Potential for Alabama Offroad Parks Being Forced to Close

[JD Mark]

They can be damaging to the environment. Most of the time they're not driving so they really aren't doing any damage. And I put pans to collect any potential fluid leaks in critical areas.

You see I'm not saying we shouldn't have the right to enjoy off-roading-- I'm saying we should be try to figure where we can do it and how we can do it without impacting the environment in the most negative ways possible.

The ironic thing is how much of a hypocrite you really are.

You have absolutely no need of those trucks, they are toys just like the others here that have toys for offroading. But you condemn them while doing the same damn thing. You have videos of your trucks driving through the woods, causing the same if not MORE "damage" than smaller toys.

And they you state you have pans to collect fluids. So you are knowingly driving these trucks with leaks over the land yet bitching about the guys here that probably have fewer leaks combined than all your worthless shit.

You should be banned just because of how stupid you are.

 

[JD Mark]

What's your address bitch? I'm sure your wife would like some dick from someone who doesn't pee laying down.
Seriously, go out in the woods and lower the population by one. There is absolutely nothing in this world for you.

Rumor is his parents set up an arranged marriage for him and she bailed when she realized how much of a beta pussy he really is.

 

[JD Mark]

Does this ever impress anyone?

Yes

 

[FelixstoweF.2]

The ironic thing is how much of a hypocrite you really are.

You have absolutely no need of those trucks, they are toys just like the others here that have toys for offroading. But you condemn them while doing the same damn thing. You have videos of your trucks driving through the woods, causing the same if not MORE "damage" than smaller toys.

And they you state you have pans to collect fluids. So you are knowingly driving these trucks with leaks over the land yet bitching about the guys here that probably have fewer leaks combined than all your worthless shit.

You should be banned just because of how stupid you are.

If you actually bothered to read my statements you will see that I never said anything about stopping off-roading. I said that offloading needs to really come to terms with the environmental impact it does and how to reduce it even more than today's levels. So, that's a very different statement than what you or others have claimed.

I cause way more damage than smaller vehicles. I understand that completely and that's why I'm conscious of how much more environmental impact I have and want to figure out how I can reduce it by operating in areas where it will not cause the long term destruction.

The problem is that like most people here you read 10% of something and make the rest up.

 

[JD Mark]

As for snowplowing I do like to do it. But is also sort of necessary if you want safe roads and driveways. But that being said I don't think you should purposely try to damage the environment either. So, I don't like push dirty snow with liter into watersheds I try not to pollute the watershed that I live in at all.

Jackass....you DON'T PLOW ROADS OR DRIVEWAYS. You never have, other than maybe your parent's.

PS My apologies to jackasses around the world for clumping you with Felix.

 

[arse_sidewards]

I said that offloading needs to really come to terms with the environmental impact it does and how to reduce it even more than today's levels.

Distinction without a difference. The environmental BS you're endorsing (presumably due to stupidity, not malice, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there) is equivalent to the "we're not banning it we're just making it such an expensive a pain in the ass only rich people who can do it the way we want will bother implicitly banning it for the every-man" playbook they've been using against guns for the past 100yr.

 

[JD Mark]

If you actually bothered to read my statements you will see that I never said anything about stopping off-roading. I said that offloading needs to really come to terms with the environmental impact it does and how to reduce it even more than today's levels. So, that's a very different statement than what you or others have claimed.

I cause way more damage than smaller vehicles. I understand that completely and that's why I'm conscious of how much more environmental impact I have and want to figure out how I can reduce it by operating in areas where it will not cause the long term destruction.

The problem is that like most people here you read 10% of something and make the rest up.

No, I read your stupid drivel and understand it completely.

I also pointed out what a freaking hypocrite you really are but you ignored it.

There is no reason for you to be causing any "damage". You're just allegedly driving around in these trucks because have an inverted pecker and have hopes one of these trucks will change that condition. They won't.

BTW...if "most people" here are telling you something and you think the rest is made up, you should look inwardly. The problem lies with YOU, not most people. I know, you're smarter than everyone on this board combined so we are the problem.

 

[FelixstoweF.2]

Distinction without a difference. The environmental BS you're endorsing (presumably due to stupidity, not malice, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there) is equivalent to the "we're not banning it we're just making it such an expensive a pain in the ass only rich people who can do it the way we want will bother implicitly banning it for the every-man" playbook they've been using against guns for the past 100yr.

