Post by: Terry Dean on July 30, 2014, 01:57:40 AM
Post by: Terry Dean on July 30, 2014, 02:28:02 AM
Post by: Skyhigh on July 30, 2014, 06:17:04 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on July 30, 2014, 06:28:12 AM
your 400 bucks in state license fees does not go to the feds for lands management.
:yeah:
Post by: mfswallace on July 30, 2014, 06:40:03 AM
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2014, 08:16:02 AM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: lamrith on July 30, 2014, 08:38:55 AM
The FS wants less roads. The easiest way for them to achieve this is to not fix their current roads when they wash out.Soo then how do they propose to get equipment up there to fight fires with so many less roads?
sent from my typewriter
Post by: lamrith on July 30, 2014, 08:42:35 AM
Post by: logger on July 30, 2014, 08:44:28 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 30, 2014, 09:00:55 AM
The FS wants less roads. The easiest way for them to achieve this is to not fix their current roads when they wash out.:yeah: :bow:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2014, 09:07:27 AM
I think they plan on letting it burn as long as it's not near civilization...The FS wants less roads. The easiest way for them to achieve this is to not fix their current roads when they wash out.Soo then how do they propose to get equipment up there to fight fires with so many less roads?
sent from my typewriter
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on July 30, 2014, 09:42:12 AM
what a crock of crap!!It's national forest not national park, multiple use!! Those lazy *censored*s are sitting on millions of acres of funding and yet personal agendas form the manangement[or lack of] our ground, I have been in this game long enough to see the transition of what once a pretty damn decent program to basically a money sucking do nothing agency that should be disbaned.I am not passionate about many things at all except the management of OUR national forest, I by no means think we need to go back to the days of big clearcuts, but this do nothing crap has got to go, pretty tough to argue that the deer and elk hunting is as good now as when the dept. of aggravation actually did the job they were intened to do.This lack of funding battle cry that they love to use is getting old real fast, The state makes money selling timber,why can't the feds? I have several forest service contracts right now that are losers for them solely because of how they manage the sale, their idiotic contracts are so filled with crap that it boils down to you have to charge atleast twice as much as the state to accomplish what they want. Buy this paas, buy that pass, and beat the crap out of your rig using your pass!!:yeah::Remember "the land of MANY uses"?
Post by: BetoBow on July 30, 2014, 09:45:57 AM
"Studies in the Pacific Northwest have shown that most big game animals avoid active roads by at least one-quarter mile, and some move as much as four miles to escape traffic. Closing roads can provide large undisturbed areas for wildlife, like elk, deer, bighorn sheep, eagles, and wild turkeys during critical times of the year. Intensively managed forests may have three to nine miles of road for each square mile of habitat. For each mile of road, at least four acres are directly removed as productive habitat. Animals need energy to survive. Energy spent moving away from disturbances can deplete the energy needed to survive to late spring or give birth to a healthy elk calf. By limiting disturbance, road closures can enhance the health, reproduction, and number of animals in an area."
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2014, 09:51:10 AM
I personally don't mind that they close some roads as long as we can access it on foot or bike. This is what the regulation pamphlet states:I wouldn't believe everything you read....
"Studies in the Pacific Northwest have shown that most big game animals avoid active roads by at least one-quarter mile, and some move as much as four miles to escape traffic. Closing roads can provide large undisturbed areas for wildlife, like elk, deer, bighorn sheep, eagles, and wild turkeys during critical times of the year. Intensively managed forests may have three to nine miles of road for each square mile of habitat. For each mile of road, at least four acres are directly removed as productive habitat. Animals need energy to survive. Energy spent moving away from disturbances can deplete the energy needed to survive to late spring or give birth to a healthy elk calf. By limiting disturbance, road closures can enhance the health, reproduction, and number of animals in an area."
sent from my typewriter
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 30, 2014, 10:03:56 AM
I personally don't mind that they close some roads as long as we can access it on foot or bike. This is what the regulation pamphlet states:I wouldn't believe everything you read....
