defense vs. offense

[SnoFalls]

I for one like that there is "another" voice than that of pnw4wda.
I suspect that the mud4funtoy grassroots appeal will have as much (or more) impact than *just* the pnw4wda.

So, "divided we fall" ... perhaps
Or, "United we must" ... but not only via pnw4wda it appears

Don't get me wrong. If the *only* voice being heard is pnw4wda, at least that is some voice that gets heard. In cases where that's the only voice, at least it's something, and better than nothing (and why I support pnw4wda for what they attempt to do).

Then again it's becoming obvious that the pnw4wda isn't speaking for everyone.

I keep hearing about the "past" accomplishments of the pnw4wda, but that's the past. The statement of "you would have nothing if it wasn't for us" is valid, but what is the future?

So, what about the future? With all the changes going on with the USFS and DNR today, why not push for *more* ORV areas?

I for one am glad to see a grassroots organization happening.
If mud4funtoy can get an "organization" of people formed without "dues", isn't that as effective as (or even better than) the pnw4wda organization? I think all would agree that 100 phone calls (or hundreds more) to a DNR rep are probably something that will be considered as much, or more, than one pnw4wda "rep". Sadly it seems to only happen when a "firestorm" occurs (and no one would even know about it if it wasn't for the pnw4wda).

Personnally, I'd like to see some organization take on the offensive! I do NOT see the pnw4wda doing this (and sure nuf no-one else). If the pnw4wda is going to step up and go "offensive" GREAT!!! Otherwise we can all sit and watch this defensive stance of "well, we just have to bend over because nancy says so".

One part of the underlying problems is the fact there are so few usage areas for ORV users (4wd, atvs, etc). The "over use" of the few areas causes much of the problems the DNR and USFS sees.

Just a FYI, some of the foot trails along I90 are also feeling the "over use" problem (yuppers, foot traffic can cause trail erosion). And, yuppers there are foot trails being discussed as being "restricted". Ya know what the USFS is considering a solution to rectify that ... they'll ADD trails!

Wouldn't that suck if suddenly some of the FS roads they want to abandon could become ORV use only. Also, how many thousnads of acre of DNR land could be considered for ORV use?.

Ya wanna fix the problem with busywild? Here's a thought, open up other areas for people to use so they don;t *have* to try to fit their rig down one of the only trails in the south sound.

 

[Gibby1]

The adding of the rock crawl area and allowing the Rainier Vista to be changed from an easy trail to a double black diamond trail was specifically to relieve some of the pressure OFF the busywild.

The plan is also to make sure that there are no restrictions on that trail because it's inherently wide enough for all vehicles. As long as you're able to make it through the gatekeeper of course.

Elbe Hills has the busy, the swamp trail has some challenge and the rest is pretty easy for a built rig. We are negotiating to increase the difficulty of the other trails so that the Busy isn't the ONLY trail at Elbe worth running (as some will say).

I've put this info out several times in other threads but I thought it appropriate to re-iterate here.

 

[SnoFalls]

So dale,

Hows about pushing to add onto the system at elbe ...
For example, the old trails that run along the ridge that parallel beaver creek. That's a "trail" that could leave from the campground. (I know nothing so it might be outta DNR).

There is also the "old trails" that follow the other side of "busy wild creek" ...

My point isn't *just* about elbe ... it's what other DNR land that *SHOULD* be made into ORV areas.

Who is actively pushing to go on the "offensive" to get completely NEW areas opened up?

I don't see any group doing that! (perhaps if pnw4wda did so, it might get a wider participation).

That's is my point :blabla:

 

[Jaydog]

There is a whole lot that goes on behind the scenes that the ordinary wheeler doesn't ever see, for instance you never see anything posted by Derrick about Evans Creek, or anything about Tahuya by the Quadrapaws, Gibby is the only Rep that is brave enough to put it on the internet, and we all see what happens when he does that, I don't blame them for keeping quite, there are way too many internet tough guys that do more yapping than wheeling or working.

If you have legitimate concerns or want to get involved, then go to a PNW4WDA region meeting and see what actually happens behind the scenes, and since the PNW4WDA already has a working relationship, and monies from the FS and DNR for work parties, it only seems logical to get on board and help move the organization forward, but like I said earlier, most people will get fired up about it until the thread dies, and then they will turn their keyboards toward some other drama fest, having done nothing for the sport except belittle the ones that will actually take the time out of their busy schedule to fight for a place for them to wheel.

 

[SnoFalls]

For those that don't get my point exactly, I'll provide an example ...

DNR rep says ...
"look at all this damage on this trail!"

