HikeArizona.COM

:SB:
Due supposedly in response to the standoff in Oregon, Forest Service employees have been told...
they are not allowed to speak to members of the public until notified otherwise.
Talk about a ridiculous gag order!
(Even TRAL volunteers are encouraged NOT to wear their TRAL/FS logo t-shirts until further notice as well.)

So don't feel bad if you encounter an FS employee and wish to ask them a question and they walk away without saying a word.

(My gut feeling is this standoff is going to be wrapped up very soon... whether it ends in violence or not)

Jim_H wrote: The OP is a prime example of someone getting grapevine information, assuming anything ever even came from the FS, and it being misunderstood and corrupted.

Nice try Jim, but you are way off base here... [-X

#1. I take umbrage with your characterization of me... I believe an apology is in order.

#2. I did not ASSUME ANYTHING. What I posted was absolutely NOT grapevine information, it came straight from the horses' mouth so to speak... one-on-one confirmation from the leader of TRAL, who was not only on the scene but answered the question which was asked of the FS personnel.

BTW, I have encountered FS personnel on roughly a dozen occasions over my 13 years in AZ, but then I do spend a reasonable amount of time in areas that are patrolled a bit more than the average.
On one occasion I was approached by undercover DPS officers (pretty rough-looking characters) wondering what I was doing where I was. (I was at Edwards Park) They were looking for marijuana grows and meth labs. After chatting with them the leader gave me his direct emergency call line and asked to call him anytime if I ever had information about such things. As it turns out I have contacted him on two occasion about things I encountered.

AZDigger wrote:

CannondaleKid wrote:Sorry, no link.

As a Forest Service/TRAL volunteer I received it in a direct communication from the leader of TRAL.
Frankly, being an internal communication, I don't expect this to be posted officially on the FS/BLM/NP or any other Federal web site.
(We don't want to stir up the wackos now do we?)

Hopefully, once the Oregon standoff is over they are allowed to interact with the public again....

Thank you bud for the intel, but the only "wackos" out there are the government agencies you people volunteer your services to. I hope you're being facetious with the "Wacko" comment? I know you volunteers do most of the grunt work for the FS and others. I hope you keep your sanity and don't drink from their cup of delusional fantasy's.

Dude, just stop now... You're getting personal. "You people"?

Really. Just like you think the agencies are the wackos is your right, it's my right to look at "you people" showing off with your guns on trail and in Fry's and thinking you are a moron. It works both ways.

Since TRAL is not actually the USFS, but is "The Tonto Recreation Alliance is an Arizona Non-profit corporation comprised of volunteer off-highway vehicle enthusiasts." that isn't the same thing as coming from the USFS. Also, if there is 1 thing I have learned from working in government, is that it is big, full of misinformation, and unless someone has an official document in hand, and can (since this is the internet) link to that document, it is grapevine information. Feel free to be offended if you like, but you don't have a link, and you don't have a memo, you have 3rd party information, and don't expect me to just believe everything someone claims.

Jason Cleghorn wrote:....

...it's my right to look at "you people" showing off with your guns on trail and in Fry's and thinking you are a moron. It works both ways.

I'm glad someone else posted that bit. Because, if there was ever something that made me laugh out loud in surprise, and then feel bad, it was being in Oro Valley in April of 2014 at the really nice Fry's in the wealthy west foothills-esque area of greater Tucson, and seeing a man, somewhere in his 70s or maybe 80s, loading his groceries into his Mercury Grand Marquee with a rather large gun strapped to his waist. This guy was probably really proud of his piece, but his movements, age, and appearance (well groomed, but elderly) suggested that if someone really wanted to rob him or harm him, he didn't stand a chance. What was this mythical criminal of the gun toting psyche going to do? Approach head on and yell, "draw"?

Yeah, right, they would sneak up behind him, hit him on the head (maybe with a rock from the parking lot landscaping), take his gun, and then do whatever they intended. Maybe there is some fellow fire arm enthusiast waiting nearby who would wet their pants at the opportunity to engage the criminal element, but they way people and adrenaline are, there would be bullets a-flying, and I would hope to be well, well away from the people who want to fight the criminal. Because in those cases they will feel more threatening than some guy hoped up on Meth running wild through a Fry's parking lot.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care, carry a gun, but I too find it ridiculous to carry all the time. The statistics for injury and suicide are far greater then actual self defense. I don't take offense at you people statements, though, as I am seldom with people. ;)

Whatever you say Jim... while your statement is correct:

Jim_H wrote:Since TRAL is not actually the USFS, but is "The Tonto Recreation Alliance is an Arizona Non-profit corporation comprised of volunteer off-highway vehicle enthusiasts."

