blooddrive
01-08-2004, 05:15 PM
Collapse MessagMsg # Date | Thread
82891 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:49pm
Subject: RE: Re: What do you all think of this?
Everyone certainly has the RIGHT to speak to the papers regarding their
issues and views but believe me, the Arizona reporters WILL TURN WHATEVER
YOU SAY AROUND TO THEIR OWN VIEWS OR TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT. I have been
"misquoted" so many time's I've quit talking to the reporters at all. A
year ago when a reporter ASSURED me he would "quote" me exactly, I requested
I be able to "review" the article before publication............ yeh,
right!!!
Most of the numbers and/or names the reporters have come from the scoping
meetings lists, the OHV Conference list; partnership members lists
etc........... it certainly seems to grow with each issue. Wonder what it
will be like, and WHO will be contacted when the OHV Gas Tax Fund issue hits
the public!!!! There's a lot of action behind closed doors right now, and
no one knows whether it's too late to get something done but there are
definitely WAVES being made right now......
To any of you that happen to "receive that 'special' call, and you chose to
speak with them, PLEASE be VERY SPECIFIC and make them REPEAT back your
quote EXACTLY as you stated it and in YOUR context!!!
Most of what they "quote" or reference are tid bits the GAGS use to their
benefit because most of the general public truly do not understand
"motorized recreation"........... we're ALL "motorheads" and "rip up the
environment"!!
Hang in there............. we're on the front page!!! Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Warner [mailto:KnetAZ@q...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:02 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: What do you all think of this?
>
>
> IS there a number they would call to get our group? We are big enough
> that we would be a resource to "balance the story" I would seem to me.
> Unless it took more than 15 minutes work to reach us.....
>
> The "other " groups have a single point of media contact. They are
> always going to get their view into the paper, if it only takes the
> reporter 10 minutes to get a quote.
>
> These reporters are looking for sound bites within a news cycle, they
> aren't working real hard on in depth and balanced reporting.
>
> "Attempts to reach representatives of four-wheel drive groups and other
> recreational users were unsuccessful Wednesday"
>
> OOhhhh. They put a whole day into reaching the other side,
> theoreticly, between 8 and 5 when "recreational" users where earning
> the money to pay for their recreation, while the professional lobbiest
> where easily available to the phone.
>
> Just sayin'......
>
> --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> > They said...
> >
> > The new policy would affect the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab,
> > Prescott and Tonto national forests.
> >
> > The Coronado National Forest in southern Arizona is working on its own
> > policy as it creates a land-management plan.
> >
> > What amazes me is that they can't even agree on a standard policy within
> > our own state. Nothing like making it easy for the OHV user..keeping
> > things consistent, etc.
> >
> >
> > 2nd, I guess I am confused because I thought we were required to stay on
> > existing roads and trails.
> >
> >
> > Lastly..
> >
> > Attempts to reach representatives of four-wheel drive groups and other
> > recreational users were unsuccessful Wednesday
> >
> > I am thinking they really didn't try very hard...anyone here get a call
> > from the paper today? LOL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Stu Olson
> > www.stu-offroad.com
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe-CJ7 [mailto:Joe-CJ7@j...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:51 PM
> > To: Jeep Club
> > Subject: [az_vjc] What do you all think of this?
> >
> > Check out this article:
> > <http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0416OFFROAD-ON.html>
> > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0416OFFROAD-ON.html
> > Sounds one sided to me.
> > hmm
> > Joe Kearney
> > Joe-CJ7@J...
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
82892 From: Mark <fordlover49@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:56pm
Subject: Re: Wrenching Party Thu/Fri/Sat/Sun
Simple, because I've had this alias for 6 years, every since I first
got my own e-mail when I was 15. At the time the only vehicle I had
was a 1949 Ford F-1 w/ a 239 flathead in it. So I've just kept my
alias every since then because it's easy to remember (fordlover49)
and is unique (I've never found anyone else using it, generally if
the username is taken on a web site, chances are I signed up for it,
long ago 8P)..
-Mark
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "John Teel" <jcteel1@e...> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> So why is your email address fordlover and not jeeplover? ;-)
Sorry
> I couldn't resist.
>
> John
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <fordlover49@y...> wrote:
> > I'm finally putting my dana 44/60 under the jeep. I know I will
> > still need some more parts, but some of those parts (such as drag
> > link, brake lines, etc) will require the axles being under the
jeep
> > to even know the correct lengths I will need. It probably won't
> take
> > all four days, but I have the whole weekend off to work on it
> > anyways. I have a garage (kind of cramped, but I'm commited to
> doing
> > it there as I already have the dana 30 out), could use a welder,
> but
> > can always rent one..
> >
> > I have to get this done before June, and this is my last good
> weekend
> > to get it done. Looks like I'm going to end up moving to San
Diego
> > for a job at Qualcomm..
> >
> > Can supply pizza/beer of course..
> >
> > -Mark
82893 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:28pm
Subject: [Tech] 97 TJ - REPLACE DANA REAR END W/ FORD 9"
HAS ANY ONE DONE THIS AND IF SO CAN YOU E-MAIL WHAT WAS ALL INTAILED TO DO SO.
THANKS
JACK AT bdbowty@msn.com
jack garrison
82894 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:43pm
Subject: RE: Locker operation question?
John,
Your locker is operating correctly. You described exactly how it should
behave. The one aspect you are missing is torque from the drive shaft.
When the drive shaft is free both wheels will unlock. You turn one the
other side will turn the same way unless you stop its motion. You will
even be able to turn it the opposite direction. You will also notice
that the drive shaft is spinning. Now I think if you can grab the shaft
firmly enough while it is spinning you will cause the locker to engage
and lock both wheels together.
Auto lockers and limited slips (to my knowledge) are managed by the
torque applied by the drive shaft.
So to understand the on road/trail characteristics: When you are stopped
and floor the accelerator the torque applied from the drive shaft will
lock the rear and cause both wheels to spin. Or when cornering sharp you
accelerate both wheels will lock and one will spin. This is because one
wheel is not traveling the same distance. While parking your Jeep you
will have to practice coasting during your turn so you don't chip the
tires or prematurely wear the tread.
The one aspect I like is that when engine breaking the anti-torque on
the drive shaft will lock both wheels, helping you to keep consistent
speed down hill over moguls, for example some of the descents on FR42.
Joey K
http://www.desertjeep.com
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: John Teel [mailto:jcteel1@e...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:39 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Locker operation question?
I completed installing the Powertrax No-slip locker in the rear last
night and all seems well so far. However, just as a sanity check I
just now jacked up the Jeep and redid the experiments again to test
the locker operation (it was late last night when I did these the
first time). I'm a bit confused with the results. When I jack up
both rear wheels they indeed are locked and turning one wheel turns
the other. If I then hold one side and attempt to turn the other
side in the same direction it initially doesn't want to turn. This
is correct and as expected since the differential is still locked.
However, if I put just a little more force into it I can easily break
them apart and turn the wheel freely! That doesn't seem right to me
since when on the trail if each tire has a slightly different load on
it then it seems like they would come unlocked. Then again I
understand that when the tires are forced apart (usually by one
turning faster than the other) that's what is used to unlock them and
put then in differential mode so maybe this is correct operation. It
seems like when on the trail and needing the locked rear that these
auto lockers will go into and out of locked/differential mode. I
guess in the end the result is the same as if it stayed locked the
whole time. The air lockers sure are a much cleaner solution
although so much more expensive and complicated.
So is my locker operating correctly? Do these auto lockers tend to go
into and out of locked mode when climbing an obstacle? If so is the
climbing performance of this as good as with a air locker or always-
locked locker?
Thanks,
John
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
82895 From: Kent Warner <KnetAZ@q...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:48am
Subject: Re: What do you all think of this?
Yikes, hadn't thought of that possibility.
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Sandee McCullen" <mccullen@c...> wrote:
> Everyone certainly has the RIGHT to speak to the papers regarding their
> issues and views but believe me, the Arizona reporters WILL TURN
WHATEVER
> YOU SAY AROUND TO THEIR OWN VIEWS OR TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT. I
have been
> "misquoted" so many time's I've quit talking to the reporters at all. A
> year ago when a reporter ASSURED me he would "quote" me exactly, I
requested
> I be able to "review" the article before publication............ yeh,
> right!!!
>
> Most of the numbers and/or names the reporters have come from the
scoping
> meetings lists, the OHV Conference list; partnership members lists
> etc........... it certainly seems to grow with each issue. Wonder
what it
> will be like, and WHO will be contacted when the OHV Gas Tax Fund
issue hits
> the public!!!! There's a lot of action behind closed doors right
now, and
> no one knows whether it's too late to get something done but there are
> definitely WAVES being made right now......
>
> To any of you that happen to "receive that 'special' call, and you
chose to
> speak with them, PLEASE be VERY SPECIFIC and make them REPEAT back your
> quote EXACTLY as you stated it and in YOUR context!!!
>
> Most of what they "quote" or reference are tid bits the GAGS use to
their
> benefit because most of the general public truly do not understand
> "motorized recreation"........... we're ALL "motorheads" and "rip
up the
> environment"!!
>
> Hang in there............. we're on the front page!!! Sandee
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kent Warner [mailto:KnetAZ@q...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:02 PM
> > To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Re: What do you all think of this?
> >
> >
> > IS there a number they would call to get our group? We are big enough
> > that we would be a resource to "balance the story" I would seem to me.
> > Unless it took more than 15 minutes work to reach us.....
> >
> > The "other " groups have a single point of media contact. They are
> > always going to get their view into the paper, if it only takes the
> > reporter 10 minutes to get a quote.
> >
> > These reporters are looking for sound bites within a news cycle, they
> > aren't working real hard on in depth and balanced reporting.
> >
> > "Attempts to reach representatives of four-wheel drive groups and
other
> > recreational users were unsuccessful Wednesday"
> >
> > OOhhhh. They put a whole day into reaching the other side,
> > theoreticly, between 8 and 5 when "recreational" users where earning
> > the money to pay for their recreation, while the professional lobbiest
> > where easily available to the phone.
> >
> > Just sayin'......
> >
> > --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> > > They said...
> > >
> > > The new policy would affect the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab,
> > > Prescott and Tonto national forests.
