RML shut down from Saw Mill to SLab Pile for 2013 wheeling season.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

ok....I read all that was posted here, and the 20 something page thread on NC4x4, and still am in the dark about what really is going on. Maybe I missed it, but what is the reason the trail is closed? The artifacts? People cutting illegal trails and bypasses? Erosion? Which is it, and what 'group' is causing the drama? If its the Indian artifacts, who found them, and when? If it is the bypasses and atvs running where they shouldn't be, then that's an easy fix, confront them head on...run over them if oyu have to. I've been there plenty of times, and I know what jackasses they really are. The forest service just not wanting to deal with it and is trying to shut the area down? If thats the case, we don't have a chance.

I'm still not clear on how Uwharrie is 'public' land, but the forest service, who is funded by public tax dollars, just throws their arms up in the air and says its our problem. If thats the case, then we should have free reign over the place, and self police. I for one am not scared to confront and/or take on someone who is abusing the land and making it hard on the rest of us. If the forest service has no presence there, then how can then say what can and can't be done?

Again, something caused the closure, and that reason needs to be put out in the open in BOLD letters on every forum. So much speculation and heresay.

What needs to be done? When does it need to be done by? Who is causing the problems? Is there gonna be a ranger patroling a gate at the trail closed areas? I don't think so. I only rememeber one time I actually saw a ranger on the trails.

Sorry for the rant
 
Look. Had you taken the Tread Lightly class you would know what is the proper way of confronting people. We already look bad enough in the eyes of the public and other used groups. Let's not make it worse. And if you want to get into a fight out there with someone take any ONSC stickers / Mud sticker you have on your truck off. That is not a request. Do what you want out there on your time but do not involve me. Or anything I am associated with period.
 
I'm well versed in the ways of treading lightly.

No one said anything about fighting, I said confront. As in confront the problem as to fix it so the 99% of the population can enjoy some open space.

I just get frustrated when reading through all the posts. It is obvious that everything is very vague, why? I don't know. Same thing with Tellico. No one really know what was going on, then POOF, it was closed. I never got to enjoy that, and it pains me. It pains me that someone in the shadows caused the shutdown of public land. We all know it just wasn't Trout Unlimited. We all know that the logging and heavy equipment usage that is going on now is causing much more damage than some Jeeps every would..and yet none of that seems to matter. I know it is very politcal, and again, its hard for the average Joe to fight that. That is why we need to know what/who the problem is, who is raising a stink about it, and what we can do to fix it.

I know you are working to find out the problems and solutions, not trying to start an argument here. I appreciate your efforts. While reading through the other threads, what started out as a closure do to Indian artifacts morphed into putting guardrails up and ATV problems.
 
Last edited:
Might want to reword you running over part in the previous thread. More than just us look at these threads. And you just threatened people that are the issue in your eyes.

That is not Tread Lightly.

A judge will say it was premeditated when you have an issue on the trail now.
 
Keeping this thread at the top!

I also have the same questions as onemanarmy. I suspect that a few arrowheads were found to lead to where we are now. Hell, I see arrowheads everywhere I go around here because they ARE everywhere around here. On a side note, there is Jordan Lumber and Culp Lumber, to name a few of the major logging companies, that timber all over this area, including the URE's. Be that as it may, the NPS has found a problem and we need to somehow fix it!

Darin, I am willing to get my fat old ass out on the trail and help do whatever it takes to get RML open. I cannot imagine having Logan's Run and not being able to go to Kodak Rock to honor him. So personally, this issue really hits home.

I'm sure with the gub, it will take several months to have a game plan, but I hope you let the NPS know that all we want is the "go ahead" to fix this problem and it will be done.

If their is something we can do the weekend of April 6th, let us know. I will (as usual) have a trash bag in the LC and will do my part in keeping the trails clean.

There is a lot of other thoughts I have on this topic but I'm sure I would get called out if I posted them! :mad: :bang:
 
I hope everyone understands out there, in a court of law anything you say can and will be used against you, to include on the forum. People really need to control themselves. I have things i am saying in my mind right now about the entire thing, but saying it out loud will get me in trouble so i keep them to myself, not even telling Robin, as then it puts her in a bind.



This is the time we should be trying to do the right thing and work together with all user groups. I have given you the knowledge, and the way, now lets go forward and do the right thing as a club.Esp, as soon we will belong to Tread Lightly as a club.
 
You're good to tell Robin Darrin...

Spousal testimonial privilege (also called spousal incompetency and spousal immunity) protects the individual holding the privilege from being called to testify by the prosecution against his spouse/the defendant. A minority of states apply testimonial privilege in both criminal and civil cases. For example, under California Evidence Code ("CEC") §970, California permits the application of testimonial privilege to both civil and criminal cases, and includes both the privilege not to testify as well as the privilege not to be called as a witness by the party adverse to the interests of the spouse in the trial.[2]
Under U.S. federal common law, the spousal testimonial privilege is held by the witness-spouse, not the party-spouse, and therefore does not prevent a spouse who wishes to testify from doing so.[3] The rationale of this rule is that if a witness-spouse desires to testify against the party-spouse, there is no marital harmony left to protect through the obstruction of such testimony. This common law principle is the view in a minority of U.S. states. A majority of U.S. jurisdictions, however, do not follow U.S. federal common law; in most states, the party-spouse, and not the witness-spouse, is the holder of spousal testimonial privilege.
Spousal testimonial privilege covers observations, such as the color of the clothing the party-spouse was wearing on a certain day, as well as communications, such as the content of a telephone conversation with the party-spouse.
The witness-spouse may invoke testimonial privilege regarding events which occurred (1) during the marriage, if the spouses are still married; and (2) prior to the marriage if he is married to his spouse in court proceedings at the time of trial. If, by the time the trial occurs, the spouses are no longer married, the former spouse-witness may testify freely about any events which occurred prior to, after, or even during the marriage. Spousal testimonial privilege, in other words, only lasts as long as the marriage does.
Spousal testimonial privilege may not be invoked if the spouses are suing each other or each other's estates in a civil case; if one of the spouses has initiated a criminal proceeding against the other; or in a competency proceeding regarding one of the spouses.
Both rules may be suspended depending on the jurisdiction in the case of divorce proceedings or child custody disputes, but are suspended in cases where one spouse is accused of a crime against the other spouse or the spouse's child. Courts generally do not permit an adverse spouse to invoke either privilege during a trial initiated by the other spouse, or in the case of domestic abuse. The privileges may also be suspended where both spouses are joint participants in a crime, depending on the law of the jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

;) :beer: R
 
Are Blue Ribbon and the other trail- and public land advocacy groups getting involved, willing to lend a hand, some advice, lobbying or anything?
 
Until I get an answer as to the reason why it was shut down I do not want to get people involved for something we did to ourselves. Ourselves being all user groups of the trail system. It might still be the people that go off trail and tear stuff up that all we got to do is teach those people and put the guard rail up and all is fine.
 
If someone else wants to or feels the need to by all means go for it. I am in no means holding anyone back from talking to or doing whatever to these other groups. I am not holding the bull by the horns on this thing.
 
onemanarmy said:
I'm still not clear on how Uwharrie is 'public' land, but the forest service, who is funded by public tax dollars, just throws their arms up in the air and says its our problem. If thats the case, then we should have free reign over the place, and self police.


Sorry for the rant
Click to expand...

First, i think we all must understand that if URE is "public land" or not, any time you get involved in land quality issues such as erosion/heavy use/logging/trails/etc no one has free reign over property, even your own personal property. you can do what ever you want to your own property. Your regional office of Land Quality with DWQ can stop you from doing these things. Alot of these activities go unnoticed on private land but URE being so popular it brings alot of attention to its self, usually in a bad way.

onemanarmy said:
We all know that the logging and heavy equipment usage that is going on now is causing much more damage than some Jeeps every would..and yet none of that seems to matter. I know it is very politcal, and again, its hard for the average Joe to fight that.
Click to expand...

logging seems to get a bad image. they are allowed to do more than what seems necessary however before you can log you must have appropriate permits with land quality for erosion control measures and staging areas. logging is a forest management practice, not just for revenue purposes. they have restrictions on how close to streams they can harvest trees, they are allowed to cherry pick larger trees within that stream buffer without disurbing more than 50% of the stock within the 30-50ft buffer. Needless to say, i hate to see guard rails go up in URE. I think its ugly and looks like we have zero self control. I can promise you UREs forest will be harvested again and likely very soon. if you think the trails are poorly marked now, wait until there are no trees to your left and right...
I am personally guilty of this in the last year becasue i did not know, and i have been to URE 10-15 times wheeling over the last 10 years. But i didnt realize til last year that you cannot camp and park on the trails off the trails. I have always seen people do this and you can always look off the trails and see these camping spots. Someone had to tell me that was not acceptable. I read signs, maybe i missed it, but i dont recall to this date reading signs on the trails saying you cant do this. Maybe its posted on the kiosks at the trailheads that 20% of the people read. Maybe more signage (cheaper than guardrails) throughout the whole trail systems that both identify the trail your own and others that give simple short guidelines.

onemanarmy said:
While reading through the other threads, what started out as a closure do to Indian artifacts morphed into putting guardrails up and ATV problems.
Click to expand...

as Darin told us at our ONSC tread lightly class that URE is a archeological site for Indian Artifacts and tribal history/preservation (i did not know that ahead of time). i cant expect anyone else to know that either. just because you find a few artifacts doesn't mean its a NHPA section 106 tribal issue that would require you to relocate or shutdown your operations. But if URE has these areas within the vicinity of our trails, its very important to stay away and to stay within our granted areas (trails).
Ive been going to URE for years, i didnt know these things. I believe URE trails weren't as strict then as it is now. People like me might not know that things have changed. ignorance is bliss, but ignorance will cause the wheeling community alot of grief.
More education is needed for all public land users, but it needs to be simple messages, not detailed 20 page books. It would take a 24 pack of budlight for most rednecks to read all that.....

keep up the good work darin...
 
1974FJ said:
I am personally guilty of this in the last year becasue i did not know, and i have been to URE 10-15 times wheeling over the last 10 years. But i didnt realize til last year that you cannot camp and park on the trails off the trails. I have always seen people do this and you can always look off the trails and see these camping spots. Someone had to tell me that was not acceptable. I read signs, maybe i missed it, but i dont recall to this date reading signs on the trails saying you cant do this. Maybe its posted on the kiosks at the trailheads that 20% of the people read. Maybe more signage (cheaper than guardrails) throughout the whole trail systems that both identify the trail your own and others that give simple short guidelines.
Click to expand...

I found this statement on the URE website:

"Primitive dispersed camping is allowed throughout the Forest, except in those areas that are posted "No Camping". These sites can be found along most of Forest Service roads and trails. Please remember when using these sites to be careful with camp fires and carry out your trash and debris. Please leave your campsite in good clean condition so that others who follow you may also enjoy the Forest."

So, this means you can camp on the trails, right?

Then I found this statement at the bottom of campgrounds/camping in the UREs:

DISPERSED CAMPING
Unless areas have “No Camping” signs, camping
is allowed in undeveloped, non-fee areas in the
Uwharrie National Forest. No dispersed camping is
allowed within the boundaries of day-use sites, camp
grounds or most wildlife openings. Call the rangers
stations for more info


I guess the OHV trails are a "fee area" within the boundaries of day-use sites...

Learn something new everyday!
 
I can not speak about the trail side camping as it has been over a decade since I did that but can ask Terry any question you need as I will be checking in with her tomorrow.
 
Hi Darin, Mike & Eli – Deborah and our Acting District Ranger, Mark Garner, asked me to send you a copy of our Closure Order for the section of Rocky Mountain Loop Trail that is temporarily closed while we work on alternatives to manage that section. Please post it on the appropriate websites for the 4x4 and motorized trail community to see it so they know before they come up to the Uwharrie NF that this section is closed to vehicles, horses, bikes, and dispersed camping. We will have FS tent at the Uwharrie Jamboree if people have any questions they can talk to our folks there. Please ask them to be polite to the FS people working at the Jamboree and on the trails because we are not the folks that make the decisions but are the folks that enforce the decision.



We appreciate all of your help and all of the help from the volunteers over the years and over this winter. We hope to keep working together to address the issues of this trail and other trails on the Uwharrie NF. If you have any questions feel free to ask me and I’ll answer them as best as I can.



Thank you. Bye - Terry


Sam got it correct.
 
Last edited:
Darin -

Your link was to your private e-mail account and did not work. I have added a link below to the notice on the USFS website.


Trail Closure Notice
 
Here is the wording i was worried about.



Date(s): Mar 27, 2013 - Mar 27, 2014

The U.S. Forest Service has temporarily closed Rocky Mountain Loop Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trail and Hang Glider Horse Trail in the Uwharrie National Forest.



The Forest Service closed the Rocky Mountain Loop OHV Trail, which includes Kodak Rock, and Hang Glider Horse trail because of excessive damage to the natural resources of these areas. The damage is directly related to recreational uses of OHVs, horses and dispersed camping off designated trails.



The trails and surrounding areas are closed for further review. The Forest Service is in the process of determining and selecting alternatives, which would protect the sensitive resources in these areas. A reopening date for the trails has yet to be determined.



Tickets will be issued to anyone found using OHVs, horses or dispersed camping in or along the closed trails.
 
Yes, that is worrisome. It is roughly the same language used in initial closings at Tellico (lower 2) in the early to mid 2000s.

What is unusual is the language covers the horse trail as well. In my experience, horse trails are rarely closed due to damage due to traditional definitions of "natural resources". I would guess that in this case, "natural resources" includes arch ....

The book will be headed your way today ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom