trails disscusion

[Gibby1]

In reviewing the trail descriptions, Pokey I have to come back to you on this. You pointed out that you thought my approach to restricting trails to a minimum tire size was reverse discrimination. Compare that plan to what's done with the Jamboree. I'm playing a little devil's advocate here to make a point.

There are width restrictions on trail stating a maximum, how does that vary from a trail that would have a minimum restriction on a tire size? I see trail ratings and requirements such as tire sizes, winches, roll cages etc. So that trail is ONLY for the best built rigs. Isn't that the same thing as I put out for the Rainier Vista. I'm going to take the busy out of the discussion because that's a tender issue. What what the host do if a stockish rig wanted to run Rocky Saddle. Should the trail not be made suitable for all vehicle? I think the Jamboree is discrimitating here against the guy with a lesser built rig. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

Yes, there's plenty of friendly sarcasm here, but I'm making a point. All trails can't be all things to everyone. So I'm curious Jim to see where you see the difference of our club building a trail for large, well-built rigs and setting up rules to keep the lesser built or undersized rigs off that trail and what the Jamoboree does with Rocky Saddle?

 

[Fordzuki]

After reading through this thread, I have to add my 2 cents on the whole discussion.

First off, I don't think lesser built or overbuilt rigs are the problem, it's all in the drivers of these rigs and how they go about getting through the trails. I've seen sammis on 30s go places tjs on 35s couldn't. Again, it had nothing to do with the rigs, it was all about the driver. I've also been held up on the trail more by guys with big tires breaking stuff, than guys with little tires getting stuck. So to put a minimum "required" tire size on any trail is, I think a little overboard. A minimum "recommended" tire size may be more appropriate. Again, the damage to our trails has nothing to do with the size of tires, or how well built a rig is, it's the inconsiderate assholes who don't know how to wheel and use the skinny pedal and front bumper to make up for it.

The point is, everyone has to start somewhere when wheeling. It should be up to them to determine what their rig is capable of doing and knowing where that limit is. This is the basis of the whole "skill building" aspect of wheeling. If all you ever do is wheel trails that people tell you you're capable of wheeling, then where is the challenge? Isn't that part of wheeling? The challenge of it? The problem arises when people don't know when to call it quits or let their ego get the best of them and try to get through a trail come hell or highwater, when they should really just turn around build their skills a little more.

 

[dirtygoat]

In reviewing the trail descriptions, Pokey I have to come back to you on this. You pointed out that you thought my approach to restricting trails to a minimum tire size was reverse discrimination. Compare that plan to what's done with the Jamboree. I'm playing a little devil's advocate here to make a point.

There are width restrictions on trail stating a maximum, how does that vary from a trail that would have a minimum restriction on a tire size? I see trail ratings and requirements such as tire sizes, winches, roll cages etc. So that trail is ONLY for the best built rigs. Isn't that the same thing as I put out for the Rainier Vista. I'm going to take the busy out of the discussion because that's a tender issue. What what the host do if a stockish rig wanted to run Rocky Saddle. Should the trail not be made suitable for all vehicle? I think the Jamboree is discrimitating here against the guy with a lesser built rig. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

Yes, there's plenty of friendly sarcasm here, but I'm making a point. All trails can't be all things to everyone. So I'm curious Jim to see where you see the difference of our club building a trail for large, well-built rigs and setting up rules to keep the lesser built or undersized rigs off that trail and what the Jamoboree does with Rocky Saddle?

Gibby, Nancy has already said that the ratings on the signage is gone due to liability issues and there are no restrictions... Just recommendations... Just a FYI...

 

[Gibby1]

Gibby, Nancy has already said that the ratings on the signage is gone due to liability issues and there are no restrictions... Just recommendations... Just a FYI...

When did that change?

 

[dirtygoat]

When did that change?

last meeting... has to do with their legal dept telling them to do things that way to not be liable...

 

[Gibby1]

last meeting... has to do with their legal dept telling them to do things that way to not be liable...

That's what I get for having to work through a meeting. 2 years ago they told us that, then they OK'd it, now they kibosh it again. Trail ratings was as much Nancy's idea as anyone else's. That's too bad. A Trail Rating would have been a very good idea.

I'm good with recommendations vs restrictions. At least people have a chance to consider whether or not they want to run a trail based on the recommendations. More than a few have ventured into the busy unaware of what they were getting in to.

 

[dirtygoat]

That's what I get for having to work through a meeting. 2 years ago they told us that, then they OK'd it, now they kibosh it again. Trail ratings was as much Nancy's idea as anyone else's. That's too bad. A Trail Rating would have been a very good idea.

I'm good with recommendations vs restrictions. At least people have a chance to consider whether or not they want to run a trail based on the recommendations. More than a few have ventured into the busy unaware of what they were getting in to.

We're also talking about the width of the corridor and marking it with what the DNR calls 'burns'... Then marking and signing anything beyond the corridor as out of bounds/restricted...:awesomework:

 

[Fordzuki]

That's what I get for having to work through a meeting. 2 years ago they told us that, then they OK'd it, now they kibosh it again. Trail ratings was as much Nancy's idea as anyone else's. That's too bad. A Trail Rating would have been a very good idea.

I'm good with recommendations vs restrictions. At least people have a chance to consider whether or not they want to run a trail based on the recommendations. More than a few have ventured into the busy unaware of what they were getting in to.

I agree, a trail rating is a very good idea, it at least gives a idea of whats in store for you.

I personally haven't ventured into the busy in a rig (ran it once on quad) based mostly on hearsay and pictures I've seen. Even though my rig is only on 34's I don't think I'd have a problem when things dry out up there a little. I think gatekeepers are also a great idea, it gives you a little clue of what lies ahead, without getting too far into the trail. Something even as simple as whats at the bottom of the lower 311 at Evans. Generally speaking, if you can pick the right line up that, you can make it up the remainder of at least the lower section to the 311a.

 

[dirtygoat]

I agree, a trail rating is a very good idea, it at least gives a idea of whats in store for you.

I personally haven't ventured into the busy in a rig (ran it once on quad) based mostly on hearsay and pictures I've seen. Even though my rig is only on 34's I don't think I'd have a problem when things dry out up there a little. I think gatekeepers are also a great idea, it gives you a little clue of what lies ahead, without getting too far into the trail. Something even as simple as whats at the bottom of the lower 311 at Evans. Generally speaking, if you can pick the right line up that, you can make it up the remainder of at least the lower section to the 311a.

We're still working out the gatekeeper thing... The idea is to have an obstacle that is relevant to the trail that lies ahead... If poles or such are used people will just make another trail and go around... Something that requires an experienced driver and capable rig might keep people out that might not make it back... But, still keep built rigs from just going around...

 

[megatoy66]

:corn:

 

[Fordzuki]

We're still working out the gatekeeper thing... The idea is to have an obstacle that is relevant to the trail that lies ahead... If poles or such are used people will just make another trail and go around... Something that requires an experienced driver and capable rig might keep people out that might not make it back... But, still keep built rigs from just going around...

Exactly, I think the gatekeepers should be more of an obstacle of equal challenge to the trail than a set of poles that limits size. The people who try to go around an obstacle would be the obvious ones that shouldn't be in the park, let alone on that trail. And I believe these are the people who are the problem, not the small tire guy trying to challenge himself, or the big tire guy that is trying to make use of his rig.

 

[pokey]

In reviewing the trail descriptions, Pokey I have to come back to you on this. You pointed out that you thought my approach to restricting trails to a minimum tire size was reverse discrimination. Compare that plan to what's done with the Jamboree. I'm playing a little devil's advocate here to make a point.

There are width restrictions on trail stating a maximum, how does that vary from a trail that would have a minimum restriction on a tire size? I see trail ratings and requirements such as tire sizes, winches, roll cages etc. So that trail is ONLY for the best built rigs. Isn't that the same thing as I put out for the Rainier Vista. I'm going to take the busy out of the discussion because that's a tender issue. What what the host do if a stockish rig wanted to run Rocky Saddle. Should the trail not be made suitable for all vehicle? I think the Jamboree is discrimitating here against the guy with a lesser built rig. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

Yes, there's plenty of friendly sarcasm here, but I'm making a point. All trails can't be all things to everyone. So I'm curious Jim to see where you see the difference of our club building a trail for large, well-built rigs and setting up rules to keep the lesser built or undersized rigs off that trail and what the Jamoboree does with Rocky Saddle?

Your point is kinda moot Dale. Have you ever been to a jamboree type event? Trail requirements are put in place to insure that all of the participants have a good day and get back to camp in time for the dinner they paid for. Being a trail leader is a time management job as much as anything. If I was just taking a group of friends out for the day I would have no problem taking someone who might be "underprepared" as long as that person understood what they were getting into up front. With a group of friends theres not going to be the resentment that there would be if we had to winch and drag a "lessor" rig all day at a jamboree event.

 

[dirtygoat]

Exactly, I think the gatekeepers should be more of an obstacle of equal challenge to the trail than a set of poles that limits size. The people who try to go around an obstacle would be the obvious ones that shouldn't be in the park, let alone on that trail. And I believe these are the people who are the problem, not the small tire guy trying to challenge himself, or the big tire guy that is trying to make use of his rig.

I talked with Nancy at the last meeting about also doing some heavy marking/signage of the out of bounds/restricted areas at the beginning of the trail...

The thought is to have the trail head and corridor well marked and on either side marked showing OB/restricted... But heavy marking at the start to stop bypasses with having a gatekeeper/obstacle...

 

[Fordzuki]

While I can see that this could be viewed as a good thing, I can see it from two different lights.
The first would be that there does need to be some sort of markings to let people know they are on the trail and heading in the right direction. A sign at old illegal bypasses would be a good thing, but the bypasses need to be blocked as well.
The other thing that I think, is that the people who are breaking trail off through the woods to get through a trail will do so whether there is a sign there or not. Any responsible wheeler will look off to the side of the trail and see underbrush and know that that is not the trail. A "well marked trail" also takes a little away from being out in the woods, away from civilization, if you know what I mean.

 

[dirtygoat]

I'd rather be on a well marked trail than no trail at all...

And there's some ideas that's being tosed around to block the illegal bypasses...

 

[Murkman]

In reviewing the trail descriptions, Pokey I have to come back to you on this. You pointed out that you thought my approach to restricting trails to a minimum tire size was reverse discrimination. Compare that plan to what's done with the Jamboree. I'm playing a little devil's advocate here to make a point.

There are width restrictions on trail stating a maximum, how does that vary from a trail that would have a minimum restriction on a tire size? I see trail ratings and requirements such as tire sizes, winches, roll cages etc. So that trail is ONLY for the best built rigs. Isn't that the same thing as I put out for the Rainier Vista. I'm going to take the busy out of the discussion because that's a tender issue. What what the host do if a stockish rig wanted to run Rocky Saddle. Should the trail not be made suitable for all vehicle? I think the Jamboree is discrimitating here against the guy with a lesser built rig. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

Yes, there's plenty of friendly sarcasm here, but I'm making a point. All trails can't be all things to everyone. So I'm curious Jim to see where you see the difference of our club building a trail for large, well-built rigs and setting up rules to keep the lesser built or undersized rigs off that trail and what the Jamoboree does with Rocky Saddle?

Please find a copy of FSH 2309.18. Read it get a clear understanding of it. Then come to understand the Forest Plan for each district. Then come to understand what and how restrictions extend to " PERMITTED EVENTS". The knowledge gained will help you in future trail building. The FS does know of these standards and can at their will enforce them. Please note the have no money or manpower to do anything other than react to a major problem. Expect no action from them except when they can jerk the chain of a permitted event.

 

[Fordzuki]

I hear you there, and I don't mean that there shouldn't be any markings, I just think that if marking the sides of the trail with "out of bounds" signs is the only thought for keeping people on the trail, it's only going to stop when theres cable barriers down each side of the trail, and I wouldn't want to see it come to that if there's other solutions.

 

[dirtygoat]

They use out of bounds signs at Tahuya...

This is just one attempt to help keep people on the trail... And it's not gonna be wall-to-wall signage...

 

[Gibby1]

Your point is kinda moot Dale. Have you ever been to a jamboree type event? Trail requirements are put in place to insure that all of the participants have a good day and get back to camp in time for the dinner they paid for. Being a trail leader is a time management job as much as anything. If I was just taking a group of friends out for the day I would have no problem taking someone who might be "underprepared" as long as that person understood what they were getting into up front. With a group of friends theres not going to be the resentment that there would be if we had to winch and drag a "lessor" rig all day at a jamboree event.

It's actually not moot point. The reasons for the various requirements for the trails at the jamboree might be different but the results are the same.

No, I've not been to a jamboree. The trails that I'd like to run, I'm not allowed to run.

 

[Fordzuki]

I guess thats one of the catch 22s of wheeling. You block off something, and some people see it as an obstacle rather than a roadblock. I guess the only thing that would make a real impact would be for the DNR to allow volunteers to write tickets, but the volunteers would have to be in the right place at the right time, and be responsible enough not to take advantage of it.