EISPIRATEN

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:45 pm**

HikeUp wrote:
Kit Fox wrote:Perhaps we need a Spanish Version of Leave No Trace?
http://lnt.org/programs/en_espanol.php

Nice to know that.

I have no way of knowing how many of the group doing most of the trashing, are "internet savvy.' I suspect many don't even own a computer, but that is pure speculation on my part. I've never seen any Leave No Trace brochures in Spanish. I suppose I could spend a portion of my day off handing out Spanish LNT flyers. I doubt it would help much, but it would be a start.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:10 pm**

Kit Fox wrote:Then come up with a better way to fund stepped up patrols and law enforcement in recreational areas. Blaming Bush for a small Forest Service Budget won't help.

I have not seen anyone here blame Bush. But you are pulling a bait and switch. You want to require passports to get into the woods. Then you want to allow only taxpayers into the woods. You have provided no insight into how you would fund those two expensive mandates.

Kit Fox wrote:How many of you guys take the time to photograph the offenders illegally parking, using barbeques in "no fire zones," or trashing an otherwise pristine area?

I'll certainly do it if I see it. I suspect that a lot of people on this board would do the same.

Kit Fox wrote:Perhaps entrance to recreation areas could be denied until a test has been taken with a passing grade? Knowledge of Forest Services rules, State and Federal laws, understanding the principles of LNT would be required to gain entrance.

I'm sure this will weed out those who can't read.

I'd rather see that requirement than to admit only taxpayers.

Kit Fox wrote:I've yet to see the Forest Service ever post signs in Spanish telling people not to defecate /urinate in the riverbed, and not to leave trash lying around.

If they posted signs like that, the militant liberals would cry racism. Doing nothing wont fix the problem.

Wrong. Militant conservatives (e.g., the Minutemen) would accuse the Forest Service of being run by liberals because they don't practice English Only.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:49 pm**

If they posted signs like that, the militant liberals would cry racism.

Militant conservatives (e.g., the Minutemen) would accuse the Forest Service of being run by liberals because they don't practice English Only.

It's no secret...both statements are true.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:17 pm**

AlanK wrote: I have not seen anyone here blame Bush. But you are pulling a bait and switch. You want to require passports to get into the woods. Then you want to allow only taxpayers into the woods. You have provided no insight into how you would fund those two expensive mandates.

Those that don't pay federal income taxes would be required to pay a higher fee to recreate. This happens in America every hunting season. Non-resident (out of state) hunters are required to pay three to four times higher tag fees in order to hunt in other states.

In the last thread (about getting rid of the adventure pass) the Iraq war was used as an excuse for lack of Forest Service funds.

What I want in my "utopia" is a valid method to weed out dirtbags who trash public lands.
Providing a valid form of identification before entrance(drivers license, a legally stamped passport, or a valid green card, is a start at weeding out dirtbags. Heck i'd even go for background checks to get a valid recreation permit. This would definately weed out many gang bangers, probation/ parole violators and illegals aliens that like to trash the outdoors. As an added bonus the trailhead vehicle burglaries would be reduced significantly if background checks were employed.

Note I never said all the group who trash the outdoors are illegal.

Kit Fox wrote:I've yet to see the Forest Service ever post signs in Spanish telling people not to defecate /urinate in the riverbed, and not to leave trash lying around.

If they posted signs like that, the militant liberals would cry racism. Doing nothing wont fix the problem.

Wrong. Militant conservatives (e.g., the Minutemen) would accuse the Forest Service of being run by liberals because they don't practice English Only.

Labeling a Minuteman as militant conservatives is complete BullS$%^. Americans who protest the unchecked, out of control flow of criminal aliens (who destroy our economy, reduce wages, and increase crime) are patriots, not xenophobics, or "militant conservatives. If you want to see what illegals are really up to visitOutraged Patriots. I'm a 100% supporter of legal immigration. Their are educated people from all over the world that are still waiting to come here legally. Why is it that a doctor from Ireland, or a carpenter from the Philippines can't come to the U.S., but an illegal from Honduras can illegally cross the border, have a baby, then collect welfare through their child?

Like I mentioned before, 11 years of dealing with illegals in a jail setting gives you a perspective that most of you will never know. They aren't all a bunch of hard working folks trying to feed their families. They are drug dealers, rapist, child molesters, murderers.

