Elbe Meeting outcome
- Thread starter TreeClimber
- Start date
Roccrawler
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 6,325
I thought i was gonna have to hold you up when you stood :haha:
wheeler4x4samota
Well-Known Member
great meeting
it was also nice to put some faces with board names too
nice meeting you all:awesomework:
it was also nice to put some faces with board names too
nice meeting you all:awesomework:
I was wondering whos hand that was on my butt:eeek:
No, we let him come in :haha:
read before posting:haha:
Rich, I know that you came into this conversation 1/2 way through (since it really started 2 months ago) but the restrictions were never to be imposed until signs and appropriate gatekeepers could be erected and built.
I may have missed this, but I THINK he said that they are not throwing out the restrictions, rather, that there going to take in all the info and work on finding solutions.
Remember, nothing was to happen until the spring anyway and we've got another meeting or so to find options.
There was less accomplished here than I'd hoped, because there were simply too many people to work with a typical focus group type of setting. The DNR was basically explaining, taking input and getting ready to further discuss. I thought Doug did a good job and managin such a large crowd that would very easily have gotten loud and out of control.
I also think Doug was not as familiar with a lot of the stuff that we'd been working on for the past 2 years, as he could have been.
For a big meeting I think that this went as well as it could have. If we can get this many people out on a regular basis revamping the focus group scenario could make this even more productive.
Here's a suggestion that I have... brainstorming here.
The PNW4WDA has our representative, Joe Whittig and the Land Chair, Jim Putnam. We have an established process within the org for this. We then send representatives to the meeting to express our point of view and deal with issues. NW Wheelers can do the same. I'd like to see everyone join the PNW and work from that front but I know that that's not going to happen. Why doesn't someone take the bull by the horns and organize a group of NW Wheelers to have meetings to discuss pros and cons and then send your representatives to the focus group meetings. Maybe someone can get a group of the locals together as well for the same purpose. In this way, when we have a focus group we can have maybe 6 or 7 active voices discussing and deciding and really getting things accomplished.
I am NOT talking about a new club, but perhaps a way to get a better production with a more practical group at the meetings.
I may have missed this, but I THINK he said that they are not throwing out the restrictions, rather, that there going to take in all the info and work on finding solutions.
Remember, nothing was to happen until the spring anyway and we've got another meeting or so to find options.
There was less accomplished here than I'd hoped, because there were simply too many people to work with a typical focus group type of setting. The DNR was basically explaining, taking input and getting ready to further discuss. I thought Doug did a good job and managin such a large crowd that would very easily have gotten loud and out of control.
I also think Doug was not as familiar with a lot of the stuff that we'd been working on for the past 2 years, as he could have been.
For a big meeting I think that this went as well as it could have. If we can get this many people out on a regular basis revamping the focus group scenario could make this even more productive.
Here's a suggestion that I have... brainstorming here.
The PNW4WDA has our representative, Joe Whittig and the Land Chair, Jim Putnam. We have an established process within the org for this. We then send representatives to the meeting to express our point of view and deal with issues. NW Wheelers can do the same. I'd like to see everyone join the PNW and work from that front but I know that that's not going to happen. Why doesn't someone take the bull by the horns and organize a group of NW Wheelers to have meetings to discuss pros and cons and then send your representatives to the focus group meetings. Maybe someone can get a group of the locals together as well for the same purpose. In this way, when we have a focus group we can have maybe 6 or 7 active voices discussing and deciding and really getting things accomplished.
I am NOT talking about a new club, but perhaps a way to get a better production with a more practical group at the meetings.
Comet
Well-Known Member
Ok, let's keep this on topic. Does someone what to do a write up or summary of the meeting and outcome? So far the info. is cryptic at best.
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
There was no outcome. The DNR has NOT adopted any rules. They don't favor width. They don't favor length. They have concerns with 1) preserving the trees for harvest, 2) keeping sediment out of the water, 3) maintaining the integrity of the trail, 4) keeping everyone safe from accidents (injury). They have been instructed by the legislature to keep open areas for recreation, and seemed inclined to keep Elbe open. Period. However, the length concerns came from a PRIOR round-robin type meeting where they were discussing keeping the integrity of the trail and minimizing sediment issues. The DNR does NOT want SPECIFICALLY to initiate any rules, they are just open for ideas for solutions. The DNR is very candid about their lack of funding for all financial based solutions to these issues, and were also quite frank about a lack of real understanding of what we do. Only one of the four DNR reps there has a clue what 'wheeling' entails, as he was involved in the 70s and 80s with two prior rebuilding endevours.
I'll post more as I think of it
Edit- and the basis for the width concerns is due to the existing bridges. They're only so wide (82 between the rails) so that initiated that rumor.
Most of what was done to frighten and motivate the crowd to attend, was heresay, rumor, and innuendo.
The ideas initiated there were such things as gatekeepers, signage, making existing trails more challenging to keep users occupied elsewhere than the Busy, more camping space, etc, etc, etc,.. I can't think of all of them.
I suggested that we needed to loose some of the lame trails and get one that was more topographically challenging. In other words, had some hills.
Last edited:
Let me grab a beer and I will try.
I'd better get it in before Rich does or it'll be an 8 page write up.
The DNR brought in the experienced people to run the meeting. They did a good job and tempering a lot of energy. The DNR gave everyone a little background on how the DNR works and manages lands. They were also making sure that people know that they have NO intention of closing anything at Elbe but that they had to look at the entire ORV park, how it's used and who uses it.
Several questions and opinions were fielded.
That darn Gibby guy kept standing up and making comments, but he sure is a stud LOL!!!!!!
Anyway... a couple of ideas that seemed to gain ground was the option for user fees and possibly combine the fees with an education class (like boaters classes) in order to get permits to drive the trails. The use of a gatekeeper vs trail restrictions recieved strong support. The DNR heard us that we want MORE opportunities for difficult trails at Elbe and that will take the stress off the busywild. I think the surprise to the DNR and Nancy in particular was the number of people that want the more difficult trails as she typically hears more from the people complaining about being broken and too hard. The forest watch program was brought up again. This is basically a civilian watch program to assist in self policing our trails. This was tabled for future discussion but I think this will get revitalized.
The PNW4WDA stated that it was there position that they did NOT support a wheelbase restriction, but if I understood it correctly, they did support the width restriction due to the size of the bridges.
There was a LOT more of of questions and idea presentation then decision making.
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
I was at both the PNW meeting yesterday and this one, and I didn't get the feeling that the PNW 'supported' the width restriction, per se', but rather that they were mentioning it as a simple 'fact' that has to be taken into consideration. If the bridge is only so wide, then the rigs cannot be wider.
Also, a lot of talk about the 'gatekeepers' as they need to have access for repair equipment to go in, and potentially broken rigs to get out. There was also talk about bypasses on the Busy. Partially to maintain the hard areas as hard, to let the quads go by, to be used as repair spots for broken rigs, etc.
Also, a lot of talk about the 'gatekeepers' as they need to have access for repair equipment to go in, and potentially broken rigs to get out. There was also talk about bypasses on the Busy. Partially to maintain the hard areas as hard, to let the quads go by, to be used as repair spots for broken rigs, etc.
Tony, this is plain wrong. It was NOT done to frighten or motivate. The restrictions are real but they have not been enacted until appropriate signage can be done. We have an opportunity still to CHANGE this but as Doug said, "We are not going to throw out the restrictions at this point, but we're going to look at options that are the best for the park as a whole."
The basis of the width concerns was not ONLY for the bridges. I wish Nancy has spent a little more time on this but she chose not to go over all her reasons tonight. I think she was a little on edge with the size of the crowd. That comment was specifically brought up by Pokey, not by the DNR.
The Easywild section of trail has some good potention as there are a few hills on that. It's already pretty tight in a few spots as well.
If a club was to adopt this trail and make it more difficult it has some good natural topography.
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
edit - did you just edit your post also,(specifically my quote) because now it looks different to me, either that, or now I read it differently... do tell?
What restrictions, and were you at the same meeting as I was? I was two rows back. I clearly and distinctly heard him say, multiple times, that they (the DNR) had NO INTENTIONS of implimenting restrictions of wheelbase. PERIOD. Now I know I wasn't at earlier meetings, so I don't have a full grasp of Nancy's concerns.
Unless you're talking about my comments on the rumor and innuendos?
What restrictions, and were you at the same meeting as I was? I was two rows back. I clearly and distinctly heard him say, multiple times, that they (the DNR) had NO INTENTIONS of implimenting restrictions of wheelbase. PERIOD. Now I know I wasn't at earlier meetings, so I don't have a full grasp of Nancy's concerns.
Unless you're talking about my comments on the rumor and innuendos?
Last edited:
TreeClimber
Well-Known Member
I brought that up specifically because I wanted it to get written on the list as a potential. If you look at a topo map of the area, all the trails are really on the flatlands. Nothing like Evans, Rimrock or Naches with great hills. But the topo map also has a ton of elevational change just past the edge of the trails. WTF? Somewhere around this board the subject of nixing part of the easy stuff was written on the hope of keeping the total trail mileage the same, but of building some real trails. If the DNR will allow this, the PNW will surely have a club or two that will build it.
Doug didn't say that, but I will admit, he was VERY evasive on this issue. I was a little frustrated that he didn't directly answer the question.
I was talking a little about your comment about rumors and inuendos as that's just not accurate but the restrictions have NOT been lifted. I asked Nancy with about 10 minutes left to directly address that question as I didn't feel that it was being well answered. They will support what Nancy wants and she really didn't say much tonight. I could have missed it but I was listening for an answer and I did not hear what you heard. I heard them say that they're taking info tonight, and that was it.
This is classic and kind of funny. Two people go to the same meeting and hear the same person say something different. He did say that they had NO intentions of closing anything down.
