blooddrive
01-07-2004, 09:44 PM
75927-75951
75927 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:56pm
Subject: RE: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
John,
That is a very good point.
Could it also be argued that there are many different types of
recreation?
Shouldn't we tread lightly and leave the trail as we found it?
Joey K
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stewart [mailto:landuse@u...]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:38 PM
To: TODD MCCULLEN; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
At 12:38 PM -0700 1/19/03, TODD MCCULLEN wrote:
>Just need to add my 2 cents, I agree with Sandee 100%
> Myself and some buddies went out yesterday to play and practice
>for the upcoming competition, and the day ended up being a work day.
>We started off on lower woodpecker, and found all the good spots
>ramped with rocks. We spent the first hour unstacking everything we
>could find. After that we headed over to bad medicine to check out
>the waterfall, we decided to do upper Ajax on the way. This ended up
>in a major derocking of the trail, and it could use more. We spent 2
>hours just removing rocks from the few hard spots on this trail.
>We did axle alley, and highway to hell a couple weeks ago and did
>the same thing. Heck axle alley was so paved it took us about five
>minutes to get to the first waterfall, when this trail was new it
>took a couple hours to get this far. This is an example of how the
>tough trails are being paved by people & rigs that did not belong
>there.
>The last waterfall on Bad Medicine is now passable, we managed to
>maneuver the rocks down to the bottom of the waterfall. It is not
>easy, so the people that worry about breakage or damage DO NOT DO
>THE TRAIL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do a trail that you are capable of
>without ruining the trail for the ones that like the extreme
>challenge.
>I am sick and tired of every time I go out wheeling, I spend half
>the day UNSTACKING ROCKS. We do put winches on our rigs for a
>reason. If you cant not drive the obstacle without building ramps,
>use your WINCH.
>I could go on forever about this so I will stop now, GET THE POINT.
>
>Todd
>
>
I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail, making
the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to get
the trail closed.
I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure, especially
if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a liability.
Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their own
insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
yada, yada..
Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
Sluice on the Rubicon.
Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and have
at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
remove when they become a liability.
You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are playing
into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because the
BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
expense of many.
I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists that
are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit that
to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use the
trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
Access for ALL.
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
75928 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:57pm
Subject: [TR] Unspecified - Monday, January 20, 2003
Hello All,
Nathan Orelup is leading an Unspecified trail run on Monday, January 20, 2003.
When: Around 9:00
Where: Either Charouleau Gap or Chivo Falls, or anywhere else in the Tucson area.
Rating: None
Length: 4-6 hrs
CB Channel:
Anyone interested in going out somewhere in the Tucson area? Call or E-mail if interested.
Nathan 544-7821 or theorelups@comcast.net
Click Here To Add Your Name to the Sign Up List
Thank You,
- The AzVJC Website
75929 From: Jim Russell <azdesertrhino@c...> <azdesertrhino@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:16pm
Subject: re: trail stacking, blocking or ???
My poor little stock CJ-5 is far from capable of running some of the
trails y'all run, but I sure as hell would never try to reconfigure a
trail (move rocks, stack rocks or whatever,) to suit my Jeep. I run
the areas my Jeep is capable of, and so should everyone else, or
build yourself a bigger, better rig. I still have a hell of a lot of
fun in my Jeep. Thank you very much! (ha ha)
Just my 2 cents worth.
Jim Tucson 76 CJ-5
75930 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:22pm
Subject: [TR] Woodpecker (Upper) - Monday, January 20, 2003
Hello All,
John Lerew is leading a Woodpecker (Upper) trail run on Monday, January 20, 2003.
When:
Where:
Rating: 4.0+
Length:
CB Channel:
Last minute trip,will meet anyone that wants to join at start of upper woodpecker trail around 10AM and will start at 10:15 if time permits maybe play on Ajax afterward?
Upper Woodpecker is a wash that runs to the Woodpecker Mine. Years ago this wash was the actual road from the mine. There have been many hours of fun playing and traversing on this trail. It offers rock ledges, cracks, "tippy spots" and is the home of the infamous "Fire Hole". It was one of the first "extreme" trails offered in Arizona.
Over the years this trail has seen the result of "rock stacking" and "ramp building" that has down rated the trail from a 4.5 to a 4.0 but it still has a number of "play areas" and lockers are still required for the harder portion of the trail.
Upon exiting the wash you will climb to the top of the hill where the mine is located. There is an amethyst pit mine near the entrance to the Woodpecker Mine where you will most likely find several "rock hounds" or mountain bikers.
Don't forget your lunch and water. This is one of the longer trails and is normally an all day trip.
Enjoy and remember to TREAD Lightly!
Click Here To Add Your Name to the Sign Up List
Thank You,
- The AzVJC Website
75931 From: DougB <azjeep@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:27pm
Subject: Re: re: trail stacking, blocking or ???
Well said. The Jeep should be made to match the trail, and not alter the
trail to match the Jeep.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: <azdesertrhino@c...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:16 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] re: trail stacking, blocking or ???
> My poor little stock CJ-5 is far from capable of running some of the
> trails y'all run, but I sure as hell would never try to reconfigure a
> trail (move rocks, stack rocks or whatever,) to suit my Jeep. I run
> the areas my Jeep is capable of, and so should everyone else, or
> build yourself a bigger, better rig. I still have a hell of a lot of
> fun in my Jeep. Thank you very much! (ha ha)
> Just my 2 cents worth.
> Jim Tucson 76 CJ-5
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
75932 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:18pm
Subject: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
John,
I cannot truly believe this came from you........ if we are ALL to use the
SAME trails why os UFWDA stiving for a "universal" rating system and/or
signing system for trails. ????? Why would anyone spend thousands of
dollars on aftermarket equipment...... i.e., lockers, lifts, tires, fuel
injection, Dana 60 axles, etc, etc if we ALL should do the same level trail
because it's PUBLIC. Mother Nature didn't make all the land the
same........... why should we?? Looks to me like Mother Nature is a better
judge of "challenge" than you.
Todd did not say anything about "MAKING A TRAIL MORE DIFFICULT".......... he
referred to the vehicles traveling on or into a trail situation ABOVE their
capabilities ............ driving experience and/or vehicle capabilities.
These guys are literally paving and grooming ALL trails to the general level
of a 2.0 on a 1-5 difficulty rating. THIS is what must stop. No one has a
problem re "throwing a rock now and then to help a vehicle through a
difficult spot" but courtesy on the trail would allow for those rocks to be
taken out to allow the next vehicle the "challenge" the trail is rated for.
Pulling down rock walls from the side of the trail to "fill in holes or to
make ramps" is uncalled for and is what we're talking about. THIS is what
will get our trails closed................... NOT RESPONSIBLE USE !!!
The issue at hand came from a report that two large boulders were now in the
middle of the waterfall of a 4.5 rated trail. These boulders were NOT
brought down from the side to make the trail MORE difficult........... they
were trying to make it easier by filling in holes or creaves'. What Todd
and his group of 4-wheelers did was relocate the boulders to the point where
the trail could again be used. With the boulders in place NO ONE was going
to do the trail.............. extreme or not.
I don't know about Cal or surrounding areas but Arizona land agencies are
NOT looking at "closing trails because of difficulty". Actually they are
very supportive of "rock crawling", if done responsibly. They want the
trails rated and they ask the help of the recreationists to "patrol and/or
educate our fellow users" about trail ethics and the use of trails within
their capabilities.
I guess bottom line is simply put:................ rocking, paving or in
general, grooming a trail because their stock vehicle cannot traverse it is
outright BAD TRAIL MANNERS!! Making by-passes and destroying the
resourses around an obstacle or outside the parameters of a trail is what
will close our trails............ NOT responsible use. We need trails of
ALL difficulty levels to keep up with the numbers on public lands today and
the challenge the recreationists require. Paving everything to the same
level is ludicrous, if not outright stupid.
Re rock crawling course being "set up and removed"............... where
have you been John??? I don't know of one course that has moved anywhere.
The courses being used by all the rock crawling organizations are simply the
"lay of nature". Showing responsible use of these areas is what it's about.
According to you we need to go in and "ROCK STACK" our rock crawling areas
so your stock vehicle can use it. Go away John............
If you come to Arizona and rock any trails here you'll fight with me!!!
Sandee
>
> I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
>
> If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
> that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
> wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
>
> If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail, making
> the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to get
> the trail closed.
>
> I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
> the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
> special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure, especially
> if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
>
> BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a liability.
> Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their own
> insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
> yada, yada..
>
> Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
> Sluice on the Rubicon.
>
> Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and have
> at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
> removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
> remove when they become a liability.
>
> You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
> be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
> management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are playing
> into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because the
> BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
> expense of many.
>
> I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists that
> are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
> demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
> hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
>
> Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit that
> to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
> stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use the
> trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
> Access for ALL.
>
>
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
> Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
75933 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:19pm
Subject: RE: re: trail stacking, blocking or ???
Jim,
Thank you for your $.02................... in a very short paragraph you
stated exactly what 4-wheeling should be about. ...
S.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Russell <azdesertrhino@c...> [mailto:azdesertrhino@c...]
> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:17 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] re: trail stacking, blocking or ???
>
>
> My poor little stock CJ-5 is far from capable of running some of the
> trails y'all run, but I sure as hell would never try to reconfigure a
> trail (move rocks, stack rocks or whatever,) to suit my Jeep. I run
> the areas my Jeep is capable of, and so should everyone else, or
> build yourself a bigger, better rig. I still have a hell of a lot of
> fun in my Jeep. Thank you very much! (ha ha)
> Just my 2 cents worth.
> Jim Tucson 76 CJ-5
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
75934 From: MAIN <shawcroft@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:26pm
Subject: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
I think Stu hit the nail on the head!
It also scares me that "one of our own" would think that way.
I, as did the rest, noticed no mention of removing the rocks john was so
willing to help stack. You would think that a "director of environmental
affairs" would understand the "environmental impact" of altering a trail if
nothing else.
I don't wish to sound one sided, I have had to stack a rock or two after
a breakage to get out, but I put them back! I have also been in spots where
the choice was stack rocks or turn around, its not an easy choice but in
this light it seems obvious, come back later more prepared.
