F/S Has Handed Down Trial Restrictions...

[Handover Fist]

Some of you guys are funny blaming the PNW for the FS width restrictions.:haha: It just shows how shallow you are. Why don't you just blame black people as there are barely any of them to defend themselves?

Where do you think they got it from? I seem to recall the FS giving the PNW4WDA credit for trail descriptions ie narrow/short wheelbase etc.

I know the pnw and how they operate they are a narrow minded discriminating group.

 

[Money Mark]

How does a vehicle with 4 wheel steering (like mine) factor into the wheel base restriction? The way I've always looked at it, width is restricted for the forward progress needed to fit between the width between two limiting factors (trees). And wheel base is restricted for the turning maneuvers needed before and after negotiating the trees (a limiting factor on a trail, as stated above).

So.....with a vehicle that is over the wheelbase restriction (and is within the width restriction) but more maneuverable than a vehicle meeting the wheelbase restriction, how does this factor? Does it factor at all?





































No need to respond with "the restriction(s) is black and white, if you're over.......you're over". I'm well aware of that concept.:;:awesomework: I suppose my question is more hypothetical.

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

How does a vehicle with 4 wheel steering (like mine) factor into the wheel base restriction? The way I've always looked at it, width is restricted for the forward progress needed to fit between the width between two limiting factors (trees). And wheel base is restricted for the turning maneuvers needed before and after negotiating the trees (a limiting factor on a trail, as stated above).

So.....with a vehicle that is over the wheelbase restriction (and is within the width restriction) but more maneuverable than a vehicle meeting the wheelbase restriction, how does this factor? Does it factor at all?





































No need to respond with "the restriction(s) is black and white, if you're over.......you're over". I'm well aware of that concept.:;:awesomework: I suppose my question is more hypothetical.

Yup, no airing down if that small soft bulge would put you over the limit. Front dig, skid steer and rear steer have nothing to do with maneuverability at all as proclaimed by those in charge. :cheer:

 

[Money Mark]

Yup, no airing down if that small soft bulge would put you over the limit. Front dig, skid steer and rear steer have nothing to do with maneuverability at all as proclaimed by those in charge. :cheer:

Yes. Gray area's are scary as hell for "powers that be".

I live for/in the gray area.:stirpot:

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

I:heartpump: gray area's... I have a full bodied rig on leaf springs, full width axles and 44's with front dig. Just where does that fall into the regs? Yea I have a 10' 6" wheelbase and it's 92" wide but I can run any trail at Naches with absolutely no issues.

 

[no excuses]

It is time for private parks in Washington. The free market does not care how wide your rig is. We need to get the Forest Service's hands OFF our trails.

Good luck with that, if you can find the land and get insurance the greenies can still shut you down. Also most people that wheel around here will spend 10k+ on there rigs and then bitch and whine about having to pay $20 for a days wheeling and not show up and support the private park:looser:.

 

[TreeClimber]

Good luck with that, if you can find the land and get insurance the greenies can still shut you down. Also most people that wheel around here will spend 10k+ on there rigs and then bitch and whine about having to pay $20 for a days wheeling and not show up and support the private park:looser:.

That statement is highly hypothetical.

There is NO documentable truth to any of it. Yes, many will spend $10k+ on their rigs. But since there are NO private parks here, there is no proof that ANY of us are bitching, whining, or no showing up to support a private park.

I pay $$ every time I go to Evans (for the Forrest Pass), as do most of us. It is my belief that most everyone would pay either a daily fee, or a season fee, to support a private park.

However it is also my belief that the financial support a private park would recieve from the general public is directly proportional to the terrain, variety, difficulty of the trails. The more trials, the more varied the trails, and the more difficult the trails will greatly increase traffic and revenue. The less trails, the less varied the trails, and the easier the trails will greatly diminish the general public and decrease revenue.

Of course and as always, these are simply MY opinion, and y'all are entitled to think something completely different.

 

[Horus]

Private parks are working right now in other states. Lately it seems like I here of another one opening somewhere else once a month.

We have beat the "what would you pay" topic to death already. The guy with$ 1500 into his cherokee on 31s might bitch, but he thinks Evans is awsome anyway. The guy who hauls 20 to 30K worth of buggy to the trails with 10 to 50K worth of tow rig would not mind paying out for use of a private old school Reiter. There is a market for it. That market grows more with every dumb decision the FS and our government makes.

 

[JOOP]

Private parks are working right now in other states. Lately it seems like I here of another one opening somewhere else once a month.

We have beat the "what would you pay" topic to death already. The guy with$ 1500 into his cherokee on 31s might bitch, but he thinks Evans is awsome anyway. The guy who hauls 20 to 30K worth of buggy to the trails with 10 to 50K worth of tow rig would not mind paying out for use of a private old school Reiter. There is a market for it. That market grows more with every dumb decision the FS and our government makes.

I'd pay.. Just so I wouldn't have to deal with all the restriction BS. But your right the $1500 4x4 rig guy will bitch, He can go wheel awesome Tahuya until he finally builds his rig to make it boring. If I could go to a private park, that might be the only club I would consider joining.

 

[Poohbair]

I'm with ya Jaydog. I prefer more hardcore wheeling and no limits would be fine with me. Problem is the FS decides whether or not there is a restriction and not me. If the FS requires we set a width limit any increase over the current 72" rule would be an improvement. If I am not mistaken the 72" restriction at Evans has been in the books since the late 70s when most wheelers were Jeepers and they all fit within that width. Now a brand new wrangler is 73.7" wide. No width restriction at Evans is pretty unrealistic due to the trail design and FS rules. I am with WOW and agree on our reccomendation of 85". You can't please all the people all the time. I have wheeled every trail at Evans many times and feel that 85" is pretty much the widest you could be and still fit through everything without hurting trees or damaging the trails. In my opinion there has to be some kind of limit at Evans and the PNW guys just aren't quite progressive enough with their 80" width reccomendation (even though I am less than 80").

85" is at least realistic...

72" is just retarded...

 

[white-rhyno]

85" is at least realistic...

72" is just retarded...

Width/wheelbase restrictions are chicken **** if ya ask me.

God forbid the leo's actually got on the trails and ticketed the clowns doing damage to the trails.

Sooo much easier to sit at the bottom of the trail with a measuring tape......:looser:

 

[pokey]

The PNW is pushing for an 80" width restriction and WOW is pushing for 85" so the PNW guys are at least trying to get it a little more realistic than the current 72" restriction. I think that any increase would be good. I also dont want to have to buy new rims.

Thats not quite acurate. The FS has already set a 72" width restriction(at Evans creek). We (the PNW4WDA) Are trying to get that expanded to 80" which was a concensus number from our membership. Justwanted to clarify that :awesomework:

 

[pokey]

Private parks are working right now in other states. Lately it seems like I here of another one opening somewhere else once a month.

We have beat the "what would you pay" topic to death already. The guy with$ 1500 into his cherokee on 31s might bitch, but he thinks Evans is awsome anyway. The guy who hauls 20 to 30K worth of buggy to the trails with 10 to 50K worth of tow rig would not mind paying out for use of a private old school Reiter. There is a market for it. That market grows more with every dumb decision the FS and our government makes.

Take another look at where those parks are located and the lack of public lands to wheel on there. Ther reason they work well there is that peopel are willing to pay because they have no choice in the matter if they want to play. Then look at our "special fish" in the northwest and the amount of waterways connected to then and the tons of regulations surrounding them and you will see why private parks are a far strech from working here.

 

[pokey]

Where do you think they got it from? I seem to recall the FS giving the PNW4WDA credit for trail descriptions ie narrow/short wheelbase etc.

I know the pnw and how they operate they are a narrow minded discriminating group.

