Tree Guards

[boardbysled]

The way I have understood it, DNR has accepted that there is going to be some timber damage in ORV areas.

 

[The_Shocker]

The way I have understood it, DNR has accepted that there is going to be some timber damage in ORV areas.

You *may* be right...But we will all be paying for that timber somehow. Why not try to limit the costs of trails? And what happes if a bunch of trees are paid for through recreation and then a timber sale happens?

 

[Money Mark]

And what happes if a bunch of trees are paid for through recreation and then a timber sale happens?

:;:awesomework:This is the $10,000 question......and where I step aside. My efforts (in all of this stuff) are "on the ground" and "with the people" side of things.

But someone must have the answer.:corn:

 

[boardbysled]

In my opinion, the tree guards would cost more than the timber we damage.

As for the timber sale question, I do not know, maybe Jakob will chime in as it seems he has researched the subject a bit more than I.

 

[dirtygoat]

The way I have understood it, DNR has accepted that there is going to be some timber damage in ORV areas.

Any damage to timber is a loss of money... Any loss of money is unacceptable to the DNR...

 

[Ty.]

I talked with Maureen, and Candace? I think those are the names.

Candace was totally against ever rubbing a tree, where Maureen seemed open the the idea of a corridor wider than that of the trail where tree damage was expected, and not to be worried about.

Think about it, the trail itself already limits the amount of trees to some degree, just by the fact that you can't grow a tree in the middle of the trail. So why can't they just accept a few more lost.

 

[The_Shocker]

I talked with Maureen, and Candace? I think those are the names.

Candace was totally against ever rubbing a tree, where Maureen seemed open the the idea of a corridor wider than that of the trail where tree damage was expected, and not to be worried about.

Think about it, the trail itself already limits the amount of trees to some degree, just by the fact that you can't grow a tree in the middle of the trail. So why can't they just accept a few more lost.

You don't get it. It's not a matter of "oh well what's a couple extra trees". DNR has to LEASE mileage of trail due to the fact you stated that trees can't be grown in the middle of a trail. That $$ I would have to imagine gets bigger when you expand from say 8' to maybe 12'. That's 1/3 more cost possibly. And not to mention we will still have greenies on our ass. They don't care if we pay for trees......

 

[The_Shocker]

Here is DNR's general outlook for their next budget:

Budget planning for 2011-2013

We

 

[boardbysled]

Haha! Found what I've been looking for. They installed "tree guards" on the new "Quack Attack" trail down in oregon.

 

[RusM]

This is a cool idea, but kid of dumb. Look at the difference in soil compaction on the uphill side of the tree and the downhill side where the trail is. Trees do not like the roots being driven over or even walked over repeatedly. I say **** the trees, cut down the trees that are close enough to the trail to die from root compaction and make the trails wide enough that the other trees will not be affected.

 

[boardbysled]

This is a cool idea, but kid of dumb. Look at the difference in soil compaction on the uphill side of the tree and the downhill side where the trail is. Trees do not like the roots being driven over or even walked over repeatedly. I say **** the trees, cut down the trees that are close enough to the trail to die from root compaction and make the trails wide enough that the other trees will not be affected.

I agree that it is kinda dumb, with the rocks in that area, the root system is most likely shallow, an thus more susceptible to soil compaction and root damage. I do not agree with cutting down the tree's, they are part of the Northwest wheeling appeal. I believe that they were just trying to make the FS happy.

 

[billulsund]

I also agree that it is kind of dumb. I would prefer to not see a bunch of manmade stuff on the trees when I am out wheeling in the middle of the forest. But... if that's what it takes to make the greenies happy then I guess I'm just gonna have to bend over and take it.

 

[trxguy]

looks like crap, if you hit it hard enough a few times it isn't going to hold. it would do more damage to your rig then your rig would do to the tree (personally i don't mind the damage my toyota has been confused with a crumpled beer can lol) and if you leave it on there long enough the tree will start to form around it now your telling me that is better for the tree ANDDDDDDDDDD not to mention when that tree does grow i wouldn't want to be the lucky logger or logging mill that has to chop that tree up
______________________________________________________________
matt
Hi-Center'd Off Road
donations for trail work at walker valley any little bit can help http://www.nw-wheelers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54800 :awesomework:

 

[Money Mark]

I believe that they were just trying to make the FS happy.

But... if that's what it takes to make the greenies happy.....

So which one was it? The USFS or the "Greenies"?

:stirpot:

 

[nowires]

Hiking wont cause the tree to fall over as quickly, if at all.

you are dead wromg and that is part of my talk at the trails convention

 

[billulsund]

So which one was it? The USFS or the "Greenies"?

:stirpot:

Both

 

[Money Mark]

Both

:; Correct-a-mundo. They are one and the same.