Tough Terrian - article on multiple use trails

[Little Giant]

Below is an interesting read on user conflicts on multi-use trails, real or percieved, modes of conflict, solutions, etc. While I don't like some of the slants it takes, its a worthwhile read.

Link to original source

Tough Terrain

By Richard J. Dolesh

Increasing numbers of Americans are taking to the forests, mountains and open spaces of our country to enjoy the ever-growing number of hiking, cycling and off-road vehicle trails on our nation’s public lands. Public land managers at every level from local parks to national forest and park lands report growth in the use of trails. Trail enthusiasts may love their trails, but what happens when everyone decides to get out and hike, bike and ride at the same time on the same trails?

“Trail-user conflict” is a term that has become an accepted part of the trail manager’s lexicon. It can describe everything from the annoyance that hikers who are seeking solitude and quiet feel when they hear a string of All-Terrain Vehicles (ATV) barreling down the trail across the valley, to the very real danger when a horse and rider are startled by a mountain biker who comes up from behind, in silence, and without a courtesy warning.

A number of comprehensive national surveys have found that by and large, recreational trail users are satisfied with their trail experience. In addition, most trail users do not report any kind of trail conflicts and continue to use trails for recreation and enjoyment. Most trail conflicts that are reported happen on multiple-use trails, otherwise called shared-use or diversified trails.

Some conflicts occur on unplanned, unregulated trail routes cut across public lands by ATV riders. Some conflicts with hikers and other pedestrians occur from “free-riding” mountain bikers who are looking for technical challenges. Whatever the cause, conflicts are emerging as all types of trails from back-country wilderness paths to multi-lane urban paved trails become more heavily used by an American public that is seeking outdoor recreation, improved personal health and quality leisure time. However, trail experts have a sur prising diversity of opinion on the causes of trail-use conflicts:

“Motorized vs. non-motorized,” says Celina Montorfano, director of conservation programs for the American Hiking Society.

“Overuse is at the core of trail-use conflict,” says John Monroe, director of Connecticut and Rhode Island projects for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program of the National Park Service.

“Trail-use conflict is a management and maintenance issue,” says Jeff Ciabotti, vice-president of trail development for the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.

While there may be a multitude of opinions over the causes of trail-use conflicts, “It is important to distinguish between real trail-use conflicts and perceived conflicts,” says Scott Linnenburger, trail solutions coordinator for the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA).

“A lot of folks have ‘perceived’ conflicts, and most of these are just due to their needs not being met, such as their serenity being disturbed. Accidents and near accidents are ‘real’ trail-use con- flicts; and these can come from things like having high speed bikes on trails with blind corners or poor shoulders, or slower users not knowing that high speed users regularly travel on the trail they are hiking.”

The sheer volume of use is clearly one of the fundamental causes of trailuse conflicts. “The popularity of some trails is a good thing and a bad thing,” says Martha Roskowski, GoBoulder program manager and former campaign manager for America Bikes.

“There are inherent conflicts on all types of trails that allow different types of users. But in years gone by, I regularly biked trails in Colorado that were simultaneously used by hikers, mountain bikers, ATVs, horses and motorcycles, and we rarely had any conflicts because there were so few trail users. If trails are not heavily used, all uses can co-exist.”

The hundreds of thousands of miles of trails that have been added to local, state and national recreational trails in the past generation, however, have not kept pace with the explosive growth of outdoor recreation on these trails, and the resulting deterioration of trail conditions and ecological damage from overuse or uncontrolled use is as much a cause for trail-use conflicts as are user-to-user conflicts.

Motorized vs. Non-motorized

The explosive growth of sales of ATVs is changing the face of America’s public lands at an astonishingly rapid pace. In less than 10 years, the number of ATVs in the United States has tripled according to the All Terrain Vehicle Association (ATVA), to nearly 7 million vehicles today. Double-digit sales growth continues to fuel the boom, and more and more riders are seeking public lands and public trails on which to ride.

While not against the existence of ATVs, a number of trail advocacy organizations have spoken forcefully against uncontrolled, unmanaged use of these sports vehicles in parks and on public lands. “The proliferation of uncontrolled, off-road-vehicle (ORV) use is one of the greatest challenges facing land managers today, and is presently one of the most serious threats to our national public lands and national forests,” says Celina Montorfano of American Hiking Society.

Mary Margaret Sloan, executive director of American Hiking Society, states in prepared testimony, “This spring we began a survey of our 150 member organizations, with a combined membership of over half a million people. What we are learning is that off-road vehicle use is displacing hikers in all regions of the country.”

Patrick Holtz, Washington, D.C., staff person for the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) says that the AMA recognizes that unmanaged off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation is a problem. “We take this issue very seriously, and we have focused on legislation, HR 3247, the TRAIL Act of 2003, to address it.”

He notes that each federal land managing agency has a different standard of what constitutes an offense, and there are no consistent enforcement authorities. “Our willingness to focus on enforcement is proof that the motorized community takes uncontrolled use seriously.”

The chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, identified unmanaged off-road vehicle recreation as one of the greatest threats facing our national forest lands. In an Earth Day 2003 speech, he described the impacts to the land, to visitors and to the forest from unplanned and renegade routes through Forest Service lands.

“We’re seeing more and more erosion, water degradation and habitat destruction. We’re seeing more and more conflicts between users.” To give an idea of the scope of the problem, more than 90 percent of the nation’s 177 forests and grasslands are open to authorized OHV use, but the Forest Service has estimated that there are upwards of 60,000 miles of unplanned and renegade routes.

The urgency of the problem was highlighted by Bosworth who says, “This is not an easy issue to tackle, but if we wait a day, a week, or even a year, the impact on the land and the issues surrounding this problem will become even harder to deal with. We need to address this issue now.”

To address the problems created by uncontrolled, unmanaged off-road vehicle use, the Forest Service issued a new draft policy statement on off-highway vehicle use in national forests and grasslands. Opportunity for public comment has closed, but the Forest Service’s monumental undertaking to begin to comprehensively manage offhighway vehicle use in the nation’s forests and grasslands will put an even greater burden on trail planners, managers and rangers to plan for and manage multiple use trails.

The potential for trail-use conflicts will be exacerbated on trails, which may not have been well planned to begin with, and that could be soon be filled to capacity and beyond once designated routes are named.

Poor Trail-Use Design

It is an axiom of trail design that good trail planning will lead to good trails with fewer user conflicts. The converse is equally true: Little or no trail planning almost inevitably leads to trailuse conflicts. “In looking at different trail systems across the country, it is evident that in 85 percent of cases, an actual accident or potential accident could have been prevented with better trail design,” says Linnenburger of IMBA.

“A lack of planning for the future is often the beginning of user conflict,” says Ciabotti of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. “The more popular a trail becomes the more potential for conflict occurs. If a trail is not planned for future growth and heavier use, problems and conflicts that were not apparent at the outset of public use will surface as trail use gets heavier,” he adds.

“The trail managers must get user groups around the table at the beginning of the design phase of trail planning. The earlier users are involved in the process, the better. Local public involvement must occur throughout. Also, this process is educational for all the users, and it should continue as the trail is built since it is an excellent vehicle for dispelling user conflicts as they occur.”

One aspect of good trail design deals with visitor capacity, and how much use to allow. “Carrying capacity,” says Laura Loomis of NPCA, “is a very complicated question, and it depends very much on the objective of the land managing agency for the land and the resource. Until you have that objective established, you can’t really decide on proper carrying capacity.” Loomis notes that few managers want to say there will be a limit to the amount and type of use.

“Many land managers don’t want concrete, specific standards, and are reluctant to establish them because of the controversy it creates. This issue, however, has a great bearing on where to put trailheads, how big of a parking lot to build for wilderness areas, and other important management decisions.”

Crowded Trails

Stuart Macdonald of American Trails and chair of the National Association of State Trail Administrators doesn’t necessarily see a crowded trail as one that is a problem trail. “If you have a trail with too much use, you have a successful trail,” he says. “The last thing you want to do is reduce the use. Trying to reduce the use of a popular trail by excluding certain types of users just leads to all kinds of problems, and is not the correct solution,” says Macdonald.

Martha Roskowski of GoBoulder agrees. “There are some things that you can do to address overcrowding— such as creation of volunteer trail patrols, promotion of alternate routes, dispersing use by reducing intensity of use, splitting trails at high-use areas into one-way segments—but the first approach should always be education.”

However clever and creative trail managers are, practical solutions to crowded trails do not make up for selfish behavior on the part of some trail users. Christopher Douwes, a planner for the byways and bikeways team of the Federal Highway Administration who administers the nationwide Recreation Trails Program grants, says, “There are some people who refuse to share the trail. It’s not that they can’t, but a very small percentage thinks their use of the trail is better than yours, and elitism like that can cause trail-use conflicts.”

Jeff Spellman, park ranger for Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department, concurs from his own experiences. “It is not necessarily the type of use such as hiking or biking or running that causes conflict, but it comes down to the user, and the respect they show for each other.”