You "seem" to remember :eeek: Please show us all why this should even be considered a truth

 

[Handover Fist]

It is right there on the older green dot/ fs maps for the naches ranger district, it's been 20 years since then. What I'm saying is the fs had to get it from someone they didn't just pick numbers out of a hat. The FS isn't being progressive, they are using 20+ year old trail restrictions/descriptions (given by pnw) and trying to apply them go the current. So I would have to say YES we can thank the pnw for this bullshit.:looser:

 

[Gibby1]

Thats not quite acurate. The FS has already set a 72" width restriction(at Evans creek). We (the PNW4WDA) Are trying to get that expanded to 80" which was a concensus number from our membership. Justwanted to clarify that :awesomework:

I believe that would be a concensus number FOR your membership. The PNW4WDA has made it clear in the past that they work for the benefit of their membership, not all 4 wheelers. And do NOT tell me that that's not the truth. If I felt like searching hard enough I could show where you said this. I had a discussion with a fellow land manager while I had a more active role, and I quote, "I don't give a S*&T about Joe Public wheeler. I only care about what our membership wants." I'll leave his name out but I doubt many people know who he is anyway.

We know quite well that in every online poll taken that 80" comes no where close to including a significant majority of the wheelers that use these public lands, but I bet it would include a large majority of the Region 2 PNW4WDA members.

I'm not going to be restricted as I have (or will have when the Willys is done), a vehicle that fits the little guy trails and a vehicle that will fit the big guy trails. So it's not a personal issue about what I can or cannot do, it's about what's best for the 4 wheel drive community as a whole. 74" is ridiculous, 80" is still not sufficient.

The PNW4WDA chose to snub my suggestion to shoot for a system in which trails were individual rated or restricted, instead I was told to bring it to a meeting, even though I cannot vote or submit anything for a vote.

That being said, I do recall where you Jim, replied on a few threads that the Region was NOT going to bring any restriction to the table with the USFS but rather were preparing a response in the case that you were asked. I don't think it's fair to suggest that the PNW4WDA had anything to do with setting these limits, but perhaps the choice to not be proactive wasn't the best since the USFS went forward with a ridiculous number without asking. Unless there were back room discussions on this, I don't believe that the PNW4WDA had anything to do with setting the restrictions at Evans Creek and I do hope that they'll decide to support a system to is beneficial to ALL 4 wheel drive enthusiats, not just their membership. That system would be a trail by trail rating done by experienced 4 wheel drive users that don't have a personal agenda.

 

[zukkev]

There were a couple different polls floating around on a few different sites as to 'how wide is your rig', and I also remember someone posting up (don't remember who...) in one of those threads (or one pertaining to a discussion similar to this one) that he in fact took all off the individuals' numbers from all the threads and compiled an 'average' based on these numbers...and the number was approx. 81" IIRC....maybe they will see this and correct me if I'm wrong....

 

[Gibby1]

There were a couple different polls floating around on a few different sites as to 'how wide is your rig', and I also remember someone posting up (don't remember who...) in one of those threads (or one pertaining to a discussion similar to this one) that he in fact took all off the individuals' numbers from all the threads and compiled an 'average' based on these numbers...and the number was approx. 81" IIRC....maybe they will see this and correct me if I'm wrong....

And average means that approximately 1/2 the people were larger, so even 80" eliminates more than 50% of the users.

 

[Money Mark]

...and the number was approx. 81" IIRC....

Yep, That was me. The purpose of that compilation of info was to present the DNR a MINIMUM vehicle width number for Reiter, so as to give perspective on current vehicle widths.

And average means that approximately 1/2 the people were larger, so even 80" eliminates more than 50% of the users.

Yes it would. I agree with you, your posts and the idea we need to make sure ALL 4 wheelers are properly represented and accounted for; if/when trail restrictions become standard practice on public lands.


---------------

Bottom line - the (dated) 72" width restriction is unjust, unfair and should not be considered appropriate by anyone.

 

[Catalog]

So..... 80 + means FS and FW axles right?


Our TJ's both measure 79 up front with adapters and 35-37's

Can take the adapters off one and make it 76.. other I am 78 till I new knuckles.








I gotta be honest I think FS FW axles is too big for the trails, and not just cause I am narrower than that. I would support the 80" width but would fight for a reasonable width to keep FS axles too.


My personal issue is more with tire size height than axle width.