"Studies in the Pacific Northwest have shown that most big game animals avoid active roads by at least one-quarter mile, and some move as much as four miles to escape traffic. Closing roads can provide large undisturbed areas for wildlife, like elk, deer, bighorn sheep, eagles, and wild turkeys during critical times of the year. Intensively managed forests may have three to nine miles of road for each square mile of habitat. For each mile of road, at least four acres are directly removed as productive habitat. Animals need energy to survive. Energy spent moving away from disturbances can deplete the energy needed to survive to late spring or give birth to a healthy elk calf. By limiting disturbance, road closures can enhance the health, reproduction, and number of animals in an area."
sent from my typewriter
:chuckle: Yeah, I know I never see animals in the roads...especially eating all that browse (berry/alder/seedlings) that never grow along the sides of roads.
Post by: logger on July 30, 2014, 10:04:20 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on July 30, 2014, 10:17:08 AM
Post by: bobcat on July 30, 2014, 10:40:03 AM
How much money can they make by building and maintaining roads just so people can take the family for a drive in the woods? Very little.
Why spend money on roads that have no purpose anymore, other than recreation? I suppose we could ask for a tax increase so we could have more roads to drive on. :dunno:
Post by: fastdam on July 30, 2014, 10:49:41 AM
Post by: bigtex on July 30, 2014, 10:52:24 AM
:yeah:your 400 bucks in state license fees does not go to the feds for lands management.:yeah:
And people seem to not understand that. The only time you are giving $ to the USFS (or any other federal land management agency) is when you buy their parking, camping, launch, and access permits. The amount of tax dollars that get sent to these agencies equate to literally a couple pennies from each american.
For DNR, our hunting and fishing license $ don't get sent to DNR. Yet I hear all the time about people complaining about DNR closing "their" roads even though they paid to keep them open with license fees...No you do not! If you buy a Discover Pass then less than $10 will go to DNR, other then that the only money you are sending to DNR is through tax dollars, and DNR doesn't receive that much tax dollars.
Post by: Stein on July 30, 2014, 10:52:39 AM
Post by: bigtex on July 30, 2014, 10:55:17 AM
I understand the frustration but the roads on the National Forest were originally built for logging and/or mining. You know, activities that generate revenue for the government.Or an Access Pass to simply drive on USFS roads? :chuckle:
How much money can they make by building and maintaining roads just so people can take the family for a drive in the woods? Very little.
Why spend money on roads that have no purpose anymore, other than recreation? I suppose we could ask for a tax increase so we could have more roads to drive on. :dunno:
And before someone says "open more logging" it's not the USFS that is anti-logging. Its the environmental groups who spend every dollar they have to end logging, and thus waste federal money in lawsuits.
Post by: BetoBow on July 30, 2014, 10:58:14 AM
I guess it depends on your perspective. I think we can all agree that 50 F350's screaming through an area isn't helping any of the animal population. Personally, if I can bike or hike in and not have to listen to the parade of truck hunters, I'm happy.
:yeah:
Post by: jstone on July 30, 2014, 11:00:26 AM
Post by: logger on July 30, 2014, 11:13:35 AM
Post by: Mudman on July 30, 2014, 11:21:16 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 30, 2014, 11:25:47 AM
I see it this way. The land isnt the peoples. Its the Feds Gov. and they will do as they please. Now many will object to this and claim it belongs to the people, I know, it should. But does it? Sorry.
A government of, by, and for the people merely holds this land in trust for its beneficiaries, the people.
Post by: bobcat on July 30, 2014, 11:32:04 AM
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2014, 11:32:26 AM
:yeah:I see it this way. The land isnt the peoples. Its the Feds Gov. and they will do as they please. Now many will object to this and claim it belongs to the people, I know, it should. But does it? Sorry.
A government of, by, and for the people merely holds this land in trust for its beneficiaries, the people.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 30, 2014, 11:33:17 AM
The government isn't keeping anyone from using the land. Some of it just has to be hiked into instead of driving. What did people do before all the logging roads were built?
Homesteaded? :dunno:
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2014, 11:34:04 AM
The government isn't keeping anyone from using the land. Some of it just has to be hiked into instead of driving. What did people do before all the logging roads were built?They didn't use a majority of the land....
