DNR Reiter Motorized Trails Field Day

[boxboy]

Glad to see somebody was able to pass on some good stuff to them..

Another nice aspect of having go around is the fact upkeep and maintenance can be lowered I bet..

also if you have a trail with technical areas or obstacles and one group of rigs are already playing on one then other groups can go to other areas to play if there was an trail around the tech area. We stressed we needed more tech areas spread through out the different areas so over all Reiter could divide the usage out over a greater area and not just concentrate the users in to tight quarters.

 

[mark]

Glad to see somebody was able to pass on some good stuff to them..

Another nice aspect of having go arounds is the fact upkeep and maintianance can be lowered I bet..

Also emergency access. Which was a counter point brought up BY Stan as we were talking about hard obstacles, bypasses/go around/easy route. There are a ton of good reasons and only a few bad reasons we came up with about them.


One thing we didn't specifically talk about however... well I take that back, it was briefly mentioned one or two times that I heard, but not discussed, was working with the DNR to open all this back up, but STILL keep the Dumpers and people that shouldn't be there out. Something we'll need to address in future meetings. Guardians, gates, Shooflies or whatever.

 

[crash2]

Also emergency access. Which was a counter point brought up BY Stan as we were talking about hard obstacles, bypasses/go around/easy route. There are a ton of good reasons and only a few bad reasons we came up with about them.


One thing we didn't specifically talk about however... well I take that back, it was briefly mentioned one or two times that I heard, but not discussed, was working with the DNR to open all this back up, but STILL keep the Dumpers and people that shouldn't be there out. Something we'll need to address in future meetings. Guardians, gates, Shooflies or whatever.

We are hoping a focus group is created from all aspects of usergroups that can address these issues. We have a long ways to go but we are heading torwards something....

 

[Eric]

We are hoping a focus group is created from all aspects of usergroups that can address these issues. We have a long ways to go but we are heading torwards something....

Focus groups are great, the only problem is that building 4x4 trails with man made obsticals costs more then hiking trails. So if the funding is distributed evenly then it really dosnt work that well.

5000 for a hiking trail is a fair amount of funding
5000 for a 4x4 trail is not even a bridge.

 

[crash2]

Focus groups are great, the only problem is that building 4x4 trails with man made obsticals costs more then hiking trails. So if the funding is distributed evenly then it really dosnt work that well.

5000 for a hiking trail is a fair amount of funding
5000 for a 4x4 trail is not even a bridge.

Thats where we will need volunteer assistance to make it happen from all aspects..

 

[Binder]

Yah, we've found out in the past 6 months that DNR was full of **** when it came to the 'liability' excuse in regards to obsticales.

Not sure I agree with this. What exactly are you saying the DNRs position on this has been in the past?
IMHO liability is a genuine concern but often agencies are scared by the word "liable" and take it too far and over react.

 

[pokey]

Over the last couple weeks I have learned a very important fact I think is not known with-in the ORV community: ORV usage on trust lands provides an annual flow of cash into the trusts. DNR pays an annual fee for the miles of ORV trails and pays for tree damage caused by ORV users! Most of these miles are funded by state and Federal grants. This shows a positive cash flow into the trusts and looks good for DNR... what was looking bad for DNR at Reiter, we were not paying for the trail miles and we here killing trees which were also not being purchased with ORV funds so the trust was losing money in tree damage. If the DNR can put an approved and state grant funded ORV area at Reiter then the trust starts to see a positive cash flow into the trust fund and the tree loss is known and planned for...

Now DNR has other cost which may or may not be covered under the grants but with documented volunteer hours more grants become available to the ORV area to help off set the cost of operating an ORV area But this assumes DNR has built an appropriate ORV area that is eligible for these grants from state and Federal sources.

I was a little curious about this so I did some research. Asked our state lands director and in turn she asked Mark Maureeen from the DNR. heres his responce.

Hi Arlene



The information is basically true

 

[The_Shocker]

I was a little curious about this so I did some research. Asked our state lands director and in turn she asked Mark Maureeen from the DNR. heres his responce.

Hi Arlene



The information is basically true

 

[The_Shocker]

Focus groups are great, the only problem is that building 4x4 trails with man made obsticals costs more then hiking trails. So if the funding is distributed evenly then it really dosnt work that well.

5000 for a hiking trail is a fair amount of funding
5000 for a 4x4 trail is not even a bridge.

Why do you deserve a bigger share?

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/...reation_plan_public_review_draft_11_10_09.pdf

Check out Page 59 and you will see how funding might get split up.

 

[Binder]

So then why did the DNR seem so concerned about having only the 26 or was it 36 miles of trails at Walker? They said they could be audited and they only pay for a certain amount of trail miles.

Sounds like it depends on which side of the DNR you're asking. The recreational side of things would still have to come up with money to open trails. Remember the DNR doesn't get to keep the money it makes, it goes to fund schools and such.
At least that's how I'm seeing it.

 

[The_Shocker]

Sounds like it depends on which side of the DNR you're asking. The recreational side of things would still have to come up with money to open trails. Remember the DNR doesn't get to keep the money it makes, it goes to fund schools and such.
At least that's how I'm seeing it.

Thats how I understood it too. I have also noticed that Mark seems to have his own answers for things that the rest of DNR must not know about. :haha:

 

[Binder]

Check out Page 59 and you will see how funding might get split up.

Here's some more funding info I found today. I don't know if there may be something newer.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2005-06/Pdf/Amendments/Senate/2658-S AMS NROR S5368.3.pdf

 

[mark]

Yah, we've found out in the past 6 months that DNR was full of **** when it came to the 'liability' excuse in regards to obsticales. Now that we're all pushing back on Walker, the response has been more about making sure there is a easy bypass for those who don't wanna do the obsticle.

Not sure I agree with this. What exactly are you saying the DNRs position on this has been in the past?
IMHO liability is a genuine concern but often agencies are scared by the word "liable" and take it too far and over react.

When we were standing in the Rock Garden talking to the DNR lady (please, someone refreash me her name, I want to say Jan but I don't think that is correct). She flat out said, with respect to man-made obstacles and liability; 'its boils down to the risk assessment/management department. Liability is a scary word, and they will only be able to do/build as much at that department feels is 'manageable risk'. Translate that as you will. Sounds to me like it would be advisable to bring them to the table and get them onboard as soon as possible. Plus make sure that "our" idea of man-made obstacles and "their" idea of man-made obstacles are the same or similar thing.

With reference to using "wood" to make obstacles, IIRC that was brought up for logistics reasons (by Stan and "jan"). Its easier to move logs/wood, plus they have plenty of it laying all around rather than move (and the risks involved in having volunteers move) big rocks. I see logs/wood being added to work with an obstacle, and be used as waterbars, ledges, steps etc. But I also know wood obstacles tend to not last or stay in place like good old rock :redneck:

 

[The_Shocker]

Here's some more funding info I found today. I don't know if there may be something newer.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2005-06/Pdf/Amendments/Senate/2658-S AMS NROR S5368.3.pdf

NOVA FUND? That's what It sounded like to me.... Too bad Gov. Gargoyle stole it from us.

 

[The_Shocker]

When we were standing in the Rock Garden talking to the DNR lady (please, someone refreash me her name, I want to say Jan but I don't think that is correct).

Jan is close.... Try Lisa Anderson.

 

[boxboy]

I was a little curious about this so I did some research. Asked our state lands director and in turn she asked Mark Maureeen from the DNR. heres his responce.

Hi Arlene



The information is basically true

 

[The_Shocker]

well as far as the public has been told the 32 miles that make up walker valley is fixed number of miles and DNR is paiding a fee to the trust based on the number of miles used at walker valley... now maybe this is all a lie to keep the users from forcing DNR to put in more trail miles I don't know but this is what DNR is using as an excuse to keep walker at 32 miles.

There is a difference between the 2 areas. Walker is actively being logged and clearcut. Reiter has only Selective logging I believe and is DNR's NERF habitate site. (Invisible Spotted Owl) I have been thouroghly confused everytime I have asked DNR about the trail funding at Reiter. They made it sound like at Reiter they would simply "Lease" the land and not trail mileage. :eeek:

 

[Binder]

I have been thouroghly confused everytime I have asked DNR about the trail funding at Reiter. They made it sound like at Reiter they would simply "Lease" the land and not trail mileage. :eeek:

If that's the case there should be no limit on trail mileage with the new plan.:cheer:

 

[pokey]

well as far as the public has been told the 32 miles that make up walker valley is fixed number of miles and DNR is paiding a fee to the trust based on the number of miles used at walker valley... now maybe this is all a lie to keep the users from forcing DNR to put in more trail miles I don't know but this is what DNR is using as an excuse to keep walker at 32 miles.

I dont know as to walker but we hear the same thing at elbe. Its due to the fact that that was the original plan and adding more trail milage would require a new plan (nepa) and in todays climate thats not likly to happen :booo:

 

[boxboy]

There is a difference between the 2 areas. Walker is actively being logged and clearcut. Reiter has only Selective logging I believe and is DNR's NERF habitate site. (Invisible Spotted Owl) I have been thouroghly confused everytime I have asked DNR about the trail funding at Reiter. They made it sound like at Reiter they would simply "Lease" the land and not trail mileage. :eeek:

Even if they used the same method as walker they wouldn't know how many miles to fund until all the planning and building where completed but once the planning and building is completed I bet it will become a fix amount of land useage and it will be hard to get it increased but lets fight that battle when the time comes :;