This is off-topic to the original thread at http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76716 ....and forgive me for talking politics in the midst of a lynch mob :rolleyes:

But DRM's letter ( http://tennessee4x4.com/trailrunners/where_we_ride.htm ) brings out something worth mentioning:
Also, many readers of our web site write to us asking for directions to our trails. It is our policy that visitors are welcome to ride in the area - all we ask is that you contact the club and we can arrange for your group to ride on one of our organized club rides. This is necessary to preserve our relationships with land owners, and prevent mistakes such as groups accidentally riding on closed trails. We do not wish to be placed in the position of policing the trails, but consider that these trails are in our "back yard", and visitors are just that - visiting. They get to go home after they ride and back their local trails. If abusive visitors ride the trails around Monteagle and Cowan, we are stuck have to clean up after them, or soothe land owners, or even worse - lose access all together to some wonderful trails.

Not sharing trails at all, and keeping trails 'secret' -- especially if they are on public lands -- smacks of the same kind of elitisim practiced by the anti-access folks. They deem it to be THEIR trail, and don't want anyone else to have access. I hate to see this from anyone, let alone my 'wheeling peers. :mad: That said, posting open directions to the trail has problems to, and can lead to over-use and abuse (how 'bout Jergens, or Barret?).

There's a continuum that exists between posting directions to the world and keeping trails secret ... if you think about it and are sensitive to both extremes, you wind up in the middle.... and DRM's post is a good example of the middle ground: for sensitive trails, post contact info for area clubs instead of directions to the trails, and 'host' the trails through those clubs.

Randii

Appears to me that the trails mentioned in that letter are on PRIVATE land.


TEX

Appears to me that the trails mentioned in that letter are on PRIVATE land.
Yup -- but the point remains.

Keeping trails private smacks of elitism AND Some trails will suffer if opened wide to all that would run them.

A good compromise is to have local clubs host the trails -- there's a lot of latitude here, between the extremes of full-on opened or full-on closed.

Randii

Did you just say that DRM covered the middle ground? :flipoff2: Wow, I never thought I would hear THAT one!

I agree with you though Randii, as well as what David wrote. The backyard analogy is a good one. I think that most reasonable people who are in to wheeling wouldn't have a problem with going out with folks who know the area anyway. Everybody wins! (Everyone who matters anyway.)

Originally posted by Dirty Harry
Did you just say that DRM covered the middle ground? :flipoff2: Wow, I never thought I would hear THAT one!




Travis reaches down and opens up manhole cover. checks and notices hell has gotten a little cooler today




:flipoff2:


Yeah.. there's a middle ground, but I do see a lot of that elitism out there. thing is, I am seeing those private public land trails getting closed to wilderness areas since "no one" is using them. something to think about for you elitists on this board.

elitism or "education"?!?!?


perfect example for Travis: Walker Valley. People run all over that place, and screw it up. Makes the people that maintain it (SNORT in general, couple individual people specifically) have to work even harder to keep it open for the same idiots.

I can't blame them for feeling as if its "theirs", even though it is public land and an ORV park, they have a significant amount of "THEIR" time invested in it.


Sending "newbies" out with people experienced with the trail is an EXCELLENT concept, allows the experienced folk to show the new people around, show them the trail, talk with them about the problems, and educate them as to the "rights and wrongs" of that particular trail system.

an example, the "illegal" bypass on the Expressway. Looks like part of the trail, but its not. Club run a couple weeks ago. Take some new people up there. We show them the rock, play on it and try it, slipperier than snot, not making it today, we have to back down and continue on.

"why don't you got that way???"

"thats an illegal bypass"

"looks good to me"

"thats an illegal bypass"

"well thats stupid, lets just use it"

"thats an illegal bypass, its sh*t like that that gets this trail closed down. We are NOT using it."


even my own club you have to really put your foot down to keep them on the trail. Some one on their own would just take it, not having a clue.... and more risk of having the trail shit down.
By going with "experienced" persons in this case, were we able to educate some new people to the particulars of WV… and also of trail in general, about reading the trails to figure out what is the “trail” and what is not.




OK, I'm rambling here, but I see "elitism" sometimes, then I really think about it, and remember where I "was", and where I want to "be"... and I don't blame them. I'd like some challenging, non-paved trails in my future sometime as well... even if I have to skip them for now. I’ve been not invited to run trails, or told not to run them yet… it hurts sometimes, but then I think as to possibly *why*

Besides, the passage in DMR's letter that was quoted, did not say "NO, you can not wheel there".... it said, to me, "respect OUR (yes I say our) trails that we run and maintain (and have agreements with) and let US show you around, we'd be happy to have you".









Course, there are some jerky, snoby, a-holes out there…. But that’s a different subject… :D

No use (limited or monitored use) leads to abandonment and closure, and abuse leads to monitoring and threat of closure by litigation (the greens sue to force the management to police use or close it). Pick your poison?