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bobcat on July 30, 2014, 11:37:47 AM
Yes you might have to walk 1 mile from your truck to get into an area that previously had an open road. :yike:
Seems to me that a few washed out roads is a good thing, for hunters and wildlife.
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
Okay, well the area we're talking about here, still has plenty of road access. You can still drive into the general area and hunt it.I agree with you there. For me this is more of a complaint of a broken system in general. Not so much this specific area. And to those who say that USFS would like to log but can't because of lawsuits thats a total farce. If they wanted to they would/could.
Yes you might have to walk 1 mile from your truck to get into an area that previously had an open road. :yike:
Seems to me that a few washed out roads is a good thing, for hunters and wildlife.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: logger on July 30, 2014, 11:50:04 AM
The government isn't keeping anyone from using the land. Some of it just has to be hiked into instead of driving. What did people do before all the logging roads were built?I don't believe it was much of a issue when the f.s was formed in 1905, however they are required to maintain and manage the land for the publics interest. national parks and wilderness exist for a reason and that perfectly ok by me. It boils down to they are not doing what they were formed to do. My argument has nothing to do with hunting, it's failed policy and the fact that it policy was orignally put in place for everybody to recreate not just a few.I am not a biker or atver or horse guy but they should have as much access as the hunter or the elderly or disabled or the city family that just wants to see the country.
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2014, 11:55:24 AM
:yeah:The government isn't keeping anyone from using the land. Some of it just has to be hiked into instead of driving. What did people do before all the logging roads were built?I don't believe it was much of a issue when the f.s was formed in 1905, however they are required to maintain and manage the land for the publics interest. national parks and wilderness exist for a reason and that perfectly ok by me. It boils down to they are not doing what they were formed to do. My argument has nothing to do with hunting, it's failed policy and the fact that it policy was orignally put in place for everybody to recreate not just a few.I am not a biker or atver or horse guy but they should have as much access as the hunter or the elderly or disabled or the city family that just wants to see the country.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: jackelope on July 30, 2014, 12:14:26 PM
The people that can't hike, don't like to hike, aren't capable of hiking, rely on roads for their income, etc all will oppose less roads.
I'm a fan of less roads. There's plenty of places for roadhunters to hunt even with less roads.
A lot of these places are soooooooooo full of roads it's almost impossible to get more than a mile or so from one. What fun is that? Hunters on top of hunters on top of dirtbikers on top of 4 wheelers.
:twocents:
Post by: logger on July 30, 2014, 12:25:59 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 30, 2014, 01:00:34 PM
Post by: Southpole on July 30, 2014, 01:03:51 PM
I got your point Mudman, the federal government doesn't represent and support "the people" anymore.I see it this way. The land isnt the peoples. Its the Feds Gov. and they will do as they please. Now many will object to this and claim it belongs to the people, I know, it should. But does it? Sorry.
A government of, by, and for the people merely holds this land in trust for its beneficiaries, the people.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on July 30, 2014, 02:08:14 PM
And it seems some here are just fine with that. I guess one doesn't miss what they never had eh?I got your point Mudman, the federal government doesn't represent and support "the people" anymore.I see it this way. The land isnt the peoples. Its the Feds Gov. and they will do as they please. Now many will object to this and claim it belongs to the people, I know, it should. But does it? Sorry.
A government of, by, and for the people merely holds this land in trust for its beneficiaries, the people.
Post by: Mudman on July 30, 2014, 02:26:23 PM
Post by: James on July 30, 2014, 02:40:28 PM
Everyone that enjoys hiking, is capable of hiking, doesn't mind hiking, etc will not have a problem with less roads.
The people that can't hike, don't like to hike, aren't capable of hiking, rely on roads for their income, etc all will oppose less roads.
I'm a fan of less roads. There's plenty of places for roadhunters to hunt even with less roads.
A lot of these places are soooooooooo full of roads it's almost impossible to get more than a mile or so from one. What fun is that? Hunters on top of hunters on top of dirtbikers on top of 4 wheelers.
:twocents:
:yeah:
I want less roads as well.
