Important new Busywild restriction update.

[Gibby1]

Since making new trails isn't an option due to our Trail mileage restriction. What are the chances of redesignating the mainline/mainline ext. and using that to make new trails? Maybe even as was mentioned earlier using a pre-existing logging trail as a start, that way the trail is really already there. Does this sound like our most valid option along with more consistent work parties on the busy?

I would be cautiously optimistic but I won't know till I can ask. I certainly wouldn't say that it's off the table with Nancy. If that trail happens to be a logging road built by a logging company, she may have to ask permission from them. You know the access road that separates the new easywild from the busywild. Well that's actually a logging road that we're not supposed to be using...

Nancy is on vacation right now and I don't think she's checking email anywhere.

 

[Lucas]

After reading through all of this, I think the best solution Ive seen that will help solve some problems, yet keep most happy, is a gatekeeper/knarly obstacle at the begining.

Leave the length/width restrictions out. Build a difficult obsatcle right at the start. Something that an unpreppared driver/rig will not be able to make it up, over, around, or through. Make it tight so its hard for the larger vehicles to fit, and off camber so the open diff rigs have trouble.

This way you are not really shutting out people just for their choice in vehicles, but more for their experience, vehicle capability.

We all know its not really the vehicle size, but more the driver as to what a rig will do on the trail. You see fully capable rigs in the hands of the unexperienced have trouble where a much lesser vehicle with a more experienced driver walks right through.

I would not like to see restrictions of any kind. I am under the proposed length limit with my current vehicle, but the next one will be close. Either way if they enforce the length rule, will they enforce the tire size and lockers next? I sure hope not. My current vehicle is a basically stock 80 Toyota, open front and rear, never had a set of "meats" on it until recently (still just 33s). Just stuck a winch on the front and had fun.
The Busywild has been one of my favorites since I found it, I have had more capable rigs in the past, but, honestly, the busywild is the most fun in this stock toy. Except for a month or two during the winter it is fun yet still challenging. Lock it up front and rear and throw some big tires on it and the challenge goes away, except for a few holes of course.

I still have fun on the trail with the stock toyota even in the raily season where its a mess down there, i dont mind breaking the winch out in a couple of those holes. Using a tree saver of course Sorry, im rambling, i'll keep quiet now.

 

[426rider]

So after all this talk, maybe we should start a thread to plan out our(the wheelers) agenda for the January meeting. If we can get organized this will go much smoother and we will get more respect.

 

[Gibby1]

So after all this talk, maybe we should start a thread to plan out our(the wheelers) agenda for the January meeting. If we can get organized this will go much smoother and we will get more respect.

I'd still like to hear the ideas that Steve has or has been told. If he's has something to add, share it now.

 

[pokey]

I wish just building more trails was an option, then we really could please everyone, well, maybe...

Beating the length restriction is going to be easy. I don't need 500 people to show up to a meeting to get that resolved with her. But what will we give back in concessions in order to get that concession from her?

More work parties to keep the trail in better shape is probably all it will take and agree to review again in two years to see how things look.

The only think that would prevent me as the PNW4WDA rep from working out something different is if my region were to vote to support a specific strategy. I would need to follow that recommendation as long as I maintain the position and to date, it's not been filled. If the region was to put in a proposal that I couldn't live with, I would then immediately resign and represent only myself and my own club on the matter. I don't see that happening but as the PWN4WDA region 2 rep, I have some responsibilities and accountabilities.

There is a new person in place but nothing is official until after the jan. region meeting. I am sorry you feel that way. part of a position of leadership is bowing to you constituants(sp) wishes as your supposed to represent them at all times not just when they agree with you.:eeek: Ofcourse there are "extreme" times but I dont think this qualifies.

 

[Gibby1]

There is a new person in place but nothing is official until after the jan. region meeting. I am sorry you feel that way. part of a position of leadership is bowing to you constituants(sp) wishes as your supposed to represent them at all times not just when they agree with you.:eeek: Ofcourse there are "extreme" times but I dont think this qualifies.

This also isn't the military where I have to do what I'm told no matter what.

I stand for what I believe in and you should know by now that I won't toe the party line if I don't believe in it. I wouldn't go into a meeting supporting a point of view that I can't live with. A leader is also a person that will stand up for what's right regardless of the consequences and the party line. A leader is not a puppet he's been elected or put in a position of responsibility because of a trust or confidence in his or her ability to do the job and make decisions. I'm not a talking head for anyone. Never have been, never will be. If that's not the kind of leader the PNW4WDA wants then maybe my resignation as the Elbe land manager was good timing.

 

[Binder]

I'm not going round and round with you again, so I'll put this in your court.

The full size idiot, find the rule that could fine him and determine how much the fine should be based on the rule. You've proven you can do your research so get to it.

I don't think it works because the rule says (I don't have the link handy) that the fine is based on the amount of the resource damage. How do you determine that and how do you make it stick, in this particular case. There's more than enough pics of this guy to make a case.

Compare that with, we posted the measurement, you're over it, here's your ticket.

So go answer the question, how much of a fine could he be given for taking in his full size rig where he didn't belong.

I have a funny feeling that this is one of the guys that Nancy specifically spoke with that he told them NOT to go on the busy with his rig, but I can't say for sure.

I don't have the time right now but I want to answer this question later today so MODS DON'T LOCK THIS THREAD.

 

[mud4funtoy]

Now I don't know you from sqwat but making a comment like that is not the way to win over support for your cause from us SWB people. Hell I am very much a SWB person and can be a little LWB biased. My comments have been know to sound something like this " Those stupid rednecks in a Full Size Chevy Pickup with a beer in one hand and a chainsaw in the other" is why our trails are now paved roads instead of tight technical trails. Now that doesn't sound very nice either does it? So if you want the support of all of us wheelers how about not bashing the SWB people??

Part of this whole thing goes back to a discussion we had about a month ago on here. The trails should not be built for what you build rather the rig you BUILD should be BUILT for the trails where you live. The PNW mainly has trails for SWB rigs. To build a LWB rig and then expect to have places to wheel is just not thinking clearl

Now for me I don't see the sense in a buggy, now because I have never driven one that might be part of it. It took 5 years for the TJ to grow on me before I liked it. My point? If I lived somewhere that had 10 months of warm weather I could see having a buggy, but here in the PNW it flipping RAINS!!! And I am too old and too stoved up to want to ride around in something I can't stay dry in. But too each his own.

Back to lerk mode.

I am sorry if I offened anyone with that coment

 

[mud4funtoy]

I'm not talking about keeping him from rolling, that was the smart part.

I was trying to show HOW the roots and the dirt around the roots are damaged. This is the part that you all DON'T understand and I've been trying to tell you for WEEKS now.

Driving up on the roots or the dirt covering the roots, or rubbing up against the trees is NOT considered acceptable by the DNR. I bet it was fun but that's HOW the damage occurs. Over time with dozens and dozens of people running over the same spot (without maintenance) causes excessive erosion and irreparable damage.

What you and I consider fitting is no where NEAR what the DNR considers fitting.

That sami was supposed to have stayed in the tracks of the trail, not drive on the side of the trail. When that tree finally gives way, what do you think will happen to the trail? It'll get wide and MORE people will starting taking that route and then where's that lead us.

You've GOT to understand that from the DNR's point of view, you CAN NOT DO THAT.

This is not picking on you or you driving Brian, I've done it too, lots of times. I just didn't have a pic handy. I'm a guilty as everyone else. This is where I got into trouble mentioning that I could do a front wheel dig to get my rig through a tight spot and Nancy slammed on me stating that THAT wasn't acceptable. If you have to TOUCH up against a tree, you're too BIG by their standards. If you have to pivot off the roots, you're too BIG. If you have to run a tire up the roots or up the trunk, you're too BIG. How many ways can I explain this?

Too small has a different set of conditions but the same thing happens. That Sami was too SMALL to stay in the trail so what did he do? He started going around - bypasses here we go!

She still thinks its not OK to spin your tires on the trail. She told me that 2 years ago. Here's a thought. That trail was built by swb vehicles and was ran on and maintained by swb vehicles for several years until they logged Elbe Do you all know why most of the trail areas were logged ? They were logged because it was DNR way to get rid of trails that looked like the Busy. So lets think now if the SWB vehicles were the only ones running those trails who caused all that damage, enough damage for DNR to do what they did by logging it.
What this boils down to is the fact that DNR does not want to see any trail damage or tree and root damage. I still don't think that LWB will do any more or less than a SWB. I own both. A Jeep gets hung up on ,more than a lwb. This is a issue that is not truly about restrictions but why they feel the need for them. We need to all work together because we all like to spin our tires.

 

[mud4funtoy]

Steve, I too have worked with you on a work party. Thank you for your effort. Your time. Your investments. All the work.

Gibby, I haven't had the opportunity yet, but all those thanks also go to you.

Tony

I appreciate that. Becouse of the support that alot of you gave we were able to get alot of things accomplised. I also think we would be better off working together and we are working towards that. Gibbys done alot of good up there aswell.

 

[mud4funtoy]

Steve, I too have worked with you on a work party. Thank you for your effort. Your time. Your investments. All the work.

Gibby, I haven't had the opportunity yet, but all those thanks also go to you.

Tony

Now we're getting somewhere. I think a work party or three to keep the length restriction out would be something most everyone could agree on. Steve, you said yourself you're good at rallying support and many have stated concerns over this issue. If that is proposed and accepted, it's time put the money where the mouth is!

No problem with that espeacaly if we are all working together.

 

[mud4funtoy]

So after all this talk, maybe we should start a thread to plan out our(the wheelers) agenda for the January meeting. If we can get organized this will go much smoother and we will get more respect.

Good Idea Devon.

 

[pokey]

She still thinks its not OK to spin your tires on the trail. She told me that 2 years ago. Here's a thought. That trail was built by swb vehicles and was ran on and maintained by swb vehicles for several years until they logged Elbe Do you all know why most of the trail areas were logged ? They were logged because it was DNR way to get rid of trails that looked like the Busy. So lets think now if the SWB vehicles were the only ones running those trails who caused all that damage, enough damage for DNR to do what they did by logging it.
What this boils down to is the fact that DNR does not want to see any trail damage or tree and root damage. I still don't think that LWB will do any more or less than a SWB. I own both. A Jeep gets hung up on ,more than a lwb. This is a issue that is not truly about restrictions but why they feel the need for them. We need to all work together because we all like to spin our tires.

Yea yea thats it they went in and harvested the crop to chase us away. Come on Steve thats got to be the sillyist post yet.:haha: :haha:

 

[Binder]

I'm not going round and round with you again, so I'll put this in your court.

The full size idiot, find the rule that could fine him and determine how much the fine should be based on the rule. You've proven you can do your research so get to it.

I don't think it works because the rule says (I don't have the link handy) that the fine is based on the amount of the resource damage. How do you determine that and how do you make it stick, in this particular case. There's more than enough pics of this guy to make a case.

Compare that with, we posted the measurement, you're over it, here's your ticket.

So go answer the question, how much of a fine could he be given for taking in his full size rig where he didn't belong.

I have a funny feeling that this is one of the guys that Nancy specifically spoke with that he told them NOT to go on the busy with his rig, but I can't say for sure.

Well here's the law again.
"(2) In addition to the penalties provided in subsection (1) of this section, the owner and/or the operator of any nonhighway vehicle shall be liable for any damage to property including damage to trees, shrubs, or growing crops injured as the result of travel by the nonhighway vehicle. The owner of such property may recover from the person responsible three times the amount of damage."

Seems prety simple to me to understand. First off the DNR is in the tree growing business so I don't know who would be more qualified to put a value on a tree. So lets take your example of the guy in the fullsize tearing up the trail or more specifically the trees boardering the trail. DNR officer whitnesses such actions and writes up a fine for the damage. Now lets say for the sake of this discussion that the DNR says a tree is worth $100. Each tree damaged would be a $300 fine. Damage several trees and said asshat has a big financial problem.
There are no signs required. This is a state law and far more binding than any rule the DNR could make up and stick on a sign.
We've been through all of this before and it seems so simple. What am I missing?