If you restrict use of a trail, make it a locals only or escort only trail, you essentially remove it from the public ownership & awareness, and from the greater public oversight.

Your club may be lead by well meaning wheelers, today, but thirty years from now it may be lead by extremists who prefer to close it all down rather than police it responsibly. Do you want to risk removing the trail from the general public knowledge, risking it slipping quietly out of the public knowledge?

The history of the OHV enthusiasts in the Sierra Club followed this line of thought, and self-protection evolution lead to SVRA's in California, eventually leading to the extinction of OHV use (as far as today's SC leadership is concerned we only need SVRA's or escort only trails in California).

On private land, what happens without open access after an an ownership change, potential increased risk to stricter regulation (from escort only to ???)? On public land with a political idelogy change what is the risk, continuing a limited access policy or closure? It may never happen, but it's a long term risk, unless you have open access as your baseline or a contract (legal easement rights or ownership).

Just as taxes and insurance costs never go down, land management protections never get less restrictive, so why accelerate the prohibitions?

Educate, with vigilante ferver, the proper and acceptable use of trails, and the opposite unacceptable use. Establish and encourage unlimited use of open areas, SVRA's and legal natural terrain rock crawling competition trails. Don't close the trails to public access, just make it socially unacceptable to abuse the privledge of driving the trail (they have yet to outlaw smoking, but ..., can we learn from the anti-smoking education programs -- and the NHRA & the AMA pioneered the same socal reform of illicit motorized participant perception years ago).

This need for education is consistent on public and private lands nationwide. It's the long view, and the long challenge of social change rather than immediate police action, but do have a ligitimate alternative?

Happy Trails!

Originally posted by randii
Appears to me that the trails mentioned in that letter are on PRIVATE land.
Yup -- but the point remains.

Keeping trails private smacks of elitism AND Some trails will suffer if opened wide to all that would run them.

A good compromise is to have local clubs host the trails -- there's a lot of latitude here, between the extremes of full-on opened or full-on closed.

Randii

If its on private land why does it smack of elitism???
Lets consider this, say you or a friend of yours has some land that has some really good, nasty trails on it. Sure you don't mind a couple of your friends wheeling on it every once in a awhile. Then sooner or later people who you have no clue who they are start showing up and four wheeling your property without your permission. These strangers don't know common trail courtesy and drive off the trail and litter where ever they please. You would be rightfully pissed at these people and more then likely close off your land so no one could get back there because of the problems they created.

If its on private land why does it smack of elitism???
Sigh :rolleyes:
Get over that already -- that's not the point...

See the spot up top where I say: especially if they are on public lands? DRM's letter was entirely on target -- sorry if I set off an alarm by referencing that letter. The principle applies chiefly to public lands, but can work for private lands, if the property owner is willing.

Your example shows good logic for what I suggested -- if the private property owner in the example had a club to watch over his land, and guide any guests, wouldn't that eliminate the 'trail courtesy' problems?

Let me be clear -- I'm ALL about private property rights. If you protect your property rights, the law is clear. Protecting those rights against common-law access is a whole 'nother discussion. I won't go into it here.

Randii

I definitely see your point when it comes to public land and I agree.

No use (limited or monitored use) leads to abandonment and closure, and abuse leads to monitoring and threat of closure by litigation (the greens sue to force the management to police use or close it). Pick your poison?
Each of these is possible -- but they are extremes. Travel through the middle is the best way, through documenting trips to prove regular, responsible use, as well as conservation efforts and self-policing. This is EXACTLY what we're trying to do with Friends of the Rubicon -- record the actual use, document the maintenance, and work with enforcement agencies to self-police, all to minimize the chance of future closure.

Your club may be lead by well meaning wheelers, today, but thirty years from now it may be lead by extremists who prefer to close it all down rather than police it responsibly.
This is a risk, but I see no way around it other than to educate up-and-coming wheelers and place faith in them to manage their public lands from the lessons they learn 'wheeling with us today. Sure, they have free choice and could screw it up, but if we model responsible behaviors to them now, and get them to work with us to maintain the trails, would they screw it up? My hope is no.

Do you want to risk removing the trail from the general public knowledge, risking it slipping quietly out of the public knowledge?
In this information age, there's less risk of removing existing trails from public awareness that there is of losing the 'secret' trails that DO exist but have yet to be publicized.... There's more chance of poorly-used trails getting 'de-commissioned' and included in Wilderness areas than there is that club-sponsorship of trails will cause them to fade into oblivion. Club-sponsorship is a way to make less-known trails MORE public, not well-known trails LESS public.

We need to always strive towards the least-restrictive form of management to maintain any given resource. LEAST restrictive -- most places can be managed as open resources... but the reality is that some places are especially sensitive (Barret is a great example), and need more restrictive management (seasonal closure, in this case). Club-assisted access is just one of a number of tools we can use to retain public access. Any intervention short of fully-open access can be seen either as an effort to maintain access through compromise, or close it by nibbling away slowly at access rights -- my intent is the former.

Just as taxes and insurance costs never go down, land management protections never get less restrictive, so why accelerate the prohibitions?
You can view land access efforts either as an effort to decelerate or accelerate prohibitions... the reality is that compromises need to be made, if we're ever to slow the momentum of closurist groups -- and there can be little doubt that anti-access groups already HAVE the momentum. :( We need to find ways to slow the wave AND reverse it...

If you don't believe reversal is possible, then you have already accepted that it is going to continue to get worse, and all that remains is to ask if we're going to lose everything, or if we'll be allowed to keep a few trails.

I'm not ready to give up yet.

Randii

I read excellent points from both sides of the argument, so I'll try to add something constructive. In my experience, most serious trail damage occurs from LOCALS, not visitors. It's not the hardcore dudes who are traveling long distances to wheel and trailering their specialized rigs who are doing most of the damage, it's the drunken yahoos doing doughnuts in the pristine wildflower field or getting rid of their old refrigerators who are the biggest culprits. Think about it, who do you think is more likely to break out the spray can and dedicate a granite boulder to a girlfriend, a hardcore wheeler active in a club, or a punk local teenager??

Unfortunately, we (wheelers) tend to be lumped into a homogeneous group, when in reality we're more of an amalgamation. Greenies paint us as a bunch of drunken slobs tearing up the environment and leaving old tires behind, when in reality, I picked up more than 50 used-up CO2 cannisters from the trails in Moab, which were obviously left behind by mountain bikers. There's two sides to every coin, and we need to watch what we say and do, sad as that sounds. It only takes one picture of a guy driving his modified Jeep up a tree on his backyard to allow greenies to point out the "destruction of our pristine environmental heritage"....

Bottom line, watch what you do, watch what you say, and above all, don't be a punk.

So Randii - I am sleepy and it is late.... were you agreeing with me, or not? ;)

Ok, I'm gonna give this a try:

Private Land:
I agree that any group that has access to Private Land has the right to ask someone to contact the "Club" or individual before use. Why you ask? I have wheeled Private Land when I was stationed in Memphis. The owner of that land would only allow wheelers that were with the guy that the owner knew because the "Owner" knew that he would keep all "in line"

Public Land:
If your club or an individual keeps these trails secret, you are an A$$!!

Good points all around,

BUT this whole discussion will be wasited unless someone is moved enough to take action....

self edit: I deleted out my rant as it didn't serve to add to the discussion. Ill summarize my thoughts....

BE A MENTOR !!!!

You probably are and don't even know it... Any kid with a stocker is looking at anyone driving anything bigger and looking at you as an example of how to drive/wrench/lead/follow/etc...

Even if your a follow'er type, step-up and support those with the balls to call someone out on being stupid, sometimes thats all it takes to drive the point home !!!!

-yag

Ok, randii, here is my bitch about your proposal. Perhaps its just terminology in your use of "Club"

For starters, this is in no way shape or form aimed at any club that has adopted any trail anywhere.


If "THE CLUB" is a grass roots organization like Friends Of The Rubicon then I am OK with that group being able to adopt a trail and be stewards of the public trails. FOTR has no membership restrictions. FOTR accepts any and all help it can get from near and from far. Volunteers like myself support the trail with whatever donation they can offer. In my case that might be moving rocks on the tahoe side, draining bogs and moving rocks on the loon-spider side and working on annual clean ups sponsored by the pirates. I consider myself a steward of this trail. Others may not be as fortunate to live as close as I and may not be able to attend the work days and cleanup days. But, they may send in monetary donations via Blue Ribbon Coalition to build bathrooms or whatever. I will assume they consider themselves stewards of the trail also. My point is this is I nor they do not need to be part of a formal, i.e. a cal 4 wheel etc recognized club to be a steward of the trail, nor are we part of any single club that might be elected to "manage" the trail.


So, if club in your proposal is open to the public, and consists of those actively contributing to the support and well being of the trail I'm all for it.

BUT, if club means a club that I will classify as a private club. for example, but certainly not bashing the pirates, or the sierra treasure hunters, or some of the other clubs out there, look at the membership rules. It has to do with going to meetings, going on runs with the club and NOTHING TO DO with keeping a specific trail open. The membership is socially oriented, and in some cases not open to everyone. I'm not saying this is bad, but I think it is bad for this type of club to have special or exclusive management duties for any public trail.

And, If a club with this type of membership gets any special privs, for access or use of public land over and above John Q. Public, I say it is Bullshit, AND elitiist.

Sure many clubs do great things for the trail, but many individuals also do great things for the trail. How is it that any one club be be elevated above another, especially if membership is private, and not open to the general public. My point is the stewardship of a public trail must be open to the general public or it is in and of itself elitist.

So, along these lines, if I or anyone else that wants to "use the public lands" had to get permission from a private club or wait until one of the organized club runs, or get a hall pass from a club member, again this is BS and elitist.


/rant

my opinion regarding trails on private land

If it is private land, I don't give a damn what the land owner does. it is his or her land and they can do whatever they choose.

If a private land owner wants to enlist the support of a club or a group of people, hell even hire a company for profit to monitor, maintain and protect their land, then that is their right and their privelidge. There are many private fishing and hunting clubs that have worked with land owners and made arrangements. Certainly some of these are for profit. If I see a private 4 wheeling location open up with fees associated with it for joining or using the land, I see this as being no different and have no prolem whatsoever with any organization managing the private land.

DRM, I agree with you on this point -- don't let it go to your head! :p

Heck, while I'm agreeing, I'll agree as loudly as I can with zukipuke -- mentoring is key. We can't just walk up to folks and expect them to do what we want... we have to set good examples and show folks what responsible 'wheeling is.... and what responsible wheelers *DO*.

Dan, yours is a good distinction, one I should have drawn. My bad. :(
Please read club, anywhere above, as organized group of 'wheelers. The world is filled with non-joiners and joiners alike. We *all* need to mobilize and organize, not just the folks with specific affiliations. Membership is not the key -- organization *IS*, since it substantiates the organized group of 'wheelers with the other groups with whom they need to work (law enforcement, forestry, county road maintenance, etc.)

Dan used the word 'steward.' Zukipuke used the word 'mentor.' Now we have to live up to those words.

Randii

Originally posted by zukipuke
BE A MENTOR !!!!

You probably are and don't even know it... Any kid with a stocker is looking at anyone driving anything bigger and looking at you as an example of how to drive/wrench/lead/follow/etc...

Even if your a follow'er type, step-up and support those with the balls to call someone out on being stupid, sometimes thats all it takes to drive the point home !!!!
-yag

Ouch... This is gonna hurt... I agree with ya Yager...

I noticed picking up trash on the trail is contageous...

First, I don't consider myself an "ass" for not telling people about where public lands are. I am more than willing to lead rides on these areas. I've personally vounteered numerous hours to ensure the continued access to many public lands and take a personal interest in ensuring their continued availability. Many of these places have illegal side trails and without an educated person there to help newcomers, they would quickly find themselves on the wrong side of the trail and on the wrong side of the Forest Service staff. I have been told firsthand that the efforts of myself and many others is the only reason some of these areas remain open today.

Additionally, we have private land that is presently open for wheeling, some paper company, some individual/group landowner situations. Again, if you are not aware of what areas are and are not accessible, it's possible to come out in someones back yard...been there, done that. Fortunately, the yard I ended up in 12 years ago had friendly owners who recognized we were lost. Not all users are as naive as I was then, and not all landowners are as understanding.

Is it so bad to go out with another group? :confused:

I agree with 60seriesguy, some drunken idiot looks up where the trail is online, and calls a few friends and they start hanging out, having fires, etc, they run the risk of getting the area closed down.

They're not restricting your right to the area, just trying to make sure it doesn't get taken away...

Or am I a simpleton not reading into it enough? :flipoff2:

Bryan

Originally posted by Oxjockey
Is it so bad to go out with another group? :confused:


I enjoy group outings but it is one thing going on a group outing by choice and its another thing BEING REQUIRED to go on a group outing (with an approved, sanctioned group) in order to use the public lands.

Originally posted by Dan-H


I enjoy group outings but it is one thing going on a group outing by choice and its another thing BEING REQUIRED to go on a group outing (with an approved, sanctioned group) in order to use the public lands.

But it's only once, right? Or is it implied that you can't go there without an escort?

Bryan

...it is one thing going on a group outing by choice and its another thing BEING REQUIRED to go on a group outing (with an approved, sanctioned group) in order to use the public lands.
Agreed that this isn't the best way for every trail -- but reference above, where we're searching for the LEAST RESTRICTIVE rule that still allows access... if your choice is to use a given trail in a group or not at all, what then?

For most trails, the least restrictive limit is status quo -- they are fully open. Certain trails need more protection (again, I reference Barret), and thus allow limited access (in this specific case, seasonally).

Randii

If restricted access is needed, then I'd say do what they do at desolation and require a permit. Perhaps part of the permit would require education. I have been in desolation and had my permit checked by a ranger. Seems there is more enforcement there for that than there is to halt illegal campfires on some of the tremendously popular trails.

Another aspect: Hunting on public lands requires a license and tags. To apply for a license you need to take a hunter safety class. To get the tags you have to buy them and there are limits. either "run out" or go to a lottery system. The historically desireable areas with very strict limits fall under a lottery system.

but, This still does not halt poaching.

Again, I hod no malice towards any club or organization helping to keep a trail open, but requiring someone to go along and hold my hand is BS. OTOH, having open, guided, led, organized runs open to the public that offered some education and leadership and mentoring and stewardship would be a great way to provide some education to those that wanted it.

An aside: I heard on this board some things that may or may not be true. I heard the club that adopted barret does a a cleanup "before" its open to the public. Anyone care to comment on that? It is clearly hearsay, and may be totally wrong, but I heard it here on PBB so it must be true...

If the cleanup run is exclusively reserved for the members of the club, this is an example of elitism and I find it objectionable.

If the hearsay is incorrect, then can someone set the record straight and I'll retract my repeated hearsay.

The majority of the responses seem to be based on the assumption that you can't wheel on these particular trails without the escort/club permission. That's not how I read the letter. I read the letter as 'We aren't going to tell you where the trails are.' As in, if they are public trails they are available to the public as all public trails are. You can find them yourselves. If you're dumbasses and screw up the trail, our name isn't going to be mentioned to the cop/ecofreak/ranger that busts you as being the place you found the information. That seems like sound planning to me. Are you, as an organized club, required to post the location of trails? No. Is it elitism not to volunteer information you're not required to give, which could have unpleasant effects if given out? Not in my book.
whodat

Originally posted by Dan-H
I heard the club that adopted barret does a a cleanup "before" its open to the public. Anyone care to comment on that? It is clearly hearsay, and may be totally wrong, but I heard it here on PBB so it must be true...We went the weekend it opened. Already someone had been before us, clearing debris and cutting timber across the trail. I will not say one way or the other because they might have been there the day before when it was open. But, even if they where there the weekend before, clearing and performign trail maintenance, I can't see where I'd have a problem with that. Sortof like a bonus for their efforts. ;)

unless this that clean up was open to anyone it sounds quite exclusive to me...

I did not see any notice of it on the Eldorado NF web where it shows the status of this and the other trails.

don't get me wrong, I applaud the efforts of anyone doing cleanups. In the case of Barret, I'm sure the club that has adopted it has done a tremendouse amount of work to keep it open, and perhaps without that work it would be gated year round.

I'm sure my comments will piss off some but I am calling it the way I see it.

IMO the only gain or payback or benefit FOR VOLUNTEERING should be the satisfaction of a a job well done.

anyway, I suppose I've made my point.

later

Wow, I feel like my intent is lost. :(

Here are several separate thoughts:
1.) If you are aware of a secret trail exists on public land, please, please, please, share it -- at least in a limited fashion, by taking others along on club trips to show where the trail is, where the illegal bypasses are, and explain any especially sensitive areas. Keep it secret and the area around it may be declared Wilderness -- you risk losing access to the trail.
2.) If a public trail is at risk for closure, work with the land managers to implement the least-restrictive management process that still allows access, even if it is limited access. Open access is almost always better, but some access is better than no access, so be prepared to compromise.

FWIW on Barret, the pre-opening runs are done as a conservation/service trip -- if you'd like to go along, contact the club... I bet they'd appreciate the help. Their efforts to install the restrooms, maintain the trail, and work with the land managers have kept this trail open long past when it otherwise would have been closed. I sure appreciate their efforts!

Randii

Originally posted by randii
Wow, I feel like my intent is lost. :(

Here are several separate thoughts:
1.) If you are aware of a secret trail exists on public land, please, please, please, share it -- at least in a limited fashion, by taking others along on club trips to show where the trail is, where the illegal bypasses are, and explain any especially sensitive areas. Keep it secret and the area around it may be declared Wilderness -- you risk losing access to the trail.
2.) If a public trail is at risk for closure, work with the land managers to implement the least-restrictive management process that still allows access, even if it is limited access. Open access is almost always better, but some access is better than no access, so be prepared to compromise.

Randii

These separate thoughts are what each wheeler needs to keep in the back of his mind as we change the culture and perception of off-road participants (where we can start), and the general public (the long term): that we are enthusiasts and should be considered most respectful of the land.

I may be accused of being pessimistic about a roll-back of motorized access prohibitions (now and then) because I believe we cannot let anyone think a compromise to give a "limited access" ruling in one battle will grant wheeling a favorable consideration in a future battle. The So Cal land battle record stands that the anti-motorized opposition has a short memory when it comes to lending any gratitude for past compromise (otherwise we would not be fighting for continued access over the same desert ground ever few years). I will maintain this position until the majority of unqualified WSA's are returned to the motorized public access domain.

I am in So Cal (not Northern Sierra) and the good will granted to wheelers, due to the cooperative assistance of OHV Volunteer and Adopt-A-Trail Club participation, goes a long way with the management agencies to balance out the village idiots who damage the trails. The agencies appreciate the help, when recognized, and the positive example at all times. Sometimes it puts you at odds with other wheelers on the trail (brushing & fencing illegal routes, blocking an illegal trail spur, kindly advising ignorant wheelers the area is closed to the public, telling four-wheelers to leave a motorcycle route, douse the illegal campfire, etc.). The volunteer assistance frees up the Agency to do the true land management work (where they really want to work). When we can gain the respect of the Agency management, even if they hold different environmental ideology (they don't have to like our views on motorized recreation to become dependent on our help), then we have half the perception battle won.

Cooperative trail assistance is not active trail escort patrols, or trail monitors, its passive examples of positive trail (and club) behavior (get active if you want, but making an enemy is easier than making an ally).

Mentorship, leading by example, stewardship, cooperative ideals, gaining a positive public image: all the things most people used to think were part of being a mature enthusiast, seem to have been lost in the greater off-road organization goals. It's interesting to me, someone who was away from organized social wheeling for years, that the non-membership wheeling clubs are the folks who are most vocal about a demand for a minimum expectation of acceptable trail behavior? These things may not seem too important in a social wheeling club atmosphere (where the meanest fight is over if they should serve alcohol at club functions), although they are mandatory in a politically active club environment. It seems the "paid-member" clubs lost sight that they have to be responsible for more than providing a good experience to members and guests.

This is not about being elite, or building social barriers, or saving the trail for you or only your club, it's about preserving off-road opportunity for future enthusiasts. The older wheeling organizations had (and have) a chance to evolve into a functional leadership education resource (they have great people to teach and lead by example) but they need to participate by example (and the example cannot be limited to adding a Tread Lightly logo to the club publication).

Yes, this is a rant, but I don't read anything about developing a positive wheeling culture (topics like this thread) in State and National off-road organization publications (and I would like to).

Happy Trails!

...I believe we cannot let anyone think a compromise to give a "limited access" ruling in one battle will grant wheeling a favorable consideration in a future battle.
I'm with ya there -- compromise is useful only on individual issues -- the anti-access forces have proven to be completely unreliable in any sort of 'we gave in here, why don't you give in there' arrangement. Their commitments are only as good as their word, and I can smell their promises long before they come around the corner, trailing toilet paper.

...the good will granted to wheelers, due to the cooperative assistance of OHV Volunteer and Adopt-A-Trail Club participation, goes a long way with the management agencies to balance out the village idiots who damage the trails.
Yup. In my experience, land managers frequently WANT to work with organized recreationist -- the radical closurists are so extreme and shrill, and so set on fencing land off, with no regard for maintainable solutions (sure, closurists want the land saved, but they want somebody else to take care of it behind that fence, while they run off to build yet more fences).

Cooperative trail assistance is not active trail escort patrols, or trail monitors, its passive examples of positive trail (and club) behavior (get active if you want, but making an enemy is easier than making an ally).
I think it can be both, Ed. Since we're playing catch-up-ball with the closurists, I think it needs to be both.

It's interesting to me, someone who was away from organized social wheeling for years, that the non-membership wheeling clubs are the folks who are most vocal about a demand for a minimum expectation of acceptable trail behavior?
This is only peripherally related, and I probably shouldn't say it here, but I disagree. My organized club is working hard on land use issues, on their own, and within Cal4 and Blue Ribbon. If you see non-affiliated folks working harder, IMHO that is because you seem chiefly the efforts of the non-affiliated. By the same token, if you see club-affiliated folks working harder, IMHO that is because you seem chiefly the efforts of the club-affiliated. I see both, and it is hard to equate their efforts, and inevitably diminishing to one or the other to try.

Anyone out there off the pavement can be an ally -- the folks who affiliate, as well as the folks who refuse to.... from SUV drivers to hardcore thrashers... hell, I'll include the hikers, bikers, horsemen, and any other form of recreation, as long as they'll include my from of recreation...
This is not about being elite, or building social barriers, or saving the trail for you or only your club, it's about preserving off-road opportunity for future enthusiasts.
But then, we're saying the same thing from different perpectives.

Great discussion, even with a bit of rant from all. We rant because we care.

Randii

Originally posted by Oxjockey
Is it so bad to go out with another group? :confused:

I agree with 60seriesguy, some drunken idiot looks up where the trail is online, and calls a few friends and they start hanging out, having fires, etc, they run the risk of getting the area closed down.

They're not restricting your right to the area, just trying to make sure it doesn't get taken away...

Or am I a simpleton not reading into it enough? :flipoff2:

Bryan

Sure this is true, but after they have been there once with a responsible and educated group, they know where it is and since it is public land, what is stopping them from coming back on their own? Nothing....

