100 miles of trail @ Walker Valley

[War-Jeeper]

Hopefully a Forest Watch volunteer doesn't see you guys. You do realize that DNR Forest Watch isn't only a Reiter thing right? DNR has been getting pressure to write tickets so maybe you will be made the example for others. :awesomework:

 

[zukkev]

Um...Kevin. It's happening right now.:;
Are you embracing it or dismissing it?

Well, yeah I know something's going on...but I don't have the time or money to go and find out just what. As for the 'trail' that spurred this thread (kind of), there is a HUGE water issue at the base of it that needs addressed before even considering it to be opened; and these issues need to be handled thru the proper channels, which isn't happening at all!...Jakob knows where I stand on that particular trail; and that is at this time this trail is off-limits (as much as I want to run it...
Again, everyone wants more mileage, but can't seem to grasp that certain things must happen before adding mileage---part of which is being able to maintain what little we have, which one or two clubs and a few individuals just can't do by themselves. Help is needed, period.

 

[japerry]

I don't see a lack of volunteers at work parties. In fact, there were more than enough the last time that you could have people working on Jeep cross while the Water Quality issues are being looked at. Lots of people standing around.

As far as issues going through proper channels.. been there tried that. Its failed. Those who know me also know I've tried tirelessly for the last year to get the door open for new trail. But we're turned away at every point. Thats why people are fed up.

I know Jay doesn't want people in there, but he has to realize the consequences of his actions. He f'ed up the legal part of Jeep cross. When you only have 4.5 miles of trail and close 1.2 miles of it, you're going to get backlash, in means of bypasses or other consequences.

They can't have their cake and eat it to. Its our goal to make them realize the mistakes their making and find a quick solution to them.

 

[japerry]

Hopefully a Forest Watch volunteer doesn't see you guys. You do realize that DNR Forest Watch isn't only a Reiter thing right? DNR has been getting pressure to write tickets so maybe you will be made the example for others. :awesomework:

Oops I just saw myself! :haha: :haha:

There is a difference between those running ditches, blazing through creeks, wetlands, etc. and those who are pioneering a new trail plan on DNR land.

 

[zukkev]

I don't see a lack of volunteers at work parties. In fact, there were more than enough the last time that you could have people working on Jeep cross while the Water Quality issues are being looked at. Lots of people standing around.

As far as issues going through proper channels.. been there tried that. Its failed. Those who know me also know I've tried tirelessly for the last year to get the door open for new trail. But we're turned away at every point. Thats why people are fed up.

I know Jay doesn't want people in there, but he has to realize the consequences of his actions. He f'ed up the legal part of Jeep cross. When you only have 4.5 miles of trail and close 1.2 miles of it, you're going to get backlash, in means of bypasses or other consequences.

They can't have their cake and eat it to. Its our goal to make them realize the mistakes their making and find a quick solution to them.

Actually you caught the tail end of that day, and no there weren't a bunch of people standing around...ALOT of work needed done in that spot, and still isn't done yet....as you know.
Again, you are one person (or a couple people maybe) trying to get the point across...if there were more people that knew what it was you were trying to make a point of at the meeting the other night, and one person isn't going to sway a decision....You need to let folks know well ahead of time what you're plans are at these meetings....to me and others I spoke with it seemed you were on the attack, and they (DNR) doesn't respond well to that---a different approach could have gone a long way.:;
I'm going to presume Jay was the head of the logging outfit...the issue with that section of the old Expressiway isn't the trail itself necessarily ( as I see it), it is however the huge water issue at the one end (heck, we even hiked it trying to find a solution Jakob)...If one can come up with a viable solution to that---I see no reason to keep it closed then, other than maybe an agreement we are not aware of between the DNR and the logging outfit managing the area of concern...

 

[japerry]

As much as I'd like to see the old section offically reopened, I don't see that happening... although I think we could ditch and protect one side of it, I'm not sure how keen DNR is about it. There are other legal trails with a similar issue going on.

However, what I do want to push immediately is for is an official re-route for Jeep cross around the trench and now dangerous crossing. Jeep cross -needs- to be officially reopened, and quickly. The lack of trail is causing frustration, and the answer to 'close' a trail when we have so little is not acceptable.

 

[stealthrunner1]

As much as I'd like to see the old section offically reopened, I don't see that happening... although I think we could ditch and protect one side of it, I'm not sure how keen DNR is about it. There are other legal trails with a similar issue going on.

However, what I do want to push immediately is for is an official re-route for Jeep cross around the trench and now dangerous crossing. Jeep cross -needs- to be officially reopened, and quickly. The lack of trail is causing frustration, and the answer to 'close' a trail when we have so little is not acceptable.

:clappy::clappy::clappy::cheer::corn:

 

[Duck Dodgers]

As much as I'd like to see the old section offically reopened, I don't see that happening... although I think we could ditch and protect one side of it, I'm not sure how keen DNR is about it. There are other legal trails with a similar issue going on.

However, what I do want to push immediately is for is an official re-route for Jeep cross around the trench and now dangerous crossing. Jeep cross -needs- to be officially reopened, and quickly. The lack of trail is causing frustration, and the answer to 'close' a trail when we have so little is not acceptable.

I'm sure if you supply the excavator, fuel, material etc. and the labor they would probably be open to something like that. In fact, if I am not mistaken both Elyse and Jim said that could be next on the list when we get the water issue resolved on Upper at the Pat's crossing we have been working on.

*And let us not forget that Elyse was adamant about not using the new/old trail. If I remember correctly she said if it did not stop she'd have Ron sitting there handing out tickets....

 

[japerry]

*And let us not forget that Elyse was adamant about not using the new/old trail. If I remember correctly she said if it did not stop she'd have Ron sitting there handing out tickets....

Yup she did... unfortunately what she doesn't realize is the current situation on Jeepcross makes that trail legal, and Ron cannot write tickets. They'd get thrown out. Why? because according to the WACs, if a trail is not marked closed, or otherwise blocked off, it is legal. Further, since Jeep cross, as well as the logging road are both on the map, it further legitimizes its existence. If someone was caught taking the 'trail closed' sign down, that'd be one thing.. but if the sign is gone, no one would be the wiser.

And although I know its supposed to be closed, I'm trying to make a point here: You cannot expect a closure of 1/4th of the trail system to stick. What if Lider got his way and upper mainline was closed? do you think people would keep running it? you bet.

What this means is, instead of closing trail, DNR needs to figure out ways to work WITH us. When we have 100 miles of trail, it's going to be much easier to close a section off. But until that time, the trail needs to remain open and we need to work on getting it passable.

 

[War-Jeeper]

Yup she did... unfortunately what she doesn't realize is the current situation on Jeepcross makes that trail legal, and Ron cannot write tickets. They'd get thrown out. Why? because according to the WACs, if a trail is not marked closed, or otherwise blocked off, it is legal. Further, since Jeep cross, as well as the logging road are both on the map, it further legitimizes its existence. If someone was caught taking the 'trail closed' sign down, that'd be one thing.. but if the sign is gone, no one would be the wiser.

And although I know its supposed to be closed, I'm trying to make a point here: You cannot expect a closure of 1/4th of the trail system to stick. What if Lider got his way and upper mainline was closed? do you think people would keep running it? you bet.

What this means is, instead of closing trail, DNR needs to figure out ways to work WITH us. When we have 100 miles of trail, it's going to be much easier to close a section off. But until that time, the trail needs to remain open and we need to work on getting it passable.

Very very key point Jakob! Once there is enough trail up there it will be much easier to close trails for maintence because there is plenty of other trails to disperse people onto:awesomework:

 

[Binder]

because according to the WACs, if a trail is not marked closed, or otherwise blocked off, it is legal.

Lets see those WAC's.....

 

[zukkev]

Lets see those WAC's.....

X2.....We will be 'informed' then...but as I recall, Jim was very quick to state to the contrary at the DNR meeting when this was brought up...:corn:

 

[japerry]

ask and ye' shall recieve:

WAC: 332-52-400 - Managing road and trail use.
(4) What methods does the department use to indicate if a road or trail is closed to motorized vehicle use? In addition to posted traffic control measures, such as signs, the department uses a variety of barriers including but not limited to gates, large berms or trenches, concrete barriers, and large rock or stump piles or other similar large barriers. Motorized vehicular use on or beyond one or more of these barriers is prohibited unless otherwise posted.
(5) When is operating an off-road vehicle permitted beyond a closed gate? A person may operate an off-road vehicle beyond a closed gate when there is a department-managed road or trail on the other side of or around the gate that is posted open for off-road vehicle use.

(6) Where are motorized and nonmotorized vehicles permitted off of a road or trail? Persons shall only operate motorized or nonmotorized vehicles off of a road or trail on lands posted or otherwise designated by the department as open for the designated recreational use. All other off-road or off-trail vehicular use is prohibited.

(7) How do I find out if a road or trail is open or closed? The department will use the following methods to notify the public if a road or trail is open or closed to recreation use: Information displayed on any signs, information boards, kiosks, web sites, maps, or other written form of notice that either allows or prohibits access or specific activities on department-managed lands.

Its also important to define what a trail is:

"Trail" means a route on department-managed land, other than a road that is suitable for travel by motorized or nonmotorized means.

Soo. basically this means, if Jeep Cross does not have a closure sign, its legally fair game. Its also fair game to run the old trail, since it never was blocked nor indicated closed.. even if at one point it was.

again, the point is to not piss them off, but to make them aware that those who don't know better will run the trail. Therefore instead of trying to ticket and place closure signs, we just need to fix the problem

I'll add, the definition of a trail means -- as soon as a trail is built, its a trail. It is no longer 'off trail'. Which means the route is legal as long as it is not blocked off or signed otherwise as 'closed'.

