Anyone in Colorado know these guys?

simple · Mar 7, 2019

Big10inch said:
Nope, no dog in the fight anymore. I refuse to waste my time as you suggest because I have seen EXACTLY how it plays out every time

Ok that is all I have to read. You don't even send an email in for support I'm sure. Not worth your valuable time online. The rest of your insulting diatribe can be ignored. Hopefully by everyone.

There is some anarchist cookbook revolutionary vibe in this forum huh? I think I've said enough.

I'll be at Spring Fling and many other organized events that get people together in real life and get goals accomplished for the better good of snowmobiling. Big10inch you are always invited but something tells me you can't control yourself even in public so you hide in the shadows and stew.

MI1M600EFI · Mar 7, 2019

Thanks guys, you've illustrated my point exactly.

Simple, Big10inch, neither of you are hearing the other, you're only expressing contempt, and attacking.

Big10inch, you have to realize that if only a few guys are socially deviant, then society doesn't pay attention to them, aside from in negative ways. It only works when the "norm" is to perform the acts, because of laws that turn ordinary people into criminals. Organize.

Simple, your angry and sarcastic comments are not helping at all. You're making someone who's interests are 90% the same as yours into your enemy instead of your supporter.

This is not just the problem in snowmobiling, it's the problem with our country right now. We have stopped listening to each other and trying to work together, and instead we've let others divide us so that we're now working against ourselves.

We all want the same thing: Access for everyone. Big10inch has played by the rules, as have we all. The problem with playing by the rules is that the other side makes up new rules, or changes existing ones as we go along.
Just like the Republican party in our current political system, we are the bad guys, and the best we seem to do is to "compromise" by their standards, which generally means the other side gets 90% of what they want, and we get 10%.

We're fighiting against a much larger machine, which considers us all evil. IMO, we need to all work together at walking softly when we can, but we should also break out the big stick from time to time to show that we're serious about our rights.

rhalloran · Mar 7, 2019

Big10inch said:
The CSA which I left years ago due to disagreements on how to try and move forward?

Hah, yeah, I'd be curious to hear the CSA's side of that story.

I hope you get banned again. I'm all for productive discussion of things, but the never ending drivel about "civil disobedience" is ridiculous. Do you REALLY think anyone is going to care about where you can and cannot ride your stupid snowmobile, big picture, overall scheme of things?

"Civil disobedience" works on problems which significant portions of the population care about that also have a tangible negative impact on a group of people's rights or freedom in general.

Ultimately, big picture, the people who REALLY decide the outcomes of this sort of thing, the people who steer the big boat, who will actually make DECISIONS, have no visibility into your little trailer park world (I know, you have a Volkswagen.....), and to THEM, they'll see that there are still X acres of national forest/blm/public lands for you to recreate on, where X equals a really big number, ESPECIALLY from the perspective of someone who lives in Connecticut or Maryland.

All your "civil disobedience" is going to do is make us look bad on a local level, irritate people who did not really care one way or another until they read about your dumb rectum in the newspaper and hopefully get you a giant ticket.

But, as far as I can tell, you're one guy with several internet usernames, so...yeah. rad. You rock on with your bad self, Beavis.

gonehuntnpowder · Mar 7, 2019

“I have the rite to remain silent, I just don’t have the ability. “ Ron White. I thought I was smart enough to not get back in this, but it turns out I am not.
First of all, riding into the out of bounds is not civil disobedience. It is just plain braking the law. Civil disobedience is what Bundy and the boys did up in Oregon. Even then, the media painted them as a bunch of outlaw whack jobs. In the end people got dead and nothing else. If you think by riding into those areas, and getting arrested or not, will somehow help the land fight, you are drinking your bathwater. Ride out of bounds if you want, I don’t care one way or the other, but don’t say you are doing it for the betterment of our sport. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The land fight IMO is a losing battle without some help. The grass roots efforts by recreationalists such as ourselves have always had limited results. The manufactures are going to need to get in the fight. The industry needs lobbyists in Washington fighting dirty just like our opposition has and maybe we already do.
The Constitution does not support the federal government controlling ANY land. Land is 100% supposed to be controlled by the states. Yet the BLM and the Forest Service still exist, with an annual budget in excess of 100 billion a year.

capulin overdrive · Mar 7, 2019

gonehuntnpowder said:
“I have the rite to remain silent, I just don’t have the ability. “ Ron White. I thought I was smart enough to not get back in this, but it turns out I am not.
First of all, riding into the out of bounds is not civil disobedience. It is just plain braking the law. Civil disobedience is what Bundy and the boys did up in Oregon. Even then, the media painted them as a bunch of outlaw whack jobs. In the end people got dead and nothing else. If you think by riding into those areas, and getting arrested or not, will somehow help the land fight, you are drinking your bathwater. Ride out of bounds if you want, I don’t care one way or the other, but don’t say you are doing it for the betterment of our sport. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The land fight IMO is a losing battle without some help. The grass roots efforts by recreationalists such as ourselves have always had limited results. The manufactures are going to need to get in the fight. The industry needs lobbyists in Washington fighting dirty just like our opposition has and maybe we already do.
The Constitution does not support the federal government controlling ANY land. Land is 100% supposed to be controlled by the states. Yet the BLM and the Forest Service still exist, with an annual budget in excess of 100 billion a year.

Yup, these cat fights never go anywhere.

And good point on the manufacturers and other business. So many of them supporting stuff against us, and probably don't even realize they're doing more harm than good. Heck even the hunting groups support some messed up stuff. Going through the lists of businesses on the anti side of things it gets hard sometimes to even pick certain products and not support some of the SOB's. For instance Columbia supports some messed up stuff, but they're about they only ones that make winter gear that fits me being both tall and fat.

Anyways, one hell of a thread drift. Like the OP, i'd like to know who hell these guys are.

Big10inch · Mar 7, 2019

simple said:
Ok that is all I have to read. You don't even send an email in for support I'm sure. Not worth your valuable time online. The rest of your insulting diatribe can be ignored. Hopefully by everyone.

There is some anarchist cookbook revolutionary vibe in this forum huh? I think I've said enough.

I'll be at Spring Fling and many other organized events that get people together in real life and get goals accomplished for the better good of snowmobiling. Big10inch you are always invited but something tells me you can't control yourself even in public so you hide in the shadows and stew.

Give me a break...

You are not answering my questions because you can't, not because you are elevating yourself to some moral high ground.

You really have zero experience with this don't you... I hate to break it to you but it really shows. You are not nearly brassy enough for the fight you claim you are taking up.

Big10inch · Mar 7, 2019

rhalloran said:
Hah, yeah, I'd be curious to hear the CSA's side of that story.

There is no "story" drama queen... I stopped participating when they decided to support a bill further limiting noise on sleds and the accompanying one give all law enforcement jurisdiction over all things, meaning there would be more cops qualified to write tickets to sledders.

Before you have another tourettes outburst, that does not mean I support loud exhaust. It just means I was tired of the left and right give aways in this futile attempt to appease the detractors. You know, the downhill slope you and simple want to ride.

I hope you get banned again. I'm all for productive discussion of things, but the never ending drivel about "civil disobedience" is ridiculous. Do you REALLY think anyone is going to care about where you can and cannot ride your stupid snowmobile, big picture, overall scheme of things?

I think organized civil protests over our loss of land use rights is exactly what needs to happen. How is that drivel or worthy of banning a voice? You do want to be on both sides don't you? Pretty elitist to suggest I be banned for having a different opinion, based on a LOT of first hand experience.

"Civil disobedience" works on problems which significant portions of the population care about that also have a tangible negative impact on a group of people's rights or freedom in general.

So stealing the right to use public lands doesn't qualify? What on earth does? It isn't just snowmobilers getting the short end of the stick on illegal managed public lands. It is a MUCH larger user group than that, remember your big picture...

Ultimately, big picture, the people who REALLY decide the outcomes of this sort of thing, the people who steer the big boat, who will actually make DECISIONS, have no visibility into your little trailer park world (I know, you have a Volkswagen.....), and to THEM, they'll see that there are still X acres of national forest/blm/public lands for you to recreate on, where X equals a really big number, ESPECIALLY from the perspective of someone who lives in Connecticut or Maryland.

Which is precisely why the Constitution states land be controlled by the states. Sure would help if we started by following that rule. It would make most of this entirely moot.

All your "civil disobedience" is going to do is make us look bad on a local level, irritate people who did not really care one way or another until they read about your dumb rectum in the newspaper and hopefully get you a giant ticket.

But, as far as I can tell, you're one guy with several internet usernames, so...yeah. rad. You rock on with your bad self, Beavis.

I have never made you look bad in the paper. I used to write a lot of letters to them on your behalf though...

It isn't "my" civil disobedience, it should be a planned event involving thousands of snowmobilers. You goof balls assumed I was out poaching wilderness in acts of civil disobedience? Read closer, I never claimed that at all, nor am I suggesting individuals or small groups would benefit from it in any way. It needs to be much bigger to make the impact we all agree needs to be made.

Until you wrap your head around that you will be pissing in the wind...

03RMK800 · Mar 7, 2019

Acts of civil disobedience by a few at a time don't work--- too easy for the government to stamp down 1 to 25 or 50 people, even when there is popular opinion support. Sledders don't have popular support in general, and certainly not when a boundary violation gets described in the popular press. Don't do it, you ain't gonna win for yourself or for the sport.

Big10inch · Mar 8, 2019

03RMK800 said:
Acts of civil disobedience by a few at a time don't work--- too easy for the government to stamp down 1 to 25 or 50 people, even when there is popular opinion support. Sledders don't have popular support in general, and certainly not when a boundary violation gets described in the popular press. Don't do it, you ain't gonna win for yourself or for the sport.

Show me where you read that somebody claimed this was a good idea...

You are arguing with no one.

03RMK800 · Mar 8, 2019

Big10inch said:
Show me where you read that somebody claimed this was a good idea...

You are arguing with no one.

Yep. And, so?

Sorry, not subject to your posting and debate rules. I had no idea that posts must be only in response to clearly stated claims and/or to argue with someone. Another day, another lesson learned. When you own the website, I will leave.

Big10inch · Mar 9, 2019

03RMK800 said:
Yep. And, so?

Sorry, not subject to your posting and debate rules. I had no idea that posts must be only in response to clearly stated claims and/or to argue with someone. Another day, another lesson learned. When you own the website, I will leave.

...and there you go, reading into things...

So this was just an admission that you had nothing new to contribute and we can just go ahead and ignore you post because it was pretty well out of context?

Looks more like you just weren't reading very closely and assumed some thought riding wilderness would further the sport.

I certainly do not make the rules here, it would be a much different place...

rhalloran · Mar 11, 2019

salmonbum said:
This is the exact attitude that will get areas closed. Our riding areas are limited, but start riding in closed areas they will shut down adjacent access.

Big10inch said:
So ride those areas too... Use it or lose it and you are well on your way to letting them make up excuses to take more. If you believe what you type you are part of the problem, not the solution. Sorry

Here you go. You replied to Salmonbum, who was replying to Dogmeat.

If one were to go looking outside this thread, it'd be pretty easy to find many other examples.

Big10inch · Mar 11, 2019

rhalloran said:
Here you go. You replied to Salmonbum, who was replying to Dogmeat.

If one were to go looking outside this thread, it'd be pretty easy to find many other examples.

You really must have a gift. You are somehow able to read into my posts what you want to read rather than what is there...

I do not see where it says "I ride wilderness to make a statement". You know why? Because I have never said that. Go ahead and look...

I DO think we should organize a wilderness ride in. I have said that, I will continue to say that. Trying to catch me saying "I ride the wilderness, F U" isn't going to happen, but good luck trying to pigeon hole me into it!

Doesn't matter anyway. Bottom line, Wilderness closures are unconstitutional. The federal govt isn't allowed to control any lands beyond what is needed for military bases. The rest is to be controlled by the states as they see fit. There was NEVER to be federally control public lands. So if you want to actually follow the rules, first rule is, no federally controlled lands... If we followed the rules as you suggest we all should. then we need to enforce the rule that existed long before anybody conjured up illegal federal land grabs.

You probably don't like that law though do you? Must be nice to be able to pick and choose to suit your argument.

Big10inch · Mar 11, 2019

Here is your educational link that describes how congress has violated the constitution. This makes Wilderness boundaries completely moot. The federal govt is not supposed to control 35% of the nations land, it is in violation of the constitution. https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/the-u-s-constitution-and-federal-lands

So which rules do you want to use? Probably just the ones that support your argument? I would prefer we stick to that first set of rules. That would grant millions of acres of land to states control, or more properly, private ownership as all lands were to be sold in this way.

Regardless, I think you need to study some more history in order to see how we have arrived where we are today. Congress has violated the constitution and the courts have supported it and we the people have not done our job of holding them accountable...

So if the rules are actually what is important to you, how about we concentrate on the root cause, instead of bickering over breaking laws on unconstitutionally retained lands?

rhalloran · Mar 11, 2019

What rule are you referring to, prior to the "illegal" federal land grabs?

I find it amusing that these "land grabs" are "illegal" because YOU say so, that things are "unconstitutional" because you've declared them so.

Confidence, you've got that in spades. I wish I were smart enough to be 100% certain that my perspective is the correct one.

Or, perhaps that certainty is borne in the absence of intellect?

I'll have to ponder that.

rhalloran · Mar 11, 2019

OK, from your weirdo fundamentalist link:

"John Locke answers this powerfully. He said under a system of common ownership, when one person wants to make use of something that is owned by “everyone”, he must ask all the owners’ permission to use it. If this were required, Locke says, the man would starve to death before he got permission of all! Hence, private ownership of property is the best means to fulfill the mandate of God to “subdue and gain dominion.” (Ibid., p. 172)"

Two things come to mind:

1. If it is "public land," the link you just posted suggests that everyone's opinion & desires must be considered, per John Locke. "he must ask all the owners' permission to use it." So, if it is truly PUBLIC land, common ownership, we're on the right track, talking to the ornithologists (birdwatchers, sorry), snowshoers, hikers, slackliners, hippies, cultists, ohv people, etc. Everyone needs to approve.

2. That page/article/sweet blog post, bro is advocating _private_ ownership. Pretty rad, but what if all the land were owned by people who don't want snowmobiles on their property?

I read somewhere once that the "greenies" have "all the money" and THAT'S why they're "winning," that's why ohv people keep losing land. That makes what's contained in this revisionist fantasy larper article a somewhat risky proposition - either it is PUBLIC land, common ownership, where everyone's opinion has to be considered before use, OR it is PRIVATE land, where one person decides how the land will be used.

Land costs money, if the "greenies" have all the money, they'll have all the land, at which point you'll get nothing at all.

That's better how?

And, even YOUR sources agree that if it is "commonly owned," everyone's opinion has to be considered.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Big10inch · Mar 11, 2019

...and you conveniently miss the most important point. The federal government should have NO say in what happens with the lands. They are to revert to states control. Do you have any idea how much easier it would be to manage the lands with common sense policies if only the people in the state had input?

We could avoid all of the lies told to people in the east, and all over the country for that matter. We could manage the lands with local focus instead of national pressure. I contend that we would end up with much more land open to us if we actually followed the rules, even if we had to take comments from all over the state the land in question was located in.

...and the bottom line is still, wilderness designations violate the Constitution and my rights as a citizen.

rhalloran · Mar 11, 2019

ahahahaha you're persecuted!

gonehuntnpowder · Mar 11, 2019

I can’t believe I am being sucked into this a 3rd time. If anyone wants a great read regarding public lands and federal over reach try “Cliven Bundy American Patriot” by Michael Strickler. I can’t say I have researched it a lot, but the Constution does not allow for any federal control of public lands. Whether they should or shouldn’t they do. And saying you aren’t the boss of me like a 5 year old will change nothing.
All outdoor recreationalists and there were individual industry partners need to band together. Right now we would all starve to death before we could decide on what pizza to order.

Big10inch · Mar 11, 2019

gonehuntnpowder said:
I can’t believe I am being sucked into this a 3rd time. If anyone wants a great read regarding public lands and federal over reach try “Cliven Bundy American Patriot” by Michael Strickler. I can’t say I have researched it a lot, but the Constution does not allow for any federal control of public lands. Whether they should or shouldn’t they do. And saying you aren’t the boss of me like a 5 year old will change nothing.
All outdoor recreationalists and there were individual industry partners need to band together. Right now we would all starve to death before we could decide on what pizza to order.

Well I have watched this exact thing be talked about for nearly 20 years now and have yet to see it work. Band together, have one voice, play by the rules, go to meetings, write letters. This is the program most of you are intent on following. Just FYI, it has been worked by some pretty smart ambitious people over the years. It has continued to lose us land, often land nowhere near the original intent of Wilderness closures. Even by the rules we get our butts kicked every time. Another point that you need to honestly acknowledge if you are serious about the fight. It is so far beyond a civil disagreement... and not on our side as some of you think. These folks are completely unreasonable and unwavering so I guess you keep working that broken old program.

So maybe some new suggestions are in order. I have a couple nobody seems to like but, the rest I am hearing is the same old worn out failed plan. Good Luck

Anyone in Colorado know these guys?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads