72" wide width restriction at Evans Creek?

I dont look to the internet for rules and regs.

If its not posted at the trails, then I dont believe it.

If they want you to follow rules it should be posted where the user can SEE them , not hidden on the net like a game.

Murkman said:

Personally I think this arguement about "Width Restrictions" is a waste of time. Second your real concern should be
Seasonal Closures I do believe they will be coming to a National Forest near you soon. From the type damage I have seen after Memorial weekend I think next year is a real reality.

Click to expand...

If a vehicle is not allowed on a trail system, why should the driver care if the area is open or not? If you exclude drivers of a certain width and tires size they will not help with other issues like stopping seasonal closures or doing maintence or education of other area users.

Hypothetically speaking: if you don't want me on the trail system, I don't care if it is shut down.

CHOP SHOP said:

I dont look to the internet for rules and regs.

If its not posted at the trails, then I dont believe it.

If they want you to follow rules it should be posted where the user can SEE them , not hidden on the net like a game.

Click to expand...

although i fully agree with you..

the LEO's won't see it that way.

"ignorance of the law is not an excuse"

Gibby said:

I have yet to see in the documentation any actual restrictions. All I saw were guidelines on which trails should be built.

If I missed somewhere where the current rules state a specific limitation (with a resulting penalty - since I assume that one would be required if there was a rule or law that was being broken) can someone post it.

I HAVE looked, but I cannot find it.

I did not find documentation that said that if a vehicle was over the guideline limits on a specific trail (which means the trail would have to be rated) that there were any consequences.

The easy, difficult and hard ratings define a lot of stuff, but they seem to me to only be guidelines for building or perhaps rating a trail.

Click to expand...

As far as the consequences there ia a law which says you have to obey all signage posted by the land manager for state land. I'm not sure about federal but I bet there's something simillar.

CHOP SHOP said:

I dont look to the internet for rules and regs.

If its not posted at the trails, then I dont believe it.

If they want you to follow rules it should be posted where the user can SEE them , not hidden on the net like a game.

Click to expand...

Wow its a good thing you dont drive on the road. man I would hate to see that sign :eeek:

Im not sure if the whole subject revolves just around erosion, or trail damage at the USFS level. But Im sure if you put seasonal closures on places such as Evans Creek, Naches dont you think that would put a damper on the surrounding area as far as tourism goes? It may not be a big subject, but to places like Burnett Store, Im sure it may affect their business. Wheeling creates revenue for the USFS and the surrounding businesses because its a popular lifestyle/hobby.

CreepinTJ said:

Im not sure if the whole subject revolves just around erosion, or trail damage at the USFS level. But Im sure if you put seasonal closures on places such as Evans Creek, Naches dont you think that would put a damper on the surrounding area as far as tourism goes? It may not be a big subject, but to places like Burnett Store, Im sure it may affect their business. Wheeling creates revenue for the USFS and the surrounding businesses because its a popular lifestyle/hobby.

Click to expand...

Yes, it will have a huge impact on the local buisnesses. I am already working with them to address the seasonal clouser at Evans creek.

Im stuck in Iraq right now, but I'd sure hate to see some of my favorite wheeling spots to go to waste because of irresponsible wheelers. I wish i had more time these days to help with the work parties & such out at every site. But I guess reguardless everyone against it has my support.

pokey said:

Wow its a good thing you dont drive on the road. man I would hate to see that sign :eeek:

Click to expand...

I know it blows me away, if they want me to drive 55mph, you would think they would put up signd saying so?:corn:

Crazy Daze said:

I have multiple vehicles, some with mulitple tire and wheel combos. Im not worried about my vehicles fitting but people with only one vehicle that is over 80" wide that might not be able to take their kids to Naches and Evans anymore.
:booo:

Click to expand...

Crazy Daze said:

If a vehicle is not allowed on a trail system, why should the driver care if the area is open or not? If you exclude drivers of a certain width and tires size they will not help with other issues like stopping seasonal closures or doing maintence or education of other area users.

Hypothetically speaking: if you don't want me on the trail system, I don't care if it is shut down.

Click to expand...

So what is it then Corey ? You have alluded to several times that if your monster truck isnt allowed at Evans anymore then you will refuse to "support" the park. Then you state that it dosent really matter as you have "multiple" vehicles so it dosent really effect you. So whats it gonna be :eeek:

Binder said:

As far as the consequences there ia a law which says you have to obey all signage posted by the land manager for state land. I'm not sure about federal but I bet there's something simillar.

Click to expand...

I would agree with that. But I've never seen signage stating a restriction, at least not since I started wheeling there in 1995. I have seen signs and maps with ratings on the trails at one point in time but that's about as close as I've seen them.

I can understand specific trails have specific recommendations and maybe even some requirements. By the same token that they may consider limiting OVERsized rigs, they would have to consider UNDERsized rigs being restricted from other trails. I don't like the can of worms that that could open up.

I really like the idea that we've adopted at Elbe, and that is vehicle recommendations. Tire size and even width and length can be recommended. If vehicles choose to ignore those recommendations and are found to be causing trail or environmental damage as a result, it leaves them open to consequences. A vehicle too large may start climbing trees to fit through sideways because it was too big. A vehicle too small may end up doing excessive tire spinning or taking a bypass.

I think a good trail rating system with recommendations on things like tire size and width, perhaps LWB vs SWB even, is a great idea. If the user groups, such as a group picked from the focus group, were to work with the USFS to rate trails based on difficulty and provide some vehicle recommendations for each trail, I think that would go a long ways. Then it's up to responsible users to NOT go on trails that they don't belong on and to encourage others to do the same. I don't believe that the USFS has the people on staff to properly complete this task, but they would have a willing group of volunteers that could go trail by trail and reach a concensus. Their results could be posted on the trail heads and on the maps so that people are well informed. Knowledge is the key.

This whole conversation is just a cluster ....

No matter what the rule, someone will bitch. Times have changed and that is really the issue. Use of the trails has grown to the point of overuse. Back in the day, the areas we're discussing were inaccessible by full size rigs and that kept the traffic down. As the basic Jeep (TJ) got larger it forced its way into the trails and they got wider. Not harder, just wider. If anything, most trails got easier as they got wider. Add to that the huge increase in SUV type vehicles and in a rather short period of time any idiot with 4 wheel drive thinks they should be able to take any rig on any trail. Nevermind that the trails were built by and for smaller rigs.

Many, if not most of us, have built our rigs for the trail. If you choose to build some huge monster don't expect everyone to welcome it on the trails. Some of us like challenges and people now seem to overbuild so any challenge is now gone. Of course many of those same people bitch because now nothing is hard enough for them.

I would bet that if we had self policed ourselves and built rigs that were under..say 80", much of the pressure from the USFS and DNR would be minimized.

As a wheeling community, we've created these problems with the various agencies. If we can't, as a group, agree on some REASONABLE requirements, these requirements will be chosen for us. It's all about 'me'. "I'll agree to anything that doesn't require me to change". That attitude effects every decision made about ANYTHING. I'm willing to bet that if others (the agencies) choose the requirements, even fewer of us will be happy.

Here is how I see this playing out- The agencies will create new requirements that will keep many of us off the trail. Some will bitch and sell their rigs, others will modify their rigs and yet others, those already meeting the requirements, will carry on as if nothing has happened. Those of us that choose to meet these requirements will find the trails less crowded and probably under less polical pressure. We'll know and understand the requirements and self police ourselves to be sure that we can continue to enjoy our hobby. Which group will you be in?

pokey said:

So what is it then Corey ? You have alluded to several times that if your monster truck isnt allowed at Evans anymore then you will refuse to "support" the park. Then you state that it dosent really matter as you have "multiple" vehicles so it dosent really effect you. So whats it gonna be :eeek:

Click to expand...

My truck has 34" tires on it. :haha:

I am speaking for those users that are not able to do so. Like I said before, some people only have one trail vehicle and they may not be able to go to Evans or Naches if these measures are enforced. I am a member of W.O.W. and we are all for fair trail access, not just one "type" of vehicle.

Well said Digger 5!

CreepinTJ said:

Im stuck in Iraq right now, but I'd sure hate to see some of my favorite wheeling spots to go to waste because of irresponsible wheelers. I wish i had more time these days to help with the work parties & such out at every site. But I guess reguardless everyone against it has my support.

Click to expand...

You do your thing, an we will keep fighting for wheeling on the home front.:awesomework:

Digger you nailed it! :awesomework:


So Corey your saying that (W)heelers (O)f (W)ide rigs is for "fair" trail access. What will it do to help my schoolbus wheeler friends who can't speak for themselves just like the people you seem to be defending?

You got me Neil. :haha:

Digger 5 said:

This whole conversation is just a cluster ....

No matter what the rule, someone will bitch. Times have changed and that is really the issue. Use of the trails has grown to the point of overuse. Back in the day, the areas we're discussing were inaccessible by full size rigs and that kept the traffic down. As the basic Jeep (TJ) got larger it forced its way into the trails and they got wider. Not harder, just wider. If anything, most trails got easier as they got wider. Add to that the huge increase in SUV type vehicles and in a rather short period of time any idiot with 4 wheel drive thinks they should be able to take any rig on any trail. Nevermind that the trails were built by and for smaller rigs.

Many, if not most of us, have built our rigs for the trail. If you choose to build some huge monster don't expect everyone to welcome it on the trails. Some of us like challenges and people now seem to overbuild so any challenge is now gone. Of course many of those same people bitch because now nothing is hard enough for them.

I would bet that if we had self policed ourselves and built rigs that were under..say 80", much of the pressure from the USFS and DNR would be minimized.

As a wheeling community, we've created these problems with the various agencies. If we can't, as a group, agree on some REASONABLE requirements, these requirements will be chosen for us. It's all about 'me'. "I'll agree to anything that doesn't require me to change". That attitude effects every decision made about ANYTHING. I'm willing to bet that if others (the agencies) choose the requirements, even fewer of us will be happy.

Here is how I see this playing out- The agencies will create new requirements that will keep many of us off the trail. Some will bitch and sell their rigs, others will modify their rigs and yet others, those already meeting the requirements, will carry on as if nothing has happened. Those of us that choose to meet these requirements will find the trails less crowded and probably under less polical pressure. We'll know and understand the requirements and self police ourselves to be sure that we can continue to enjoy our hobby. Which group will you be in?

Click to expand...

Well said :awesomework:

The_Shocker said:

Digger you nailed it! :awesomework:


So Corey your saying that (W)heelers (O)f (W)ide rigs is for "fair" trail access. What will it do to help my schoolbus wheeler friends who can't speak for themselves just like the people you seem to be defending?

Click to expand...

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

Digger 5 said:

Which group will you be in?

Click to expand...

I have a highly capable and highly compact buggy. As it sits, I could meet any enforceable restriction or limitation. I say this because most high capability rigs are built like mine. I think it's actually the in-between guys (un-narrowed axles, long stock frames, etc.) that would be most affected by these possible restrictions. Just wanted to make that point. Your post was dead on.:beer: