Elbe on the chopping block?

[Gibby1]

Exactly... What makes you think the wheeling community has any rights as far as control over the land???

Making Elbe a privately leased ORV park is a pipe dream...

It's the DNR's land to manage...

And they can manage it by leasing to user groups for specific access and uses. Their land is not open to everyone.

The loggers have exclusive use of their areas. We're not allowed to use their roads as an example.

A privately leased ORV park is really more of a last resort option but developing the plan and answering all of these questions can put things into place should it become necessary or the viable alternative.

I can see the time when it becomes a necessity. If a for profit org was to take this over it would probably fail, is Staddle Line ORV Park. However, if a non-profit, heavily volunteer support org was to take this on, it would have some strong possibilities. I dont see this making a profit, not a profit worthwhile for an investory. I do see it being self sustaining at a non profit level.

 

[dirtygoat]

The loggers have rights because it makes the DNR money...

The DNR isn't in the business of recreation...

 

[Travis1]

Exactly... What makes you think the wheeling community has any rights as far as control over the land???

Making Elbe a privately leased ORV park is a pipe dream...

It's the DNR's land to manage...

I think it being run by a private entity on DNR land is a possibility. But I know for a fact, it couldn't be run like people think it could, and it would actually be a bigger more costly pain in the ass than just dealing with the DNR directly.

 

[Travis1]

And they can manage it by leasing to user groups for specific access and uses. Their land is not open to everyone.

The loggers have exclusive use of their areas. We're not allowed to use their roads as an example.

A privately leased ORV park is really more of a last resort option but developing the plan and answering all of these questions can put things into place should it become necessary or the viable alternative.

I can see the time when it becomes a necessity. If a for profit org was to take this over it would probably fail, is Staddle Line ORV Park. However, if a non-profit, heavily volunteer support org was to take this on, it would have some strong possibilities. I dont see this making a profit, not a profit worthwhile for an investory. I do see it being self sustaining at a non profit level.

I've actually looked at doing this.. but you can't do it all with volunteer labor, hopes and dreams. Hard cash is required and if the DNR doesn't have it, and you can't get it in form of a grant, you are screwed. You must come up with it on your own.

Which means raising at least a couple hundred thousand every couple of years.

 

[Gibby1]

I've actually looked at doing this.. but you can't do it all with volunteer labor, hopes and dreams. Hard cash is required and if the DNR doesn't have it, and you can't get it in form of a grant, you are screwed. You must come up with it on your own.

Which means raising at least a couple hundred thousand every couple of years.

You may very well be right Travis.

I don't know what a bare bones budget would be for Elbe, but if the DNR is interested is hearing proposals on that and within their guidelines it's a possibility, then it's worth researching further.

Elbe has done a LOT with volunteer labor and a pass system to the only decent sound end trail system ( no offense to Tahuya intended) it has the possibility to raise enough money to be self sustaining. I don't think it's a couple hundred for a bare bones operating expense.

 

[Travis1]

You may very well be right Travis.

I don't know what a bare bones budget would be for Elbe, but if the DNR is interested is hearing proposals on that and within their guidelines it's a possibility, then it's worth researching further.

Elbe has done a LOT with volunteer labor and a pass system to the only decent sound end trail system ( no offense to Tahuya intended) it has the possibility to raise enough money to be self sustaining. I don't think it's a couple hundred for a bare bones operating expense.

If you end up having to pay DNR to keep E&E, that's your first 100k/year by the time it's all said and done.

Materials aren't cheap, neither is equipment rental since DNR equipment wouldn't be there. Then there's environmental assessments that may get more stringent if the DNR isn't managing the land directly. Or worse, you have to hire a land manager or pay for the DNR's to have a valid lease.

I think people underestimate exactly how much is needed to keep these areas open per the government's rules.

 

[Binder]

But I know for a fact, it couldn't be run like people think it could.

I doubt you know this for a fact.

 

[Travis1]

I doubt you know this for a fact.

Yeah, and I'm 100% positive you are no where near as smart as you think you are; at least when it comes to dealing with the government and how they operate.

People have been OVER symplifying how to manage an ORV park on government land. It's expensive as hell, a portion of that because of the way the government works, but that isn't going to be changing any time soon.

To be self sustaining in Elbe, I'de be initally looking at about 300k/year, including money to use or save toward capital projects, like trail expansion, or god forbid you have to build a bridge to go over a seasonal stream that might have carried a fish 1,000 years ago. :shaking:

 

[Binder]

To be self sustaining in Elbe, I'de be initally looking at about 300k/year, including money to use or save toward capital projects, like trail expansion, or god forbid you have to build a bridge to go over a seasonal stream that might have carried a fish 1,000 years ago. :shaking:

Everyone else is discussing how to keep the place open and you want to expand and build bridges.

 

[Travis1]

Everyone else is discussing how to keep the place open and you want to expand and build bridges.

I was talking about how to keep the place open.

Expansion would be something down the road a ways, but necessary to limit damage to trails due to over use, making the system sustainable.

Bridges - all it takes is nature changing course, or a land manager saying a fish goes somewhere no one has ever has before on an EXISTING trail to require a bridge. Been there, DOING that. And noooo.... we could just use a simple train car, something we already have, because it was never designed to be a bridge. :shaking:

 

[Binder]

And noooo.... we could just use a simple train car, something we already have, because it was never designed to be a bridge. :shaking:

Yes you can use a train car you just have to have it engineered just like any other part of a bridge.

 

[Travis1]

Yes you can use a train car you just have to have it engineered just like any other part of a bridge.

One would think.. but noooo.....

 

[boardbysled]

One would think.. but noooo.....

Are you 100% on this?

Because train-cars are used a lot in forest roads as a temporary bridges. I have even seen some permanent ones.

 

[Binder]

One would think.. but noooo.....

Are you 100% on this?

Because train-cars are used a lot in forest roads as a temporary bridges. I have even seen some permanent ones.

What it amounts to is if they want you to use a rail car then they will let you. If not then they won't......The first rule of working with the government is if you don't have it in writing then you have nothing. Volunteers don't have a contract to back them up so there's no chance of getting things in writing. This leaves the volunteers wide open to being fed bullshit 99% of the time.

 

[Travis1]

Are you 100% on this?

Because train-cars are used a lot in forest roads as a temporary bridges. I have even seen some permanent ones.

The train car was plan A. the engineer looked at it I guess and decided it sucked, it would have also needed to be recovered from where it was, then transported about 10 miles.

Well... before I ever heard that, I went and looked at the thing. Structurally speaking, I coudln't find anything obviously wrong with it. Asthetically speaking it was rough, definitely ugly. There was severe rust in a couple places, but nothing in an area that really mattered. no deck on it, so we would have had to put one down. It was also bolted together, which means it could have been partially disassembled to transport it to the work center to prep it for install, then torn down and re-assembled on site.

No doubt, it would have required work to fix it up. But cost wise there was no way it would have been anywhere near what a new bridge would have ran. Especially given it's location and the fact nothing heavier than 5 tons would realistically grace it due to the trail on either side of it. It could have also been an all volunteer effort to clean up the train car and get it ready for install. Heck, probably even installing it.

I would have loved to talk to the engineer in person about that one, who knows, maybe I still can.

 

[Travis1]

What it amounts to is if they want you to use a rail car then they will let you. If not then they won't......The first rule of working with the government is if you don't have it in writing then you have nothing. Volunteers don't have a contract to back them up so there's no chance of getting things in writing. This leaves the volunteers wide open to being fed bullshit 99% of the time.

Actually, it was the DNR's (and maybe ours as well) idea to use that train car as a bridge first.

The DNR engineer said no, with no real good explanation as to why that I ever heard. Other than he/she felt it wasn't up to the task.

for all I know, the engineer didn't like it because it wasn't their idea or because it was ugly as hell in current condition.

 

[boardbysled]

Hmmm... strange... It's a pretty common BMP, but who knows when your working with engineers. Those guys are math-loving assholes.:flipoff:

 

[Binder]

Actually, it was the DNR's (and maybe ours as well) idea to use that train car as a bridge first.

The DNR engineer said no, with no real good explanation as to why that I ever heard. Other than he/she felt it wasn't up to the task.

for all I know, the engineer didn't like it because it wasn't their idea or because it was ugly as hell in current condition.

Then hire a real engineer....The DNR engineer has no way to know it won't work without running calculations. Sounds like he's/ she's lazy and just doesn't want to put their name on it or they aren't a engineer.

If you have no way to move it to where you need it then why look at it in the first place?

 

[Travis1]

Then hire a real engineer....The DNR engineer has no way to know it won't work without running calculations. Sounds like he's/ she's lazy and just doesn't want to put their name on it or they aren't a engineer.

If you have no way to move it to where you need it then why look at it in the first place?

Which goes back to the money thing I mentioned. And even if I go in with my engineer, their engineer could still say no, it's not my land to make the call on.

As for moving it, it was moveable, especially if you partially disassembled it. no wide moving issues then and it could have been done with a JD 160LC and a 40' flat bed. There was even a path to get out. The dissaembly work could have been done before even renting anything too.

It wasn't looking like a walk in the park, but it was definately doable.

 

[Binder]

And even if I go in with my engineer, their engineer could still say no, it's not my land to make the call on.

Yup. See rule number 1.