That does NOT mean it's just a loosely-run organization of 4-wheelers, when in fact it is VERY closely tied to the Forest Service.

They have been traversing Forest Roads for a number of years using FS equipment to track and map the roads to aid in the FS preparation of their Travel Management program. TRAL has mapped out 75% of the roads... doing work that the FS has not had enough in their budget to have FS employees do the work. There are FS employees at every TRAL meeting and there is a great deal of two-way communication each time.

As far as I'm concerned, if the leader of TRAL tells me he was there and that is what happened, I believe him.

BTW, the first I heard of this whole thing was an email from him to me. I responded in a similar vein to him as I did here, and he duly noted it and passed my response on to the FS. That is good enough for me.

(And no, I will NOT post the email... if you don't believe me, that's your choice.)

I knew there was a reason why I made use of ignore mode in the first place.

Like I said, anyone can post things on the internet. Small claims, like I hiked Cactus to Clouds and forgot my camera, I can take at face value. Ones such as this, I am always going to be suspicious of. Being offended is just silly, when you should do the same thing if I were to post such a claim.

Jason Cleghorn wrote:

AZDigger wrote:

CannondaleKid wrote:Sorry, no link.

As a Forest Service/TRAL volunteer I received it in a direct communication from the leader of TRAL.
Frankly, being an internal communication, I don't expect this to be posted officially on the FS/BLM/NP or any other Federal web site.
(We don't want to stir up the wackos now do we?)

Hopefully, once the Oregon standoff is over they are allowed to interact with the public again....

Thank you bud for the intel, but the only "wackos" out there are the government agencies you people volunteer your services to. I hope you're being facetious with the "Wacko" comment? I know you volunteers do most of the grunt work for the FS and others. I hope you keep your sanity and don't drink from their cup of delusional fantasy's.

Dude, just stop now... You're getting personal. "You people"?

Really. Just like you think the agencies are the wackos is your right, it's my right to look at "you people" showing off with your guns on trail and in Fry's and thinking you are a moron. It works both ways.

Sorry, but it's not a personal attack on you or anyone else. It is my constitutional right to carry a weapon, I'm trained to do so, a certified safety officer, and can legally carry concealed in most states. It's unfortunate that you, and "some people" feel you're on moral ground to condemn others for exercising their rights. You can as an individual relinquish your God given rights to the government, call us wackos, and go hide in a hole if/when, God forbid, you are ever assaulted by someone with a deadly weapon. You have the right to be a victim. I applaud you for standing for what you believe and sticking to your guns, no pun intended. Please respect my right to openly object and fight for what I believe.

@AZDigger While I do not and likely will never own a firearm, I do support the right to own them, with one caveat...

If we must be trained and pass a test to drive a vehicle, which like a firearm, can be lethal, why shouldn't the same thing be true to own a firearm?
Personally, I believe there is no valid reason why there isn't a requirement for training and licensing by a licensed trainer/firearm school to own a firearm.

CannondaleKid wrote:@AZDigger While I do not and likely will never own a firearm, I do support the right to own them, with one caveat...

If we must be trained and pass a test to drive a vehicle, which like a firearm, can be lethal, why shouldn't the same thing be true to own a firearm?

Personally, I believe there is no valid reason why there isn't a requirement for training and licensing by a licensed trainer/firearm school to own a firearm.

If there were as many people being killed by firearms as there are people killed/maimed everyday by motor vehicles, I might concede your point. But statistics show that for the past 50 years, car related deaths and injury have outnumbered gun deaths by staggering numbers. There is also the 2nd amendment guaranteeing all Americans the right to bear arms, and training isn't a perquisite. Unfortunately driving an automobile is a privilege not a right. As I stated in another thread here, there are definitely people out there who shouldn't be in possession of a firearm or be behind the wheel of a car.

I think we should have a full on debate over constitutional law, The Bill of Rights, and how it pertains not only to the AZT, but also to hiking in general. What, if any, rights do I have if I want to walk in to a crowded section of trail and yell, "fire", and what limits can be imposed on the number or type of weapon I can carry on the trail. Can I hike non-wilderness trails with a rocket launcher?

Jim_H wrote:I think we should have a full on debate over constitutional law, The Bill of Rights, and how it pertains not only to the AZT, but also to hiking in general. What, if any, rights do I have if I want to walk in to a crowded section of trail and yell, "fire", and what limits can be imposed on the number or type of weapon I can carry on the trail.

Can I hike non-wilderness trails with a rocket launcher?

Wow Jim, as it stands now, if you could legally poses a rocket launcher, which you can't, and could carry it in addition to your pack, please feel free to do so, I wouldn't be offended. But I bet it would lead to some interesting trail talk. The BLM passed laws a few years ago prohibiting explosive devices on any of their managed lands, not sure if it included rocket launchers. This was to get ahead of the idiots blowing things up with Tannerite (exploding targets). The problem has however either grown beyond their ability to police it, or they are so side tracked with the Bundy's and domestic terrorist that they don't have time. The FS and BLM now recognize a states right to regulate and/or promote their own gun laws, how generous of them. If you can legally own a weapon in Arizona you can legally carry it into any National Forest or Wilderness area in the state. To my knowledge, if I chose to carry a Dirty Harry, Black Gun (AR-15), or a full auto machine gun (class 3 stamp required obviously), I could legally do so. So be prepared to always meet somebody on the trail who is strapped, concealed or open carry. Interesting topic, but should we be doing this in a HAZ forum?

Does the 2nd Amendment say anything about flame throwers?

@AZDigger

I don't understand what an argument for your legal right to carry has to do with this forum topic.

I was out with a few volunteers yesterday, they were told to not to hike alone and not to wear their uniforms in the backcountry. There was 3 volunteers and an FS employee at First Water talking to the public and answering questions. Most of the work that happens out there is done by unpaid volunteers, they have no obligation to do anything so an abundance of caution may seem silly but I don't find it as offensive as some.

knmurphy wrote:There was 3 volunteers and an FS employee at First Water talking to the public and answering questions.

So either these individuals were violating the [non-public/internally-mandated] gag order, or the report by the OP isn't accurate?

I didn't hear anything about not talking to the public, some supervisors might have been worried and said not to engage the public, don't know just speculating. Not calling anyone a liar, just reporting what I saw. I know the people I was with were told not to wear uniforms hiking alone, no gag order.

We saw 4 FS folks in uniform (which is how I knew they were FS folks) on quads talking to other riders. They were laughing and appeared to be having a good time at the turnoff to Four Peaks, off the Beeline. This was Sunday.

@Alston Neal This is good to hear. If I was an FS employee, I would probably be doing the same thing... using common sense as the situation merits, instead of following a knee-jerk reaction order, whether official or un-official.

But then I was always one to question non-sensical orders, especially when I was in the military.

Jim_H wrote:

Jason Cleghorn wrote:....

...it's my right to look at "you people" showing off with your guns on trail and in Fry's and thinking you are a moron. It works both ways.

I'm glad someone else posted that bit. Because, if there was ever something that made me laugh out loud in surprise, and then feel bad, it was being in Oro Valley in April of 2014 at the really nice Fry's in the wealthy west foothills-esque area of greater Tucson, and seeing a man, somewhere in his 70s or maybe 80s, loading his groceries into his Mercury Grand Marquee with a rather large gun strapped to his waist. This guy was probably really proud of his piece, but his movements, age, and appearance (well groomed, but elderly) suggested that if someone really wanted to rob him or harm him, he didn't stand a chance. What was this mythical criminal of the gun toting psyche going to do? Approach head on and yell, "draw"?

Yeah, right, they would sneak up behind him, hit him on the head (maybe with a rock from the parking lot landscaping), take his gun, and then do whatever they intended. Maybe there is some fellow fire arm enthusiast waiting nearby who would wet their pants at the opportunity to engage the criminal element, but they way people and adrenaline are, there would be bullets a-flying, and I would hope to be well, well away from the people who want to fight the criminal. Because in those cases they will feel more threatening than some guy hoped up on Meth running wild through a Fry's parking lot.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care, carry a gun, but I too find it ridiculous to carry all the time. The statistics for injury and suicide are far greater then actual self defense. I don't take offense at you people statements, though, as I am seldom with people. ;)

That was funny Jim. Don't let the old man fool you Jim. I had one in my IDPA club, 82 years old, arthritis in both hands, couldn't walk without a cane. He came to the range with a new semi auto pistol he had never shot. I will admit that I almost washed him out for many of the reasons you joked about. But knowing someday that would be me, I spent extra time with him and within a few months, he was an old bad pumpkin you didn't want to walk up on. Obviously his age, hearing loss, infirmity kept him from being the fastest on the range, but his times for upholstering his weapon from cover safely, and engaging a target with 2+1 put him in the top 10 of 25 guys. Could you sneak up on him with a big stick, maybe, but that wouldn't be fair would it?