Thread: Riding in Wilderness/poaching.

the perfect cycling trail comes to mind.
i'd love to be the 1st to ride the whole thing.

Originally Posted by rideit

Actually, UAN, I have never, ever built trail in wilderness. And as a matter fact, even after being here >10 years, and riding everything that I could possibly want to, I can count the times riding in 'wilderness' as under 3 hours. (most of that mistakenly)

sorry -- my bad. i was using 'wilderness' & 'NF/FS land' synonymously, when there is a difference.

that said, i think my point is the same: you've built trails in areas where you shouldn't. (i know you'll say you had permission, but you knew the trails to violate NF/FS policy and that the permission was unofficial. yes, some have been accepted into the system, but we would be hating on a dirtbiker if they did the same.) if they had been officially authorized, you wouldn't worry about such things as a "titanium chainsaw with a silencer" in other posts, and you wouldn't have been ticketed.

i just don't see much of a difference between the illegal trails in wilderness & NF/FS, at least for purposes of this discussion.

yes, i think the ban on MTBing is silly, but i find it amusing because i know there is a ton of anger when anyone else (e.g., dirtbikers, ATVers, snowmobilers) violates a ban.

kind of a pot-to-kettle thing.

"my dog made me do it" isn't a great excuse in my opinion.

There is simply no plausible reason that it is bicycle prohibited. As a matter of fact, to have gone and ridden in the Big Holes would have caused more damage, in wasted fuel. What is more important...hikers feelings, or increased carbon emissions? Where is the logic on the designation, when horses do 10X the damage?

yes, i get it, and i've personally found this frustrating at times.

just don't complain when dirtbikers use the trails you built (which is one reason you built them in the first place, right?). you'll just use that to justify more trails.

where does it end?

Originally Posted by upallnight

kind of a pot-to-kettle thing.

Since you're comparing motorized and non-motorized users, no it's not. More of an apples and oranges thing.

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Since you're comparing motorized and non-motorized users, no it's not. More of an apples and oranges thing.

dantheman-
i'm not going to debate this too much, but i disagree with your disagreement for the following reason:

your argument seems to be predicated upon the notion that the ban on MTBing in such areas is wrong. i happen to agree that banning MTBs is silly -- particularly in areas where horses can travel.

however, the fact is that in this instance it has been decided by the powers-that-be that MTBs, dirtbikes, and any motorized travel is illegal in these areas. you're saying there's a distinction because one is motorized and one is not. in the eyes of the law, there's no distinction. good luck explaining your point of view if you are caught.

this is one of those sad-but-true things. we can work to get the powers-that-be to not lump MTBs in with mechanized modes of transport -- but now you're getting into a completely separate topic.

the issue at hand is whether it's cool or not to do something that is expressly banned in wilderness land.

is it no big deal?
is it totally OK?
is it fine when you're chasing your dog?

that's the debate.

but if anyone answers "yes" to those questions, i think if they turn around and complain about dirtbikes/ATVs/snowmobiles/etc. they are being hypocritical.

up,
your logic requires we buy into the fact that the government is right in lumping mtber's in with orv's. It seems like most here don't. We talking ethical decision here, not legal decisions. It's not a seperate topic, but THE topic being discussed. Should one ETHICALLY feel bad about disregarding the ban.

A few questions to help answer that:

Does the action harm anyone?
Your answer seems to be yes, it harms mountain bikers by possibly hurting our cause.

Does the action harm the trails?
The answer to this is decidedly no worse than the other uses allowed, as proven in many studies.

Does it harm the wildlife?
Also, no more than other users, actually seems to be less from the studies I've read.

How much pleasure is derived from said activity?
Does this belong here, depends on your philosophical bent. I'm going with yes, and that the pleasure could be great.

So, there are a ton of other questions you could add in here and come to your own decision about the Ethics of this activity. But it still has nothing to do with the law, except for the laws impact on the person doing the activity as a factor in the decision.

Just my blowhard opinion as a holder of an extremely important degree in philosophy.

Originally Posted by Tele'ndaboat

Just my blowhard opinion as a holder of an extremely important degree in philosophy.

WOW! Rarely does one ever find a use for such a degree. Congrats.

Originally Posted by Tele'ndaboat

We talking ethical decision here, not legal decisions. It's not a seperate topic, but THE topic being discussed. Should one ETHICALLY feel bad about disregarding the ban.

nice post.

it wasn't at all clear to me that the point of discussion was "is the lumping in of MTBs with mechanized vehicles ethically correct?"

the only information we were given was whether someone should ride in the wilderness. it seemed to me that the meat of the question was: "i came to a place where i wasn't supposed to go. should i have gone there?"

we later learn a dog ran down the trail. there were options to leave the bike & hike after the dog, wait for the dog to return (rideit's done an amazing job training dogs before and knows the dog would come after him, eventually), or just use it as an excuse to ride into the prohibited area.

i think by virtue of the fact that we're all here, we probably all think that the lumping in of MTBs with ORVs is silly -- but that's the way it is at this moment, and we can choose whether/when/how to fight that as a separate matter. i have said above that it does bother me, personally.

the bigger question is this: the person posing the question has knowingly ridden and built trail in prohibited areas before. why are they posting a legal OR ethical question (however you want to take it) when their actions indicate:
1) from a legal perspective they know it is wrong; and,
2) from an ethical perspective they will do whatever it takes to justify their actions
?

the whole thing is a non-issue.

maybe a reset should be done in another thread which more honestly asks:
"i came upon an area where i wasn't supposed to ride, but the reasons for not riding in that area are idiotic IMO. should i ignore them and assume my code of morality is superior than what has been decided by the public*?"

* - note: i honestly mean this as a question to be pondered. the fact is, though, that the government supposedly (we can agree or disagree that this is actually happening, but that is the premise of a democratic government) represents the view of the people, and that government has banned MTBs in those areas. we seem to be asking whether our own point of view should allow us to disregard the viewpoints of a larger number of people.

PS just in case it wasn't perfectly clear, i'm not arguing that the ban is the right thing to do, only that it does in fact exist.

Originally Posted by bagtagley

If said trails had been around for decades and were long-time favorites that might see 10 users over a busy weekend, but had recently been targeted by an overzealous douche who at one time was responsible for the most damaging enduro mx race in the country and claims to have the local users interests in mind, yet blatantly screwed the mtb community and is actually taking his orders from a desk jockey in Durango who's never even laid eyes on said trails, or proposed area or even the state as a whole, well then, yeah, I probably would.

What are you trying to say?

Here you go:
"i came upon an area where i wasn't supposed to ride, but the reasons for not riding in that area are idiotic IMO. should i ignore them and assume my code of morality is superior than what has been decided by the public*?"


That pretty much sums it up, and the whole 'Boots not Bikes' issue is what has put a bee in my bonnet.
And yeah, the doggie was a pure opportunistic moment.

UAN, respectfully, you still are a little misinformed as to the history of the new trail creation over here. No one has been ticketed, and at no time did we need 'stealth' chainsaws,(that was a joke) we were blatant about the construction (which was always for MTB-NOT moto use, and designed as such) because we had an ear inside the FS who knew what we were up to. (more or less)

Anyhoo, were you riding your intense up the Pass ~6:50 AM today?

You guys are missing the bigger picture.

Its not about whether or not riding a trail hurts the trail or the ecosystem, its about that poaching a trail, even if you're not caught in an official capacity, gives more motivation and justification for the people that want to ban bikes from more areas.

That should be avoided.

How does it justify more banning? Or are you saying it helps people that use false logic say all mountain bikers are bad because one guy poached wilderness. It's not because it proves that we damage or hurt things, cause the fact is that we don't.

Originally Posted by truth

What are you trying to say?

I enigmatically ranted about a place I used to ride, implying that, under the right circumstances, I'd go for it.

Originally Posted by rideit

UAN, respectfully, you still are a little misinformed as to the history of the new trail creation over here. No one has been ticketed, and at no time did we need 'stealth' chainsaws,(that was a joke) we were blatant about the construction (which was always for MTB-NOT moto use, and designed as such) because we had an ear inside the FS who knew what we were up to. (more or less)

rideit:
first off, i'd like to separate the person from the issue. for the record, i'm not opposed to MTB trails where you were building them. i think you put a ton of your own time, money, and soul in the process. i really respect the trail-building you've PERSONALLY done, but i am less convinced whether how and where it was done helps or hurts "the cause".

it's well known that you had a wink and a nod to build the trails, but it's also well known that it was in violation of policy, and that the person who gave you the wink and nod wasn't doing so in an official capacity (as you can clearly see from how he has acted since the sh*t came down).

you can pass off the chainsaw as a joke, but you know that could be useful in legit (e.g., clearly deadfall from a legal trail) and illegit (building an illegal trail) circumstances.

to say the trails built were legal would be silly. you know the difference between how it was condoned and truly being legal.

i know he's not really a renegade and he was a good guy sympathetic to the MTB cause, but just because that person gave you "permission" (and in the eyes of the FS would be considered a renegade) doesn't mean it was right.

weren't you pissed because dirtbikes were on your trails? wasn't that a big issue that spurred you to build other trails? don't you see how the process spirals out of control?

anyway, this is not a local thing - this is meant to be a universal issue....so enough about whatever happened in the big holes. let's get back to the theme.

one user group was violating a ban, but so were you. why is one right while the other is wrong? it's a really hard position to defend, although i know you will try. in the end the arguments all boil down to "because i happen to do one and not the other."

if you had poached that trail then gotten passed by someone in a hummer, would you have complained? i agree that the MTB has less impact, but couldn't the driver of the hummer attempt to make a similar argument and say that the gov't's ban is unjust and thereby justify their own violation of the regs?

(and, no, i don't ride an intense bike.)

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

You guys are missing the bigger picture.

Its not about whether or not riding a trail hurts the trail or the ecosystem, its about that poaching a trail, even if you're not caught in an official capacity, gives more motivation and justification for the people that want to ban bikes from more areas.

That should be avoided.

the point has not been missed at all. it's just odd to me that someone who has built illegal trails (however it gets justified) asks a question about poaching.

If you got the balls and can take the consequences, it should be ridden...

Just cause accepting rules with no logic behind them is a practice of those in the heard.

Course, I ain't had the balls yet, and there is some rides around here that were deemed classic before they were changed to wilderness.


Mooooo.

I struggle with most of the issues posted above.
Hence the post.

The fact is that over here (and in JH) Mt. Bikers are often the predominant user group (and surely the group most involved in trail days),
But this reality is not reflected in the local policies of the (Idaho) BTNF office. It is definitely acknowledged to be the case in JH.

It is just extremely frustrating.

Originally Posted by rideit

It is just extremely frustrating.

i understand.

if you think a stop sign shouldn't exist where one does, what's the best course of action?

1) blow through it every chance you get, and occasionally get a ticket?
2) figure out a way to work with the authorities that decided to put the stop sign there in the first place?

it's a personal decision.

in that case, blowing through the sign doesn't permanently affect anything (unless, of course, you hit a biker and permanently f*ck up his life).

land managers might claim that building a trail permanently alters the land.

yeah, i don't exactly like their prioritization of one user group over the one that i happen to be in, but i'm not sure that flagrantly violating bans (or even discreetly doing so) is the best course of action. perhaps it is.

in the case of the big holes, you knew that it was a loosely-managed area, and you existed for 10 or more years without much regulation. during that time, you got away with things that under-funded land managers could not afford to seek out and shut down. eventually, though, it happened.

why not simply stick to the existing legal trails -- including the illegal ones you built and got adopted into the system? is that not enough?

if the answer is "no", then you may have inadvertently opened the door to ANYONE building trails anywhere they like. hell, it would be their equivalent protest of a ban that shouldn't exist (in their eyes).

let's agree the ban sucks, but perhaps we can agree that the topic should instead be "how do we fight the ban most effectively?" (rather than simply, "should i poach this?").

at the end of the day, if one poaches, we hope they'll do so in a way that doesn't harm the land and is never seen. unfortunately, while the people discussing this topic here might be "good" poachers, we all know that many poachers DO harm the land. and it sucks for us to get lumped in, right or wrong.

illegal new trails = straw man

running a stop sign in no way equals riding a bike on a trail, consequences of one going bad are much greater than the other

and lastley, where' all these bike poachers that are doing harm to the land? you have proof of this and the harm they do? I doubt it...

Originally Posted by Tele'ndaboat

illegal new trails = straw man

running a stop sign in no way equals riding a bike on a trail, consequences of one going bad are much greater than the other

and lastley, where' all these bike poachers that are doing harm to the land? you have proof of this and the harm they do? I doubt it...

i disagree with you. the point of the stop sign analogy (weak as it was) is that in both that case and the bike poaching case the prohibition was viewed as unnecessary, and it set up a situation to either disobey the regulation or work to remove it.

the point that it was an unnecessary sign was intended to show that hitting a pedestrian was unlikely. one could also make a similar (silly) argument to say that one might ride fast on their MTB in wilderness land and hit/kill a hiker who never expected to encounter such a user.

anyway, all that is semantics.

you are now changing the discussion to whether or not MTBs hurt the land. everyone in this discussion feels that they really don't.

the fact is that the land managers, who are part of a democratic system of government that theoretically represents the interests of the majority, do not share this view.

while i agree with your sentiment about challenging rules that are absurd, you must also realize that what is a fair rule to us is absurd to someone else. you're kind of on a slippery slope.

if you say poach wilderness trails, don't get angry with the guy on his ATV rides up on your ass.

oh -- but you feel that ATVs do damage to the trails? well someone else feels that MTBs do damage.

once again, i'm not one of them who feels that is true, but that's the argument that will get thrown in your face, and surely each side will find some "expert" to testify in their favor re the impact the activity has on the land.

an indisputable fact is that new trails do change the land. do they enhance it? maybe. they certainly do affect it in a long-term way.

now, if someone piped up and said that everyone (ATVers, too) should ride wilderness land, i could accept that as being consistent. i wouldn't agree with it, but id at least accept that they think the public should be able to access public lands. unfortunately, this whole conflict exists because some user groups have been more successful at blocking others. we're just sad in the pants because our user group is currently excluded.

interesting discussion. i still think it could be more productive if it focused on impactful ways to bring about change.

Your the one using a slippery slope(i.e breaking one law would lead to the breaking of any and all laws being ok).

And i'm not talking feelings, I'm talking "The journal of Recreation and Land Management" study in '06, and the one that New Zealands version of the Forest Service did in '01 along with many others on not only mountain bikes impact on trail, but impact on wildlife and other users(if I had them on me I'd do a better citation but there at home, you could read them with a quick google search). So, let's stay away from feelings. I'm not a big fan of feelings when it comes to impacting user groups. It's not my fault many land managers refuse to continue to educate themselves on actual impact of user groups.

Impact is a quantifiable thing, and it turns out there is no proof mountain bikes are worse than the current allowed uses. They actually have been proven to be much less impactful than horses( which have about the same impact as orv's). So, if the purpose of these rules is to lessen the impact on the environment, then they are just plain silly the way they are written and would be better of banning horses than bikes.

So, I still say riding 'em is ethically A OK, just might get you a fine and you should be prepared for that.

What's up UAN. How you been man?

I would like to point out something glaring me in the face in your last post.

now, if someone piped up and said that everyone (ATVers, too) should ride wilderness land, i could accept that as being consistent. i wouldn't agree with it, but id at least accept that they think the public should be able to access public lands. unfortunately, this whole conflict exists because some user groups have been more successful at blocking others. we're just sad in the pants because our user group is currently excluded.

There's a grain or two of truth in this BUT........I can't speak for the Idaho Wyoming border zone because I haven't spent too much time there other than the continental divide touring route. But I know it's fairly dry. Here is VERY dry all summer. The difference between on motorcycle pass and one bicycle pass is aboslutely astonishing in the alteration of a trail surface. Yes mtbs can be damaging but I've spent 3 days regrading a section of trall that saw TWO motorcycle passes last week. TWO.

I don't think it's just that mtbrs feel all huffy and puffy because we're the ones excluded. There most definitely is a very significant difference between the effects of motorized and non motorized traffic. I deal with it literally every week. Years ago the forest management district that oversees the downieville area did a study on the effects of the big race there every year. The conclusion was that 300+ bike riders on course had the effect of about 12 motorcycle passes. I'll do my damndest to find it if you want. So yeah......I'm going to say we have a stronger case that should be addressed first

The battle to get bikes in wilderness areas is a losing proposition. It's been tried for years to no avail. And the bike ban IS absurd. Would I feel better if there were a similar ban on horses....maybe. Because then there's at least consistency in carrying out the directive of the WA from the outset. But change will NOT come from changing the act. The as of yet created 'other' designation may be the most productive focus. But it still stands that I live less than 5-10 miles from 3 wilderness areas, one that sees thousands of backpackers and horses during the summer and uncountable amounts of human and horse shit. So until there's some consistency in enforcement, no.....I don't have a problem breaking the law. Because I genuinely, truly believe that the law is flawed and the law will not change in my lifetime.

I think it's still a law that you fire two shots into the air when approaching an intersection in Baltimore. I don't plan on obeying that one either.

tele'ndaboat:
the slippery slope you introduce is by advocating poaching that you feel is acceptable. (you seem to advocate this; i only posed the question of whether or not poaching accomplishes anything - either in terms of personal satisfaction or advancing some cause.) if we all apply our own standard of what is acceptable, then others will apply that same standard, only in a way that you and i do not find acceptable.

you've never witnessed any damage to land due to MTBs? i have. much of it is preventable with good riding and/or well-designed trails, but i've definitely seen riders creating their own trails and causing erosion.

i'm not arguing that this is a reason to ban MTB in areas -- just saying that there is impact.

we're saying that impact is acceptable, not a big deal, or at least no worse than some other permitted user groups (hikers, horbackriders). i would bet that there are some ORV users who can access land and not produce any major impact. but, together we agree that generally ORV users do produce greater impact.

unfortunately, we are dealing with "feelings" here, because every person in the wilderness has impact. where "feelings" come into it is in drawing the line on who to include and who to exclude.

if you wantto tackle this issue, you darn well better consider "feelings", because we all know that "feelings" came into play when someone decided MTBers = bad, horses = OK.

you've decided it's OK to ignore those "feelings", but the people who set the rules (instruments of YOUR/OUR democratic government, unforunately) have not agreed to the same. unfortunate but true.

i think we've reached the logical end to this discussion (at least as far as i can see it), unless we want to move on to activities that would help the cause in a meaningful way. if not, i've got to gracefully bow out.

whether you poach or not, have a good time out there. ride on!

Originally Posted by Tele'ndaboat

up,
your logic requires we buy into the fact that the government is right in lumping mtber's in with orv's. It seems like most here don't. We talking ethical decision here, not legal decisions. It's not a seperate topic, but THE topic being discussed. Should one ETHICALLY feel bad about disregarding the ban.

Excellent point, and good points made after the above part too.

While respect for laws helps give structure and dependability to social interactions where people's money, livelihood, or physical safety/health is concerned, we shouldn't be so quick to assume that because something has been enacted as a law, rule, regulation, ordinance, code or the like, it's therefore reasonable, fair, just, or sensible.

Corruption is as old as mankind, and corruption in government is nearly as old -- the only reason it's not the same age is because it took humans a while to decide on using a "government." There are plenty of laws and regulations that have been written and enacted to give economic advantage to certain people who have a certain amount of influence in the legislative or regulatory process -- influence which is bought, in a variety of ways. The resulting morass of laws and regulations therefore can't be assumed to be just, fair, or sensible.

Should we defer to every law or regulation? At what point does the government stop being the servant of the people, and instead become the people's master?

Why should some arbitrary definition of "Wilderness" and an even more ill-reasoned application of the term "mechanized" be deemed a fair and just scheme? Just because the Congress and USFS said so? How many of us were involved in drafting the language that has so poorly defined "Wilderness" and so arbitrarily applied the term "mechanized" as a limitation?

Civil disobedience isn't for everyone, at least not until a majority of people find themselves suitably impinged or infringed upon by arbitrary and unreasonable governmental authority. I'm not saying everyone should be STICK IT TO THE MAN! etc., but I am saying that we should be thinking of what drives the stuff that affects our access to the mountains that we enjoy. They're our mountains too -- not just extractive industries' or commercializing businesses' mountains. And access to them shouldn't depend simply on whatever the USFS can justify as reasonable or necessary under a set of circumstances.

Who thinks the USFS intends to heavily enforce these sorts of infractions? Anyone? Any stories of heavy-handed enforcement anywhere in the Rockies?

I can't wait for Jer to find this thread, and turn it into poo.

I have to say, a bit of my original intent was some 'devil's advocacy'. (stir the pot, wasps and all)

Great arguments so far, all.

There is a reason that this issue is not simple...it's not.

Crud,
Definately some tickets given out here in the 'boat, but never heard of them confiscating the bike and all those other rumored threats you hear.