Just my opinion, and like a/h we all have one.
Tim Shawcroft
ENB4W
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...>
To: "'John Stewart'" <landuse@u...>; "'TODD MCCULLEN'"
<desertfab@m...>; <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 7:35 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
> John,
>
> While I don't run at the same vehicle level as Todd (I fully admit that
> my TJ is not built like any of his vehicles), I will certainly defend
> Todd's comments.
>
> We enjoy a large number of trails here in Arizona (luckily) that provide
> fun for vehicles ranging from the stock equipped Sunday afternoon picnic
> crowd to the highest capability rock buggies. I view it very much like
> the ski slopes at Aspen or any other ski resort....bunny hills for the
> new folks, black diamond runs for those that are capable.
>
> So please answer me a question.....of what benefit is converting all of
> the tails into the picnic trails? Is this suppose to encourage those
> who have something more than a stock vehicle to stay on the trails and
> not seek something more challenging? I think not.
>
> I was fortunate enough to attend the NOHVCC conference held here in
> Phoenix this past October. One thing I learned, as did the land
> management people, is that the Joe Public will go out to THEIR public
> lands and have fun on the weekends. Unfortunately, if that means
> blazing a new trail because NONE exist that are challenging enough for
> them, they WILL blaze them. If challenging trails are available, the
> chances of someone wildcatting a new one is greatly reduced. We had
> land management personnel give presentations that stated that a
> successful trail network, for the public's use on THEIR land, MUST have
> trails that are many in numbers and appeal to all levels of users.
>
> As to the liability issue....sorry, I don't think I can fully support
> your opinion on that either. We recently had a Jeeper kill himself (a
> relative of a person at my work in fact). It was not done on a hard
> core "extreme" trail....it was done on one that a stock Jeep can
> navigate. In my opinion, the liability issue rests with those people
> who are NOT adequately prepared (read this as lacking in driving
> skills). It is one thing to lay a rock buggy over on its side while
> attempting a difficult waterfall or such. It is another to roll your
> vehicle down a 700' mountain side because you could not keep it on a
> piece of 2.5 level trail (read the trail was basically flat). The
> previous Jeep OHV accident I can recall was on a "Trail" that is
> routinely run by any SUV or pickup truck (heck, it is graded every now
> and then). This guy took the corner too fast and shot off the road and
> went some 70' down into a wash. You can call it anecdotal evidence, but
> from what I see, the "Extremist" seem to be the least of our accident
> problems here in Arizona.
>
> As for joining a Rock Crawler group and competing, Todd McCullen does
> compete. As he stated, he and friends had gone out to practice for an
> upcoming event. What is it that these folks are suppose to practice
> on....the picnic trails? You advise them to get serious about the sport
> but advocate no challenging trails on which they can hone their skills.
> I am sorry John, but you can not have it both ways.
>
> As for the Rubicon's Little Sluice....I've been on that trail, a year
> ago last August. The ONLY problem the Rubicon Trail has, in my opinion,
> is the **** load of drunks that go there to party. I am sorry, but the
> drunks I have seen seem fully capable of causing harm and even death to
> themselves or anyone around, be it on flat ground or a big rock
> obstacle.
>
> I have been reading your posts to this reflector since you started
> sending them this direction. I've never met you nor do I really know
> much about you (as you do me). However, I must say I was completely
> shocked to see your comments. If I didn't know better, I would say that
> some anti-recreationist (I refuse to call them environmentalist because
> I am an environmentalist) hacked your userID and password and sent the
> note to our e-mail list.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Stu Olson
> www.stu-offroad.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Stewart [mailto:landuse@u...]
> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:38 PM
> To: TODD MCCULLEN; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
>
> At 12:38 PM -0700 1/19/03, TODD MCCULLEN wrote:
> >Just need to add my 2 cents, I agree with Sandee 100%
> > Myself and some buddies went out yesterday to play and practice
> >for the upcoming competition, and the day ended up being a work day.
> >We started off on lower woodpecker, and found all the good spots
> >ramped with rocks. We spent the first hour unstacking everything we
> >could find. After that we headed over to bad medicine to check out
> >the waterfall, we decided to do upper Ajax on the way. This ended up
> >in a major derocking of the trail, and it could use more. We spent 2
> >hours just removing rocks from the few hard spots on this trail.
> >We did axle alley, and highway to hell a couple weeks ago and did
> >the same thing. Heck axle alley was so paved it took us about five
> >minutes to get to the first waterfall, when this trail was new it
> >took a couple hours to get this far. This is an example of how the
> >tough trails are being paved by people & rigs that did not belong
> >there.
> >The last waterfall on Bad Medicine is now passable, we managed to
> >maneuver the rocks down to the bottom of the waterfall. It is not
> >easy, so the people that worry about breakage or damage DO NOT DO
> >THE TRAIL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do a trail that you are capable of
> >without ruining the trail for the ones that like the extreme
> >challenge.
> >I am sick and tired of every time I go out wheeling, I spend half
> >the day UNSTACKING ROCKS. We do put winches on our rigs for a
> >reason. If you cant not drive the obstacle without building ramps,
> >use your WINCH.
> >I could go on forever about this so I will stop now, GET THE POINT.
> >
> >Todd
> >
> >
>
>
> I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
>
> If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
> that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
> wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
>
> If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail, making
> the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to get
> the trail closed.
>
> I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
> the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
> special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure, especially
> if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
>
> BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a liability.
> Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their own
> insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
> yada, yada..
>
> Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
> Sluice on the Rubicon.
>
> Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and have
> at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
> removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
> remove when they become a liability.
>
> You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
> be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
> management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are playing
> into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because the
> BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
> expense of many.
>
> I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists that
> are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
> demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
> hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
>
> Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit that
> to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
> stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use the
> trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
> Access for ALL.
>
>
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
> Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
75935 From: Nasser <nasser88@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:33pm
Subject: RE: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
John,
I disagree with your assessment regarding Todd's post.
I am not sure if you understood the point that he was trying to make. We
are trying to educate ourselves (OHV) to leave the trails as we find them.
One of the excuses that BLM has given us for closing trails is the
alteration of that trail by OHVs. Stacking rocks is altering the trail, and
altering the trail does not support the TREAD LIGHTLY motto.
Todd is not implying that no one but the elite should run the tough trails.
Instead he is expressing his frustration with a problem that we have been
battling for a while. Stacking rock, making ramps, and the just leaving it
that way is NOT what we want. The trails become less challenging and new
tough trails are born. The land agencies recognize that and support us in
the "unstacking" effort (not physically).
If you find Todd's post harsh, you are correct. It is very frustrating to
have to move tons of rocks that others had stacked. This group is comprised
of many levels of experience and vehicle capabilities. Just to get an idea
how many people in this group agree with your assessment about
"rock-stacking", I will set up a pole to see what the majority thinks!
The land agencies are using the rock-stacking problem against us. I kindly
ask you to review the responses to your post, and reconsider your comments
about going out there and stacking rocks. That is very sore subject for
many of us.
Regards,
Nasser
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stewart [mailto:landuse@u...]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:38 PM
To: TODD MCCULLEN; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
At 12:38 PM -0700 1/19/03, TODD MCCULLEN wrote:
>Just need to add my 2 cents, I agree with Sandee 100%
> Myself and some buddies went out yesterday to play and practice
>for the upcoming competition, and the day ended up being a work day.
>We started off on lower woodpecker, and found all the good spots
>ramped with rocks. We spent the first hour unstacking everything we
>could find. After that we headed over to bad medicine to check out
>the waterfall, we decided to do upper Ajax on the way. This ended up
>in a major derocking of the trail, and it could use more. We spent 2
>hours just removing rocks from the few hard spots on this trail.
>We did axle alley, and highway to hell a couple weeks ago and did
>the same thing. Heck axle alley was so paved it took us about five
>minutes to get to the first waterfall, when this trail was new it
>took a couple hours to get this far. This is an example of how the
>tough trails are being paved by people & rigs that did not belong
>there.
>The last waterfall on Bad Medicine is now passable, we managed to
>maneuver the rocks down to the bottom of the waterfall. It is not
>easy, so the people that worry about breakage or damage DO NOT DO
>THE TRAIL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do a trail that you are capable of
>without ruining the trail for the ones that like the extreme
>challenge.
>I am sick and tired of every time I go out wheeling, I spend half
>the day UNSTACKING ROCKS. We do put winches on our rigs for a
>reason. If you cant not drive the obstacle without building ramps,
>use your WINCH.
>I could go on forever about this so I will stop now, GET THE POINT.
>
>Todd
>
>
I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail, making
the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to get
the trail closed.
I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure, especially
if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a liability.
Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their own
insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
yada, yada..
Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
Sluice on the Rubicon.
Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and have
at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
remove when they become a liability.
You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are playing
into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because the
BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
expense of many.
I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists that
are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit that
to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use the
trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
Access for ALL.
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
75936 From: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:45pm
Subject: New poll for az_vjc
Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
az_vjc group:
Are you in favor or against altering
the trails by rock stacking and ramp
building(and leaving them there).
o Against
o In favor
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/az_vjc/surveys?id=1026916
Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Autos
web site listed above.
Thanks!
75937 From: Jon <scooby_moose@y...> <scooby_moose@y...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:01pm
Subject: soa on 75 cj5
I'm looking into doing an soa on a 75 cj5. Just wondering if
anyone knows of a good place to get some sort of kit, that would
have everything needed, so I would'nt have to piece it together, and
I would know everything will work properly. thanks in advance. any
info is helpfull.
Jon
75938 From: The Acuna Family <mkacuna@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Hunters BBQ Moved to FEB 16th.
But what about the Daytona 500?8>)
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: hunteroffroad@aol.com
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 7:50 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] Hunters BBQ Moved to FEB 16th.
OK Gang,
I am sorry about the scheduleing conflict. I really pooched that one, I did not notice Chris Benner's trip on the Sunday the 9th. Everythign will be the same.. Just one weekend later. So, I moved mine to next weekend the 16th.. That way everyone can make everythign and the world will be a happy place.