Post by: Kittman on July 30, 2014, 02:42:47 PM
Post by: gasman on July 30, 2014, 03:39:17 PM
The roads are there, so lets use them, PERIOD.
If you want an area to be roadless, to the NP or Wilderness, plenty of roadless areas there, Oh wait, I for got, you don't wan to travel that far to be in a roadless area so you want less roads to accommodate your needs, SORRY, MY BAD......
As for animals dont come near roads, BS, where do you think road kill comes from? ANIMALS ON OR CROSSING THE ROADS......
In a nut shell, if you want less roads, go to an area with less roads and let the rest of be.
Post by: bobcat on July 30, 2014, 03:46:33 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on July 30, 2014, 04:01:43 PM
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2014, 04:15:31 PM
The problem is it's very expensive to maintain roads. Those who expect every road that's ever been built to be maintained so it's driveable by the average passenger vehicle, maybe you can somehow be taxed at a higher rate than the rest of us. :dunno:
Or they could log... which would easily pay for it and create better habitat.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: gasman on July 30, 2014, 04:21:46 PM
and in turn, with good logging practice, it can create jobs, and provide a place for more food to grow for animals, like deer, elk, etc.
which can also lead to spreading out animals in a more wide variance of areas, and increase there population, instead of confining them to small food areas and having an over population of animals for the food that is available to them, kind of like what has happened in the Mt St Helens are.
And with more jobs, that means more tax money collected.........
Maintaining roads and good forest practice can lead to many wonderful things on both sides..... BUT WE GOT TO CUT ALL THE RED TAPE.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 30, 2014, 04:26:43 PM
The problem is it's very expensive to maintain roads. Those who expect every road that's ever been built to be maintained so it's driveable by the average passenger vehicle, maybe you can somehow be taxed at a higher rate than the rest of us. :dunno:
And maybe you could pay the extra where you want less roads since that is of higher value to you.
FWIW, it's hard to read anything into it casually, but here is the NFS budget justification. It appears that historically, road maintenance was only alotted $18M, although there is some confusion as to what happened in the funding process since 2008, and what happened in 2013. p. 316
http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FS15-FS-Budget-Justification.pdf (http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FS15-FS-Budget-Justification.pdf)
That's on an annual budget of about $5-6 billion, or about 0.3%, or not even a penny on the dollar. And that is not taking into account the 2013 spending levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forest_Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forest_Service)
I welcome sanity checks on the figures and math as these are unfamiliar numbers and documents to me.
Post by: elk247 on July 30, 2014, 04:44:05 PM
Tens of millions of dollar's worth of timber dies and rots each year. It goes to waste. Deer elk and bear have proven time and again that they can't survive exclusively in an "old growth forest" and eat ferns and salal.The problem is it's very expensive to maintain roads. Those who expect every road that's ever been built to be maintained so it's driveable by the average passenger vehicle, maybe you can somehow be taxed at a higher rate than the rest of us. :dunno:
Or they could log... which would easily pay for it and create better habitat.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 30, 2014, 04:47:15 PM
Tens of millions of dollar's worth of timber dies and rots each year. It goes to waste. Deer elk and bear have proven time and again that they can't survive exclusively in an "old growth forest" and eat ferns and salal.The problem is it's very expensive to maintain roads. Those who expect every road that's ever been built to be maintained so it's driveable by the average passenger vehicle, maybe you can somehow be taxed at a higher rate than the rest of us. :dunno:
Or they could log... which would easily pay for it and create better habitat.
sent from my typewriter
And the roads that the logging operations create/maintain are separate from funds alluded to above.
Post by: bobcat on July 30, 2014, 04:53:12 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 30, 2014, 04:53:51 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 30, 2014, 04:54:17 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 30, 2014, 05:03:44 PM
You add product to a market, and prices may fall, depending on any number of factors.
I would not expect a number of small operations to impact the market as just quick numbers show US jobs on the order of 80,000 and payrolls on the order of $3B (so I'd expect the gross product revenues to be some multiple of that), the increased jobs will have some multiple of increase in demand, and other more cost-prohibitive operations (say shipping from Canada) may be displaced in the market. And there are the demands in Asia as you note.
