just found this about the Gap... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter DSRTRDR
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
inkpot
SILVER Star
Howdy! It's a little too late to do anything about this one. The rumor about it happening has been around for a while. Not enough people got off their butts and got involved to prevent this. Duh, same old story. This time, instead of the Greenies closing up a trail, it's probably some local with a stocker that couldn't make it thru, so he called his congressman, etc.
I know there are people on these boards that get involved in the "Travel Management Plan" meetings and such, but obviously, we need more people to get more involved. I know the response is always "too busy/too broke", but we are loosing ground on these issues. (rant off) John
I know there are people on these boards that get involved in the "Travel Management Plan" meetings and such, but obviously, we need more people to get more involved. I know the response is always "too busy/too broke", but we are loosing ground on these issues. (rant off) John
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Threads
- 274
- Messages
- 23,233
- Location
- Chandler, AZ
- Website
- www.tontorecreationalliance.org
I have heard several rumors related to this:
There are too many injury accidents happening, especially kids on quads/golf carts, so the trails need to be made safer. What happened to personal responsibility, educate yourself about the trail your going on and if it gets too rough turn around?
Emergency access is too expensive, so trails need to be maintained so that emergency vehicle access is easier. If trails are maintained to that level, traffic, speed will increase and accidents will increase, so wouldn't that be more expensive?
This one I heard in Crown King, but have heard again, so? Other than limited areas, (FJ, Table Mesa, Rolls, etc) all routes that will remain open will be maintained to a standard to allow for stock SUV travel.
My observation is the talk from the agencies doesn't match their actions:
They complain about too many users in the back country, but improve the roads. My guess is, doing that will increase travel?
They complain about the cost of emergencies. Increasing the number of travelers and speed isn't going to increase accidents/costs?
They complain about dust produced. A challenging trail is run at slow speed, under the significant dust producing speed. Grade them smooth and I'm running 30-40mph, enjoy the dust.
What is next, speed cameras, tickets on the trail?
They complain about erosion caused by wheelers. How many years would it take for wheeler traffic to cause the same amount of erosion as one pass by the dozer blade? It fractures tons of rock, causing silt run off into washes, lakes, etc.
They complain that they don't have the budget to maintain trails. Obviously untrue, evidence shows they are running dozers. In my observation trails that have been bladed, washout quicker, have to be "improved" more often, so would be more expensive?
They complain about new trails being cut, off trail activity, etc. In my observation this is mainly caused by less experienced users. So by improving the trail, your inviting more less experienced users and once they get there, find few/no obstacles so create them.
They complain about trash. In my observation the same as above, mainly caused by less experienced users.
They complain that they don't have the budget for trail head signs. I call BS, it would be much less expensive to put/maintain signs than run dozers and remove wrecks/injured bodies. Having "gate keeper" type obstacles, representative of what to expect on the trail would go a long way to eliminating some of the problem. Instead they grade the entrance, so the trail looks easy, only to find out further down the trail that there are difficult obstacles, then bypasses get cut, stacking, etc.
My feeling is they are intentionally setting up a self fulfilling scenario, where they can say, "look we tried, but everything is getting worse, so we need to close everything".
Bottom line, if there are trials that you want to see, get out and run them NOW. My guess is, they will soon be unavailable or greatly changed.
There are too many injury accidents happening, especially kids on quads/golf carts, so the trails need to be made safer. What happened to personal responsibility, educate yourself about the trail your going on and if it gets too rough turn around?
Emergency access is too expensive, so trails need to be maintained so that emergency vehicle access is easier. If trails are maintained to that level, traffic, speed will increase and accidents will increase, so wouldn't that be more expensive?
This one I heard in Crown King, but have heard again, so? Other than limited areas, (FJ, Table Mesa, Rolls, etc) all routes that will remain open will be maintained to a standard to allow for stock SUV travel.
My observation is the talk from the agencies doesn't match their actions:
They complain about too many users in the back country, but improve the roads. My guess is, doing that will increase travel?
They complain about the cost of emergencies. Increasing the number of travelers and speed isn't going to increase accidents/costs?
They complain about dust produced. A challenging trail is run at slow speed, under the significant dust producing speed. Grade them smooth and I'm running 30-40mph, enjoy the dust.
What is next, speed cameras, tickets on the trail?They complain about erosion caused by wheelers. How many years would it take for wheeler traffic to cause the same amount of erosion as one pass by the dozer blade? It fractures tons of rock, causing silt run off into washes, lakes, etc.
They complain that they don't have the budget to maintain trails. Obviously untrue, evidence shows they are running dozers. In my observation trails that have been bladed, washout quicker, have to be "improved" more often, so would be more expensive?
They complain about new trails being cut, off trail activity, etc. In my observation this is mainly caused by less experienced users. So by improving the trail, your inviting more less experienced users and once they get there, find few/no obstacles so create them.
They complain about trash. In my observation the same as above, mainly caused by less experienced users.
They complain that they don't have the budget for trail head signs. I call BS, it would be much less expensive to put/maintain signs than run dozers and remove wrecks/injured bodies. Having "gate keeper" type obstacles, representative of what to expect on the trail would go a long way to eliminating some of the problem. Instead they grade the entrance, so the trail looks easy, only to find out further down the trail that there are difficult obstacles, then bypasses get cut, stacking, etc.
My feeling is they are intentionally setting up a self fulfilling scenario, where they can say, "look we tried, but everything is getting worse, so we need to close everything".
Bottom line, if there are trials that you want to see, get out and run them NOW. My guess is, they will soon be unavailable or greatly changed.
wow, kevin, how do you really feel?
Actually, the gate keeper obstacle is a great idea, so it'll never catch on
.
I support limited access by permit, as in B-dog canyon area.
But grading the Gap? that sux
!
Actually, the gate keeper obstacle is a great idea, so it'll never catch on
.I support limited access by permit, as in B-dog canyon area.
But grading the Gap? that sux
!
Sections of the Gap have been graded before and eventually deteriorate over time. I agree with Kevin that making it easier to travel will increase the speed and lead to more idiots/accidents. Hopefully, the monsoons will help make it difficult again.