 

[japerry]

on the otherhand, don't get caught building trail:

332-52-405
Construction and maintenance of trails and structures.
(1) May a person construct, modify, repair or maintain a new or existing recreation trail, structure, or other facility or improvement or cause such activities to occur on department-managed lands? No. With the exceptions noted in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person shall not construct, modify, repair or maintain a recreation trail, structure, or other facility or improvement, or cause such activities to occur on department-managed lands, without written authorization from the department.

(2) May a person perform routine maintenance of recreational trails or facilities on department-managed lands? Yes. With an approved department of natural resources volunteer agreement, individuals may conduct routine maintenance of recreational trails or facilities.

(3) May a person perform emergency maintenance of recreational trails without written authorization from the department? Yes. A person may perform emergency maintenance on recreational trails. Emergency maintenance for purposes of this subsection means the reasonable mitigation of immediate safety hazards, and brushing, weeding, windfall removal, clearing drain ditches or culverts, or tread repair to prevent immediate resource damage.

(4) Any violation of this section is an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW except violation of subsection (1) of this section is a misdemeanor.

 

[zukkev]

quote from quote::redneck:
(6) Where are motorized and nonmotorized vehicles permitted off of a road or trail? Persons shall only operate motorized or nonmotorized vehicles off of a road or trail on lands posted or otherwise designated by the department as open for the designated recreational use. All other off-road or off-trail vehicular use is prohibited.

This states the contrary to your thinking Jakob...

And another!:redneck::redneck:
(4) What methods does the department use to indicate if a road or trail is closed to motorized vehicle use? In addition to posted traffic control measures, such as signs, the department uses a variety of barriers including but not limited to gates, large berms or trenches, concrete barriers, and large rock or stump piles or other similar large barriers. Motorized vehicular use on or beyond one or more of these barriers is prohibited unless otherwise posted.

And if you remember the meeting, the original point of contact to the road on the top end of the trail in question WAS blocked (and still is) by large stumps/trees, boulders, etc.... and someone punched the trail around said blockage of the original trail entrance/exit...Also, two yrs ago last february (myself, Jayson, and a couple others were there), I ran to the bottom of the other end of the trail in the snow, and couldn't even make it all the way to the climb (blowdowns across the road), but walked in the last 200yds or so---and the trail head there was blocked deliberately with stumps/trees/large rock, etc....since then, it's all been moved to gain acces to the old trail.

 

[zukkev]

Quote again from a quote!:haha:
(3) May a person perform emergency maintenance of recreational trails without written authorization from the department? Yes. A person may perform emergency maintenance on recreational trails. Emergency maintenance for purposes of this subsection means the reasonable mitigation of immediate safety hazards, and brushing, weeding, windfall removal, clearing drain ditches or culverts, or tread repair to prevent immediate resource damage.

Sure, you can repair an existing section of designated trail, but that does NOT give a person the right to blaze a bypass, be it safer or otherwise... What this means is someone needs to get out to the spot of concern with a pick and a shovel for an hour or two, and dig the hill back enough to get a good solid footing with a rig, and shore it up to help prevent erosion...

 

[japerry]

quote from quote::redneck:
(6) Where are motorized and nonmotorized vehicles permitted off of a road or trail? Persons shall only operate motorized or nonmotorized vehicles off of a road or trail on lands posted or otherwise designated by the department as open for the designated recreational use. All other off-road or off-trail vehicular use is prohibited.

This states the contrary to your thinking Jakob...

Remember definition of a trail. Once it is in place, it is a trail. On the other hand, Walker valley is a designated off-road recreational use area.. so one might interpret that its okay to go off-trail. But signage on-site would indicate otherwise.

Nevertheless, my previous statement holds. Once a trail is built, its called a trail, therefore this statement is meaningless. Its more for the folks who go into meadows or run in the ditches.

 

[japerry]

Sure, you can repair an existing section of designated trail, but that does NOT give a person the right to blaze a bypass, be it safer or otherwise... What this means is someone needs to get out to the spot of concern with a pick and a shovel for an hour or two, and dig the hill back enough to get a good solid footing with a rig, and shore it up to help prevent erosion...

naw. we're going to re-route it.... At least thats the hope. Elyse is interested in seeing if the re-route would work. Shes not happy that someone decided to do it already, but if it complies with the environmental standards (I believe it is better than the old option), and Jay signs off on it (he should since we're bypassing active creek running across the v-ditch), they'll make it so.

One of my points in the meeting was that this should have been discussed BEFORE logging took place. And I told some others afterward, I'm watching all timbersales closely now. If anything comes close to our trails, we'll bring it up.

 

[crash2]

On the otherhand, Walker valley is a designated recreational use area.. so one might interpret that its okay to go off-trail. But signage on-site would indicate otherwise.

:eeek::eeek::eeek:

 

[japerry]

:eeek::eeek::eeek:

lol read above signage onsite would appear to trump this statement