Post by: grundy53 on July 30, 2014, 05:11:41 PM
I'm not an economist or a forester, but I would think that if they did begin logging the National Forests again, wouldn't that flood the market with timber and bring the prices down even lower than they are currently? I could see the Forest service losing money by putting up more timber sales and building more roads. Prices are already so low that most private timber companies export their logs to Asia. The state logs stay here but only because they're required to by Iaw.No way would they lose money.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Curly on July 30, 2014, 05:35:26 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 30, 2014, 11:36:39 PM
If you want an area to be roadless, to the NP or Wilderness, plenty of roadless areas there, Oh wait, I for got, you don't wan to travel that far to be in a roadless area so you want less roads to accommodate your needs, SORRY, MY BAD
Not sure if you're talking to me or not but the last thing I'm concerned with is how far I have to drive to hunt. I have made 5 trips to the Blues this year plus a trip to Colville. Can't get much further than that from here.
Post by: huntnnw on July 30, 2014, 11:39:18 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 31, 2014, 07:06:34 AM
This BS is unheard of in ID! roads are cleared and open always!!
........................and the hunting is much, much better too. Even with ATV's.
Post by: bobcat on July 31, 2014, 08:02:52 AM
This BS is unheard of in ID! roads are cleared and open always!!
........................and the hunting is much, much better too. Even with ATV's.
Of course the hunting is better. Idaho has 19 people per square mile, while Washington has 104 people per square mile.
It also makes sense that people in Idaho would have more freedom to drive more places with less restrictions than we have in this state.
It's simply a matter of having much fewer people, which correlates to a much lower impact on natural resources.
Post by: baldopepper on July 31, 2014, 08:20:59 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 31, 2014, 03:51:43 PM
This BS is unheard of in ID! roads are cleared and open always!!
........................and the hunting is much, much better too. Even with ATV's.
Of course the hunting is better. Idaho has 19 people per square mile, while Washington has 104 people per square mile.
It also makes sense that people in Idaho would have more freedom to drive more places with less restrictions than we have in this state.
It's simply a matter of having much fewer people, which correlates to a much lower impact on natural resources.
We have about 7200 people for right around 7000 sq miles here... :tup: :tup:
Post by: gasman on July 31, 2014, 04:11:11 PM
If you want an area to be roadless, to the NP or Wilderness, plenty of roadless areas there, Oh wait, I for got, you don't wan to travel that far to be in a roadless area so you want less roads to accommodate your needs, SORRY, MY BAD
Not sure if you're talking to me or not but the last thing I'm concerned with is how far I have to drive to hunt. I have made 5 trips to the Blues this year plus a trip to Colville. Can't get much further than that from here.
No, not dirrected at you specifically ;)
Post by: Terry Dean on October 18, 2014, 10:21:08 PM
Post by: Expedition Scout on October 19, 2014, 08:29:16 AM
Additionally, you need to look at it from the Fed side. They are still dealing with funding issues from the Gov shut down a few years ago and additional cuts each year until 2016. That means only the worst/most pressing roads get attention and others are closed due to funding shortfalls.
The worst year is still to come!!
Post by: timberfaller on October 19, 2014, 11:33:26 PM
To all you "less road" people, THANKS, WHAT did I ever do to YOU??? If it weren't for roads my hunting days would be over. My disability(logging and cattle) payments don't cover the "gas" cost to travel all over the state or outa state. Come tell me to my face, "just get out and hike, you'll enjoy the outdoor experience more". If I could afford a ATV, it would become as important as my hunting firearms.
AND YES I know there are abusers, but there are those who NEED extra help staying with the hunting sport!!
I just spent two days in the Bee Hive area, Mt bikers, Dirt bikers, target shooters all the while I was trying for a deer. I wish I could get to areas where I used to log in!!! Oh that's right, they burned up this year AGAIN :bash: Little Bridge Cr.
Road maintenance is not a "cost" issue its a "worker" issue, my wife spent a lot of years in a USFS office. USFS wants only "paper pushers" and BIGGER "Regional offices". YOU also have to "understand" the USFS has been "taken over" by the environmental movement(known as the Employee's Union) We call them "greenies" for short!!
OUR timber industry started "failing" when "imported" was cheaper then domestic and "access denied" became the norm. Then a new batch of College grads who'd been brainwashed into thinking THEY could save the planet from the evil loggers and miners and Farmers AND joining Green Peace didn't get them to their pre-conceived GOALS for saving Mother Earth(hippie rag for those who never heard of it)!
Some of you on here are to YOUNG to remember the glory days of Green Peace. YOU don't hear much about them anymore, WHY? They figured it OUT, that instead of "protesting" it would be easier to get "educated" and the Feds. being who they are, would HIRE them and put them into positions that made "decision's"!! Wall-la!!! problem solved :yike: Welcome to today's USFS
Rant over, going to bed!! :hello:
Post by: huntrights on October 20, 2014, 12:33:05 PM
Closing and/or decommissioning roads (removing them from the landscape) definitely has impacts on hunting and hunters. From the point of view of some physically fit and capable hunters in their late teens to those in their fifties, this may not be a big deal. Hike in and hike out with an elk or deer quarter strapped to their freighter frame, and making 5 or 6 round trips – no problem for some. Some hunters in this category seem to like the idea of closing and/or decommissioning roads so they can have that canyon or mountainside all to themselves. It’s nice not to see other hunter orange wandering into your ideal and “private” hunting area.
However, all hunters should try to look at the bigger and more important picture. New hunter recruitment and hunter retention is critical to ensuring our hunting heritage and traditions continue for generations to come. If hunter numbers decline, our hunting heritage will most definitely be suffocated and destroyed by anti-hunting/animal-rights zealots and environmental extremists. Our strength is in our numbers and our resolve to protect our hunting heritage (rights). New hunter recruitment comes primarily from youth and women; hunter retention means keeping older hunters participating in hunting activities. We should also be very cognizant of promoting and supporting hunting opportunities for people that have disabilities; remember there are many wounded warriors that fought for our freedoms. It shouldn’t take too much thought to understand if access to good hunting territory is cut off to those that may be less physically capable (i.e. youth, women, and older hunters), then new hunter recruitment and hunter retention will suffer. If we don’t maintain and grow our numbers with new hunter recruitment and hunter retention, our hunting heritage will wither away. This is what the anti-hunting zealots and environmental extremists would love to see.
It should also be noted that road closures tend to create severe “parking lot” situations at hunt area access points; this is not good for hunters or hunting. Even with existing roads, there is plenty of land out there to hike into for those adventurous hunters that are physically able and that desire a mountain canyon all to themselves.
It is not as if thousands of miles of new roads are being built; we know the opposite is true with excessive road closures and decommissioning. We should promote keeping what we have not only to encourage new hunter recruitment and hunter retention, but for many other very important reasons (Read the letter provided via the link). Jamie Herrera Beutler’s Roads to Trails proposal should be promoted and supported. Please read her letter to Janine Clayton, Forest Supervisor of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
http://herrerabeutler.house.gov/uploadedfiles/janine_clayton_forest_roads_analysis.pdf
Related articles:
“Herrera Beutler addresses future of Gifford Pinchot roads”
http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/mar/28/1ce-herrera-beutler-addresses-gifford-pinchot-road/
“Herrera Beutler Calls For Turning Forest Roads To Trails”
http://www.opb.org/news/article/herrera-beutler-calls-for-turning-forest-roads-to-trails/
Post by: theshade on October 20, 2014, 12:38:55 PM
Post by: huntrights on October 20, 2014, 12:50:25 PM
You need to read about "Roads to Trails". Roads can be closed, but they don't have to be destroyed. Destruction is costly and a total waste. "Roads to Trails" keeps the road beds available for future use. While it is a "trail", the road bed still provides reasonable access to hikers, hunters, and other outdoor enthusiasts.
Post by: Terry Dean on October 20, 2014, 07:19:28 PM
Post by: logger on October 20, 2014, 08:30:28 PM