trail closures

Binder · Apr 18, 2011

Boonie Buster said:
This is taken from the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance, an ORGANIZED, (key word there, something this group can't figure out) A group that is DOING something, instead of camping out at a keyboard saying "we need to ban to gether and fight the man!"

Good for them!...And I bet they did it without protests or standing on the capitol steps.:awesomework:

whatthe? · Apr 18, 2011

Binder said:
Yes something like this...The trails could be closed on a case by case basis and would only need to be closed for a couple weeks each then opened back up. Say for instance snow starts lake October for Shoestring and melts again early May. Close it for the last week in October and the first week in November then open it again until snowmobile season. Same thing in the spring, close it last week of may and first week of July then open it back up....Maybe during these closed weeks we could do work parties so it's good to go once it opens?

How in the world do you enforce this? They can't even stop someone from off trail mudding when they know the place and time each year. The logistical issues with individual trail opening/closing is beyond the FS. They want blanket open and close dates. They do it with snoparks, we'll be no different. Your idea is one of the more reasonable ones IF you support seasonal closures but I dont think the FS could do it well. Plus if they try closing trails in the fall, they'll have a hell of a fight on their hands with hunters, a much bigger, richer group than wheelers. I get your sarcasm but apparently you don't get mine. Doing this too long?:kiss:

nate8887 · Apr 18, 2011

How did they do it? Boonie you have any conections with thier guys on the ground doing the work? There was something along the lines of they "communicated the concerns of our community and the science behind mountain bike impact on trail conditions." What did they do scientifically? Who was thier scientist?

nate8887 · Apr 18, 2011

whatthe? said:
How in the world do you enforce this? They can't even stop someone from off trail mudding when they know the place and time each year. The logistical issues with individual trail opening/closing is beyond the FS. They want blanket open and close dates. They do it with snoparks, we'll be no different. Your idea is one of the more reasonable ones IF you support seasonal closures but I dont think the FS could do it well. Plus if they try closing trails in the fall, they'll have a hell of a fight on their hands with hunters, a much bigger, richer group than wheelers. I get your sarcasm but apparently you don't get mine. Doing this too long?:kiss:

Earlier you said the F.S. doesnt have anything to do and know your saying they cant handle a relitively easy system that goes hand in hand with thier responsibilities to the public.

whatthe? · Apr 18, 2011

They have a huge chip in their favor, lack of internal combustion. That's what the FS wants out of the woods.

pokey · Apr 18, 2011

nate8887 said:
But to answer the O.P. question I think working with the F.S./D.N.R to Make two trails or a "Winter Bypass" through problem areas may be a good idea.

You have your summer trail "softer area" that would be used in the summer and winter trail "More Hardpan/firm area" This would alleviate damage and allow nature to "Heal".

We would have to figure out a way to block these alternate routes effectively but im sure there is a genious somewhere in this group that could figure it out.

FS does not allow bypasses like the DNR does. The trail has to stay in its original two tracks as it was made.

This is a qoute from one of the FS folks that I work with.

"Bypass's on the National Forest are prohibited. The ATV/4x4 trail may only be a single two track thru the forest. It must remain with in its orginal track as much is possible. This differs from the DNR quite a bit."

Boonie Buster · Apr 18, 2011

whatthe? said:
That's what the FS wants out of the woods.

^^^Lies.^^^

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/meetfs.shtml

National forests are America's great outdoors. They encompass 193 million acres (aprox. 78 million hectares) of land, which is an area equivalent to the size of Texas. National forests provide opportunities for recreation in open spaces and natural environments. With more and more people living in urban areas, national forests are becoming more important and valuable to Americans. People enjoy a wide variety of activities on national forests, including backpacking in remote, unroaded wilderness areas, mastering an all-terrain vehicle over a challenging trail, enjoying the views along a scenic byway, or fishing in a great trout stream, to mention just a few.

nate8887 · Apr 18, 2011

pokey said:
FS does not allow bypasses like the DNR does. The trail has to stay in its original two tracks as it was made.

This is a qoute from one of the FS folks that I work with.

"Bypass's on the National Forest are prohibited. The ATV/4x4 trail may only be a single two track thru the forest. It must remain with in its orginal track as much is possible. This differs from the DNR quite a bit."

But if it is an alternate route and the other route is closed during the off season it would not be a bypass but an origanal trail? Something to think about and maybe me and you can discuss thursday if I can make it to the meeting?

