• Help Support Hardline Crawlers :

Letter to DNR regarding Reiter and Walker

Good work Jakob!!! I like the letter...:cool: Excellent job on the footage over on the RRR site as well!:awesomework:
 
I thought he was just a 'contributing member', after all he did win some BIG award for all his volunteer efforts in '09 according to some article... :rolleyes: ....regardless, he really needs to do his research on what he's claiming before spewing it for all to see...
 
zukkev said:
I thought he was just a 'contributing member', after all he did win some BIG award for all his volunteer efforts in '09 according to some article... :rolleyes: ....regardless, he really needs to do his research on what he's claiming before spewing it for all to see...
Click to expand...

that is correct. hes just a contributing member. However that award has gone a little to his head. Its our job to correct that :awesomework: :;
 
Good stuff Jake. We do need to remember not to let it go to our heads. Most of the Enviro wackos are just that. There are holes in thier plans we just need to find them. We need to be above board in all we do. I for one appreciate what your doing Jakob, keep it up.
 
Duck Dodgers said:
Good stuff Jake. We do need to remember not to let it go to our heads. Most of the Enviro wackos are just that. There are holes in thier plans we just need to find them. We need to be above board in all we do. I for one appreciate what your doing Jakob, keep it up.
Click to expand...

:awesomework:Said it before, and I'll say it again! Thanks Jakob, for all the work you are putting in...but like DD said, don't let your head explode tho!!! :haha: We need that noodle!:redneck:
 
Money Mark said:
Can we get Bill on our side?

Example: Hire his company to design a new trail at Walker or Reiter?

Make him work FOR us.....make him WANT to work with us.:awesomework:
Click to expand...

Good question, as I think part of this letter was trying to get DNR to hire him/his company to be the one to monitor the ORV parks. However, I think he is a lost cause. Looking back at other publications by him, as well as what I've heard from Mark Mauren, this guy has no interest in seeing ORVs at all. There are engineers who understand sediment and erosion control who aren't trying to run us out of our areas. We need to be supporting those environmentalists and organizations, not Bill.

On that note, I think we should be getting the Audubon Society behind us. Make them want to work with us. DNR is doing their part to court them, and we should as well.
 
nice work jakob..with logging in the works @ walker its gonna have an impact on the future outcome of trails but we can only do so much right now to make the greenies happy.........should try and work the logging part a little for some trail work maybe??:awesomework::cool::beer:
 
Very good letter! It has already been said but WE need to be proactive not reactive in the fight to keep our trails open.

Does anyone know what Mr. Bill Lider does on his free time as a hobby?

My point...... What if he rides dirt bikes? If he rides dirt bikes but is trying to pose as an enviromental nut, that could severely hurt his reputation. Also, what about the vehicles(DD) he drives or any other greenie for that matter.
 
nowires said:
Do you have an idea for doing this?
Click to expand...

Mike Blackbird, from what I've heard, is a fairly reasonable person. Mark thinks that if we send this letter to him, it'll point out that Mr. Lider is way out in left field, and that we're sincerely interested in working with them, as long as issues are real, and not taken out of context.

We'll see if anything comes from it, but I'm just happy to hear that we're preaching to the choir in regards to sending the response to Olympia. They're very happy with what we're doing at both Reiter and Walker and support our future efforts :awesomework:
 
I also suspect that the DNR is getting attacked from the "enviro-wackos" regarding timber sales ... hence why the DNR don't feel threatened by our "use" as opposed to the clearcut timber sales.

IMO, clearcuts suck, but I also understand that it is the most economical way to harvest. I'd prefer a "harvest the money trees" and sustain the "future money trees" approach.

In my case, I have (and like) the wildlife in my little 5 acres. I probably also have close to $50k of "money" trees. As a "responsible land owner", I'd rather bank $500/yr average simply thinning forever (e.g. every 10 years take $5k off). But that is because I have "trails" that make it feasible :awesomework:

To further the case, about 5 years ago, I had some 20 or so trees taken down (on about 1 acre of my land). I did a 40/60 split with the logger (40 to me, but he also pulled stumps). I banked money, he banked money, "danger to buildings" trees were removed, and you would not even notice! That "economical" solution was a win-win for me as a land owner and also for the logger ... (and yes, the logger wanted his cut on another $10k of trees where I had to say NO).

So, "thinning vs clearcuts" can be an "economical" solution for the DNR too!
IOW, perhaps the DNR should consider a "thin/harvest" policy for the "money" trees and require the buyer to skid them out via narrow "trails".
This suggestion might also get the "enviro-wackos" also to agree and side WITH us.
The "Timber Buyers" tho would fight this! (hence why it needs to be a combined effort).
If done properly tho, those "skid trails" could become OHV trails! Since they need to exist (and be maintained) for this "sustainable harvest" policy.
So:
* thin not clearcut (good for OHV and enviro)
* "skid trails" designed to minimize "enviro-damage" and maintained for OHV use

Thoughts?

An aside ...
FWIW, at my place I have a mated pair of Pileated Woodpeckers that live in the area ... when they get a sniff of insects under some bark, it looks like chainsaw chips flying. They are big (and very kewl) birds and do more "de-barking" in 5 minutes than any one 4x4 user does in a lifetime. I was watching them one day while cutting steel outside ... with my noise and the "woody woodpecker" calls, it was hard to tell any difference! (and they didn't care when I'd cut a pipe, they just continued to debark the tree they were going at).
 
thinning is done with a harvester in the BIG woods. A harvester does not need a skid road.

A skidder is used mostly by small 5 acre loggers.


wait till you see a road used to "thin" by a log skidder. Just think 60,000 lb wheeler with spools and 60 inch tires.

still thinkin low impact?:corn:
 
Yup, the larger companies use harvesters, and I understand what your getting at brad, but at the same time, as they thin, they're also churning up the ground around the trees left, essentially 'mulching' the ground/leftover branches creating better soil for the trees left....they do leave good potential paths for ORV use though!!!:D
 
You guys are all thinking flat land logging techniques. You cant use a skidder for a good portion of the areas up here. The other issue is the amount of timber harvested vs time. Its not practical to just thin for money.

The other issue is this is called high grading. This will cause the stands to become geneticaly inferior over time. WA spends alot of money and time selecting the tree genetics that it uses for its seedlings that are planted after a clear cut.
 
SnoFalls said:
I also suspect that the DNR is getting attacked from the "enviro-wackos" regarding timber sales ... hence why the DNR don't feel threatened by our "use" as opposed to the clearcut timber sales.

IMO, clearcuts suck, but I also understand that it is the most economical way to harvest. I'd prefer a "harvest the money trees" and sustain the "future money trees" approach.

In my case, I have (and like) the wildlife in my little 5 acres. I probably also have close to $50k of "money" trees. As a "responsible land owner", I'd rather bank $500/yr average simply thinning forever (e.g. every 10 years take $5k off). But that is because I have "trails" that make it feasible :awesomework:

To further the case, about 5 years ago, I had some 20 or so trees taken down (on about 1 acre of my land). I did a 40/60 split with the logger (40 to me, but he also pulled stumps). I banked money, he banked money, "danger to buildings" trees were removed, and you would not even notice! That "economical" solution was a win-win for me as a land owner and also for the logger ... (and yes, the logger wanted his cut on another $10k of trees where I had to say NO).

So, "thinning vs clearcuts" can be an "economical" solution for the DNR too!
IOW, perhaps the DNR should consider a "thin/harvest" policy for the "money" trees and require the buyer to skid them out via narrow "trails".
This suggestion might also get the "enviro-wackos" also to agree and side WITH us.
The "Timber Buyers" tho would fight this! (hence why it needs to be a combined effort).
If done properly tho, those "skid trails" could become OHV trails! Since they need to exist (and be maintained) for this "sustainable harvest" policy.
So:
* thin not clearcut (good for OHV and enviro)
* "skid trails" designed to minimize "enviro-damage" and maintained for OHV use

Thoughts?

An aside ...
FWIW, at my place I have a mated pair of Pileated Woodpeckers that live in the area ... when they get a sniff of insects under some bark, it looks like chainsaw chips flying. They are big (and very kewl) birds and do more "de-barking" in 5 minutes than any one 4x4 user does in a lifetime. I was watching them one day while cutting steel outside ... with my noise and the "woody woodpecker" calls, it was hard to tell any difference! (and they didn't care when I'd cut a pipe, they just continued to debark the tree they were going at).
Click to expand...

This would be tough to push at this time. DNR is the main provider of funds for our public schools, without DNR timber sales, a lot of public school money would dry up. DNR is also trying to help keep loggers afloat through this economy as most of the private companies are doing very little logging.

Also, the "Money" trees right now are what most people used to consider **** trees, Alders. In 2 years, the money trees may be saw log fir or shingle quality shakes. The economy changes and is slightly tough to judge right now with the building of houses down.

Also, clearcuts are not as "bad" as most people think. They can have quite a low impact on the environment. The only "bad" clearcuts are the ones that do not have good buffer zones around creeks (which DNR is stringent on, so that's not a problem) or that are on steep unstable ground.

I have personally seen several hundred acres of thinned 3 generation forest that had blown down. The DNR had to come in and do a salvage job to try an recoup some of the money they were going to loose if the let the timber lay and rot.

So, in my opinion, we as an ORV loosely knit "group" should not fight to stop clearcutting. That being said, Jakob and I were discussing a point to bring up to the DNR about when a piece of trail is logged, that it should be written in the timber contract, that the trail should be restored or left undamaged as possible by the loggers.

An example of this is Jeep Cross at Walker. It was just logged, and the loggers downhill yarded across the trail. It appears that they sluffed most of the trail off, possibly causing that trail to be impassible.

That was a little more long winded that I expected:haha:
 

Similar threads

baldduck74
-3an line tabs, hard to flex lines
Replies
11
Views
407
84mallcrawl
84mallcrawl
Sawzall
Potential for Alabama Offroad Parks Being Forced to Close
Replies
11
Views
757
ridered3
ridered3
ole heep
Where to buy Yukon locker replacement parts?
Replies
14
Views
809
ridered3
ridered3
L
I am moving to Tennessee
2 3
Replies
45
Views
4K
hokie_yj
hokie_yj
O
Metal shop - cut and bend in Nashville?
Replies
0
Views
483
out_wheelin
O

Latest posts

Random media

image.jpg
IMG_7768.jpg
tmp_3206-20161023_174442-698375936.jpg
DSCN0107.jpg
IMAG0065.jpg
19075_103332839693350_5310768_n.jpg
DSC00193.jpg
20180125_212800.jpg
100_0773.jpg
Top