, making access or travel by bike easier is another issued entirely and is in direct conflict with the whole idea of wilderness; just as making a MTB trail "easier" or "safer" is anathema to the ethos of Mountain Biking.


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

I thought one of the the STC's goals was to modify legislation to allow the use of tools (wheelbarrow, carts, chainsaws) which could save time/money maintaining wilderness trails. That seems like a common sense position given how little priority (and funding) trail maintenance has been given by many land mangers and legislators.

I can't see there being a push to make flow trails in wilderness a thing. Core detractors aren't going to be swayed by the primitive trail argument. Their main focus is on prohibiting bikes period.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

twright205 said:


> I could be totally wrong on this...
> 
> I think the only new trails that do get built are ones by horse folk and pack mules blazing their way, where ever and however they desire... from the limited amount that I know on the subject, miles of old trails are being lost due to no on going ability to keep the corridors open... I think it's more like the idea of free range, as long as you are on foot or on hoof, wander about where ever you want, I have no idea on how they protect archeological or environmentally sensitive areas, I have no idea how it's policed or protected..
> 
> there is only so far volunteers can walk in with tools and walk back out....so unless I am told different, I think the hope is that the majority of trails that were given up on after Wilderness designation will disappear


I think most trails in designated wilderness get a lot more use than you realize. The whole "we need bikes to keep trails open" is a bit of a stretch and not supported by fact. There are a lot of "friends of the wilderness" type groups out there that do a lot of volunteer work in various wilderness areas. Although it varies from district to district depending on resources, in general the FS and BLM keep a lot closer eye on their O/G permits that do hunting camps in wilderness than they used to. O/Gs that run strings of pack stock are not permitted to ", as long as you are on foot or on hoof, wander about wherever you want" and can be fined or have their permit revoked if they do. That's my experience of working with the FS for 20+ years.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

...
The notion that "flow" trails is even a part of this conversation is hard to fathom.


----------



## twright205 (Oct 2, 2011)

zrm said:


> I think most trails in designated wilderness get a lot more use than you realize. The whole "we need bikes to keep trails open" is a bit of a stretch and not supported by fact. There are a lot of "friends of the wilderness" type groups out there that do a lot of volunteer work in various wilderness areas. Although it varies from district to district depending on resources, in general the FS and BLM keep a lot closer eye on their O/G permits that do hunting camps in wilderness than they used to. O/Gs that run strings of pack stock are not permitted to ", as long as you are on foot or on hoof, wander about wherever you want" and can be fined or have their permit revoked if they do. That's my experience of working with the FS for 20+ years.


ZRM, thanks for the info. like I said, I don't know much on the issue, I was under the impression that the FS and BLM are severely underfunded regarding trail maintenance, and perhaps it was from an opinion piece that I read about trails were beginning to revert back to nature..

and was not aware that hikers and equestrians had to remain on trails in Wilderness... I thought it was a hike where you please kind of deal..


----------



## twright205 (Oct 2, 2011)

I am not trying to start anything, but coffee came out of my nose when I read this..

John Burns with the Salmon River Backcountry Horsemen says these primitive tools make for slow-going progress. “We’ve actually had contracts up there where the use of a wheelbarrow is prohibited,” he says. Burns wants the Forest Service to allow volunteers to use mechanized tools like chainsaws to increase efficiency. The Forest Service already has the ability to to this. But the Wilderness Society’s Gehrke says it would not benefit those who come here to enjoy nature. “Until the forest service comes and tells me they need to get into the Frank Church and do work with chainsaws…I’m not buying it,” he says.

Unless trail repairs speed up, thousands of acres in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness are getting more difficult for people like Burns to access.

That’s why his groups is among several in Idaho that want state lawmakers to pass a non-binding measure that calls for the federal government to declare the Frank Church Wilderness a disaster area.

The goal: put the wilderness area in a better position to get more funding for trail maintenance. The Wilderness Society’s Gehrke doesn’t think the answer is to declare any wilderness a disaster area.

“I think from an ecological standpoint, they are the place we see nature functioning as it’s supposed to. Fires, floods - whatever you want to call it,” he says, explaining that these events are a natural part of what happens in wilderness — not disasters. But he is concerned about the state of the trail system.

So, they want to have the Wilderness area, which is doing what it's doing, being native,, designated a disaster area, so they can get more funding to clear the trails and not lose them? hmm.. I have to ponder that a bit.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

The proposition is that land managers are given full authority on what happens in the Wilders, so that means there is no standard under current protocols. That said, land managers will most likely adopt a standard should this bill get passed. This will inevitably have an affect on non-wilder trails as well, and I do wonder how much IMBA will be involved with it.