Boonie Buster · Apr 18, 2011

nate8887 said:
How did they do it? Boonie you have any conections with thier guys on the ground doing the work? There was something along the lines of they "communicated the concerns of our community and the science behind mountain bike impact on trail conditions." What did they do scientifically? Who was thier scientist?

I've talked to a few in passing, but never gotten to a point of "connections". :booo:

nate8887 · Apr 18, 2011

Boonie Buster said:
I've talked to a few in passing, but never gotten to a point of "connections". :booo:

I am gonna try to get in contact with a few of them Thank you for posting this up we can learn from some of the more organized groups.

whatthe? · Apr 18, 2011

nate8887 said:
Earlier you said the F.S. doesnt have anything to do and know your saying they cant handle a relitively easy system that goes hand in hand with thier responsibilities to the public.

Could you reference that post for me? I don't think they could handle it well, government doesn't do individual, time sensitive things well. They're too big and slow for that. They would make blanket closure and open dates, not a trail by trail open/closure date. The FS like any government entity has a lot of waste, will always tell you they have no money, spends time on useless projects and want to protect their turf and budget from others. Once this seasonal closure is started it will just expand.

Boonie Buster · Apr 18, 2011

nate8887 said:
I am gonna try to get in contact with a few of them Thank you for posting this up we can learn from some of the more organized groups.

To maybe add to more of their "science" stuff....

Comment on Proposed National Forest Management Rules

The Forest Service is considering new rules that will determine how our National Forests, including nine million acres in Washington State, are managed.

Important implications for the mountain bike community: Notably, the proposed rule would:
weaken the role of science in decision making processes, including trail use decisions
cut the citizen appeal period in half and would not ensure public access to information needed for informed comments to a final rule

Read More about the proposed Forest Rule.
Forest Service web site

Full text of the proposed Forest Service Rule

whatthe? · Apr 18, 2011

Boonie Buster said:
^^^Lies.^^^

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/meetfs.shtml

National forests are America's great outdoors. They encompass 193 million acres (aprox. 78 million hectares) of land, which is an area equivalent to the size of Texas. National forests provide opportunities for recreation in open spaces and natural environments. With more and more people living in urban areas, national forests are becoming more important and valuable to Americans. People enjoy a wide variety of activities on national forests, including backpacking in remote, unroaded wilderness areas, mastering an all-terrain vehicle over a challenging trail, enjoying the views along a scenic byway, or fishing in a great trout stream, to mention just a few.

This says what people do in forests not what the FS encourages. I would bet that there is a significant number of people high up in the FS who are greenies and would like to rid forests of internal combustion. In any event the comment was sarcasm.:looser:

nate8887 · Apr 18, 2011

whatthe? said:
How in the world do you enforce this? They can't even stop someone from off trail mudding when they know the place and time each year. The logistical issues with individual trail opening/closing is beyond the FS. They want blanket open and close dates. They do it with snoparks, we'll be no different. Your idea is one of the more reasonable ones IF you support seasonal closures but I dont think the FS could do it well. Plus if they try closing trails in the fall, they'll have a hell of a fight on their hands with hunters, a much bigger, richer group than wheelers. I get your sarcasm but apparently you don't get mine. Doing this too long?:kiss:

Here ya go

Binder · Apr 18, 2011

whatthe? said:
How in the world do you enforce this? They can't even stop someone from off trail mudding when they know the place and time each year. The logistical issues with individual trail opening/closing is beyond the FS.

Yes it's complicated and because of this could fail....What I see though is an alternative to longer seasonal closures. The only way it would work is if wheelers were responsible enough (I know, yeah right:rolleyes:) to police themselves......It seems a big issue the wheelers have now is understanding what the FS considers "trail damage". We all know we aren't supposed to do it but defining it seems to be above the average wheeler....Well maybe the average wheeler could understand "trail closed from x date to x date"......
It sucks that it has to come to us even discussing this but here we are.:mad:

nate8887 · Apr 18, 2011

whatthe? said:
I'm saying, I don't need the FS to clear or maintain a trail for me. If I want something clear and maintained I'll drive I-90. It actually has never been tried, the FS has always cleared trails. Got to keep people thinking you're useful and use your budget money. I think it's just fine that there are work parties to clear/repair trails. Are they necessary? Up for debate.