Loomis of NPCA says, “Trail-use conflicts often occur because there hasn’t been a clear explanation and discussion of what is appropriate behavior. There needs to be a clear understanding of what is appropriate and what isn’t. If you treat people as if they are intelligent and explain your decisions, they will respect them.”

GoBoulder’s Roskowski has perhaps the most succinct answer to the problem of crowded trails: “The solution is really very simple,” says Roskowski. “It’s more trails!”

Case Study in User Conflicts

The Mianus River Park in Stamford, Conn., provides a good window on how trail-use conflicts begin with increased use and perceptions of overcrowding, and once perception becomes reality, problems grow until park users sit down and agree to work toward a solution that benefits everyone. Stamford, Conn., owns the 110- acre undeveloped woodland park that abuts another 110-acre tract of woodland owned by Greenwich, Conn.

The Mianus River, a natural trout stream bordered by a mature oak forest, flows through the Stamford tract, and attracts fishermen, swimmers and waders. The woodlands are crisscrossed with dirt trails that get heavy use from hikers, dog-walkers, mountain bikers, fitness walkers, trail runners and bird watchers. Dense suburban development surrounds the forestland, and “many, many people are looking to enjoy outdoor recreation in the woodlands,” says John Monroe, National Park Service planner for the Rivers and Trails Program.

Problems have grown from steadily building public use, which is growing primarily from word-of-mouth, according to Monroe, who has been invited by the city to help facilitate resolution of some of the conflicts. “It’s become a park that is being loved to death by those who use it, and people have a lot of passion about how it is treated,” he says. “Overuse is at the core of the conflict, and overuse diminishes the trail experience for everyone,” Monroe asserts. “Actual uses may not conflict with each other, but it is the park users’ perception that they do.”

Roger Moore, a recognized expert on trail conflicts who published a 1994 report for the Federal Highway Administration and the National Recreational Trails Advisory Committee entitled “Conflict on Multiple-Use Trails,” distinguishes between the con- flict of expectations and the conflict of mode, and notes the conflict of expectations is more important. He also notes that no actual contact between users needs to occur for conflict to be perceived.

Monroe credits the city of Stamford with being proactive about solving the user conflicts in Mianus River Park, and providing good support to involve park users in a dialogue. “The key to solving these conflicts has been building working relationships among the user groups,” he says. “They need to get acquainted, identify the real and perceived conflicts, and then identify and agree on potential solutions.”

Monroe notes that “Even if they sit down confident that they will never agree with other groups, it is surprising how much understanding is possible. I love that moment when understanding creeps around the room.”

Monroe described another Rivers and Trails-sponsored gathering of trail user groups from around the state, who produced an unexpected outcome from their discussion of trail conflict issues. “The group absolutely agreed on one fundamental principal, namely, that the loss of open space in the state was their biggest problem, and that they should all work collectively to prevent its loss.”

Promise and Perils of Technology

Many trail experts believe that advances in technology can lead to solutions for trail-use conflicts. Advances in snowmobile engine technology, for example, are widely credited with reducing the noise impact of snowmobiles in backcountry environments. Significant improvements in 4-stroke engine technology have made snow machine engines quieter, so much so that the primary noise from 4-stroke machines “now comes from the tracks themselves, not the engines,” says Chris Jourdain, executive director of the American Council of Snowmobile Associations.

And the perceived loss of power? “Not so,” says Jourdain. “Those who say that, just haven’t ridden them. It may have been true for first and second generation engines, but not any more.”

However, off-highway vehicle noise is clearly one of the most widespread and difficult causes of trail-use con- flicts. Dennis Mann, founder of the Sensible, Courteous, Off-road Enthusiasts (SCORE) and technical director of the Pennsylvania Off Highway Vehicle Association (PAOHV), says that “Clearly, for us, noise from motorized, off-road vehicles is the biggest source of trail-use conflicts.”

Mann also says with some regret, “Unfortunately, many still believe in the old way of thinking, that ‘louder is stronger,’” adding, “This is not about 2-stroke or 4-stroke engines. The industry has made huge gains in getting maximum performance from a quiet engine. The issue comes down to noise, and we need to solve that.”

Mann’s group SCORE was the recipient of the 2004 national award for education from the Recreational Trails Coalition, a trail advocacy group for both motorized and nonmotorized groups, for its creation of a technical library that focuses on five ‘problem zones’ relating to the impacts of off highway vehicle riding including sound, water quality, erosion, wildlife and other user groups (for more information on the library, which is on CD-ROM, visit the PAOHV Web site at www.paohv.org ).

