...or at least part of it. The reader, being the suspicious cynic that he is, thinks the title has been chosen as a set-up for satire and facetiousness. Not this time. It is just too easy to mock the federales right now. Where's the challenge?
Besides, readers know that I am basically a "small-government" classical liberal. If they disagree, then I am annoying them. If they do agree, then I am boring them with an all-too-familiar sermon.
In politics people can lose their credibility when they become too ideologically predictable and uniform. They lose their individuality. Instead of working out opinions on their own, based on their own experiences in life, they end up merely repeating ideological package-deals, bumper sticker slogans, shibboleths, and mantras.
Consider, briefly, an analogy from the investment world: do you really trust perma-bulls or perma-bears? If an investment advisor can't change gears based on changes in the world, is he anything other than a salesman (especially the perma-bulls) or a member of the gold-buggering, gloom and doom genre (the perma-bears)?
What caused this topic to interest me is that I just finished a visit to a mountain biking area in a national forest near Dolores, CO. It was the kind of experience that leaves a guy with nothing but optimistic feelings.
There were no fees and no obnoxious anti-camping or anti-dog rules like you routinely find in other categories of public land. The area was quite popular, but not over-crowded. There were no paved roads, paved parking lots, expensive toilets or other pseudo-facilities that draw in the mass-tourists and serve as an excuse to charge fees.
Maybe this suggests a general technique for the traveler: go to not-so-famous places that are in the geographical penumbra of a disgustingly famous place. You might find some useful facilities and services without suffering the disadvantages of excessive popularity. Besides, it's fun to be around people who enjoy the same activities as you, as long as the number of them is pleasant. Solitude sucks. Sharing outdoor pleasures with a moderate number of similar-minded people is one of the great pleasures in life -- one that is more difficult to experience every year, in our over-populated world.
This isn't a great area for a cellphone/internet signal, but because it was only a few miles from town, there was a useable signal in some places. It was close enough to town that I went to the coffee shop, to the grocery store to buy their famous pies, and to watch an NFL game in a bar/restaurant that had a gorgeous deck right on the Dolores River.
Was it just luck that the trails were so close to town, or did the Forest Service actually have enough common sense to see how everybody wins by keeping recreational areas close to town? I'm not used to thinking of government agencies as sentient beings, or if they are sentient I expect it to be malevolent. Several times now, over the last year, I have experienced mountain biking trail areas set up by the Forest Service or the BLM that were enjoyable and close to town.
It wasn't a narrow-minded, intolerant land use situation such as the "ban-everything-but-hiking" approach favored by holier-than-thou, environmentalist, elitist, Greenie pricks from the big city. It was a "big tent" approach; the area was free to dispersed campers, families, horsemen, dogs, walkers, and runners. The regular forest roads that intersected the single tracks were available to ATVers. There were a few of them, not a horde of them. I always make a point of waving in a friendly way to ATVers.
There was nothing special about the land. It was "just" pleasant and enjoyable. Nobody will ever put a photograph of it on the front cover of a glossie travel rag, like National Geographic "Traveler", if it still exists in the internet age. In fact I didn't see anybody with cameras there. The land was basically flattish ponderosa forest. The trails were gentle, smooth, fast, and safe! Perfect. Why do people think that mountain bikers need mountains to have fun? The truth is quite the opposite.
But I did get a special kick out of the thick oak understory. It was red-brown or orange. I am incapable of looking at an oak leaf without fluttering my eyelashes a little.
People whose interest is activity and motion and skill, are quite capable of having a wonderful time on land that is "merely" moderately attractive. Keep in mind that there is 50 times as much of that kind land as there is of the spectacular places -- and it's only these latter places that are closed right now.
If a person is stubbornly unwilling or unable to enjoy wonderful outdoor activities in places of ordinary beauty, then they have missed a great opportunity in life. Rather than useless bitching about the temporary shutdown of government tourist traps, it would be more constructive to reflect on the habits of their own heart, and turn these temporary lemons into the lemonade of a broader and more flexible appreciation of public lands.
Besides, readers know that I am basically a "small-government" classical liberal. If they disagree, then I am annoying them. If they do agree, then I am boring them with an all-too-familiar sermon.
In politics people can lose their credibility when they become too ideologically predictable and uniform. They lose their individuality. Instead of working out opinions on their own, based on their own experiences in life, they end up merely repeating ideological package-deals, bumper sticker slogans, shibboleths, and mantras.
Consider, briefly, an analogy from the investment world: do you really trust perma-bulls or perma-bears? If an investment advisor can't change gears based on changes in the world, is he anything other than a salesman (especially the perma-bulls) or a member of the gold-buggering, gloom and doom genre (the perma-bears)?
What caused this topic to interest me is that I just finished a visit to a mountain biking area in a national forest near Dolores, CO. It was the kind of experience that leaves a guy with nothing but optimistic feelings.
There were no fees and no obnoxious anti-camping or anti-dog rules like you routinely find in other categories of public land. The area was quite popular, but not over-crowded. There were no paved roads, paved parking lots, expensive toilets or other pseudo-facilities that draw in the mass-tourists and serve as an excuse to charge fees.
