trails disscusion

[pokey]

Why are you throwing me out?



:haha:

Nothing personal I swear:haha: :haha:

 

[Gaylord]

Not true at all.

I've chatted with my fair share of stockers doing stupid crap.

So have I got kicked off of SNORT for that exact reason. Not that they were stockers but they were not full built buggies.

I guess it is a little of beating a dead horse. We will never get through to people it's not like any of these big tire guys are going to go home have a second thought and change out for smaller tires.
Just let it be known, that I think it our job to protect the trails and I would support any legislation aimed at getting those rigs out of the woods for good. Never thought I would, but I see no alternative. Tire size and width need to be addressed and enforced.

 

[Gibby1]

So have I got kicked off of SNORT for that exact reason. Not that they were stockers but they were not full built buggies.

I guess it is a little of beating a dead horse. We will never get through to people it's not like any of these big tire guys are going to go home have a second thought and change out for smaller tires.
Just let it be known, that I think it our job to protect the trails and I would support any legislation aimed at getting those rigs out of the woods for good. Never thought I would, but I see no alternative. Tire size and width need to be addressed and enforced.

I disagree with you COMPLETELY. There are limited circumstances with WIDTH restrictions come into play. If you're wanting tire size restrictions then your going to have to be willing to accept a MINIMUM size restriction on trails where small tire sizes don't belong, like the new XXX trail that's planned for Tahuya.

It's the idiots behind the wheels that need to be addressed and enforced, not the size of their tires.

 

[Gaylord]

I disagree with you COMPLETELY. There are limited circumstances with WIDTH restrictions come into play. If you're wanting tire size restrictions then your going to have to be willing to accept a MINIMUM size restriction on trails where small tire sizes don't belong, like the new XXX trail that's planned for Tahuya.

It's the idiots behind the wheels that need to be addressed and enforced, not the size of their tires.

No your right about that but there is no way to do it so we are stuck with the alternative.

I hope the xxx trail happens I really do I am only 5 minutes from the trail head and I would keep a set of big meats just for that since it's my back yard.

Remeber South loop? it was a SWB only trail clearly marked the week after it opened I ran into to guys in buggies tearing there way through the trail now it will accomdate a long box truck. People are ass hats.

 

[Travis1]

Remeber South loop? it was a SWB only trail clearly marked the week after it opened I ran into to guys in buggies tearing there way through the trail now it will accomdate a long box truck. People are ass hats.

While South Loop was originally cut for SWB and labelled that way, minus one turn that we purposely left a bypass for we actually drove a long bed regular cab F-series without touching a tree. We did this to make sure that when people ignored the signage, one of the longest trucks out there could fit through.

So it wasn't so tight you couldn't fit one through and stay on the trail.

Most of the bypasses that appear in South Loop are people's attempts in straightening it out. Generally speaking any section of trail out there, if you come up to a choice between two paths around something. The path that requires you to turn the most was the original.

 

[Travis1]

I would support any legislation aimed at getting those rigs out of the woods for good.

I wouldn't go that far. Let's say anything with a WB of 120"+ and width over 80" was banned. How long do you think it would be before those dimensions shrank to the size of a quad? That is playing with fire right there.

Honestly, I had some very mixed feelings on the tire size limit. I knew what they were trying to do, police the area and go after those causing the most obvious damage. But unless you catch them in the act you can't do anything. ban anything over a 35"(?) tire and you can quickly make out who is and isn't there for the right reasons. I didn't agree with it, but on the other hand I couldn't come up with a better enforcement alternative that would actually work. Nobody I talked to could. I was ready to downsize it wasn't going to be the end of the world. But, how long until 35" becomes 33", and eventually 28" (Lt235) tires?

Once you open up that box, there is not closing it, there is no stopping whatever it is that comes out and you certainly can't put it back in.

 

[Gaylord]

I wouldn't go that far. Let's say anything with a WB of 120"+ and width over 80" was banned. How long do you think it would be before those dimensions shrank to the size of a quad? That is playing with fire right there.

Honestly, I had some very mixed feelings on the tire size limit. I knew what they were trying to do, police the area and go after those causing the most obvious damage. But unless you catch them in the act you can't do anything. ban anything over a 35"(?) tire and you can quickly make out who is and isn't there for the right reasons. I didn't agree with it, but on the other hand I couldn't come up with a better enforcement alternative that would actually work. Nobody I talked to could. I was ready to downsize it wasn't going to be the end of the world. But, how long until 35" becomes 33", and eventually 28" (Lt235) tires?

Once you open up that box, there is not closing it, there is no stopping whatever it is that comes out and you certainly can't put it back in.

Well something has to be done, these big rigs just can't be allowed or all of our trails will be closed. May be to late already. I know some on here say they take there fullsize rigs through Pucker ridge and I know for sure you can't do that without damage to the enviroment.

 

[Gibby1]

I agree with some specific trail restrictions where appropriate, but not overall. That's why Nancy put out the 82" restriction on the busy. The bridges are 82" wide and that IS pretty wide to fit through the busy as the DNR considers "fitting". She has a tough time policing idiots as she does have to catch them in the act. How much easier is it catch someone on the trail, measure their width and make and objective decision about whether or not they meet the requirement.

The same goes for tire size but I stand firm on this.

It goes BOTH ways! There are trails where MINIMUM tire size must be met.

Here's the way things are going at Elbe and I think it going to work well. Various club are adopting trails and are giving a pretty wide berth when it comes to what they do and do not want for that trail, as long as it passes by the DNR. The Cascade 4x4s have adopted a significant portion of the busywild trail. If that club determines that through the section of trail that they maintain will have a restriction of some sort, if it passes through the DNR as far as conforming with their rules, then it'll happen. The user groups will get to determine what size and types of rigs will navigate the section of trails that they are responsible for. By types I don't mean Jeep vs Toyota, but full size, vs swb etc.

Our club adopted the Rainier Vista and we determined that it should be a hard core trail so we're going to build it as such. That trail will come with MINIMUM restrictions, most likely 35" tires, dual TADs and a winch. If you are on the trail and don't meet minimum sizes, you COULD be fined is doing so causes a problem. For example, you take a 4Runner on 33s a single locker and a dead winch... You get stuck on the trail and require extensive extraction efforts or block off the trail for hours on end, you could be fined for taking an unprepared vehicle on the trail and not meeting the recommendations. FYI, much of this is/was in the discussion phase about how to enforce rules should people choose to disobey them. This is NOT laid in stone but it was at the top of the idea phase when Joe took over. If you can get your 33" tired vehicle through the trail without causing a problem, more power to you, no one's going to care. But go where you don't belong and cause a problem, you should pay the price.

As the trails at Elbe get adopted the various clubs will be setting, or will have the option to set, rules like this since they are taking the responsibilty for building and maintaining that trail. The DNR will keep a good mix of trails at the park so that EVERYONE can wheel, but not everyone will be able to wheel all trails.

 

[CHOP SHOP]

you guys really dont want me to mount up little baby sissy tires.:;
All little skins do is free up more horesepower!:kissmybutt:

and Dale, thats one more 1-800-tatelonawheeler call. way to go:masturbanana[1]:

 

[Gaylord]

I agree with some specific trail restrictions where appropriate, but not overall. That's why Nancy put out the 82" restriction on the busy. The bridges are 82" wide and that IS pretty wide to fit through the busy as the DNR considers "fitting". She has a tough time policing idiots as she does have to catch them in the act. How much easier is it catch someone on the trail, measure their width and make and objective decision about whether or not they meet the requirement.

The same goes for tire size but I stand firm on this.

It goes BOTH ways! There are trails where MINIMUM tire size must be met.

Here's the way things are going at Elbe and I think it going to work well. Various club are adopting trails and are giving a pretty wide berth when it comes to what they do and do not want for that trail, as long as it passes by the DNR. The Cascade 4x4s have adopted a significant portion of the busywild trail. If that club determines that through the section of trail that they maintain will have a restriction of some sort, if it passes through the DNR as far as conforming with their rules, then it'll happen. The user groups will get to determine what size and types of rigs will navigate the section of trails that they are responsible for. By types I don't mean Jeep vs Toyota, but full size, vs swb etc.

Our club adopted the Rainier Vista and we determined that it should be a hard core trail so we're going to build it as such. That trail will come with MINIMUM restrictions, most likely 35" tires, dual TADs and a winch. If you are on the trail and don't meet minimum sizes, you COULD be fined is doing so causes a problem. For example, you take a 4Runner on 33s a single locker and a dead winch... You get stuck on the trail and require extensive extraction efforts or block off the trail for hours on end, you could be fined for taking an unprepared vehicle on the trail and not meeting the recommendations. FYI, much of this is/was in the discussion phase about how to enforce rules should people choose to disobey them. This is NOT laid in stone but it was at the top of the idea phase when Joe took over. If you can get your 33" tired vehicle through the trail without causing a problem, more power to you, no one's going to care. But go where you don't belong and cause a problem, you should pay the price.

As the trails at Elbe get adopted the various clubs will be setting, or will have the option to set, rules like this since they are taking the responsibilty for building and maintaining that trail. The DNR will keep a good mix of trails at the park so that EVERYONE can wheel, but not everyone will be able to wheel all trails.

I like that it, sounds real good. The only problem I see is when said 4x4 group in charge of trail decides all their rigs are big mean and nasty so thats how the trali should be built. I think all the trail should be left the way they are and maintaind to keep them in such shape and make restrictions accordingly. If a said group gets a chance to build a new trail then by all means build it to suit your needs.
I personaly think there should be tire and width restrictiond for almost every trail at Evans. I have watched my playground be destroyed over the last 7-8 years and it makes me sick. It's shaped my opinions and gave me the bitter attitude I have twards Buggies and full size rigs.

 

[pokey]

I agree with some specific trail restrictions where appropriate, but not overall. That's why Nancy put out the 82" restriction on the busy. The bridges are 82" wide and that IS pretty wide to fit through the busy as the DNR considers "fitting". She has a tough time policing idiots as she does have to catch them in the act. How much easier is it catch someone on the trail, measure their width and make and objective decision about whether or not they meet the requirement.

The same goes for tire size but I stand firm on this.

It goes BOTH ways! There are trails where MINIMUM tire size must be met.

Here's the way things are going at Elbe and I think it going to work well. Various club are adopting trails and are giving a pretty wide berth when it comes to what they do and do not want for that trail, as long as it passes by the DNR. The Cascade 4x4s have adopted a significant portion of the busywild trail. If that club determines that through the section of trail that they maintain will have a restriction of some sort, if it passes through the DNR as far as conforming with their rules, then it'll happen. The user groups will get to determine what size and types of rigs will navigate the section of trails that they are responsible for. By types I don't mean Jeep vs Toyota, but full size, vs swb etc.

Our club adopted the Rainier Vista and we determined that it should be a hard core trail so we're going to build it as such. That trail will come with MINIMUM restrictions, most likely 35" tires, dual TADs and a winch. If you are on the trail and don't meet minimum sizes, you COULD be fined is doing so causes a problem. For example, you take a 4Runner on 33s a single locker and a dead winch... You get stuck on the trail and require extensive extraction efforts or block off the trail for hours on end, you could be fined for taking an unprepared vehicle on the trail and not meeting the recommendations. FYI, much of this is/was in the discussion phase about how to enforce rules should people choose to disobey them. This is NOT laid in stone but it was at the top of the idea phase when Joe took over. If you can get your 33" tired vehicle through the trail without causing a problem, more power to you, no one's going to care. But go where you don't belong and cause a problem, you should pay the price.

As the trails at Elbe get adopted the various clubs will be setting, or will have the option to set, rules like this since they are taking the responsibilty for building and maintaining that trail. The DNR will keep a good mix of trails at the park so that EVERYONE can wheel, but not everyone will be able to wheel all trails.

Isnt that a little bit of reverse descrimination:eeek: the guys with the "little" tires build trails and evryone can run them. So we build trails for the "big" tires and the "little guys" cant run them without fear of punishment for breaking:eeek: What if a big rig gets stuck on an "little" trail does he get a ticket for being to big:eeek: This is opening up a huge can of worms and I dont see the DNR ever stepping into that kind of enforcment. You also need to take into consideration that we all pay the same taxes to use the same trails telling someone they cant run a trail in a publicly funded park isnt going to work. Another crux to think about is the quads and bikes whose gonna police them:eeek:

 

[Gibby1]

you guys really dont want me to mount up little baby sissy tires.:;
All little skins do is free up more horesepower!:kissmybutt:

and Dale, thats one more 1-800-tatelonawheeler call. way to go:masturbanana[1]:

And I'll keep on doing it. It's called being a responsible wheeler, something you now nothing about. You've demonstrated that over and over by your comments.
Your either just a plain idiot or you just like to stir the pot. I hope it's the latter.

 

[Jaydog]

It's a good post and I agree for the most part. I would argue however why does the "older smaller tire crowd" have to pay respect to these big tire idiots that ruin our trails? 10 years ago there was not a trail in Washington you could not run on a 33 or 35 with exception to some nasty mud holes here and there. Then the California rock crawling crazy began and all the rags had photos and articles about these behemoth monsters and everyone up here followed suit. There was no reason to follow suit a guy could go run Liberty,Rimrock, nachees ect ect on 35's locked no problem. But this younger crowd just had to build them bigger anyway. Once these rigs were built there was no were for them to play because they were too overbuilt. So what did they do? They went and destroyed our Jeep trails that have been passable for 50 years in the same fashion. I don't get it. I am bitter about it and I think I always will be. The selfish needs of the few have ruined the trails for the many.

Go get some bigger tires and quit whining sheesh

 

[CHOP SHOP]

And I'll keep on doing it. It's called being a responsible wheeler, something you now nothing about. You've demonstrated that over and over by your comments.
Your either just a plain idiot or you just like to stir the pot. I hope it's the latter.

everybody knows whats right and wrong. you just have to point it out everytime and its dumb. it gets old. so who stirs the pot? me, no. its you. nobody was all bunched up until you pointed out the "OFFENSE" on the stump.

ITS A ****IN STUMP. ITS ****IN DEAD. IF NOBODY EVER DRIVES ON IT EVER, ITS STILL A ****IN DEAD STUMP. all this **** is dumb.:looser:

you wheel your way, I will wheel my way, they can wheel there way.:beer:

If you dont like what I am doing, keep it to your self.:flipoff: I wont worry about you either:awesomework:

 

[Gibby1]

Isnt that a little bit of reverse descrimination:eeek: the guys with the "little" tires build trails and evryone can run them. So we build trails for the "big" tires and the "little guys" cant run them without fear of punishment for breaking:eeek: What if a big rig gets stuck on an "little" trail does he get a ticket for being to big:eeek: This is opening up a huge can of worms and I dont see the DNR ever stepping into that kind of enforcment. You also need to take into consideration that we all pay the same taxes to use the same trails telling someone they cant run a trail in a publicly funded park isnt going to work. Another crux to think about is the quads and bikes whose gonna police them:eeek:

No, it's not reverse discrimination. By the same token oversized vehicles can should be restricted from trails where THEY don't fit. Same rules apply. You can't build a trail to meet everyone's needs but you can build an ORV area to meet everyone's needs. A mix of trails in an ORV system allows everyone access to play on the trails that their vehicle and skill level are suited for.

We do need to find a way to keep people off trails that they don't belong on. Just like the big guys needs to stay off the little guy trail, it's vice versa.

Limiting tire size or width in any direction limits access but if the over or undersized vehicle are causing uneccessary damage to the trails that a solution must be found.

If you drive a 33" tire'd rig with no lockers or winch, you'd better not drive on the Busy or the Rainier vista when it's done. If so, you deserve to get a ticket and it's the closest way to ticket for STUPIDITY for trying.

These are just my opinons, I don't make the rules but rules are going to have to be made somewhere. I'd rather see us enact and enforce our own rules before someone else forces them down our throat. We'll like a lot less, what they'll force down our throat.

I guess you're saying that we should build the Rainier Vista as a double black diamond for the little guys so that we don't discriminate against them?????

 

[dirtygoat]

I hear the xj is finally out of the Busy...:eeek:

I'm glad I didn't open up a can of worms like this...:redneck:

I'm not saying that flexing on a stump is OK... I've done it as well... But, Karls heep spinning the wheels, hooked to a winch line for all the world to see isn't helping out either...:corn:

Fullsize rigs shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Busy???:eeek:

Just keep blaming us for everything, little tire guys...:looser:

 

[Money Mark]

I have a buggy and a stockish CJ-5. In the buggy I have no problem wheeling with the stockers. I the CJ-5 I have no problem being laughed at by the modded rigs. I just don

 

[JOOP]

Maybe I missed the ass chewing for flexing out on a stump. But I really dont see the problem as long as its on the trail, if its off the trail different story. I mean the stump is a dead tree.. Its already dead.. So whats the problem???

 

[smalltowncowboy]

lmao SOME of you guys on this site are so damn funny sometimes.

ok so if i get this right from the various posts from various people, non of us should be driving anything with big tires, big motors, wide rigs, long rigs, let me guess next we cant have winches because nobody uses tree savers. look at the pic in the thread that started this thread and you will see atleast 2 scars on the tree in front of the jeep where somebody just wrapped the cable around the tree.

i am on several different sights and no other site bitches so much about their own members wheeling. no wonder i only come here to get a good laugh anymore.

go ahead bitch and moan and complain about my post, i gives a rats ass.

 

[JOOP]

reasons I flex out on a stump.

1. show off :kiss:

2. check my rig over to see what that damn noise is. :awesomework:


3. To see if I wont flop.:haha: