Important new Busywild restriction update.

[Gibby1]

I've not heard any talk about redoing the sunrise trail.

The Rainier Vista trail is being redone, but that's going to be a big rig compatible trail.

This is an idea to see if we can either built a new trail, or decommission an old trail to make a new trail.

I'm not familiar with the skidder road at the bottom of the hill on Rainier Vista but if there's an existing road of some sort that is suitable for the SWB and can be made into a new trail, that idea has got to be put forth to the DNR.

If I had my vote right now and all things COULD be done, here's what I'd do.

1) Keep the 82" limit on the width - at least until bridges can be built/modified since the rub rails are set up at 82" or 81".
2) Decommission the mainline and just call this an unmaintained access road. instead.
3) Find an existing OLD road that's suitable for making into a SWB only trail and develop a new trail WITH width and length restriction.

Here's where some old timers could really help out. I know that there are roads and trails back there that are not on the map that would be great trails. Since they're existing there's a much better chance to use one of these than EVER get a brand new trail built.

If anyone's going out there this weekend, see if you can find the trail that Lucas is talking about and WALK it to see where it goes. If you had a GPS on you, that would be awesome.

 

[auburnaviator]

I've not heard any talk about redoing the sunrise trail.

The Rainier Vista trail is being redone, but that's going to be a big rig compatible trail.

Thanks, thats what I meant. My post has been edited.

 

[Comet]

You know, I've been stewing on what I am about to say for weeks. Since this whole issue came up really. This is a real **** stirrer of a comment and I'm now going to say it, not because I am trying to stir more ****, but because I think my thoughts have merit and we as a user group need to think about how to work through this issue if my musings are correct.

After reading and following these threads, it occurs to me (and as I said has for some time, really even before this Elbe issue came up) that this is a "Nancy" issue and not a DNR issue as a whole. In fact, someone said that her higher ups have not proposed such restrictions at all. The fact of the matter is, NW wheeling means trees along the trail are going to get rubbed and roots are going to get dug out as the trail ages. It has been this way for years. There really is only a few ways to alleviate that and none are good alternatives in my mind (close trails, log a trail buffer zone, only allow ORV areas in rocky places, etc.).
I say this is a "Nancy" issue because these problems are not unique to Elbe. All over the west side this happens and the DNR seems ok with it at other areas. The difference? Nancy does not have places like Walker or Reiter in her territory. I know a lot of people have worked hard with Nancy on many trail issues, but I don't believe she is an ORV fan at heart. Her background and history demonstrate that.
Even before this Busy Wild issue came up, I always question her true motivation when I hear about the things she does. I am not saying that the PNW and those that have been working with her stop doing that. We have to. But I am saying look real close at what is being said and what underlying motivation for what ever her actions are there could be. Strategies like going over her head on things you question are always an option but you need to be very careful (and tactful) in how and when you do that. More times than not, that can backfire.
I suppose my comments will lead to the closure of this thread (and I'm the moderator! :haha: ), and that is not my intent. There has been some good discussion here. I don't mean to start a **** storm, I just had to get that burning issue off my chest.

 

[Gibby1]

Comet, I've been working with Nancy for quite some time now and I'm not sure that the statement is accurate. There are some questions unanswered, like where did this hard restriction come from, when all we had talked about was trail ratings and verbarge for vehicle recommendations and such, to go on the signs. I can only guess where this came from since I don't know the answer. My fault for getting to the meeting late and not having time to debate the issue... or find out more.

I don't get the feeling from her that she's anit-ORV. I almost wonder if a few of the people driving big rigs pissed her off. She did comment that when she told people that they shouldn't go on the trail, they basically told her to shove it, we don't care what happens to our trucks. I'm sure that frustrated her when she really has no teeth to keep them out. After re-reading her comments from the email I just get the impression that our full size idiot and some of the attititudes of the people that she's run into might have triggered a change of heart from recommendations to a restriction.

I can recall her talking about how to keep people off the trail and I told her that we've been bantering around ideas on various boards for some time and there's no concensus to what would work because vehicles and drivers are so different. As such, she was told that restrictions would be impossible to be fair. An F250 isn't too wide but is WAY too long while a K20 blazer may not be too long but is WAY to wide...

I only recall this at a sitting around the campfire having a beer after a work party kind of conversation. She even went home to get out of work clothes and bring her own rig up since she was off duty.

From someone who knows her a little, possible better than most on the board, I think she wants to do what's best for the 4x4 community as a whole but she's not a wheeler, so she doesn't understand the needs and wants. And, WOW, is that a tough one about what wheelers need and want from a park, not just a single trail.

I've approached her a number of times to get all the trails at Elbe to be MORE difficult, but she has to keep an eye on the newbie as well as the hardcore wheelers and trying to keep them all happy... yeah right!

Give Nancy a fair shake. If we can give her an alternative that will allow her to meet the needs of the 4x4 community (ALL of the community) and still keep within what she's allowed to do, I think she'll go for it.

That's why I've been asking people to stop saying what won't work and tell us what they think WILL work, and why, keeping in mind that we have to meet her needs as the DNR representative. You can't just say that you don't want restrictions without a viable alternative. Putting restrictions on may not work but what WILL work. Keeping everything as is, is probably not going to be possible. Stepping up enforcement of sketchy rules is not going to work without more money and even then, she needs a set of rules to deal with issues that she currently has. The most powerful tool she has for enforcement is not complying with the posted rules - whatEVER those rules may be. Tickets for resource damage while on a trail like the busy - it's just not reasonable because of the way that the law is written.

 

[Comet]

Fair enough Gibby. I respect your opinion and you know her better than I do. But what about the thoughts on root damage? I guess what I am trying to say is, there is root damage on all west side trails. Yes, we should do what we can to minimize it, but it's not going away. So my question is, root damage, so what? It has been that way for years. I know that doesn't make it right, but her argument seems to be revolving around safety. Those trees are not considered saleable, and history has not demonstrated safety to be a problem. There are always trees blown down after storms, but I don't see more of them along the trails edge. Bottom line, ask "why" 5 times when the idea of length restrictions come up. By the 5th "why" the argument kinda goes away IMO.

 

[Binder]

. Tickets for resource damage while on a trail like the busy - it's just not reasonable because of the way that the law is written.

Why not?

 

[Dirtball]

ok, my turn to stir the pot. a few years ago when Steve was still the lead at Elbe he asked for people to come up & help with the re-route of the upper Busy because of the logging. a whole crew of us went up weekend after weekend to lay out and clear the new section. when we were done it only took a few weeks for what we had done (and was approved) to be cut out, re-re-routed by a group of "larger" rigs because they didnt like the way it layed out. now we had fj-40's tj's, yj's and a couple of bobbed yotas we used as a gauge and they all fit with room to spare while keeping the trail challenging.
so now one of the "fixes to leaving the Busy open to the bigger rigs was to cut in a new trail for the SWB ones. how long to you think it will take for some of the LWB guys to "want to check out the new trail" and we are right back where we started.

one more thing. the picture everyone is upset about with the Sami. didnt he have a winch? even with a broken axle he could have stayed on the trail if he used the equipment we all agree we should have.
ok, fire away. if you cant lead. you might as well just take potshots at those that put themselves in the line of fire by trying. i have worked with Steve and Gibby and think, in their own way htey have done what they think is best for the the sport and the majority. both of you keep up the passion and good work, i think you could get more done working together on one plan then two,!

 

[Gibby1]

Why not?

I'm not going round and round with you again, so I'll put this in your court.

The full size idiot, find the rule that could fine him and determine how much the fine should be based on the rule. You've proven you can do your research so get to it.

I don't think it works because the rule says (I don't have the link handy) that the fine is based on the amount of the resource damage. How do you determine that and how do you make it stick, in this particular case. There's more than enough pics of this guy to make a case.

Compare that with, we posted the measurement, you're over it, here's your ticket.

So go answer the question, how much of a fine could he be given for taking in his full size rig where he didn't belong.

I have a funny feeling that this is one of the guys that Nancy specifically spoke with that he told them NOT to go on the busy with his rig, but I can't say for sure.

 

[Gibby1]

Fair enough Gibby. I respect your opinion and you know her better than I do. But what about the thoughts on root damage? I guess what I am trying to say is, there is root damage on all west side trails. Yes, we should do what we can to minimize it, but it's not going away. So my question is, root damage, so what? It has been that way for years. I know that doesn't make it right, but her argument seems to be revolving around safety. Those trees are not considered saleable, and history has not demonstrated safety to be a problem. There are always trees blown down after storms, but I don't see more of them along the trails edge. Bottom line, ask "why" 5 times when the idea of length restrictions come up. By the 5th "why" the argument kinda goes away IMO.

Width, is kind of a no brainer, you either can or cannot fit between two trees so it's much easier to see that restriction. Length, well that will make a difference in how well you can get around tight corners without having to dig into the surrounding dirt or slide off trees. Remember, what you and I call fitting, they don't.

So, why the concern on the root wad damage. These trails are progressively getting wider and wider at a faster and faster rate. At the last work party, we had to take down 2 trees alongside the trail that she considered to be dangerous. JayH was the logger for us. Thanks Jay! Everythime that get's done, the trail "integrity" as a SWB narrow trail is lost.

If the busy had been well maintained for the past 15 years or so, it would be a lot tighter and in much better condition than it is now. I personally happen to LIKE the way it is now and it sucks that I have to miss our club run to the busy on the 29th. (it could do with a little less depth in the water holes...) I think it's too late to return to it's previous state however. Looking at the trail, there are a lot of trees getting to that critical point where it's going to be time to take them down. If you've run the busy, you'll know that there are places where you're UNDER the root wad when you're driving. Some of these are to the point that if we don't shore them up, either the trails going to have to get rerouted or the entire root wad has to come out. There are a few places where these could fall on a rig at any minute. We're just lucky that it hasn't happened.

 

[Gibby1]

so now one of the "fixes to leaving the Busy open to the bigger rigs was to cut in a new trail for the SWB ones. how long to you think it will take for some of the LWB guys to "want to check out the new trail" and we are right back where we started.

The only way that it would be maintained as a SWB trail is if everyone respected that that' s what it was, if it was signed properly and the DNR would enforce size restrictions and by defining a SWB vehicle. Then a good maintenance program to keep it that way. Gatekeepers to keep oversized vehicles out just like we want gatekeepers to keep underprepared vehicles out of the busy.

 

[bigiron]

This width thing bugs me...I have four wheel steering and can get much narrower than 82" with the right line..But if the restrictions are imposed i will not run the busy.

 

[TreeClimber]

Why not?

Me too. Why not? And Gibby, that's not for you to answer. It's for Nancy to answer. IF she can't, why can't the laws be changed to give her this ability? That's a question I'd really like to ask her.

Furthermore. If Nancy really wants to know what the real world users think of the BusyWild trail. Maybe maybe maybe maybe we should invite her to be a member of NWW and read this thread. That'll enlighten her.

 

[TreeClimber]

i have worked with Steve and Gibby and think, in their own way htey have done what they think is best for the the sport and the majority. both of you keep up the passion and good work, i think you could get more done working together on one plan then two,!

Steve, I too have worked with you on a work party. Thank you for your effort. Your time. Your investments. All the work.

Gibby, I haven't had the opportunity yet, but all those thanks also go to you.

Tony

 

[TreeClimber]

I don't think it works because the rule says (I don't have the link handy) that the fine is based on the amount of the resource damage. How do you determine that and how do you make it stick, in this particular case. There's more than enough pics of this guy to make a case.

Compare that with, we posted the measurement, you're over it, here's your ticket.

So go answer the question, how much of a fine could he be given for taking in his full size rig where he didn't belong.

So if there isn't teeth to those regs, I'd much rather be in favor of regs that give her teeth for resource damage. Give DNR a fine of, say, $500. You f up, you get a $500 ticket. You don't like it, you have to go to court. If DNR shows up with a bunch of pictures, let the Judge decide. Yeah, maybe everybody gets off. But those most guilty won't. And the PITA factor will disuade a lot from idiocy. I think.

Edit--- and Yes you are correct that it'd be easier to have a limit on wheelbase or tire size or axle width or whatever. and Yes, it also be correct that it'd be far easier to enforce. And Yes, it'd also be correct that it'd be easier to prove in a Court of Law, ergo, they'd stay guilty.

It's just that the easy way leads to the potential (repeat potential only) for future vehicle regulations. And that just scares the bloody hell out of me.

Tony Fox

 

[Comet]

Well we should address the bad trees, do trail maintenance and build more trails out there. That is the only way to keep this from happening. Over use is a real problem now with less trails open and more capable rigs and the ATV boom, etc. I do not see length restrictions having any meaningful impact out there. I really don't.

 

[Gibby1]

This width thing bugs me...I have four wheel steering and can get much narrower than 82" with the right line..But if the restrictions are imposed i will not run the busy.

I understand, but how many people have 4 wheel steering.

 

[Gibby1]

Me too. Why not? And Gibby, that's not for you to answer. It's for Nancy to answer. IF she can't, why can't the laws be changed to give her this ability? That's a question I'd really like to ask her.

Furthermore. If Nancy really wants to know what the real world users think of the BusyWild trail. Maybe maybe maybe maybe we should invite her to be a member of NWW and read this thread. That'll enlighten her.

I have sent her link after link after link to this forum to look at trip reports and more. She won't do it at home because she has dial up and I'm not sure that's she allowed to do it at work.

 

[Gibby1]

Well we should address the bad trees, do trail maintenance and build more trails out there. That is the only way to keep this from happening. Over use is a real problem now with less trails open and more capable rigs and the ATV boom, etc. I do not see length restrictions having any meaningful impact out there. I really don't.

I wish just building more trails was an option, then we really could please everyone, well, maybe...

Beating the length restriction is going to be easy. I don't need 500 people to show up to a meeting to get that resolved with her. But what will we give back in concessions in order to get that concession from her?

More work parties to keep the trail in better shape is probably all it will take and agree to review again in two years to see how things look.

The only think that would prevent me as the PNW4WDA rep from working out something different is if my region were to vote to support a specific strategy. I would need to follow that recommendation as long as I maintain the position and to date, it's not been filled. If the region was to put in a proposal that I couldn't live with, I would then immediately resign and represent only myself and my own club on the matter. I don't see that happening but as the PWN4WDA region 2 rep, I have some responsibilities and accountabilities.

 

[Comet]

Now we're getting somewhere. I think a work party or three to keep the length restriction out would be something most everyone could agree on. Steve, you said yourself you're good at rallying support and many have stated concerns over this issue. If that is proposed and accepted, it's time put the money where the mouth is!

 

[auburnaviator]

Since making new trails isn't an option due to our Trail mileage restriction. What are the chances of redesignating the mainline/mainline ext. and using that to make new trails? Maybe even as was mentioned earlier using a pre-existing logging trail as a start, that way the trail is really already there. Does this sound like our most valid option along with more consistent work parties on the busy?