Important new Busywild restriction update.

Gibby1 · Dec 18, 2007

TreeClimber said:
Post up bare minimum requirements. Something to this effect. "This trail designated as a tight, narrow, very difficult. Deep mud, tight turns, roots, and other obsticles will prevent all but those who are prepared. Lockers & Winchs required. Resource damaging will be punishable by a fine of $___. " Then let her fine for RESOURCE DAMAGE, instead of Vehicle Limitiations.

my most recent ramble off.

Tony Fox

We are posting up minimum requirements. The trail will be rated as double black diamond, extreme. 36" aggressive offroad tires, dual lockers and winch recommended.

I wanted her to put "body armor or protection recommended" and then the crap hit the fan. Body armor is only required if you're going to be running into trees and that's NOT allowed...

She apparently can't post a fine amount because it varies.

She can't fine for resource damage with anything that will stick if it's within the trail corridor. The term resource damage is too vague and the fine needs to be commensurate with the damage caused per how the law is worded.. There's no way to assign a dollar amount to the full size that we're all referring to. Within the existing rule or law structure if someone was to fight the ticket, it would be a no brainer to win.

Per Nancy, she CAN fine people for breaking the posted rules, such as driving ATVs in the campsite area or not having fires in the correct places, because those rules are posted. She can't fine someone for not following recommendations and if that full size drove up to the entrance to the busy and she told him not to go in, right now, she can do nothing to stop him. If he decided to go the wrong way on the busy, then she coud ticket him because it's posted.

I don't make the rules, I'm simply passing on what I was told.

Brian H · Dec 18, 2007

Gibby said:
Minor damage over and over without maintenance becomes significant damage.

People going up the trail spinning will do more damage than me crawling up on a root wad barely spinning a tire.

Not Jobless · Dec 18, 2007

TreeClimber said:
Post up bare minimum requirements. Something to this effect. "This trail designated as a tight, narrow, very difficult. Deep mud, tight turns, roots, and other obsticles will prevent all but those who are prepared. Lockers & Winchs required. Resource damaging will be punishable by a fine of $___. " Then let her fine for RESOURCE DAMAGE, instead of Vehicle Limitiations.

my most recent ramble off.

Tony Fox

That's great!

The problem lies with enforcement, not just at Elbe but at other DNR areas as well.

Let's say that we, the community and DNR come up with rules and regs for trail requirements, who is going to officially enforce them and thus minimize the trail damage?

This is nothing new as we all know that the DNR is resource ($$$ and manpower) limited. Especially since the only avenue for funding they have for extra LEO's is through grants...

The solution to our problems in DNR areas is the problem, little to no enforcement for the existing rules and regs in place.

Brad Sybouts

TreeClimber · Dec 18, 2007

Gibby, can you forward the entire email Nancy sent you to [email protected] or PM it to me or post it for all to read.
Thank you
Tony Fox

Gibby1 · Dec 18, 2007

Brian H said:
People going up the trail spinning will do more damage than me crawling up on a root wad barely spinning a tire.

That's correct, but in the case of the busy, she's not SO concerned about the holes created in the middle of a trail by spinning tires are she is about the damage to the root wads.

I used the pic of you at Evan's Creek only to show how over the years, the dirt and roots of that root wad that you climbed up on, have been eroded away. What if you slipped down and drug your wheels and body into that root wad, maybe a huge chunk of dirt fell off while you were on it?

Again, don't get me wrong Brian, I've climbed that same root wad. It's not about blaming you for an act, it's about helping to understand they way that the DNR explained to me, the damage that they want to prevent and what their definition of "fitting" is.

TreeClimber · Dec 18, 2007

Brian H said:
People going up the trail spinning will do more damage than me crawling up on a root wad barely spinning a tire.

Chill Brian. It was just an example. I'd have done the same thing with a broke axle. He just needed a picture to show how it happens. No biggie.

Not Jobless · Dec 18, 2007

Brian H said:
People going up the trail spinning will do more damage than me crawling up on a root wad barely spinning a tire.

You criminal :haha: :haha: :fawkdancesmiley:

If we can find a few more pics I'm sure we can instate the "3strike" rule and have ya locked away for life :haha: :haha: :fawkdancesmiley:

Brian H · Dec 18, 2007

Gibby said:
That's correct, but in the case of the busy, she's not SO concerned about the holes created in the middle of a trail by spinning tires are she is about the damage to the root wads.

I used the pic of you at Evan's Creek only to show how over the years, the dirt and roots of that root wad that you climbed up on, have been eroded away. What if you slipped down and drug your wheels and body into that root wad, maybe a huge chunk of dirt fell off while you were on it?

Again, don't get me wrong Brian, I've climbed that same root wad. It's not about blaming you for an act, it's about helping to understand they way that the DNR explained to me, the damage that they want to prevent and what their definition of "fitting" is.

