By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
But you forgot to mention about for whom Lake Powell was built.
So. California
Which is the main reason the Colorado does not flow to the Gulf of Calif. any longer.
To me it seems that anyone who chooses to ditch the marked trails and trapse off into the wilderness is usually ignorant and inexperienced whether skier or snowmobiler.
I personally have never attended an avalanche course because it's not an issue here in WI/IL.
Anyways, I'll just continuing enjoying the wilderness using whatever method of transportation I choose to employ whether it be my snowmobile, my mountain bike, my hiking boots, or whatever.
Also, the monetary impact of looking for a &$#@^&*($ xcountry skier who got in over his head far exceeds that for looking for a 4X4 driver in the back country because except in rare cases a 4X driver is better equipped and has a road to follow.
Do you KNOW how many newly created wilderness area guards that money spent finding skiers could fund?!?
Look, scott, I respect yours and spoogs opinions, and I do not think a 4X4, jetskier, speed boat etc user on this board would go out of his way to damage the environment.
BUT...
resign yourselves to the FACT, there are more people using motorized recreation equipment than not.
I have canoed Lake Louise in Canada, canoed the Delaware, conoed Grand Lake, rafeted the Arkansas and Yampa rivers, hiked 2-3 deep woods trails in Rocky Mtn NAtional Park too. I am too big to ride the mules down Grand Canyon but then again the whackos from PETA would get on my case about that... So do not think I have not done the things you like.
But no, a STRONG no to locking up the beauties of this country for dozens to enjoy while leaving out hundreds of thousands. And that is about the ratio. You see, the argument "It is worth it if it saves one _______." fill in the blank. No it is not worth it sometimes.
You want Wilderness? Charter the flight that takes you out to the wilds of Alaska and LEAVES you for two weeks to fend for food with the bears.
What too tough for you? I have know a few that have done it and would love to do it myself, given I could take my .300 Win and slip in my Ranger too(just kidding about the Ranger).
Actually trying to go to Kodiak for launch support but may just put the 300 in the baggage if I do. That would be a great experience to see Alaskan wilderness.
question is on the designation of hundreds of
thousands of acres of NEW wilderness areas. All by
executive order, NOT the will of the people
effected. "
Wrong. The people have spoken. Do you think Clinton has created these areas just for the heck of it? NO. I and hundreds of thousands of others have mailed him asking him to start the roadless initiative, and to creat the new Monuments.
For the Roadless Initiative ALONE, Clinton got 800,000 letters in favor of it. This was in the FIRST comment period, last year. The country has also shown OVERWHELMING support for his National Monument Designations.
The only people crying out are the extremists, such as Helen Chenoweth of Idaho, the Colorado "republican" delegation, and Don "Oil-corrput" Young of Alaska.
Guess what Cspousner:
The National Forests and Parks are EVERYONES lands, not just the people that live next to them. It's high time you understood and recognized that.
Recently, Mike Dombeck Chief of the USFS, proposed the Roadless
Initiative.
This plan would protect the remaining roadless areas in our national forests from roadbuilding and logging.
Currently, 99.2 percent of the lower 48 is roaded. That leaves .8 percent that is not. And only half of that .8 percent is protected.
Right now, 16 percent of our national forest land base
is protected wilderness. The rest is open to motors and logging.
These new proposed roadless areas total 41 million acres. They would be protected from logging and roadbuilding.
They would allow Off road vehicle use.
This would bring balance to the national forest, adding to the 16 percent and preserving around 25 percent of our national forests from logging and roadbuilding.
This is it, this is the last of the roadless areas. There are no more in the lower 48.
There are 380,000 miles of roads in our national forests, enough to get to the moon and back, and more than our entire interstate system.
These areas would not be official protected wilderness, but they would be protected from logging and roadbuilding. People who enjoy offroad motor sports WILL be allowed in proposed areas.
There is a public comment period open RIGHT NOW that ends June 17th. The Forest Service is asking for your comments on the issue.
Here is alink with a national map showing our remaining roadless areas:
http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/map.cfm
Come on and show your support for our remaining wildlands.
