Important new Busywild restriction update.

[Binder]

My name isn't Kevin.......Should be easy to answer the questions I would think.
I'm going to do a bit more research and post some more laws that govern this stuff.

 

[Gibby1]

My name isn't Kevin.......Should be easy to answer the questions I would think.
I'm going to do a bit more research and post some more laws that govern this stuff.

Sorry, I got the real name wrong.

 

[CHOP SHOP]

From the poll that was posted in the chatterbox section it's apparently that the wheeling community isn't willing to self police or even pay attention to the rules - which I personally find very disturbing. 3/4 of the people say that they'd run the trail anyway, even if they didn't fit.

if the SWB vehicles make up all the traffic at elbe (as i keep being told). then shouldnt the majority vote be legal beagles.

instead I see the majority being people willing to break rules with illeagle rigs.

just goes to show the swb rigs are not present like they used to be. TIMES ARE CHANGIN:fawkdancesmiley: :fawkdancesmiley: :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[Gibby1]

if the SWB vehicles make up all the traffic at elbe (as i keep being told). then shouldnt the majority vote be legal beagles.

instead I see the majority being people willing to break rules with illeagle rigs.

just goes to show the swb rigs are not present like they used to be. TIMES ARE CHANGIN:fawkdancesmiley: :fawkdancesmiley: :fawkdancesmiley:

No one said that they make up ALL the traffic. What you're seeing right now is a vocal group on one forum.

There's no doubt that rigs are getting larger and much more capable and that trail systems need to progress with them. I'll not argue against that.

Again, a very sad commentary on our sport if the majority of the people are willing to break the rules to look after their own needs. We're not even talking about the uninformed we're talking about people who will look at a sign saying wrong way, do not enter, probably take a couple of pot shots at it and then drive by it while throwing out their beer cans. Then they'll wonder who keeps putting up new signs, fixing the holes and picking up their empty beeir cans. That would be the people that give a rip about someone else beside just themselves.

 

[Binder]

.......(g) On lands not owned by the operator or owner of the nonhighway vehicle in any area or in such a manner so as to unreasonably expose the underlying soil, or to create an erosion condition, or to injure, damage, or destroy trees, growing crops, or other vegetation;...............


..........(1) Except as provided in RCW 46.09.120(2) and 46.09.130 as now or hereafter amended, violation of the provisions of this chapter is a traffic infraction for which a penalty of not less than twenty-five dollars may be imposed................

Here's a good one!
...The provisions of this chapter shall be enforced by all persons having the authority to enforce any of the laws of this state, including, without limitation, officers of the state patrol, county sheriffs and their deputies, all municipal law enforcement officers within their respective jurisdictions, fish and wildlife officers, state park rangers, and those employees of the department of natural resources designated by the commissioner of public lands under RCW *43.30.310, 76.04.035, and 76.04.045....

That's all I'm searching right now.

 

[TreeClimber]

No one said that they make up ALL the traffic. What you're seeing right now is a vocal group on one forum.

There's no doubt that rigs are getting larger and much more capable and that trail systems need to progress with them. I'll not argue against that.

Again, a very sad commentary on our sport if the majority of the people are willing to break the rules to look after their own needs. We're not even talking about the uninformed we're talking about people who will look at a sign saying wrong way, do not enter, probably take a couple of pot shots at it and then drive by it while throwing out their beer cans. Then they'll wonder who keeps putting up new signs, fixing the holes and picking up their empty beeir cans. That would be the people that give a rip about someone else beside just themselves.

Gibby, Chill. Firstly, the beer swilling, garbage throwing analogy you're using isn't called for. One, it's not true. Two, it belittles the validity of the debate herein. Secondly, the original 'hypothetical' thread was first and foremost 'hypothetical' and it was written deliberately to obtain the answers you saw. If you base anything on that biased, poorly written, pre-agenda-already-determined thread, I'm disappointed.
Tony

 

[Binder]

and it was written deliberately to obtain the answers you saw.

What makes you think so? I asked for honest answers to a realistic question.

 

[TreeClimber]

What makes you think so? I asked for honest answers to a realistic question.

We already went over that in the thread. Your two options are to break the law, or, find something else to do. Nowhere do you give the options of Boobies (my fav) or ADAPT TO THE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS, within reason, of couse. That's why I've yet to answer your poll. It's inherently flawed to get the result you desired. I bet you a buck ($1.) that if you had added that third option your results would be much different.

 

[CrustyJeep]

I read it that Gibby's believes that the correct line of action isn't going to allow Resource Damage to be a viable solution for damages to the resources (does this make sense?). And I'm assuming here, but my assumption is that his beliefs are fueled by actually having attended the last few DNR meetings. So, if you can't punish resource damage, but are wanted to limit resource damage then the only remaining viable solution is to try and prevent the vehicles that are most likely to offend.

But it won't work. The majority of the people who wheel rigs that don't fit the rule are also the people most likely to ignore the rule. The result will be the same resource damage as ever.

If a state trooper can write a ticket for going "too fast for conditions", I don't see why he can't also write one for "resource damage". Multiple counts if need be.

The size restriction doesn't make sense, it won't work, people know that, and it'll be ignored even by people who generally follow the rules.

 

[CrustyJeep]

We already went over that in the thread. Your two options are to break the law, or, find something else to do. Nowhere do you give the options of Boobies (my fav) or ADAPT TO THE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS, within reason, of couse. That's why I've yet to answer your poll. It's inherently flawed to get the result you desired. I bet you a buck ($1.) that if you had added that third option your results would be much different.

Agreed here. The option to adapt should not have been left out.

 

[Binder]

We already went over that in the thread. Your two options are to break the law, or, find something else to do. Nowhere do you give the options of Boobies (my fav) or ADAPT TO THE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS, within reason, of couse. That's why I've yet to answer your poll. It's inherently flawed to get the result you desired. I bet you a buck ($1.) that if you had added that third option your results would be much different.

We did go over that and if you could adapt to 45" WB and 30" width go for it:flipoff: ......
My point is I'm not interested in hearing from people who do fit or could make their rig fit. If that's the case then they should not vote in my pole. I only want to know what people would do if forced to make the choice.

 

[pokey]

Two things come to mind here. First what would it cost to replace the brush? Second does the DNR care about the brush? Is brush a resource?

Who says their lost? What would it cost to replace said "lost" tree? If 24 people damage the same tree then 24 people pay 3 times the value of the tree. DNR made good proffits on that one.


Again is there resource damage? Why does the DNR care?

This isn't a civil suit only. It's in addition to the criminal suit. If a LEO whitnesses the damage that's all the proof you need.


So when did this all come about. All I've heard of is proposed wheel base limits and width limits. Many people have posted their concerns of this could lead to more limitations and now your saying they are right?


From a enforcement point of view all othis is a waste of time if no one will be there to enforce.
Who says you can't put a dollar amount on the damage?

After reading this again it sounds more like you are the one with the underlying agenda. DNR wants width and length restrictions and you are referring to fines for no tree saver used, driving over brush, Value of the dirt in a bank. Where are you going with this? Are these things that you have pointed out to the DNR? If not then where did it come from? Who's side do you represent?

YES the bushes and even the damn moss on the ground are resources anymore. Because of all the protected and endangerd critters that call the woods home. Is it right ? Maybe not but it is the law and the DNR and FS are bound by it. Its not even as simple as causing harm. Its if it "may" cause harm is all that matters. We had to move the busywild because a bird was nesting in a tree by the trail no proof that we were bothering it just that we might bother it

 

[TreeClimber]

My new ride. Just for you.

We did go over that and if you could adapt to 45" WB and 30" width go for it:flipoff: .......

 

[Murkman]

Something I have seen beaten to death in other threads has not been mentioned here at all.

An Approved Certified 4x Drivers card posted like an ORV tag on the vehicle. No tag and you don't go on trails that require the tag. To obtain the tag you would have to qualify by attending an approved course. Get caught doing a bad thing and you lose the tag until you have been properly re-educated (note that if this was properly done you could still wheel until you did the class just not tag required trails).

Trail signage would have to reflect tag required. We currently are so close to closed unless posted open that signage could come naturally.

There's much more that could be done with something like this that it is best if it not happen (slippery slope). But this first stage would provide to the user knowlegde that could possibly prevent some of the resource damage that area's experience now.

 

[Binder]

So you're going to resort to wheeling a Toyota?
Sad sad day indeed...:booo:

 

[TreeClimber]

It's a chevy powered toyota

 

[Binder]

YES the bushes and even the damn moss on the ground are resources anymore.

I don't agree. While I do agree that we are required to protect the critters etc and it is law, that does not make it a resource.
I can see it now. Spotted owl feathers used to stuff pillows. Tomorrows renewable natural resource and the DNR makes a ton of money from it.:haha:

 

[Gibby1]

Something I have seen beaten to death in other threads has not been mentioned here at all.

An Approved Certified 4x Drivers card posted like an ORV tag on the vehicle. No tag and you don't go on trails that require the tag. To obtain the tag you would have to qualify by attending an approved course. Get caught doing a bad thing and you lose the tag until you have been properly re-educated (note that if this was properly done you could still wheel until you did the class just not tag required trails).

Trail signage would have to reflect tag required. We currently are so close to closed unless posted open that signage could come naturally.

There's much more that could be done with something like this that it is best if it not happen (slippery slope). But this first stage would provide to the user knowlegde that could possibly prevent some of the resource damage that area's experience now.

I have tossed around the idea of "work to play" in the past. You have to work say 8 hrs per year at a work part to get your pass for the year. It's almost an entirely different discussion but I can say this from personal experience. I take a lot more care and pride in how I wheel since I got more involved with the work parties and what goes on behind the scenes to get and keep trails open. I didn't understand before and I didn't care as much as I do now. I've seen it happen with others as well. When they start taking "ownership" by by putting their blood, sweat and tears into a trail or a park, they tend to be a little less cavalier about "outlaw" attitides and actions. Afterall, it's those "outlaw" people (I'm stereotyping here) that are ruining the hard work they just did. We spent an entire day putting blockages on bypasses on the busywild this fall, and now some idiot (and I use that term loosely) pulled the stumps and such out of the way so that they can use the bypass. We're not talking about an EASY way through. We're talking about getting to the deepest holes that are off the trail corridor and were intentionally and obviously blocked off. That kind of activity just pisses me off and we know it wasn't some guy on a sami unless he was part submarine. It could only have been a BIG rig to even attempt the hole.

 

[Binder]

We spent an entire day putting blockages on bypasses on the busywild this fall, and now some idiot (and I use that term loosely) pulled the stumps and such out of the way so that they can use the bypass.

Most of the problem I think is people in general think that if they're in the woods away from society then there are no rules and they can do whatever they want.
It just occured to me that the answer is simple....Urban ORV parks....No trees to wory about. No shrubs. No critters that matter. Just make a trail that boarders walmart then follows I5 down to the big K. You could even put late stands along the way......
The perfect trail.:awesomework:

 

[TreeClimber]

You speak in jest, but a privately owned ORVs are quite common in many parts of the nation. I know that when I ran BFE, I was glad to donate. I'm not sure, but I'd guess that most are not donations, but rather entry fees.