Im not saying your attacking me Dale. I understand why you posted the pics. Leave it to me to get ya pics for examples .:haha: ..Dnr needs to understand that no matter what they do there is going to be erosion. Go east of the mountains...... the deer and elk trails can be seen from quite a ways away.....thats erosion as well. I think these people have nothing better to do but cause problems for a growing sport/hobby.

Brian H · Dec 18, 2007

Jobless said:
You criminal :haha: :haha: :fawkdancesmiley:

If we can find a few more pics I'm sure we can instate the "3strike" rule and have ya locked away for life :haha: :haha: :fawkdancesmiley:

Here is one for ya....... Blue paint on the stump from my hood. Strike 3 im out. Cuff me and take me away......Dont get any ideas Karl.

Gibby1 · Dec 18, 2007

TreeClimber said:
Gibby, can you forward the entire email Nancy sent you to [email protected] or PM it to me or post it for all to read.
Thank you
Tony Fox

I have reviewed this and I posted it in it's entirety. I don't think I'm stepping on any toes or giving away any secret information type of thing. The ONLY edit I made was that the comment from Nancy about previous discussions about busywild restrictions was not with me personally and I didn't hear about it until the last focus group meeting. Previously, we had only talked about trail ratings and descriptions and how to incorporate verbage for RECOMMENDED vehicles and equipment.

FYI –

Here are emails sent and received with regards to Elbe Hills. Arlene

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Arlene Brooks [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:41 AM
To: 'BARKER, NANCY (DNR)'
Subject: RE: Elbe Hills -

Thanks Nancy –

Your comments are well appreciated - explaining the DNR's position on this issue.

I will keep in touch as this situation works itself out – please do the same.

Arlene

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: BARKER, NANCY (DNR) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 9:29 AM
To: Arlene Brooks
Cc: McCLELLAND, DOUG (DNR); Dale Gibbon
Subject: RE: Elbe Hills -

Arlene, this goes back to our discussion sometime ago about vehicle size restrictions on the Busywild Trail. (This discussion was NOT with me.)

The Busywild was designed as a short wheelbase, narrow vehicle trail. Users tell me repeatedly how they love winding through the trees etc... on this trail. The damage being done to the trail and the trees as bigger and bigger vehicles use this trail is really taking a toll on the resources as well as the trail. On top of this I see people in full size vehicles heading to the trail. I tell them the trail is not intended for vehicles their size, and they respond they don't care what happens to their rig.

I need some sort of rule stating what is acceptable so I can keep those who have no business on the trail out. I have asked for feedback, and have not received much except everyone agrees some vehicles don't belong. At the last meeting the four who attended agreed on some numbers. I anticipated there would be outcry.

Nothing has been written in stone, but I am glad I am finally getting the input I have been asking for all along. Reality is on the Busywild that if changes are not made, the trail will lose many of the characteristics that the users claim to want like tight turns. No trail can be everything to everyone. The DNR can not provide that.

The numbers discussed at the last meeting may not be the final size restriction, but they have become a valuable starting point. Regardless of what is adopted, I will continue to strive to develop more challenges for larger vehicles on other trails to keep Elbe interesting to the variety of users seeking off-road 4x4 experiences.

Thanks for helping spread the message.

Nancy Barker

Elbe Public Use Forester

South Puget Sound Region

253-312-4301

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Arlene Brooks [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 12/3/2007 4:20 PM
To: BARKER, NANCY (DNR)
Subject: Elbe Hills -

Hi Nancy,

I have received some disturbing emails (web postings) with regards to Elbe Hills and the Busywild Trail reconstruction.

I am getting various reports; some which are not association members and may be creating problems for your association and which I feel may create working relationship issues with DNR because of their actions.

If you can shed any light on this subject it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your time in this matter and I look forward to hearing from you.

Arlene Brooks, WA. St. Director

Totalled · Dec 18, 2007

TreeClimber said:
And I'm not in favor of restrictions at all. NONE.
And I AM in favor of maintaining the integrity of the Busy as a short, narrow, tight, treehugging trail.

I feel that once we go down the path of restrictions, it'll never get better, but will surely get worse.

Bingo. Restore the trail. Fix the damage. Make it so it's painful for those who insist on wheeling it with rigs that are too big. Maybe they'll get the hint after a they require another major extraction and are fined. :awesomework:

If you're bigger than a full bodied short box compact truck, you're too big for the busy.

Totalled · Dec 18, 2007

TreeClimber said:
Apparantly that goes back to the crux of the issue, that the F150 had no business being in there.

Ahem. Said asshat was a shitbox K20 GMC. Please stop disparaging responsible Ford 1/2 ton owners. KTHXBYE. :kiss:

SnoFalls · Dec 18, 2007

so let me get this straight ...

(from nancy ...)
Arlene, this goes back to our discussion sometime ago about vehicle size restrictions on the Busywild Trail. (This discussion was NOT with me.)

The Busywild was designed as a short wheelbase, narrow vehicle trail. Users tell me repeatedly how they love winding through the trees etc... on this trail. The damage being done to the trail and the trees as bigger and bigger vehicles use this trail is really taking a toll on the resources as well as the trail. On top of this I see people in full size vehicles heading to the trail. I tell them the trail is not intended for vehicles their size, and they respond they don't care what happens to their rig.

...

So, the "stink here is NOT from DNR, and probably NOT from envirogays.

Instead it's from "users" that "tell me repeatedly" ... who exactly do you think THAT is ...

TreeClimber · Dec 18, 2007

Mybad. :looser:

Gibby1 · Dec 18, 2007

SnoFalls said:
so let me get this straight ...

So, the "stink here is NOT from DNR, and probably NOT from envirogays.

Instead it's from "users" that "tell me repeatedly" ... who exactly do you think THAT is ...

People that she meets and talks to in the park.

We tried to make the Sunrise trail harder by putting in a rock section where a hole use to be and per Nancy, "the users were complaining that it was too hard," so guess what, they went AROUND and made a bypass. The Tamers then had to redo the rocks and on multiple occassions, block off the illegal bypass.

This is where my point about providing an alternative for her is the best plan. If there are enough users apparently complaining to her about the condition of the busy and they way that it's going. She's going to need an alternative for those users before she'll agree to letting EVERYone on the busy. I don't know who she talks to... She's not going to open up the busy and say, "have at it big boys" without responding to the needs of the users that are already in her ear, whomever they may be. The greenies are not behind this but the greenies do have their eyes and ears watching for sure. This is why you all need to understand that we must work with the DNR on staying within guidlines and meeting their needs as well as ours. They hear from the greenies, we don't. This is what Nancy probably meant when she told me, "the more you ask for the more attention the area is going to get, and you may not want that attention."

While I don't know for sure, I think some of her bosses may have sparked renewed vigor on this. When they did the rock drop on the busy, it may have been the first time in a while that they've walked the trail and seen the changes. I don't know for sure, but I think this may have been why it wasn't on the meeting agenda as it may have been a last minute addition - just a guess however.

SnoFalls · Dec 18, 2007

well, here's hopin that she will hear (and listen to) a different crowd of "users" at the next focus meeting.

I also hope the "users" that choose to talk to a DNR rep and complain about trails also hear (and listen to) a different crowd as well.

03 CON · Dec 18, 2007

SnoFalls said:
so let me get this straight ...

So, the "stink here is NOT from DNR, and probably NOT from envirogays.

Instead it's from "users" that "tell me repeatedly" ... who exactly do you think THAT is ...

:corn:

Jaydog · Dec 18, 2007

wkndtoy said:
I'm sure Nancy would like these guy fix our problems......

http://www.lakesideind.com/
:stirpot: :stirpot:

That would be cool, I have built many miles of trails and they have paved all of them, Tumwater golf course and Spanaway lake park

Jaydog · Dec 18, 2007

SnoFalls said:
so let me get this straight ...

So, the "stink here is NOT from DNR, and probably NOT from envirogays.

Instead it's from "users" that "tell me repeatedly" ... who exactly do you think THAT is ...

I don't know, why don't you tell us? or will you just keep insinuating it's someone from the inside, BTW your post is waaay out of context.

auburnaviator · Dec 18, 2007

I am probably way out of my league here as I am fairly new to wheeling in the NW/these web boards etc... however here's my take on things. The trail was made and intended to be used by SWB/narrow rigs, as the years have passed the trail has changed (due not only to errosion by all rigs but lack of upkeep). Due to this errosion and therefore a slightly larger trail each time, bigger and bigger rigs have attempted (not always succeeded) the busy. And now we as a 4-wheeling community are at an impasse. Now the way I see it (and again this is from a fairly new deffinatly unbiased opinion) we have a few options:
Either have a shitload of workparties and take the busy back to the way it was in the begining as a strictly SWB narrow rig only and have a scheduled upkeep program to try and limit the amount of erosion and deterioration till the next workparty. Install gatekeepers to limit the size of rigs to also help slow deterioration, could also put in some sort of rockpile that only a locked rig could get through to even start the busy........
Another option is to leave it like it is now in it's current state and allow the slightly wider/longer rigs on it and just let the trail continue on it's natural evolution of continual widening/deepening.
There is also talk of the newly modified Rainier Vista trail. I think that which ever way the busy morphs (either back to it's original SWB/narrow state or too it's current/future state if nothing is done) that the new Sunrise trail be just the opposite. That way the largeish and small rigs have a trail of their own.

You can never please all the people all the time and you can never prevent stupidity/pigheadedness/stuborness, so there will always be those people that will "run what they brung" no matter the trail and their level of preparedness. With that in mind the DNR is going to have no way (except gatekeepers of some sort) to keep these people off the certain trails they're unequiped for, I think that is where us as a community is going to have to step up and take responsiblity for our own. If your budy isn't equipped to run the trail make him park his rig and just ride for that trail. I don't know, it just seems that we as a 4-wheeling community are the ones that are consistently there so shouldn't we be policing our own? Once again this is just from a rather new outsiders view.