If you want to read a plethora of information on this subject, you can go to the USFS Roadless Initiative website:
http://roadless.fs.fed.us/
If your mind is made up, you can just copy this statement (or write your own)and send it by email to the USFS email adress at:
roadlessdeis@fs.fed.us
This is the part to copy:
I support the FULL protection of the inventoried roadless areas in the Roadless Initiative.
This means I support zero logging and roadbuilding in the proposed roadless areas.
The national forest system is out of balance. Thank you for your time.
(then add name, street address)
------------
Thanks people!
As for the "other" convsersations going on here? Like hug the trees and kiss the yellow-bellied sap-sucker? I highly doubt whether any of you really know what you are talking about or even live the lives you portray on this board. Most likely you are parroting what you thought was kewl from people who intentionally dress up like Mad Max and who are just smart enough to fool you into idolizing them.
That's all. My two cents. You will know who you are if you find my comments a personal insult or hard to believe.
Is it owning and using a truck or enjoying the outdoors? Is it going outside and snowmobiling or canoeing?
Are you so wrangled to a computer or video game or something that you find it impossible to believe that people actually do things OUTSIDE???
Try wiping the cheetos off of your shirt, pry the yourself away from the TV, and go out the door into the big scary OUTSIDE!
By the way, I do live in the NW, about 45 minutes from MT Hood. A little geography lesson, MT Hood is in the Cascade Range, along with MT ST Helens, Rainer, Jefferson, 3 sisters... I visit the Cascades with my Ranger about 4 times a month.. and use my 4x4 as it was intended to be used....
See you in the hills..
have mailed him asking him to start the roadless
initiative, and to create(i did a spelling correction for you here) the new Monuments."
You and the others DO NOT know what is best for the state of Colorado and Utah, states that HAD STARTED to put in place measures to have JOINT use of the lands.
If the condition of forest/land use in ILL. is your strongest suit, you fail to convince me.
Do not ruin my state.
An article in todays Rocky Mountain News totally supports my position on forest mismanagement. It cites 100 years of mismanagement by the people suppose to PROTECT the forests has placed them in a position of exploding into fire storms.
The title is "Thick Forests Certain To Burn Again. Century of management aimed at avoiding fire leaves conditions ripe for more conflagarations" I quote:
"Small fires once rid the froests of..."
this is the KEY phrase I was trying to get across so read closely...
"...dead wood on the ground and thinned the number of trees. They also created openings that acts as natural fire breaks. But after a century of suppressing fires, Colorado forests are a vast expanse of flammable trees, packed crown to crown, with few openings. They are an easy mark for disease, which leaves behind dry dead trees."
Ever see what pine beetle does to a forest? Ever see 10,000 acres of downed spruce like is sitting off Rabbit Ears Pass right now? I continue:
"We have these interconnected forests without openings and now we have people building houses in these areas." said Becky Oarmenter, wildlife biologist ant the US Froest Servise's Boulder District. "Now we have a true safety issue on our hands."
"State and federal officials say they want to restore balance to the forest by cutting down some trees, setting controlled fires or both. Two demonstration projects were being redied even before the latest fires."
But my other point is you do not set these fires when the wind is blowing 70 mph as in NM and the Sand Dunes where in excess of 15,000 acres were burned up.
The article goes on to cite the San Isable Nat. Forest as one of the demonstration projects. Even though it is very dry, that forest has not burned.
I drive thru the San Isable, Pike, Roosevelt and other National Forests and there are ALWAYS signs in these areas that boldly state "No Motorized vehicles beyond this point".
I do not know where spoog gets his figures on 380,000 miles of roads but the San Isable, which is a VERY large forest, only has 800 miles of roads AND trails. I do not know the exact number of acres in the 9, count them 9 wilderness areas in the San Isable NF alone but I stopped counting at 200 sq miles which is 130,000 acres.
First I think, no, I KNOW spoogs numbers are fudged. Second, setting aside 130,000 acres in ONE national forest is quite a bit for the few hundred, maybe a thousand wilderness visitors, leaving maybe 2/3 of the rest of the forest for the tens of thousands of campers, 4 wheelers, ATV'ers, snow mobilers.
The national forest here have signs "Land of many uses". Spoog and perhaps others seem to want to change that to something like "Land of one use, vehicle use restricted after sign".
You think I do not care about the environment? Heck, I shed tears almost looking down at the high density housing in Highlands Ranch, knowing that just 10 years ago cattle grazed, antelope ran there, buffalo grazed there. Until a California developer that ruined Orange county came in and subdivided lots for houses 10-15 feet apart for as far as the eye can see. That is sad.
eagle:
I do not disagree about keeping the wilderness areas nor have I suggested getting rid of some of those areas NOR have I said do not make any new areas. The vastness of the grab by people who cannot manage what they have is part of my beef.
Lets just for argument say there are 1,000 visitors to the 130,000 (ext) acres in the 9 wilderness areas of the San Isabel. That average is 130 acres per person. Now when I travel a 20 mile 4X4 road, which is 10 feet wide, what do I get to use, maybe 60 acres total? Bu I am sharing with thousands.
That is the whacko's idea of fair.
first point : skiers: an intermediate skier (skied at least 20 times) CANNOT Ski in avalanche prone terain. Many advanced skiers have a hard time skiing 35 degree terain with a foot of powder on top of it. anyone who has stood on top of a chute like that will attest that it scares the bejesus out of you. if a resort has terain like this there are signs warning you of potential death. intermediate skiiers DO not VENTURE there trust me.
Rescue Costs: I Pay for a wilderness permit that covers rescues.. he!! i pay taxes for rescues.. I personally accept i take my life in my own hands when i ski. If i die i die doing something i love, if we could all be so lucky. and rescues are nothing compared to how much we spend on building roads in the moutains. or plowing roads... or maintaining roads.
my oppinion the more wilderness areas the better. i would be happy if they let NO one in .. People have the rest of the world, let nature have its own little place too..
It could work, but it takes planning, and that is lacking in the current management of federal lands.
And to lump all the blame for the damage on motorized forest users is unfair. One of the recent fires here is being blamed on a whacko guy that alternates living in a tent or car, and the other on teenagers, none caused by natural acts. So add the NM fire, the Sand Dunes fire, you have man, in some cases ineptly trying to tame nature, causing great harm.
No harm caused by my or anyones 4X4, a snowmobiler or an ATV'er.
Wanna pay my share?
Quite frankly, living in Highlands Ranch, I can see why you long for the open spaces where you cannot hear the guy next door cough.
Do not take it personal, just my opinion...
And it should be restricted and we 4 wheel drive uses should police ourselves.
What stops you, a sign saying that? A guy taking tickets?
Just curious knowing all the x-county skiers that get stranded out of bounds, many who willfully ski out of bounds for the thrill.
A land of many uses, getting more restrictive every day.
so just by limiting the automobile in our parks and wildeness areas we make these areas seem infinately larger.
And on highlands ranch. I completely agree... its not my house its a freinds.. i spent the last 3 years living in summit county Sking and playing while i was young... i left there to to finish my education so i can live the life i want for myself..
Taxes... only if you agree to pay mine as far as roadbuilding goes
I do not disagree with you regarding motorized boating to a degree. Smaller lakes should and do restrict the size of motors.
Pueblo Res. can handle larger faster boats.
Tell ya what, will pay your share of 4X4 trail upkeep...
My point is that here in Colorado there IS a lot of wilderness area, as there should be. But, read that RM News article I cited. It states rather directly, that letting a forest go for 100 years is bad.
I am serious about joint use to clear and make the forests safer. Knowing a logging operation, it would have to be regulated and controlled to a degree which is acceptable to me. Heck, take some Govt workers to remove the trees to a place where a logger can pick em up. Then everyone wins.
Still seriously question spoogs numbers such as for roads. Fringe groups like that inflate numbers to make the point. San Isabel is one of the largest forests in the nation and it, on its govt provided map states 800 miles in trails and roads.
Perhaps some people here should bid on a piece of land in Montana that is available. The house from it is in Calif though. And the former resident is in Florence, Co. his room and board paid at the Correctional Facility.
Remember him, Teddy K.?. Hey, didn't he swear by a book by AlGore?
Had to take the Ranger in today. While cleaning mud/dirt small furry animals from the frame from trail rides, noticed a wet front on the xfer case near the yoke. It turned out to be a fitting for the pressure vent turned slightly that caused the leak. They filled the case and I was on my way.
So be on the lookout for something like that if under your vehicle.
While in they just routinely changed out the wiper switch and GEM module. Did not have the heart to tell them they had just done that when it was in for 25K service.
VINCE:
Changed your front brakes yet? I am coming up on 29K and there is a slight whooshing noise. Bought the parts from NAPA. If you have done it, any tricks?
Also, ever check on a front receiver hitch? My winch should be here this week. Looking for recomendations.
Oh my! Lots more here and gas is a buck 53 too!
It does not take a tree hugging hippie to understand that motor vehicles are more intrusive on the environment then pedestrian activities. A snow mobile or ATV being used "by the book" still polutes. To say that a hiker or skiier can leave behind some litter is missing the point completely, so can a snowmobiler. A freaking bear can knock over your trash can and drag some litter into the woods but what does that have to do with anything?
Just my opinion
Well aware of the difference between a right and a privilege, taught it for many years. However every citizen has the right to access public lands. And speaking of public lands, the MAJORITY of W. Colo is govt lands. I have never said that someone should be allowed to drive wherever they want. There are multiple restrictions in NG land, for example, where only ATV's can go or in many cases no motorized vehicle.
If you go to some 4X4 sites, and I will post the URL's, you see words that mirror the Nat. Forest words of a land of many uses. You see such words aa "TREAD Lightly": http://www.fourwheeler.com/adventure/tdlight.html
http://www.treadlightly.org/who_we_are.html
You see four wheel drive ethics:
http://www.4x4now.com/bb0497.html
You see people attempting to work together for everyone to enjoy the wilds of this great land, equal opportunity.
and compare to the map spoog provided. Se the difference?
It is in the SIZE of the remaining public lands. MY map, from the Sangres information are accurately shows the total public lands where in many cases access is restricted. His shows only wilderness areas but fails to identify the restrictions placed on the rest of the federal land.
mvig, you cannot just whip off the road and go off 4 wheeling at every turn. And if I ever saw someone trying to do that, I would turn em in in a New York second.
My point? I think off-road people strive to maintain the balance. I think radical extream environmentalist want it ALL behind lock and key and inflate numbers to do that. Also, it is not the motorized off-roader that is spiking trees, putting people in danger and also setting up forests for the big burn to come.
It has happened:
Australia, Colorado(4times of note Buffalo Creek, HiMeadow, Drake and Left Hand Canyon), New Mexico etc.
Balance the access, work with timber industry instead of trying to injure people and work with the off-roader.
190,000+
leaks a bit but runs well enough to outclimb me in one spot.
Found a good mudding pic of a Ranger, gotta go get the URL:
Here ya go:
http://www.fordranger.com/offroad/50264.html
Oh BTW saw one TRD on my trip Sat. Parked in the parking lot being used as a lunch table. Asked the guy about Mine road and he said he did not know.
He never goes off-road.. .
Your map of Colorado public lands is just THAT.
There is a DIFFERENCE between maps ROADLESS LANDS and maps of all PUBLIC LANDS.
I PROVIDED A MAP of the remaining ROADLESS LANDS.
You then mistakingly compared that map with a map you provided of ALL PUBLIC LANDS.
THe MAP I PROVIDED was a ROADLESS LAND map.
THe map you provided is a PUBLIC LANDS map. That is not a ROADLESS LANDS ONLY map.
MY map showed the REMAINING ROADLESS LANDS on our NATIONAL FORESTS.
YOUR map showed ALL national forest and public lands in Colorado.
As usual, you cloud the issue with ignorance.
Maybe you should refrain from this discussion until you can stick to the subject at hand.
You have done the same thing with the RAnger argument.
instead of trying to injure people and work with
the off-roader."
The access is balanced. IT's balanced for the motor and road crowd. Over 90 PERCENT of the lower 48 is roaded.
Again, here is a link to a map of our last remaining roadless areas:
http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/map.cfm
Look at this map gang. Cspounser advocates cutting even MORE into this last bit of wilderness, and allow roads through it. Pretty sad.
Yes, snowmobiles produce air pollution. Hikers/skiers do not (well, at least when they don't have franks & beans for lunch).
