Elbe Meeting outcome

[Comet]

How many times have we heard that we need to get more people involved in these issues? Now you want to propose changes that would keep people from being involved in these meetings?

No where was it said people would not be involved. It was only suggested to have a focus group/steering committee/call it what you will, that works on the issues and gets things done. It does not mean people are not involved. Their feedback and input can be gathered by club members on the focus group, or a representative on the team (not necessarily a club member).
I am not aware of any successful organization that has the decision making process include everyone as a member of the "team." Now a final vote on a direction (say width restrictions vs. gatekeepers) I can see. But still a team of people need to develop those options, not a large group that debates endlessly about different options, etc.
A group of people attending a meeting in which the make up of the group varies from meeting to meeting is an effective way to get absolutely nothing done. The DNR moves slow enough, we don't need to assist them with faulty process. Can you imagine if General Motors operated that way? Decisions like which new car model will get manufactured and which will get dropped from consideration had to have every employee's input and each meeting they could bring up new ideas/arguments, etc. Sounds real lean to me!
The bottom line is, better process needs to be established to get anything done. From what I read about the last meeting, it was about a public hearing. Ok, fine. People got to give their input. Now what? Next meeting everyone start going through that list of ideas she created in that post that Treeclimber made and start throwing some out and giving others legs? You know how long that would take? Keep in mind the DNR has to go through their hoops before an idea can be finalized and implemented. This process is frustrating enough. I for one would rather see diverse constituents that know what they are doing gather feedback from users and bring it to committee. The committee meetings can be open to the public, just that your voice has to be heard BEFORE the meeting. Again, I have no problem with public hearing type meetings like last time, but the process has to move beyond that.

 

[Binder]

No where was it said people would not be involved. It was only suggested to have a focus group/steering committee/call it what you will, that works on the issues and gets things done. It does not mean people are not involved.

Are you and Dale twins?
Can you not see the point here? For years we've had to listen to many preach how we need to get more people to come to these meetings but when that actually happens that's not it either. WTF did you think all of those people are going to need to do when they get to those meetings? What was thier presence needed for, just a audience?
Typical focus group meetings have normally had low turnout and the people that were there have hopefully always had a idea what the rest of the wheeling community has in mind. How is that so different from what is being proposed?
Tell me are these people needed at the meetings or not? If they're not directly involved in the meetings how many do you think are going to keep going back?
If nothing else you need to find a different scape goat for the system not working. It's not the fault of the people that don't go.

 

[TreeClimber]

Ya bunch of ninnies!

Here's the actual email.

Everyone needs to take these issues back to their groups to discuss solutions.

It would be most productive to work with dedicated representatives from all the clubs or informal groups of enthusiasts using Elbe.


Was the topic of size restrictions real?

Yes. Size considerations were looked at for all the trails in Elbe. Gathering input from users about the causes of trail degradation, the evolution of vehicles, and the learning curve of new enthusiasts, it was clear that not every trail can meet the needs of every user, but all users should have access to trails within the system.

Users in Elbe have made it clear there are vehicles and users that have no business on the Busywild specifically. Examples are the Cherokee that was at the bottom of the toboggan hill, the truck last January that required a rescue party, or the full size ranger that doesn't care how banged up his rig gets.

As it stands now, when someone takes an inappropriate vehicle onto any trail, I have no recourse for ticketing them when they tear up our trails getting the vehicle stuck or unstuck. From the input, it seems like the Busywild is a unique experience and users have the most to lose by having this trail destroyed by misuse or overuse. A size restriction allows me to have some enforcement and that's why posting a size restriction is important to me even if gatekeepers are used.

Input for restrictions has been solicited for at Focus Group Meetings, from the PNW and at work parties. An attempt was made to have input from as many people as possible. Restrictions would only have been placed on the Busywild, and only hand in hand with replacing the challenge of the Busywild with an equal challenge for the full size vehicles somewhere else in the trail system. The width restriction is pretty much set, as anywhere bridges have been placed, they have been constructed to accommodate an width of 82".