Again that's wrong.

 

[Provience]

If you actually bothered to read my statements you will see that I never said anything about stopping off-roading. I said that offloading needs to really come to terms with the environmental impact it does and how to reduce it even more than today's levels. So, that's a very different statement than what you or others have claimed.

I cause way more damage than smaller vehicles. I understand that completely and that's why I'm conscious of how much more environmental impact I have and want to figure out how I can reduce it by operating in areas where it will not cause the long term destruction.

The problem is that like most people here you read 10% of something and make the rest up.

I've come to terms with the environmental impact.

End result, fuck them plants

 

[arse_sidewards]

The fact that this topic is so cut and dry that here we are four pages in and I have yet to spot a good opportunity to play both sides so I can argue with dumb boomers speaks volumes.

 

[FelixstoweF.2]

The fact that this topic is so cut and dry that here we are four pages in and I have yet to spot a good opportunity to play both sides so I can argue with dumb boomers speaks volumes.

What fascinates me more about your position are the implications it has for common held property actually. I believe we have to protect the environment too. There is no way around the fact that we always going to create high entropy waste. Fine, I accept that fact. The issue I think that is more important here isn't the waste issue completely but how do you deal with the intersection of rights. its classic game theory in this case we can model it with prisoner dilemma game with long term interactions. So, a tit-for-tat or two-tits for a tat strategy usually yield the best results. And I found it course that essentially most of you saw this game not as a long term series of interactions but as one interaction and zero-sum in the end.


That's really what I thought was so fascinating. Because I think we can actually solve this problem of land allocation and usage in a better way and actually reduce these costs if we make more of these off-road parks state owned and free use.

Because contrary to your beliefs I don't and I've said it before don't want to shut down parks. I want be able to use my toys too. I just don't want to damage other people's enjoyment of say stream 1 mile or 2 miles down from the park if they want to use it for fishing with all the silt and oils I might put in to it.

 

[JD Mark]

OK...this time I only read 10%.

Or less.

 

[Socsmm6]

I ride a few parks in alabama. Most all seem to have rules pertaining to the community around the park. Littering, trespassing, speeding on the roads coming into the park. Just trying to keep peace with tge surrounding neighbors but some karens snd kens cant be pleased.

 

[Hydromaster]

What fascinates me more about your position are the implications it has for common held property actually. I believe we have to protect the environment too. There is no way around the fact that we always going to create high entropy waste. Fine, I accept that fact. The issue I think that is more important here isn't the waste issue completely but how do you deal with the intersection of rights. its classic game theory in this case we can model it with prisoner dilemma game with long term interactions. So, a tit-for-tat or two-tits for a tat strategy usually yield the best results. And I found it course that essentially most of you saw this game not as a long term series of interactions but as one interaction and zero-sum in the end.


That's really what I thought was so fascinating. Because I think we can actually solve this problem of land allocation and usage in a better way and actually reduce these costs if we make more of these off-road parks state owned and free use.

Because contrary to your beliefs I don't and I've said it before don't want to shut down parks. I want be able to use my toys too. I just don't want to damage other people's enjoyment of say stream 1 mile or 2 miles down from the park if they want to use it for fishing with all the silt and oils I might put in to it.

Why do You turn everything into communist bullshit with your commonly owned crap?

And I’m sure you have a drip tray underneath your old truck. That’s dripping, grease and oil, hyd oil and fuel from sitting for years and years dripping. What about that?


Other states and places have free, use off-road parks you just need to have a muffler
Following a couple of simple rules

Then there is blm land..

 

[junkytj]

Felix you aren't welcome here. People have tried in several ways to explain your braindead position and you refuse to take in that data. It is on a topic that makes you wholly incompatible with the group at large here. There are many groups that view me in the same way. I don't hang out where I'm not wanted. I don't go to anti gun groups with all my rational arguments. I don't go to liberal message boards and explain nuance and human behavior and history. There are figuratively thousands of groups I disagree with and probably literally if I put the effort into listing them . I manage to not seek out any of them to argue and my life is much happier for it. Learn from this tale happiness. Prosper yourself. Or Go fuck yourself. It's your call.

 

[arse_sidewards]

What fascinates me more about your position are the implications it has for common held property actually. I believe we have to protect the environment too. There is no way around the fact that we always going to create high entropy waste. Fine, I accept that fact. The issue I think that is more important here isn't the waste issue completely but how do you deal with the intersection of rights. its classic game theory in this case we can model it with prisoner dilemma game with long term interactions. So, a tit-for-tat or two-tits for a tat strategy usually yield the best results. And I found it course that essentially most of you saw this game not as a long term series of interactions but as one interaction and zero-sum in the end.

Of course it is zero sum. The state is a mecca that attracts power hungry sociopaths who want to inflict their will upon the population. There is no long term series of negotiations with that type of entity. Look at gun control. There is no winning with people who want you or what you do gone. If you give a compromise to a reasonable set of people they will go home satisfied and be replaced by more extreme ones nullifying any good will you built. Look at gun control and prohibition. The only way to win is to fight tooth and nail all the time and even then it's just a holding action.

That's really what I thought was so fascinating. Because I think we can actually solve this problem of land allocation and usage in a better way and actually reduce these costs if we make more of these off-road parks state owned and free use.

We need state owned parks only because in light of the state's accepted meddling in land use we need the state to legitimize our land use in the same way that there are many state parks that serve to legitimize nature tourism and recreation on foot. This is completely independent from the existence of private parks.

Because contrary to your beliefs I don't and I've said it before don't want to shut down parks. I want be able to use my toys too. I just don't want to damage other people's enjoyment of say stream 1 mile or 2 miles down from the park if they want to use it for fishing with all the silt and oils I might put in to it.

I don't think you want parks shut down. I think you don't understand that the people who are screaming about the environment just want parks shut down and the environment is a flag of convenience to them and to legitimizing that argument just furthers their goal of shutting down parks without actually advancing the goal of protecting the environment because they'll likely turn around and do something as bad or worse with the land if they accomplish their goal

 

[OUTLAWHANK]

Signed

 

[slowlygettingthere]

So I tried to read through this but after the 2nd page I'm like ehhhhh.

I live pretty close to the place that started the whole bill. I will start by saying the problem wasn't the run off so much as the park not making bridges to cross the creek. So the sxs's were actively playing in the creek within the park. So it wasn't when it rained muddy creek. It was every weekend they were open the creek downstream was a muddy mess. I could completely understand having issues with that. That could have been fixed easily by adding bridges over the creek crossings. That is the issue that started the whole thing. Well that and all the people that were leaving half shit faced driving.

Now the good part. The county the park is in tried to pass something to close the park but it did not pass. So the county commissioner for that county just so happens to have a son that is a state senator. Which is where the bill came from. It passed committee but several other senators said it needed to be changed before going to the big vote. The big problem is the little epa shit the bill includes that even that senator does not realize the implications that could come with it.

My opinion from someone that has tried to get insurance on a motocross track..... There is no insurance company that would even touch a riding park. Something like 10 years ago There was only 2 places I could find that would talk to you. One wanted 1500 a day and they would only cover race day and the practice day before the race. The race had to be ama sanctioned and had this huge list of requirements that I have never seen at any track I have been too except for maybe an ama national. Second one wanted 2000 a day and would only cover race day. There is no way any park could afford to buy Insurance for every weekend/ most weekends and afford to open. Not to mention after the first lawsuit, ( which when the drunks realize they can get a quick 50-100k out of court settlement for wrecking their shit plastered there will be plenty) they would get dropped quick.

It all comes down to the park should have put up some bridges when people first started bitching and the asshole commissioner should have went about it a little different.

 

[buzzbombxj]

Felix your input is needed in the OSR forum. They need you to tell them that guns are dangerous and more gun control is necessary.

 

[WaterH]

I don’t really care to get in to this discussion, but I will make an observation. My dad had a small area that was between the garage wall and his AC condenser. He couldn’t get a lawn mower in there and the grass would grow interfering with the condenser. He figured he would kill the grass with scrap oil from his vehicles. He told me the grass would die when he first dumped it, but it would come back stronger. He eventually stopped doing it because he thought it was acting like fertilizer.

I also read that the bay where the Exxon Valdez dumped all the oil has come back better than ever. So are oil leaks really doing damage to the environment? I mean oil is a natural product of the earth. I question whether a couple drops here and there do anything.

