Why are you throwing me out?
:haha:
Nothing personal I swear:haha: :haha:
Why are you throwing me out?
:haha:
Not true at all.
I've chatted with my fair share of stockers doing stupid crap.
So have I got kicked off of SNORT for that exact reason. Not that they were stockers but they were not full built buggies.
I guess it is a little of beating a dead horse. We will never get through to people it's not like any of these big tire guys are going to go home have a second thought and change out for smaller tires.
Just let it be known, that I think it our job to protect the trails and I would support any legislation aimed at getting those rigs out of the woods for good. Never thought I would, but I see no alternative. Tire size and width need to be addressed and enforced.
I disagree with you COMPLETELY. There are limited circumstances with WIDTH restrictions come into play. If you're wanting tire size restrictions then your going to have to be willing to accept a MINIMUM size restriction on trails where small tire sizes don't belong, like the new XXX trail that's planned for Tahuya.
It's the idiots behind the wheels that need to be addressed and enforced, not the size of their tires.
Remeber South loop? it was a SWB only trail clearly marked the week after it opened I ran into to guys in buggies tearing there way through the trail now it will accomdate a long box truck. People are ass hats.
I would support any legislation aimed at getting those rigs out of the woods for good.
I wouldn't go that far. Let's say anything with a WB of 120"+ and width over 80" was banned. How long do you think it would be before those dimensions shrank to the size of a quad? That is playing with fire right there.
Honestly, I had some very mixed feelings on the tire size limit. I knew what they were trying to do, police the area and go after those causing the most obvious damage. But unless you catch them in the act you can't do anything. ban anything over a 35"(?) tire and you can quickly make out who is and isn't there for the right reasons. I didn't agree with it, but on the other hand I couldn't come up with a better enforcement alternative that would actually work. Nobody I talked to could. I was ready to downsize it wasn't going to be the end of the world. But, how long until 35" becomes 33", and eventually 28" (Lt235) tires?
Once you open up that box, there is not closing it, there is no stopping whatever it is that comes out and you certainly can't put it back in.
I agree with some specific trail restrictions where appropriate, but not overall. That's why Nancy put out the 82" restriction on the busy. The bridges are 82" wide and that IS pretty wide to fit through the busy as the DNR considers "fitting". She has a tough time policing idiots as she does have to catch them in the act. How much easier is it catch someone on the trail, measure their width and make and objective decision about whether or not they meet the requirement.
The same goes for tire size but I stand firm on this.
It goes BOTH ways! There are trails where MINIMUM tire size must be met.
Here's the way things are going at Elbe and I think it going to work well. Various club are adopting trails and are giving a pretty wide berth when it comes to what they do and do not want for that trail, as long as it passes by the DNR. The Cascade 4x4s have adopted a significant portion of the busywild trail. If that club determines that through the section of trail that they maintain will have a restriction of some sort, if it passes through the DNR as far as conforming with their rules, then it'll happen. The user groups will get to determine what size and types of rigs will navigate the section of trails that they are responsible for. By types I don't mean Jeep vs Toyota, but full size, vs swb etc.
Our club adopted the Rainier Vista and we determined that it should be a hard core trail so we're going to build it as such. That trail will come with MINIMUM restrictions, most likely 35" tires, dual TADs and a winch. If you are on the trail and don't meet minimum sizes, you COULD be fined is doing so causes a problem. For example, you take a 4Runner on 33s a single locker and a dead winch... You get stuck on the trail and require extensive extraction efforts or block off the trail for hours on end, you could be fined for taking an unprepared vehicle on the trail and not meeting the recommendations. FYI, much of this is/was in the discussion phase about how to enforce rules should people choose to disobey them. This is NOT laid in stone but it was at the top of the idea phase when Joe took over. If you can get your 33" tired vehicle through the trail without causing a problem, more power to you, no one's going to care. But go where you don't belong and cause a problem, you should pay the price.
As the trails at Elbe get adopted the various clubs will be setting, or will have the option to set, rules like this since they are taking the responsibilty for building and maintaining that trail. The DNR will keep a good mix of trails at the park so that EVERYONE can wheel, but not everyone will be able to wheel all trails.
I agree with some specific trail restrictions where appropriate, but not overall. That's why Nancy put out the 82" restriction on the busy. The bridges are 82" wide and that IS pretty wide to fit through the busy as the DNR considers "fitting". She has a tough time policing idiots as she does have to catch them in the act. How much easier is it catch someone on the trail, measure their width and make and objective decision about whether or not they meet the requirement.
The same goes for tire size but I stand firm on this.
It goes BOTH ways! There are trails where MINIMUM tire size must be met.
Here's the way things are going at Elbe and I think it going to work well. Various club are adopting trails and are giving a pretty wide berth when it comes to what they do and do not want for that trail, as long as it passes by the DNR. The Cascade 4x4s have adopted a significant portion of the busywild trail. If that club determines that through the section of trail that they maintain will have a restriction of some sort, if it passes through the DNR as far as conforming with their rules, then it'll happen. The user groups will get to determine what size and types of rigs will navigate the section of trails that they are responsible for. By types I don't mean Jeep vs Toyota, but full size, vs swb etc.
Our club adopted the Rainier Vista and we determined that it should be a hard core trail so we're going to build it as such. That trail will come with MINIMUM restrictions, most likely 35" tires, dual TADs and a winch. If you are on the trail and don't meet minimum sizes, you COULD be fined is doing so causes a problem. For example, you take a 4Runner on 33s a single locker and a dead winch... You get stuck on the trail and require extensive extraction efforts or block off the trail for hours on end, you could be fined for taking an unprepared vehicle on the trail and not meeting the recommendations. FYI, much of this is/was in the discussion phase about how to enforce rules should people choose to disobey them. This is NOT laid in stone but it was at the top of the idea phase when Joe took over. If you can get your 33" tired vehicle through the trail without causing a problem, more power to you, no one's going to care. But go where you don't belong and cause a problem, you should pay the price.
As the trails at Elbe get adopted the various clubs will be setting, or will have the option to set, rules like this since they are taking the responsibilty for building and maintaining that trail. The DNR will keep a good mix of trails at the park so that EVERYONE can wheel, but not everyone will be able to wheel all trails.
you guys really dont want me to mount up little baby sissy tires.:;
All little skins do is free up more horesepower!:kissmybutt:
and Dale, thats one more 1-800-tatelonawheeler call. way to go:masturbanana[1]:
It's a good post and I agree for the most part. I would argue however why does the "older smaller tire crowd" have to pay respect to these big tire idiots that ruin our trails? 10 years ago there was not a trail in Washington you could not run on a 33 or 35 with exception to some nasty mud holes here and there. Then the California rock crawling crazy began and all the rags had photos and articles about these behemoth monsters and everyone up here followed suit. There was no reason to follow suit a guy could go run Liberty,Rimrock, nachees ect ect on 35's locked no problem. But this younger crowd just had to build them bigger anyway. Once these rigs were built there was no were for them to play because they were too overbuilt. So what did they do? They went and destroyed our Jeep trails that have been passable for 50 years in the same fashion. I don't get it. I am bitter about it and I think I always will be. The selfish needs of the few have ruined the trails for the many.
And I'll keep on doing it. It's called being a responsible wheeler, something you now nothing about. You've demonstrated that over and over by your comments.
Your either just a plain idiot or you just like to stir the pot. I hope it's the latter.
Isnt that a little bit of reverse descrimination:eeek: the guys with the "little" tires build trails and evryone can run them. So we build trails for the "big" tires and the "little guys" cant run them without fear of punishment for breaking:eeek: What if a big rig gets stuck on an "little" trail does he get a ticket for being to big:eeek: This is opening up a huge can of worms and I dont see the DNR ever stepping into that kind of enforcment. You also need to take into consideration that we all pay the same taxes to use the same trails telling someone they cant run a trail in a publicly funded park isnt going to work. Another crux to think about is the quads and bikes whose gonna police them:eeek: