What is historical?

Frank Fusco

Member
Messages
12,782
Location
Mountain Home, Arkansas
Where I live in northern Arkansas, we are fortunate to have many natural wonders at our doorstep. One of them is a large, managed, forest with streams and a beautiful river. About 15 years ago, one side of the forest was cut off from the other when the bridge over the river was declared unsafe and closed. It has not been replaced because a group interested in historical preservation want it kept for reasons only they understand. Now, after all these years, it will officially come up for consideration to be placed on the National Historical Registration books. That means it will never come down. One side of the forest is cut off from the other denying people the enjoyment of driving, walking, or riding on horseback or ATV through some of the most beautiful country you can imagine. My thinking is that people being able to enjoy the forest is more important than keeping a rusted old bridge just to keep a rusted old bridge. Not everything old is historical.
 
It's still historical, but it may not be "significant".

Are they interested in rebuilding that bridge, or just maintaining the status quo - letting it slowly rust into the landscape without tearing it down?

Is there any decent chance of putting in another passable bridge farther along the river so folks can cross again?
 
unfortunatly i have seen similar things in my area, and they leave it and it goes away and the only ones that get to use the other side are those that are brave enough or fit enough to go across the obstical..which is in my opinion wrong. the bridge should either be repaired or another access made. or they will take and cut away the timber on the other side and leave a shell to block the veiw of what the state has done.
 
My guess would be the 'bridge preservationists' aren't really. There is a small segment of the population that believe man is a cancer on the planet and love to have the opportunity to deny men, especially those riding on or in machines, access to nature. It happens a lot in the west with 'roadless areas'. IMHO it's just a way to deny access to people who either don't have the time or physical ability to take a 3 day hike into the mountains. Now stepping down from soapbox.
 
I'm one of those people who used to take the three day (or more) hikes into the backwoods. It's different once you get more than a half day's hike from a trail head or road (the distance someone can do in a day hike). The trash disappears and there's less "worn in" trails. You're more "in nature".

Of course, there's more danger. If you get hurt two days out, there's no one to pull you out, so you have to plan better and consider all the possibilities. I remember hiking in the Sierras in the very early spring. In the morning, you could cross the streams fairly easily, but in the evening, they would be running strong from the sunlight on the snow further up the mountain. You'd have to wait until morning to be able to cross.

Going to some campground with a trailer that's plugged into the electric grid is not "camping". There's no physical exertion, no danger, no contact with the forces of nature - it doesn't even require that you learn anything about the area you're going to. It's just suburban living in a different place.

So, yes, I want places that are roadless, where I can take a compass and topo map (or GPS these days) and go off on my own, or maybe with one other person, and I won't hear the sound or gasoline engines, or see all the trash that people leave behind. And I hope more people will try real camping and experience what it's like to live close to nature for a week or so with nothing but what's on your back.

Mike
 
Last edited:
It's still historical, but it may not be "significant".
Tim's note is key. Recently a bridge in Point Marion, PA was imploded and a new bridge built. The original was on the register, but not deemed important enough to save. Most of the "significant" structures have been rehabilitated, re-purposed, or moved. As others have suggested, I wouldn't be surprised to find ulterior motives in this case. Then again, I've been wrong before!:rolleyes:

Wes
 
It's still historical, but it may not be "significant".

Are they interested in rebuilding that bridge, or just maintaining the status quo - letting it slowly rust into the landscape without tearing it down?

Is there any decent chance of putting in another passable bridge farther along the river so folks can cross again?

That would require a whole lot bulldozing, blasting and etc. to build road parallel to the river to get a new bridge in up/downstream. Current bridge is on the road, only logical location for a new one.
 
My guess would be the 'bridge preservationists' aren't really. There is a small segment of the population that believe man is a cancer on the planet and love to have the opportunity to deny men, especially those riding on or in machines, access to nature. It happens a lot in the west with 'roadless areas'. IMHO it's just a way to deny access to people who either don't have the time or physical ability to take a 3 day hike into the mountains. Now stepping down from soapbox.

Rennie nailed it.
New ATV usage regs have some trails one-way but dead end in forest. Others come out on roads but riding on the roads is prohibited. Guess who had more pull with the Forest Service people.....
 
No offense meant Mike. It would certainly be nice to go up into the hills for 3 days, but not all of us can. I do take my truck up into the mountains following old fire roads, etc. Yes, the silence can be broken occasionally by the sound of another truck or ATV, but, at least here in Idaho, people are pretty good about packing out their trash. There are different ways of experiencing nature. One way should not be considered superior to another, just different.
 
No offense meant Mike. It would certainly be nice to go up into the hills for 3 days, but not all of us can. I do take my truck up into the mountains following old fire roads, etc. Yes, the silence can be broken occasionally by the sound of another truck or ATV, but, at least here in Idaho, people are pretty good about packing out their trash. There are different ways of experiencing nature. One way should not be considered superior to another, just different.
I agree. I just want to see some roadless areas, as well as areas with roads.

Mike
 
My guess would be the 'bridge preservationists' aren't really. There is a small segment of the population that believe man is a cancer on the planet and love to have the opportunity to deny men, especially those riding on or in machines, access to nature. It happens a lot in the west with 'roadless areas'. IMHO it's just a way to deny access to people who either don't have the time or physical ability to take a 3 day hike into the mountains. Now stepping down from soapbox.

Rennie nailed it.
New ATV usage regs have some trails one-way but dead end in forest. Others come out on roads but riding on the roads is prohibited. Guess who had more pull with the Forest Service people.....

About 18 years ago, I worked for a motorcycle & ATV trade association. At that time, the hikers and horse people - spearheaded by the Sierra Club - were complaining that the machines were too loud (and many were, btw) to be allowed to share the trails with them. Then, a couple years later, when mountain biking became hugely popular, those same groups were complaining that the mountain bikes were too quiet, and were a hazard because they couldn't hear them coming. There just ain't no pleasin' some folks...

What they really wanted, of course, was to have the whole trail system to themselves only.
 
About 18 years ago, I worked for a motorcycle & ATV trade association. At that time, the hikers and horse people - spearheaded by the Sierra Club - were complaining that the machines were too loud (and many were, btw) to be allowed to share the trails with them. Then, a couple years later, when mountain biking became hugely popular, those same groups were complaining that the mountain bikes were too quiet, and were a hazard because they couldn't hear them coming. There just ain't no pleasin' some folks...

What they really wanted, of course, was to have the whole trail system to themselves only.

We are risking digressing into never-never land.
I'll add that the horse people around here will tell you that when they meet an ATV rider on the trail, the ATV rider invariably pulls off to the side and turns off his engine. Maybe it's Arkansas, but there does seem to be a lot of mutual respect here for trail usage. OTOH, hikers act like only they have a right to be there. And, they are all skinny, really strange types that were California rejects. ;)
 
...And, they are all skinny, really strange types that were California rejects. ;)

Hey! They don't reject skinny, really strange types from California. I'm walking, talking proof of that. :rolleyes:

Years ago I was hiking on one of the local mountain trails with my dog. She was very good on voice command, so I had her unleashed. The trail was also very popular with mountain bikers, and I had several of them yell at me for not having the dog on a leash. Their argument was that she could get in their way and cause a wreck. My counter argument was that my dog was under control; they should worry more about controling their [non-CoC compliant word] bikes.
 
And, they are all skinny, really strange types that were California rejects. ;)
I don't know about the California quip, but if you do any real amount of backwoods hiking, you get skinny. The physical exertion of going up and down the hills, plus the limited food (since you have to carry all your food), tends to keep you from being obese.

I remember making Kraft macaroni and cheese from one of those boxes one evening in the mountains - made with nothing but water since I didn't have any milk. It was absolutely, positively delicious - I remember thinking at the time that it was the best mac and cheese I had ever tasted. Of course, I hadn't had a lot to eat for the past few days and I had hiked quite a few miles. Almost anything would have tasted good.

Mike
 
...I remember making Kraft macaroni and cheese from one of those boxes one evening in the mountains - made with nothing but water since I didn't have any milk. It was absolutely, positively delicious - I remember thinking at the time that it was the best mac and cheese I had ever tasted. Of course, I hadn't had a lot to eat for the past few days and I had hiked quite a few miles. Almost anything would have tasted good.

The first time I ate ramen noodles was on a backpacking trip, and man, it was some of the best food ever. Then when I tried making some at home...well, there was another burst bubble in my life. :p

I'm pretty much relegated to car camping these days. After I broke my back I gave away my backpack (and my downhill skis, too). I don't get out into the woods as often as I'd like anymore. LOML is not the camping type, and I don't really have any friends here that I'd like to go camping with.
 
Thanks!

Thanks for the Latin lesson.

Our priest comes up with tests every now and then, so I knew the second line. I had to look up the first line.

I am still learning. I like that.
 
More than likely someone is to gain from the decloration. Reminds me of an incident several years ago, a friend contracted me to design and oversee building a new house on riverside property. But the County Planning and zoning decided the property was below the 100 years flood plane. I did som surveying and found that the "flood plane" across the river was considerably lower elevation. (same river, same US flood plane, different state, different commission) So I designed a house on stilts which would pass their codes. But the contractor filled in the space between the columns :thumb: Rather than dearing down, I convenced the commission to allow a garage door either end of the "basement" to allow river flow should it flood (these doors have been replace with Patio sliders since)

Several years after the fact, it was found that the "Commission" heads were purposely devalueing property and buying on the side, because of a proposed runway extension at the airport.

My friend has her home (high and dry after several events of flooding), Airport decided not to build the runway, Commissioners got ousted and now own run down river road property. Reason I feel someone stand to profit.
 
I don't know about the California quip, but if you do any real amount of backwoods hiking, you get skinny. The physical exertion of going up and down the hills, plus the limited food (since you have to carry all your food), tends to keep you from being obese.

I remember making Kraft macaroni and cheese from one of those boxes one evening in the mountains - made with nothing but water since I didn't have any milk. It was absolutely, positively delicious - I remember thinking at the time that it was the best mac and cheese I had ever tasted. Of course, I hadn't had a lot to eat for the past few days and I had hiked quite a few miles. Almost anything would have tasted good.

Mike

Since this thread has gained new life, I'll respond. As to the California quip. My local newspaper editor has labeled me a "catalyst". I'll not deny it. I habitually make comments like that to both add humor and generate responses. Please don't take me too seriously.
I am both a hunter and historical reenactor. I know what it is to eat meagerly and prepare food under sparse conditions. I also know what it is like to have to gather and hunt food if one is to eat at all. Your watered mac and cheese sounds like luxury food compared to some I have eaten. (BTW, my favorite survival trail foods are GORP, home made jerky and pepperoni. I call the pepperoni "Italian jerky" even though it more resembles pemmican.)
But, what is real, the hikers are almost clones of one another. Men skinny with scraggly beards and long hair, wire rim glasses, L.L. Bean hiking shorts, etc. The women, not much different, sans the beards. :rolleyes: And, amusingly to a critic like myself, they claim individuality. :rofl:
 
Frank, I don't think folks should be denied access to the "other side". There's plenty of opportunities to satisfy both the car campers and remote campers. Take the wilderness areas of CA...plenty of camping off the main roads for us lazy folks and then great opportunities for the more adventurous to wander for miles and miles.
 
Top