“Our whole focus on every issue is education,” Mann says. “There are a small percentage of people who don’t want to change and who don’t care what the other side thinks.

Everyone should realize that they don’t have the right to take a good outdoor experience away from people by their noise.” Some aspects of new technology make trail managers and advocates quite concerned. New and evolving ways to put motorized vehicles on trails have every type of trail manager wary. “New technology is making it easier, faster and more convenient to give access to even the most remote areas of our public lands,” says Loomis of NPCA.

“Technology advances are one of the greater sources of challenges for public lands managers. Park agencies should require that as any new form of technology is introduced to convey people on public lands that there be an agency-level determination of appropriateness of use before granting authority for allowing such use,” says Loomis. “And granting of this authority should not be pushed down to the local manager level. Frequently, they are not in a position to assess the impact of such uses.”

She notes the difficulties that the National Park Service has had with the unregulated use of Personal Watercraft (PWCs) in National Parks.

“There was a real fight over this because there was no policy in place.” “We can never really tell what future technology will hold,” says Spellman, the park ranger from Phoenix. “Motorized skate boards with big wheels, mini-mini bikes—we just don’t know what the next fad will be.”

Spellman offers a comment on the positive benefits of new technology and new trail design techniques as well. “New technology has greatly assisted our physically challenged patrons,” he says. Assisted devices and better design of accessible trails has led to development of “Challenge Trails,” which create an enjoyable trail experience for seniors and the physically challenged.

Others have pointed to the promise of technology, such as improvements in trail counter technology. Linnenburger of IMBA describes new automated infrared trail counters that not only tell you exactly how many trail users you have and when, but are sensitive enough to distinguish whether they are hikers, mountain bikers, or horseback riders.

*continued*

[Little Giant]

*concluded*

Spellman notes how the vastly increased use of the Internet by trail patrons was beneficial for getting theword out on trail conditions, special events, and regulations. He noted that information could become quickly outdated, and that if it is inaccurate it creates nightmares. One of the best aspects of the Internet for trail users was that it gave them excellent opportunities to give feedback, and report hazardous or problem conditions on the 250 miles of Phoenix trails.

Trail-Use Solutions

The most encouraging news to surface from the discussion of trail-use conflicts is the fact that there is real hope for real solutions, and there is evidence from many trail managers and trail users across the country of true progress in solving conflicts.

“One of the best things that ever happened to the trail-use community was the creation of the Recreational Trails Program (RTP),” says Christopher Douwes of the Federal Highway Administration. “The requirement for each state to form State Trail Advisory Committees composed of both motorized and non-motorized users who regularly sit down and try to work out solutions to trail-use conflicts gives me hope for the future.”

IMBA’s Linnenburger says that one of the best signs that real solutions are possible is the growth of multi-use trail advocacy groups. He describes the Ohio Trails Partnership as a great example of “hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers and other trail users sitting down at the same table, looking of solutions.” He notes the Friends of Haw Ridge in Haw Ridge, Tenn., and the Capital “W” Wilderness Advocates in Virginia as other excellent examples of this philosophy in action.

“They recognize it makes no sense for us to work against each other because we all realize that by working together we are all getting what we want.” And, he notes that when these groups get together and ask for more open space or new trails, they are a much larger and more cohesive community of interest, and they often get what they ask for. “Sixty percent of the Ohio Trails Partnership trail proposals become a reality.”

“Most trail-use conflicts can be solved at the local level if people are willing to work with each other,” says Steve Elkinton, program leader for the National Trails System for the National Park Service.

Ciabotti, a visionary thinker of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy says, “I am optimistic that increased use will bring increased cooperation among trail users. As more and more people use trails, I believe people will respect each other more as they see others using and enjoying trails. After all,” says Jeff with a twinkle in his eye, “Trails are a living laboratory for democracy.”

For more information, visit www.americantrails.org, which is maintained by the national non-profit trail advisory group, American Trails.

[bgreen]

“Our whole focus on every issue is education,” Mann says. “There are a small percentage of people who don’t want to change and who don’t care what the other side thinks.

The key to it all!

[Raven]

The key to it all!

Ain't that the truth!

[Alaska ZJ]

Originally Posted by Raven

Ain't that the truth!

Yes it is.

[Little Giant]

Wow, people really do read this forum!

[LawsonEOD]

Yes, we do read these and they are full of good info. Thanks

Case in point. In Todays Fairbanks Paper an arcticle by ONE person we meet out on the trail. He was one person out of the many others that were using this public multi-use trail with us. None of others had issues with us at all and thanked us for clearing parts of the trail for them as they lacked a means to do so on thier own. It only takes one person to give you a black eye.

"Watch your trail

Nov. 30, 2004

To the editor:

There is a trail located north of Fairbanks that branches off from the Fairbanks Creek Road and has for many years been used by trappers, snowmobilers, skijorers, dog mushers, cross-country skiers and many other outdoor folk.

The upper end of the access road, a section of the old Fairbanks to Circle trail, has been meticulously machine groomed by owners of various businesses in the area. The trail provides a unique opportunity and access to the northern hills, and the recent snows were groomed to create a perfect base for the multi-uses the trail provides; or it was perfect until the weekend of Nov. 27, when the Arctic Off-Road Club decided to go for a Saturday drive.

Ten various 4x4 vehicles, displaying the decal of the Arctic Off-Road Club, chewed and clawed their way up miles of the recreational trail, leaving in their wake a wasted morass of ruts and berms. What had once been a usable track, suitable for limitless access by a variety of users, was completely destroyed by the thoughtless actions of these club members. In its present condition, the trail is ruined for skiing, hiking or dog mushing. Snowmobile traffic will eventually smooth out the majority of the damage, but who can tell when the club members will feel like taking another drive.

No one is disputing the right of the Arctic Off-Road Club to access a public trail, but having the right and doing the right thing are obviously separate concepts. I encourage the members of the Arctic Off-Road Club to do the right thing and go back up there and clean up the mess they made. Sometimes it pays to watch your back trail.

Respectfully,

Ken Sather

Fairbanks"

[Raven]

Lawson- Thanks for posting this on this board. I read this on the AO board earlier tonight, along with the comments of the enire AO crew that was there. This is the perfect example of what was mentioned previously in this thread. Sounds to me like you guys were minding your own business, enjoying a PUBLIC MULTI-USE trail, being respectful and courteous to other users, Treading Lightly, performed trail maintenance along the way, and were even thanked for it by another group of snowmachiners, and were still acosted by this selfish jack-hole. Props to you guys for keeping your cool and being civil through the whole deal. If this statement isn't testament to the selfish "mine, mine, mine!" elitist attitude, I don't know what is.

No one is disputing the right of the Arctic Off-Road Club to access a public trail, but having the right and doing the right thing are obviously separate concepts.

Ok, so the "right thing" would be to ban ourselves (as 4 wheelers) from this PUBLIC MULTI-USE trail because some jack-hole is a selfish *****?!?! Like there aren't MANY other groomed snowmachine-ONLY trails out there for them!

And this:

I encourage the members of the Arctic Off-Road Club to do the right thing and go back up there and clean up the mess they made. Sometimes it pays to watch your back trail.

is nothing more than an out right threat, considering what he said to NBM about "setting fire to rigs with AO stickers on them". You guys REALLY need to fire something back to the paper that quotes this stuff from this crackhead!

Sorry for the rant, but this deal just lit me up! I won't fall asleep for another two hours now.

[nate]

Yes, it's a multi use trail, but it's winter now and when 99.9% of everyone is using that trail to ski, snowmobile, snowshoe, etc. I do think it's irresponsible to be wheeling on that trail.

The article says the trail is machine groomed. Is that the case?

[LawsonEOD]

No, it is not groomed. We pre-ran the trail two weeks before this event and Myself, Wayne and Kevin broke trail for everyone that day. It was fresh uncut snow until we drove it. The snow itself is not even axle deep on my TJ with 33" tires. Like we stated before we stayed on the main trail road. There are plenty of side trails that ATV's and snow machines can use that we do not fit on and stay off of for that reason. This person just felt that it is winter and the only ones that should be using it are what he considers to be winter vehicles. So with that said should I park my Jeep because the Trail/Road has snow on it? Any way here is the letter we sent it to the paper. Both acrticles will be posted on the main page of our site for the week or so. We had Legal review our response before sending it to the paper today.

Sharing Our Trails

In response to the editorial “Watch Your Trail” on December 2nd, Arctic Offroad, as a group of outdoor enthusiasts, appreciate the Alaska Trails system, and the opportunity to use public land. We practice the principles of “Tread Lightly!” and give back to the environment in every means possible, at every given chance. In fact, just 2 weeks prior to the incident in question on the same trail, several snow machiners stopped to request assistance in the manner of directions, spare parts, and gasoline. We provided fuel and directions to the safest return route to civililzation. We have encountered ATV riders, motorcyclist, dog mushers and hikers in the past, and never had a problem sharing the trail. Some have even thanked us for maintaining trails. On several occasions including November 27th, we have cut deadfall trees on the trail, and repaired impassable obstacles, making the area a safer place. The description in the letter of how we left the road as “completely destroyed” is an exaggerated overstatement. What we left was tire tracks in snow. We stay on established trails, and we do what we can to help maintain those trails. We do this so that we can enjoy the wonderful beauty that surrounds us, just as others do with their various forms of recreation and travel. We are a family oriented group with a vested interest in this community; for instance on November 14th we held a food drive to benefit the Fairbanks Food Bank.

For more about who we are you can visit our website at www.arcticoffroad.com.

Respectfully
John Lawson
Arctic Offroad President
372-1660

Enjoy

[Overlord]

Originally Posted by LawsonEOD

No, it is not groomed. We pre-ran the trail two weeks before this event and Myself, Wayne and Kevin broke trail for everyone that day. It was fresh uncut snow until we drove it. The snow itself is not even axle deep on my TJ with 33" tires. Like we stated before we stayed on the main trail road. There are plenty of side trails that ATV's and snow machines can use that we do not fit on and stay off of for that reason. This person just felt that it is winter and the only ones that should be using it are what he considers to be winter vehicles. So with that said should I park my Jeep because the Trail/Road has snow on it? Any way here is the letter we sent it to the paper. Both acrticles will be posted on the main page of our site for the week or so. We had Legal review our response before sending it to the paper today.

Sharing Our Trails

In response to the editorial “Watch Your Trail” on December 2nd, Arctic Offroad, as a group of outdoor enthusiasts, appreciate the Alaska Trails system, and the opportunity to use public land. We practice the principles of “Tread Lightly!” and give back to the environment in every means possible, at every given chance. In fact, just 2 weeks prior to the incident in question on the same trail, several snow machiners stopped to request assistance in the manner of directions, spare parts, and gasoline. We provided fuel and directions to the safest return route to civililzation. We have encountered ATV riders, motorcyclist, dog mushers and hikers in the past, and never had a problem sharing the trail. Some have even thanked us for maintaining trails. On several occasions including November 27th, we have cut deadfall trees on the trail, and repaired impassable obstacles, making the area a safer place. The description in the letter of how we left the road as “completely destroyed” is an exaggerated overstatement. What we left was tire tracks in snow. We stay on established trails, and we do what we can to help maintain those trails. We do this so that we can enjoy the wonderful beauty that surrounds us, just as others do with their various forms of recreation and travel. We are a family oriented group with a vested interest in this community; for instance on November 14th we held a food drive to benefit the Fairbanks Food Bank.

For more about who we are you can visit our website at www.arcticoffroad.com.

Respectfully
John Lawson
Arctic Offroad President
372-1660

Enjoy

Keep us posted on any response(s) you receive.

[bgreen]

We (Alaska Offroad) have discussed winter tail use extensively. Our basic concern is exactly what you have encountered in Fairbanks. Its a difficult topic for sure, and I dont know exactly how to deal with it.

[BadCo]

Winter use certainly is a debatable topic.

I finally had the free time to sit down and read this thread.

Several factors should probably be included when deciding whether to use a trail or not during the snowy months. Location, other users, time of year/snow depth should be considered before breaking new trail.
A groomed trail in Alaska is rare. Other states have programs to groom trails, Alaska afaik, does not have any. Therefore, if the trail is groomed, odds are a private citizen or business has invested the time and effort into maintaining the trail. Lodge's and other business's frequently groom some areas around Eureka. Driving a wheeled vehicle onto a trail that has been groomed would be irresponsible and careless.
When selecting a trail to wheel during the winter, one should note the trail head. If it is full of pickups with snowmobile trailers, then another trail should be choosen. Not because you don't have the right to be there, but because your use would negatively impact a trail that is predominantly used by snowmachiners. We are all here to enjoy the trails, but winter users have a limited amount of time to enjoy the trails. We certainly don't want to be viewed as the ones making a negative impact on their recreation.
My personal feeling on the Arctic Off Road's incident is that they did nothing wrong. It is still early season, and it would seem that they went for a drive on a lightly snowy trail. I'll go to their website to read more.
This thread brings up certain issues that I think many people forget. We are using the same trails that others use for different reasons. Keep that in mind when building and wheeling your rig. Engine noise should be kept within reason, trail damage should be avoided, and coureously should be exercised when passing other users on the trail.

[Fix-It]

hi all ,
some of ya know me with my red taco . arctic offroad .com is a great club and i have found will go way out of their way to do the right thing .
we had done this run in 2 runs 1st a pre run and the second on a memorial run for a fallen member . on the 1st run i had helped with breaking the trail wich was a fresh trail no other tracks but ours with a occasional sled tracs criss crossing . we had incountered other sledders and dog mushers and all were very friendly even when my dog found the mushers before me . and they were very nice about the whole thing . later on that day some sledders with a broken sled need help and directions as well as gas . wich we did gladly and they were very thankful we were there .
but on the second trip alot more sleds have been through criss crossing the trail up and over small trees and bushes not staying on their (groomed trail at all ) we pulled over to let them by but 1 of their group decided to give threats instead because we were on his trail .
but the club wants to give a possitive image and be self promoting of responsible wheeling and tries very hard and it is very sad that 1 mad sledder can turn it to something ugly in a hurry .

[Little Giant]

This is a good topic to discuss, I know Alaska Extreme had heard some similar issues last year about winter use of the trails and its something we all will have to deal with at one time or another. I am in agreement with BadCo's post.

John, why did you not mention that the trail was not groomed, or that you guys were not on the groomed trail in your response? I think that is the most important concern brought up in the original letter. Frankly, helping out at a food drive or a fellow snowmachiner on the trail does not make it okay to run over a groomed trail, and I'm willing to bet that will be his response. Point out specifically why the club was not in the wrong. Just a suggestion.

Keep us posted on how this progresses.

[LawsonEOD]

We do not want to get in a pissing match with any other group. Only point out that we do good things we follow the rules and that if you have questions or concerns to check us out at our web site. As for staying off the snowy trails that are vehicle wide, that does not seem fair to me. Not sure when the snow falls down south in Anchorage and melts in the spring but here it is 8 months long for each year I have been here and that leaves us with only 4 months that I can use my 4 wheel drive vehicle. That does not seem right to me. I like the dicussion and I know this will be on the books for our club meeting on the 11th of December. Thanks for all the input I am still learning and sorry about HiJacking the Thread.

[BadCo]

I was refering to groomed trails more than just any trail. Grooming a trail takes money and time. Driving on them ruins the trail for grooming for quite some time. Yes, you do have the legal right to access that trail, but the common good is to find a different one. That is what the intial article was trying to relay. Find a common ground in which all trail users can get along.

[Fix-It]

ok Bad co , if we used your logic up here if we saw any trails with sled tracks on it it would be for the common good for us not to use it even though we have just as much right to use them and if we switch trails and they start using the next till they push us out to make sure we don't use any , we just sit on our thumbs till spring and they start ripping into us because we are ruining the trail for the atv's so we should stay off of it then as well ?
look we have to find a equal balance , we had broke that trail period no other tracs where on it . the second run we had alot of snow machine traffic since and the trail was hard packed but not groomed . and towards 3 kings the sled tracs for the most part left the trail going up and over smalltrees and bushes riding the slopes not on the trail at all .

up here we are covered with snow for 8-9 months out of the year . we can't just sit here and not get out . it will drive you insane . they are equal use trails .one does not have more right than any other . there alot of snow machine and dog mushing only trails . this is not one . plus this trail was closed most of the summer due to the wild fires . wich is why so much confusion to the sledders to where they were .

yes we are polite and do our best to get along and not intrusive . we are all up there to get out and enjoy our great state no matter what means of travel we use .

[dirt]

i think, IMO, that what Badco tried to say was taht if there are a lot of vehicles w/ snowmachine trailers at the trailhead, then it may be better to use a different trail at that time. this may help balance out the amount of traffic on the different trails, and possibly help prevent this type of incident from recurring. just my 2¢

[Fix-It]

there where no trucks or trailers at the trail head . we broke the snow coming in off the fairbanks creek rd to the trail head that morning we had no clue they were there .
what are we supposed to do leave reservations to trucks only, on the road ? so there is to be no confusion to who has access to the road ?
and i know this area real well i worked all summer in that valley for a gold mineing company . there are many ways to get onto that trail and never see anybody till you get 2 or 3 miles in .

[LawsonEOD]

I know and Understood Badco. I just wanted to state the other side of the arguement. Yes we would stay off of any trail that is packed with any other form of transportation becuase we would only be adding to the conjestion and wear and tear on an already well used system. The one in question had zero trucks and trailers at the trail head or even at the ski lodge which is real close-by when on a snow machine. I think I understand both sides of the issue and can see that it is a point of concern for more than just us up here in Fairbanks. We will be talking about this as stated before at our club meeting in Dec.

[natrlbrnmudr]

I was the club member who spoke with the hostile snow machiner. Here is how I see it. Groomed trail? No. The trail was not groomed. Show me a machine that could get up those hills and across that stream to groom anything. The only grooming going on was us grooming the trees that snow mobilers would barely clear so unless said grooming machine was shorter than a snow machine, left no tracks in it's wake, and groomed miles of difficult terrain with no sign of it's passing(even if it was driving in reverse and throwing snow so delicately that the thrown snow did not fall through the powder that it was thrown on). I fear not, my firends, I fear not.

Groomed? I will tell you how it was "groomed." No one drove their snow machines on it so it was still "virgin." That is how it was groomed. God Almighty, Mother Nature, or the snow a nd weather fairies. Whatever you choose to call it.

If there were a sign that said "groomed snow" I would not drive on it, Period. I respect "Tread Lightly!" and I know we are not the only outdoor enthusiasts out there. Did I see a sign that says snow machines or dog sledders only? No, I did not. If I had, once again I would not have driven on it. Period. Furthermore, I have yet to see a sign in Alaska that says offroad 4x4 rigs only. Why? Because you need to share. Why is Mr. Arsonist wannabe mad? Because we played with the toys before he did. Should you give up a public camping spot because someone else thought of camping there but did not tell you? When you were a kid and went to a friends house to play, you would get the kids' coolest toy, the other kid would cry, and your momma would say...? C'mon, you remember. Oh, that's right! "Share!" Mom knows best. I do not dislike snow machiners. I want to own one when the checking account allows. I would rather not be at odds with them.

I am all about keeping in contact with snow machine clubs to ensure that we don't pee in their Wheaties and they in ours. Perhaps if we teamed up with them, together we could open up more trails, maintain them, and sing Koom-ba-ya.

Bottom line:
Having said that, IS Mr Arsonist wannabe a good steward of the land by straying from the obviously marked trail and running over yearling trees? How about his humanitarian award for threatening to burn all AO stickered vehicles?
Show me where AO has done anything wrong. Have we crossed into marked forbidden land? Have we broken with our Tread Lightly! philosophy and ran over saplings? Have we threatened to burn a snow machine or test our suspension travel on the sled? Have we denied assistance to someone in need, whether it be snow machine, dog sled, or low rider Euro racer?
This guy is mad because he wants his "toy" all to himself. Sorry pal, Democracy is in effect! Come to me like a man, we will talk it over; Hide behind a helmet, make a threat, ride away, then try to sway public opinion of the club by posting a biased opinion of said club and I rate you in the same catagory as the poo on my shoe. NBM

[BadCo]

Fix-it- Why the anger? I did not state, nor imply any wrongful doing on Arctic Off Road's part what so ever. I personally think you guys were well within your rights. Your club had the unfortunate run in that we all dread. Someone who can not be enlightened, regardless of the facts.

The point I was trying to make were for future reference for all who read them, not you and your club in particular. My posts reflected the origin of this thread more than the situation you guys experienced. Your incident just happened to apply to our current season.

We as a community are trying to avoid conflict. We are also trying to maintain our right to enjoy the trails. The old statement of "You can't please everyone" comes to mind.

[nate]

I don't see where the arguement is.

The trail wasn't groomed, there wasn't much snow, so yes, you guys had the right to be there just as much as the snowmobilers and that letter sent to the newspaper exagerated the situation ALOT.


I've gotten rude comments from guys on 4 wheelers as well, for us blocking the trail, "tearing it up", etc.
Even had some guys on fourwheeler steal a digital camera while we were winching someone out.
On the other hand, alot of times we met up with guys that are real cool... they'll check out the rigs maybe, or just a wave as we pass by even. We're going to meet all sorts of people on the trails.

[Overlord]

Originally Posted by nate

I don't see where the arguement is.

The trail wasn't groomed, there wasn't much snow, so yes, you guys had the right to be there just as much as the snowmobilers and that letter sent to the newspaper exagerated the situation ALOT.


I've gotten rude comments from guys on 4 wheelers as well, for us blocking the trail, "tearing it up", etc.
Even had some guys on fourwheeler steal a digital camera while we were winching someone out.
On the other hand, alot of times we met up with guys that are real cool... they'll check out the rigs maybe, or just a wave as we pass by even. We're going to meet all sorts of people on the trails.

I've always get "how did you get thing up here?". But I've also seen 4 wheelers tear up the trail too. Didn't get a chance to talk to them about though.