Nancy Barker

South Puget Sound Region

Elbe Public Use Forester

It is quite clear that the Busy will have size and width restrictions. Period. There is no other drama to talk about. All this pay to play and/or work to play is idle conversation. Not that I don't agree with it, quite frankly I think they're both reasonable ideas. However the original complaint has NOT been resolved. As it sits right now, Steve couldn't drive his Toyota (that did all that trail maintainance on the Busy) thru the Busy anymore. WTF is wrong with you all? I'm an advocate of building your rig for the trail that already exist. I'm against building the trails to fit the rig you've already built. BUT what are we doing talking about pay to play and whatnot when THIS TRAIL IS EFFECTIVELY BEING CLOSED TO MANY USERS WHO'VE BUILT, MAINTAINED, WORKED AND WHEELED it for decades.

We need to have a frank conversation among ourselves to decide if NWW is going to put forth a political agenda, and if so, what are we going to put forth:

Are we TOTALLY AGAINST ALL LENGHT RESTRICTIONS,

or, Are we willing to talk #s as to what length we would be willing to accept,

or, Are we willing to change it from length to some other word (i.e. a list of specific vehicles such as C10, K10, Ram1500, etc.)

TreeClimber

 

[Gibby1]

I believe what Nancy said was that she's sticking with the width but length or removing length is on the table to negotiate.

I've said this before... If we can meet HER needs without the length restriction, I'm very confident that this will go away. You have to be willing to give and take.

My discussion on trail passes and such is NOT directly related to anything regarding the busy in particular. I think it's a good idea over all. I could spend 2 hours on this topic about how to there are so many different aspects to the give and take game that's involved. If I tried to go through all of it, I'd end up sounding like Rich LOL!

 

[TreeClimber]

I believe what Nancy said was that she's sticking with the width but length or removing length is on the table to negotiate.

I've said this before... If we can meet HER needs without the length restriction, I'm very confident that this will go away. You have to be willing to give and take.

I'd re-read what she typed. I certainly don't read her words as you have. If we install gatekeepers to keep rigs out -she still wants size restrictions- and her reasons are valid. Nothing we can do to improve the trail will detract from her inability of ticketing (punishing) someone who's too big and doesn't give a damn. So what are we going to do?

 

[Rich1]

I believe what Nancy said was that she's sticking with the width but length or removing length is on the table to negotiate.

I've said this before... If we can meet HER needs without the length restriction, I'm very confident that this will go away. You have to be willing to give and take.

My discussion on trail passes and such is NOT directly related to anything regarding the busy in particular. I think it's a good idea over all. I could spend 2 hours on this topic about how to there are so many different aspects to the give and take game that's involved. If I tried to go through all of it, I'd end up sounding like Rich LOL!

:haha: good one Gibby.

Back to a subject brought up by tony... It was stated that alot of people, like Steve would be un-able to wheel the very trail he worked on or helped to constantly repair / fix. Was he unaware of the bridge width sizes?

It all comes down to $$$ more so than, just run the stupid damn trail. Funding has to come from somewheres, Now & for future upkeep, the volunteered man hours would give a 2 part win win for the trails and users.

free permits, yet at the same time - work actually being done on the trails, the people who can't work, but have the $$$ to pay for a permit or just donate $$$ - bingo, cash for the trails to keep everything working.

If we can't understand, the bridge issue?

---------

Then i'll just give up, that is the only issue and reasoning for restrictions, and the actual offroader, who doesn't understand - TREAD LIGHTLY - meaning, don't do damage, especially in areas that are already bad. *(needing repairs)

all in all, there are some real issues here,

turn out of offroaders at meetings? is it needed / will it make a difference...

trail solutions? what is going to be done, will it be done according to the majority of actual users of the trail...

making sure whatever is decided apon? will we be able to enforce it...

:corn:

 

[Binder]

Nothing we can do to improve the trail will detract from her inability of ticketing (punishing) someone who's too big and doesn't give a damn. So what are we going to do?[/COLOR]

Which brings us right back to where we started. Without proper enforcement this is all a waste of time.

 

[TreeClimber]

. Was he unaware of the bridge width sizes?

Steve is two inches too long for the proposed restrictions. HE built the damn bridge. I know, because I worked under his directions on the bridge building project. Not only that, but the truck he used to carry the bridge materials in on is the same truck that no longer can run the trail?!

