Trail Issues : My Perspective

[Hi Lo Silver]

I'd rater have put this under trail issues and projects but I also know how often that section gets visited by some.


Trail Issues: My Perspective Hi Lo Silver


I’ve now stayed out of the political arena of trail issues for over a year I bet. Well more or less out of it anyway. I saw another thread on a local forum board digress to accusations and finger pointing of the infamous tire size debate once again. I felt compelled to respond with a thread that will hopefully give some people insight as well as spur on some civil discussion.

Sit back and read if you’re fine with longer posts. Hit the back button if you get bored easily and really don’t even give a crap about trails when the topic comes up. Just don’t be the one to whine when more closures hit your area.

I’m going to use my years of 4 wheeling, and my years of belonging to a club as the experience that I might have on the topic. First vehicle 1975, when I was 18, was a 1974 CJ5 and I have had a jeep ever since that with the exception of about a 2 year span when wedding plans were priority. Soon after that, in 1979 we joined the 4 Wheel Stampeders and haven’t left wheeling since that time. So from 1975-2009 I’ve pretty much been active with the sport, recreation, hobby, or what ever else you care to call it. (obsession)

I’ve also been an avid hiker, fisherman, hunter, and cross country skier, so you can see my views of wheeling from different perspectives let me see some things differently along the way. The many years have also let me see the changes to the trail system. With the numbers of users active in motorized recreation in the back country now there is bound to be an impact that’s unavoidable. On the other hand with weather systems being what they are in the region I’ve seen trails go from very easy to extreme and believe it or not after years, or a good rain fall or heavy snow fall have brought some of those trails right back to easy again. Nature….. you can’t control it but it does work in our favor sometimes.

My point:  It’s human nature to be competitive and challenge ourselves and our equipment to the maximum. Sometimes the challenge ends in tragedy when pushed to far or the equipment fails. We learn from that and move on. My point is we continually look for more ways to take on a trail. This is where nature unfortunately takes the brunt of our hobby. I think, as long as we choose to modify our equipment to challenge tougher obstacles the more nature will take the hit. The more we build to look for the next adventure the more the environmentalists will push to have us ushered out and I’ll add they have been very successful with that up to now.

Big tires are to blame, because they are now capable of going through deeper holes and maneuvering harder obstacles. Smaller tires are to blame. Without the clearance for the deeper holes they need to bypass the holes completely. Both are to blame. With advanced technology we’re now looking beside the trails and beyond for that challenge. A trail isn’t good enough anymore. Now we look to boulders, extreme washouts beside the trails, and deeper water to cross. Going beside trails no matter what our rigs are, is what’s going to cost us all in the long run. Meadows to start a new bog, riparian areas to chew around in are not acceptable in anyway. Quads and bikes have all been beefed up as well. Gears, horse power, just overall ability to go further. This in turn means the trails we’ve frequented for years are now to tame for the thrill seekers and adrenalin junkies, so steeper hills are getting challenged and more areas get torn up. Snow machines can now climb mountains causing more people to not only loss their lives but also punch into more areas where wildlife wintered for years without getting pushed around.

Its funny to watch people build their rigs up, as their experience level climbs and they feel comfortable investing more money into more modifications the first thing they do is look for another obstacle to conquer.  Usually a construction site or ditch around the city, then off the trail some where to “articulate” and pose for a picture.

Personally I think we need to realize that if we don’t bring an end to building the extreme machines for public land use we can most likely see more and more trails lost to EVERYONE motorized.  The further we continue to push into the back country with advanced technology the more we’ll loose in the long run.

Obviously my opinion and it may not be yours.

I was one of the people who thought strongly that the Alberta Four Wheel Drive association be rejuvenated to be that unified voice for the 4x4’s. The first meeting prior to its start up again, I suggested that demodification be considered for an approach of the new Association. That idea was scoffed and scorned at and still to this day we have seen nothing at all added to our trail system. I can only assume that we never will. I’m not sure if it would turn a few hands in time back if we were to turn back a few hands on our rigs by making them a little less capable for public land use, so the trails as they are now, would be challenge enough.


Steps off soap box now.

[hps4evr]

good way to start a very interesting thread. its a subject many people skirt because we know pointing finger doesnt help anyone, even if it makes us feel better.
your point does make sense. think about this. its pretty safe to say that most TJ's on 33" tires can go down most trails in mclean creek. i have not been down every trail in mclean creek, but i have seen many of them. i spent a full day as trail guide at the Jeep 101 last summer and i was impressed at the stock jeeps and newbs who were driving them.
so, do we need 44" tires? do we need V8? do we need 500:1?
ive been driving my YJ with 33" tires andlocked in the rear for more then 6 years. never really changing anything. it has worked very well. getting me anywhere i ask it to. i have turned down some trails, or obstacles due to its limited ground clearance or articulation. i will be building it bigger, and i have thought of keeping it mild knowing full well i dont need 42" tires. i want 42" tires, there is a difference.
so we can throw ideas out there. what kind of limits can we put in place? limit trails or areas to a certain tire size. trails have been limited to vehicle size in the past and present, so why not tire size? one trail may be tame, 35" size limit. another trail may be hardcore, minimum tire size being 35" and maximum being 40". etc, etc...
many ways we can look at this. in the end is it tire size? is it vehicle size?
personally i think its the driver. a yahoo behind the wheel of a full size on 44" boggers will do more damage then 100 quads.
im sure others will add to this thread, lets keep it going...
i can tell people are itching for summer! a lot of very touchy subjects have been popping up in threads!

[Eagle Jeeper]

I tend to agree with hps4evr on most of his points.  Tire size not Vehicle size  is the way to limit trails.  A jeep on 44's can do just as much damage as a fullsize on 44's.  Vehicle aside it all comes down to the driver and his values and respect for others and their surroundings.  Personally I think a lifted locked big tired jeep or truck with a respectful driver does less damage than any smaller vehicle with a yahoo behind the wheel.  The bigger vehicle doesn't need to spin its tires to get around.  I drive a CJ7 V8, geared, locked and 36's and have more fun crawling around the trails seeing how little mess I can make.  And as a foot note I am building it bigger not to get farther but because building the machine is 3/4's of the fun of having an OHV.

Like everyone just my 2 cents worth agree or disagree its up to you.

[Fredduck]

Well... this is interesting.

Like HI LO, I consider myself an outdoorsman and I would rather be dry camping then sitting in a 5 star hotel.

I think we are missing a couple important points.
When the OHV areas were created what was the population of Calgary, southern Alberta or Alberta as a whole?
When these areas were set up were there quads?, I don't think they were around then.
So you add the increase in population and the addition of the off road toys and then limit the areas that most vehicles can operate in (the closure of trails or even whole areas - Indian graves) and you get failure. I  think our government has let us down, by squeezing a lot of motor sports enthusists into a small area.

The offroad comunity as a whole is set up to fail, shear numbers on limited trails will cause environmental impact and a failing grade from the environmentalists.

I think there is a lot of irresponsible people around and some that run offroad vehicles.

I would like to see a trail system that ran from the U.S border to the N.W.T that you could run for as long as you wanted.
It would have to be policed, very simular to the way the old forestry trunk road was before they paved it.
I used to run the trunk road when it was gravel, and you hardly ever saw anybody on it.
Now with the population explosion and asphalt I stay off hiway 22 from Friday morning until Monday morning.

I think I may have got off topic but there is my 2 cents.

[01sahara]

Thanks Gun.

Your post is well said it gives the newer readers on the forum look at things from point of view, of years of experience. Thanks for posting it.  A good discussion on the forum, of topics like this, helps to educate the newer readers to the forum about some of the important issues.

Blair

[Bnine]

I think they have it right in the states, and I beleive they are starting to adopt similar ideas in alberta.

Trail systems need to be categorized and ranked.

You will never get rid of the adrenaline junkies. In fact, by far and large, they will almost always outnumber the more mellow trail riders. This goes for all types of machines.

Some great points Gunther, and I respect everything you said. I dont agree with all of it, but I do agree it would be one possible solution. Just not one I think the community should have to resort to.

I dont think it would stop until we were still shut out all together. But who knows.

Great post.

Thanks

[dac]

I used to run the trunk road when it was gravel, and you hardly ever saw anybody on it.

Last summer I drove the trunk road from Hinton to Cochrane, Where is it paved??
**edit**  I think I was in a vegitative state when I drove it last fall, probably had drool from the side of my mouth from driving it so long; it took forever coming home that way but it was scenic.  It is paved for a bit north of the 1A.  I did see a grizzly by the side of the road and some wild horses on that trip though.

As for the post, I agree with the concept.  I think you can get into less trouble with smaller tires.  I mean stuck is stuck but smaller tires means smaller ruts, not stuck so deep and also less stress on your vehicle, less chance of breaking things (I like tinkering but unplanned fixing kinda sucks).

I like tinkering so I had fun lifting my jeep, but I also built it with a plan, wanted to go further through the snow bank than when it was stock.  Stuck with 33's because they're not too big and I can still drive it around town with no issue; the jeep looks balanced.  I guaged in on the new stock rubicons, they come with more or less 32's.

As for tire size, it doesn't really matter.  Growing up my buddies and I would drive through the back road puddles when they were there, all we ever had were stock 1/2 tons.  Looking back it made the roads really rough in the 3ton grain truck, no wonder the folks got mad when we messed up the back roads.

As for shutting down the trails, I think the same crowd that messes them up will still be out there doing what they do regardless, just trying extra hard not to get caught.

Should have a gentlemans bet on who can come back from a wheeling trip the cleanest.

Anyways, enough random rambling from the peanut gallery (me).

Good post.

dc

[Fredduck]

Your right, it's not the trunk thats paved my dumb.

[Hi Lo Silver]

I'm just jumping in for a quick comment right now.