I'm not big on set standards for every potential trail development. I think an understanding of local terrain and user groups is more important, and provides more variety. There are some Wilder areas that are perfectly suited for a shuttle trail, but the current legislation specifically identifies this kind of activity as 'unsustainable.' I would probably donate to the STC if they had something in the bill that would allow for some Wilder trails to be brought out of "protection" in back into multi-use. And, while I do promote limiting impact on historical routes through Wilders, I think the Fed adopting blanket standards is a bad approach. In my mind the first thing to do would be to clean up the existing routes and then evaluate. We also need to realize that anything in the Wilders will inevitably get trampled on by cattle....


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

twright205 said:


> I could be totally wrong on this...
> 
> I think the only new trails that do get built are ones by horse folk and pack mules blazing their way, where ever and however they desire... from the limited amount that I know on the subject, miles of old trails are being lost due to no on going ability to keep the corridors open... I think it's more like the idea of free range, as long as you are on foot or on hoof, wander about where ever you want, I have no idea on how they protect archeological or environmentally sensitive areas, I have no idea how it's policed or protected..
> 
> there is only so far volunteers can walk in with tools and walk back out....so unless I am told different, I think the hope is that the majority of trails that were given up on after Wilderness designation will disappear


The earth has been trampled on for about 2 billiion years. It's not as sensitive as you might think. It's a matter of whether you want to share your MTB trails with horses and heifers.  I think it's funny how archeologically sites get declared, but not one actually gets to experience most of them. I mean, what is the point if people cannot associate themselves with history? If it were up to me, I'd purposely build trails that took you through areas of important history. You can see how removing people from their history ultimately leads to an utter lack of respect for it.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

ki5ka said:


> ...
> The notion that "flow" trails is even a part of this conversation is hard to fathom.


They installed a flow trail in the national park here. And while I'm sure a full-blown environmental impact study was fully executed on the site, my jaw dropped when I saw how obtrusive, contrived, and unnatural it was... in a location that is supposed to "balance conservation and recreation". It's a fun trail, and it's well-designed and built and drains well, but wow! Just wow!





















In the early years of our local club, the big selling point that allowed access for off road bicycles - and no way, never in the NP - was that the trail was built to modern standards, narrow and unobtrusive, with minimal man-made structures.

Even the opponents then could understand that an ~18" singletrack trail would barely disturb the habitat.








Anyone unfamiliar with MTBing in general, or who has never seen "traditional" singletrack - and wouldn't avail themselves of that knowledge anyway while hopping on the self-ordained environmentalist bandwagon - would see something like the first three pictures above and blow a gasket: "See?! See?! This is what will happen if bikes are allowed in Wilderness areas!" ut::crazy::incazzato::madmax:

I mean, they even had to move the rocks. They probably even brought some in (if only to set them along the side of the trail as decorations).

Maybe a "wilderness trail specification" is needed to clarify to all what the intent is.

-F


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

twright205 said:


> I am not trying to start anything, but coffee came out of my nose when I read this..
> 
> John Burns with the Salmon River Backcountry Horsemen says these primitive tools make for slow-going progress. "We've actually had contracts up there where the use of a wheelbarrow is prohibited," he says. Burns wants the Forest Service to allow volunteers to use mechanized tools like chainsaws to increase efficiency. The Forest Service already has the ability to to this. But the Wilderness Society's Gehrke says it would not benefit those who come here to enjoy nature. "Until the forest service comes and tells me they need to get into the Frank Church and do work with chainsaws&#8230;I'm not buying it," he says.
> 
> ...


Individual districts can 'manage how they see fit,' which usually boils down to a decision by the district ranger. Now days the rangers are sort of hired guns for the fed.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

National Parks and National Forest are two different things. Forest Service hasn't had funding for NEW trails in years, much less being able to pay crews to maintain them.



> So, they want to have the Wilderness area, which is doing what it's doing, being native,, designated a disaster area, so they can get more funding to clear the trails and not lose them? hmm.. I have to ponder that a bit.


It would be away to keep from opening the wilderness to mountain bikes, dirt bikes, and their volunteers.

Having spent a lot of time Frank Church and adjacent areas in Central Idaho, I have seen that lack of maintenance makes decades old trails disappear. Even the volunteer crews can't keep up with the miles and miles of trails out there. Much of the clearing in non-wilderness is done by dirt bikes with chainsaws and even they can't get to everything.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

ki5ka said:


> ...
> The notion that "flow" trails is even a part of this conversation is hard to fathom.


Seriously. Most hikers are faster than me when I'm in the backcountry.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

zrm said:


> I think most trails in designated wilderness get a lot more use than you realize. The whole "we need bikes to keep trails open" is a bit of a stretch and not supported by fact. There are a lot of "friends of the wilderness" type groups out there that do a lot of volunteer work in various wilderness areas. Although it varies from district to district depending on resources, in general the FS and BLM keep a lot closer eye on their O/G permits that do hunting camps in wilderness than they used to. O/Gs that run strings of pack stock are not permitted to ", as long as you are on foot or on hoof, wander about wherever you want" and can be fined or have their permit revoked if they do. That's my experience of working with the FS for 20+ years.


I think that is a generalization that varies widely by locale. Certainly there are Wilderness trails that are very heavily used, and that receive lots of attention and maintenance. There are others that are falling into disrepair and fading away with lack of use. Here in WA, we have an area with great mtn biking that is threatened with Wilderness designation. Given the amount of annual deadfall that has to be cleared, and the already fading away trails in some areas, my opinion is that Wilderness and the lack of chain saw use will be the end for these trails.

Also, while horse outfitters may have be watched as far as staying on trails, hikers and climbers create 'bootpaths' wherever desired.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

123, You do realize that Wild, Wilder, and Wilderness are all separate and distinct words, right? And that Wilders is not even a word, so a reader is left trying to figure out WTF you're trying to say?


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

ACree said:


> 123, You do realize that Wild, Wilder, and Wilderness are all separate and distinct words, right? And that Wilders is not even a word, so a reader is left trying to figure out WTF you're trying to say?


It's pronounced W-ill-ders. Short "i". Does that help?


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

If STC promoted anything more than clearing downed trees, brushing and repairing eroded tread, I'd jump off the STC bus. All they are suggesting is each land manager can utilize wheelbarrows and chainsaws if they so desire. That's it. Nothing will be purpose-built for mt. biking.

On a hike through Desolation Wilderness near Tahoe (one of the most visited Wilderness areas in the country), we were bushwacking... looking for the trail on our map. It clearly did not exist anymore... completely overtaken by bushes and deadfall. Then we ran into these long lost trail signs in some trees, so we knew the map wasn't completely wrong.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Here's a trail in the boulder white clouds. Warm Springs which comes down from Antz Basin. I'm not sure if this part got closed to bikers or not. Not cleared by any trail crew. The guys lost count at 193 trees down over the course of several miles.


----------



## The Sagebrush Slug (Jan 12, 2004)

twright205 said:


> I could be totally wrong on this...
> 
> I think the only new trails that do get built are ones by horse folk and pack mules blazing their way, where ever and however they desire...


This may help you update your thinking:

1.) Some of the new Wilderness areas come with money to build trails, and make no mistake that pro-wilderness groups, e.g., the WTA, rely on that funding to run their operations. Of course, that's the same model that my MTB organization uses so it would be hypocritical for me to get too upset about that (except of course, the WTA is one of the loudest anti-MTB voices in the area.)

The Wild Sky wilderness came with trail building money, although it sounds like some of the budget isn't what the groups wanted it to be (which as an aside, isn't surprising given how much of the USFS budget is going into firefighting. :eekster

Wild Sky Wilderness Trails Plan Released ? Washington Trails Association

2.) I don't know about wilderness areas per se, but hikers are definitely building illegal trails in WSA and other equivalent areas, and some of those trails get funding to be turned into legal trails, e.g., this local trail in a Natural Resource Conservation Area:

Mailbox Peak Trail Final Phase ?

I can name a couple of other illegal bootpacks to various lakes on Snoqualmie pass, but won't because they don't need more visibility.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Individual districts can 'manage how they see fit,' which usually boils down to a decision by the district ranger. Now days the rangers are sort of hired guns for the fed.


No, district rangers are usually people for whom the position is a rung on the career ladder. They generally don't stay in the district very long - only a few years, then they move on. District rangers generally don't make bold decisions because 1. that's usually not a great career move and 2. if they did there's a good chance pressure from above will result in a reverse of the action and/or their removal to some career backwater.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

zrm said:


> No, district rangers are usually people for whom the position is a rung on the career ladder. They generally don't stay in the district very long - only a few years, then they move on. District rangers generally don't make bold decisions because 1. that's usually not a great career move and 2. if they did there's a good chance pressure from above will result in a reverse of the action and/or their removal to some career backwater.


OK. Thanks for the information.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

The Sagebrush Slug said:


> This may help you update your thinking:
> 
> 1.) Some of the new Wilderness areas come with money to build trails, and make no mistake that pro-wilderness groups, e.g., the WTA, rely on that funding to run their operations. Of course, that's the same model that my MTB organization uses so it would be hypocritical for me to get too upset about that (except of course, the WTA is one of the loudest anti-MTB voices in the area.)
> 
> ...


If there's a lake with trout in it, then there will be a bootpath to it. I'm not sure if those bootpaths would be illegal though. AFAIK, you can go hiking cross-country in wilderness areas.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Fleas said:


> They installed a flow trail in the national park here. And while I'm sure a full-blown environmental impact study was fully executed on the site, my jaw dropped when I saw how obtrusive, contrived, and unnatural it was... in a location that is supposed to "balance conservation and recreation". It's a fun trail, and it's well-designed and built and drains well, but wow! Just wow!
> View attachment 1045995
> 
> View attachment 1045999
> ...


What National Park is that? I've never heard of the NPS building a biking flow trail.

I'm not sure what to make of that.


----------



## woodway (Dec 27, 2005)

aero901 said:


> I can't see there being a push to make flow trails in wilderness a thing. Core detractors aren't going to be swayed by the primitive trail argument. Their main focus is on prohibiting bikes period.


Not just bikes but everyone. Trails going away is a good thing in their eyes. This is what we are up against.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

woodway said:


> Not just bikes but everyone. Trails going away is a good thing in their eyes. This is what we are up against.


Ok, who on god's earth wants trails to go away? I have never met anyone that shares that kind of attitude, and if I did I'd hog tie them and drag them out on a hike!


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

woodway said:


> Not just bikes but everyone. Trails going away is a good thing in their eyes. This is what we are up against.


Really? I haven't heard of too many trails being decommissioned in Wilderness areas. Generally, since recreation is on the lower end of the management goals for wilderness (Wilderness is pretty much the only federal land management prescription where recreation takes a back seat to all other values), not a lot of new trails are built either, but once an area goes through the process, the trail inventory usually stays pretty stable.


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

I have been on two year long trail crews in the american south west in the last few years and I can assure all of you guys that there is still alot of work being done on wilderness areas with the SCA and Americorps which are similar to the old CCC. They may not be building miles of new trail but they do help maintain and manage thousands of miles of trail in the country. Yes I understand there are plenty of over grown trails out in wilderness areas but that's kind of the beauty of it and there are alot bigger issues involved in protecting the wilderness areas. If your section of wilderness is so untouched that you don't have to worry about the ohv then you should feel blessed

For those wondering hell yea we use wheel barrows, we just take the wheels off, replace them with poles and carry them like strechers


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Singletrackd said:


> For those wondering hell yea we use wheel barrows, we just take the wheels off, replace them with poles and carry them like strechers


If you're not joking, that's idiotic. Why not just allow the wheel to remain, but operators must have one arm tied behind their back?


----------



## Singletrackd (May 3, 2015)

Haha not joking one bit, it's either that or big canvas bags

I guess I should clarify that I am talking about designated wilderness areas that are protected by the wilderness protection act. I am not talking about the wilderness in general


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^ That's just crazy across the board. Not allowing wheelbarrows.


----------



## bhsavery (Aug 19, 2004)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Ok, who on god's earth wants trails to go away? I have never met anyone that shares that kind of attitude, and if I did I'd hog tie them and drag them out on a hike!


Hardcore environmentalists who think that any humans there is wrong. I'm not joking. they're out there.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bhsavery said:


> Hardcore environmentalists who think that any humans there is wrong. I'm not joking. they're out there.


Please give me an example?

Thanks


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

leeboh said:


> ^^^ That's just crazy across the board. Not allowing wheelbarrows.


Personally I find the disconnect between allowing a gas powered camp stove, but not allowing a gas powered chainsaw to be crazier. At least they are consistent with non motorized wheeled vehicles. Game carts are also not allowed.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

Easiest way to get access is to start looking like this


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Please give me an example?
> 
> Thanks


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

I've never met anyone like that.


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

Singletrackd said:


> Haha not joking one bit, it's either that or big canvas bags
> 
> I guess I should clarify that I am talking about designated wilderness areas that are protected by the wilderness protection act. I am not talking about the wilderness in general


Just curious what wilderness areas are you working in?


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

leeboh said:


> ^^^ That's just crazy across the board. Not allowing wheelbarrows.


It is crazy, and it's where they got themselves by banning bikes. Just sayin...


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

"Let's see.... so we are doing a great job banning mountain bikes. Now how are we going to pay for trail maintenance now that we've removed many of our most dedicated trail workers?"

How Should We Pay for Non-Motorized Trails? ? Idaho Conservation League


----------



## RYNOFREERIDE (Feb 26, 2004)

They don't even allow portage wheels for portaging canoes in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness here in MN. Crazy how a single wheel can't be attached to a canoe to help with a portage between lakes. At least they are consistent. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

Donations, bro.

MTB'ers would rather pay someone else to represent and build their trails. We had more skiers show up for our last few trail days, than avid mountain bikers. When you pay to play, you tend to expect things on a silver platter. Same goes for the Wildertrails. Many people pay their dues to Wilder Advocacy with very few expectations except to maintain the idea of "Wilderness." If trails get used regularly, then they will eventually be maintained by someone.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> It is crazy, and it's where they got themselves by banning bikes. Just sayin...


Not a great argument, IMO. I don't see much evidence locally that Wildertrails (particularly the backcountry trails) would be in any better shape if mountain bikers were allowed.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Not a great argument, IMO. I don't see much evidence locally that Wildertrails (particularly the backcountry trails) would be in any better shape if mountain bikers were allowed.


I was talking about not allowing wheels, not sure what you are referring to. Pay attention if you are going to pontificate on every post!


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Not a great argument, IMO. I don't see much evidence locally that Wildertrails (particularly the backcountry trails) would be in any better shape if mountain bikers were allowed.


What the F are "wildertrails"? Good God dude. Is it that hard? Your point is not worth making and is distracting at best.


----------



## dgw2jr (Aug 17, 2011)

Silentfoe said:


> What the F are "wildertrails"? Good God dude. Is it that hard? Your point is not worth making and is distracting at best.


Ya know, Wildertrails... The ones built for Wilderbikes!


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

bsieb said:


> I was talking about not allowing wheels, not sure what you are referring to. Pay attention if you are going to pontificate on every post!


You know what I was referring to. A strawman argument that somehow not allowing bikes is causation for the state of Wildertrails. My bad, this is apparently a very emotional issue for some of us.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

dgw2jr said:


> Ya know, Wildertrails... The ones built for Wilderbikes!


With Wildertudes!


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

...


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

It is extremely hard for me to take a person who flat refuses to use the standard nomenclature seriously. Every profession or group has a standard agreed upon nomenclature to enhance communication. Learning to use that nomenclature is a standard part of becoming a member and earning the respect and trust of the group. "Wilderness" is not that hard to spell and you save what, three stinking letters? Sheesh......


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

...


----------



## formica (Jul 4, 2004)

I never heard of "Wilders" until you brought it up, and Google certainly hasn't heard of that term even with paired " + wilderness". So, normally used by whom?


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

...


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

...


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> It's not like I'm an extreme tree hugger or anything.
> 
> Let it go.


Good diversionary tactic there. You just want to force everyone here to accept your non valid word because you want to use it. Why, what are your issues? Control? What? You manage to totally hijack threads with your insistence on "Wilders", that looks like either you want attention or control.

As I stated, a group communicates with an agreed on nomenclature. Precise language enhances communication, obscurity obfuscates it. You refuse to use accepted words, but want to be a part of the group, or why keep posting?. I don't get it.

When trail builders talk about "rolling drain dips" or "grade reversals", we don't call them _thingies_ or no one understands what they are, or the difference, that they accomplish the same things, that their functional longevity differs.

Obviously this discussion group does not accept your verbiage, and it appears, some put little weight on you opinions. You're just in here pissin' in the wind........


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

I'm not down with the Esteesee advoking for no shuds in the Dernesses. 
-Mtn. Biker 456


----------



## BonkedAgain (Aug 23, 2005)

Mtn. Biker123 said:


> Let it go.


Yes, please do let it go. It should be very clear to you after months of people exclaiming WTF? that your attempt at creating new slang has fallen flat. Give it up and quit distracting people from your arguments with your silly term.


----------



## Mtn. Biker123 (Sep 17, 2005)

...

Done!

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## ki5ka (Dec 17, 2006)

...


----------

