-
Help Support Hardline Crawlers :
Evans Creek Width Restriction...
- Thread starter dirtygoat
- Start date
dirk
Well-Known Member
While the efforts to move the restriction from 72 to 80 are positive, I wouldn't necessarily think that we should put a width restriction on all trails in the NW. However, if we were forced to pick a number...then I would vote for the upper limit listed in the FS handbook...which is 84 inches.
Not sure, but that wont matter...
The poles will be placed where you will be heading onto the trail system... You will still be able to get a motorhome all the way up to the camp ground and day use area...
If there is a need for an ambulance up there, it wouldn't go any further than where the poles are going anyways...
tomsbrokeagain
Well-Known Member
I see this as just two steps forward and one step back.
I like the idea of a width restriction and 80" is a-ok with me. This is a very doable number.
Now the problem I have with restrictions is this is just going to trickle down, to lets just say it, tire size. I see the F.S. hitting up the size of tire on the trail next. The bad part is that if they don't win on the offroad I see the "man" making a law such as no more than 2" over stock size tire.
Sorry just the way I see this going, as well as probably only getting to wheel from July 15 to November 15.:booo:
The bad part is I see this two ways and our group is our biggest enemy. Responsible or not.
I need a new hobby!
I like the idea of a width restriction and 80" is a-ok with me. This is a very doable number.
Now the problem I have with restrictions is this is just going to trickle down, to lets just say it, tire size. I see the F.S. hitting up the size of tire on the trail next. The bad part is that if they don't win on the offroad I see the "man" making a law such as no more than 2" over stock size tire.
Sorry just the way I see this going, as well as probably only getting to wheel from July 15 to November 15.:booo:
The bad part is I see this two ways and our group is our biggest enemy. Responsible or not.
I need a new hobby!
tomsbrokeagain
Well-Known Member
Kinda how I see it going:booo:
Good points...
Here's the thing with Evans... The restriction has always been there, it just wasn't enforced...
A big wig had a little visit up there and flipped out... And now wants things done by the book...
The book said 74"... Bob listened to everyone and got it changed to 80"... I forget what he called the change order that had to be filled out...
Seasonal closures are a wild life habitat issue... That seal of approval gets handed down from a different department...
Here's the thing with Evans... The restriction has always been there, it just wasn't enforced...
A big wig had a little visit up there and flipped out... And now wants things done by the book...
The book said 74"... Bob listened to everyone and got it changed to 80"... I forget what he called the change order that had to be filled out...
Seasonal closures are a wild life habitat issue... That seal of approval gets handed down from a different department...
that wild life argument kills me...wild life is drawn to our trails where they can easily get around...
One of the angles I was using in MN was...you can,t find a coffee shop that isn't handicapped accessible so why isn't our wilderness handicapped accessible?
I am disabled and can't ride a bike to see our beautiful wilderness
One of the angles I was using in MN was...you can,t find a coffee shop that isn't handicapped accessible so why isn't our wilderness handicapped accessible?
I am disabled and can't ride a bike to see our beautiful wilderness
CHOP SHOP
Well-Known Member
You should be OK, our woods is pretty much disabled too.
Our budget is disabled.
Our access to public lands is becoming disabled.
Or just hit it really fast :redneck:
What turned it around for us is we quit treating the DNR like they were our friends...by all evidence they are our enemies...in northern MN the public is pro motorized but we had this state appointed, not elected bureaucracy passing all these laws that were anti motorized...now we have one trail under construction...thanks also go out to a hand full of legislators some only saying things as simple as "there is enough here for us all"
Or give it a month and use one of the many bypasses users will create around each set of width poles.
:haha: Exactly
which will lead to more restrictions....and so on...and so on
Im with ya Mike :awesomework:
Roccrawler
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 6,325
Great, ...One step closer to closure. Width now, whats next? Closing trails, then park.
Just wait and see, Give them an inch and they will end up taking a mile.
Just wait and see, Give them an inch and they will end up taking a mile.
Mark m.
Well-Known Member
People around here seem to think the DNR is there friend.
Oh I totally agree w/ you, I'm just glad to see that there's a more realistic standard being set & that the efforts of some are coming out
I believe the effort should be towards penalizing those who choose to damage our hobby by cutting the trees down, mudding & creating by-passes...this is just a positive start that I'm glad to hear about...run what you brung!
