There's been one thing mentioned in here that I have very mixed feelings about. That's the fact that all of this is Lansing's interpretation and, as stated above, the local CO is the person who's interpretation counts in the field. He's the one deciding to write you up or not. The problem is that COs don't always share the same interpretation.
There are COs who don't have a problem with trails that other COs would have an absolute conniption-fit over.
Should there be uniform interpretation and enforcement?
As VP of GLFWDA I have to say yes. . .
but, I'm not going to be the one to bring it up.
That's because I fear that if we do, the interpretations that are more strict will win out, and those few pockets of slightly looser enforcement will be lost.
When it REALLY comes down to it, it's the Judge's interpretation that truly counts. Just ask Marvin Farley, aka Grandman.
We need a better system. One that provides our form of recreation in a manner that is easily accessible by all residents, without needing to drive 3 hours away to get to 'legal 4 wheeling' that leaves the enthusiast wanting bigger, better, and more.
Bigger, better, and more is readily available here; and to have it dangling like a carrot in front of us, while not providing for full-sized ORVs is almost an open invitation by the State for illegal use. How can it not
I believe that there can be a tremendous difference between what's illegal and what's immoral. Is seriously damaging a stream bed illegal? You bet. Is it immoral? It is in my values system. Is splashing around in an over sized mud puddle that doesn't drain into anything illegal? Probably. Is it immoral? Not in my mind. Not one bit. Especially when there are THOUSANDS of acres of wetlands that are protected "forever".
I digress. It's getting late and I'm bushed.
Must be time to hit it.