Response should be ...
"that's a result of over-use, if we had more trails, then the damage won't be so cumlative. That trail has existed for 30 years, but recently over-use it's now a problem".

Solution ...
ADD TRAILS!

The wrong solution is ...
"ok, we'll add restrictions on the trail".

 

[Gibby1]

Currently, this is no option for additional trail mileage. We have been discussing putting in an additional campground down by the tree cooler (DNR storage area) and then running a new trail all the way up to the current campground. There are a lot of obstacles in getting that done, but it's come up in discussion a few times.

I'm certainly not against additional trail mileage but we have a better chance at this point in time in trying to convert lesser used trails into more difficult trail.

The PNW4WDA has been VERY active in several different areas of the state to get brand new parks opened up. They've been fighting a multi-year battle in the Quilicene area and the DNR is willing to work on efforts with the Gifford-Pichot trails to get them up and running but currently, as far as I know, we don't have a volunteer for head up those efforts. I may be mistaken as I think someone recently stood up to take on the task but I don't recall for sure. The previous person quit, got sick or something along those lines.

The PNW4WDA has been on the offensive for quite some time. Everything get's publicized in the Tripower magazine however to all the club members. We recently won battles with the PNW4WDA to get the tripower put online on the website so that everyone would have access to read the news, even non-members. http://www.pnw4wda.com/Tri-Power/index.htm

It was definitely an offensive battle to win this victory! Thankfully, that's behind us.

Pokey has recently had some success in the Copper Creek and Rattlesnake trails as well, getting them opened back up. I don't know anything about these areas or his efforts, I just know that they've come up at meetings as topics of conversation.

 

[crash2]

Solution ...
ADD TRAILS!

The wrong solution is ...
"ok, we'll add restrictions on the trail".

You should get involved and see what goes on behind the sceens---Its not that easy unfortunately. Granted I wish it was and I have to agree with your outlook...

 

[SnoFalls]

My point is not to demean anyone for their efforts.

I will be the first to commend the individuals (e.g. gibby) that put in the time they do.

But why the "bend over and take it" mentality?

If the grassroots action taken by mud4funtoy has an effect, doesn't that say something that the DNR will actually be receptive to some other response? (other than "bend over").

 

[Jaydog]

I'll add a little about that and maybe Jim could expound, it is my understanding that opening a new trail, or trail system takes years and years of research with environmental impacts and biological studies, the amount of red tape one has to go through is surmountable. Look at Reiter for example, it is already an established trail system, but is not an established ORV area, but it probably will be in time.

 

[SnoFalls]

You should get involved and see what goes on behind the sceens---Its not that easy unfortunately. Granted I wish it was and I have to agree with your outlook...

I try to be involved, but like many it's not easy (e.g. why I also DO appreciate the efforts dale and others do).

I guess I'm dismayed by the fact it's ALWAYS a "bend over and take it" rather than we'll have to get "a 100 phone calls to a DNR rep".

I guess the phone calls only happen when the "**it hits fan" and only THEN it's easy to get 100 phone calls made.

 

[SnoFalls]

I'll add a little about that and maybe Jim could expound, it is my understanding that opening a new trail, or trail system takes years and years of research with environmental impacts and biological studies, the amount of red tape one has to go through is surmountable. Look at Reiter for example, it is already an established trail system, but is not an established ORV area, but it probably will be in time.

hmmm ... I understand, but ...
New foot trails get added quite a bit. (foot traffic DOES need to abide by environmental impact too).
Also, sometimes an old foot trail gets turned into a "mixed use" (livestock/cycle/foot). (that also has an envinronmental impact)

So, that "envinronmental impact" is regularly done ... except ...

... old "jeep" trails or abandoned FS roads or CCC clears seem to never become considered for ORV use.

 

[Gibby1]

My point is not to demean anyone for their efforts.

I will be the first to commend the individuals (e.g. gibby) that put in the time they do.

But why the "bend over and take it" mentality?

If the grassroots action taken by mud4funtoy has an effect, doesn't that say something that the DNR will actually be receptive to some other response? (other than "bend over").

A bend over approach wasn't taken.

Steve's efforts have moblized people and that's the great part about it. He always has been good at getting people fired up. Your absolutely correct that getting more people involved is a GREAT thing to assist with progress.

I have only so much time in my day as well. I input here as I'm on the phone trying to earn a living. I certainly can't do it all myself. The main folks that have been helping lately are three young clubs, the Faithwheelers, Dogpound offroad and Offcamber Offroad. All small clubs, all new to the game but all stepping up to do what they can. We had the Timber Tamers adopt Sunrise which helped, the Dogpound adopted the swamp trail and the Cascade 4x4s are working to adopt part of the Busywild. More people involved means more work gets done, more people get to have an impact. I'm all for Steve's efforts to get people fired up, but it has to be done in an organized fashion. If that's the way it's done then I think the effects will be much welcomed.

 

[SnoFalls]

But has anyone tried to explain to the DNR that the "problem" is ... "over use"

it's not
rigs "too long" ...
rigs "too wide" ...
rigs "under equippped"

these are all symptoms of the fact that there is nothing else, so ...

busy gets "over used"

 

[Jaydog]

But has anyone tried to explain to the DNR that the "problem" is ... "over use"

it's not
rigs "too long" ...
rigs "too wide" ...
rigs "under equippped"

these are all symptoms of the fact that there is nothing else, so ...

busy gets "over used"

I agree with being on the offense, but we need to get our usergroup in check, and educated about responsible trail use before they are going to give us more area to wheel in. Just look at all the problems they already have with bypasses, user built trails, not using tree savers, mudding etc... read the Notice of Closure for the Pilchuck Forest http://www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/lm/recreation/orv/orvpilchuckclosure.pdf

If they can't keep resource damage to a minimum in the areas that are already open, then do you think they would even want to open more locations?

 

[SnoFalls]

Dang ... I'm all of a sudden one of those just "going off" ...

Hows about a "compromise"

Tell the DNR that *we* (not just pnw4wda, but the "community") can abide by some restrictions *when* the DNR will start the process of allowing ORV use on other areas (aka new "ORV parks").

If they decline this compromise then they have not accomplished anything (the "damage" will continue since they can't/won't be enforcing it).

On the other hand, "new" ORV areas *will* get a huge turnout from the 4wd community to be developed. (of this I have no doubt).

 

[Gibby1]

But has anyone tried to explain to the DNR that the "problem" is ... "over use"

it's not
rigs "too long" ...
rigs "too wide" ...
rigs "under equippped"

these are all symptoms of the fact that there is nothing else, so ...

busy gets "over used"

Hence the reason for trying to revitalize the portions of the trail system that we can use, that are NOT being used. There are two or three trails that are vitually unused out there.

However there are cases of too long, two wide and rigs underequipped that do apply. If you look at the big picture and not just at the snapshot of one section of trail getting restricted you'll see that we are taking that approach.

You may not like the aggressiveness of the approach but yes, that tact has, is and will continue to be taken.

 

[SnoFalls]

I agree with being on the offense, but we need to get our usergroup in check, and educated about responsible trail use before they are going to give us more area to wheel in. Just look at all the problems they already have with bypasses, user built trails, not using tree savers, mudding etc... read the Notice of Closure for the Pilchuck Forest http://www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/lm/recreation/orv/orvpilchuckclosure.pdf

If they can't keep resource damage to a minimum in the areas that are already open, then do you think they would even want to open more locations?

400 miles of ORV trails? 9 devloped ORV areas? ...

Walker valley has, oh my gawd, 36 miles of trails ...

someone swallowed some sierra club coolaid.

 

[Gibby1]

400 miles of ORV trails? 9 devloped ORV areas? ...

Walker valley has, oh my gawd, 36 miles of trails ...

someone swallowed some sierra club coolaid.

That's combined motorcyle and 4x4 trails in their numbers.

 

[Jaydog]

someone swallowed some sierra club coolaid.

:haha: :haha:

 

[SnoFalls]

Hence the reason for trying to revitalize the portions of the trail system that we can use, that are NOT being used. There are two or three trails that are vitually unused out there.

However there are cases of too long, two wide and rigs underequipped that do apply. If you look at the big picture and not just at the snapshot of one section of trail getting restricted you'll see that we are taking that approach.

You may not like the aggressiveness of the approach but yes, that tact has, is and will continue to be taken.

dale, I didn't mean this to be just about "the busy crapola going down". Sure, the change to vista sounds good. To me, that's all the tactical battle (aka win what ya can today).

And, sometimes it's worthy to give up a tactical loss for a strategic gain.

What has the DNR been put to the task to do? ...

My point being THEY are land stewards that see this "overuse" so what if *their* long term plan to fix it. Some of the "sky is falling folks" would say their plan is to eventually rid all motorized use on DNR land.

Is there someplace where the DNR has "on record" what their plan is? (I know the USFS does).

I'd like to see the DNR either say "yea, ORV use will be accepted", or "nah, those ORV folks are gunna be shut outta DNR land as soon as we can".

If it is going to be accepted, then let's go offensive on getting more versus defensive on just keeping what we got.

BTW, many say "I need to get involved to know what's going on" ... Ok, I am via this thread ... so school me