120carp Report post Posted May 23, 2014 We left our home in Kachina Village due to smoke being to bad. I know exactly what your ^ talking about. Dont wish this on anybody else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZkiller Report post Posted May 23, 2014 You guys don't get it. It really, really sucks when your everyday life is completely altered when a couple of absent minded valley/Tucson residents forgets to put out a fire(wallow) or a camera team wants to catch the dramatic effect of a stranded motorist rescue (chedeski). AZKiller with that train of thought go to the nearest military base and jump the fence the public owns that too. you're right it does suck. I'm sure you would have no problem abandoning your home because we can't have you people living in those rural communities anymore its too dangerous for the forest. we're going to need you just pick up and move to the valley. or is it okay for you and just not me? and are we really comparing a National Forest to a military base? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MULEPACKHUNTER Report post Posted May 23, 2014 to me if it was really fire danger why would they leave it open for this weekend? there will be more folks up there this weekend then maybe any other so lets leave it open when its most risky then close it when no one is going up? makes no sense at all if there is extreme danger. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore34A Report post Posted May 23, 2014 On 5/22/2014 at 6:46 PM, AZLance said: I heard today from a reliable source that the Forests will close very soon and your tag will be worthless... . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idgaf Report post Posted May 23, 2014 Forest Service leaving the Forest open for this weekend is a concession to the public. The Comparison to a military base and the forest is the thought process, "that I am a tax payer I can go where I want." (see reese witherspoon.) I do not think the Forest Service wants to close the forest to deny you your constitutional rights as an American, but to save a dwindling resource we all enjoy. A fire would hasten the process. Personally, I think the Forest Service hierarchy is full of bunny hugging ego maniacs with a bunch of personal agendas, but in the case of closing the forest because of fire danger I agree with them totally. This has been a very dry year and we all need to make some concessions to that. The good news is in Show Low as I write this it is raining just a bit. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZkiller Report post Posted May 23, 2014 Forest Service leaving the Forest open for this weekend is a concession to the public. The Comparison to a military base and the forest is the thought process, "that I am a tax payer I can go where I want." (see reese witherspoon.) I do not think the Forest Service wants to close the forest to deny you your constitutional rights as an American, but to save a dwindling resource we all enjoy. A fire would hasten the process. Personally, I think the Forest Service hierarchy is full of bunny hugging ego maniacs with a bunch of personal agendas, but in the case of closing the forest because of fire danger I agree with them totally. This has been a very dry year and we all need to make some concessions to that. The good news is in Show Low as I write this it is raining just a bit. I got it now. The nanny state is okay if you agree with a particular aspect of it. "Some peeople are tooo stooopid to be trusted with just being there, so nun of you can use da forest" Da, I gonna go plaay widh my poop now! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flatlander Report post Posted May 23, 2014 I got it now. The nanny state is okay if you agree with a particular aspect of it. "Some peeople are tooo stooopid to be trusted with just being there, so nun of you can use da forest" Da, I gonna go plaay widh my poop now! Here is the point you are missing, the forest belongs to US not YOU. You are not free to tear the whole thing down and build a motocross track, ski resort or amusement park if you wish. It is a publicly owned resource and as such an organization exists to manage the interests of the public. If the forest is gone that is not in our best interest. Guess what else isn't in our best interest flushing millions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet and risking the LIVEs of hard working men and women with families because some ignorant white trash heathen flipped a cigarette out the window on a forest service road. Yes some people are tooooo stupid to be trusted in these conditions. For crying out loud people how many million acres have to burn before some people decide to use their head for something more than a storage place for self centered thoughts. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ready2hunt Report post Posted May 23, 2014 "White Trash Heathen" WHOOOAAAAA.......I was on board until the potty mouth came out. These replies are getting out of control jk I love the forest but hate idiots...... and ketchup packets that don't have the dotted line to guide me me wear to tear 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idgaf Report post Posted May 23, 2014 Forest Service leaving the Forest open for this weekend is a concession to the public. The Comparison to a military base and the forest is the thought process, "that I am a tax payer I can go where I want." (see reese witherspoon.) I do not think the Forest Service wants to close the forest to deny you your constitutional rights as an American, but to save a dwindling resource we all enjoy. A fire would hasten the process. Personally, I think the Forest Service hierarchy is full of bunny hugging ego maniacs with a bunch of personal agendas, but in the case of closing the forest because of fire danger I agree with them totally. This has been a very dry year and we all need to make some concessions to that. The good news is in Show Low as I write this it is raining just a bit. I got it now. The nanny state is okay if you agree with a particular aspect of it. "Some peeople are tooo stooopid to be trusted with just being there, so nun of you can use da forest" Da, I gonna go plaay widh my poop now! I'm glad you got it, but you are also missing the main point. There is a precedence that has been proven over and over with the closings (see wallow fire). The point your missing with your poop playing is when its something you can agree with you can do it at the top of our lungs and justly you can disagree at the top of your lungs as well. If they keep the forest open for you to use I am not going to stop you because I disagree. You can complain about the "nanny state" or you can doing something about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gotcoues Report post Posted May 23, 2014 I'm sure glad they are going to close the forest. It will cut off corridors for illegals and drug smugglers. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZkiller Report post Posted May 23, 2014 I'm sure glad they are going to close the forest. It will cut off corridors for illegals and drug smugglers. Hahaha. Exactly!! Thats what these brain dead mind numb morons aren't understanding. Its just like gun control laws they don't stop criminals or the stupid people that aren't paying attention anyway. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZkiller Report post Posted May 23, 2014 I got it now. The nanny state is okay if you agree with a particular aspect of it. "Some peeople are tooo stooopid to be trusted with just being there, so nun of you can use da forest" Da, I gonna go plaay widh my poop now! Here is the point you are missing, the forest belongs to US not YOU. You are not free to tear the whole thing down and build a motocross track, ski resort or amusement park if you wish. It is a publicly owned resource and as such an organization exists to manage the interests of the public. If the forest is gone that is not in our best interest. Guess what else isn't in our best interest flushing millions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet and risking the LIVEs of hard working men and women with families because some ignorant white trash heathen flipped a cigarette out the window on a forest service road. Yes some people are tooooo stupid to be trusted in these conditions. For crying out loud people how many million acres have to burn before some people decide to use their head for something more than a storage place for self centered thoughts. obviously I agree that some people should not be in the forest ever. however, it is ours and Who am I to tell them that they can't go just like who r you to tell me I can't go? alls I'm saying is there needs to be more done before you just close them to the public. Apache sitgraves was in stage 1 turkey season at 28 degrees of 4 inches of snow on the ground. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
520HUNT Report post Posted May 23, 2014 I got it now. The nanny state is okay if you agree with a particular aspect of it. "Some peeople are tooo stooopid to be trusted with just being there, so nun of you can use da forest" Da, I gonna go plaay widh my poop now! Here is the point you are missing, the forest belongs to US not YOU. You are not free to tear the whole thing down and build a motocross track, ski resort or amusement park if you wish. It is a publicly owned resource and as such an organization exists to manage the interests of the public. If the forest is gone that is not in our best interest. Guess what else isn't in our best interest flushing millions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet and risking the LIVEs of hard working men and women with families because some ignorant white trash heathen flipped a cigarette out the window on a forest service road. Yes some people are tooooo stupid to be trusted in these conditions. For crying out loud people how many million acres have to burn before some people decide to use their head for something more than a storage place for self centered thoughts. Is this "organization" that you speak of the same one that mis-managed our forests for the last century and got us in this overgrown tinder box we call our forests? How do you ruin something, then get put in charge of it, and tell others they can't come onto it? And those millions of dollars and lives we put on the line are men and women who most wouldn't have a job If if weren't for these fires. When I was a wild land firefighter, I prayed for fires, because that is what put money in the bank and food on the table. And since someone brought up military bases, how is that whole concept working? The two biggest fires this year on the Coronado National Forest were both on the Ft Huachuca Army base. That is closed to "us", but somehow man made fires are still starting. This really does go right back to the Gun Control issue. We always say why punish everyone for a few criminals mistakes? Well this is a perfect example, you keep the American citizens out, but the criminal aliens still come in and start fires. So who gets punished by this? The good responsible citizens get their forests taken away, while the criminals still have free use of them. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idgaf Report post Posted May 24, 2014 Well since we are talking in blanket statements about fires, I propose all Tucsonans should be banned from the white mountains because of this. (sorry Father, sorry brother) "FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. -- Two cousins who admitted starting the largest wildfire in Arizona’s history were sentenced Wednesday to 48 hours in jail, five years probation and 200 hours of community service." Some back story before the 4" of snow and level one restrictions. The wind that week was just short of Wizard of Oz and flying houses level and the weather guys had the chance of precipitation at 5% or so. Is it a greater crime for you not to free range across whatever forest you choose or to minimize the chance at destroying a national/Arizona asset and displacing people from there homes. Monsoons are five or six weeks away. The Forest Service governs the forest, I am all for a new regime, but until then we need to honor there choices and whether its luck or happenstance once in awhile they get it right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kidso Report post Posted May 24, 2014 Lots of debate on both sides of the issue. I guess what I would HOPE for during National Forest closures is this: properly licensed hunters with big game draw tags would be allowed access, just as properly licensed hunters/fisherman are allowed to access "posted-restricted" Arizona State Trust Lands, or "posted-restricted" SRP canals and their associated roads. . 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