Maybe this suggests a general technique for the traveler: go to not-so-famous places that are in the geographical penumbra of a disgustingly famous place. You might find some useful facilities and services without suffering the disadvantages of excessive popularity. Besides, it's fun to be around people who enjoy the same activities as you, as long as the number of them is pleasant. Solitude sucks. Sharing outdoor pleasures with a moderate number of similar-minded people is one of the great pleasures in life -- one that is more difficult to experience every year, in our over-populated world.
This isn't a great area for a cellphone/internet signal, but because it was only a few miles from town, there was a useable signal in some places. It was close enough to town that I went to the coffee shop, to the grocery store to buy their famous pies, and to watch an NFL game in a bar/restaurant that had a gorgeous deck right on the Dolores River.
Was it just luck that the trails were so close to town, or did the Forest Service actually have enough common sense to see how everybody wins by keeping recreational areas close to town? I'm not used to thinking of government agencies as sentient beings, or if they are sentient I expect it to be malevolent. Several times now, over the last year, I have experienced mountain biking trail areas set up by the Forest Service or the BLM that were enjoyable and close to town.
It wasn't a narrow-minded, intolerant land use situation such as the "ban-everything-but-hiking" approach favored by holier-than-thou, environmentalist, elitist, Greenie pricks from the big city. It was a "big tent" approach; the area was free to dispersed campers, families, horsemen, dogs, walkers, and runners. The regular forest roads that intersected the single tracks were available to ATVers. There were a few of them, not a horde of them. I always make a point of waving in a friendly way to ATVers.
There was nothing special about the land. It was "just" pleasant and enjoyable. Nobody will ever put a photograph of it on the front cover of a glossie travel rag, like National Geographic "Traveler", if it still exists in the internet age. In fact I didn't see anybody with cameras there. The land was basically flattish ponderosa forest. The trails were gentle, smooth, fast, and safe! Perfect. Why do people think that mountain bikers need mountains to have fun? The truth is quite the opposite.
But I did get a special kick out of the thick oak understory. It was red-brown or orange. I am incapable of looking at an oak leaf without fluttering my eyelashes a little.
People whose interest is activity and motion and skill, are quite capable of having a wonderful time on land that is "merely" moderately attractive. Keep in mind that there is 50 times as much of that kind land as there is of the spectacular places -- and it's only these latter places that are closed right now.
If a person is stubbornly unwilling or unable to enjoy wonderful outdoor activities in places of ordinary beauty, then they have missed a great opportunity in life. Rather than useless bitching about the temporary shutdown of government tourist traps, it would be more constructive to reflect on the habits of their own heart, and turn these temporary lemons into the lemonade of a broader and more flexible appreciation of public lands.
Comments
You can't have it both ways. If you want the feds out of your life, you have to shrink their numbers and their infiltration into EVERYTHING. Where are they not? They are not supposed to have the power they do according to the Constitution. The founding fathers wanted to limit that kind of central power......that's what they had just fought a revolution over.
In fact, I don't know why we don't sell off all the national parks to private industry, of course, making sure in the deal that there is no development, no reselling without approval, no breaking the land up, etc. etc. We can apply mucho bucks for this prime land to the national debt and then proceed to collect mucho property taxes.
Ok, now you can tell me i missed the point...AGAIN!
Are you people buying this??? Anyone???
Box Canyon Mark
Believe it or not, I agree with your logic. I charge you with "sins of omission", not commission. You completely omitted the concept of diminishing returns. I'll bet you apply that idea to most things in your life. Most sane people do.
So the only question is, how do you know when you've reached the point of diminishing returns as far as mountain biking is concerned. If the camera was the point of the whole experience, then I too would say that the bigger and more spectacular the scenery is, the better. We would be in complete aesthetic agreement about the Great Outdoors.
But I think the point of diminishing returns is determined by the bicycle wheel, the size of the human body, the length of a dog's legs, and the aerobic capability of the human body. And the flattish ponderosa forest near Dolores fit beautifully with those objective criteria.
I saw some of those people that were working 7 days a week; bringing in the crops that will feed a lot of us while we enjoy the 'pretties' again when they reopen. I was too early for the fall color in KS but there were plenty of trees to provide a good show. The COE Campground that I stayed in near Alma, NE was not boondocking but I was no more crowded than the boondockers in Quartzsite, AZ during the winter months.
The tradition of public lands, forests, marshes, waterways, waterfronts, and shorelines goes back thousands of years. There were "commons" in merry old England until the Napoleonic Wars, when they were "enclosed", that is, sold off to rich people to raise money for the wars.
"Thinking about all this my mission should be to find unknown spaces less visited and unadvertised. I know how to find beauty everywhere, even on those forever straight roads lined with cornfields as far as the eyes can see."
He wrote that after his disappointment in finding a camp in the Moab area which he described this way.
"There is no more free camping in this area. BLM lands, those wide open spaces have been replaced by concrete slabs and cement porta potty’s. A generic fire ring, all for the mere sum of $15, half for us since I am old [er]. I remembered some dispersed camping up by Deadhorse Point. With no choice in the matter while we arrived at the gate.
She: “do you have a reservation? we are full.”
Me : “no I don’t, but would like to make one for May 16th 2015 at around 4:30pm please. If the masseuse is not booked that evening I would like my massage at 6 o’clock and for dinner I will have my steak medium rare. Cheesecake would be a plus…”
She: …did not think it was funny."