> > >
> > > The Coronado National Forest in southern Arizona is working on
its own
> > > policy as it creates a land-management plan.
> > >
> > > What amazes me is that they can't even agree on a standard
policy within
> > > our own state. Nothing like making it easy for the OHV
user..keeping
> > > things consistent, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2nd, I guess I am confused because I thought we were required to
stay on
> > > existing roads and trails.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lastly..
> > >
> > > Attempts to reach representatives of four-wheel drive groups and
other
> > > recreational users were unsuccessful Wednesday
> > >
> > > I am thinking they really didn't try very hard...anyone here get
a call
> > > from the paper today? LOL
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Stu Olson
> > > www.stu-offroad.com
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe-CJ7 [mailto:Joe-CJ7@j...]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:51 PM
> > > To: Jeep Club
> > > Subject: [az_vjc] What do you all think of this?
> > >
> > > Check out this article:
> > > <http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0416OFFROAD-ON.html>
> > > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0416OFFROAD-ON.html
> > > Sounds one sided to me.
> > > hmm
> > > Joe Kearney
> > > Joe-CJ7@J...
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
82896 From: Donald Whitehead <donjodie@a...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:33am
Subject: Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
This winch is on sale for $289.
It is 1.8 HP and 8000 lbs (reminds me of superwinch size motors)
Is this worth buying? Stu can you tell I am winch shopping?
82897 From: <Steveslifer@a...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 2:37am
Subject: Your article regarding off road use
You quote the Forest Service as having "difficulty" in reaching the off road community. For myself, no one tried to reach me, although we have been to several meetings and gave our phone number and e-mail to representatives, both from the USF and BLM. I note that you had a quote from the Sierra Club. Did you make any attempts to reach anyone from our community, namely, the clubs, of which I belong to two of them (Virtual Jeep Club and Mesa 4 Wheelers)? There's a web site which lists all of the clubs here in Arizona, and that's just four wheel clubs, not to mention ATVs and motorcycles who use the trails.
While, as someone who would like to see the land protected, I take issue with OHVs being singled out - it seems as though the media singles out OHV's as being environmentally harmful, causing soil erosion, disrupting wildlife and carving out new roads, among other things. I've been on runs for 11 years with a number of people, and never saw a trail being made, or wildlife disrupted.
Please make sure that you report correctly, and that those individuals who are giving us a bad name are usually not part of the OHV Community, but people who are uneducated in the trails, or simply do not care.
While you investigate, please realize that OHV users are ones who clean up after the community, and restore trails. A great many of our clubs adopt trails, do clean ups of areas, and perform a public services. To read your article, we didn't care enough to respond, and to my knowledge, this was not the case. We weren't given a chance to respond. Believe me when I say that when we are given the opportunity, we try to be proactive. If you're interested in doing another article, feel free to contact me. I would be happy to arrange a meeting between you and some of our members.
Rose Slifer
480-831-7868
82898 From: Siade, Randy <randy.siade@u...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 6:41am
Subject: RE: Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
That is an exact copy of the Ramsey rep 8000. I have the Ramsey rep 8000 and a guy I work with has the Harbor Freight one and they look completely identical all the way down to the specs.
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Whitehead [mailto:donjodie@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:34 AM
To: Stu Olson; Arizona Virtual Jeep club
Subject: [az_vjc] Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
This winch is on sale for $289.
It is 1.8 HP and 8000 lbs (reminds me of superwinch size motors)
Is this worth buying? Stu can you tell I am winch shopping?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
82899 From: Scott Legge <slegge1@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:10am
Subject: Re: Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
I have read TONS of hearsay about these winches. Some about bushings vs. bearings in the motors and other inferior things. If anyone has any real world hands on experience please post ;-)
Scott Legge
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: Donald Whitehead ; Stu Olson ; Arizona Virtual Jeep club
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 6:41 AM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
That is an exact copy of the Ramsey rep 8000. I have the Ramsey rep 8000 and a guy I work with has the Harbor Freight one and they look completely identical all the way down to the specs.
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Whitehead [mailto:donjodie@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:34 AM
To: Stu Olson; Arizona Virtual Jeep club <azvjc@azvjc. org>
Subject: [az_vjc] Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
This winch is on sale for $289.
It is 1.8 HP and 8000 lbs (reminds me of superwinch size motors)
Is this worth buying? Stu can you tell I am winch shopping?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
82900 From: Nick Gasmena <NickG@4...>
Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 7:09am
Subject: RE: Thanks to the following individuals for contributing to Hunter Offroad's Stolen Ramp
Id rather see him ramp his Cessna :)
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 06:52 PM
To: arizonajeep@c...; 'Azvjc (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Thanks to the following individuals for contributing
to Hunter Offroad's Stolen Ramp
Hey Joe,
Are you going to put a kill switch on it? How about a Lojack?
<Grin>
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe W [mailto:arizonajeep@c...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:38 AM
To: Azvjc (E-mail)
Subject: [az_vjc] Thanks to the following individuals for contributing to
Hunter Offroad's Stolen Ramp
I'd like to publicly thank the following individuals for their contribution
to the Hunter Offroad Ramp Fund:
Michael Hoyt
Stu Olson
Brad Kilgore
Scott Kruize
Michael Wixom
Gary Holmes
Shawn Passmore
Scott Bruns
Bill Hooven
John DeRuiter
For those who wish to contribute, you can paypal funds to:
arizonajeep@c...
The purpose of this fund is to assist John at Hunter Offroad in replacing
his Ramp Travel Index (RTI) Ramp which was stolen. As a group, many of us
have used this ramp over the last couple of years so I thought it would be
nice if we helped John replace the ramp (especially since he built it for us
for AZVJC BBQ 1).
For those who were going to contribute parts such as spindles, bearings,
wheels and tires for the ramp... could you please contact me offline so I
can arrange to pick this stuff up?
Kind Regards,
Joe West
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
82901 From: Mark <fordlover49@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:44am
Subject: Re: Wrenching Party Thu/Fri/Sat/Sun
For those of you who asked, it's in the Northwest valley (El Mirage).
-Mark
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <fordlover49@y...> wrote:
> I'm finally putting my dana 44/60 under the jeep. I know I will
> still need some more parts, but some of those parts (such as drag
> link, brake lines, etc) will require the axles being under the jeep
> to even know the correct lengths I will need. It probably won't
take
> all four days, but I have the whole weekend off to work on it
> anyways. I have a garage (kind of cramped, but I'm commited to
doing
> it there as I already have the dana 30 out), could use a welder,
but
> can always rent one..
>
> I have to get this done before June, and this is my last good
weekend
> to get it done. Looks like I'm going to end up moving to San Diego
> for a job at Qualcomm..
>
> Can supply pizza/beer of course..
>
> -Mark
82902 From: FredTJ <fredtj@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:46am
Subject: Re: Locker operation question?
John, part of what you may be seeing is because there is no "power" being
applied to the pinion.. My front LockRite will "unlock" fairly easily if
there is no torque being applied to the pinion, i.e., if I'm in 2 wd... That
allows for it to unlock better when going around turns, etc...
Best,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Teel" <jcteel1@e...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:38 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] Locker operation question?
> I completed installing the Powertrax No-slip locker in the rear last
> night and all seems well so far. However, just as a sanity check I
> just now jacked up the Jeep and redid the experiments again to test
> the locker operation (it was late last night when I did these the
> first time). I'm a bit confused with the results. When I jack up
> both rear wheels they indeed are locked and turning one wheel turns
> the other. If I then hold one side and attempt to turn the other
> side in the same direction it initially doesn't want to turn. This
> is correct and as expected since the differential is still locked.
> However, if I put just a little more force into it I can easily break
> them apart and turn the wheel freely! That doesn't seem right to me
> since when on the trail if each tire has a slightly different load on
> it then it seems like they would come unlocked. Then again I
> understand that when the tires are forced apart (usually by one
> turning faster than the other) that's what is used to unlock them and
> put then in differential mode so maybe this is correct operation. It
> seems like when on the trail and needing the locked rear that these
> auto lockers will go into and out of locked/differential mode. I
> guess in the end the result is the same as if it stayed locked the
> whole time. The air lockers sure are a much cleaner solution
> although so much more expensive and complicated.
>
> So is my locker operating correctly? Do these auto lockers tend to go
> into and out of locked mode when climbing an obstacle? If so is the
> climbing performance of this as good as with a air locker or always-
> locked locker?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
82903 From: Mitch Woodward <bigwood@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:49am
Subject: Re: Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
I don't have any real world experience with the winch in question, but I try to avoid harbor freight for stuff I need to depend on. I shop there for pneumatic tools, hammers, clamps, etc. I once braved the purchase of a Chicago 110v mig welder. It was a total POS, it couldn't penetrate .120 wall tubing. I took it back and got the Hobart 135...much better.
Mitch
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald Whitehead
To: Stu Olson ; Arizona Virtual Jeep club
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:33 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
This winch is on sale for $289.
It is 1.8 HP and 8000 lbs (reminds me of superwinch size motors)
Is this worth buying? Stu can you tell I am winch shopping?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
82904 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:00am
Subject: OHV Article
The major reason members of the OHV community, including myself, do not "return" your calls is specifically because we're tired of being mis-quoted and/or our words taken out of context. I personally have spoken with many reporters over the past several years and have NEVER been "quoted" correctly nor has OHV been reflected in a positive light by any reporters.
You all know quite well that the general public are very influenced by "what they read"................
The OHV recreationists of today are responsible users of our lands. Many participate in massive clean ups each year and put forth many hours working with our land managers......... The OHV recreationists are the ones "adopting" trails to help the managers maintain trails; the OHV recreationists are the ones helping with "signing" trails to help educate new recreationists the need to "stay on trails" and "Tread Lightly"; OHV recreationists are the ones that are adopting "Ranches" to help our ranchers build fences, gates, water tanks or simply cleaning an area for them. We haul tons of trash off private and public lands that have been illegally dumped. I have NEVER seen a member of Sierra Club or Center for Biological Diversity or Sky Island Alliance, or Forest Guardians, or even the Wilderness Coalition or Audabon Society for that matter, in attendance at a land clean-up or safety riding or driving clinic. Very few, if any, attend Land Management meetings with the land managers. Remember.......... EVERYONE is most likely using a "motorized" vehicle to reach their trailhead of choice. Our Constitution of the United States gives us the "freedom to choose" our recreation. Motorized recreationists are not "motorheads and/or destroyers of the lands and resources" as portrayed by the media and/or environmental groups.