The whole point is that there are idiots on both sides. They damage the land, whether it's polluting, starting fires, messing around with animals in their natural environment, or whatever.
Just become someone straps some skis on their feet doesn't automatically make them some wonderful, green environmentalist. They can also be a detriment to our dwindling wilderness areas.
THAT is my point.
"Maybe you should refrain from this discussion
until you can stick to the subject at hand."
Maybe you should too. Last time I checked this was a Tacoma v. Ranger site, not a "save the forest" site.
I said this:
"It is in the SIZE of the remaining public lands.
MY map, from the Sangres information are accurately shows the total public lands where in many cases access is restricted. His shows only wilderness areas but fails to identify the restrictions placed on the rest of the federal land."
I KNOW what your map was however, I also know there are areas in the San Isabel, other than the wilderness areas, where you can depart the road, walk for 3+ miles without hitting a road and quite frankly it is in thick forest, where all you hear is the wind, and creaking trees.
You set 5000 acres as your goal for no roads right? Well that is an area of about 3X3 miles square.
Look, you have such a passion for the environment, to on up with Bruce Babbett when they release grizzlies up in Yellowstone, shake thier hand and welcome them back to the lower 48. But on the way there, stop by the ranchers and EXPLAIN why THEY have to loose 20-30 head of what ever they ranch so YOU can say "look what we did".
That is my problem spoog, you guys do not give a c$$p about who you impact as long as you get your way.
Gonna talk the talk you better be walking the talk, and you do not. You drive a vehicle that contributes more to pollution, than mine, gets worse gas mileage than mine and lecture me about what I have to do to ramrod through your pet projects to improve the evironment?
Lets close by saying this. Getting hit by high gas prices now because you were running polluting MTBE? New formula? Well I have run ethanol in my vehicles since 78. Renewable resource (corn), helps the farmers sell thier product and pollutes much less. And you I suspect have been dumping more pollution in the air than my vehicles, including my Ranger, have ever dumped.
Bout time your paying up for years of pollution.
Getting a Warn front receiver hitch today, going to install myself.
The winch, a Ramsey 8000 with roller fairline should come it this week.
Hope to have it installed and running this weekend all for under $1,000, winch, platform, hitch and hookups.
I will be ready for just about anything when it is done.
"I got invited to a pre-run for this year’s camp jeep on June 16-18 (yes I took my Taco). About 60 tour guides were there along with a rep from Warn winch, two Chrysler Jeep engineers and a Chrysler marketing guru. The Chrysler Jeep people took many of the guides out for dinner and one of the engineers was talking about how they test the jeep and new ideas they come up with. One thing he said they do is, buy a 4x4 from every manufacture and run them real hard until they break. The test is a little bit scientific because they tear them down to see how they’re made, mic um out, put meters and gauges on different things, then taken out to run the hell out of them to try & break um. Once broken it’s taken back into the shop and torn down again to learn the how’s and why’s of the breakage. Now when asked what kind of stuff they have learn, this Jeep engineer told all these super Jeep lovers on a Camp Jeep pre-run what we Toyota lovers have known for a long time. He said what he has learned is that Toyota’s don’t break!!! He said they have a really hard time trying to get them to break compared to others and many time are just unsuccessful in braking the Toyota’s. After dinner and the next day my Taco became popular, everyone wanted to check her out and see how she is made."
vince8, cthompson21: ...and telepathy tells me that you live in Alaska and are made of ham.
Nah...I'm sure you're all rugged types that could survive any prolonged winter/summer in a remote forest/desert if left only with your wits, swiss army knife, and a box of EZ-Strike wooden matches.
I prefer to buy the most proven, well-crafted item whether that be electronics, golf clubs, hunting gear or automobiles. First, it's raw non-propaganda factoids and THEN I may check a message board or two like this to read actual consumer comments (not expecting a soap opera). I chose Toyota because of proven track-record and craftmanship. Autos are not people, they are machines and the Toyota machine IS better. There are better automakers than Toyota, but they don't sell trucks.
So. It's annoying to see a bunch of rats in Edmund's Car Review Messageboard (of all places...??) taking up WELFARE space when there are boards like MSNBC, Raging Bull, APBNews and countless others like Fred's cabled 486 down the road that are meant for armchair environmentalists, armchair politicians and wanna-be manipulators or know-it-alls. Because I wonder how much useful information is lost or scrolled off into never-never because a few people want to argue over who has factory-signatured lug nuts or how to save the squirrels.
If nothing else and if you really think it is your duty to do so, at least try and change the world through a more well-traveled board like the ones mentioned above or others.
PS: "vs" can also mean real-life experience like "i've owned both. i like this one better because... Now I will go to Raging Bull and post my views of the world" instead of "i own a Ford and ah hev this here buddy, fRank, who owns a Toyota. I can whup him good in the south 40 swamp" or how you beat some nameless, faceless entity in the competing vehicle off the blocks at the light on 12th street (was it your grandpa? did the competing driver even know he was supposed to be racing you?).
I have owned two Toyota truck and two For Rangers. All have been good trucks with over 150,000 miles totaled on every one. Neither of them are perfect, some have been better than the others. I am and have been a certified Mechanic for 20 years and have seen a lot of cars and trucks. I can tell you all that 9 times out of 10 most all problems are related to the owner, myself included. In 20 years I have not seen one Properly serviced car or truck. I have found that the quality of my own vechicle is in direct proportion to the money, time and service I put into it, not what the manufacture put into it. None of the current manufacturers builds a Bad product, not one of them. In todays market no manufacture can afford it.
I was hoping to come here and find information on problems, details of issues owners have encountered. There is very little of that from what I have found. I have a wealth of information to share if anyone is interrested.
Take care and remember, service, service, service
makes a good truck or car.
Dan
Both trucks are good trucks on any form. Both have their faults. But I must say that after 300,00 in both I prefer the Ranger. Easier to work on, parts more readly available and cheaper cost with about the same wear rates.
How many miles do you have in both trucks?
Dan
Dane
Are you talking about your spelling?(yeah, you are)
If you find it so hard to believe that I go deer hunting in the fall and snowmobiling in the winter, then so be it. BTW, I live in IL.
The SOHC 4L is supposed to be a great replacement for the OHV 4L. In addition to F-150 type of styling, the Ranger is also getting suspension refinements and a new heavy duty 5-speed manual. There is also a possibility of the 3.9L V8 (currently found in the Lincoln LS) making its way into the Ranger. Could this be the SVT Ranger (possibly called the Adrenalin) that's been in the works the last coupla years?
Have you ever looked at a Mazda B-Series (Ranger clone)truck? It looks VERY similar to a Tacoma. Coincidence? Styling alone, I prefer the B-Series with the Tacoma in 2nd and the Ranger a very close 3rd. It's also cheaper than a Ranger with a better warranty. The only drawback is that the options are very limited with trim levels and packages.
The S10 is also getting being upgraded with new styling and a whole new engine line-up. I believe the top level engine is a 4.5L I6 with 250hp. There's also an I5 (possibly with a turbo) and an I4.
I think that the 2001 Tacoma is unchanged from 2000.
Was very happy to have been able to help you guys show off your trucks. Nice rigs.
It just goes to show that Rangers and Tacomas can co-exist in the cyber world!
far too many plastic add ons to look good."
Could you be a bit more specific about what you are talking about? Edmunds, Consumer Reports and other mags have savaged the Tacoma for its cheesy interior.
Also Edmunds rates the Ranger in many cases higer in some of it's catagories and about equal in reliability for the years 96-00. Go to the main Edmunds board, search on used vehicles and look at the rankings for yourself. Also, off to the right, there is a section on the main Edmunds board where they choose the "best of" for 1999 and 2000. You will not see a Tacoma anywhere in there but Ranger is mentioned 3 times.
Plastic exterior? Where? Except for the wheel well cutouts and front valance, no plastic on my Ranger. There is more plastic and thinner sheet metal on a Tacoma vs a Ranger. Rangers outweigh a Tacoma by maybe 500lb because the frame rails are a good 30% bigger, differential is bigger, drive shaft is bigger, among other things.
Also, to close, I went wheeling with an 87 Ranger last weekend that was running fine with 180,000+ miles, original engine build on a 2.9 V6 (simular design to the 4.0) AND his bed was not all rusted out like most 87 Toyota's suffer from(stick around I will post the pics when the film is developed).