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
  #71  
Old 08-12-2010, 07:17 AM
Rubiclone's Avatar
Rubiclone Rubiclone is offline
Friends
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pierce
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wood View Post
Too bad they will never pass a minimum tire size requirement.
My feelings are an ORV area in a National Forest should be for all users per their credo and have maximums and ORV parks be the playgrounds where you make trails to test yourself and label minimums.
National Forests are natural settings, where ORV parks are mostly logged settings. In my 20 years of riding trails in WA, I've only had one trail that had a section logged, whereas I've had numerous ORV park trails replaced by logging.
Unfortunately, when you close an ORV park, those users tend to seek out ORV areas to play. Since Reider was closed, Little Naches trails are getting torn up and the empty beer can count has increased. The new playground has become Funny and Moon rocks. The trees there are now all gone, alot of the trails leading to them are torn up, and now 4 fingers has a new finger.
Too bad they haven't discovered the Rimrock trails, that would cut the squid count considerably, or increase the rescues.
Don't even get me started on what people have done to some Liberty trails in the last year that I've witnessed.
Policing wise, the rangers should have the equipment and capability to run every trail in their system. If they would just run each trail each weekend and if they have to use a winch to make it thru a section to prevent damage, then they either need to close that section until conditions inprove, or repair it.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-12-2010, 07:57 AM
chadxj89 chadxj89 is offline
HIT IT!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Puyallup
Posts: 21
Default

Wow, what a read so far. Well Im pretty new to the wheeling community but have been riding M/C since I was a kid all around Wa. I have a daily driver jeep that gets trail time on weekends and one thats been in the process of parts bought and put on as time an money allow. My intention for this build was one i could takes my kids with me in a full bodied XJ and make it on all the trails difficulty from easy to extreme. So after most parts were bought and axles built I started hearing about possible restrictions in elbe for width limits, recently heard about evens creek (which after some looking into has always been but not pushed) and now this trail. Im all for exploring what this great state has to offer in scenery and hope to share with my kids what i enjoyed at their ages. Once back from deployment I plan on getting physically active in trails near me, elbe for one as i frequent there the most. But I just hope this isnt gona become a snowball effect to later on down the road as it would be a shame.
I believe being active in Trail Watch is one good way anyone can help guard our trails as we use them.
Also going on the gov website for orv/ohv is way outdated, is there a way to post up the trails in Wa with current reg/rules, possibly even where to obtain a good map of that area?
Thank you all for this post and constructive ideas/thoughts. Hope I get to meet some of you and wheel with some once I return.
__________________
96xj 4.5 rustys lift, 33x12.5x15 truxas swampers, dana 30/44, 4.88s with detroit in rear
89xj 11in coils, 11in alcan springs, dana 60 front/rear full width locked 5.38 gears 35 spline, dana 300 twin stick, 42'' iroks, still workn on front links and bumper hydro assist.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-12-2010, 04:33 PM
wood's Avatar
wood wood is offline
Pimp of the woods
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Renton Wa.
Posts: 185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubiclone View Post
.
Policing wise, the rangers should have the equipment and capability to run every trail in their system. If they would just run each trail each weekend and if they have to use a winch to make it thru a section to prevent damage, then they either need to close that section until conditions inprove, or repair it.

Or if they have to use a winch, leave it alone. Just because they cant make doesn't mean someone else cant and or have fun trying. Pulling cable is just part of wheeling(and i dont mean destroying land). Besides if that happened then the Buggie(and I mean the real buggies) crowd would have zero fun on any trails anywhere.
__________________
Strange things are afoot at the Circle K
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-12-2010, 06:06 PM
Ceg_'s Avatar
Ceg_ Ceg_ is offline
ForestWatchVP.org
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Selah, Washington
Posts: 1,719
Default

With all this talk I have to see what it is all about. I will leave my wheeling rig (XJ) parked at home and try the trail in my high geared daily driver (CJ5). Of course I will go with other rigs in case I need a tug. I will make sure to take a lot of pictures and post them up.
__________________
Clay Graham
PNW4WDA Region 4 Public Relations
PNW4WDA Beverly Dunes Coordinator



Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-12-2010, 06:14 PM
dirk's Avatar
dirk dirk is offline
that WOHVA guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: washington
Posts: 645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wood View Post
Or if they have to use a winch, leave it alone. Just because they cant make doesn't mean someone else cant and or have fun trying. Pulling cable is just part of wheeling.
Exact-a-fuc-in-lutely
__________________
Bryan Peterson
WOHVA | PNW4WDA
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-12-2010, 08:20 PM
zbd74's Avatar
zbd74 zbd74 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Wa
Posts: 582
Question

These limitations that have been set for the Rsnk are just the beginning of what's going to affect ALL areas eventually. I've never been pro-pnw4x4, can't really say I am now, but I am a member for now

There are other postings on other 4x4 bbs' that are discussing the same topic...trail limitiations?

What does the PNW4x4 & even WOW as associations that are suppose to be supporting our hobby have to share on this? What are the associations expectations or representing? I've been to a few region meeting but never have brought this up, maybe I need to? I see racing & land to race on are hot topics

Surely there's someone in authority, who is in a position that can share some information as to what's happening w/ these limitiations? A lot of assumptions are being spread & folks are getting upset? let's have some information up front, not after the fact?
__________________
Slightly Modified '80 CJ7
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-12-2010, 09:39 PM
Gibby Gibby is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bonney Lake
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wood View Post
Too bad they will never pass a minimum tire size requirement.
No, they probably won't but we have been successful at Elbe in setting minimum tire recommendations for trails and being able to build the trails and obstacles to those guidelines. Elbe now has several trails where 36" and larger tires are the minimum recommendations.

I don't believe in a "REQUIREMENT" because a well built rig on 33s locked, with the right tires, gearing, plating and driver can out perform a big, wide open, bald tired rig with 400hp and no brains... Not stereotyping just showing that tire size is something that we can measure and typically rigs with 36" and larger tires come with winches, body armor, flex, lockers, etc, which would be required to run the trail.

Hat's off to what the DNR is doing, at both Elbe and even Tahuya lately. If they follow suit with Rieter, it may take a little time but they are working with us because we work with them.

The Forest Service seems to be another animal.
__________________
Dale Gibbon
President, Faithwheelers Offroad Club
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-13-2010, 07:35 AM
Merrick Graves Merrick Graves is offline
Old Goat
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Naches
Posts: 563
Default

I see many people asking what can we do to change how things are going. Many want to know how. Many don't know where. Here is a link for the Okonogan/Wenatchee Forest Travel Management plan. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/okawen/travel-management/

Remember what you do and say about this plan has no effect on the Mt Baker/Snoqualmie Forest. This has nothing to do about the Washington Dept of Natural Resources. If you want change in the areas you wheel your voice must be heard at every different Land Management Agency. You must attend user meetings.

Last edited by Merrick Graves; 08-13-2010 at 09:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-13-2010, 10:22 AM
awkragt awkragt is offline
Friends
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2
Default

Yesterday I read this whole thread. I’ve got a JK with a 4” lift and 35s, capable but not extreme. New rules seemed very reasonable for a handful of trails. I’ve got what I considered a moderately built daily driver. I’ve noticed that some trails like Naches just don’t have any challenge because the whole trail is 12 feet wide, and supported the idea of vehicle limitations and tighter more technical trails.

Then I go home and put a tape to my jeep, guess what 78”. I haven’t done any axle swaps, no spacers, just basic aftermarket wheels and 35x12.5 Toyo MT’s. Turns out a stock JK comes in at 74” width and my tires sneak out 2” past that on either side. Not to mention if you’re going to be a stickler the wheelbase is .4” too long.

Now I do a little research and see what vehicles in stock form fit the 75” width and 95” wheelbase.
TJ, YJ, CJ, Samurai

Not a single Toyota pickup or 4runner configuration ever made or even the new FJ fits that wheelbase. As much as I would never wheel a Toyota it seems wrong to have trail restrictions that block half of the wheeling core out there.

Can you imagine the backlash if the rule came out and said, “Trails only open to Jeep Wrangler SWB made prior to 2007.” That would sound absurd.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 08-13-2010, 11:09 AM
homey homey is offline
Friends
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: woodinville.wa
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by awkragt View Post
Yesterday I read this whole thread. I’ve got a JK with a 4” lift and 35s, capable but not extreme. New rules seemed very reasonable for a handful of trails. I’ve got what I considered a moderately built daily driver. I’ve noticed that some trails like Naches just don’t have any challenge because the whole trail is 12 feet wide, and supported the idea of vehicle limitations and tighter more technical trails.

Then I go home and put a tape to my jeep, guess what 78”. I haven’t done any axle swaps, no spacers, just basic aftermarket wheels and 35x12.5 Toyo MT’s. Turns out a stock JK comes in at 74” width and my tires sneak out 2” past that on either side. Not to mention if you’re going to be a stickler the wheelbase is .4” too long.

Now I do a little research and see what vehicles in stock form fit the 75” width and 95” wheelbase.
TJ, YJ, CJ, Samurai

Not a single Toyota pickup or 4runner configuration ever made or even the new FJ fits that wheelbase. As much as I would never wheel a Toyota it seems wrong to have trail restrictions that block half of the wheeling core out there.

Can you imagine the backlash if the rule came out and said, “Trails only open to Jeep Wrangler SWB made prior to 2007.” That would sound absurd.
trust me none of us are real happy about this! every post on this has valid points. hopefully it works out in the end because we all enjoy this sport! the biggest problem there's just not enough trails in this state to support the amount of volume here.
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 01:40 PM.


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