Walker, Ron's Run Re-route....

[crash2]

Which means LARGE equipment...bigger than we have at our disposal. Also, large rocks won't be the total solution....there will be folks that see that as temptation (an obstacle), and run (or attempt to run) over them...and on they go up the swale if they get past them....some sort of blockage, along with signs seems to be the best answer at this point...

Sarcasm :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[Money Mark]

....but the current bypass is not currently an option.... (EDIT)....legally....

You're fighting it.

What I mean is, like Crash, you have implied an understanding of the powerless-ness against user directed sections of trail, yet will not concede to the fact that is will continue.

You're stuck bashing your head against that wall. When does it stop?

 

[zukkev]

Bulliards? Maybe this is an option...:corn:

 

[99redtj]

And to clarify, my gripe is not with the by-pass. It is with the manner in which the by-pass is blocked. It is suggested that logs be used for this by-pass blockade. History shows, logs used for a blockade is undeniably ineffective and a waste of time and efforts by volunteers.

I would like to come to an agreement that logs will not be considered a valid option by those volunteers doing the work. And the group leaders must recognize that further promotion of using logs to create a blockade is misleading as to the goal of the (or any) work-party.

i agree and signs should be used.

two weeks ago when we where up there kevin the guy that started to go up the swale said that it wasn't marked and started to argue with me over him going up the swale. with signs there is no arguement.

logs don't work

 

[Money Mark]

I don't agree logs don't work--

Agreed.:awesomework:

I gave my insight of a "log bridge". Give us your insight......what else could we do?

Stop making debate points; supply an answer. How would you instruct a group of volunteers to fix the swale driven by-pass?

 

[crash2]

Agreed.:awesomework:

I gave my insight of a "log bridge". Give us your insight......what else could we do?

Stop making debate points; supply an answer. How would you instruct a group of volunteers to fix the swale driven by-pass?

First asses the area. Without assessing it you cannot come up with any kind of a game plan. I was too busy wheeling on the trail to look at it :redneck:

 

[zukkev]

You're fighting it.

What I mean is, like Crash, you have implied an understanding of the powerless-ness against user directed sections of trail, yet will not concede to the fact that is will continue.

You're stuck bashing your head against that wall. When does it stop?

When it hurts! (ouch!)
:redneck:
You know as well as I do, it happens (user-directed routes)...and yes, there needs to be a better solution, but right now I don't know what that solution is....right now, I will continue to try and remedy it with what I have at my disposal....until such time as a better option becomes available.

 

[Money Mark]

What do you propose as a more permanent solution to blocking the bypass Mark?

A. Aside from my "log bridge" idea; creating another by-pass that is better located is the only answer to the problem of getting lesser equipped and broken rigs up and off the trail.

B. In the scenario of stopping well equipped rigs from staying on the trail.......posted signs. A sign that says, "Please use by-pass.":; And understand that you CAN NOT stop a well equipped rigs with a careless driver from having what they call "fun". Concede to the facts.:awesomework:

However, I do not believe that well equipped rigs are the problem.....that's why I have a solution for "A" and only a reason of understanding for "B".

 

[zukkev]

But a log bridge just allows people to continue to run up the swale-which is not ok...I like the idea of bulliards, or something along that line for that spot (and up top where the two meet again)...
Like I said, an idea or two were thrown out there 2wks ago for a bypass around the log section...running to the left of the rock (when going up), and around the logs...seems like a viable option, but we can't do anything about it without an ok...Waaay back when the re-route was walked, there were strict stipulations that the trail stay within a certain path. That path does not include the swale...THAT path may include the left of the rock, but it needs to be cleared by DNR, and possible forestry...I will make a call tomorrow and see what I can do....

 

[Money Mark]

Good, then we are in agreement. NO MORE LOGS TO BE USED IN THE GUISE OF A BLOCKADE; WASTING TIME OF THE VOLUNTEERS.

Thank you.:beer:

 

[zukkev]

i agree and signs should be used.

two weeks ago when we where up there kevin the guy that started to go up the swale said that it wasn't marked and started to argue with me over him going up the swale. with signs there is no arguement.

logs don't work

****, can't remember which thread I'm in...:haha:
Yes, I'll give you that...and again, I'll say signs are a good idea, and alot quicker to replace, but still some attempt at blockage needs to be there as well...........:awesomework:

 

[zukkev]

A. Aside from my "log bridge" idea; creating another by-pass that is better located is the only answer to the problem of getting lesser equipped and broken rigs up and off the trail.

B. In the scenario of stopping well equipped rigs from staying on the trail.......posted signs. A sign that says, "Please use by-pass.":; And understand that you CAN NOT stop a well equipped rigs with a careless driver from having what they call "fun". Concede to the facts.:awesomework:

However, I do not believe that well equipped rigs are the problem.....that's why I have a solution for "A" and only a reason of understanding for "B".

Yup, I agree, and posted in the other thread what was discussed as said option of a bypass....but until it's ok'd, we can only do what we can do....nothing is not the answer...

 

[Money Mark]

....but still some attempt at blockage needs to be there as well...........:awesomework:

No. Wasted efforts.

Do not do this unless it is understood by all volunteers that the time is wasted doing this. Proceed with the blockade if the consensus is that wasting volunteer hours is OK.

 

[Money Mark]

....nothing is not the answer...

Now I know you're doing this (insisting on the blockade) for personal reasons. Because all the info is there right in front of your eyes and you are choosing not to acknowledge it.

 

[zukkev]

Ok, so what do you do in the meantime (until a better option is avail)...nothing???
If folks understand that blocking with whatever means are currently available will likely get blown out, which most do that I have worked with, and will continue to do knowing this, that's what will be done...until a better, more permanent option is come up with...
Again, this trail isn't completed---it's still a work in progress. This spring/summer should put a lot of the concerns to rest...:awesomework:

 

[zukkev]

Now I know you're doing this (insisting on the blockade) for personal reasons. Because all the info is there right in front of your eyes and you are choosing not to acknowledge it.

How so??? What info?? Personal reasons??? Only thing I personally have is the time/money in which I and many others (yourself included) have put in to getting this section of trail opened....
If nothing is done to at least attempt to keep folks on the right path, all that is lost....

 

[boardbysled]

Logs used as posts?

 

[zukkev]

Logs used as posts?

:fawkdancesmiley:
seriously though... yeah, the thought crossed my mind a bit ago...something such as what's up at the play area....

 

[crash2]

No. Wasted efforts.

Do not do this unless it is understood by all volunteers that the time is wasted doing this. Proceed with the blockade if the consensus is that wasting volunteer hours is OK.

I don't believe this. Its volunteer work that helps maintain what we have. regardless if it gets destroyed or not. Without that volunteer force the DNR would have to do more work which means more $$--which we don't have.

You can be as negative as you wish mark but the fact of the matter is we need to do whatever we can to help keep what we have.

 

[Money Mark]

Ok, so what do you do in the meantime (until a better option is avail)...nothing???.......Again, this trail isn't completed---it's still a work in progress. This spring/summer should put a lot of the concerns to rest...:awesomework:

You equate doing nothing as a negative. Doing nothing is doing nothing......nothing is nothing, not positive and not negative. Again, doing nothing is nothing.

Complete the trail then, I guess......but completing the trail WILL NOT "put a lot of the concerns to rest". We have established that user directed trail sections / routes are not to be controlled. Correct?