Building a trail right

[japerry]

I don't see any excavators in these pics... :stirpot:

http://www.deschutescounty4wheelers.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1570

I post this, as an example of how we might be able to build a trail correctly. Because everything I'm seeing so far at Reiter, Walker, Evans, etc is pure crazy. I'm not saying that the Reiter plan is necessarily bad... but there is obviously better ways to build a trail, which includes proper area placement.

Plus, I see some great ideas here that I've not seen before. Using old metal culverts to protect trees? Genius! Creating exo-cages for trees around tight corners? Awesome! I know that these will have to be rebuilt/fixed as trees grow, but thats a task every 5-10 years (depending on how fast the tree grows)

The last awesome thing about this trail is placement. Its working with nature, instead of against it. Reiter is a bad place, environmentally, for an ORV park. Its too bad we're going to spend Millions to beef it up so it we can fit a square peg into a round hole. The trail works with the natural landscape, it isn't 'hardened' by external materials, etc.

Now if we could place a trail around here like this... I'd be putting my time and money into it.

 

[Money Mark]

Trails are inherently "wrong".

 

[Travis1]

Now if we could place a trail around here like this... I'd be putting my time and money into it.

Good luck placing ANY un-reinforced trail in the puget sound area.

We have this thing called rain over here, it turns this thing called dirt in to mud. :finger:

There's also A LOT more people that will run it since your major population centers don't have to drive more than 100 miles

You just can't compare a remote eastern WA/OR trail to a damn near urban puget sound trail.

 

[supsa]

Found one. But its a secret. This area has been used in the past and building in this area will be great. :awesomework:

 

[japerry]

Good luck placing ANY un-reinforced trail in the puget sound area.

We have this thing called rain over here, it turns this thing called dirt in to mud. :finger:

There's also A LOT more people that will run it since your major population centers don't have to drive more than 100 miles

You just can't compare a remote eastern WA/OR trail to a damn near urban puget sound trail.

I disagree. Santium Pass is in the cascades, similar to Evans creek. Hell, its on the boundary of a ski area! It gets rain.

The point is, you shouldn't build trails in Wetlands, Aquifers, Watersheds, near Creeks/Streams, etc. That still leaves a lot of land!

And I'm not scared to have some mud and rocks. Mud is only a problem if the trail is over used and runoff ends up in the areas above or causes uncontrolled erosion.

 

[crash2]

I disagree. Santium Pass is in the cascades, similar to Evans creek. Hell, its on the boundary of a ski area! It gets rain.

The point is, you shouldn't build trails in Wetlands, Aquifers, Watersheds, near Creeks/Streams, etc. That still leaves a lot of land!

And I'm not scared to have some mud and rocks. Mud is only a problem if the trail is over used and runoff ends up in the areas above or causes uncontrolled erosion.

There goes 1/2 of the land....

 

[boardbysled]

I think a trail like this is a 100% possible in W. Washington. Hell, even in NW Washington.

What would it take?

• A good working relationship between the land manager and the user base.
• Proper managment by the land manager (meaning, closing the trails when conditions dictate it, closing sections of trail that need repaired [this would mean having the proper mileage of trail to allow this])
• The trail built in a suitable area (meaning proper soil, drainage aspects, etc.)

On another note, I was wondering if there was been any work with the FS in the Mt. Baker National Forest to try and get an ORV area opened up. Lord knows there is enough FS land. And they already have a good working relationship with some motorized recreationists (Snowmobiliers, namely Northwest Glacier Cruisers)

 

[crash2]

I think a trail like this is a 100% possible in W. Washington. Hell, even in NW Washington.

What would it take?

• A good working relationship between the land manager and the user base.
• Proper managment by the land manager (meaning, closing the trails when conditions dictate it, closing sections of trail that need repaired [this would mean having the proper mileage of trail to allow this])
• The trail built in a suitable area (meaning proper soil, drainage aspects, etc.)

On another note, I was wondering if there was been any work with the FS in the Mt. Baker National Forest to try and get an ORV area opened up. Lord knows there is enough FS land. And they already have a good working relationship with some motorized recreationists (Snowmobiliers, namely Northwest Glacier Cruisers)

Its a matter of somebody taking the lead and trying to see if its possable.

 

[japerry]

There goes 1/2 of the land....

Very true, it could be even more than that. Luckily only 1/100th of the land would be more miles than we'd ever need. (2200000 * 1/100 = 22,000 acres)

 

[Travis1]

There goes 1/2 of the land....

By the time you take out everything he listed, already populated areas, ever increasing wilderness areas.

I doubt there'd be much more than .00000000001% of wheelable land left in the puget sound area.

 

[crash2]

Very true, it could be even more than that. Luckily only 1/100th of the land would be more miles than we'd ever need. (2200000 * 1/100 = 22,000 acres)

Another thing to consider is the fact that the deeper you get into the cascades the options for usable land go down due to the steepness of the terrain itself.

The downside to where we live--the one thing that makes it unique is the rain/wetness which in return causes erosion which is a big issue with government land managers(the number one issue IMO).

 

[Binder]

Nobody ever said you MUST have heavy equipment to build a trail. It's just a matter of what decade do you want it done?
1 backhoe=100 china men= 50 mexicans= 10 negros= one white guy with a shovel for 5 years.

 

[boardbysled]

By the time you take out everything he listed, already populated areas, ever increasing wilderness areas.

I doubt there'd be much more than .00000000001% of wheelable land left in the puget sound area.

I'd disput that number. There is LOTs of acreage in the North Sound. Lots of 2nd growth FS lands, lots of DNR working forest's.

 

[japerry]

Nobody ever said you MUST have heavy equipment to build a trail. It's just a matter of what decade do you want it done?
1 backhoe=100 china men= 50 mexicans= 10 negros= one white guy with a shovel for 5 years.

Was the outlet mall built with heavy equipment? is it considered unsustainable?

 

[boxboy]

but your talking about terrain following...

The area provided by DNR to build the new Reiter 4x4 area really does not have outlet mall type terrain.

Just because an area has terrain that could sustain long term 4x4 usage doesn't mean its open for such trails to be built. Building the trails at Reiter will be no easy job but the more input we provide at the correct times the more fun and challenging of an area Reiter may become.

Heavy equipment is never really needed but the bigger the equipment the faster the trails can be built and larger the obstacles have potential to become...

 

[Binder]

Was the outlet mall built with heavy equipment?

No and it took a hell of a long time too.

 

[japerry]

but your talking about terrain following...

The area provided by DNR to build the new Reiter 4x4 area really does not have outlet mall type terrain.

Just because an area has terrain that could sustain long term 4x4 usage doesn't mean its open for such trails to be built. Building the trails at Reiter will be no easy job but the more input we provide at the correct times the more fun and challenging of an area Reiter may become.

Heavy equipment is never really needed but the bigger the equipment the faster the trails can be built and larger the obstacles have potential to become...

I don't disagree with a single thing you say here. But I'm not talking about Reiter. Its fate has been signed, sealed and delivered. I'm talking about other places, areas that have no such plan in place yet, or areas with no plan.

what scares me is that reiter is the template for future places

the Reiter template is unsustainable: It assumes that money and time are no object.

this thinking must change. It starts by finding new places that are more environmentally sustainable. Places we haven't been yet. Places yet discovered.

Do you think if DNR folks walked 'Quack Attack' that they'd find it unsustainable? What about the trails at tilamook (open for years)? What about Elbe? What worries me is that trails that are sustainable get deemed unsustainable because DNR is overly cautious due to radicals in the environmental community and complacency within the 4x4 community.

 

[Money Mark]

I have tried to keep the pace and build difficulty Mauler provides to his trails........I can not do it.......he's a mad man. Another group responsible for some hardcore trails is a few damn Canadians. They PUT IN WORK.

Building trails (worth a ****......in the woods) is hard work no matter how you slice it. There is a BIG difference between driving through the woods and building a trail. :;

Reiter is not good example of anything.....comparisons shouldn't be made. Like Scott said, "type of terrain".

 

[Money Mark]

the Reiter template is unsustainable: It assumes that money and time are no object.

:haha:I see what you're implying here:awesomework: But "we" don't think that. For the record.

 

[Money Mark]

One major understanding everyone must about Reiter (before this discussion gets all crazy:redneck is that the entire area we knew as Reiter Pit is being subdivided into 5 recreation land spaces. This discussion I know is about the 4x4 side of things, but that's only 1 aspect of the "plan".

I agree with Jakob, we do need to find other more suitable areas for our ORV use........but my focus is on my secret squirrel stuff and at Reiter. Personally, I don't have the time for more.