As a Reagan Conservative, I would say the English only signs in the forest are complete failure.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:26 pm**

Kit Fox wrote:
AlanK wrote:Labeling a Minuteman as militant conservatives is complete BullS$%^.
It is no secret that 100% of Minutemen characterize themselves as "conservatives."

It is no secret that a person who patrols the border meets the definition of militant ("very active or aggressive in the support of a cause").

Ergo, Minutemen are militant conservatives.

I did not say they were good or bad, I just used a perfectly accurate characterization.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:38 pm**

I feel compelled to say something along the lines of "Keep it civil".

That said, I don't see anything being un-civil, and I kinda don't give a crap if anyone's feelings are hurt. 8)

The only side of this argument I have to add to is that folks MUST differentiate between immigration, and ILLEGAL immigration. I see the news putting a "spin" on shit, saying that someone I know who is anti-ILLEGAL immigration, is "anti-immigration", which I take to mean "nobody-else-can-come-here-ever".

Carrion.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:55 pm**

I see no reason for things to get un-civil here. I certainly agree that there is a big difference between legal immigrants and illegal ones. I also understand why people who take a stand against illegal immigration get angry when they are accused of being anti-immigrant. While I am not a fan of a couple of ideas suggested by Kit Fox, he is probably a decent guy who would be fun to hike with. And I certainly applaud him if he is combating drug dealers, rapists, child molesters, and murderers (independent of their immigration status).

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:00 pm**

Key word being recreate. If you target an area as being recreation, it wont be pristine(promise). Forest service designed it as recreation, how can we be surprised if any area cant withstand 30000 people. Course less visitors equals less dinero.

I dont really visit the San Gabriels to recreate, which by definition implies impact. I go to hike, get in, get out, I rarely take it easy at a pool or somewhere else for a few hours. Even in a group, my purpose is not to turn my favorite pool into my own backyad BBQ area. I could easily see how it is a recreation place, but it would lose some of its good qualities.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:03 pm**

AlanK wrote:I see no reason for things to get un-civil here.

Yup, just being a moderatorartionator. 8)

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:15 pm**

TacoDelRio wrote:
AlanK wrote:I see no reason for things to get un-civil here.
Yup, just being a moderatorartionator. 8)

Which is why you're paid the big bucks!

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:41 pm**

AlanK wrote:It is no secret that a person who patrols the border meets the definition of militant ("very active or aggressive in the support of a cause").

Ergo, Minutemen are militant conservatives.

I did not say they were good or bad, I just used a perfectly accurate characterization.

Calling someone a militant clearly elicits a negative connotation. I'm very active and aggressive in my hiking but you wouldn't call me a "militant hiker" LOL...then again I do carry those mortar rounds.

To most people, "militant" means engaging in aggressive physical or verbal combat for a cause. It usually involves violence, i.e. militant extremists, etc. I don't think the Minutemen are doing this, are they? I thought I read that even Arnold praised them.

I'm an immigrant myself, but went through the due process to get here legally. I find it extremely unfair that other people can bypass this due process, come here illegally and to some people here in the States that's just fine and dandy. Like in San Francisco, they have an illegal alien sanctuary policy. Nuts I tell you.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:45 pm**

Kit Fox wrote:Tell that to a Mexican or a Mexican American, they will disagree greatly with that definition. They prefer to be called Mexicans, and some even accept being called Latinos.

You seem like an unlikely spokesman for Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, but perhaps you are a man of many hidden talents.

Me, I'm just a guy sitting here in the barrio, making shotgun stocks.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:47 pm**

Tim wrote:
AlanK wrote:It is no secret that a person who patrols the border meets the definition of militant ("very active or aggressive in the support of a cause").

Ergo, Minutemen are militant conservatives.

I did not say they were good or bad, I just used a perfectly accurate characterization.
Calling someone a militant clearly elicits a negative connotation. I'm very active and aggressive in my hiking but you wouldn't call me a "militant hiker" LOL...then again I do carry those mortar rounds.

To most people, "militant" means engaging in aggressive physical or verbal combat for a cause. It usually involves violence, i.e. militant extremists, etc. I don't think the Minutemen are doing this, are they? I thought I read that even Arnold praised them.

I'm an immigrant myself, but went through the due process to get here legally. I find it extremely unfair that other people can bypass this due process, come here illegally and to some people here in the States that's just fine and dandy. Like in San Francisco, they have an illegal alien sanctuary policy. Nuts I tell you.

A San Francisco woman whose husband and two sons were gunned down last month — allegedly by an illegal immigrant who remained in the city despite previous crimes — is demanding the city do something about its sanctuary law.

Danielle Bologna was widowed on June 22 when Edwin Ramos, 21, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, allegedly gunned down her husband, Anthony, and two sons, Matthew and Michael, in a road rage incident when her family was returning from a picnic.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:47 pm**

TacoDelRio wrote: That said, I don't see anything being un-civil, and I kinda don't give a crap if anyone's feelings are hurt.

You're my favoritest moderator ever!

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:50 pm**

Tim wrote:Calling someone a militant clearly elicits a negative connotation.

Actually, my friend Kit Fox introduced "militant" into the conversation in reference to liberals, or at least some liberals.

The word "militant" was not important to my argument. I was merely reacting to its earlier use. My point was that many conservative people, including many who take a strong stand on immigration issues, want "English Only" as a national policy. Presumably, they would apply this to Forest Service signs.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:51 pm**

simonov wrote:
TacoDelRio wrote: That said, I don't see anything being un-civil, and I kinda don't give a crap if anyone's feelings are hurt.
You're my favoritest moderator ever!

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:54 pm**

simonov wrote:
Kit Fox wrote:Tell that to a Mexican or a Mexican American, they will disagree greatly with that definition. They prefer to be called Mexicans, and some even accept being called Latinos.
You seem like an unlikely spokesman for Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, but perhaps you are a man of many hidden talents.

Me, I'm just a guy sitting here in the barrio, making shotgun stocks.

I have personally worked with well over 100 Americans of Mexican or Central American origins. Only a few of my friends refer to themselves as hispanics. Most refer to themselves as Mexican-American, Latino, Central American, or even American of Honduras origin. Nearly all of them have described the stigma of any relation to Spain.

I work with two Nigerian Americans who laugh at American Blacks who refere themselves as African-American.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:00 pm**

AlanK wrote:
Tim wrote:Calling someone a militant clearly elicits a negative connotation.
Actually, my friend Kit Fox introduced "militant" into the conversation in reference to liberals, or at least some liberals.

The word "militant" was not important to my argument. I was merely reacting to its earlier use. My point was that many conservative people, including many who take a strong stand on immigration issues, want "English Only" as a national policy. Presumably, they would apply this to Forest Service signs.

I'd go for English as the official language. I still can't figure out why the DMV gives driving tests in foreign languages. If these people need to take a test in a foreign language, how the heck are the supposed to read road signs.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:06 pm**

If it means anything, I've had a lot of jobs, with a handful of folks who told me they were illegal immigrants. I'm anti-illegal immigration (who isn't?), dunno how I feel about that to this day.

I wish I knew how to split this topic. I have no problem with this being discussed on our site here, I'd just prefer to move it to Off-Topic... dunno if one could "split" this topic, per-se, or whatnot. If Gusto has no problems with his thread going in this direction, neither do I.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:21 pm**

I got a great idea.
You remember those cameras that HikeUp took a picture of on some peak near Strawberry Peak? I like setting up cameras like that far enough away from and aimed at the main problem areas out of normal view. Like a surveillance system with enough cameras to make sure you film the people, car license plates etc. When the victims come back to their car and find it looted they call the police and the cameras are reviewed. The film would be on like a 48 hour loop never ending. Solar powered. Could be looked at from the police dept.
And if you think you are gonna go up there and mess with it you will be filmed by another system of cameras that are aimed on that camera which is activated by a motion detector system. There is a way.
That would also go for the areas that are trashed and spray painted.
The bottom line for me is that I believe that you do what ever it takes to get rid of the problem and make the offenders pay for it. Word will get around and eventually it will stop.
The camera won't care what race the offender is!
Even if it's "FIGHT ON THE ALIEN FROM THE MOON!"

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:41 pm**

I have some great ideas on how to curb such problems.

The catch is, they're all very illegal (read, effective).

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:56 pm**

gotta give em at least one chance to change Taco. Something like that I would support on the 3rd or 4th offense.

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:00 pm**

"The Mountains are the means, the man is the end; the idea is to improve the man, not to reach the top of the mountain."
"The Mountains are the means, the man is the end; the idea is to improve the man, not to reach the top of the mountain."

Dude do something with that camera so you CAN TAKE PICTURES FASTER!!

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:16 pm**

FIGHT ON wrote: Dude do something with that camera so you CAN TAKE PICTURES FASTER!!

caffeine of course

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:20 pm**

JMunaretto wrote:
FIGHT ON wrote: Dude do something with that camera so you CAN TAKE PICTURES FASTER!!
caffeine of course

caffeine is for cheaters. cheaters are flat. flat is ohio. flat is FAIL!

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:20 pm**

TacoDelRio wrote:That said, I don't see anything being un-civil, and I kinda don't give a crap if anyone's feelings are hurt. 8)

Posted: **Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:14 am**

Kit Fox wrote:Then come up with a better way

Kit, I doubt you will find one here, solutions are not popular.

Posted: **Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:26 am**

I should apologize to Gusto for steering your thread "off topic," on the plus side you have more post and views than most tr's!

Posted: **Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:42 am**

I would rather see the forest service increase enforcement and education in the problem areas than resorting to martial law or a police state. Why not charge $1000 for littering, just like on the freeway?

Not sure what USFS current policies are, has anyone ever sent them a letter/email on this subject? Would be interesting to get their response. I'm not familiar with the San G. river problem areas, so would not be the best to contact them. Most likely a group of concerned citizens could find a solution to these problems.

Posted: **Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:14 pm**

406 wrote:I should apologize to Gusto for steering your thread "off topic," on the plus side you have more post and views than most tr's!

No worries, there. It's always interesting when people get passionate about something, but like I heard in the movie, "Opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one, and they all stink."

That said, my stinky opinion goes like this. First off, anytime you put large amounts a people into a "group," whether it be by ethnicity or whatever, the individual is always sacrificed. To simply say, "Hispanics are the problem" or "illegals are the problem," is a pretty broad and somewhat rediculous statement.

Obviously most of the people who are seen at the areas closest to the foothills are going to be Hispanic because that reflects the local population. I don't know what percent of Azusa is Hispanic, but it has to be around or over 50%, so just by shear numbers you're more likely to see Hispanics there than anyone else. And what percent of Los Angeles is Hispanic? The numbers have to be pretty high.

As for illegal or legal, this is just another oversimplification. There are plenty of illegals here who are hard working. Some who even have sons and daughters in the military, I might add. Up until recently there was never and government push for these people to be legalized. It was always an "accepted" thing in areas like Los Angeles and California. Then, ever since 9/11 and the "terrorists within our borders" mentality," it seems like every illegal alien has been a scapegoat for all of America's problems.

I read somewhere back in the 70's there was actually a push BY our government to get folks from Mexico to come here and work in the fields of California, so I guess a lot of whether it's beneficial to have illegals or not depends on America's economic standpoint at the time - not that I"m agreeing with that mentality, by the way. Even if they did - and I don't even think it's possible by the way - round up every single illegal in this country and sent them back to their native land, then people would start complaining about how much more expensive things would become. Farmers, store and restaurant owners, etc. would have to hire people at higher rates, which in turn would cost the consumer more $$$. Then people could start complaining about that too.

On a final note, I would have to agree with a previous poster about teaching people that putting trash on the ground is wrong and just how destructive it is. This type of behavior is a LEARNED activity, and people need to be educated about it. ALL PEOPLE. Kids see their parents do it, so they don't see anything wrong with it.

I would say it's a safe conjecture that there's always going to be that 10% that try to screw things up. Everyone knows who I'm talking about... The guy that swerves in and out of traffic, the person that talks during the movie, the person that throws trash on the ground. It doesn't matter what ethnicity, I've met people of all races who fit each one of those descriptions. Obviously the goal of the forest service has its work cut out for them...

Ultimately, I believe, the public doesn't care enough about these areas. Look at the budgets for the forest service, national parks, and state parks system compared to other areas of government spending.... Heck, even California's new budget proposal for education places it somewhere around 49th in the country.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

http://home.nps.gov/applications/releas ... cfm?ID=721

Change has to start somewhere...

Gusto

EISPIRATEN

East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08

Re: East Fork - San Gabriel River - 7/19/08