 

[Gibby1]

I'd re-read what she typed. I certainly don't read her words as you have. If we install gatekeepers to keep rigs out -she still wants size restrictions- and her reasons are valid. Nothing we can do to improve the trail will detract from her inability of ticketing (punishing) someone who's too big and doesn't give a damn. So what are we going to do?

The reason why I say that is because I KNOW that it's on the table. I've been working with her for the past 2 years. I know more about what her needs and motivations are.

I don't say what I say just to hear myself speak (or see myself write).

 

[Gibby1]

Steve is two inches too long for the proposed restrictions. HE built the damn bridge. I know, because I worked under his directions on the bridge building project. Not only that, but the truck he used to carry the bridge materials in on is the same truck that no longer can run the trail?!

The BRIDGES have absolutely NOTHING to do with the proposed LENGTH restrictions. Tony, READ when she wrote. Don't start making stuff up. It sounds like you've been on the phone with Steve and he's filling your head with inaccurate information. The ONLY thing that she holding her ground on without budging is the 82" width restriction because that's how wide the bridges are. Wider vehicles have no CHOICE but to damage the rub rails and push them off the bridges.

Did you see ANYWHERE in her email where she said anything about 107" or 109" or anything involving length?

 

[Rich1]

Steve is two inches too long for the proposed restrictions. HE built the damn bridge. I know, because I worked under his directions on the bridge building project. Not only that, but the truck he used to carry the bridge materials in on is the same truck that no longer can run the trail?!

So again, deal with it then...

re-drill the springs a inch on each end move the axles back, if anything... re-adjust D-Lines and shocks... etc.

I do not think it's about length - but, :corn:

========== I've stayed in the DD/WO for a reason. ============

But, I also believe in Steve's case and everyone else's involved with this, offroading at Elbe, BusyWild in general... It should come down to user Decision / voting / majority opinion on direction of if any; restrictions.

(.) <------ *(period)

 

[Binder]

I didn't see this post earlier.

Same way they do at the USFS. Ranger runs around and looks for passes. .

So why can't the ranger run around and give tickets for resource damage? This is the real issue here why not meet it head on?

 

[Gibby1]

I didn't see this post earlier.



So why can't the ranger run around and give tickets for resource damage? This is the real issue here why not meet it head on?

I'm not going to keep answering that question. I copied this and sent it to Nancy.

 

[Comet]

Are you and Dale twins?
Can you not see the point here? For years we've had to listen to many preach how we need to get more people to come to these meetings but when that actually happens that's not it either. WTF did you think all of those people are going to need to do when they get to those meetings? What was thier presence needed for, just a audience?
Typical focus group meetings have normally had low turnout and the people that were there have hopefully always had a idea what the rest of the wheeling community has in mind. How is that so different from what is being proposed?
Tell me are these people needed at the meetings or not? If they're not directly involved in the meetings how many do you think are going to keep going back?
If nothing else you need to find a different scape goat for the system not working. It's not the fault of the people that don't go.

First, I never said people do not need to come to the meetings. Neither did Dale. In fact we said just the opposite AND that their involvement should continue. But to have everyone show up month after month to debate this with the DNR gets us no where. From what I understand of the meetings in the past is that they are not decision making meetings. They have an agenda where info. is typically flowed down to user groups about clean ups, etc. Yes, feedback is gathered, but the processes the DNR works under is not to sit around listen to a bunch of rednecks whine about this and that and then make a decision to agree or disagree with the rednecks. From what I read about your comments, that is exactly what you want and that it would help attendance. I seriously doubt attendance would change. The only reason there was a big turn out was that there was a threat, real or otherwise, that restrictions would be put in place. If the agenda topic was building more picnic tables do you think they'd need to find a bigger location? Even with the touchy issue of restrictions on the agenda for future meetings, I seriously doubt attendance will be as high. Maybe for another meeting or two, but after a few months when no restrictions are coming down, people will go back in their holes. And if restrictions DO come down, then that decision is over. People will still not go unless there is a threat of closure.
This really is a silly argument because the decision making process of the DNR is what it is. Having lots of people at the meeting or not does not change that. What having lots of people DOES do is show the DNR that we have an interest in what going on AND that they can get feedback when the agenda warrants that type of format. What a focus group allows is DNR to get feed back quickly without getting mired in endless debate, and also provides a way for behind the scenes decisions to be flowed down to people quickly. Yes, that info. can be flowed down at the meetings too, but sometimes it needs to come out more quickly than once a month or however often the meetings are.
The bottom line is you are talking about user involvment and I am talking about decision making. Two very different issues. Both are important, but I just think the same approach should not be used for both. You seem to think it's better otherwise.

 

[Binder]

I'm not going to keep answering that question.

I've yet to see you answer it with anything other than a expanation of why they don't have enough people to enforce. Now you're saying they do.???????????

I copied this and sent it to Nancy.

With as much as we've talked about this I would have hoped that it would have been brought to her attention much sooner than this.

 

[Comet]

But, I also believe in Steve's case and everyone else's involved with this, offroading at Elbe, BusyWild in general... It should come down to user Decision / voting / majority opinion on direction of if any; restrictions.

(.) <------ *(period)

Rich you really need to understand the process. This is not a democracy. Our opinion is just that. It is not a vote. Our opinions MIGHT be taken into consideration if they are reasonable. There is not obligation of the DNR to do that. First and foremost they must protect their "business" and their business is resources that raise money for general education in the state. After that, they need to worry about liability, and waaaaay down the list recreation. We are lucky they even have these meetings. In such a liberal state as WA, I am surprised sometimes the greenies aren't winning more battles and closing more trails. What does the future hold? Who knows, but it doesn't take much to get trails closed. All this BS started because some idiot in a Cherokee got stuck and left his rig up there. THAT is the lesson we need to get out to everyone. That is how we "vote." By not doing stupid **** that gets trails closed.

 

[Binder]

The bottom line is you are talking about user involvment and I am talking about decision making. Two very different issues. Both are important, but I just think the same approach should not be used for both. You seem to think it's better otherwise.

I'm not saying the meeting format needs to be one way or another. I don't go to them and couldn't care less. What I'm saying is the people in general are getting tired of hearing the bullshit excuses of why things are going to ****. Typically we as in the people that don't go to the meetings are the ones blamed because we don't go. Now people go (for what reason doesn't matter) but there's too many people now. You guys can go but just don't say anything when you're there. What's the purpose of being there?

 

[Comet]

I've yet to see you answer it with anything other than a expanation of why they don't have enough people to enforce. Now you're saying they do.???????????

You know the answer to this. But I'll spell it out for you: F U N D I N G!!!
The DNR did receive some grants to increase funding for E&E patrols in 2008 and I believe Elbe is a benefactor of this, although I am not sure. I know Reiter is. And they are writing tickets at Reiter. But that doesn't mean 24/7 survellience. I am total agreement though that they need to sit behind a tree on a busy weekend at Elbe with a ticket book and go to town. Do that 3-4 times a year and not only have they added revenue, but word would also spread like wild fire and behavior would change, IMO.

 

[Comet]

I'm not saying the meeting format needs to be one way or another. I don't go to them and couldn't care less. What I'm saying is the people in general are getting tired of hearing the bullshit excuses of why things are going to ****. Typically we as in the people that don't go to the meetings are the ones blamed because we don't go. Now people go (for what reason doesn't matter) but there's too many people now. You guys can go but just don't say anything when you're there. What's the purpose of being there?

There is a time and a place for that. But what gets done when every meeting is 200 people whining about the same thing over and over. People would stop going just because nothing got done and got tired of all the whining!
Look at our city or county council meetings. They have hearings where the public can provide input, but then they close that off and the committee votes on it. That is the kind of thing I am proposing. Not a mob mentality where nothing gets done but people blowing off steam.

 

[Binder]

. And they are writing tickets at Reiter. But that doesn't mean 24/7 survellience. I am total agreement though that they need to sit behind a tree on a busy weekend at Elbe with a ticket book and go to town. Do that 3-4 times a year and not only have they added revenue, but word would also spread like wild fire and behavior would change, IMO.

You know I have written this nearly word for word and the only response I have gotten is they can't do it because they don't have the people. Now this may or may not be true but Gibby is now saying there would be enough enforcement to look for passes. Why could they not be enforcing the laws that are in place now?