Sorry again..
Best regards
john K
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
75939 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:19pm
Subject: [FS] 15x8 5 on 5.5 (set of 5)
Price: $300 obo
Contact: Mitch Woodward
I have a set of 15x8 5 on 5.5 wheels for sale, there are 5 of them. They are the MB motoring brand, replicas of the AE 589, purchased from Rick Beer last summer. They will fit CJ's, dodge, ford, Jeepster, etc. They have seen 2 trail runs and about 1000 miles. There is some slight rock rash, but nothing major. Center caps are included. E-mail for pics.
I live in Tucson, but will deliver to Phoenix area on Jan 25th if interested.
Thanks,
Mitch
mitchwoodward@hotmail.com
Mitch Woodward
75940 From: onebdjeep <onebdjeep@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:27pm
Subject: Re: roof rack project
sweet setup!!! when are we doin mine? LOL
Sean Speer
OneBdJeep (someday!!)
'97 TJ with killer mods to come!!!
(umm... will drink beer for Jeep parts!!!)
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Beckham
To: Jeep club email ; Phillip Thomson
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:56 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] roof rack project
Here's a pic of my completed roof rack. I borrowed a friends bender, and rally had a ball!
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
75941 From: GP <grant@d...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:50pm
Subject: Borla 4.0 xj header?
Anyone on this list running one? My 1994 factory manifold is cracked and I'm looking for a replacement. I'm curious if it hangs any lower than the stock header/crossover pipe? My engine/tranny skidplate is approximately 1/4" below the factory crossover pipe. If the borla header is any lower, it's going to interfere with the skidplate. Thanks for any input.
Grant
75942 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:38pm
Subject: [FS] TIRE CARRIER AND BUMPER...CJ/YJ
Price: $350
Contact: KEITH ---- (602)300-8051 or BMXCOW222@YAHOO.COM
Bumper and tire carrier in excellent condition. Will fit any cj or yj, but is currently a direct bolt on for a cj. Allows you to get the weight of that heavy spare off your body and onto the frame. Also includes some heavy duty mounting brackets.
Keith Bowcut
75943 From: mendy4x4 <Mendy4x4@h...> <Mendy4x4@h...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:51pm
Subject: Strange leakage..
Okay, I'm not exactly sure of the exact terminology of the parts onthis..but i don't think its normal. This is on a '00 TJ with a 3'' lift and 33'' tires..So there is my steering box, and then the arm that is attached to that, well, there is another bar that is connected with the steering stabalizer. Well, there is a strange substance, its not very liquidy..its more of a paste or something. Well its leaked all over the bottom of the pitman arm and where that connects tot he steering bars on the stabalizer. I have no idea what it is, or if there is any type of liquid substance there..maybe a joint there that popped out of place and is leaking..I don't know ? Any help would be great!
David Mendenhall
'00 TJ
75944 From: <AZICE626@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:59pm
Subject: Tilt Steering
For the person who was looking for a tilt steering column, I found this on ebay.....bidding at $20.00 w/less than 2 days left.....hope you haven't spent the $200 yet.....tj
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2400350496&category=33588
75945 From: Gary_Pugsley <gary_pugsley@h...> <gary_pugsley@h...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 9:00pm
Subject: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
WOW. This guy is the Environmental Affairs Director for UFWDA?
Where did they get him, The Sierra Club? Makes me wonder what the
UFWDA's stance on paving trails, so my parents can take their buick
on it, is. If it is anything like Mr. Stewart's, we are all
screwed. If newbies (like myself) all listened to him, we would lose
access to all our trails pretty damn quick.
Like Jim from Tucson said, I have a stock TJ. That's why I did not
know what trail this waterfall was on when the damage was shown to
me. I go where I have the tools to go, and save the other trails for
more properly equipped rigs.
Did he really just tell us that we should "pave" all the trails?
Do all the associations he is so proud to be affiliated with (the
ones under his name in every post) know that this is his way
of "protecting" our right to run trails on public land? Don't we
have a responsibility to let these groups know what he is advocating,
so they can decide if he really is the right person for the jobs?
John, Maybe we all misunderstood. Maybe you were being sarcastic.
Maybe you just weren't thinking. Maybe, like Stu said, someone
hacked your account. If so, please explain yourself. If this is
truly your belief, please, go away. You will quickly do more harm
than you could ever imagine. With "friends" like you, who needs the
greenies? You will have us all climbing speed bumps at the mall in a
year.
Gary
>
>
> I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
>
> If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
> that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
> wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
>
> If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail,
making
> the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to
get
> the trail closed.
>
> I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
> the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
> special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure,
especially
> if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
>
> BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a
liability.
> Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their
own
> insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
> yada, yada..
>
> Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
> Sluice on the Rubicon.
>
> Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and
have
> at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
> removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
> remove when they become a liability.
>
> You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
> be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
> management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are
playing
> into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because
the
> BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
> expense of many.
>
> I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists
that
> are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
> demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
> hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
>
> Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit
that
> to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
> stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use
the
> trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
> Access for ALL.
>
>
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
> Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
75946 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 9:21pm
Subject: [TR] Trip Report - Unspecified - Saturday, January 18, 2003
Hello All,
Scott Brady lead a trail run Saturday, January 18, 2003 across Unspecified
Great trip. We had four vehicle. Scott and Stephanie in the ARB YJ. Doron and family in the Land Cruiser 100, John and Family in the Land Cruiser 80, and a TJ Wrangler. This trail has deteriorated some since running it in our Trooper in 2001. There is a large cottonwood blocking the road half way in to the mansion. We turned around after reaching the fallen tree. It was a short hike to the mansion, which is quite impressive. We drove around to the other entrance to be able to run the more challenging section of the road. The YJ and 80 completed the tough spots in short time, without incident. Great day!
Click Here to View Pictures (if available)
Thank You,
- The AzVJC Website
75947 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:21pm
Subject: RE: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
AMEN!
If you use a rock toss it aside afterwards.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: TODD MCCULLEN [mailto:desertfab@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:39 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
Just need to add my 2 cents, I agree with Sandee 100%
Myself and some buddies went out yesterday to play and practice for the upcoming competition, and the day ended up being a work day. We started off on lower woodpecker, and found all the good spots ramped with rocks. We spent the first hour unstacking everything we could find. After that we headed over to bad medicine to check out the waterfall, we decided to do upper Ajax on the way. This ended up in a major derocking of the trail, and it could use more. We spent 2 hours just removing rocks from the few hard spots on this trail.
We did axle alley, and highway to hell a couple weeks ago and did the same thing. Heck axle alley was so paved it took us about five minutes to get to the first waterfall, when this trail was new it took a couple hours to get this far. This is an example of how the tough trails are being paved by people & rigs that did not belong there.
The last waterfall on Bad Medicine is now passable, we managed to maneuver the rocks down to the bottom of the waterfall. It is not easy, so the people that worry about breakage or damage DO NOT DO THE TRAIL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do a trail that you are capable of without ruining the trail for the ones that like the extreme challenge.
I am sick and tired of every time I go out wheeling, I spend half the day UNSTACKING ROCKS. We do put winches on our rigs for a reason. If you cant not drive the obstacle without building ramps, use your WINCH.
I could go on forever about this so I will stop now, GET THE POINT.
Todd
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
75948 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:24pm
Subject: RE: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
John,
No, he is literally talking about people that are damn near laying
paving stones so they can get up an obstacle but don't restore the
obstacle to it's previous state after getting through. If you need a
boost that's fine, but the way I figure it, if you sweat to put the rock
there you better sweat to put it back after you get over it.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stewart [mailto:landuse@u...]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:38 PM
To: TODD MCCULLEN; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
At 12:38 PM -0700 1/19/03, TODD MCCULLEN wrote:
>Just need to add my 2 cents, I agree with Sandee 100%
> Myself and some buddies went out yesterday to play and practice
>for the upcoming competition, and the day ended up being a work day.
>We started off on lower woodpecker, and found all the good spots
>ramped with rocks. We spent the first hour unstacking everything we
>could find. After that we headed over to bad medicine to check out
>the waterfall, we decided to do upper Ajax on the way. This ended up
>in a major derocking of the trail, and it could use more. We spent 2
>hours just removing rocks from the few hard spots on this trail.
>We did axle alley, and highway to hell a couple weeks ago and did
>the same thing. Heck axle alley was so paved it took us about five
>minutes to get to the first waterfall, when this trail was new it
>took a couple hours to get this far. This is an example of how the
>tough trails are being paved by people & rigs that did not belong
>there.
>The last waterfall on Bad Medicine is now passable, we managed to
>maneuver the rocks down to the bottom of the waterfall. It is not
>easy, so the people that worry about breakage or damage DO NOT DO
>THE TRAIL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do a trail that you are capable of
>without ruining the trail for the ones that like the extreme
>challenge.
>I am sick and tired of every time I go out wheeling, I spend half
>the day UNSTACKING ROCKS. We do put winches on our rigs for a
>reason. If you cant not drive the obstacle without building ramps,
>use your WINCH.
>I could go on forever about this so I will stop now, GET THE POINT.
>
>Todd
>
>
I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail, making
the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to get
the trail closed.
I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure, especially
if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a liability.
Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their own
insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
yada, yada..
Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
Sluice on the Rubicon.
Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and have
at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
remove when they become a liability.
You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are playing
into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because the
BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
expense of many.
I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists that
are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit that
to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use the
trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
Access for ALL.
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org Recreation
Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com Webmaster, Tierra
del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster, Jeep-L:
http://www.jeep-l.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
75949 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:28pm
Subject: RE: roof rack project
That is a nice looking rack! I have alot of respect for these homemade projects. The sense of pride you get just can't be duplicated with the bolt on stuff. Best investment I ever made was a welder.
(One look at that rack and I knew Joe would be singing you some praise for it. He's got a roof rack fetish. :)
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe W [mailto:arizonajeep@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:43 PM
To: 'Michael Beckham'; 'Jeep club email'; 'Phillip Thomson'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] roof rack project
Mike,
That is a nice looking rack& you did a great job! Ive had a roof rack on my Wrangler since just after I purchased it and my Jeep just wouldnt be quite as useful without it.
