Important new Busywild restriction update.

[Gibby1]

x2.............

It's not my place to say who. There is an active participant on this board that has the real info so it's only hearsay. I only put it out there to let you know that there is just as likely to be people fighting FOR the restrictions as there are against it. There are a lot of people out there that AGREE with the restriction and some who plain think that it's not restrictive enough.

If you're going to get in the arena to play the game, you should know that the DNR is not the ONLY opponent you will have. There will be a host of people there in support of these restrictions.

Just for the record, it is NOT the formal position of the PNW4WDA or Region 2 if that's what you're wondering. To my knowledge there has been no formal position taken as there's not been any meetings since this information was announced and there was basically no discussion pro or con at the last region meeting. We don't have a region meeting scheduled until AFTER the next focus group meeting. I don't know where the Region or the PNW4WDA stands on this since we've not had a chance to even debate it at this point.

 

[Gibby1]

In fact Pokey has sent a letter to Nancy asking her to hold off on any decisions until after our next region meeting. He posted this on another thread already so I don't feel that I'm stepping on any toes repeating it.

 

[TreeClimber]

Gibby,
You said 'infuential people'. Who has the power to influence the DNR? I restate my question, as I think it's a valid one.
TreeClimber, aka, Tony Fox.

 

[Gibby1]

Gibby,
You said 'infuential people'. Who has the power to influence the DNR? I restate my question, as I think it's a valid one.
TreeClimber, aka, Tony Fox.

People that have been involved in working with the DNR for a long time so they know the people that make the decisions and have worked with them for a LONG time. Unfortunately, they refuse to get involved on the internet and forums like this but that's an entirely different issue.

Remember, this trail has always been designated as a SWB trail and there are groups out there who want it to remain that way. They feel that the larger rigs have forced them off the trail.

The DNR is going to listen to all sides and determine the best course of action for ALL the people who use Elbe Hills, not just one group or another. You're going to have to convince the DNR that putting restrictions on the Busywild is going to negatively influnce more users than leaving it open. I'm NOT saying that it can't be done, only that you should recognize that there are a LOT of users who feel that this trail should be worked on so that it can become a SWB only trail again.

 

[Jaydog]

It is an unfair proposal that discriminates against a lot of its current users

What about the folks that built the trail and run 33" tires, don't you think that the current condition of the Busywild discriminates against them?

 

[Comet]

I just want to know how the DNR would propose to enforce a length restriction. Width can be done with gatekeepers, but length? Will enforcement be stepped up? Because if they do plan to step up enforcement, then I think they could address the concerns they have with safety/resource damage by nailing those that do it (without length restrictions). Whether it's a long rig or not. We all know that some long rigs will not cause this damage and some short rigs will. It all depends on how you're set up, skill and driving style.

 

[Comet]

What about the folks that built the trail and run 33" tires, don't you think that the current condition of the Busywild discriminates against them?

No it only discriminates if they are not allowed to use it. Is it fair to them if they built the trail and now it is no longer any fun for them? Probably not. But it is not discrimination.

 

[mud4funtoy]

People that have been involved in working with the DNR for a long time so they know the people that make the decisions and have worked with them for a LONG time. Unfortunately, they refuse to get involved on the internet and forums like this but that's an entirely different issue.

Remember, this trail has always been designated as a SWB trail and there are groups out there who want it to remain that way. They feel that the larger rigs have forced them off the trail.

The DNR is going to listen to all sides and determine the best course of action for ALL the people who use Elbe Hills, not just one group or another. You're going to have to convince the DNR that putting restrictions on the Busywild is going to negatively influence more users than leaving it open. I'm NOT saying that it can't be done, only that you should recognize that there are a LOT of users who feel that this trail should be worked on so that it can become a SWB only trail again.

Gibby brings a good point I am glad he did because I wasn't thinking of this side of it. This is a sad thing I am seeing develop. We used to just half to fight with the tree huggers for our trails now it looks like we might be fighting amongst our selves, and if that happens it will be the end of us.

 

[426rider]

We all know that some long rigs will not cause this damage and some short rigs will. It all depends on how you're set up, skill and driving style.

We all know that but I am not sure they(DNR) do. Many times when a trail gets rutted around a tree , almost anyone who goes around it can slide right into the tree. Doesn't matter how long the rig is. Then theres the argument about what if a rig has a 115" wb but the tires are the longest part of the rig. Or someone with a 109" wb with a long nose and tail that puts it at 120" overall length.

The width restriction I can understand, the WB restriction just doesn't make sense to me at all, and I fit in the restriction. Enforce the damage if that is whats going on. Fix the trail to limit any damage.

I have heard there is a bunch of rock on the busy for future work parties. Use it around the trees that are getting the most damage. Pile it around the base so that when someone slides toward the tree the rocks will stop the tires before the body hits the tree.

 

[Binder]

I just want to know how the DNR would propose to enforce a length restriction. Width can be done with gatekeepers, but length? Will enforcement be stepped up? Because if they do plan to step up enforcement, then I think they could address the concerns they have with safety/resource damage by nailing those that do it (without length restrictions). Whether it's a long rig or not. We all know that some long rigs will not cause this damage and some short rigs will. It all depends on how you're set up, skill and driving style.

:awesomework: EXACTLY!!!
How I see it- The DNR has no intention of stepping up enforcement so after some time they will find the new restrictions made no difference so more will be put into place. This is a death spiral that ends with us loosing trails....And not just at Elbe.

 

[Gibby1]

:awesomework: EXACTLY!!!
How I see it- The DNR has no intention of stepping up enforcement so after some time they will find the new restrictions made no difference so more will be put into place. This is a death spiral that ends with us loosing trails....And not just at Elbe.

You've been so quick to point out everything that WON'T work. Why don't you try suggesting something that WILL work?

 

[Lucas]

:awesomework: EXACTLY!!!
How I see it- The DNR has no intention of stepping up enforcement so after some time they will find the new restrictions made no difference so more will be put into place. This is a death spiral that ends with us loosing trails....And not just at Elbe.

I agree. I also dont know how they would enforce it other then someone out there with a tape measure or jig or something. A lot of people out there wouldnt care about a sign saying, "no longer then 109" wheelbase", and there are quite a few that dont even know their wheelbase anyway.

I think in order to get a good debate for our side, we whould have to know the exact reason for the restriction, and the causes for their beliefs. Se we can have a rebutal to all of those.

Some ideas that have come to my mind on the subject. As for the land issue, When I started going to elbe all the holes around the trees/roots/obstacles, were CJ'ish length. A longer wheelbase rig (as I was in) could cruise right over/through, while the jeeps were fighting and digging bigger holes around the roots and such. If you only have shorter wheelbases those holes will continue to get worse in the same spots. The longer wheelbase helps even the terrain in those spots.

For the guys the are worried about loosing the tightness (thats a new word ) of the trail, because they built it that way. One point, Its hardly the same trail anyway, even from ten years ago, most the trail has been re-routed in some way. Is it not fun anymore or something? Sure, its not nearly as tight as I remember it being, but I think it is more challenging (minus he holes that have been re-routed around) now then before, during the rainy season anyway. And dont you think its kind of selfish to close a trail to anyone not in a cj, sami, or early short toy, just because you dont think its tight enough anymore. Wouldn't a better solution for you guys be to fight to open a new tight trail, then you would have that much more room to play, and wouldnt be hurting everyone else.

I know the DNR is opposed to new trails, ive had one in mind for a long time. Shoots off from the bottom of the Rainier Vista, there's an old trail there, and connects into the busywild, i think it'd be great. Hills, tight trees, but without a lot of the mudhole problems.

Just thought i would throw my two cents in. I plan on being there, I am an opinionated voice, but am just not very good at getting my points across. So i'll be there for moral support:awesomework:

 

[Binder]

Why don't you try suggesting something that WILL work?

I have. And the fact that it's not sinking in concerns me....
The DNR must enforce if they want to stop resource damage, it's that simple. If they don't want to enforce then they must either just let it happen or start the death spiral.

 

[Gibby1]

I have. And the fact that it's not sinking in concerns me....
The DNR must enforce if they want to stop resource damage, it's that simple. If they don't want to enforce then they must either just let it happen or start the death spiral.

I said an option that will work. Obviously this option WON'T work because it's not going to happen. At least not without more funding. They don't have the money to pay for the people. So take that out of the picture and try again.

Look at this along the lines of what can we as users offer to the DNR to find a way to meet their concerns in a manner that won't create the death spiral, as you've coined it.

 

[Gibby1]

I agree. I also dont know how they would enforce it other then someone out there with a tape measure or jig or something. A lot of people out there wouldnt care about a sign saying, "no longer then 109" wheelbase", and there are quite a few that dont even know their wheelbase anyway.

I think in order to get a good debate for our side, we whould have to know the exact reason for the restriction, and the causes for their beliefs. Se we can have a rebutal to all of those.

Some ideas that have come to my mind on the subject. As for the land issue, When I started going to elbe all the holes around the trees/roots/obstacles, were CJ'ish length. A longer wheelbase rig (as I was in) could cruise right over/through, while the jeeps were fighting and digging bigger holes around the roots and such. If you only have shorter wheelbases those holes will continue to get worse in the same spots. The longer wheelbase helps even the terrain in those spots.

For the guys the are worried about loosing the tightness (thats a new word ) of the trail, because they built it that way. One point, Its hardly the same trail anyway, even from ten years ago, most the trail has been re-routed in some way. Is it not fun anymore or something? Sure, its not nearly as tight as I remember it being, but I think it is more challenging (minus he holes that have been re-routed around) now then before, during the rainy season anyway. And dont you think its kind of selfish to close a trail to anyone not in a cj, sami, or early short toy, just because you dont think its tight enough anymore. Wouldn't a better solution for you guys be to fight to open a new tight trail, then you would have that much more room to play, and wouldnt be hurting everyone else.

I know the DNR is opposed to new trails, ive had one in mind for a long time. Shoots off from the bottom of the Rainier Vista, there's an old trail there, and connects into the busywild, i think it'd be great. Hills, tight trees, but without a lot of the mudhole problems.

Just thought i would throw my two cents in. I plan on being there, I am an opinionated voice, but am just not very good at getting my points across. So i'll be there for moral support:awesomework:

Lucs, I believe you're talking about the Gotcha trail. The trees are mostly gone due to harvesting a few years back. It's a 2wd trail right now and all the trees alongside the trail were cut about about 18" or so...

However, this is one of the line of thoughts that I like. Build a new trail WITH restrictions specifically for the SWB rigs again. Decommission the mainline and mainline extension and reclassify them as access roads. That would give us a significant amount of mileage to recover without having to ask for ADDitional mileage.

Then, let the busywild stay open to all vehicles but with an improved maintenance schedule.

 

[Jaydog]

And dont you think its kind of selfish to close a trail to anyone not in a cj, sami, or early short toy, just because you dont think its tight enough anymore. Wouldn't a better solution for you guys be to fight to open a new tight trail, then you would have that much more room to play, and wouldnt be hurting everyone else.

Selfish? The restrictions aren't being put on us by anyone in the four wheel drive community, they are being put into place by the DNR, I believe it is because of the problems with the fullsize rigs that destroy the trail system, which will eventually end up in closures if we can't get the renegades and newbies educated.

I agree with you on new trails, but getting new trails is normally a 5-10 year battle with environmental impacts, biologist reports, etc. I talked to Jim the other day about the battle he's been fighting for years to reopen copper creek, and it may be a few more years, if not longer. When you are doing anything with state or federal lands things move at a snails pace. Gibby mentioned it before that we may be able to change some of the existing "easy" trails to take the impact off of the busy, but if the meeting turns into a mob scene I highly doubt the DNR will be as friendly towards change as they have recently been.

Keep in mind that DNR land is trust land, which means they don't have any obligation to keep it open to user groups, it's not "our" land like the forest service lands are.

 

[Six-Nine]

I've heard that one group of fairly influential people are going to try to get a 74" width restriction, instead of the existing 82" proposed restriction...

It's not my place to say who. There is an active participant on this board that has the real info so it's only hearsay. I only put it out there to let you know that there is just as likely to be people fighting FOR the restrictions as there are against it. There are a lot of people out there that AGREE with the restriction and some who plain think that it's not restrictive enough.

If you're going to get in the arena to play the game, you should know that the DNR is not the ONLY opponent you will have. There will be a host of people there in support of these restrictions.

Just for the record, it is NOT the formal position of the PNW4WDA or Region 2 if that's what you're wondering. To my knowledge there has been no formal position taken as there's not been any meetings since this information was announced and there was basically no discussion pro or con at the last region meeting. We don't have a region meeting scheduled until AFTER the next focus group meeting. I don't know where the Region or the PNW4WDA stands on this since we've not had a chance to even debate it at this point.

People that have been involved in working with the DNR for a long time so they know the people that make the decisions and have worked with them for a LONG time. Unfortunately, they refuse to get involved on the internet and forums like this but that's an entirely different issue.

Remember, this trail has always been designated as a SWB trail and there are groups out there who want it to remain that way. They feel that the larger rigs have forced them off the trail.

The DNR is going to listen to all sides and determine the best course of action for ALL the people who use Elbe Hills, not just one group or another. You're going to have to convince the DNR that putting restrictions on the Busywild is going to negatively influnce more users than leaving it open. I'm NOT saying that it can't be done, only that you should recognize that there are a LOT of users who feel that this trail should be worked on so that it can become a SWB only trail again.

I usually stay out of these threads but I guess I need to speak up. I had always suspected there were people working in the Background trying to get the DNR or shall we say the powers to be, to impose restrictions... So I guess I was wrong assuming it was the PNW4WDA as a group...So Again who is this group of influential people? Seems kind of cowardly to not even allow any discourse between us.

 

[Binder]

I said an option that will work. Obviously this option WON'T work because it's not going to happen. At least not without more funding. They don't have the money to pay for the people. So take that out of the picture and try again.

This is a option that will work. Just because the people involved in these negotiations are too ignorant to think about ALL of the options doesn't mean it won't work. Because the DNR is unwilling to try something doesn't mean it won't work.
As i've said before it doesn't take much of a presence to make a differnce. If the DNR spent as much time on enforcement as they do talking about these restrictions it would have already made a difference. How does this take more money?
All it takes is someone from the DNR who truly wants to do something about the problem. I don't think that's the case and the spiral is inevitable.
I have some other ideas but I'm not going to say it on a public forum.

 

[Jaydog]

So Again who is this group of influential people? Seems kind of cowardly to not even allow any discourse between us.

You have to own a computer and be online to have discourse in a forum.:haha:

Most negotiations goes on at Focus meetings, the only reason this issue is so well known is that Gibby posted it up on the internet, which most ORV Reps don't do, things aren't done behind the scenes, it just seems that way because only 2 or 3 people attend focus meetings, and only 1% or 2% of the wheelers are involved in the political side of the sport.

 

[pokey]

I usually stay out of these threads but I guess I need to speak up. I had always suspected there were people working in the Background trying to get the DNR or shall we say the powers to be, to impose restrictions... So I guess I was wrong assuming it was the PNW4WDA as a group...So Again who is this group of influential people? Seems kind of cowardly to not even allow any discourse between us.

For the record. The PNW4WDA has NOT I repeat NOT came to a consensus on these PROPOSED RECOMENDATIONS for Elbe hills. It was brought up at the last region 2 meeting(nov) to take back to our clubs and we would discuss again at the Jan. region 2 meeting. I asked Nancy to put off any decission on the matter until after that meeting. The PNW4WDA has a long and strong working relationship with the DNR because for as long as I can remember we have been the ones doing the work to maintain the trails that we ALL get to enjoy. I took this issue back to my club and as their delegate to the PNW I will represent their voice at the next region meeting. If I am elected as the Region 2 Land matters chair I will then as well as the new Elbe rep take the regions opinion to the DNR. This is how a democracy works. I may not agree with the majority but I will represent them as they dictate and as I always have when in an official position. Ever since I have been on these boards I have been telling people how and why to get involved. We seen these issues coming years ago. Now if you were in the DNRs shoes who would you listen to The group that you have worked with for years and know you can count on to be there or the angry mob that is screaming over a "proposed" restriction? If you want the PNW4WDA to represent YOU then join up and voice your opinion to be represented. As long as the majority of the membership is short wheelbase then who do you think will get represented. As far as anybody else working in the background they arnt doing it through our channels that I am aware of and I tend to pay attention to such things.