Originally posted by woody
First, I don't consider myself an "ass" for not telling people about where public lands are. I am more than willing to lead rides on these areas. I've personally vounteered numerous hours to ensure the continued access to many public lands and take a personal interest in ensuring their continued availability. Many of these places have illegal side trails and without an educated person there to help newcomers, they would quickly find themselves on the wrong side of the trail and on the wrong side of the Forest Service staff. I have been told firsthand that the efforts of myself and many others is the only reason some of these areas remain open today.

Additionally, we have private land that is presently open for wheeling, some paper company, some individual/group landowner situations. Again, if you are not aware of what areas are and are not accessible, it's possible to come out in someones back yard...been there, done that. Fortunately, the yard I ended up in 12 years ago had friendly owners who recognized we were lost. Not all users are as naive as I was then, and not all landowners are as understanding.

Again, what is stopping the idiots from going back without you? Since you know where the illegal trails and sensitive areas are, are you working with the owner/land manager and blocking those trails and putting up signs around the sensitive areas? If not, and you are leading the people there showing them where the trails area, the problem still exists and is not much different than postin gthe trail on the 'net or in a rag.

Even if the people you lead are responsible wheelers, whats going to stop them from telling their idiot friends or otherwise sharing the info themselves?

This is a very difficult subject to address. I do not want to have to go on organized runs only but I also don't want to loose the trails.

I suppose we need more clubs to adopt more trails and help maintain them and to minimize the impact the idiots have on them. We can't stop the idiots, only educate and clean up after them.

As for permits/licenses, if that included education class then that might be a good thing. That would be a lot of money from an already strained budget, but it would be a start. Course materials, instructors, enforcement are all expensive. I suppose something online like some traffic schools are doing (timed exams that do not let you move on until a specified time to ensure you actually read the material,or at least had to the time to carefully read the material) would be a good thing

Even if the people you lead are responsible wheelers, whats going to stop them from telling their idiot friends or otherwise sharing the info themselves?
The respect for the resource that the host instills in them... and the implied accountability that the host organization is out on that trail regularly.

If we assume that everyone is a scumbag, and a poor judge of their friends, we might as well just put up gates now :( . If, on the other hand, we assume that most 'wheelers are decent folk, and will use the information wisely, we can keep moving forward... because we have to convince the land managers of this, as well as the masses of middle-of-the-road folks blindly following the fringe leaders.

We gotta hope.

Randii

Originally posted by randii
Even if the people you lead are responsible wheelers, whats going to stop them from telling their idiot friends or otherwise sharing the info themselves?
The respect for the resource that the host instills in them... and the implied accountability that the host organization is out on that trail regularly.

If we assume that everyone is a scumbag, and a poor judge of their friends, we might as well just put up gates now :( . If, on the other hand, we assume that most 'wheelers are decent folk, and will use the information wisely, we can keep moving forward... because we have to convince the land managers of this, as well as the masses of middle-of-the-road folks blindly following the fringe leaders.

We gotta hope.

Randii

Problem is, it only takes a few to ruin it for the rest of us. I do not assume that everyone is a scumbag, but I do not assume they are all angels either.

For those that are idiots and "break the rules", whatever they be, think they care about the "implied accountability that the host organization is out on that trail regularly"? I doubt it.

Yes, you can instill responsible wheeling and a sense of working WITH the environment and not just FOR or AGAINST it, in most of the "visitors" that join you on the run. Thing is, most of them will already have that within them. That is why they are there.

I suppose you are going to meet everyone that goes on an organized run prior to the run itself, each and every time, or at least meet up away from the trailhead first? If you don't and they show up and you turn them away, you already showed them where the trail is and then they are probably pissed at you and will make an effort to return.

If we assume most wheelers are decent folk, then what is wrong with sharing info on public land with the public at large, not a select group of those who YOU think should be able to access it? Sounds like discrimination to me.

Like I said before, it is a difficult situation. I just do not want the trails to start having a schedule of when you can run them, especially a schedule setup by some club and NOT the land managers. What if I my weekends are Tue/Wed? The club going to make the runs daily so I can go?

Don't ge tme wrong, I may sound like I am all for irresponsible wheeling, I am not. But I am for equal access and equal rights.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

I understand the concern for showing a new group a trail...but the areas I mention are far from secret. What I get is an email asking for the do's and don't's of these areas, and unfortunatly the answers are not black and white. Option A, since they know about them already, is to let them just go and screw it up without any guideance. Option B is to get them involved with me and do it right, at least the first time.

I believe in leadership thru example. If I can demonstrate the safe and responsible way to enjoy the resources we have, excellent. Beats mopping up a problem later, which is more often than not what happens...damage control sucks.

Originally posted by Pavemen


Sure this is true, but after they have been there once with a responsible and educated group, they know where it is and since it is public land, what is stopping them from coming back on their own? Nothing....

Actually, getting back to the whole problem I wrote that letter up top about, our problem was that people came and rode our trails during large pay-t0-ride events (Rosser RoundUp, etc.) then felt that any other time of the year, they could get a group together and come back to ride the same trails they ride that weekend.

The problem there is that the land we ride is thousands of acres in the middle of nowhere, and it is broken up by hundreds of land-owners with no fences, markers, or way to tell when you cross someone's property line. And all of this land is crisscrossed with trails, backwoods roads, logging roads, etc. We locals however know where we can ride, and where we can't - and we may take a longer route off a main trail because that main trail passes through the property of a landowner who doesn't want us there, where the casual rider may not know to do that.


And on a side note - it is my opinion that regardless of what we do, wheeling on public land is on the out in just a few more years. There are too many on *our* side who are willing to bend to the wishes of having trails closed left and right, while not fighting for MORE trails to be opened. And aside from that, wheeling on private land (ORV parks, etc.) cuts out most of the hassles faced with public land wheeling.

Originally posted by DRM

The problem there is that the land we ride is thousands of acres in the middle of nowhere, and it is broken up by hundreds of land-owners with no fences, markers, or way to tell when you cross someone's property line. And all of this land is crisscrossed with trails, backwoods roads, logging roads, etc. We locals however know where we can ride, and where we can't - and we may take a longer route off a main trail because that main trail passes through the property of a landowner who doesn't want us there, where the casual rider may not know to do that.


Is this totally an wheeler's problem, or does the land owner have some responsibility to mark his property? Sure, you should know approximately where the public/private boundaries are, but unless you are told or have a very detailed map (and you are capable or using it) you are not going to keep someone from straying, especially if there is already a trail cut through it.

There is a principle called "attractive nuisance". Like if you have a pool and a neighbor kid walks through your open gate when you are gone and drowns, then you can be held partly responsible. Be proactive and close and lock the gate to the pool, put up a sign near it saying Keep Out, etc. An unmarked existing trail is an attractive nuisance to wheelers that do not know that it is private land without permission to drive there.

This is directed at land owners that border public lands without marking their property lines: If it is that big of an issue having wheelers traveling on your property, go out and put up some quality signs or block off trails and then work something out with the local club that you trust and let them wheel part of your land in exchange for maintaining the signs/boundaries. Be proactive, not reactive... (that is what we are always telling ourselves... why not tell the land owners as well?)

Not that I am disagreeing with most of you, its just there are other options and other ways to look at things.

Originally posted by mudpup


If its on private land why does it smack of elitism???
Lets consider this, say you or a friend of yours has some land that has some really good, nasty trails on it. Sure you don't mind a couple of your friends wheeling on it every once in a awhile. Then sooner or later people who you have no clue who they are start showing up and four wheeling your property without your permission. These strangers don't know common trail courtesy and drive off the trail and litter where ever they please. You would be rightfully pissed at these people and more then likely close off your land so no one could get back there because of the problems they created.
I can site two examples of trails ther were shut down when TOO many folks showed up.
SOME trails are tollerated in areas till there is a reason not to tolerate them like over use. They are not official ORV's. They may be on public land but they may not really be if you know what I mean. Here is a Prime example. There is/was a trail here in GA. It is on Corp land not FS, Not state. It was on Corp of engineers and borders a major lake. Never had any problems till it made coverage in a magazine...within 4 months of the event that was held there and 2 months of it showing up in a Magazine...It's gone. We no longer can use it. Had that event not been held there to draw that much attention that trail would still be available to the locals. We are now down to 3 trails with anysort of challange in North Ga as a result. We lost a trail on the AL/ GA line in Peidmont in a simular fashion. Event was ther drew a bunch of folks at once now no more trail. It was on private property, the owner turned a blind eye to the locals in his town using it but when people were showing up from 2 states away.......different story.
WHile I understand what your saying understand what those of us that are local to some of these sensative trails are saying. Most of us are say hay hook up with a club that is local and we will take you there....Please don't show up with 20 people on your own when you don't know the local politics that are going on.

...does the land owner have some responsibility to mark his property?
This sorely deserves another topic.... Private property owners that fail to protect their private property by posting it and gating it can lose their right to control access if users can substantiate historic use under RS 2477 or seven years of uninterrupted established access (California law -- has some other points, but that's the gist). The result of failing to defend their private property rights can be claims to de facto easement....

Not knowing you're running on private property suggests poor planning, but property owners that don't mark their property aren't planning ahead, either. Either group can use legal precedent or have it used against them, and frequently, the winner comes down to the fella with the better lawyer and the deeper pockets.

Randii