Pirate 4x4 banner

141 - 160 of 298 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
881 Posts
Trailer Guy,

You definately have something to work with. I can't say I agree with all of it but it is worth circulating and getting more opinions.

Are you on the FOTR e-mail list? If not got to delalbright.com and follow the links to the FOTR sign-up page. Then reply to the e-mail Scott will send you. There are several hundred people on that list all working to keep the trail open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,505 Posts
Youre damn right I would pay $300.00 to wheel the trail with no morons that didnt want to cough up the 3 bills to be there. I dont think that maintaining the trail means making it passible to a certain rig or certain people. As long as the evolution is natural and the enviromental impacts are kept to a minimum I think the trail should be allowed to become as difficult or easy as it may over years of use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
The more I ponder this the more I am inclined to leave difficulty out as a maintenance standard. There are too many variables/ opinions/ etc.

Erosion and drainage are the key issues with maintenance. Why not focus the maintenance standards on them? If an area has to be paved to address it(top of walker hill?), so be it.

Check out the checklist the feds use in determining the degree of maintenance regarding erosion, etc. They classify areas as green(ok) yellow (needs some repair) Red (bad)http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/ca/Public/IMs/2000/051.htm#5
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,505 Posts
Hopefully someone can clear this up for me. My question is that if there is a hiking trail i.e. the Tahoe Rim Trail, and there is erosion going on there do they maintain that to the origingal trail standards or do they let nature run its course?? I am just trying to clarify something in my head.

Dane
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,330 Posts
dane said:
Hopefully someone can clear this up for me. My question is that if there is a hiking trail i.e. the Tahoe Rim Trail, and there is erosion going on there do they maintain that to the origingal trail standards or do they let nature run its course?? I am just trying to clarify something in my head.

Dane
I gather that any erosion issue needs to be addressed. This was the tone of a meeting I went to involving the inventory of roads/ trails in the Mendocino National Forest that was put on by the feds.

I cringe every time a water quality bill or proposition is passed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,607 Posts
Trailer Guy said:
I like the thought of an extreme penalty for human involvment, but this is to set a standard for which the trail should be maintained. Penalties for human involvement should be left to the law enforcement group of people. If the penalty was left up to me, I would vote to beat the people senseless, make it known to everyone their names and the name of the club or group they wheel with, and try in some way to make sure they where never allowed on the trail again.

I would like the idea of using no numbers at all myself, but how would write something that defines the degree of maintainence without using a number? If anyone has ideas, I open totally open to them, I would really like to improve this and would like to expand onto it also.

It is all as a result of human involvement "wear n tear"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,607 Posts
dane said:
Hopefully someone can clear this up for me. My question is that if there is a hiking trail i.e. the Tahoe Rim Trail, and there is erosion going on there do they maintain that to the origingal trail standards or do they let nature run its course?? I am just trying to clarify something in my head.

Dane
I'd assume on anything like that it would be maintained to NOT let ANYTHING (man made or nature) affect it. If the whole thing washes away do they just say oh darn..

If the highway get's put holes from a natural water source or something or other do they say oh darn, let's not use it anymore.. No they don't.

Maintanence should be set to a standard condition - and has nothing to do with nature or man made - either way BOTH erode the trail and BOTH require maintenance.

If you pick a point in time and maintain the trail it doesn't matter what causes the problems you set it back to what it was unless unfeasable like the old "car wash" or like where it now goes around the back side of loon in the rocks instead of the dirt, or where it now goes up the hill instead of in the water at buck, or...

Some things do change for whatever reason but maintenance is just that - setting a vehicle standard or saying if it was done by natural causes or..

is just..

DUMB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,461 Posts
Brandon said:
It is all as a result of human involvement "wear n tear"
I do believe we are talking about illegal activities, not the normal "wear n tear" of the trail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Getting back to the original question, let me first say that I am not in favor of ENFORCING a vehicle minimum standard but I am in favor of an active education of RECOMENDED minimums.

As I see it the biggest concern with the trail is environmental impact, specifically erosion. Aside from idiots that don't stay on the trail, the biggest cause of erosion is tire spin, and it doesn't matter if you have 31" tires or 38's. Tires that spin dig holes, holes attract water, water = erosion. That's why I recommend that any vehicle that attempts the 'con have a minimum of 1 locker. Can the trail be run with open diffs? Yes, I have watched many open rigs go through, but you always get more tire spin without than you would with. It doesn't matter if your an experienced driver or a first timer.

Another though I had about standards relates to the driver's experience. Whenever I talk to anyone who wants to run the 'con for the first time I always suggest that they "practice" on another trail first. Perhaps in our recommendation we could suggest some other trails that would be suitable for preparing an lesser expeienced driver for the challenge.

I'm not trying to be an exclusionist. In fact, I believe the trail should be open to all. What I am trying to do is suggest better and more aggresive education. I know education only works when people listen, but we've got to keep trying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,461 Posts
Brandon said:
I'd assume on anything like that it would be maintained to NOT let ANYTHING (man made or nature) affect it. If the whole thing washes away do they just say oh darn..

If the highway get's put holes from a natural water source or something or other do they say oh darn, let's not use it anymore.. No they don't.

Maintanence should be set to a standard condition - and has nothing to do with nature or man made - either way BOTH erode the trail and BOTH require maintenance.

If you pick a point in time and maintain the trail it doesn't matter what causes the problems you set it back to what it was unless unfeasable like the old "car wash" or like where it now goes around the back side of loon in the rocks instead of the dirt, or where it now goes up the hill instead of in the water at buck, or...

Some things do change for whatever reason but maintenance is just that - setting a vehicle standard or saying if it was done by natural causes or..

is just..

DUMB
I agree that if maintained, it must be done with a certain level or goal in mind. But I do feel that if a tree falls, but doesn't block traffic, and we can still traverse the trail, then leave nature alone, and let her do her thing. If it caused an erosion situation to the trail, then deal with it. There are going to still be things that have to be looked at on an individaul level. We are just trying to establish a standard, not an answer for every situation. But I do agree with you Brandon, everything needs to be addressed if it is going to cause an erosion or high impact/abuse situation to the trail itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,607 Posts
Trailer Guy said:
I do believe we are talking about illegal activities, not the normal "wear n tear" of the trail.

In the box, yes. But my point is there are a lot of areas that we are not talking about that are eroded VERY badly (see my picture on one of these threads of OOPS)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,461 Posts
Brandon said:
In the box, yes. But my point is there are a lot of areas that we are not talking about that are eroded VERY badly (see my picture on one of these threads of OOPS)
Those areas would fall under maintainence due to wear, not abuse due to criminal acts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,461 Posts
Brandon said:
so what does the areas of abuse have to do with a standard rig?
That is a good question. That is why I don't think there should be a standard rig, I think there should be a Maintainence Standard.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
881 Posts
We are all talking along the same line, were just not talking the same language.

What if a series of trees falls across the trail? Trailer Guy wants to measure each one to see how it fits his maintenance standard. I would want to know if the standard rig can make it over each tree. Someone else wants to know if any of them are causing erosion or not.

We each have our way of determining whether or not each tree should remain or be removed.



Again, I'm not recommending a minimum rig. Any and all would be welcome. the better built rigs would have less of a challenge, the less equiped rigs would face more of a challenge.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Go back to the beginning of this thread. It is about a maintenance standard. Not a rig perse, but trying to define a standard to apply to the trail. Erosion should be a slam dunk as part of this standard. It HAS to be handled.

The hard part is how do you define how difficult the trail is to be. I have been on many field trips with agencies and they don't really care how hard or easy it will be. Just that use does not have impact outside the trail and that social issues are under control. After that it is up to us to champion a standard. There is sufficient sway within FOTR and the OHV community to establish this goal.

Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,505 Posts
I say if nature did it, leave it. If a meteor falls out of the sky and annihilates little sluice and makes it even harder than it is do we break out the dynamite and make the trail accommodate our needs once again or do we attempt to negotiate the new terrain and the challenges it presents??

Dane
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,461 Posts
cruzila said:
Go back to the beginning of this thread. It is about a maintenance standard. Not a rig perse, but trying to define a standard to apply to the trail. Erosion should be a slam dunk as part of this standard. It HAS to be handled.

The hard part is how do you define how difficult the trail is to be. I have been on many field trips with agencies and they don't really care how hard or easy it will be. Just that use does not have impact outside the trail and that social issues are under control. After that it is up to us to champion a standard. There is sufficient sway within FOTR and the OHV community to establish this goal.

Scott
Scott,
I like what you said, and I agree that we are all talking about taking care of the trail, just different ways of how to figure the degree of that. Scott, I'm asking you, what do you suggest? In what direction should we go? Is someone on the right track or are we all off base? Should we be focusing on a completly different way of doing this? These are questions that we need to ask and answer now, we can't keep going in a certain direction if it is wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,461 Posts
dane said:
I say if nature did it, leave it. If a meteor falls out of the sky and annihilates little sluice and makes it even harder than it is do we break out the dynamite and make the trail accommodate our needs once again or do we attempt to negotiate the new terrain and the challenges it presents??

Dane
You are looking at a large scale issue. Take something like a 150 ft. tall tree. Say it falls accross the trail. The tree is, well say, 36" in diameter. Should we leave it and reroute the trail around it? Or maybe leave it and try driving over it? Or do we simply cut it out of the trail? If we reroute the trail we are now driving on land that was never part of the trail. If we drive over it, we will have to move rocks to it to get over it and will also dig holes in the ground that would abuse the area. And moving rocks is a no, no. Look at the Little Sluice. So, do we simply cut the tree out. It has fallen, so it is dead, so cutting it doesn't hurt the tree anymore, and benefits the land around it because it keeps us from tearing it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,607 Posts
Trailer Guy said:
You are looking at a large scale issue. Take something like a 150 ft. tall tree. Say it falls accross the trail. The tree is, well say, 36" in diameter. Should we leave it and reroute the trail around it? Or maybe leave it and try driving over it? Or do we simply cut it out of the trail? If we reroute the trail we are now driving on land that was never part of the trail. If we drive over it, we will have to move rocks to it to get over it and will also dig holes in the ground that would abuse the area. And moving rocks is a no, no. Look at the Little Sluice. So, do we simply cut the tree out. It has fallen, so it is dead, so cutting it doesn't hurt the tree anymore, and benefits the land around it because it keeps us from tearing it up.

come on now, common sense has to have some part here..

of course we cut it, like we do EVERY spring..

As for the nature does it leave it I have said it over and over and over so.. I won't even say it again but that's dumb :flipoff2:
 
141 - 160 of 298 Posts
Top