State Trust Lands (9.3 million acres) require a permit to access........................... ever researched WHO have the permits? OHV recreationists. The non-motorized and mechanized simply refuse to purchase a permit. The "dog walkers" refuse to purchase a permit, the bird watchers or hikers "enjoying nature" refuse to purchase a permit.......... I have personally worked with the the Arizona State Land Dept. in spending our weekends at areas of high recreational use.............. the OHV areas we will sell upwards of 300 hundred permits in a day, finding one or two that fuss about the need for a permit. In the preserve or non-motorized areas we sell less than a dozen, if any. Raise some questions?
We invite members of the media to our "clean up projects" or "recreation events" but we never seem to see a member of the media interested enough to truly join us to understand and actually SEE what we're about. Maybe when the OHV community start seeing true interest they will be much more open about speaking with you when you wish to report on an issue. We have NO problem communicating with the Land Agencies.................. Many of us are involved in numerous "collaborative partnerships" with our Land Agencies and are diligently striving for "multi-use" recreation.
Our great land truly does have enough for everyone...................... and it's very feasible to share much of it. Arizona alone has over 5 million acres of Wilderness areas that motorized use is forbidden. This is accepted................. why can the rest of our lands not be shared by all???
Sandee McCullen
480.832.8132
82905 From: oveson2 <oveson.l@j...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:05am
Subject: SALE - TJ HARDTOP
TJ FACTORY HARDTOP FROM 2000TJ
COLOR: BLACK
TINTED WINDOWS
REAR WIPER
SELDOM USED
STORED INSIDE GARAGE
Price: $1000 Cash Only
Lyle Oveson
623-214-2746
WWW.OVESON.L@J...
82906 From: b h <xjnation@y...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:14am
Subject: Re: OHV Article
Hey Sandee
Great job very well written....we should figure out a
way for you to post this and have it signed by
everyone who wishes too...kinda like a guest
book....name addy and email....then get it to the
powers that be!
Brian Harmon
Flagstaff AZ
--- Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...> wrote:
>
> The major reason members of the OHV community,
> including myself, do not
> "return" your calls is specifically because we're
> tired of being mis-quoted
> and/or our words taken out of context. I personally
> have spoken with many
> reporters over the past several years and have NEVER
> been "quoted" correctly
> nor has OHV been reflected in a positive light by
> any reporters.
>
> You all know quite well that the general public
> are very influenced by
> "what they read"................
>
> The OHV recreationists of today are responsible
> users of our lands. Many
> participate in massive clean ups each year and put
> forth many hours working
> with our land managers......... The OHV
> recreationists are the ones
> "adopting" trails to help the managers maintain
> trails; the OHV
> recreationists are the ones helping with "signing"
> trails to help educate
> new recreationists the need to "stay on trails" and
> "Tread Lightly"; OHV
> recreationists are the ones that are adopting
> "Ranches" to help our ranchers
> build fences, gates, water tanks or simply cleaning
> an area for them. We
> haul tons of trash off private and public lands that
> have been illegally
> dumped. I have NEVER seen a member of Sierra Club
> or Center for Biological
> Diversity or Sky Island Alliance, or Forest
> Guardians, or even the
> Wilderness Coalition or Audabon Society for that
> matter, in attendance at a
> land clean-up or safety riding or driving clinic.
> Very few, if any, attend
> Land Management meetings with the land managers.
> Remember..........
> EVERYONE is most likely using a "motorized" vehicle
> to reach their trailhead
> of choice. Our Constitution of the United States
> gives us the "freedom to
> choose" our recreation. Motorized recreationists
> are not "motorheads and/or
> destroyers of the lands and resources" as portrayed
> by the media and/or
> environmental groups.
>
> State Trust Lands (9.3 million acres) require a
> permit to
> access........................... ever researched
> WHO have the permits?
> OHV recreationists. The non-motorized and
> mechanized simply refuse to
> purchase a permit. The "dog walkers" refuse to
> purchase a permit, the bird
> watchers or hikers "enjoying nature" refuse to
> purchase a permit..........
> I have personally worked with the the Arizona State
> Land Dept. in spending
> our weekends at areas of high recreational
> use.............. the OHV areas
> we will sell upwards of 300 hundred permits in a
> day, finding one or two
> that fuss about the need for a permit. In the
> preserve or non-motorized
> areas we sell less than a dozen, if any. Raise some
> questions?
>
> We invite members of the media to our "clean up
> projects" or "recreation
> events" but we never seem to see a member of the
> media interested enough to
> truly join us to understand and actually SEE what
> we're about. Maybe when
> the OHV community start seeing true interest they
> will be much more open
> about speaking with you when you wish to report on
> an issue. We have NO
> problem communicating with the Land
> Agencies.................. Many of us
> are involved in numerous "collaborative
> partnerships" with our Land Agencies
> and are diligently striving for "multi-use"
> recreation.
>
> Our great land truly does have enough for
> everyone......................
> and it's very feasible to share much of it. Arizona
> alone has over 5
> million acres of Wilderness areas that motorized use
> is forbidden. This is
> accepted................. why can the rest of our
> lands not be shared by
> all???
>
> Sandee McCullen
> 480.832.8132
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
82907 From: blt4rox <blt4rox@e...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:08am
Subject: Re: OHV Article
I need some clarification on this article. To me, it sounds as if
Sierra Club and NFS are pushing for a closed unless posted open type
of trail system (as evidenced by the quote from the article, "Current
forest policy states that if a road is marked open, off-highway
vehicles can use it"). Can anyone clarify?
Sean
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Sandee McCullen" <mccullen@c...>
wrote:
>
> The major reason members of the OHV community, including myself,
do not
> "return" your calls is specifically because we're tired of being
mis-quoted
> and/or our words taken out of context. I personally have spoken
with many
> reporters over the past several years and have NEVER been "quoted"
correctly
> nor has OHV been reflected in a positive light by any reporters.
>
> You all know quite well that the general public are very
influenced by
> "what they read"................
>
> The OHV recreationists of today are responsible users of our
lands. Many
> participate in massive clean ups each year and put forth many hours
working
> with our land managers......... The OHV recreationists are the ones
> "adopting" trails to help the managers maintain trails; the OHV
> recreationists are the ones helping with "signing" trails to help
educate
> new recreationists the need to "stay on trails" and "Tread
Lightly"; OHV
> recreationists are the ones that are adopting "Ranches" to help our
ranchers
> build fences, gates, water tanks or simply cleaning an area for
them. We
> haul tons of trash off private and public lands that have been
illegally
> dumped. I have NEVER seen a member of Sierra Club or Center for
Biological
> Diversity or Sky Island Alliance, or Forest Guardians, or even the
> Wilderness Coalition or Audabon Society for that matter, in
attendance at a
> land clean-up or safety riding or driving clinic. Very few, if
any, attend
> Land Management meetings with the land managers.
Remember..........
> EVERYONE is most likely using a "motorized" vehicle to reach their
trailhead
> of choice. Our Constitution of the United States gives us
the "freedom to
> choose" our recreation. Motorized recreationists are
not "motorheads and/or
> destroyers of the lands and resources" as portrayed by the media
and/or
> environmental groups.
>
> State Trust Lands (9.3 million acres) require a permit to
> access........................... ever researched WHO have the
permits?
> OHV recreationists. The non-motorized and mechanized simply refuse
to
> purchase a permit. The "dog walkers" refuse to purchase a permit,
the bird
> watchers or hikers "enjoying nature" refuse to purchase a
permit..........
> I have personally worked with the the Arizona State Land Dept. in
spending
> our weekends at areas of high recreational use.............. the
OHV areas
> we will sell upwards of 300 hundred permits in a day, finding one
or two
> that fuss about the need for a permit. In the preserve or non-
motorized
> areas we sell less than a dozen, if any. Raise some questions?
>
> We invite members of the media to our "clean up projects"
or "recreation
> events" but we never seem to see a member of the media interested
enough to
> truly join us to understand and actually SEE what we're about.
Maybe when
> the OHV community start seeing true interest they will be much more
open
> about speaking with you when you wish to report on an issue. We
have NO
> problem communicating with the Land Agencies..................
Many of us
> are involved in numerous "collaborative partnerships" with our Land
Agencies
> and are diligently striving for "multi-use" recreation.
>
> Our great land truly does have enough for
everyone......................
> and it's very feasible to share much of it. Arizona alone has over
5
> million acres of Wilderness areas that motorized use is forbidden.
This is
> accepted................. why can the rest of our lands not be
shared by
> all???
>
> Sandee McCullen
> 480.832.8132
82908 From: blt4rox <blt4rox@e...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:09am
Subject: Re: OHV Article
I need some clarification on this article. To me, it sounds as if
Sierra Club and NFS are pushing for a closed unless posted open type
of trail system (as evidenced by the quote from the article, "Current
forest policy states that if a road is marked open, off-highway
vehicles can use it"). Can anyone clarify?
Sean
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Sandee McCullen" <mccullen@c...>
wrote:
>
> The major reason members of the OHV community, including myself,
do not
> "return" your calls is specifically because we're tired of being
mis-quoted
> and/or our words taken out of context. I personally have spoken
with many
> reporters over the past several years and have NEVER been "quoted"
correctly
> nor has OHV been reflected in a positive light by any reporters.
>
> You all know quite well that the general public are very
influenced by
> "what they read"................
>
> The OHV recreationists of today are responsible users of our
lands. Many
> participate in massive clean ups each year and put forth many hours
working
> with our land managers......... The OHV recreationists are the ones
> "adopting" trails to help the managers maintain trails; the OHV
> recreationists are the ones helping with "signing" trails to help
educate
> new recreationists the need to "stay on trails" and "Tread
Lightly"; OHV
> recreationists are the ones that are adopting "Ranches" to help our
ranchers
> build fences, gates, water tanks or simply cleaning an area for
them. We
> haul tons of trash off private and public lands that have been
illegally
> dumped. I have NEVER seen a member of Sierra Club or Center for
Biological
> Diversity or Sky Island Alliance, or Forest Guardians, or even the
> Wilderness Coalition or Audabon Society for that matter, in
attendance at a
> land clean-up or safety riding or driving clinic. Very few, if
any, attend
> Land Management meetings with the land managers.
Remember..........
> EVERYONE is most likely using a "motorized" vehicle to reach their
trailhead
> of choice. Our Constitution of the United States gives us
the "freedom to
> choose" our recreation. Motorized recreationists are
not "motorheads and/or
> destroyers of the lands and resources" as portrayed by the media
and/or
> environmental groups.
>
> State Trust Lands (9.3 million acres) require a permit to
> access........................... ever researched WHO have the
permits?
> OHV recreationists. The non-motorized and mechanized simply refuse
to
> purchase a permit. The "dog walkers" refuse to purchase a permit,
the bird
> watchers or hikers "enjoying nature" refuse to purchase a
permit..........
> I have personally worked with the the Arizona State Land Dept. in
spending
> our weekends at areas of high recreational use.............. the
OHV areas
> we will sell upwards of 300 hundred permits in a day, finding one
or two
> that fuss about the need for a permit. In the preserve or non-
motorized
> areas we sell less than a dozen, if any. Raise some questions?
>
> We invite members of the media to our "clean up projects"
or "recreation
> events" but we never seem to see a member of the media interested
enough to
> truly join us to understand and actually SEE what we're about.
Maybe when
> the OHV community start seeing true interest they will be much more
open
> about speaking with you when you wish to report on an issue. We
have NO
> problem communicating with the Land Agencies..................
Many of us
> are involved in numerous "collaborative partnerships" with our Land
Agencies
> and are diligently striving for "multi-use" recreation.
>
> Our great land truly does have enough for
everyone......................
> and it's very feasible to share much of it. Arizona alone has over
5
> million acres of Wilderness areas that motorized use is forbidden.
This is
> accepted................. why can the rest of our lands not be
shared by
> all???
>
> Sandee McCullen
> 480.832.8132
82909 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:42am
Subject: RE: Re: OHV Article
There is a press conference this afternoon where Forest Service is
presenting their Draft Environmental Impact Study for a "use plan" for five
of the six National Forests in Arizona.
About 3 years ago Five of the six forests thought to "go seamless" and try
for a standardized "recreation plan" for all but Coronado National
Forests(Tucson area of course).............. Well, following numerous
scoping meetings several "alternative" plans were presented. #4 was the
plan of choice. This plan basically stated "existing trails were open to
OHV and cross country travel would be limited to specific areas". This is
still "sort of" the proposed EIS, although each of the forests have still
chosen to "do their own thing". Originally several had all, if not large,
cross country access. This has now been designated but each forest has
still chosen to do their own instead of the EASY way and have ALL forests
function under the same rules.............
In answer to your questions regarding the quote........ "current forest
policy states if a road is marked open, off-highway vehicles can use
it"......... yes, for the most part this is true although Prescott used the
reverse even though it was impossible, if not illegal, to police. "Roads
and trails are CLOSED unless POSTED OPEN". ........
This PLAN tried for was to get all National Forests together on the same
page............ didn't work. Although there has been some communications
between the forests and the users..... this has never happened before.
The GAGS are ALWAYS trying to CLOSE EVERYTHING......... my article was
strictly responding to the fact the reporters are being ugly because "WE"
didn't return their calls. They don't understand "WE" don't want to talk to
them until such time they can report TRUE facts and not GREEN FACTS.
I'll report the results of the press conference when I return later
today.....
Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blt4rox [mailto:blt4rox@e...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 8:09 AM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: OHV Article
>
>
> I need some clarification on this article. To me, it sounds as if
> Sierra Club and NFS are pushing for a closed unless posted open type
> of trail system (as evidenced by the quote from the article, "Current
> forest policy states that if a road is marked open, off-highway
> vehicles can use it"). Can anyone clarify?
>
> Sean
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Sandee McCullen" <mccullen@c...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The major reason members of the OHV community, including myself,
> do not
> > "return" your calls is specifically because we're tired of being
> mis-quoted
> > and/or our words taken out of context. I personally have spoken
> with many
> > reporters over the past several years and have NEVER been "quoted"
> correctly
> > nor has OHV been reflected in a positive light by any reporters.
> >
> > You all know quite well that the general public are very
> influenced by
> > "what they read"................
> >
> > The OHV recreationists of today are responsible users of our
> lands. Many
> > participate in massive clean ups each year and put forth many hours
> working
> > with our land managers......... The OHV recreationists are the ones
> > "adopting" trails to help the managers maintain trails; the OHV
> > recreationists are the ones helping with "signing" trails to help
> educate
> > new recreationists the need to "stay on trails" and "Tread
> Lightly"; OHV
> > recreationists are the ones that are adopting "Ranches" to help our
> ranchers
> > build fences, gates, water tanks or simply cleaning an area for
> them. We
> > haul tons of trash off private and public lands that have been
> illegally
> > dumped. I have NEVER seen a member of Sierra Club or Center for
> Biological
> > Diversity or Sky Island Alliance, or Forest Guardians, or even the
> > Wilderness Coalition or Audabon Society for that matter, in
> attendance at a
> > land clean-up or safety riding or driving clinic. Very few, if
> any, attend
> > Land Management meetings with the land managers.
> Remember..........
> > EVERYONE is most likely using a "motorized" vehicle to reach their
> trailhead
> > of choice. Our Constitution of the United States gives us
> the "freedom to
> > choose" our recreation. Motorized recreationists are
> not "motorheads and/or
> > destroyers of the lands and resources" as portrayed by the media
> and/or
> > environmental groups.
> >
> > State Trust Lands (9.3 million acres) require a permit to
> > access........................... ever researched WHO have the
> permits?
> > OHV recreationists. The non-motorized and mechanized simply refuse
> to
> > purchase a permit. The "dog walkers" refuse to purchase a permit,
> the bird
> > watchers or hikers "enjoying nature" refuse to purchase a
> permit..........
> > I have personally worked with the the Arizona State Land Dept. in
> spending
> > our weekends at areas of high recreational use.............. the
> OHV areas
> > we will sell upwards of 300 hundred permits in a day, finding one
> or two
> > that fuss about the need for a permit. In the preserve or non-
> motorized
> > areas we sell less than a dozen, if any. Raise some questions?
> >
> > We invite members of the media to our "clean up projects"
> or "recreation
> > events" but we never seem to see a member of the media interested
> enough to
> > truly join us to understand and actually SEE what we're about.
> Maybe when
> > the OHV community start seeing true interest they will be much more
> open
> > about speaking with you when you wish to report on an issue. We
> have NO
> > problem communicating with the Land Agencies..................
> Many of us
> > are involved in numerous "collaborative partnerships" with our Land
> Agencies
> > and are diligently striving for "multi-use" recreation.
> >
> > Our great land truly does have enough for
> everyone......................
> > and it's very feasible to share much of it. Arizona alone has over
> 5
> > million acres of Wilderness areas that motorized use is forbidden.
> This is
> > accepted................. why can the rest of our lands not be
> shared by
> > all???
> >
> > Sandee McCullen
> > 480.832.8132
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
82910 From: Kent Warner <KnetAZ@q...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:43am
Subject: Re: Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
For What It's Worth Dept:
I just bought a winch from a guy on ebay. It is the 9000 lb version
of this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewItem&item=2411411953&category=6779
It is madi in Taiwan, is 4.8 hp come with a roller fairlead, seems
to be OK. As near as I can tell it is a rebrand by the actaul
company that makes Pierce winches, which is popular in Europe and
with the Mog crowd.
It may not be the best 9000 # winch, but I only paid $500, to my
door, and I think it should be a good $500 winch. Should have it on
this weekend. If any one wants to check it out let me know. I am
kinda taking a risk on this, being fairly no name and all, but the
research I have done on it was reasonably reassuring.
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Whitehead" <donjodie@a...>
wrote:
>
> This winch is on sale for $289.
> It is 1.8 HP and 8000 lbs (reminds me of superwinch size motors)
> Is this worth buying? Stu can you tell I am winch shopping?
82911 From: Robert Peck <rlpii@q...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:09am
Subject: OT - Printer Repair
Sorry for the OT, but I have a HP LaserJet III printer. It
is about 10 years old, and recently it developed an error
code of "50 Service". The book said to turn it off, leave
it off for an hour or so and then turn it back on. If it
does not clear the code then to call for service.
Can anyone tell me the extent of the problem? Does this
code indicate that the printer should be thrown away? Any
recommendations for repair facilities on the West Side (59th
& Peoria Aves.)
(Note: It is kind of related to Jeeps, as I print repair
instructions for the Jeep (s) and receipts when I buy stuff
for the Jeeps on line, OK?) :o)
TIA,
Bob
74 CJ-5
CANT W8
82912 From: Mark Maloy <mdmaloy@m...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:20am
Subject: In the Movies!
Hi Group,
My Jeep was part of a background scene in a movie shot on Tuesday. Here's a couple of pictures from that day.
Attachment: (image/jpeg) See my new MT_R's.JPG [not stored]
Attachment: (image/jpeg) With another Jeep.JPG [not stored]
82913 From: Phil Thompson <ablockalypse@y...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:32am
Subject: Re: In the Movies!
Based on that woman in the first picture, dare I ask the name of this
movie? Or, is it more of a "film"? LOL
Phil
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Maloy" <mdmaloy@m...> wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> My Jeep was part of a background scene in a movie shot on Tuesday.
> Here's a couple of pictures from that day.
82914 From: Joey Martinez <joey@w...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:07am
Subject: 4 port vacuum switch/valve
is this the right wording? it is a small part on the xj that has a hose that runs from the radiator to the vacuum (locate
82915 From: Craig Micek <micekc@e...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:24am
Subject: Re: In the Movies!
Lol... I don't think anyone will ever see the jeep... there are a few mountains in the way!
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Maloy
To: 'Arizona Virtual Jeep club '
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] In the Movies!
Hi Group,
My Jeep was part of a background scene in a movie shot on Tuesday. Here's a couple of pictures from that day.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
82891 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:49pm
Subject: RE: Re: What do you all think of this?
Everyone certainly has the RIGHT to speak to the papers regarding their
issues and views but believe me, the Arizona reporters WILL TURN WHATEVER
YOU SAY AROUND TO THEIR OWN VIEWS OR TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT. I have been
"misquoted" so many time's I've quit talking to the reporters at all. A
year ago when a reporter ASSURED me he would "quote" me exactly, I requested
I be able to "review" the article before publication............ yeh,
right!!!
Most of the numbers and/or names the reporters have come from the scoping
meetings lists, the OHV Conference list; partnership members lists
etc........... it certainly seems to grow with each issue. Wonder what it
will be like, and WHO will be contacted when the OHV Gas Tax Fund issue hits
the public!!!! There's a lot of action behind closed doors right now, and
no one knows whether it's too late to get something done but there are
definitely WAVES being made right now......
To any of you that happen to "receive that 'special' call, and you chose to
speak with them, PLEASE be VERY SPECIFIC and make them REPEAT back your
quote EXACTLY as you stated it and in YOUR context!!!
Most of what they "quote" or reference are tid bits the GAGS use to their
benefit because most of the general public truly do not understand
"motorized recreation"........... we're ALL "motorheads" and "rip up the
environment"!!
Hang in there............. we're on the front page!!! Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Warner [mailto:KnetAZ@q...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:02 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: What do you all think of this?
>
>
> IS there a number they would call to get our group? We are big enough
> that we would be a resource to "balance the story" I would seem to me.
> Unless it took more than 15 minutes work to reach us.....
>
> The "other " groups have a single point of media contact. They are
> always going to get their view into the paper, if it only takes the
> reporter 10 minutes to get a quote.
>
> These reporters are looking for sound bites within a news cycle, they
> aren't working real hard on in depth and balanced reporting.
>
> "Attempts to reach representatives of four-wheel drive groups and other
> recreational users were unsuccessful Wednesday"
>
> OOhhhh. They put a whole day into reaching the other side,
> theoreticly, between 8 and 5 when "recreational" users where earning
> the money to pay for their recreation, while the professional lobbiest
> where easily available to the phone.
>
> Just sayin'......
>
> --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> > They said...
> >
> > The new policy would affect the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab,
> > Prescott and Tonto national forests.
> >
> > The Coronado National Forest in southern Arizona is working on its own
> > policy as it creates a land-management plan.
> >
> > What amazes me is that they can't even agree on a standard policy within
> > our own state. Nothing like making it easy for the OHV user..keeping
> > things consistent, etc.
> >
> >
> > 2nd, I guess I am confused because I thought we were required to stay on
> > existing roads and trails.
> >
> >
> > Lastly..
> >
> > Attempts to reach representatives of four-wheel drive groups and other
> > recreational users were unsuccessful Wednesday
> >
> > I am thinking they really didn't try very hard...anyone here get a call
> > from the paper today? LOL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Stu Olson
> > www.stu-offroad.com
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe-CJ7 [mailto:Joe-CJ7@j...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:51 PM
> > To: Jeep Club
> > Subject: [az_vjc] What do you all think of this?
> >
> > Check out this article:
> > <http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0416OFFROAD-ON.html>
> > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0416OFFROAD-ON.html
> > Sounds one sided to me.
> > hmm
> > Joe Kearney
> > Joe-CJ7@J...
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
82892 From: Mark <fordlover49@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:56pm
Subject: Re: Wrenching Party Thu/Fri/Sat/Sun
Simple, because I've had this alias for 6 years, every since I first
got my own e-mail when I was 15. At the time the only vehicle I had
was a 1949 Ford F-1 w/ a 239 flathead in it. So I've just kept my
alias every since then because it's easy to remember (fordlover49)
and is unique (I've never found anyone else using it, generally if
the username is taken on a web site, chances are I signed up for it,
long ago 8P)..
-Mark
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "John Teel" <jcteel1@e...> wrote:
> Mark,
>
> So why is your email address fordlover and not jeeplover? ;-)
Sorry
> I couldn't resist.
>
> John
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <fordlover49@y...> wrote:
> > I'm finally putting my dana 44/60 under the jeep. I know I will
> > still need some more parts, but some of those parts (such as drag
> > link, brake lines, etc) will require the axles being under the
jeep
> > to even know the correct lengths I will need. It probably won't
> take
> > all four days, but I have the whole weekend off to work on it
> > anyways. I have a garage (kind of cramped, but I'm commited to
> doing
> > it there as I already have the dana 30 out), could use a welder,
> but
> > can always rent one..
> >
> > I have to get this done before June, and this is my last good
> weekend
> > to get it done. Looks like I'm going to end up moving to San
Diego
> > for a job at Qualcomm..
> >
> > Can supply pizza/beer of course..
> >
> > -Mark
82893 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:28pm
Subject: [Tech] 97 TJ - REPLACE DANA REAR END W/ FORD 9"
HAS ANY ONE DONE THIS AND IF SO CAN YOU E-MAIL WHAT WAS ALL INTAILED TO DO SO.
THANKS
JACK AT bdbowty@msn.com
jack garrison
82894 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 11:43pm
Subject: RE: Locker operation question?
John,
Your locker is operating correctly. You described exactly how it should
behave. The one aspect you are missing is torque from the drive shaft.
When the drive shaft is free both wheels will unlock. You turn one the
other side will turn the same way unless you stop its motion. You will
even be able to turn it the opposite direction. You will also notice
that the drive shaft is spinning. Now I think if you can grab the shaft
firmly enough while it is spinning you will cause the locker to engage
and lock both wheels together.
Auto lockers and limited slips (to my knowledge) are managed by the
torque applied by the drive shaft.
So to understand the on road/trail characteristics: When you are stopped
and floor the accelerator the torque applied from the drive shaft will
lock the rear and cause both wheels to spin. Or when cornering sharp you
accelerate both wheels will lock and one will spin. This is because one
wheel is not traveling the same distance. While parking your Jeep you
will have to practice coasting during your turn so you don't chip the
tires or prematurely wear the tread.
The one aspect I like is that when engine breaking the anti-torque on
the drive shaft will lock both wheels, helping you to keep consistent
speed down hill over moguls, for example some of the descents on FR42.
Joey K
http://www.desertjeep.com
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: John Teel [mailto:jcteel1@e...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:39 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Locker operation question?
I completed installing the Powertrax No-slip locker in the rear last
night and all seems well so far. However, just as a sanity check I
just now jacked up the Jeep and redid the experiments again to test
the locker operation (it was late last night when I did these the
first time). I'm a bit confused with the results. When I jack up
both rear wheels they indeed are locked and turning one wheel turns
the other. If I then hold one side and attempt to turn the other
side in the same direction it initially doesn't want to turn. This
is correct and as expected since the differential is still locked.
However, if I put just a little more force into it I can easily break
them apart and turn the wheel freely! That doesn't seem right to me
since when on the trail if each tire has a slightly different load on
it then it seems like they would come unlocked. Then again I
understand that when the tires are forced apart (usually by one
turning faster than the other) that's what is used to unlock them and
put then in differential mode so maybe this is correct operation. It
seems like when on the trail and needing the locked rear that these
auto lockers will go into and out of locked/differential mode. I
guess in the end the result is the same as if it stayed locked the
whole time. The air lockers sure are a much cleaner solution
although so much more expensive and complicated.
So is my locker operating correctly? Do these auto lockers tend to go
into and out of locked mode when climbing an obstacle? If so is the
climbing performance of this as good as with a air locker or always-
locked locker?
Thanks,
John
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
82895 From: Kent Warner <KnetAZ@q...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:48am
Subject: Re: What do you all think of this?
Yikes, hadn't thought of that possibility.
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Sandee McCullen" <mccullen@c...> wrote:
> Everyone certainly has the RIGHT to speak to the papers regarding their
> issues and views but believe me, the Arizona reporters WILL TURN
WHATEVER
> YOU SAY AROUND TO THEIR OWN VIEWS OR TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT. I
have been
> "misquoted" so many time's I've quit talking to the reporters at all. A
> year ago when a reporter ASSURED me he would "quote" me exactly, I
requested
> I be able to "review" the article before publication............ yeh,
> right!!!
>
> Most of the numbers and/or names the reporters have come from the
scoping
> meetings lists, the OHV Conference list; partnership members lists
> etc........... it certainly seems to grow with each issue. Wonder
what it
> will be like, and WHO will be contacted when the OHV Gas Tax Fund
issue hits
> the public!!!! There's a lot of action behind closed doors right
now, and
> no one knows whether it's too late to get something done but there are
> definitely WAVES being made right now......
>
> To any of you that happen to "receive that 'special' call, and you
chose to
> speak with them, PLEASE be VERY SPECIFIC and make them REPEAT back your
> quote EXACTLY as you stated it and in YOUR context!!!
>
> Most of what they "quote" or reference are tid bits the GAGS use to
their
> benefit because most of the general public truly do not understand
> "motorized recreation"........... we're ALL "motorheads" and "rip
up the
> environment"!!
>
> Hang in there............. we're on the front page!!! Sandee
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kent Warner [mailto:KnetAZ@q...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:02 PM
> > To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [az_vjc] Re: What do you all think of this?
> >
> >
> > IS there a number they would call to get our group? We are big enough
> > that we would be a resource to "balance the story" I would seem to me.
> > Unless it took more than 15 minutes work to reach us.....
> >
> > The "other " groups have a single point of media contact. They are
> > always going to get their view into the paper, if it only takes the
> > reporter 10 minutes to get a quote.
> >
> > These reporters are looking for sound bites within a news cycle, they
> > aren't working real hard on in depth and balanced reporting.
> >
> > "Attempts to reach representatives of four-wheel drive groups and
other
> > recreational users were unsuccessful Wednesday"
> >
> > OOhhhh. They put a whole day into reaching the other side,
> > theoreticly, between 8 and 5 when "recreational" users where earning
> > the money to pay for their recreation, while the professional lobbiest
> > where easily available to the phone.
> >
> > Just sayin'......
> >
> > --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...> wrote:
> > > They said...
> > >
> > > The new policy would affect the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab,
> > > Prescott and Tonto national forests.
> > >
> > > The Coronado National Forest in southern Arizona is working on
its own
> > > policy as it creates a land-management plan.
> > >
> > > What amazes me is that they can't even agree on a standard
policy within
> > > our own state. Nothing like making it easy for the OHV
user..keeping
> > > things consistent, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > 2nd, I guess I am confused because I thought we were required to
stay on
> > > existing roads and trails.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lastly..
> > >
> > > Attempts to reach representatives of four-wheel drive groups and
other
> > > recreational users were unsuccessful Wednesday
> > >
> > > I am thinking they really didn't try very hard...anyone here get
a call
> > > from the paper today? LOL
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Stu Olson
> > > www.stu-offroad.com
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Joe-CJ7 [mailto:Joe-CJ7@j...]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:51 PM
> > > To: Jeep Club
> > > Subject: [az_vjc] What do you all think of this?
> > >
> > > Check out this article:
> > > <http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0416OFFROAD-ON.html>
> > > http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0416OFFROAD-ON.html
> > > Sounds one sided to me.
> > > hmm
> > > Joe Kearney
> > > Joe-CJ7@J...
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
82896 From: Donald Whitehead <donjodie@a...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:33am
Subject: Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
This winch is on sale for $289.
It is 1.8 HP and 8000 lbs (reminds me of superwinch size motors)
Is this worth buying? Stu can you tell I am winch shopping?
82897 From: <Steveslifer@a...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 2:37am
Subject: Your article regarding off road use
You quote the Forest Service as having "difficulty" in reaching the off road community. For myself, no one tried to reach me, although we have been to several meetings and gave our phone number and e-mail to representatives, both from the USF and BLM. I note that you had a quote from the Sierra Club. Did you make any attempts to reach anyone from our community, namely, the clubs, of which I belong to two of them (Virtual Jeep Club and Mesa 4 Wheelers)? There's a web site which lists all of the clubs here in Arizona, and that's just four wheel clubs, not to mention ATVs and motorcycles who use the trails.
While, as someone who would like to see the land protected, I take issue with OHVs being singled out - it seems as though the media singles out OHV's as being environmentally harmful, causing soil erosion, disrupting wildlife and carving out new roads, among other things. I've been on runs for 11 years with a number of people, and never saw a trail being made, or wildlife disrupted.
Please make sure that you report correctly, and that those individuals who are giving us a bad name are usually not part of the OHV Community, but people who are uneducated in the trails, or simply do not care.
While you investigate, please realize that OHV users are ones who clean up after the community, and restore trails. A great many of our clubs adopt trails, do clean ups of areas, and perform a public services. To read your article, we didn't care enough to respond, and to my knowledge, this was not the case. We weren't given a chance to respond. Believe me when I say that when we are given the opportunity, we try to be proactive. If you're interested in doing another article, feel free to contact me. I would be happy to arrange a meeting between you and some of our members.
Rose Slifer
480-831-7868
82898 From: Siade, Randy <randy.siade@u...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 6:41am
Subject: RE: Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
That is an exact copy of the Ramsey rep 8000. I have the Ramsey rep 8000 and a guy I work with has the Harbor Freight one and they look completely identical all the way down to the specs.
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Whitehead [mailto:donjodie@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:34 AM
To: Stu Olson; Arizona Virtual Jeep club
Subject: [az_vjc] Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
This winch is on sale for $289.
It is 1.8 HP and 8000 lbs (reminds me of superwinch size motors)
Is this worth buying? Stu can you tell I am winch shopping?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
82899 From: Scott Legge <slegge1@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:10am
Subject: Re: Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
I have read TONS of hearsay about these winches. Some about bushings vs. bearings in the motors and other inferior things. If anyone has any real world hands on experience please post ;-)
Scott Legge
----- Original Message -----
From: Siade, Randy
To: Donald Whitehead ; Stu Olson ; Arizona Virtual Jeep club
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 6:41 AM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
That is an exact copy of the Ramsey rep 8000. I have the Ramsey rep 8000 and a guy I work with has the Harbor Freight one and they look completely identical all the way down to the specs.
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Whitehead [mailto:donjodie@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:34 AM
To: Stu Olson; Arizona Virtual Jeep club <azvjc@azvjc. org>
Subject: [az_vjc] Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
This winch is on sale for $289.
It is 1.8 HP and 8000 lbs (reminds me of superwinch size motors)
Is this worth buying? Stu can you tell I am winch shopping?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
82900 From: Nick Gasmena <NickG@4...>
Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 7:09am
Subject: RE: Thanks to the following individuals for contributing to Hunter Offroad's Stolen Ramp
Id rather see him ramp his Cessna :)
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Kruize [mailto:skruize@c...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 06:52 PM
To: arizonajeep@c...; 'Azvjc (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Thanks to the following individuals for contributing
to Hunter Offroad's Stolen Ramp
Hey Joe,
Are you going to put a kill switch on it? How about a Lojack?
<Grin>
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe W [mailto:arizonajeep@c...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 9:38 AM
To: Azvjc (E-mail)
Subject: [az_vjc] Thanks to the following individuals for contributing to
Hunter Offroad's Stolen Ramp
I'd like to publicly thank the following individuals for their contribution
to the Hunter Offroad Ramp Fund:
Michael Hoyt
Stu Olson
Brad Kilgore
Scott Kruize
Michael Wixom
Gary Holmes
Shawn Passmore
Scott Bruns
Bill Hooven
John DeRuiter
For those who wish to contribute, you can paypal funds to:
arizonajeep@c...
The purpose of this fund is to assist John at Hunter Offroad in replacing
his Ramp Travel Index (RTI) Ramp which was stolen. As a group, many of us
have used this ramp over the last couple of years so I thought it would be
nice if we helped John replace the ramp (especially since he built it for us
for AZVJC BBQ 1).
For those who were going to contribute parts such as spindles, bearings,
wheels and tires for the ramp... could you please contact me offline so I
can arrange to pick this stuff up?
Kind Regards,
Joe West
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
82901 From: Mark <fordlover49@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:44am
Subject: Re: Wrenching Party Thu/Fri/Sat/Sun
For those of you who asked, it's in the Northwest valley (El Mirage).
-Mark
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <fordlover49@y...> wrote:
> I'm finally putting my dana 44/60 under the jeep. I know I will
> still need some more parts, but some of those parts (such as drag
> link, brake lines, etc) will require the axles being under the jeep
> to even know the correct lengths I will need. It probably won't
take
> all four days, but I have the whole weekend off to work on it
> anyways. I have a garage (kind of cramped, but I'm commited to
doing
> it there as I already have the dana 30 out), could use a welder,
but
> can always rent one..
>
> I have to get this done before June, and this is my last good
weekend
> to get it done. Looks like I'm going to end up moving to San Diego
> for a job at Qualcomm..
>
> Can supply pizza/beer of course..
>
> -Mark
82902 From: FredTJ <fredtj@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:46am
Subject: Re: Locker operation question?
John, part of what you may be seeing is because there is no "power" being
applied to the pinion.. My front LockRite will "unlock" fairly easily if
there is no torque being applied to the pinion, i.e., if I'm in 2 wd... That
allows for it to unlock better when going around turns, etc...
Best,
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Teel" <jcteel1@e...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:38 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] Locker operation question?
> I completed installing the Powertrax No-slip locker in the rear last
> night and all seems well so far. However, just as a sanity check I
> just now jacked up the Jeep and redid the experiments again to test
> the locker operation (it was late last night when I did these the
> first time). I'm a bit confused with the results. When I jack up
> both rear wheels they indeed are locked and turning one wheel turns
> the other. If I then hold one side and attempt to turn the other
> side in the same direction it initially doesn't want to turn. This
> is correct and as expected since the differential is still locked.
> However, if I put just a little more force into it I can easily break
> them apart and turn the wheel freely! That doesn't seem right to me
> since when on the trail if each tire has a slightly different load on
> it then it seems like they would come unlocked. Then again I
> understand that when the tires are forced apart (usually by one
> turning faster than the other) that's what is used to unlock them and
> put then in differential mode so maybe this is correct operation. It
> seems like when on the trail and needing the locked rear that these
> auto lockers will go into and out of locked/differential mode. I
> guess in the end the result is the same as if it stayed locked the
> whole time. The air lockers sure are a much cleaner solution
> although so much more expensive and complicated.
>
> So is my locker operating correctly? Do these auto lockers tend to go
> into and out of locked mode when climbing an obstacle? If so is the
> climbing performance of this as good as with a air locker or always-
> locked locker?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
82903 From: Mitch Woodward <bigwood@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:49am
Subject: Re: Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
I don't have any real world experience with the winch in question, but I try to avoid harbor freight for stuff I need to depend on. I shop there for pneumatic tools, hammers, clamps, etc. I once braved the purchase of a Chicago 110v mig welder. It was a total POS, it couldn't penetrate .120 wall tubing. I took it back and got the Hobart 135...much better.
Mitch
----- Original Message -----
From: Donald Whitehead
To: Stu Olson ; Arizona Virtual Jeep club
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 5:33 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
This winch is on sale for $289.
It is 1.8 HP and 8000 lbs (reminds me of superwinch size motors)
Is this worth buying? Stu can you tell I am winch shopping?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
82904 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:00am
Subject: OHV Article
The major reason members of the OHV community, including myself, do not "return" your calls is specifically because we're tired of being mis-quoted and/or our words taken out of context. I personally have spoken with many reporters over the past several years and have NEVER been "quoted" correctly nor has OHV been reflected in a positive light by any reporters.
You all know quite well that the general public are very influenced by "what they read"................
The OHV recreationists of today are responsible users of our lands. Many participate in massive clean ups each year and put forth many hours working with our land managers......... The OHV recreationists are the ones "adopting" trails to help the managers maintain trails; the OHV recreationists are the ones helping with "signing" trails to help educate new recreationists the need to "stay on trails" and "Tread Lightly"; OHV recreationists are the ones that are adopting "Ranches" to help our ranchers build fences, gates, water tanks or simply cleaning an area for them. We haul tons of trash off private and public lands that have been illegally dumped. I have NEVER seen a member of Sierra Club or Center for Biological Diversity or Sky Island Alliance, or Forest Guardians, or even the Wilderness Coalition or Audabon Society for that matter, in attendance at a land clean-up or safety riding or driving clinic. Very few, if any, attend Land Management meetings with the land managers. Remember.......... EVERYONE is most likely using a "motorized" vehicle to reach their trailhead of choice. Our Constitution of the United States gives us the "freedom to choose" our recreation. Motorized recreationists are not "motorheads and/or destroyers of the lands and resources" as portrayed by the media and/or environmental groups.
State Trust Lands (9.3 million acres) require a permit to access........................... ever researched WHO have the permits? OHV recreationists. The non-motorized and mechanized simply refuse to purchase a permit. The "dog walkers" refuse to purchase a permit, the bird watchers or hikers "enjoying nature" refuse to purchase a permit.......... I have personally worked with the the Arizona State Land Dept. in spending our weekends at areas of high recreational use.............. the OHV areas we will sell upwards of 300 hundred permits in a day, finding one or two that fuss about the need for a permit. In the preserve or non-motorized areas we sell less than a dozen, if any. Raise some questions?
We invite members of the media to our "clean up projects" or "recreation events" but we never seem to see a member of the media interested enough to truly join us to understand and actually SEE what we're about. Maybe when the OHV community start seeing true interest they will be much more open about speaking with you when you wish to report on an issue. We have NO problem communicating with the Land Agencies.................. Many of us are involved in numerous "collaborative partnerships" with our Land Agencies and are diligently striving for "multi-use" recreation.
Our great land truly does have enough for everyone...................... and it's very feasible to share much of it. Arizona alone has over 5 million acres of Wilderness areas that motorized use is forbidden. This is accepted................. why can the rest of our lands not be shared by all???
Sandee McCullen
480.832.8132
82905 From: oveson2 <oveson.l@j...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:05am
Subject: SALE - TJ HARDTOP
TJ FACTORY HARDTOP FROM 2000TJ
COLOR: BLACK
TINTED WINDOWS
REAR WIPER
SELDOM USED
STORED INSIDE GARAGE
Price: $1000 Cash Only
Lyle Oveson
623-214-2746
WWW.OVESON.L@J...
82906 From: b h <xjnation@y...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:14am
Subject: Re: OHV Article
Hey Sandee
Great job very well written....we should figure out a
way for you to post this and have it signed by
everyone who wishes too...kinda like a guest
book....name addy and email....then get it to the
powers that be!
Brian Harmon
Flagstaff AZ
--- Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...> wrote:
>
> The major reason members of the OHV community,
> including myself, do not
> "return" your calls is specifically because we're
> tired of being mis-quoted
> and/or our words taken out of context. I personally
> have spoken with many
> reporters over the past several years and have NEVER
> been "quoted" correctly
> nor has OHV been reflected in a positive light by
> any reporters.
>
> You all know quite well that the general public
> are very influenced by
> "what they read"................
>
> The OHV recreationists of today are responsible
> users of our lands. Many
> participate in massive clean ups each year and put
> forth many hours working
> with our land managers......... The OHV
> recreationists are the ones
> "adopting" trails to help the managers maintain
> trails; the OHV
> recreationists are the ones helping with "signing"
> trails to help educate
> new recreationists the need to "stay on trails" and
> "Tread Lightly"; OHV
> recreationists are the ones that are adopting
> "Ranches" to help our ranchers
> build fences, gates, water tanks or simply cleaning
> an area for them. We
> haul tons of trash off private and public lands that
> have been illegally
> dumped. I have NEVER seen a member of Sierra Club
> or Center for Biological
> Diversity or Sky Island Alliance, or Forest
> Guardians, or even the
> Wilderness Coalition or Audabon Society for that
> matter, in attendance at a
> land clean-up or safety riding or driving clinic.
> Very few, if any, attend
> Land Management meetings with the land managers.
> Remember..........
> EVERYONE is most likely using a "motorized" vehicle
> to reach their trailhead
> of choice. Our Constitution of the United States
> gives us the "freedom to
> choose" our recreation. Motorized recreationists
> are not "motorheads and/or
> destroyers of the lands and resources" as portrayed
> by the media and/or
> environmental groups.
>
> State Trust Lands (9.3 million acres) require a
> permit to
> access........................... ever researched
> WHO have the permits?
> OHV recreationists. The non-motorized and
> mechanized simply refuse to
> purchase a permit. The "dog walkers" refuse to
> purchase a permit, the bird
> watchers or hikers "enjoying nature" refuse to
> purchase a permit..........
> I have personally worked with the the Arizona State
> Land Dept. in spending
> our weekends at areas of high recreational
> use.............. the OHV areas
> we will sell upwards of 300 hundred permits in a
> day, finding one or two
> that fuss about the need for a permit. In the
> preserve or non-motorized
> areas we sell less than a dozen, if any. Raise some
> questions?
>
> We invite members of the media to our "clean up
> projects" or "recreation
> events" but we never seem to see a member of the
> media interested enough to
> truly join us to understand and actually SEE what
> we're about. Maybe when
> the OHV community start seeing true interest they
> will be much more open
> about speaking with you when you wish to report on
> an issue. We have NO
> problem communicating with the Land
> Agencies.................. Many of us
> are involved in numerous "collaborative
> partnerships" with our Land Agencies
> and are diligently striving for "multi-use"
> recreation.
>
> Our great land truly does have enough for
> everyone......................
> and it's very feasible to share much of it. Arizona
> alone has over 5
> million acres of Wilderness areas that motorized use
> is forbidden. This is
> accepted................. why can the rest of our
> lands not be shared by
> all???
>
> Sandee McCullen
> 480.832.8132
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
82907 From: blt4rox <blt4rox@e...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:08am
Subject: Re: OHV Article
I need some clarification on this article. To me, it sounds as if
Sierra Club and NFS are pushing for a closed unless posted open type
of trail system (as evidenced by the quote from the article, "Current
forest policy states that if a road is marked open, off-highway
vehicles can use it"). Can anyone clarify?
Sean
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Sandee McCullen" <mccullen@c...>
wrote:
>
> The major reason members of the OHV community, including myself,
do not
> "return" your calls is specifically because we're tired of being
mis-quoted
> and/or our words taken out of context. I personally have spoken
with many
> reporters over the past several years and have NEVER been "quoted"
correctly
> nor has OHV been reflected in a positive light by any reporters.
>
> You all know quite well that the general public are very
influenced by
> "what they read"................
>
> The OHV recreationists of today are responsible users of our
lands. Many
> participate in massive clean ups each year and put forth many hours
working
> with our land managers......... The OHV recreationists are the ones
> "adopting" trails to help the managers maintain trails; the OHV
> recreationists are the ones helping with "signing" trails to help
educate
> new recreationists the need to "stay on trails" and "Tread
Lightly"; OHV
> recreationists are the ones that are adopting "Ranches" to help our
ranchers
> build fences, gates, water tanks or simply cleaning an area for
them. We
> haul tons of trash off private and public lands that have been
illegally
> dumped. I have NEVER seen a member of Sierra Club or Center for
Biological
> Diversity or Sky Island Alliance, or Forest Guardians, or even the
> Wilderness Coalition or Audabon Society for that matter, in
attendance at a
> land clean-up or safety riding or driving clinic. Very few, if
any, attend
> Land Management meetings with the land managers.
Remember..........
> EVERYONE is most likely using a "motorized" vehicle to reach their
trailhead
> of choice. Our Constitution of the United States gives us
the "freedom to
> choose" our recreation. Motorized recreationists are
not "motorheads and/or
> destroyers of the lands and resources" as portrayed by the media
and/or
> environmental groups.
>
> State Trust Lands (9.3 million acres) require a permit to
> access........................... ever researched WHO have the
permits?
> OHV recreationists. The non-motorized and mechanized simply refuse
to
> purchase a permit. The "dog walkers" refuse to purchase a permit,
the bird
> watchers or hikers "enjoying nature" refuse to purchase a
permit..........
> I have personally worked with the the Arizona State Land Dept. in
spending
> our weekends at areas of high recreational use.............. the
OHV areas
> we will sell upwards of 300 hundred permits in a day, finding one
or two
> that fuss about the need for a permit. In the preserve or non-
motorized
> areas we sell less than a dozen, if any. Raise some questions?
>
> We invite members of the media to our "clean up projects"
or "recreation
> events" but we never seem to see a member of the media interested
enough to
> truly join us to understand and actually SEE what we're about.
Maybe when
> the OHV community start seeing true interest they will be much more
open
> about speaking with you when you wish to report on an issue. We
have NO
> problem communicating with the Land Agencies..................
Many of us
> are involved in numerous "collaborative partnerships" with our Land
Agencies
> and are diligently striving for "multi-use" recreation.
>
> Our great land truly does have enough for
everyone......................
> and it's very feasible to share much of it. Arizona alone has over
5
> million acres of Wilderness areas that motorized use is forbidden.
This is
> accepted................. why can the rest of our lands not be
shared by
> all???
>
> Sandee McCullen
> 480.832.8132
82908 From: blt4rox <blt4rox@e...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:09am
Subject: Re: OHV Article
I need some clarification on this article. To me, it sounds as if
Sierra Club and NFS are pushing for a closed unless posted open type
of trail system (as evidenced by the quote from the article, "Current
forest policy states that if a road is marked open, off-highway
vehicles can use it"). Can anyone clarify?
Sean
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Sandee McCullen" <mccullen@c...>
wrote:
>
> The major reason members of the OHV community, including myself,
do not
> "return" your calls is specifically because we're tired of being
mis-quoted
> and/or our words taken out of context. I personally have spoken
with many
> reporters over the past several years and have NEVER been "quoted"
correctly
> nor has OHV been reflected in a positive light by any reporters.
>
> You all know quite well that the general public are very
influenced by
> "what they read"................
>
> The OHV recreationists of today are responsible users of our
lands. Many
> participate in massive clean ups each year and put forth many hours
working
> with our land managers......... The OHV recreationists are the ones
> "adopting" trails to help the managers maintain trails; the OHV
> recreationists are the ones helping with "signing" trails to help
educate
> new recreationists the need to "stay on trails" and "Tread
Lightly"; OHV
> recreationists are the ones that are adopting "Ranches" to help our
ranchers
> build fences, gates, water tanks or simply cleaning an area for
them. We
> haul tons of trash off private and public lands that have been
illegally
> dumped. I have NEVER seen a member of Sierra Club or Center for
Biological
> Diversity or Sky Island Alliance, or Forest Guardians, or even the
> Wilderness Coalition or Audabon Society for that matter, in
attendance at a
> land clean-up or safety riding or driving clinic. Very few, if
any, attend
> Land Management meetings with the land managers.
Remember..........
> EVERYONE is most likely using a "motorized" vehicle to reach their
trailhead
> of choice. Our Constitution of the United States gives us
the "freedom to
> choose" our recreation. Motorized recreationists are
not "motorheads and/or
> destroyers of the lands and resources" as portrayed by the media
and/or
> environmental groups.
>
> State Trust Lands (9.3 million acres) require a permit to
> access........................... ever researched WHO have the
permits?
> OHV recreationists. The non-motorized and mechanized simply refuse
to
> purchase a permit. The "dog walkers" refuse to purchase a permit,
the bird
> watchers or hikers "enjoying nature" refuse to purchase a
permit..........
> I have personally worked with the the Arizona State Land Dept. in
spending
> our weekends at areas of high recreational use.............. the
OHV areas
> we will sell upwards of 300 hundred permits in a day, finding one
or two
> that fuss about the need for a permit. In the preserve or non-
motorized
> areas we sell less than a dozen, if any. Raise some questions?
>
> We invite members of the media to our "clean up projects"
or "recreation
> events" but we never seem to see a member of the media interested
enough to
> truly join us to understand and actually SEE what we're about.
Maybe when
> the OHV community start seeing true interest they will be much more
open
> about speaking with you when you wish to report on an issue. We
have NO
> problem communicating with the Land Agencies..................
Many of us
> are involved in numerous "collaborative partnerships" with our Land
Agencies
> and are diligently striving for "multi-use" recreation.
>
> Our great land truly does have enough for
everyone......................
> and it's very feasible to share much of it. Arizona alone has over
5
> million acres of Wilderness areas that motorized use is forbidden.
This is
> accepted................. why can the rest of our lands not be
shared by
> all???
>
> Sandee McCullen
> 480.832.8132
82909 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:42am
Subject: RE: Re: OHV Article
There is a press conference this afternoon where Forest Service is
presenting their Draft Environmental Impact Study for a "use plan" for five
of the six National Forests in Arizona.
About 3 years ago Five of the six forests thought to "go seamless" and try
for a standardized "recreation plan" for all but Coronado National
Forests(Tucson area of course).............. Well, following numerous
scoping meetings several "alternative" plans were presented. #4 was the
plan of choice. This plan basically stated "existing trails were open to
OHV and cross country travel would be limited to specific areas". This is
still "sort of" the proposed EIS, although each of the forests have still
chosen to "do their own thing". Originally several had all, if not large,
cross country access. This has now been designated but each forest has
still chosen to do their own instead of the EASY way and have ALL forests
function under the same rules.............
In answer to your questions regarding the quote........ "current forest
policy states if a road is marked open, off-highway vehicles can use
it"......... yes, for the most part this is true although Prescott used the
reverse even though it was impossible, if not illegal, to police. "Roads
and trails are CLOSED unless POSTED OPEN". ........
This PLAN tried for was to get all National Forests together on the same
page............ didn't work. Although there has been some communications
between the forests and the users..... this has never happened before.
The GAGS are ALWAYS trying to CLOSE EVERYTHING......... my article was
strictly responding to the fact the reporters are being ugly because "WE"
didn't return their calls. They don't understand "WE" don't want to talk to
them until such time they can report TRUE facts and not GREEN FACTS.
I'll report the results of the press conference when I return later
today.....
Sandee
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blt4rox [mailto:blt4rox@e...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 8:09 AM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: OHV Article
>
>
> I need some clarification on this article. To me, it sounds as if
> Sierra Club and NFS are pushing for a closed unless posted open type
> of trail system (as evidenced by the quote from the article, "Current
> forest policy states that if a road is marked open, off-highway
> vehicles can use it"). Can anyone clarify?
>
> Sean
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Sandee McCullen" <mccullen@c...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The major reason members of the OHV community, including myself,
> do not
> > "return" your calls is specifically because we're tired of being
> mis-quoted
> > and/or our words taken out of context. I personally have spoken
> with many
> > reporters over the past several years and have NEVER been "quoted"
> correctly
> > nor has OHV been reflected in a positive light by any reporters.
> >
> > You all know quite well that the general public are very
> influenced by
> > "what they read"................
> >
> > The OHV recreationists of today are responsible users of our
> lands. Many
> > participate in massive clean ups each year and put forth many hours
> working
> > with our land managers......... The OHV recreationists are the ones
> > "adopting" trails to help the managers maintain trails; the OHV
> > recreationists are the ones helping with "signing" trails to help
> educate
> > new recreationists the need to "stay on trails" and "Tread
> Lightly"; OHV
> > recreationists are the ones that are adopting "Ranches" to help our
> ranchers
> > build fences, gates, water tanks or simply cleaning an area for
> them. We
> > haul tons of trash off private and public lands that have been
> illegally
> > dumped. I have NEVER seen a member of Sierra Club or Center for
> Biological
> > Diversity or Sky Island Alliance, or Forest Guardians, or even the
> > Wilderness Coalition or Audabon Society for that matter, in
> attendance at a
> > land clean-up or safety riding or driving clinic. Very few, if
> any, attend
> > Land Management meetings with the land managers.
> Remember..........
> > EVERYONE is most likely using a "motorized" vehicle to reach their
> trailhead
> > of choice. Our Constitution of the United States gives us
> the "freedom to
> > choose" our recreation. Motorized recreationists are
> not "motorheads and/or
> > destroyers of the lands and resources" as portrayed by the media
> and/or
> > environmental groups.
> >
> > State Trust Lands (9.3 million acres) require a permit to
> > access........................... ever researched WHO have the
> permits?
> > OHV recreationists. The non-motorized and mechanized simply refuse
> to
> > purchase a permit. The "dog walkers" refuse to purchase a permit,
> the bird
> > watchers or hikers "enjoying nature" refuse to purchase a
> permit..........
> > I have personally worked with the the Arizona State Land Dept. in
> spending
> > our weekends at areas of high recreational use.............. the
> OHV areas
> > we will sell upwards of 300 hundred permits in a day, finding one
> or two
> > that fuss about the need for a permit. In the preserve or non-
> motorized
> > areas we sell less than a dozen, if any. Raise some questions?
> >
> > We invite members of the media to our "clean up projects"
> or "recreation
> > events" but we never seem to see a member of the media interested
> enough to
> > truly join us to understand and actually SEE what we're about.
> Maybe when
> > the OHV community start seeing true interest they will be much more
> open
> > about speaking with you when you wish to report on an issue. We
> have NO
> > problem communicating with the Land Agencies..................
> Many of us
> > are involved in numerous "collaborative partnerships" with our Land
> Agencies
> > and are diligently striving for "multi-use" recreation.
> >
> > Our great land truly does have enough for
> everyone......................
> > and it's very feasible to share much of it. Arizona alone has over
> 5
> > million acres of Wilderness areas that motorized use is forbidden.
> This is
> > accepted................. why can the rest of our lands not be
> shared by
> > all???
> >
> > Sandee McCullen
> > 480.832.8132
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
82910 From: Kent Warner <KnetAZ@q...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:43am
Subject: Re: Harbor Freight Chicago Winch
For What It's Worth Dept:
I just bought a winch from a guy on ebay. It is the 9000 lb version
of this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
ViewItem&item=2411411953&category=6779
It is madi in Taiwan, is 4.8 hp come with a roller fairlead, seems
to be OK. As near as I can tell it is a rebrand by the actaul
company that makes Pierce winches, which is popular in Europe and
with the Mog crowd.
It may not be the best 9000 # winch, but I only paid $500, to my
door, and I think it should be a good $500 winch. Should have it on
this weekend. If any one wants to check it out let me know. I am
kinda taking a risk on this, being fairly no name and all, but the
research I have done on it was reasonably reassuring.
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Donald Whitehead" <donjodie@a...>
wrote:
>
> This winch is on sale for $289.
> It is 1.8 HP and 8000 lbs (reminds me of superwinch size motors)
> Is this worth buying? Stu can you tell I am winch shopping?
82911 From: Robert Peck <rlpii@q...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:09am
Subject: OT - Printer Repair
Sorry for the OT, but I have a HP LaserJet III printer. It
is about 10 years old, and recently it developed an error
code of "50 Service". The book said to turn it off, leave
it off for an hour or so and then turn it back on. If it
does not clear the code then to call for service.
Can anyone tell me the extent of the problem? Does this
code indicate that the printer should be thrown away? Any
recommendations for repair facilities on the West Side (59th
& Peoria Aves.)
(Note: It is kind of related to Jeeps, as I print repair
instructions for the Jeep (s) and receipts when I buy stuff
for the Jeeps on line, OK?) :o)
TIA,
Bob
74 CJ-5
CANT W8
82912 From: Mark Maloy <mdmaloy@m...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:20am
Subject: In the Movies!
Hi Group,
My Jeep was part of a background scene in a movie shot on Tuesday. Here's a couple of pictures from that day.
Attachment: (image/jpeg) See my new MT_R's.JPG [not stored]
Attachment: (image/jpeg) With another Jeep.JPG [not stored]
82913 From: Phil Thompson <ablockalypse@y...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:32am
Subject: Re: In the Movies!
Based on that woman in the first picture, dare I ask the name of this
movie? Or, is it more of a "film"? LOL
Phil
--- In az_vjc@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Maloy" <mdmaloy@m...> wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> My Jeep was part of a background scene in a movie shot on Tuesday.
> Here's a couple of pictures from that day.
82914 From: Joey Martinez <joey@w...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:07am
Subject: 4 port vacuum switch/valve
is this the right wording? it is a small part on the xj that has a hose that runs from the radiator to the vacuum (locate
82915 From: Craig Micek <micekc@e...>
Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:24am
Subject: Re: In the Movies!
Lol... I don't think anyone will ever see the jeep... there are a few mountains in the way!
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Maloy
To: 'Arizona Virtual Jeep club '
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] In the Movies!
Hi Group,
My Jeep was part of a background scene in a movie shot on Tuesday. Here's a couple of pictures from that day.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.