UAN,
I didn't say feelings don't come into play. Currently I'm involved with trying to decide some land use from a recent swap here and I know these feelings of which you spealk play a big role. But, you and I aren't neighbors and we are talking about weather Ride should feel bad about poaching. All empirical data I've seen points to him having a free conscience.

Personally, I'd like to see non-user areas. It'd just make me feel good knowing they were there. But if we are gonna exclude some and not others, let's do it using the best evidence we have.

Originally Posted by kidwoo

The difference between on motorcycle pass and one bicycle pass is aboslutely astonishing in the alteration of a trail surface. Yes mtbs can be damaging but I've spent 3 days regrading a section of trall that saw TWO motorcycle passes last week. TWO.

I don't think it's just that mtbrs feel all huffy and puffy because we're the ones excluded. There most definitely is a very significant difference between the effects of motorized and non motorized traffic. I deal with it literally every week. Years ago the forest management district that oversees the downieville area did a study on the effects of the big race there every year. The conclusion was that 300+ bike riders on course had the effect of about 12 motorcycle passes. I'll do my damndest to find it if you want. So yeah......I'm going to say we have a stronger case that should be addressed first

The battle to get bikes in wilderness areas is a losing proposition. It's been tried for years to no avail. And the bike ban IS absurd. Would I feel better if there were a similar ban on horses....maybe. Because then there's at least consistency in carrying out the directive of the WA from the outset. But change will NOT come from changing the act. The as of yet created 'other' designation may be the most productive focus. But it still stands that I live less than 5-10 miles from 3 wilderness areas, one that sees thousands of backpackers and horses during the summer and uncountable amounts of human and horse shit. So until there's some consistency in enforcement, no.....I don't have a problem breaking the law. Because I genuinely, truly believe that the law is flawed and the law will not change in my lifetime.

hey, kidwoo:
even though i said the above post was my last in the matter, since you directly addressed me i thought i'd quickly reply.

that comment was meant to be provocative. it was meant to state the absurd to illustrate the slippery slope and where it can lead.

i fully get that ORV users do more damage in a single pass than MTBers. i'm with you there. i despise such users riding prohibited trails in the winter and summer. i also hate riding through horsesh*t. you don't have to sell me on how much damage is done. no need to find those impact studies, because i'm actually on your side. unfortunately, i'm not the one with any power in the matter.

you, me, rideit, tele'ndaboat, and probably everyone reading this thread are generally responsible (read that as low-impact) MTBers. at least we understand how to minimize our impact. not everyone is that way. not everyone views us that way.

it's hard to separate a responsible MTBer from an irresponsible one. in fact, just about every irresponsible MTBer (make that every person) i've ever met THINKS they are responsible.

your approach -- riding the trails you want to -- is certainly one way to go about things. in my earlier posts, i did not say this was wrong. in fact, i even said this is one way to go. another is to use legal means to attempt to influence access.

i did say this was a funny question to be posed by rideit given his history (and i only mention that as he has been documented by name in public papers as well as here on this board, so it's not exactly a secret). perhaps that statement might have implied that i condemn the behavior when in reality i merely find the inherent contradictions amusing.

we've all come upon that "stop sign" before. we all make our own decision.

what's changed as a result of you poaching those trails? do you really care if anything changes? i mean, you would still ride the same trails anyway, right...but perhaps you'd be at lower risk of a ticket. i'd venture to say you get none or very few anyway.

based on what you've said above, motos do 25x the damage of an MTB in one pass. unfortunately, the people who "represent us" in our government apparently think that 1/25th the damage of a moto is too much, even though we don't.

i disagree with where the line was drawn and recognize that efforts to re-draw the line have failed. i don't know whether poaching or protesting in some other legal way is better.

this is all intended for discussion and not personal condemnation. i think one common theme is that we're all feeling conflicted from time to time. i would love for a productive solution to emerge, but i doubt that will happen and we'll all just continue to poach or not according to our own daily needs.

just think twice the next time we get mad when we see someone violate a law. maybe that's their protest for something unjust that we, simply, don't understand. (like all my neighbors who tell me not to clean up my dog's sh*t simply because they never clean up after their dogs. perhaps that's just a protest of the law. ) j/k i know that's a non-sequitor - though in wilson it's really funny to hear people justify NOT cleaning up after their dog.