The only drawback is that it raises your CG&. Just keep heavy stuff off of it on the rock runs and youll be fine.
Kind Regards,
Joe West
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Beckham [mailto:jeepnut7261@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:57 PM
To: Jeep club email; Phillip Thomson
Subject: [az_vjc] roof rack project
Here's a pic of my completed roof rack. I borrowed a friends bender, and rally had a ball!
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
75950 From: John Stewart <landuse@u...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:40pm
Subject: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
You are misunderstanding a few points.
1 - I believe vehicles should be prepared for the trail.
2 - I do not believe EVERY trail should be hardcore extreme.
3 - I am not saying "pave" the trails. I am saying that if you
insist on extreme trails and only extreme trails, you will have not
trails.
My opening statement was "If you are saying that the ONLY people on
the trails are the ones that want the extreme trail, you are no
different than the GAG that wants no one but them on foot on the
trail."
That is my point of concern. If you are going to only allow a
certain class of modified rig on the trail, you will have a
diminishing number of people and less of a chance to keep the trails
open.
Any stacking (or unstacking) of rocks is going to lead to problems.
That is the central point around the Little Sluice on the Rubicon.
Somebody felt is was too easy; therefore they took it upon themselves
to make it harder, to keep the unmodified rigs out of their play
area, and dumped some large rocks in the trail..
This is the attitude that I am disagreeing with. In this case, did
someone feel it was too hard and decide to make it easy? So, they
fill in a few holes. Now, Todd goes around to various trails
unstacking rocks. Both actions are going to lead to problems. Just
as making a bypass around a tough spot will lead to problems.
Central to this issue is the act of modifying trail; whether to make
them harder or easier. Both are actions that will draw the attention
of the land manager and lead to environmental considerations for
closing trails. There is specific guidance within the BLM manual
(and the Forest Service manual) dealing with trail construction and
maintenance.
And, yes I do disagree with the attitude that you have the right to
modify a trail because you think it should be harder. I also
disagree with modifying the trail to make it easier. You should be
prepared.
As you are from Arizona, you should be familiar with the Skye Island
Alliance. Check out their Road Ripper Manual. They are making
trails impassible.
At 5:00 AM +0000 1/20/03, Gary_Pugsley <gary_pugsley@h...> wrote:
>WOW. This guy is the Environmental Affairs Director for UFWDA?
>Where did they get him, The Sierra Club? Makes me wonder what the
>UFWDA's stance on paving trails, so my parents can take their buick
>on it, is. If it is anything like Mr. Stewart's, we are all
>screwed. If newbies (like myself) all listened to him, we would lose
>access to all our trails pretty damn quick.
>
>Like Jim from Tucson said, I have a stock TJ. That's why I did not
>know what trail this waterfall was on when the damage was shown to
>me. I go where I have the tools to go, and save the other trails for
>more properly equipped rigs.
>
>Did he really just tell us that we should "pave" all the trails?
>Do all the associations he is so proud to be affiliated with (the
>ones under his name in every post) know that this is his way
>of "protecting" our right to run trails on public land? Don't we
>have a responsibility to let these groups know what he is advocating,
>so they can decide if he really is the right person for the jobs?
>
>John, Maybe we all misunderstood. Maybe you were being sarcastic.
>Maybe you just weren't thinking. Maybe, like Stu said, someone
>hacked your account. If so, please explain yourself. If this is
>truly your belief, please, go away. You will quickly do more harm
>than you could ever imagine. With "friends" like you, who needs the
>greenies? You will have us all climbing speed bumps at the mall in a
>year.
>
>
>Gary
>
>>
>>
>> I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
>>
> > If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
>> that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
> > wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
>>
>> If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail,
>making
>> the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to
>get
>> the trail closed.
>>
>> I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
>> the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
>> special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure,
>especially
>> if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
>>
>> BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a
>liability.
>> Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their
>own
>> insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
>> yada, yada..
>>
>> Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
>> Sluice on the Rubicon.
>>
>> Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and
>have
>> at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
>> removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
>> remove when they become a liability.
>>
>> You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
>> be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
>> management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are
>playing
>> into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because
>the
>> BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
>> expense of many.
>>
>> I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists
>that
>> are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
>> demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
>> hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
>>
>> Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit
>that
>> to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
>> stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use
>the
>> trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
>> Access for ALL.
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Stewart
>> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
>> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
>> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
>> Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
75951 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:50pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
John,
Todd wasn't "making the trail harder", he was restoring it back to the
trail we all know and recognize. (Axle Alley is a class 5 trail on a 1-5
rating system.) And from what I've seen that's not an elitist attitude,
but rather frustration at people who stack up ramps but don't tear them
down because they shouldn't be on a class 5 trail.
Arizona has probably the most diverse and largest number of public
trails anywhere in the country. Right near Axle Alley are countless
other trails that are easier. Axle Alley, Box Canyon, Coke Ovens, Lower
Ajax, Martinez, Highway to Hell and Woodpecker are very close to each
other and offer varying difficulties from stock (Box Canyon) all the way
up to highly modified (Axle Alley and Highway to Hell). Those of us that
run these trails understand their ratings and what type of vehicle that
is needed. We'd like to maintain these ratings for future users to enjoy
the trail like we did years ago. That's not asking too much is it?
Regards,
Scott Kruize
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stewart [mailto:landuse@u...]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:41 PM
To: Gary_Pugsley <gary_pugsley@h...>; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
You are misunderstanding a few points.
1 - I believe vehicles should be prepared for the trail.
2 - I do not believe EVERY trail should be hardcore extreme.
3 - I am not saying "pave" the trails. I am saying that if you
insist on extreme trails and only extreme trails, you will have not
trails.
My opening statement was "If you are saying that the ONLY people on
the trails are the ones that want the extreme trail, you are no
different than the GAG that wants no one but them on foot on the
trail."
That is my point of concern. If you are going to only allow a
certain class of modified rig on the trail, you will have a
diminishing number of people and less of a chance to keep the trails
open.
Any stacking (or unstacking) of rocks is going to lead to problems.
That is the central point around the Little Sluice on the Rubicon.
Somebody felt is was too easy; therefore they took it upon themselves
to make it harder, to keep the unmodified rigs out of their play
area, and dumped some large rocks in the trail..
This is the attitude that I am disagreeing with. In this case, did
someone feel it was too hard and decide to make it easy? So, they
fill in a few holes. Now, Todd goes around to various trails
unstacking rocks. Both actions are going to lead to problems. Just
as making a bypass around a tough spot will lead to problems.
Central to this issue is the act of modifying trail; whether to make
them harder or easier. Both are actions that will draw the attention
of the land manager and lead to environmental considerations for
closing trails. There is specific guidance within the BLM manual
(and the Forest Service manual) dealing with trail construction and
maintenance.
And, yes I do disagree with the attitude that you have the right to
modify a trail because you think it should be harder. I also
disagree with modifying the trail to make it easier. You should be
prepared.
As you are from Arizona, you should be familiar with the Skye Island
Alliance. Check out their Road Ripper Manual. They are making
trails impassible.
At 5:00 AM +0000 1/20/03, Gary_Pugsley <gary_pugsley@h...> wrote:
>WOW. This guy is the Environmental Affairs Director for UFWDA?
>Where did they get him, The Sierra Club? Makes me wonder what the
>UFWDA's stance on paving trails, so my parents can take their buick
>on it, is. If it is anything like Mr. Stewart's, we are all
>screwed. If newbies (like myself) all listened to him, we would lose
>access to all our trails pretty damn quick.
>
>Like Jim from Tucson said, I have a stock TJ. That's why I did not
>know what trail this waterfall was on when the damage was shown to me.
>I go where I have the tools to go, and save the other trails for more
>properly equipped rigs.
>
>Did he really just tell us that we should "pave" all the trails?
>Do all the associations he is so proud to be affiliated with (the
>ones under his name in every post) know that this is his way
>of "protecting" our right to run trails on public land? Don't we
>have a responsibility to let these groups know what he is advocating,
>so they can decide if he really is the right person for the jobs?
>
>John, Maybe we all misunderstood. Maybe you were being sarcastic.
>Maybe you just weren't thinking. Maybe, like Stu said, someone
>hacked your account. If so, please explain yourself. If this is
>truly your belief, please, go away. You will quickly do more harm
>than you could ever imagine. With "friends" like you, who needs the
>greenies? You will have us all climbing speed bumps at the mall in a
>year.
>
>
>Gary
>
>>
>>
>> I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
>>
> > If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
>> that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
> > wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
>>
>> If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail,
>making
>> the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to
>get
>> the trail closed.
>>
>> I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
>> the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
>> special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure,
>especially
>> if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
>>
>> BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a
>liability.
>> Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their
>own
>> insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
>> yada, yada..
>>
>> Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
>> Sluice on the Rubicon.
>>
>> Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and
>have
>> at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
>> removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
>> remove when they become a liability.
>>
>> You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
>> be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
>> management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are
>playing
>> into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because
>the
>> BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
>> expense of many.
>>
>> I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists
>that
>> are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
>> demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
>> hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
>>
>> Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit
>that
>> to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
>> stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use
>the
>> trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
>> Access for ALL.
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Stewart
>> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
>> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
>> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster,
>> Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org Recreation
Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com Webmaster, Tierra
del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster, Jeep-L:
http://www.jeep-l.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
75927 From: DesertJeep <joey@d...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:56pm
Subject: RE: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
John,
That is a very good point.
Could it also be argued that there are many different types of
recreation?
Shouldn't we tread lightly and leave the trail as we found it?
Joey K
93YJ
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stewart [mailto:landuse@u...]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:38 PM
To: TODD MCCULLEN; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
At 12:38 PM -0700 1/19/03, TODD MCCULLEN wrote:
>Just need to add my 2 cents, I agree with Sandee 100%
> Myself and some buddies went out yesterday to play and practice
>for the upcoming competition, and the day ended up being a work day.