 

[Blugreenformula]

Rumor is his parents set up an arranged marriage for him and she bailed when she realized how much of a beta pussy he really is.

His sister ran off? That's fucked up!

 

[Thefishguy77]

How about you get to the back of the fucking line genius. You do realize that off road driving is terribly destructive to the environment and while you might not mind drinking gasoline and oil filled water-- others don't want to.

It seems to me we can and must do better to protect the enivronment

Shut the fuck up citidiot. Just seriously go find a jeep website and hang out there. You might actually be thought of as cool there.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Don't you think that happens in the Northeast too?

So you’re claiming you’re observant enough to notice a pattern but not smart enough to see the motivation behind it? Go fuck a running blender

 

[Hydromaster]

JD Mark

I remember Felix’s vid .

Driving through a nice grassy flat field, sinking up to his axles. Leaving deep ruts.
Then bragging about it.

Hey Felix, post up the vid.

 

[DMG]

I'm confused here--

no shit. Stfu until you aren’t.

 

[Grnjp92]

You're right I'm not that impressed by rock-crawling--I've done it and it is okay. I like different types of terrain. But, you really cannot minimize the effects on the environment if we're operating on these trails year after year causing soil erosion, habitat destruction, and so on. This law is sorta just basic environmental law in most places.

Also Pro-Tip probably not a good idea to spout off about stalking and cyber harassing.

Lol, oh no. Anything you have posted on line is fair game. And no one has told you they are coming to your house to kill you. So toughen up.

 

[Grnjp92]

A bunch of old men trying to relive their youth. That's just what Austin needs.

Shut up kid. Lol

 

[Hydromaster]

Funny, after I asked him if he had pans under his truck to collect the fluids. All of a sudden he has pans under his truck to collect the fluids. What a bunch of bullshit.

Did you put pans under your old grease sucking rig every night too?

As far as Snow Plowing goes, he plowed his parents driveway, (it’s the least he could do he was living in their basement )
no business, no nothing and if he had that as a business, that would make three businesses, he ran into the ground.

One percent of what he says is true, and even that is embellished to the max.

But I guess it’s pretty easy for all of you to see that

Ps,
He’s never ridden in a rock crawler he’s never even touched one.
Who would this moron know with one or who would let him ride with them?

 

[LScout800]

What fascinates me more about your position are the implications it has for common held property actually. I believe we have to protect the environment too. There is no way around the fact that we always going to create high entropy waste. Fine, I accept that fact. The issue I think that is more important here isn't the waste issue completely but how do you deal with the intersection of rights. its classic game theory in this case we can model it with prisoner dilemma game with long term interactions. So, a tit-for-tat or two-tits for a tat strategy usually yield the best results. And I found it course that essentially most of you saw this game not as a long term series of interactions but as one interaction and zero-sum in the end.


That's really what I thought was so fascinating. Because I think we can actually solve this problem of land allocation and usage in a better way and actually reduce these costs if we make more of these off-road parks state owned and free use.

Because contrary to your beliefs I don't and I've said it before don't want to shut down parks. I want be able to use my toys too. I just don't want to damage other people's enjoyment of say stream 1 mile or 2 miles down from the park if they want to use it for fishing with all the silt and oils I might put in to it.

Yes offroad parks that are state owned and free use. Almost like trails on BLM land. Trails maintained mostly by volunteers and clubs who hold cleanups and such to keep them open (not the state).

Then the state closes those trails, you know to preserve the environment, then approves large amounts of land to be developed into condos for rich people in very sensitive areas. (Look up Moab trail closures and the Kane creek development project).

It seems the solution when people have control over an offroad recreation area is to do infrastructure projects (shore up hillsides, put pads in creek beds to keep silt from getting kicked up, bridges over streams, trail cleanups, etc.) Almost like they care about areas and the sport and want their children to get out and enjoy this country just as they are enjoying it today, perhaps even better.

The government's solution is to close it down so nobody can have it.

A great example of a project is something the Rubicon Trail Foundation is doing on the Rubicon lately to prevent soil erosion into a creek, which is to reroute the trail to a different path. Will keep silt out of the river, the trail open, and provide an even more challenging route. Something done by a non-profit, not the state. The state wanted to close down that section of trail instead without creating a new route. Would have ruined the trail.

 

[JD Miller]

Fat Fuk Faggot slob probably has kiddy porn on his computer