 

[Binder]

The full size idiot, find the rule that could fine him and determine how much the fine should be based on the rule. ........................ There's more than enough pics of this guy to make a case.

Compare that with, we posted the measurement, you're over it, here's your ticket.

Now the problem with this is the LEO has to whitness the actions or be able to absolutely proove that this person did this damage to this particular tree judging by a still picture. Probably not going to happen. This brings us back to the fact that the DNR must enforce to make it work.
Now there is one more factor that I don't think has been brought up. A LEO can make a person miserable without having to proove a thing. Local cops do it all of the time. If you know someone is being a ass and tearing it up just write him a ticket. The burdon is on him to get out of it and even if he does he still pays through the work time loss
to go to court or money to pay a lawyer etc.
Now I don't condone this sort of thing but my point is that if the DNR honestly wanted to stop resource damage AND allow use of the trails they could do something about it right now. I don't believe this is the case. I think there is a underlying motive.

 

[Gibby1]

Well here's the law again.
"(2) In addition to the penalties provided in subsection (1) of this section, the owner and/or the operator of any nonhighway vehicle shall be liable for any damage to property including damage to trees, shrubs, or growing crops injured as the result of travel by the nonhighway vehicle. The owner of such property may recover from the person responsible three times the amount of damage."

Seems prety simple to me to understand. First off the DNR is in the tree growing business so I don't know who would be more qualified to put a value on a tree. So lets take your example of the guy in the fullsize tearing up the trail or more specifically the trees boardering the trail. DNR officer whitnesses such actions and writes up a fine for the damage. Now lets say for the sake of this discussion that the DNR says a tree is worth $100. Each tree damaged would be a $300 fine. Damage several trees and said asshat has a big financial problem.
There are no signs required. This is a state law and far more binding than any rule the DNR could make up and stick on a sign.
We've been through all of this before and it seems so simple. What am I missing?

What your missing is the ability to specify the damages. Let's see he went off trail through the brush and didn't damage any TREES, but just made a new bypass through underbrush. How do you value that?

Let's say he ripped some bark off a tree or didn't use a tree saver on a tree that's part of the trail corridor. Since those trees financially are already lost to the harvest, then what's the cost associated with the damage. And oh year, there are 24 OTHER marks on the tree from other people who didn't use a tree saver. How could he be charged for the value of the tree if you can't prove that he caused the loss of the tree. So let's say that said idiot ends up chewing into a bank along the trail to try to get turned around a corner that's too sharp resulting in damage to the trail by making it wider, what's the value on that?

Legally you just can't place a value on any of this damage that will stick. This is also a civil suit only. It says that the owner is able to collect. That means filing a civil suit against the person who did the damage and you have to be able to PROVE the value of the damage.

How much easier it is to post rules and be able to enforce breaking the rules, which is a legitimate DNR fine that can be handed out with a simple ticket. Part of the posted rules will include, using a tree saver and staying within the trail corridor which will be well marked by the spring. If you drive off the trail, you get a ticket, period.

From an enforcement point of view it's much more efficient to write a ticket for not obeying the posted rules than it is to file a law suit that is going to cost more than you get back and you'll probably lose anyway because you can't put a dollar amount on the damage. If someone runs over your lawn with a ORV, you can have a landscaper come fix it and get the ORV driver to pay up to three times the cost. But in the environment surrounding the ORV trails, about the only thing you could put a dollar figure on, is taking a chainsaw to a harvestable tree without the proper permits.

 

[Binder]

What your missing is the ability to specify the damages. Let's see he went off trail through the brush and didn't damage any TREES, but just made a new bypass through underbrush. How do you value that?.

Two things come to mind here. First what would it cost to replace the brush? Second does the DNR care about the brush? Is brush a resource?

Let's say he ripped some bark off a tree or didn't use a tree saver on a tree that's part of the trail corridor. Since those trees financially are already lost to the harvest, then what's the cost associated with the damage. And oh year, there are 24 OTHER marks on the tree from other people who didn't use a tree saver. How could he be charged for the value of the tree if you can't prove that he caused the loss of the tree. .

Who says their lost? What would it cost to replace said "lost" tree? If 24 people damage the same tree then 24 people pay 3 times the value of the tree. DNR made good proffits on that one.

So let's say that said idiot ends up chewing into a bank along the trail to try to get turned around a corner that's too sharp resulting in damage to the trail by making it wider, what's the value on that?.

Again is there resource damage? Why does the DNR care?

Legally you just can't place a value on any of this damage that will stick. This is also a civil suit only. It says that the owner is able to collect. That means filing a civil suit against the person who did the damage and you have to be able to PROVE the value of the damage..

This isn't a civil suit only. It's in addition to the criminal suit. If a LEO whitnesses the damage that's all the proof you need.

How much easier it is to post rules and be able to enforce breaking the rules, which is a legitimate DNR fine that can be handed out with a simple ticket. Part of the posted rules will include, using a tree saver and staying within the trail corridor which will be well marked by the spring. If you drive off the trail, you get a ticket, period..

So when did this all come about. All I've heard of is proposed wheel base limits and width limits. Many people have posted their concerns of this could lead to more limitations and now your saying they are right?

From an enforcement point of view it's much more efficient to write a ticket for not obeying the posted rules than it is to file a law suit that is going to cost more than you get back and you'll probably lose anyone because you can't put a dollar amount on the damage.

From a enforcement point of view all othis is a waste of time if no one will be there to enforce.
Who says you can't put a dollar amount on the damage?

After reading this again it sounds more like you are the one with the underlying agenda. DNR wants width and length restrictions and you are referring to fines for no tree saver used, driving over brush, Value of the dirt in a bank. Where are you going with this? Are these things that you have pointed out to the DNR? If not then where did it come from? Who's side do you represent?

 

[TreeClimber]

Binder,
I don't read it the same as you. You've watched too many episodes of X-files. I read it that Gibby's believes that the correct line of action isn't going to allow Resource Damage to be a viable solution for damages to the resources (does this make sense?). And I'm assuming here, but my assumption is that his beliefs are fueled by actually having attended the last few DNR meetings. So, if you can't punish resource damage, but are wanted to limit resource damage then the only remaining viable solution is to try and prevent the vehicles that are most likely to offend.

I realize it's not my place to restate Gibby's words, but that's what I'm reading

Tony

 

[Gibby1]

I give up Kevin. You got me. I am trying to get all the trails closed down. I'm really with the Sierra club and you found me out.

You make nonsense out of common sense.

 

[Gibby1]

Binder,
I don't read it the same as you. You've watched too many episodes of X-files. I read it that Gibby's believes that the correct line of action isn't going to allow Resource Damage to be a viable solution for damages to the resources (does this make sense?). And I'm assuming here, but my assumption is that his beliefs are fueled by actually having attended the last few DNR meetings. So, if you can't punish resource damage, but are wanted to limit resource damage then the only remaining viable solution is to try and prevent the vehicles that are most likely to offend.

I realize it's not my place to restate Gibby's words, but that's what I'm reading

Tony

Although a little hard to follow on that Tony, I think you've got the gist of it. I'm not sure that this is the ONLY viable solution, but it's one option. The part that Binder does have right, is that without improved enforcement changing the rules isn't going to make much difference. From the poll that was posted in the chatterbox section it's apparent that the wheeling community isn't willing to self police or even pay attention to the rules - which I personally find very disturbing. 3/4 of the people say that they'd run the trail anyway, even if they didn't fit. It's no wonder the DNR is having to resort to drastic measures.

As for me, I want everyone off the trails so that I can walk through the trees and only hear the sounds of birds while I check to river for pollutants and the streams for runoff so that I can shut down the logging operations next becase I'm sure there's some kind of owl out there that I have to protect.:haha: