Go Back   Pacific Northwest Four Wheel Drive Association > Wheeling > Washington Trails > Rimrock
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-11-2010, 11:31 AM
dirk's Avatar
dirk dirk is offline
that WOHVA guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: washington
Posts: 645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binder View Post
My .02c....I don't see the big deal with using the word "buggy" as a generalization. "Wider rig" could be a fullsize Bronco or Hummer. "Buggy" gets the point across.
Using the word is no big deal as long as the context doesn't change to "Buggies need to stay off the trails" because then things would need to be more specific.....
I am ok describing a buggy as a buggy, but I am very concerned about how the term gets thrown around so freely when discussing built rigs. I don't want the FS/DNR to have the wrong impression when there are tons of jeeps/toyotas that are highly modified & very capable rigs.

What I am talking about can be seen in this thread from NWW:
http://www.nw-wheelers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40475
Kat starts the thread out with the following:

Quote:
talked to Mikki and she noted that some azz holes in buggies tore up the meadows up by the rocks. This is unacceptable, and we all need to post-up on the various forums we belong to for folks to knock this kind of crap off. It makes us all look bad, even though only a small number of folks do this kind of senseless stuff. Help get the word out to stay on the trails, our hobby depends on it.

Just passing on info..................

Kat
The FS (Mikki) did not witness this damage, but mentions that buggies tore up the meadows...the story I heard was that a few built Toyotas on 36's were responsible.

The buggy crowd already has an uphill battle...I'm just trying to get folks to think before they speak.

__________________
Bryan Peterson
WOHVA | PNW4WDA
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-11-2010, 11:33 AM
zbd74's Avatar
zbd74 zbd74 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Wa
Posts: 582
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binder View Post
Zbd74......Your posts read as though you have a issue with the width restrictions only because your rig is just barely too wide. Ask yourself if you had a rig that fit the trail would you still have an issue with the restriction? There has to be a hard number on the width and someone's going to be just too wide, unfortunately this time it happens to be you....Or am I misunderstanding your posts?
I do have an issue w/ the limitations, and yes it's a personal thing, if you read my initial posts on this maybe it would explain my feelings. But, the issue for this particular trail is a mute point as the limitations have been set & I will abide by them...I just hope this is not the beginning of more limitations & penalties?

And no, I would not have an issue with a larger rig going on tight trails, the trails should be for all to use. I do care when trees are cut, or damage that affects the maintainability of a trail/area are done, or affects the habitat. These are where the penalties should be applied, not to the responsible users that want to enjoy there hobby

I hope this addresses your post, thanks for asking
__________________
Slightly Modified '80 CJ7
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-11-2010, 11:35 AM
Binder's Avatar
Binder Binder is offline
Has some friends
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Everett
Posts: 198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk View Post
I am ok describing a buggy as a buggy, but I am very concerned about how the term gets thrown around so freely when discussing built rigs. ..................................
What I am talking about can be seen in this thread from NWW:
http://www.nw-wheelers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40475
I'm with ya here it's all in the context used.....I remember that thread and it was ignorance at it's best.
__________________
Rick Wiltfong
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-11-2010, 11:36 AM
dirk's Avatar
dirk dirk is offline
that WOHVA guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: washington
Posts: 645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merrick Graves View Post
You have a life's worth of work ahead of you to change the generic term "Buggy". Almost everyone I work with uses the term. Every rig that does not resemble stock or slightly modified is often reffered to as a "Buggy". Whether it's an Enforcement specialist or Policy development specalist the term is used and thrown about.
This is exactly why I am sensitive to the liberal use when describing trail damage or the potential for damage...there are lots of built full bodied rigs running the trails these days that have wider than stock axles and are just as capable of causing damage.

Used appropriately, the term buggy doesn't bother me.
__________________
Bryan Peterson
WOHVA | PNW4WDA
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-11-2010, 11:41 AM
Binder's Avatar
Binder Binder is offline
Has some friends
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Everett
Posts: 198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk View Post
This is exactly why I am sensitive to the liberal use when describing trail damage or the potential for damage...there are lots of built full bodied rigs running the trails these days that have wider than stock axles and are just as capable of causing damage.

