Binder
Well-Known Member
OK I've drank enough alcohol and my alarm goes off at 2.45 tomorrow.
I'm out.
I'm out.
-
Help Support Hardline Crawlers :
Elbe Meeting outcome
- Thread starter TreeClimber
- Start date
I already gave the answer but you won't listen.
I'll let you read HER words instead of me trying to explain it for her. I've been to the meetings, I've talked with her about it and I've told you what she told me.
Spot checking for passes is MUCH easier than waiting around to find someone going off the trail, or not using a tree saver etc. One person can simply hang around at the campground and check EVERYone, just like they do at the parking lots at Evan's Creek.
One purpose of being there, is education. To learn the process, get involved with the process and yes provide input when appropriate. So many people that have never been involved with the DNR or focus groups like this are spouting off garbage because they simply don't have experience or knowledge of the way things work.
Binder
Well-Known Member
And does nothoing to fix the problem of resorce damage. You don't think a guy with a pass could still drive off of the trail?
Binder
Well-Known Member
This could be done over the net without being there.
I call BS. The way things work is what needs to change. If you're just trying to fit in with the system then you're not helping much. The system needs to change.
Binder
Well-Known Member
And I've showed you why what you've told us thus far is BS. There are laws in place now and the DNR DOES have the authority to put them to use.
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
I'll have you know I've NOT talked with Steve on the phone, nor has he filled my head' with inaccuracies. I'm quite candidly against a length restriction. Period. Now does that mean my voice will be agreed with? I doubt it. But I at least want my voice heard. And you can read into her statement what you will, while I read into it something different. It is not personal attack on you or anyone else that our comprehension of her intent is different.
That's my contention also. Punish 'resourse damage'. However it has become evident that the phrase 'resourse damage' is too vague and in order for her to ticket (punish) is based upon a readily quantifiable variable. I.E. Wheelbase. Since she's basically a 'one-woman' show, she needs to be easily able to verify who is or isn't in compliance. It would be different if there was funding for more compliance officers, but the reality is she's the only one who has the ability and the responsibilitiy for the Busy.
I'd gladly trade "Passes" for "wheelbase" restrictions. Do you really think that the DNR will consider this?
Tony, it's READING into her statements that you need to stop. You are getting yourself into a huff when you don't need to.
I know some won't agree with this but I am pushing forward with a plan to implement a pass requirement, just haven't decided exactly how. There are two parts that I want to try to implement.
1) An annual or bi-annual requirement to attend a work party to get an annual or bi-annual trail pass.
2) A one time 4x4 education/safety class required by all users, like a boater safety class. It would be required to get your trail pass (and maybe ORV tags for specific vehicles). I'd like to see this implemented across all ORV users and maybe someone like WOHVA would be able to implement/manage something like this.
On both of these I'd propose a 2 year implementation plan. As people start going to work parties, they get their passes even though they are not required until say, Jan 1, 2010 and all initial passes are good until Dec 31, 2112. If a user cannot attend at least one work party in the next two years, it's my opinion that we don't want them on our trails.
The education classes would be offered at every "official" work party. I say official because I am wanting the PNW4WDA to manage the education class and with the limited volunteer hours they wouldn't be able to have people available everytime someone wanted to go out on a trash run. I'm working this over on the PNW4WDA site. I have a battle ahead of me there as well.
A user would have to attend one work party to satisfy BOTH components over the next two years.
Binder, those people that have taken the time to do the education class and get involved with the work parties are simply less likely to be idiots on the trails. They will have a better respect and understanding of what's expected of them and a better respect for the work that goes into the trails. So yes, I do feel that someone with a pass is less likely to go off the trails and yes, it is much more efficient to be able to check for passes - no pass = a ticket, than it is to enforce resource damage with limited staffing.
This would have to be supported with a good advertising campaign at the trailheads, 4x4 shops, websites maybe posters at the DMV and so on. I two years, everyone that wheels would know that the pass is required and how to get one. Only people from outside the state would be able to purchase a pass.
Do I think the DNR or the USFS would go for this, "I" hope so. I don't see why anyone would be against better education of the 4 wheeling community and improved volunteer support in maintaining our trail systems.
Big Picture ----- better maintained trails and improved volunteer support is a huge PR boost for the community as a whole. It would bode well towards long term development of new trails and trail systems as we would have a working successful model to implement and we can show how well our trail systems can be managed for both an environmental and user standpoint.
I know some won't agree with this but I am pushing forward with a plan to implement a pass requirement, just haven't decided exactly how. There are two parts that I want to try to implement.
1) An annual or bi-annual requirement to attend a work party to get an annual or bi-annual trail pass.
2) A one time 4x4 education/safety class required by all users, like a boater safety class. It would be required to get your trail pass (and maybe ORV tags for specific vehicles). I'd like to see this implemented across all ORV users and maybe someone like WOHVA would be able to implement/manage something like this.
On both of these I'd propose a 2 year implementation plan. As people start going to work parties, they get their passes even though they are not required until say, Jan 1, 2010 and all initial passes are good until Dec 31, 2112. If a user cannot attend at least one work party in the next two years, it's my opinion that we don't want them on our trails.
The education classes would be offered at every "official" work party. I say official because I am wanting the PNW4WDA to manage the education class and with the limited volunteer hours they wouldn't be able to have people available everytime someone wanted to go out on a trash run. I'm working this over on the PNW4WDA site. I have a battle ahead of me there as well.
A user would have to attend one work party to satisfy BOTH components over the next two years.
Binder, those people that have taken the time to do the education class and get involved with the work parties are simply less likely to be idiots on the trails. They will have a better respect and understanding of what's expected of them and a better respect for the work that goes into the trails. So yes, I do feel that someone with a pass is less likely to go off the trails and yes, it is much more efficient to be able to check for passes - no pass = a ticket, than it is to enforce resource damage with limited staffing.
This would have to be supported with a good advertising campaign at the trailheads, 4x4 shops, websites maybe posters at the DMV and so on. I two years, everyone that wheels would know that the pass is required and how to get one. Only people from outside the state would be able to purchase a pass.
Do I think the DNR or the USFS would go for this, "I" hope so. I don't see why anyone would be against better education of the 4 wheeling community and improved volunteer support in maintaining our trail systems.
Big Picture ----- better maintained trails and improved volunteer support is a huge PR boost for the community as a whole. It would bode well towards long term development of new trails and trail systems as we would have a working successful model to implement and we can show how well our trail systems can be managed for both an environmental and user standpoint.
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
Maybe I am reading into her statement a conclusion. That certainly doesn't change the fact that the DNR has NOT removed length restrictions from the table. I emailed her twice, and recieved two answers. Each answer has NOT eliminated length as a potential solution to the Busy's issues.
Regarding your ideal of passes. I'm in favor. I'm curious how many different users there on that trail in a two year period? 100? 350? or a 1000? Can we really have enough work parties to satisfy 1000 different users? You might need to add a another solution. Maybe a PNW bi-annual backed meeting? Maybe any work party at any area that has PNW backing? Dunno.
Regarding your ideal of passes. I'm in favor. I'm curious how many different users there on that trail in a two year period? 100? 350? or a 1000? Can we really have enough work parties to satisfy 1000 different users? You might need to add a another solution. Maybe a PNW bi-annual backed meeting? Maybe any work party at any area that has PNW backing? Dunno.
If I can get the PNW to back the plan and the DNR to agree, ANY PNW backed work party would fit the bill. It could and probably should be inclusive of any official work party. If RTW wants to go work on Reiter then someone would have to be there to collect names, give out the passes at the end of the work party etc. I'm not suggesting the the PNW be in charge of the work party aspect, only the training class since as this gives perfectly with their mission statement.
PNW4WDA Mission Statement
The mission of the Pacific Northwest Four Wheel Drive Association is to draw together four-wheel drive enthusiasts, supporters and Land Management Agencies in Oregon, Washington and Idaho to:
Support 4-wheel drive activities
Promote responsible use to protect the resources
Enhance the positive image of the sport and the enthusiasts
Maintain or improve 4-wheel drive opportunities
Protect access to public lands
BUT - hehe, I'm on a roll.. The forest watch program that we're working on with the DNR can have the authority to REVOKE those passes and require people to retake the education test or satisfy some other requirement before they can get their passes back... hmmm. Now we have an additional enforcement tool. The Forest watch people can't write tickets, but if they could revoke the pass because someone was caught winching without a tree saver of driving off the trail or breaking other specific rules, then we have an enforcement tool to assist the DNR and USFS.
PS. I'm running with the idea of making the education component available online... via a video presentation followed by a short quiz.
PS. I'm running with the idea of making the education component available online... via a video presentation followed by a short quiz.
rooinater
Well-Known Member
there would need to be a way for washington citizens to buy/educatation classes, if they can't make working parties. unless you plan on holding one every weekend and a few times on the weekdays. you can't manage 500 people at a working party, not to mention the people that work the weekends and can't get those days off. it would be insane and ignorant of you to do that. i think there would be a linching mob out there. you have to be able to accomadate most people's needs or times. to look blindly at someone elses schedules and implementing it in that fasihon would be an extremely ignorant move on your part. i'm all for a pass, but some of us work, go to school or have mass amounts of college work on the weekends and unless you are going to reimburse me for my college or get me a new job to replace a weekend of skipping work or slacking off my homework and endangering my future job... you can take that idea and eat it.
Do you have time to wheel? If so, then you need to make time to come to a work party. It's about priorities. I work an average of 100 hours per week and have a family with 3 kids and a wife that have sports, church, plus plus plus.
Don't talk to me about being too busy, you haven't even begun to get busy yet and I don't care how busy you think you are now. You don't want get in a p***ing match with me about who's the busiest. If you have time to wheel, you have time to go to a work party (which by the way usually involves wheeling).
mud4funtoy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 356
I agree that its easier to work with less people. BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH TELLING PEOPLE NOT TO COME BACK OR BE A PART. It's easier for them to work with less people. I personally have a problem with telling people to get involved and then saying thanks for coming now i don't need you THATS BULL CRAP. I will say it again ANYONE who wants to be involved and come to the next coming meetings needs to. Nancy told me that she wasn't going to listen to a bunch of people that were only willing to come to one meeting. ( granted she probably didn't think 205 people would show up) I didn't really advertise it all that much, but all of you did. Don't stop being a part of what all of you care about. I will be at the next meeting and I hope i will see all of you there as well.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?
:haha: I was wondering the same thing:corn:
Comet
Well-Known Member
LOL you saw that!!! I cooled down and deleted it. I'm in a pissy mood and thought I should just STFU before I do something I regret. Well I did it, but then I "undid it!" :redneck:
yea I do that at times:haha: problem is it mails out to everyone that is subscribed to the thread anyway:haha:
Binder
Well-Known Member
So do it again, don't be a puss.
![IMG_1099[1].jpg](http://attachments.www.hardlinecrawlers.com/xfmg/thumbnail/27/27247-f358ba8e8bb2e6ad6f6ba40d276026cb.jpg?1652267021)
