trail closures

[whatthe?]

None of the options are acceptable. We're going to lose this fight if we keep making concessions. A little closure here, and extra fee there, tire size, engine size, wheel base it all adds up to more restrictions and closures. We need more area's open. Like others said, spread people out, lessen the impact on well used areas. Change the mindset on what damage is. And for Gods sake, 4wd clubs should not be supporting closures as the FS suggested in their statement.

 

[Not Jobless]

Just close it completely.

That way we can all stop worrying about it and the land will then only get used for dumping garbage and cookin meth. They can layoff all the LEO's for that area and save all kinds of money to then divert to keeping death row inmates alive, healthcare for illegal immigrants, and foreign aid for some 3rd world **** hole African country.

 

[zip1]

This poll is established after discussion w/ the same group that assisted in establishing the parameters on the Little Rattlesnake :clappy:

I voted for 'permits' as long as a 'fair & equitable' process could be setup as to who & how they would be distributed?

 

[TreeClimber]

Pokey... are you Crash in disguise?

I refuse to vote in a poll that doesn't have a boobies option, and misspells the word 'closure'.

But I'd be OK in a 'pay to play' environment.
And I'd accept a tire size restriction (under duress)
And I'd accept an axle width restriction (under extreme duress)
And I won't break the law and go into an obviously closed / gated area.

 

[donimator]

Why don't you delete this thread so the FS, DNR, etc don't get any other ideas. Or better yet, add some other options like "More enforcement in high damage areas", or "Put Harsher Fines in Place for those that stray off Trail".

This entire Thread is BS! All 3 of your options there don't punish the majority that cause the damage off trail in meadows, driving off bridges etc.

 

[zukkev]

There's nothing worth voting on that will truely make an impact...
I am for enforcement concentrated in high impact areas, with stiffer fines...A few get caught redhanded and fined, word will get out quickly. It's not the fixall/endall, but it'd certainly help.... It's been mentioned several times already...

 

[Ty.]

I think CHOP SHOP said it best.

http://www.nw-wheelers.com/forum/showthread.php?p=817105&highlight=permits#post817105

 

[Bill]

Quit calling it damage and build a better rig ya fawkin cry babies






Tread lightly :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[Binder]

I just want to add a couple things..First seasonal closure may or may not mean winter closure. In my opinion most areas which would benefit from a seasonal closure only need be closed for a few weeks in the fall and a few weeks in the spring........
Second....Jim, who are you talking to? This tire size thing needs to stop being brought up because every time it's brought up it drives a wedge deeper into our community. The reasons tire size limits won't work has been beat to death so whoever it is that still doesn't understand this should step back and not be involved in issues of this matter. Clearly they are too stupid!:awesomework:

 

[Binder]

Quit calling it damage and build a better rig ya fawkin cry babies.

You gona cry when you learn that your rig can't hang either?

 

[skinny_pedal]

Out of the options I chose to pay. Closing the trails in a nut shell blows. Theres no way your gonna be able to control tire size, open diffs or locked, winches, thats just the dumbest idea anyone has come up with. As stated in other threads like this before I have no problem paying to play. Already due at Evans but if Im gonna pay I want year round access.

Hell if they made it like the Hancock property I would be happy. Pay for a key to a locked gate.

 

[Bill]

You gona cry when you learn that your rig can't hang either?

nope....gonna create some damage at 5k rpm's :awesomework:

 

[bent]

I am for changing the mindset of the folks (FS/DNR) who look at us as a bunch of low lifes they can kick around. When these folks hike into our trails and see these ugly ruts through what they think is THEIR forest, they get all bent out of shape. Yet these same folks don't think anything of DRIVING through Mt Rainier National Park or National forest on SEVERAL MILES OF ROAD or through HUGE TUNNELs over HUGE BRIDGES to arive at the HUGE VISITOR LODGE, all of which has caused WAY more damage then the few miles of 4x4 trails. These folks need to get off their high horses and start looking at us as equals or I feel we have the right to start lawsuits against these people/orginizations.
What if Im handicap? Im in a wheelchair and my favorite place to visit in our public lands is, lets say "Lily Pond" in the spring, because that is the time of year and place I met my wife who was killed in the same accident which left me paralized in a wheelchair. The only way I can get there is with my buddy in his Jeep yet the forest service has closed this area off because we cause UGLY RUTS and RUNOFF which look too UGLY for the FS to bare. I think this has LAWSUIT written all over-it. I am being discriminated against because I cause these "ruts" yet these same discriminating people can built a FRICKIN HIGHWAY through our national parks and national forest. I say bring on the lawsuits of discrimination and see what starts to happen!. MY 2 CENTS :kissmybutt:

 

[jprcrpr94]

How about none of those?

Why don't we get more areas open and the overall use will be dispersed over more land, and not concentrated in a few select areas, same result, different approach.

I really don't see a reason to even cast a vote...

I don't feel that any of the choices are a reasonable option...

I think these two said it best:awesomework:

 

[Binder]

These folks need to get off their high horses and start looking at us as equals or I feel we have the right to start lawsuits against these people/orginizations.

Knock yourself out! Let us all know how it works out.:awesomework:

 

[bent]

Knock yourself out! Let us all know how it works out.:awesomework:

It's done all the time, lawyers eat **** like that up! :kiss:

 

[Binder]

It's done all the time, lawyers eat **** like that up! :kiss:

So what's stopping you?

 

[pokey]

Ok guys I can see that most of you don't really want to deal with this seriously or by presenting any real answers you just want to vent about what's already happening. The FS is going to do what it wants to do (has to do) unless we can provide them a alternative that will actually work. So carry on :awesomework:


Sorry for my spelling last night it was a very long day and I wanted to get the thought out before I changed my mind. Guess I should have slept on it instead.

edit, There I went back and corrected my spelling for those of you that cared so much.

 

[Bill]

Ok guys I can see that most of you don't really want to deal with this seriously or by presenting any real answers you just want to vent about what's already happening. The FS is going to do what it wants to do (has to do) unless we can provide them a alternative that will actually work. So carry on :awesomework:


Sorry for my spelling last night it was a very long day and I wanted to get the thought out before I changed my mind. Guess I should have slept on it instead.

embrace this thing you call damage and you are half way there....

 

[Binder]

Ok guys I can see that most of you don't really want to deal with this seriously or by presenting any real answers you just want to vent about what's already happening. The FS is going to do what it wants to do (has to do) unless we can provide them a alternative that will actually work. So carry on :awesomework:

Unfortunately the only real short term solution I see is for the FS to enforce te current laws to their full extent. Like some have said if they start handing out big fines and arresting when they can then others will stop doing the crime......This will help the trails on FS land but drive everyone under ground where they can no longer control the situation.:awesomework:

Any violation of the prohibitions of this part (261) shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months or both pursuant to title 16 U.S.C., section 551, unless otherwise provided.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...8&view=text&node=36:2.0.1.1.19.1.53.3&idno=36