Define 'Damage'

japerry · May 24, 2010

why do people consider bypasses damage? Personally I see bypasess as a sign that a trail is not meeting its intended use.

Expressway at WV 10 years ago didn't have an easy bypass around the rock face. People punched one in. Back then there was discussion about blocking it off. Eventually it was left opened because it kept getting open. Is this damage? No.

Another point: Lower Mainline had someone make a bypass because the main route was too easy. They wanted something harder. So they started running through the tank traps near the road and now exists two mud holes. Is this damage? No.

In my view, damage is when trails, legal or not, cause adverse affects to the greater environment around it. IE: Sediment flowing into a fish bearing stream.

People tend to look at certain trails on a micro scale, which can look like serious damage. However, if you zoom out and notice that water or sediment isn't flowing into streams, or damaging money making trees, is damage really occuring? Not in my book. Money has it that Ecology is thinking the same way.

Is it considered damage if we purchase a tree to rub up against? Is it damage if trees loose half of their bark due to vehciles, but survive and grow (and then get cut down above the bark loss)?

I think 4x4 users have bought the story of the hikers perspective on damage. Its time to challenge that perspective and fight for our 'pig sty' (referencing WTA blog comment: http://www.wta.org/trail-news/signpost/dnr-charts-new-management-direction-for-reiter-foothills )

crash2 · May 24, 2010

japerry said:
why do people consider bypasses damage? Personally I see bypasess as a sign that a trail is not meeting its intended use.

Expressway at WV 10 years ago didn't have an easy bypass around the rock face. People punched one in. Back then there was discussion about blocking it off. Eventually it was left opened because it kept getting open. Is this damage? No.

Another point: Lower Mainline had someone make a bypass because the main route was too easy. They wanted something harder. So they started running through the tank traps near the road and now exists two mud holes. Is this damage? No.

In my view, damage is when trails, legal or not, cause adverse affects to the greater environment around it. IE: Sediment flowing into a fish bearing stream.

People tend to look at certain trails on a micro scale, which can look like serious damage. However, if you zoom out and notice that water or sediment isn't flowing into streams, or damaging money making trees, is damage really occuring? Not in my book. Money has it that Ecology is thinking the same way.

Is it considered damage if we purchase a tree to rub up against? Is it damage if trees loose half of their bark due to vehciles, but survive and grow (and then get cut down above the bark loss)?

I think 4x4 users have bought the story of the hikers perspective on damage. Its time to challenge that perspective and fight for our 'pig sty' (referencing WTA blog comment: http://www.wta.org/trail-news/signpost/dnr-charts-new-management-direction-for-reiter-foothills )

First lets use DNR land/ORV areas as an example. Lets look at Sac up. That trail was a mile wide in a number of areas becuase folks did not want to stay on the trail as we built it. There was no challenge to bypass--just a bypass. Lets look at back door/rhyno land--same thing.

Lets look at the espressway. I remember back in the day when the rock was the mainline and there was no bypass. Then it popped up and now there was a significant erosion problem. This could easily be seen by how deep the hard turn in the trail got.

I agree the damage that is done when looking at the big picture is "micro" but it still exhists.

I really don't care what anybody thinks--when somebody goes off trail--they are "off trail" and doing our sport damage and typicly making trials easier more than harder.

SnoFalls · May 24, 2010

crash said:
... --when somebody goes off trail--they are "off trail" and doing our sport damage ...

pretty much sums it up to me ...

Also, drop a soda/beer can next to a 4x4 trail, you've done "damage".

Too me, there is more than "enviro-damage" (pollution, erosion, etc) but also the "perception-damage". In many cases the former is easier to fix than the latter.

japerry · May 24, 2010

SnoFalls said:
pretty much sums it up to me ...

Also, drop a soda/beer can next to a 4x4 trail, you've done "damage".

Too me, there is more than "enviro-damage" (pollution, erosion, etc) but also the "perception-damage". In many cases the former is easier to fix than the latter.

ahh perception damage. Thats a good distinction. Personally, referring back to that WTA blog and photo

I see no inherit damage in the photo they're showing. It looks like a good, tight, and muddy trail. Where damage in the photo comes into play is only if a) trees are money makers and are no longer usable and b) if its close to a creek and the mud is causing delivery. Otherwise, it looks bad but its exactly what we want.

I think we need to challenge the perception that the photo above is damage and should be fixed. Instead we need to educate users and environmentalists about the money we want to reimburse DNR for trees and the mitigation we're doing off the trail to make sure no sediment delivery is occurring.

Binder · May 24, 2010

japerry said:
Instead we need to educate users and environmentalists about the money we want to reimburse DNR for trees and the mitigation we're doing off the trail to make sure no sediment delivery is occurring.

It's not about money to the common greenie. They want us gone and you'll never change their mind....I understand what you're saying though about challenging the perception..

The_Shocker · May 24, 2010

japerry said:
ahh perception damage. Thats a good distinction. Personally, referring back to that WTA blog and photo

I see no inherit damage in the photo they're showing. It looks like a good, tight, and muddy trail. Where damage in the photo comes into play is only if a) trees are money makers and are no longer usable and b) if its close to a creek and the mud is causing delivery. Otherwise, it looks bad but its exactly what we want.

I think we need to challenge the perception that the photo above is damage and should be fixed. Instead we need to educate users and environmentalists about the money we want to reimburse DNR for trees and the mitigation we're doing off the trail to make sure no sediment delivery is occurring.

How will WE come up with enough money to buy all the trees along a trail? :corn:

nowires · May 24, 2010

Damage

View attachment 44111
tree roots exposed and eroded out

View attachment 44112

intentional cutting of tree roots for an easer path
View attachment 44113

Sediment and silt causing turbidity in a creek

View attachment 44114

Sediment flowing out threw the woods choking plant life

this is on 1 mile of hiking trail
along with 42 rogue trails off of the main trail
7 water bars that were eather filled with silt and over flowing of warn and not doing any good
14 spots where silt was being dumped straight into the creek

the hiking trail is blowen out from 6 to 8 ft wide
trees are uprooted along the trail

Damage is anything that causes an enviromental impact

boardbysled · May 24, 2010

Thats the kinda stuff we need to see! To fight back at the greenies with.:awesomework:

My view of damage, anything that affects anything out of the trail corridor.

nowires · May 24, 2010

boardbysled said:
Thats the kinda stuff we need to see! To fight back at the greenies with.:awesomework:

My view of damage, anything that affects anything out of the trail corridor.

I am working on it. but I think I am on to something bigger that throwing it in there face :awesomework: stay tune for this one:stirpot:

and I agree on your view

Ty. · May 24, 2010

How is holding other user groups accountable for (so called damage) going to get them off our backs?

Like Japerry said we need to change the perception of damage.

Why would anyone want to say what hikers are doing is causing damage, and at the same time expect leniency for our actions?

Also, what are you talking about rogue hiking trails? What, you can't walk where the hell you want in America? Is that all part of the "new freedom?"

nowires · May 25, 2010

Ty. said:
How is holding other user groups accountable for (so called damage) going to get them off our backs?

Like Japerry said we need to change the perception of damage.

Why would anyone want to say what hikers are doing is causing damage, and at the same time expect leniency for our actions?

Also, what are you talking about rogue hiking trails? What, you can't walk where the hell you want in America? Is that all part of the "new freedom?"

Hold on their bud you didn