The Forestry Trunk road is paved now. Don't kid yourself. Kananaski turn off at the Trans Canada right through to the Highwood Junction was paved shortly after the implementation of Kananaskis Country and Peter Loughheed Provincial Park. It was paved so the fifth wheels, motorhomes, buses, golfers , boaters, and skiers could all get to their developed areas for their recreation  pleasures. Used to be a wide gravel road. Forestry Trunk Road,  #940, and Highway #40 are all the same road with different numbers is all.
I went off topic but I wanted to point that out.

[RACKMAN]

I will post my humble opinion later regarding the level of modification topic as I have to get to an appointment....but a thought just occurred to me that I have to state.....It so funny how various governments feel it's perfectly fine to destroy thousands of  hecters of  beautiful wilderness to set up GOLF courses, but a winding dirt track through the trees is considered damage!

RACKMAN

[Spinalguy]

It might BE tire size and than again it may NOT. Focusing on one thing is a recipe for disaster.

Its lack of enforcement.

Its Booming population increases.

Its random campers on May Long that are NOT outdoor recreationists that are allowed to do whatever they want...NO ENFORCEMENT.

Enforcement is the issue. period

Start handing out $2500 fines for being off trail. See how long it will take the internet world to spread the news.

[Hi Lo Silver]

Spinalguy, I think I’d have to take a serious look at the definition of Off Trail before I’d ever welcome those types of fines. You know full well that yours and my definition of off trail is completely different that those 5 designated 2 wheel drive roads that the Alberta Government has been steered to give us by ASRD due to other user group pressure. If  creating another bog in the middle of a meadow, or ripping around in the creeks, ponds, and riparian areas is what you’re referring to then absolutely, nail the user responsible with stiff enough fines that they may never return to the back country again. However if its using the same old seismic, logging, exploration, and pipeline trails that have been around for 60 years then I’d have to refuse to go along with that idea and I’m sure you would too.

Its funny, my intention of this thread was to bring about an awareness of public lands not being a place to challenge the environment with our extreme machines, but yet so many of the responses are tire size related.  Some people have posted that it’s the numbers alone that has brought about the impact of the trails. In one respect I can agree with that but only because it’s the modification capabilities of those numbers that have pushed us further into the back country by choosing the more difficult trails or areas to challenge now. Just the trails alone aren’t enough for the extreme machines so they look for even more things to put their rigs against. I think it’s that mentality that is causing the lose of so many trails and areas, and I think it’s also that mentality that will eventually make us loose  substantially more trails than we have already.

Look at Moab as an example. Guys keep building more and more extreme machines to the point now that they challenge dry water falls and washed out canyons where no old road were before. I think if that keeps up, we’ll be hard pressed to have anything left there to wheel in a number of years either.

If we all went back to the basics of what wheeling was years ago on public land then I’m fairly convinced we wouldn’t have been fighting for trail access as much as we have been the last 10 or 15 years. Private land is totally different and probably the best place for the extreme machines before we loose it all to EVERYONE.

[Bnine]

I cant speak for everyone, but I know with my "extreme" machine the extent of my public land use is climbing cutlines others wouldnt dare to, wheeling in snow that others cant, and yeah, the odd technical section.

When I wheel in out of mother natures natural washout it looks the same when I leave, as it did when I got there.

This goes around to the finger pointing thing again. If its not the quads, its the big trucks, or the teenagers, or non club affiliates, or this latest one, the more modified rigs.

I remember several years back we did herald creeek as a club. That year the washouts were particularly bid.

For the last hill descent 3 of the smaller rigs created a bypass of their own and proceeded down the hil alongside the actual trail.

Only the highly modified rigs actually stayed on trail and manauvered through the washout.

Im sorry, but I just dont see it as simple as "everyone put 33's on therir rig and all our problems go away".

Public perception wise, I do agree, us highly modded guys, and the folks with the big mud trucks certainly do draw unwanted attention, and are mis interpreted at times.

I really beleive that population is having a huge effect on our areas, and the perceptions out there.

Without the proper maintenance programs, trail rating systems, trail rotations, and enforcement, no amount of superficial rules will garruntee our continued access to the back country.

Thats my humble 2 cents.

[WhiteOut]

Off trail can be defined as being anywhere that OHV use is prohibited. If a trail that has been around for 50 years and is closed by the governement, then wheeling it is considered to be off trail.  The definition of off trail is not really open to interpretation by users, the CJA and other clubs have tried very hard to improved the image of offroading in Alberta and work with government to open new sustainable trails.  As I stated in my thread and user fee and fine system would probably help keep existing trails open and perhaps open new ones, while cracking down on the group of irresponsible offroaders in Alberta.

[Hi Lo Silver]

fraserb1986, thank you for clarifying that for me.

In the mean time after watching hundreds of thousands of acres of public land be closed to access and seeing GAMP now around 4 years in the release without  even  a half a km added back to the system you'll forgive me for not holding my breath for anybody govenrment related to come through with any good faith towards 4x4's.