Used appropriately, the term buggy doesn't bother me.
Something else to think about Bryon is these terms won't really hurt us on any official level. When the day comes that the laws need to be changed to address certain rigs then the lawmakers will need to put a definition on "buggy". Good luck with that. It would be to their own benefit to use more descriptive terms but if they don't it's no skin off of our ***.
__________________
Rick Wiltfong
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-11-2010, 11:57 AM
Merrick Graves Merrick Graves is offline
Old Goat
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Naches
Posts: 563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binder View Post
Something else to think about Bryon is these terms won't really hurt us on any official level. When the day comes that the laws need to be changed to address certain rigs then the lawmakers will need to put a definition on "buggy". Good luck with that. It would be to their own benefit to use more descriptive terms but if they don't it's no skin off of our ***.
I think you are seeing that change come as width and wheelbase restrictions. Many FS Districts and FS Regions are playing with this idea now. Each area is only consistant as it ( the restrictions) are being stated on the soon to be required maps.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-11-2010, 01:08 PM
dirk's Avatar
dirk dirk is offline
that WOHVA guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: washington
Posts: 645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merrick Graves View Post
I think you are seeing that change come as width and wheelbase restrictions. Many FS Districts and FS Regions are playing with this idea now. Each area is only consistant as it ( the restrictions) are being stated on the soon to be required maps.
In a perfect world, the FS/DNR would actively patrol & ticket the individuals cutting trees & plowing through meadows. I know you patrol, but only having 2 patrol rigs for the entire Naches/Cle Elum districts is pretty weak coverage.

To me it seems that the FS is taking the easy way out by trying to impose silly width, length & tire height restrictions. Width restrictions might be appropriate for certain trails, but a blanket rule for an entire area doesn't seem appropriate. It would be nice to penalize the folks causing damage rather than the honest folks just trying to have a good time.
__________________
Bryan Peterson
WOHVA | PNW4WDA
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-11-2010, 04:48 PM
Merrick Graves Merrick Graves is offline
Old Goat
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Naches
Posts: 563
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk View Post
In a perfect world, the FS/DNR would actively patrol & ticket the individuals cutting trees & plowing through meadows. I know you patrol, but only having 2 patrol rigs for the entire Naches/Cle Elum districts is pretty weak coverage.

To me it seems that the FS is taking the easy way out by trying to impose silly width, length & tire height restrictions. Width restrictions might be appropriate for certain trails, but a blanket rule for an entire area doesn't seem appropriate. It would be nice to penalize the folks causing damage rather than the honest folks just trying to have a good time.
You are correct that the Cle Elum and Naches Districts each have one jeep for patrols. But your statement does not take into account the other means of enforcement in each district. Each district has appox. 3 to 5 ORV FPO's (Forest Protection Officers) in the Forest every weekend. We are also staffed in each District with a FS LEO and a County ORV Sheriff. Also each district is staffed with Recreation Specialists some of whom are also FPO's. We patrol by foot, M/C, Quad, and Pickup. Between the 2 Ranger Districts there are 800+ miles of motorized trails and 2600 miles of Forest service roads.

There are user group meetings for each the Cle Elum and Naches Districts. The Cle Elum generally has a couple each year known as V-Team (Volunteer Team) meetings. The Naches has many user group meetings known as TWIG (Trails, Wilderness, Interest, Group) meetings. These meetings are publcized. Involvement is key as towards getting your side heard.

I speak from an Education and Enforcement side. Policy making is not part of my job. Although I do excercise my rights to both speak at these meetings and write to the people who do establish policy.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-11-2010, 06:29 PM
JeepNirvana's Avatar
JeepNirvana JeepNirvana is offline
<----Busy Wild
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NiRvAnA
Posts: 100,001,150
Default

This is an awesome thread and the education you all are providing helps propel us into the future of wheeling,

thank you.
__________________
Dan Rheaume
RAY-OME
Outdoor 4x4's
Cascade4x4s
Webteam member
Forum Admin
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-11-2010, 08:24 PM
jim putman's Avatar
jim putman jim putman is offline
Washington State Director
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: puyallup wa.
Posts: 1,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirk View Post
In a perfect world, the FS/DNR would actively patrol & ticket the individuals cutting trees & plowing through meadows. I know you patrol, but only having 2 patrol rigs for the entire Naches/Cle Elum districts is pretty weak coverage.

To me it seems that the FS is taking the easy way out by trying to impose silly width, length & tire height restrictions. Width restrictions might be appropriate for certain trails, but a blanket rule for an entire area doesn't seem appropriate. It would be nice to penalize the folks causing damage rather than the honest folks just trying to have a good time.
It looks like you answered your own question. Its true we need more enforcement but its also true there isnt enough to catch most of the people that do the damage. So yes the FS is "taking the easy way out" by regulating equipt. instead of spending more money (that they dont have) on enforcement. This is where the line "build your rig to fit the trail" has come into play and will continue to be the truth for some time to come.

Just as a footnote while each district can hire their own FPOs as they need and budget allows. The FS LEOs are funded by congress and controled by the office in DC to move them as they see fit. If we want more LEOs then we need to bug our congress critters into funding more.

In a perfect world we wouldnt need them at all as we as responsible users would be self policing ourselves to protect OUR resource.
__________________
Member #40 Hombres jeep club
Region 2 landmatters chairman
Wa. State Director PNW4WDA
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.