This is the one I meant sorry

whatthe? · Apr 18, 2011

Binder said:
Yes it's complicated and because of this could fail....What I see though is an alternative to longer seasonal closures. The only way it would work is if wheelers were responsible enough (I know, yeah right:rolleyes:) to police themselves......It seems a big issue the wheelers have now is understanding what the FS considers "trail damage". We all know we aren't supposed to do it but defining it seems to be above the average wheeler....Well maybe the average wheeler could understand "trail closed from x date to x date"......
It sucks that it has to come to us even discussing this but here we are.:mad:

If wheelers were responsible there wouldn't be any seasonal closures. I agree "damage" is the issue. Wheelers and the FS are not going to agree on what "damage" is. Right now the FS has the power and until wheelers get enough political power to sway the FS we're at their mercy. I hope they use lube.

whatthe? · Apr 18, 2011

nate8887 said:
This is the one I meant sorry

I'm not sure how that says the FS has nothing to do. They're doing stuff. The question was is what they're doing useful and a good use of tax money.

Jacob · Apr 18, 2011

Believe it or not, the USFS doesn't have the final say in any of this we have rights as well. There are lots of good reading here. Please take a look at this page-

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/resources

This is a good report to read from the above page-

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/legal-n...ussell-country-sportsmen-v-u-s-forest-service

As well as this one-

http://www.wildlandscpr.org/recent-off-road-vehicle-scientific-research-reviews

I think as well as becoming organized and active on the issues, we should also start arming ourselves with knowledge to fight the fight if things really start going down hill at a snow ball rate, or maybe they already are.

Jacob · Apr 18, 2011

whatthe? said:
I'm not sure how that says the FS has nothing to do. They're doing stuff. The question was is what they're doing useful and a good use of tax money.

Read the report on this page about the costs to decommission a road in a National Forest. There are also other good resources here as well.

http://www.trailsintrouble.org/trailresources.html

Jacob · Apr 18, 2011

Watch this-

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4JlMzLVcJY&feature=player_embedded[/YT]

Binder · Apr 18, 2011

Jacob said:
Watch this-

Did you see that guy, he almost ran over that flower!!!!

Yeah that vid is a repost but a good one.:awesomework:

Travis1 · Apr 18, 2011

Of those choices, I voted for special permit.

But I would be against a pay to play operation, unless the only form of payment was verified feet on the ground working the trail systems volunteer hours. Lets say, at least 50 hours, dare I say 100 hours?

If the concern is tearing a trail up, those that put their best in to maintaining and directly supporting trails understand the most about not destroying them.

Seasonal closures do nothing but make it easier to permanently close something by adjusting what the definition of a season is. (May not be an issue "now", but it's coming.)

Tire size limits, I've seen both sides of that equation cause damage, big tires only get an edge because they tend to cause more damage faster. Reality is, it's 100% the driver.

NotSoPC · Apr 18, 2011

I say pay to play and if you get caught in an area and did not pay then you get a fine and sent home. You would have the ability to cover the fine with work hours at the same area. Tire size and hours already spent should not be used cause not everyone has time to get out to all the work parties. I know I dont get to as many as I would like to.

whatthe? · Apr 19, 2011

What would people need for this option, some kind of OHV sticker. Oh, I already have those on my bikes. Would I have to pay for each off roader I have (3)? Would the funds go directly to trail maintenence or would they be pulled for some other project? The fees would rise every year just like hunting and fishing licenses. Lastly, I have a fundamental objection to paying to use public land. It's our land, we shouldn't have to pay to use it. I don't mind as much the volunteer hours, as it is our land we need to take an interest in it and care for it.

Gibby1 · Apr 19, 2011

whatthe? said:
What would people need for this option, some kind of OHV sticker. Oh, I already have those on my bikes. Would I have to pay for each off roader I have (3)? Would the funds go directly to trail maintenence or would they be pulled for some other project? The fees would rise every year just like hunting and fishing licenses. Lastly, I have a fundamental objection to paying to use public land. It's our land, we shouldn't have to pay to use it. I don't mind as much the volunteer hours, as it is our land we need to take an interest in it and care for it.

I understand your "fundamental belief" but the "fundamental flaw" is that it takes money to maintain the land that we already have. I fundamentally have a problem with large government and the more I think about it, why in the world is the government spending money on stuff like recreation in the first place? With out of control spending, I support the cutting on non-essential expenses BUT opening this particular area up for private management rather than closing it.

Someone has to pay. We should STOP being taxed for it, operate on a pay for play basis entirely and if the government can't do it, let a private company do it. Oh first, we should get our funds back that we ALREADY paid (NOVA) since we did already pay them, but then stop this tax. The people that USE the service should pay for it.

I paid almost $700 for a family visit to Great Wolf Lodge so that we can recreate. The place was PACKED. Should we think that the government should pay for water slide parks too? Reduce my taxes, reduce the budget and deficits and I'll gladly pay to play. It's going to cost me around $500/day to go to Disneyland, so it I had to pay $100/day to go to Elbe and it had nice services, trails that I like etc, I'd do it in a heart beat.

Having free, or almost free use of the ORV parks and other legal 4x4 areas is fundamentally wrong. We are incorrectly believing that we are ENTITLED to this. We are not.

Boonie Buster · Apr 19, 2011

A lot of us do pay to play already, and i think the frustration comes from less and less places to play and still paying the same.

I know I get angry everytime i have to pay $100/yr in park passes and such and was told exclusively by a ranger that they don't have the man power ot even check to see if you paid for the passes.... kinda sad. This is speaking for National Parks...

I don't mind paying the $100, i'll pay more, but not more for less...:booo:

Gibby1 · Apr 19, 2011

Boonie Buster said:
A lot of us do pay to play already, and i think the frustration comes from less and less places to play and still paying the same.

I know I get angry everytime i have to pay $100/yr in park passes and such and was told exclusively by a ranger that they don't have the man power ot even check to see if you paid for the passes.... kinda sad. This is speaking for National Parks...

I don't mind paying the $100, i'll pay more, but not more for less...:booo:

We don't pay NEARLY what it costs. Don't get me wrong, I've struggled with this for a while because we don't like to lose what we have been given. I'm tired of paying my taxes (can you tell I've been working on my taxes) for entitlement programs that I don't use and that I think are a complete mistake for our governments to part of. I believe that people should PAY for what they use. Not just ORV parks obviously but across the board. Seahawks want a new stadium, let them pay for it. Commuters want a new light rail system, let THEM pay for it.

When it comes to recreation, the goverment has NO business being involved, especially considering the current state of our various governments. Give us what you've already committed to us and then get OUT of the recreation business. I know that private business could handle managing these recreation areas better than government can.

Jaydog · Apr 19, 2011

This is a little different than Taxes, since 47% of US Households either get back what they pay in, or more, and the other 53% pay 100% of the taxes. Users would all have to pay the same amount, you know, like a fair tax, that would be fair, unlike our tax system. :D

whatthe? · Apr 19, 2011

Gibby said:
I understand your "fundamental belief" but the "fundamental flaw" is that it takes money to maintain the land that we already have. I fundamentally have a problem with large government and the more I think about it, why in the world is the government spending money on stuff like recreation in the first place? With out of control spending, I support the cutting on non-essential expenses BUT opening this particular area up for private management rather than closing it.

Someone has to pay. We should STOP being taxed for it, operate on a pay for play basis entirely and if the government can't do it, let a private company do it. Oh first, we should get our funds back that we ALREADY paid (NOVA) since we did already pay them, but then stop this tax. The people that USE the service should pay for it.

I paid almost $700 for a family visit to Great Wolf Lodge so that we can recreate. The place was PACKED. Should we think that the government should pay for water slide parks too? Reduce my taxes, reduce the budget and deficits and I'll gladly pay to play. It's going to cost me around $500/day to go to Disneyland, so it I had to pay $100/day to go to Elbe and it had nice services, trails that I like etc, I'd do it in a heart beat.

Having free, or almost free use of the ORV parks and other legal 4x4 areas is fundamentally wrong. We are incorrectly believing that we are ENTITLED to this. We are not.

I think you're right, people wouldn't mind paying if they were not already paying. People are tired of hearing the gov say "we need more money but we're going to give you less". Privately run public land, maybe. Part of the reason public land is set aside is so that everyone could use it, not just those with money, this isn't England. But maybe volunteer hrs could be used to offset the cost for those with out enough money. There are private companies who run public recreation areas/campgrounds and they do it cheaper than the gov does (imagine that). Then you run up against the fact that the FS would need to lay people off and reduce their budget,:haha::rolleyes: I will disagree with your last sentance, we are entitled to use public land, it's ours, the gov is just supposted to manage it for the publics use.