I could be wrong, but I think the deciding factor on the size limit is due to a fullsize issue that happend recently on the Busy.
Busy Wild Restriction Update
- Thread starter mud4funtoy
- Start date
- Status
You are perfectly correct on this. Simply saying we don't want restrictions without understanding WHY they want the restrictions isn't going to do any good. Giving them alternatives to a size restriction is IMO, please best plan of action.
Two things stand out strong in their reasoning.
1) Resource damage caused by vehicles on the trail that shouldn't be there. You'll notice I didn't say too big. T0o small or under built can easily create as much resource damage as something too big. We can't factor in driver ability or stupidity since they come in all shapes and sizes.
2) Maintaining the integrity of the trail as it was designed. This trail was built specifically for SWB vehicles a long time ago. It obviously has morphed over the years but there are a lot of people also complaining that the busywild is losing it's character as a tight windy challenging trail by the people who BUILT it and the rigs they drive. These are the same volunteers that have been looking after the trails for years and now they're seeing it destroyed (in their eyes). I'm on the fence on this because I understand both sides of the story. In order to maintain the character of the busywild we have to do SOMETHING to prevent the erosion of the system that is causing it to get wider and bigger every year. However, the larger rigs are the dominant users of that trail now and the SWB and smaller tire'd vehicles don't use it much now. It is reasonable to say too bad to the SWB vehicles that run smaller tires and restrict them from the trail - even though they (for the most part) were responsibile for buiding the system? Is the trail too far gone to make it useable and return it to it's previous glory or do we let the continue and just accept the fact that this trail is going to be hard core and leave it to the elite vehicles? If that's the case, then can the restrictions all together and let the trail go where it goes.
All these options have pros and cons and you have to consider the greater good of the sport, not just what YOU want for your vehicle and how YOU like to wheel.
Exactly what I asked for in my letter to Nancy. Let us disscus this at our next region meeting (jan)and cover it at the following focus group meeting.
I believe that I posted that information in the VERY first thread and have repeated it a NUMBER of times. When I got there late because I got the date confused, the other three people at the meeting had already been told that there's going to be a restriction on the busy wild, what should it be, and it was being discussed. It was a complete shock and was not on the agenda for the meeting (which I had also previously posted).
None of the people in attendance had had any conversations with the DNR about size restrictions in the past, that I know of. They were all unaware that this was going to be discussed at that last focus group meeting.
This was presented to us as something that WAS going to be decided that day but not implemented until appropriate action could be taken to put it into place.
There may have been conversations take place that I was not a part of or had no knowledge of but I don't recall ever being asked to provide input as to setting restrictions on the busywild prior to that day... and I've said this many times already.
I think that was a trigger event, especially since that idiot said that he's going to come back and try in again in ANOTHER full size rig.
That did come up for discussion about how to keep people like him off the trail and/or penalize him if he does. However, there was no request for input from the public. This was more of an "around the campfire" conversation while Nancy was off work. There was no indication that a restriction was actually going to be forthcoming.
Lucas
Active Member
SnoFalls
Well-Known Member
Let's discuss this first ...
What *exacly* is the "Resource Damage"?
From what I understand, the trees being "rubbed raw" are already not considered a harvestable resource (e.g they are in the trail corridor and/or already "non-harvestable").
So, is the "resource" these rubbed trees that are are ready considered "killed"?
Then I hear, "the rubbed trees pose a safety issue" since they have been "killed".
Which is it, "resource" or "safety"?
If it's a saftey issue from trees that may fall from being (already?) "killed", then "cut 'em" ...
If they are "harvestable", then "cut 'em" ...
In either case, just have 'em cut about 4' above the crown so they maintain the "integrity" of the twisty trail. (use the remains as "lowland wildlife habitat" ... aka blow-down)
I haven't heard anything that the issue is "mud runoff". If so, that's news to me.
IMO, this isn't an "issue" from DNR but more an internal issue within the 4wd community ...
This is *NOT* something that should be used as a reasoning when dealing with the DNR.
To make it BLACK AND WHITE ... pnw4wda should *not* decide that restrictions on a trail are a _good_ thing because *they* built the trail and so now the DNR can be convinced to enforce these restrictions.
If that *IS* done, then it can snowball (as plenty of others in this thread have already bantered about).
IMO, it's already beyond the point of SWB's with small tires (and yes, that includes *MY* rig too).
But, perhaps that's only the case during the nasty winter/spring months.
In summer or fall, even a SWB on 33's (with some possible winching) could git-r-done.
Yes, I understand that some might get upset about the fact that _this_ trail is now beyond the capabilities it was built for. But, cmon there's LOTSA tight trails for SWB's around.
Not really an option - best you discuss that with those in the DNR about why they don't want to do that.
Mud runnoff has not been an issue, certainly not on a major scale.
The PNW4WDA did NOT decide this and formally (I always qualify this) to my knowledge, no one has. This is one on one user contact with Nancy and there has been no formal statement at all along those lines.
Hence, one of the options I presented was to let this trail go to the big rigs with a better maintenance program and then talk about or at the same time, talk about a new trail for the SWB rigs WITH a size limit. Nancy's concern was that the more we ask for, the more attention the area will get from people that we DON'T want paying attention to the area.
I'll have to disagree with you on that one. Most of the tight SWB trails are gone. The Busywild was one of the last, certainly the only in the Puget Sound area that I know of.
SnoFalls
Well-Known Member
the question was which is it ... "resource damage" or "safety" ...
and if "resource damage" what "resource"?
To try to translate or paraphrase, resource damage in terms of destroying the soil around the roots and the root structure can cause a safety issue.
Secondly, and why they won't just cut down the trees as 4' tall is because that destroys the natural beauty if you will, of the trail - the outdoor experience.
If you go through the clear cut areas where they' ve left some stumps and such, you'll see what I mean.
But I'm not the DNR, I'm just a guy who goes to the meetings and works with the DNR on getting volunteers out and to discuss issues with the park. I don't have the answers to all the questions, which is why I suggested that you ask the DNR.
Send them an email and ask them. They are good questions but I don't feel right trying to answer for them. I can only give you my understanding based on what they've told me and I'm fairly new at the game.
Binder
Well-Known Member
You need to get out more. There are many tighter trails around.
The Busywild is NOT a tight trail.
You'll notice that I said WAS a tight trail. It still is for a full bodied 4runner with no exo and reasonably straight panels. It USED to be a very tight trail.
Where are their tighter trails in the Puget Sound area? I've run Isabell but that was a long time ago and I've not spent any time are Reiter. We keep trying to plan trips up there but for one reason or another they fall through for us.
Last edited:
Wrong link, I was referring to the stuck/broken full-size from last winter, and the recovery efforts that ensued.
Yep, that's the one!
HAHA, I found this quote from Brian H.
:haha:
And another from Totalled
And more from Brian.
Last edited:
Totalled
That Ford Guy
I'm not flamin ya Brian but it's kinda funny how 10 months and a built rig changed your mind about the trail...
Binder
Well-Known Member
When you want to run some tighter stuff let me know.:awesomework:
It hasnt changed my mind about the trail. I still think it needs work and never said to leave it alone. I just dont agree on the restrictions. I am fine with the one way on it still.
- Status
