Lucas
Active Member
Wow, what a fiasco.
Busy Wild Restriction Update
- Thread starter mud4funtoy
- Start date
- Status
Wow, what a fiasco.
Binder
Well-Known Member
Seriosly Reiter, and no quad trails. Most of the trails at Reiter are tighter than the busywild if you stay off of the bypasses.
That's what happens when you don't I don't use punctation properly.
The 53 Willys is so small it could probably fit on quad trails.
If I was running the Willys, I'd fit in the Hombres since they drive a lot of the flat fenders.
There, spelled it out.
I'm tellin ya man you got to watch what you say, Left foot right in the ole kisser... ha ha ha ha ha couldn't happen to a better guy.....uke:
I guess the drama count was getting low:bananallama:
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
From the PNW site
Arlene Brooks
Washington Executive Director 2003-06
Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Bl.Dia.
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: Elbe Hills ORV Focus Group Meeting -
The following was received from Nancy Barker, Elbe Hills Public Use Forester, announcing the ORV Focus meeting scheduled for Thursday January 10th (7:00 - 9:00).
Location - New Hope Fellowship Church (next to Graham Fire Station #3)
8120 304th Street East - Graham
Agenda topics are: Trail Ratings/Restrictions; Trail Adoptions; Campground Issues; State Lands Update; and a Round Robin session.
There will be discussion on misinformation on new vehicle size restrictions; contribution to the discussion on this topic and others is encouraged, this will be your opportunity to set priorities for 2008 for Elbe Hills.
Arlene Brooks, WA. St. Director
Arlene Brooks
Washington Executive Director 2003-06
Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Bl.Dia.
Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: Elbe Hills ORV Focus Group Meeting - The following was received from Nancy Barker, Elbe Hills Public Use Forester, announcing the ORV Focus meeting scheduled for Thursday January 10th (7:00 - 9:00). Location - New Hope Fellowship Church (next to Graham Fire Station #3)
8120 304th Street East - Graham
Agenda topics are: Trail Ratings/Restrictions; Trail Adoptions; Campground Issues; State Lands Update; and a Round Robin session.
There will be discussion on misinformation on new vehicle size restrictions; contribution to the discussion on this topic and others is encouraged, this will be your opportunity to set priorities for 2008 for Elbe Hills.
Arlene Brooks, WA. St. Director
Arlene Brooks
Washington Executive Director 2003-06
Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Posts: 198
Location: Bl.Dia.
Location - New Hope Fellowship Church (next to Graham Fire Station #3)
8120 304th Street East - Graham
Agenda topics are: Trail Ratings/Restrictions; Trail Adoptions; Campground Issues; State Lands Update; and a Round Robin session.
There will be discussion on misinformation on new vehicle size restrictions; contribution to the discussion on this topic and others is encouraged, this will be your opportunity to set priorities for 2008 for Elbe Hills.
Arlene Brooks, WA. St. Director
After talking with Nancy, and hearing Steve's input as per talks to Nancy's boss, and Gibby's suggestions... this is a pretty cut and dry subject.
The basic focus of this meeting should be about saving the TRAIL and making everyone aware that the bridges can only ALLOW certain size wheelbase rigs over them without damage. so it shouldn't be too difficult to understand what is going to happen.
either the bridges get re-done and made bigger or EVERYONE understands that there has to be a restriction on WHEELBASE. then the discussions on work parties to improve / fix the exsisting trail system.
this meeting shouldn't be about much else...
If rigs bigger than what the bridges support / allow to cross over them now are allowed, then - WE'RE LOOKING AT SHUT DOWNS - until the new bridges and / if - trails can be made wider to allow this. currently larger wheelbase rigs are in fact running the trails. but at what cost?
IF THIS IS A MUST DO, then look forward to trails closures in order for this to happen. if not... then the 82inch restrictions SHOULD go into effect immediately.
my opinion
--------------
The 82" width restriction isnt really the big deal here. It is the length restrictions.The length restrictions exclude MANY small bodied rigs from that trail which have been able to run that trail for years. The other deal is the fullsize/full body rigs need a better place to play and that they do NOT need to be in the busywild at anytime as not only is the width about the limit but the body is just as wide as the width of the running gear and will just not fit.
A length restriction is a rumor. the "possible" width restriction is up on the table, because of the BRIDGES. the trail needs a longterm fix in spots. currently everyone has a different opinion on everything...
but it all comes down to - fixing the trail, and again people will say there is nothing wrong with it, heres where we will hear if indeed there is or isn't?
then the scheduled work parties can begin, and repairs and longterm goals can be started, if any at all need be. *(which they do.)
but i think, everyone wants a shot at everything. and thats possible... but not overnight. and at the moment - if the way things are going continue, then the trail suffers even more. it's common sense that anyone can see, there are certain areas up there that just plain do not work for a fullsize rig.
but YOU or ME are not the ones to enforce it, we need a restriction in place, then we can open our mouths and do our best to inform users they're breaking the law.
it will be a very enlightening meeting tomorrow.
*(i'am on both sides of the fence as far as fullsize rigs or SWB goes.)
but remember a trail just doesn't get FIXED overnight. there has to be a impact study down to see what will happen if everything is opened up to anything... so again, everyone will see at the meeting.
please be peaceful everyone, Nancy is trying her damnest to be NUETRAL to "ALL" of us. she's not there to shut down trails or make life awful for anyone, this is why there is a meeting and we are invited.
:awesomework:
You've got to be kidding me?
how in the hell can a restriction be enforced on length - let alone, who came up with that idea? as to restricting length?
-----------
I can't see that even closely as a topic for discussion?
thats absolutely - RETARDED
width i can see, & hell next, it will be on HORSEPOWER? who exactly dreams this crap up anyways... I know it wasn't you Gibby, it's not Nancy... again, if we are all offroaders among ourselves, *(like i said, i'am on both sides of the fence as far as fullsize or Swb goes) but you wouldn't think we ourselves would drive nails into our own coffins, right?
If it's not a rumor on length............. before we go / hit the meeting;
CAN I GET SOME KEY ANSWERS AS TO WHAT LENGTH HAS TO DO WITH IT?
the reality is the SWB rigs will tear up more trail trying to navigate versus a long wheelbase. WTF are people smoking who come up with this ****. like i said, if we can't get some sort of agreement on everything, next it will be about ENGINE size or color of paint. gee whiz.
SOMEONE ENLIGHTEN ME,
at least i can "try" to understand in a NUETRAL way of someone elses thinking of why there should be a restriction on length too.
thx, going out to garage now to measure my junk to have #'s in head for the next time io decide to go OFFROADING? wtf........
:haha:
===================================================
The trails will soon be paved for the old school jeepers........Everybody needs to sell there wheeler for a lowrider so we can wheel in the 1970s of 2008.
you and your oversized truggys wouldnt have been able to fit on the trails in the 70s. Its the old school jeepers that keep this sport alive.:kissmyass:
Length is very easy to measure, center of hub to center of hub.
Longer vehicles in general cannot navigate as tight a turn as a shorter wheel base vehicle. How hard is that to understand? That means that the LWB will be more likely to rub on or pivot off trees or tear into the sides of the trails trying to get around very tight corners.
It doesn't mean that they can't make it but if you compare a SWB to a LWB vehicle, the SWB in general is going to be able to make tighter corners with less impact.
SWB vehicles in general have smaller/narrower bodies on their vehicles as well.
When I mentioned that my 106" long vehicle was able to make the tight corners by doing front wheel digs, Nancy quickly pounced on that, stating that that's not acceptable. She also said that using sliders or exo cages to pivot or slide off trees was not acceptable.
Steve brought up a REALLY good point. With the current stance of the DNR that rubbing trees is not acceptable and that spinning tires is not acceptable, we have to change THAT point of view and understand that these are part and parcel with Pacific Northwest Wheeling and if ORV use is going to be allowed, those activities are going to be expected and OK. I think that's the number one point to get across, as LONG as it's within the trail corridor. If we can change their mind on this, then it's a different game, but if they continue with this line of reasoning, the only thing I see to negotiate is how to limit the trail damage (as they see it) from occurring.
I guess the Region meetings over and everyone's home. So, what happened? I was unable to attend due to the schedule change.
The body of my sami is smaller than your jeep. My width is much wider but still wouldnt have a problem.But you old scholl jeepers had you time in the 1970s to do your thing......its our turn now.
We voted you in as director. :awesomework:
How wide are you?
- Status