>We started off on lower woodpecker, and found all the good spots
>ramped with rocks. We spent the first hour unstacking everything we
>could find. After that we headed over to bad medicine to check out
>the waterfall, we decided to do upper Ajax on the way. This ended up
>in a major derocking of the trail, and it could use more. We spent 2
>hours just removing rocks from the few hard spots on this trail.
>We did axle alley, and highway to hell a couple weeks ago and did
>the same thing. Heck axle alley was so paved it took us about five
>minutes to get to the first waterfall, when this trail was new it
>took a couple hours to get this far. This is an example of how the
>tough trails are being paved by people & rigs that did not belong
>there.
>The last waterfall on Bad Medicine is now passable, we managed to
>maneuver the rocks down to the bottom of the waterfall. It is not
>easy, so the people that worry about breakage or damage DO NOT DO
>THE TRAIL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do a trail that you are capable of
>without ruining the trail for the ones that like the extreme
>challenge.
>I am sick and tired of every time I go out wheeling, I spend half
>the day UNSTACKING ROCKS. We do put winches on our rigs for a
>reason. If you cant not drive the obstacle without building ramps,
>use your WINCH.
>I could go on forever about this so I will stop now, GET THE POINT.
>
>Todd
>
>
I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail, making
the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to get
the trail closed.
I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure, especially
if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a liability.
Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their own
insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
yada, yada..
Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
Sluice on the Rubicon.
Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and have
at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
remove when they become a liability.
You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are playing
into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because the
BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
expense of many.
I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists that
are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit that
to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use the
trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
Access for ALL.
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
75928 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:57pm
Subject: [TR] Unspecified - Monday, January 20, 2003
Hello All,
Nathan Orelup is leading an Unspecified trail run on Monday, January 20, 2003.
When: Around 9:00
Where: Either Charouleau Gap or Chivo Falls, or anywhere else in the Tucson area.
Rating: None
Length: 4-6 hrs
CB Channel:
Anyone interested in going out somewhere in the Tucson area? Call or E-mail if interested.
Nathan 544-7821 or theorelups@comcast.net
Click Here To Add Your Name to the Sign Up List
Thank You,
- The AzVJC Website
75929 From: Jim Russell <azdesertrhino@c...> <azdesertrhino@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:16pm
Subject: re: trail stacking, blocking or ???
My poor little stock CJ-5 is far from capable of running some of the
trails y'all run, but I sure as hell would never try to reconfigure a
trail (move rocks, stack rocks or whatever,) to suit my Jeep. I run
the areas my Jeep is capable of, and so should everyone else, or
build yourself a bigger, better rig. I still have a hell of a lot of
fun in my Jeep. Thank you very much! (ha ha)
Just my 2 cents worth.
Jim Tucson 76 CJ-5
75930 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:22pm
Subject: [TR] Woodpecker (Upper) - Monday, January 20, 2003
Hello All,
John Lerew is leading a Woodpecker (Upper) trail run on Monday, January 20, 2003.
When:
Where:
Rating: 4.0+
Length:
CB Channel:
Last minute trip,will meet anyone that wants to join at start of upper woodpecker trail around 10AM and will start at 10:15 if time permits maybe play on Ajax afterward?
Upper Woodpecker is a wash that runs to the Woodpecker Mine. Years ago this wash was the actual road from the mine. There have been many hours of fun playing and traversing on this trail. It offers rock ledges, cracks, "tippy spots" and is the home of the infamous "Fire Hole". It was one of the first "extreme" trails offered in Arizona.
Over the years this trail has seen the result of "rock stacking" and "ramp building" that has down rated the trail from a 4.5 to a 4.0 but it still has a number of "play areas" and lockers are still required for the harder portion of the trail.
Upon exiting the wash you will climb to the top of the hill where the mine is located. There is an amethyst pit mine near the entrance to the Woodpecker Mine where you will most likely find several "rock hounds" or mountain bikers.
Don't forget your lunch and water. This is one of the longer trails and is normally an all day trip.
Enjoy and remember to TREAD Lightly!
Click Here To Add Your Name to the Sign Up List
Thank You,
- The AzVJC Website
75931 From: DougB <azjeep@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:27pm
Subject: Re: re: trail stacking, blocking or ???
Well said. The Jeep should be made to match the trail, and not alter the
trail to match the Jeep.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: <azdesertrhino@c...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:16 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] re: trail stacking, blocking or ???
> My poor little stock CJ-5 is far from capable of running some of the
> trails y'all run, but I sure as hell would never try to reconfigure a
> trail (move rocks, stack rocks or whatever,) to suit my Jeep. I run
> the areas my Jeep is capable of, and so should everyone else, or
> build yourself a bigger, better rig. I still have a hell of a lot of
> fun in my Jeep. Thank you very much! (ha ha)
> Just my 2 cents worth.
> Jim Tucson 76 CJ-5
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
75932 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:18pm
Subject: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
John,
I cannot truly believe this came from you........ if we are ALL to use the
SAME trails why os UFWDA stiving for a "universal" rating system and/or
signing system for trails. ????? Why would anyone spend thousands of
dollars on aftermarket equipment...... i.e., lockers, lifts, tires, fuel
injection, Dana 60 axles, etc, etc if we ALL should do the same level trail
because it's PUBLIC. Mother Nature didn't make all the land the
same........... why should we?? Looks to me like Mother Nature is a better
judge of "challenge" than you.
Todd did not say anything about "MAKING A TRAIL MORE DIFFICULT".......... he
referred to the vehicles traveling on or into a trail situation ABOVE their
capabilities ............ driving experience and/or vehicle capabilities.
These guys are literally paving and grooming ALL trails to the general level
of a 2.0 on a 1-5 difficulty rating. THIS is what must stop. No one has a
problem re "throwing a rock now and then to help a vehicle through a
difficult spot" but courtesy on the trail would allow for those rocks to be
taken out to allow the next vehicle the "challenge" the trail is rated for.
Pulling down rock walls from the side of the trail to "fill in holes or to
make ramps" is uncalled for and is what we're talking about. THIS is what
will get our trails closed................... NOT RESPONSIBLE USE !!!
The issue at hand came from a report that two large boulders were now in the
middle of the waterfall of a 4.5 rated trail. These boulders were NOT
brought down from the side to make the trail MORE difficult........... they
were trying to make it easier by filling in holes or creaves'. What Todd
and his group of 4-wheelers did was relocate the boulders to the point where
the trail could again be used. With the boulders in place NO ONE was going
to do the trail.............. extreme or not.
I don't know about Cal or surrounding areas but Arizona land agencies are
NOT looking at "closing trails because of difficulty". Actually they are
very supportive of "rock crawling", if done responsibly. They want the
trails rated and they ask the help of the recreationists to "patrol and/or
educate our fellow users" about trail ethics and the use of trails within
their capabilities.
I guess bottom line is simply put:................ rocking, paving or in
general, grooming a trail because their stock vehicle cannot traverse it is
outright BAD TRAIL MANNERS!! Making by-passes and destroying the
resourses around an obstacle or outside the parameters of a trail is what
will close our trails............ NOT responsible use. We need trails of
ALL difficulty levels to keep up with the numbers on public lands today and
the challenge the recreationists require. Paving everything to the same
level is ludicrous, if not outright stupid.
Re rock crawling course being "set up and removed"............... where
have you been John??? I don't know of one course that has moved anywhere.
The courses being used by all the rock crawling organizations are simply the
"lay of nature". Showing responsible use of these areas is what it's about.
According to you we need to go in and "ROCK STACK" our rock crawling areas
so your stock vehicle can use it. Go away John............
If you come to Arizona and rock any trails here you'll fight with me!!!
Sandee
>
> I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
>
> If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
> that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
> wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
>
> If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail, making
> the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to get
> the trail closed.
>
> I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
> the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
> special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure, especially
> if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
>
> BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a liability.
> Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their own
> insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
> yada, yada..
>
> Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
> Sluice on the Rubicon.
>
> Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and have
> at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
> removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
> remove when they become a liability.
>
> You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
> be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
> management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are playing
> into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because the
> BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
> expense of many.
>
> I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists that
> are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
> demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
> hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
>
> Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit that
> to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
> stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use the
> trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
> Access for ALL.
>
>
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
> Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
75933 From: Sandee McCullen <mccullen@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:19pm
Subject: RE: re: trail stacking, blocking or ???
Jim,
Thank you for your $.02................... in a very short paragraph you
stated exactly what 4-wheeling should be about. ...
S.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Russell <azdesertrhino@c...> [mailto:azdesertrhino@c...]
> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 8:17 PM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] re: trail stacking, blocking or ???
>
>
> My poor little stock CJ-5 is far from capable of running some of the
> trails y'all run, but I sure as hell would never try to reconfigure a
> trail (move rocks, stack rocks or whatever,) to suit my Jeep. I run
> the areas my Jeep is capable of, and so should everyone else, or
> build yourself a bigger, better rig. I still have a hell of a lot of
> fun in my Jeep. Thank you very much! (ha ha)
> Just my 2 cents worth.
> Jim Tucson 76 CJ-5
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
75934 From: MAIN <shawcroft@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:26pm
Subject: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
I think Stu hit the nail on the head!
It also scares me that "one of our own" would think that way.
I, as did the rest, noticed no mention of removing the rocks john was so
willing to help stack. You would think that a "director of environmental
affairs" would understand the "environmental impact" of altering a trail if
nothing else.
I don't wish to sound one sided, I have had to stack a rock or two after
a breakage to get out, but I put them back! I have also been in spots where
the choice was stack rocks or turn around, its not an easy choice but in
this light it seems obvious, come back later more prepared.
Just my opinion, and like a/h we all have one.
Tim Shawcroft
ENB4W
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stu Olson" <solson8@q...>
To: "'John Stewart'" <landuse@u...>; "'TODD MCCULLEN'"
<desertfab@m...>; <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 7:35 PM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
> John,
>
> While I don't run at the same vehicle level as Todd (I fully admit that
> my TJ is not built like any of his vehicles), I will certainly defend
> Todd's comments.
>
> We enjoy a large number of trails here in Arizona (luckily) that provide
> fun for vehicles ranging from the stock equipped Sunday afternoon picnic
> crowd to the highest capability rock buggies. I view it very much like
> the ski slopes at Aspen or any other ski resort....bunny hills for the
> new folks, black diamond runs for those that are capable.
>
> So please answer me a question.....of what benefit is converting all of
> the tails into the picnic trails? Is this suppose to encourage those
> who have something more than a stock vehicle to stay on the trails and
> not seek something more challenging? I think not.
>
> I was fortunate enough to attend the NOHVCC conference held here in
> Phoenix this past October. One thing I learned, as did the land
> management people, is that the Joe Public will go out to THEIR public
> lands and have fun on the weekends. Unfortunately, if that means
> blazing a new trail because NONE exist that are challenging enough for
> them, they WILL blaze them. If challenging trails are available, the
> chances of someone wildcatting a new one is greatly reduced. We had
> land management personnel give presentations that stated that a
> successful trail network, for the public's use on THEIR land, MUST have
> trails that are many in numbers and appeal to all levels of users.
>
> As to the liability issue....sorry, I don't think I can fully support
> your opinion on that either. We recently had a Jeeper kill himself (a
> relative of a person at my work in fact). It was not done on a hard
> core "extreme" trail....it was done on one that a stock Jeep can
> navigate. In my opinion, the liability issue rests with those people
> who are NOT adequately prepared (read this as lacking in driving
> skills). It is one thing to lay a rock buggy over on its side while
> attempting a difficult waterfall or such. It is another to roll your
> vehicle down a 700' mountain side because you could not keep it on a
> piece of 2.5 level trail (read the trail was basically flat). The
> previous Jeep OHV accident I can recall was on a "Trail" that is
> routinely run by any SUV or pickup truck (heck, it is graded every now
> and then). This guy took the corner too fast and shot off the road and
> went some 70' down into a wash. You can call it anecdotal evidence, but
> from what I see, the "Extremist" seem to be the least of our accident
> problems here in Arizona.
>
> As for joining a Rock Crawler group and competing, Todd McCullen does
> compete. As he stated, he and friends had gone out to practice for an
> upcoming event. What is it that these folks are suppose to practice
> on....the picnic trails? You advise them to get serious about the sport
> but advocate no challenging trails on which they can hone their skills.
> I am sorry John, but you can not have it both ways.
>
> As for the Rubicon's Little Sluice....I've been on that trail, a year
> ago last August. The ONLY problem the Rubicon Trail has, in my opinion,
> is the **** load of drunks that go there to party. I am sorry, but the
> drunks I have seen seem fully capable of causing harm and even death to
> themselves or anyone around, be it on flat ground or a big rock
> obstacle.
>
> I have been reading your posts to this reflector since you started
> sending them this direction. I've never met you nor do I really know
> much about you (as you do me). However, I must say I was completely
> shocked to see your comments. If I didn't know better, I would say that
> some anti-recreationist (I refuse to call them environmentalist because
> I am an environmentalist) hacked your userID and password and sent the
> note to our e-mail list.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Stu Olson
> www.stu-offroad.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Stewart [mailto:landuse@u...]
> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:38 PM
> To: TODD MCCULLEN; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
>
> At 12:38 PM -0700 1/19/03, TODD MCCULLEN wrote:
> >Just need to add my 2 cents, I agree with Sandee 100%
> > Myself and some buddies went out yesterday to play and practice
> >for the upcoming competition, and the day ended up being a work day.
> >We started off on lower woodpecker, and found all the good spots
> >ramped with rocks. We spent the first hour unstacking everything we
> >could find. After that we headed over to bad medicine to check out
> >the waterfall, we decided to do upper Ajax on the way. This ended up
> >in a major derocking of the trail, and it could use more. We spent 2
> >hours just removing rocks from the few hard spots on this trail.
> >We did axle alley, and highway to hell a couple weeks ago and did
> >the same thing. Heck axle alley was so paved it took us about five
> >minutes to get to the first waterfall, when this trail was new it
> >took a couple hours to get this far. This is an example of how the
> >tough trails are being paved by people & rigs that did not belong
> >there.
> >The last waterfall on Bad Medicine is now passable, we managed to
> >maneuver the rocks down to the bottom of the waterfall. It is not
> >easy, so the people that worry about breakage or damage DO NOT DO
> >THE TRAIL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do a trail that you are capable of
> >without ruining the trail for the ones that like the extreme
> >challenge.
> >I am sick and tired of every time I go out wheeling, I spend half
> >the day UNSTACKING ROCKS. We do put winches on our rigs for a
> >reason. If you cant not drive the obstacle without building ramps,
> >use your WINCH.
> >I could go on forever about this so I will stop now, GET THE POINT.
> >
> >Todd
> >
> >
>
>
> I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
>
> If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
> that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
> wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
>
> If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail, making
> the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to get
> the trail closed.
>
> I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
> the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
> special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure, especially
> if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
>
> BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a liability.
> Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their own
> insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
> yada, yada..
>
> Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
> Sluice on the Rubicon.
>
> Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and have
> at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
> removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
> remove when they become a liability.
>
> You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
> be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
> management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are playing
> into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because the
> BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
> expense of many.
>
> I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists that
> are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
> demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
> hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
>
> Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit that
> to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
> stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use the
> trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
> Access for ALL.
>
>
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
> Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
75935 From: Nasser <nasser88@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:33pm
Subject: RE: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
John,
I disagree with your assessment regarding Todd's post.
I am not sure if you understood the point that he was trying to make. We
are trying to educate ourselves (OHV) to leave the trails as we find them.
One of the excuses that BLM has given us for closing trails is the
alteration of that trail by OHVs. Stacking rocks is altering the trail, and
altering the trail does not support the TREAD LIGHTLY motto.
Todd is not implying that no one but the elite should run the tough trails.
Instead he is expressing his frustration with a problem that we have been
battling for a while. Stacking rock, making ramps, and the just leaving it
that way is NOT what we want. The trails become less challenging and new
tough trails are born. The land agencies recognize that and support us in
the "unstacking" effort (not physically).
If you find Todd's post harsh, you are correct. It is very frustrating to
have to move tons of rocks that others had stacked. This group is comprised
of many levels of experience and vehicle capabilities. Just to get an idea
how many people in this group agree with your assessment about
"rock-stacking", I will set up a pole to see what the majority thinks!
The land agencies are using the rock-stacking problem against us. I kindly
ask you to review the responses to your post, and reconsider your comments
about going out there and stacking rocks. That is very sore subject for
many of us.
Regards,
Nasser
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stewart [mailto:landuse@u...]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:38 PM
To: TODD MCCULLEN; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
At 12:38 PM -0700 1/19/03, TODD MCCULLEN wrote:
>Just need to add my 2 cents, I agree with Sandee 100%
> Myself and some buddies went out yesterday to play and practice
>for the upcoming competition, and the day ended up being a work day.
>We started off on lower woodpecker, and found all the good spots
>ramped with rocks. We spent the first hour unstacking everything we
>could find. After that we headed over to bad medicine to check out
>the waterfall, we decided to do upper Ajax on the way. This ended up
>in a major derocking of the trail, and it could use more. We spent 2
>hours just removing rocks from the few hard spots on this trail.
>We did axle alley, and highway to hell a couple weeks ago and did
>the same thing. Heck axle alley was so paved it took us about five
>minutes to get to the first waterfall, when this trail was new it
>took a couple hours to get this far. This is an example of how the
>tough trails are being paved by people & rigs that did not belong
>there.
>The last waterfall on Bad Medicine is now passable, we managed to
>maneuver the rocks down to the bottom of the waterfall. It is not
>easy, so the people that worry about breakage or damage DO NOT DO
>THE TRAIL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do a trail that you are capable of
>without ruining the trail for the ones that like the extreme
>challenge.
>I am sick and tired of every time I go out wheeling, I spend half
>the day UNSTACKING ROCKS. We do put winches on our rigs for a
>reason. If you cant not drive the obstacle without building ramps,
>use your WINCH.
>I could go on forever about this so I will stop now, GET THE POINT.
>
>Todd
>
>
I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail, making
the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to get
the trail closed.
I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure, especially
if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a liability.
Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their own
insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
yada, yada..
Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
Sluice on the Rubicon.
Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and have
at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
remove when they become a liability.
You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are playing
into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because the
BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
expense of many.
I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists that
are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit that
to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use the
trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
Access for ALL.
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
75936 From: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:45pm
Subject: New poll for az_vjc
Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
az_vjc group:
Are you in favor or against altering
the trails by rock stacking and ramp
building(and leaving them there).
o Against
o In favor
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/az_vjc/surveys?id=1026916
Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Autos
web site listed above.
Thanks!
75937 From: Jon <scooby_moose@y...> <scooby_moose@y...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:01pm
Subject: soa on 75 cj5
I'm looking into doing an soa on a 75 cj5. Just wondering if
anyone knows of a good place to get some sort of kit, that would
have everything needed, so I would'nt have to piece it together, and
I would know everything will work properly. thanks in advance. any
info is helpfull.
Jon
75938 From: The Acuna Family <mkacuna@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Hunters BBQ Moved to FEB 16th.
But what about the Daytona 500?8>)
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: hunteroffroad@aol.com
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 7:50 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] Hunters BBQ Moved to FEB 16th.
OK Gang,
I am sorry about the scheduleing conflict. I really pooched that one, I did not notice Chris Benner's trip on the Sunday the 9th. Everythign will be the same.. Just one weekend later. So, I moved mine to next weekend the 16th.. That way everyone can make everythign and the world will be a happy place.
Sorry again..
Best regards
john K
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
75939 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:19pm
Subject: [FS] 15x8 5 on 5.5 (set of 5)
Price: $300 obo
Contact: Mitch Woodward
I have a set of 15x8 5 on 5.5 wheels for sale, there are 5 of them. They are the MB motoring brand, replicas of the AE 589, purchased from Rick Beer last summer. They will fit CJ's, dodge, ford, Jeepster, etc. They have seen 2 trail runs and about 1000 miles. There is some slight rock rash, but nothing major. Center caps are included. E-mail for pics.
I live in Tucson, but will deliver to Phoenix area on Jan 25th if interested.
Thanks,
Mitch
mitchwoodward@hotmail.com
Mitch Woodward
75940 From: onebdjeep <onebdjeep@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:27pm
Subject: Re: roof rack project
sweet setup!!! when are we doin mine? LOL
Sean Speer
OneBdJeep (someday!!)
'97 TJ with killer mods to come!!!
(umm... will drink beer for Jeep parts!!!)
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Beckham
To: Jeep club email ; Phillip Thomson
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:56 PM
Subject: [az_vjc] roof rack project
Here's a pic of my completed roof rack. I borrowed a friends bender, and rally had a ball!
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
75941 From: GP <grant@d...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:50pm
Subject: Borla 4.0 xj header?
Anyone on this list running one? My 1994 factory manifold is cracked and I'm looking for a replacement. I'm curious if it hangs any lower than the stock header/crossover pipe? My engine/tranny skidplate is approximately 1/4" below the factory crossover pipe. If the borla header is any lower, it's going to interfere with the skidplate. Thanks for any input.
Grant
75942 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:38pm
Subject: [FS] TIRE CARRIER AND BUMPER...CJ/YJ
Price: $350
Contact: KEITH ---- (602)300-8051 or BMXCOW222@YAHOO.COM
Bumper and tire carrier in excellent condition. Will fit any cj or yj, but is currently a direct bolt on for a cj. Allows you to get the weight of that heavy spare off your body and onto the frame. Also includes some heavy duty mounting brackets.
Keith Bowcut
75943 From: mendy4x4 <Mendy4x4@h...> <Mendy4x4@h...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:51pm
Subject: Strange leakage..
Okay, I'm not exactly sure of the exact terminology of the parts onthis..but i don't think its normal. This is on a '00 TJ with a 3'' lift and 33'' tires..So there is my steering box, and then the arm that is attached to that, well, there is another bar that is connected with the steering stabalizer. Well, there is a strange substance, its not very liquidy..its more of a paste or something. Well its leaked all over the bottom of the pitman arm and where that connects tot he steering bars on the stabalizer. I have no idea what it is, or if there is any type of liquid substance there..maybe a joint there that popped out of place and is leaking..I don't know ? Any help would be great!
David Mendenhall
'00 TJ
75944 From: <AZICE626@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:59pm
Subject: Tilt Steering
For the person who was looking for a tilt steering column, I found this on ebay.....bidding at $20.00 w/less than 2 days left.....hope you haven't spent the $200 yet.....tj
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2400350496&category=33588
75945 From: Gary_Pugsley <gary_pugsley@h...> <gary_pugsley@h...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 9:00pm
Subject: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
WOW. This guy is the Environmental Affairs Director for UFWDA?
Where did they get him, The Sierra Club? Makes me wonder what the
UFWDA's stance on paving trails, so my parents can take their buick
on it, is. If it is anything like Mr. Stewart's, we are all
screwed. If newbies (like myself) all listened to him, we would lose
access to all our trails pretty damn quick.
Like Jim from Tucson said, I have a stock TJ. That's why I did not
know what trail this waterfall was on when the damage was shown to
me. I go where I have the tools to go, and save the other trails for
more properly equipped rigs.
Did he really just tell us that we should "pave" all the trails?
Do all the associations he is so proud to be affiliated with (the
ones under his name in every post) know that this is his way
of "protecting" our right to run trails on public land? Don't we
have a responsibility to let these groups know what he is advocating,
so they can decide if he really is the right person for the jobs?
John, Maybe we all misunderstood. Maybe you were being sarcastic.
Maybe you just weren't thinking. Maybe, like Stu said, someone
hacked your account. If so, please explain yourself. If this is
truly your belief, please, go away. You will quickly do more harm
than you could ever imagine. With "friends" like you, who needs the
greenies? You will have us all climbing speed bumps at the mall in a
year.
Gary
>
>
> I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
>
> If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
> that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
> wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
>
> If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail,
making
> the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to
get
> the trail closed.
>
> I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
> the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
> special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure,
especially
> if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
>
> BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a
liability.
> Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their
own
> insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
> yada, yada..
>
> Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
> Sluice on the Rubicon.
>
> Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and
have
> at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
> removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
> remove when they become a liability.
>
> You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
> be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
> management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are
playing
> into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because
the
> BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
> expense of many.
>
> I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists
that
> are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
> demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
> hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
>
> Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit
that
> to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
> stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use
the
> trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
> Access for ALL.
>
>
> --
> John Stewart
> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
> Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
75946 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 9:21pm
Subject: [TR] Trip Report - Unspecified - Saturday, January 18, 2003
Hello All,
Scott Brady lead a trail run Saturday, January 18, 2003 across Unspecified
Great trip. We had four vehicle. Scott and Stephanie in the ARB YJ. Doron and family in the Land Cruiser 100, John and Family in the Land Cruiser 80, and a TJ Wrangler. This trail has deteriorated some since running it in our Trooper in 2001. There is a large cottonwood blocking the road half way in to the mansion. We turned around after reaching the fallen tree. It was a short hike to the mansion, which is quite impressive. We drove around to the other entrance to be able to run the more challenging section of the road. The YJ and 80 completed the tough spots in short time, without incident. Great day!
Click Here to View Pictures (if available)
Thank You,
- The AzVJC Website
75947 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:21pm
Subject: RE: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
AMEN!
If you use a rock toss it aside afterwards.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: TODD MCCULLEN [mailto:desertfab@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:39 PM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
Just need to add my 2 cents, I agree with Sandee 100%
Myself and some buddies went out yesterday to play and practice for the upcoming competition, and the day ended up being a work day. We started off on lower woodpecker, and found all the good spots ramped with rocks. We spent the first hour unstacking everything we could find. After that we headed over to bad medicine to check out the waterfall, we decided to do upper Ajax on the way. This ended up in a major derocking of the trail, and it could use more. We spent 2 hours just removing rocks from the few hard spots on this trail.
We did axle alley, and highway to hell a couple weeks ago and did the same thing. Heck axle alley was so paved it took us about five minutes to get to the first waterfall, when this trail was new it took a couple hours to get this far. This is an example of how the tough trails are being paved by people & rigs that did not belong there.
The last waterfall on Bad Medicine is now passable, we managed to maneuver the rocks down to the bottom of the waterfall. It is not easy, so the people that worry about breakage or damage DO NOT DO THE TRAIL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do a trail that you are capable of without ruining the trail for the ones that like the extreme challenge.
I am sick and tired of every time I go out wheeling, I spend half the day UNSTACKING ROCKS. We do put winches on our rigs for a reason. If you cant not drive the obstacle without building ramps, use your WINCH.
I could go on forever about this so I will stop now, GET THE POINT.
Todd
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
75948 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:24pm
Subject: RE: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
John,
No, he is literally talking about people that are damn near laying
paving stones so they can get up an obstacle but don't restore the
obstacle to it's previous state after getting through. If you need a
boost that's fine, but the way I figure it, if you sweat to put the rock
there you better sweat to put it back after you get over it.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stewart [mailto:landuse@u...]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:38 PM
To: TODD MCCULLEN; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Trail blockage, Rock stackers
At 12:38 PM -0700 1/19/03, TODD MCCULLEN wrote:
>Just need to add my 2 cents, I agree with Sandee 100%
> Myself and some buddies went out yesterday to play and practice
>for the upcoming competition, and the day ended up being a work day.
>We started off on lower woodpecker, and found all the good spots
>ramped with rocks. We spent the first hour unstacking everything we
>could find. After that we headed over to bad medicine to check out
>the waterfall, we decided to do upper Ajax on the way. This ended up
>in a major derocking of the trail, and it could use more. We spent 2
>hours just removing rocks from the few hard spots on this trail.
>We did axle alley, and highway to hell a couple weeks ago and did
>the same thing. Heck axle alley was so paved it took us about five
>minutes to get to the first waterfall, when this trail was new it
>took a couple hours to get this far. This is an example of how the
>tough trails are being paved by people & rigs that did not belong
>there.
>The last waterfall on Bad Medicine is now passable, we managed to
>maneuver the rocks down to the bottom of the waterfall. It is not
>easy, so the people that worry about breakage or damage DO NOT DO
>THE TRAIL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do a trail that you are capable of
>without ruining the trail for the ones that like the extreme
>challenge.
>I am sick and tired of every time I go out wheeling, I spend half
>the day UNSTACKING ROCKS. We do put winches on our rigs for a
>reason. If you cant not drive the obstacle without building ramps,
>use your WINCH.
>I could go on forever about this so I will stop now, GET THE POINT.
>
>Todd
>
>
I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail, making
the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to get
the trail closed.
I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure, especially
if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a liability.
Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their own
insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
yada, yada..
Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
Sluice on the Rubicon.
Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and have
at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
remove when they become a liability.
You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are playing
into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because the
BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
expense of many.
I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists that
are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit that
to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use the
trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
Access for ALL.
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org Recreation
Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com Webmaster, Tierra
del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster, Jeep-L:
http://www.jeep-l.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
75949 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:28pm
Subject: RE: roof rack project
That is a nice looking rack! I have alot of respect for these homemade projects. The sense of pride you get just can't be duplicated with the bolt on stuff. Best investment I ever made was a welder.
(One look at that rack and I knew Joe would be singing you some praise for it. He's got a roof rack fetish. :)
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe W [mailto:arizonajeep@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 6:43 PM
To: 'Michael Beckham'; 'Jeep club email'; 'Phillip Thomson'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] roof rack project
Mike,
That is a nice looking rack& you did a great job! Ive had a roof rack on my Wrangler since just after I purchased it and my Jeep just wouldnt be quite as useful without it.
The only drawback is that it raises your CG&. Just keep heavy stuff off of it on the rock runs and youll be fine.
Kind Regards,
Joe West
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Beckham [mailto:jeepnut7261@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:57 PM
To: Jeep club email; Phillip Thomson
Subject: [az_vjc] roof rack project
Here's a pic of my completed roof rack. I borrowed a friends bender, and rally had a ball!
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
75950 From: John Stewart <landuse@u...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:40pm
Subject: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
You are misunderstanding a few points.
1 - I believe vehicles should be prepared for the trail.
2 - I do not believe EVERY trail should be hardcore extreme.
3 - I am not saying "pave" the trails. I am saying that if you
insist on extreme trails and only extreme trails, you will have not
trails.
My opening statement was "If you are saying that the ONLY people on
the trails are the ones that want the extreme trail, you are no
different than the GAG that wants no one but them on foot on the
trail."
That is my point of concern. If you are going to only allow a
certain class of modified rig on the trail, you will have a
diminishing number of people and less of a chance to keep the trails
open.
Any stacking (or unstacking) of rocks is going to lead to problems.
That is the central point around the Little Sluice on the Rubicon.
Somebody felt is was too easy; therefore they took it upon themselves
to make it harder, to keep the unmodified rigs out of their play
area, and dumped some large rocks in the trail..
This is the attitude that I am disagreeing with. In this case, did
someone feel it was too hard and decide to make it easy? So, they
fill in a few holes. Now, Todd goes around to various trails
unstacking rocks. Both actions are going to lead to problems. Just
as making a bypass around a tough spot will lead to problems.
Central to this issue is the act of modifying trail; whether to make
them harder or easier. Both are actions that will draw the attention
of the land manager and lead to environmental considerations for
closing trails. There is specific guidance within the BLM manual
(and the Forest Service manual) dealing with trail construction and
maintenance.
And, yes I do disagree with the attitude that you have the right to
modify a trail because you think it should be harder. I also
disagree with modifying the trail to make it easier. You should be
prepared.
As you are from Arizona, you should be familiar with the Skye Island
Alliance. Check out their Road Ripper Manual. They are making
trails impassible.
At 5:00 AM +0000 1/20/03, Gary_Pugsley <gary_pugsley@h...> wrote:
>WOW. This guy is the Environmental Affairs Director for UFWDA?
>Where did they get him, The Sierra Club? Makes me wonder what the
>UFWDA's stance on paving trails, so my parents can take their buick
>on it, is. If it is anything like Mr. Stewart's, we are all
>screwed. If newbies (like myself) all listened to him, we would lose
>access to all our trails pretty damn quick.
>
>Like Jim from Tucson said, I have a stock TJ. That's why I did not
>know what trail this waterfall was on when the damage was shown to
>me. I go where I have the tools to go, and save the other trails for
>more properly equipped rigs.
>
>Did he really just tell us that we should "pave" all the trails?
>Do all the associations he is so proud to be affiliated with (the
>ones under his name in every post) know that this is his way
>of "protecting" our right to run trails on public land? Don't we
>have a responsibility to let these groups know what he is advocating,
>so they can decide if he really is the right person for the jobs?
>
>John, Maybe we all misunderstood. Maybe you were being sarcastic.
>Maybe you just weren't thinking. Maybe, like Stu said, someone
>hacked your account. If so, please explain yourself. If this is
>truly your belief, please, go away. You will quickly do more harm
>than you could ever imagine. With "friends" like you, who needs the
>greenies? You will have us all climbing speed bumps at the mall in a
>year.
>
>
>Gary
>
>>
>>
>> I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
>>
> > If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
>> that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
> > wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
>>
>> If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail,
>making
>> the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to
>get
>> the trail closed.
>>
>> I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
>> the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
>> special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure,
>especially
>> if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
>>
>> BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a
>liability.
>> Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their
>own
>> insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
>> yada, yada..
>>
>> Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
>> Sluice on the Rubicon.
>>
>> Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and
>have
>> at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
>> removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
>> remove when they become a liability.
>>
>> You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
>> be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
>> management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are
>playing
>> into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because
>the
>> BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
>> expense of many.
>>
>> I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists
>that
>> are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
>> demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
>> hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
>>
>> Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit
>that
>> to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
>> stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use
>the
>> trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
>> Access for ALL.
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Stewart
>> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
>> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
>> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
>> Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
75951 From: Scott Kruize <skruize@c...>
Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:50pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
John,
Todd wasn't "making the trail harder", he was restoring it back to the
trail we all know and recognize. (Axle Alley is a class 5 trail on a 1-5
rating system.) And from what I've seen that's not an elitist attitude,
but rather frustration at people who stack up ramps but don't tear them
down because they shouldn't be on a class 5 trail.
Arizona has probably the most diverse and largest number of public
trails anywhere in the country. Right near Axle Alley are countless
other trails that are easier. Axle Alley, Box Canyon, Coke Ovens, Lower
Ajax, Martinez, Highway to Hell and Woodpecker are very close to each
other and offer varying difficulties from stock (Box Canyon) all the way
up to highly modified (Axle Alley and Highway to Hell). Those of us that
run these trails understand their ratings and what type of vehicle that
is needed. We'd like to maintain these ratings for future users to enjoy
the trail like we did years ago. That's not asking too much is it?
Regards,
Scott Kruize
-----Original Message-----
From: John Stewart [mailto:landuse@u...]
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 11:41 PM
To: Gary_Pugsley <gary_pugsley@h...>; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: Trail blockage, Rock stackers
You are misunderstanding a few points.
1 - I believe vehicles should be prepared for the trail.
2 - I do not believe EVERY trail should be hardcore extreme.
3 - I am not saying "pave" the trails. I am saying that if you
insist on extreme trails and only extreme trails, you will have not
trails.
My opening statement was "If you are saying that the ONLY people on
the trails are the ones that want the extreme trail, you are no
different than the GAG that wants no one but them on foot on the
trail."
That is my point of concern. If you are going to only allow a
certain class of modified rig on the trail, you will have a
diminishing number of people and less of a chance to keep the trails
open.
Any stacking (or unstacking) of rocks is going to lead to problems.
That is the central point around the Little Sluice on the Rubicon.
Somebody felt is was too easy; therefore they took it upon themselves
to make it harder, to keep the unmodified rigs out of their play
area, and dumped some large rocks in the trail..
This is the attitude that I am disagreeing with. In this case, did
someone feel it was too hard and decide to make it easy? So, they
fill in a few holes. Now, Todd goes around to various trails
unstacking rocks. Both actions are going to lead to problems. Just
as making a bypass around a tough spot will lead to problems.
Central to this issue is the act of modifying trail; whether to make
them harder or easier. Both are actions that will draw the attention
of the land manager and lead to environmental considerations for
closing trails. There is specific guidance within the BLM manual
(and the Forest Service manual) dealing with trail construction and
maintenance.
And, yes I do disagree with the attitude that you have the right to
modify a trail because you think it should be harder. I also
disagree with modifying the trail to make it easier. You should be
prepared.
As you are from Arizona, you should be familiar with the Skye Island
Alliance. Check out their Road Ripper Manual. They are making
trails impassible.
At 5:00 AM +0000 1/20/03, Gary_Pugsley <gary_pugsley@h...> wrote:
>WOW. This guy is the Environmental Affairs Director for UFWDA?
>Where did they get him, The Sierra Club? Makes me wonder what the
>UFWDA's stance on paving trails, so my parents can take their buick
>on it, is. If it is anything like Mr. Stewart's, we are all
>screwed. If newbies (like myself) all listened to him, we would lose
>access to all our trails pretty damn quick.
>
>Like Jim from Tucson said, I have a stock TJ. That's why I did not
>know what trail this waterfall was on when the damage was shown to me.
>I go where I have the tools to go, and save the other trails for more
>properly equipped rigs.
>
>Did he really just tell us that we should "pave" all the trails?
>Do all the associations he is so proud to be affiliated with (the
>ones under his name in every post) know that this is his way
>of "protecting" our right to run trails on public land? Don't we
>have a responsibility to let these groups know what he is advocating,
>so they can decide if he really is the right person for the jobs?
>
>John, Maybe we all misunderstood. Maybe you were being sarcastic.
>Maybe you just weren't thinking. Maybe, like Stu said, someone
>hacked your account. If so, please explain yourself. If this is
>truly your belief, please, go away. You will quickly do more harm
>than you could ever imagine. With "friends" like you, who needs the
>greenies? You will have us all climbing speed bumps at the mall in a
>year.
>
>
>Gary
>
>>
>>
>> I will take you to task on the central issue you are advocating:
>>
> > If you are saying that the ONLY people on the trails are the ones
>> that want the extreme trail, you are no different than the GAG that
> > wants no one but them on foot on the trail.
>>
>> If it is a trail on PUBLIC LAND and it is a recognized trail,
>making
>> the trail impassible except for a modified rig is a sure sign to
>get
>> the trail closed.
>>
>> I agree that people with stock vehicles have no business on many of
>> the trails. By the same token, if you are going to limit access to
>> special class of rigs, you are asking for a trail closure,
>especially
>> if a case of bodily injury or death occurs.
>>
>> BLM is not going to keep a trail open if it is cited as a
>liability.
>> Okay, now start the argument about how people need to have their
>own
>> insurance, yada, yada, yada and they should be responsible, yada,
>> yada, yada..
>>
>> Making a trail difficult has caused a major problem with the Little
>> Sluice on the Rubicon.
>>
>> Okay, you want extreme trails? Join the Rockcrawler groups and
>have
>> at it on a course. Keep in mind that a course can be set up and
>> removed. Trails are no different, they can be removed and will be
>> remove when they become a liability.
>>
>> You need to remember that access to trails on PUBLIC LANDS needs to
>> be available to the PUBLIC. If you are going to advocate in land
>> management plans that trails be kept for extreme use, you are
>playing
>> into the GAGs hand. The argument becomes a losing battle because
>the
>> BLM is not going to keep trails for a few (elite CAPABILITY) at the
>> expense of many.
>>
>> I have used the argument about the number of 4x4 recreationists
>that
>> are desiring access to trails and trying to say that the numbers
>> demand that trails be kept open as opposed to the limited number of
>> hikers that would otherwise have the area to themselves.
>>
>> Now, you want to take the set of potential trail users and limit
>that
>> to the few who want extreme trails. Sorry, I will go out and help
>> stack the rocks so that more people from all skill levels can use
>the
>> trails. That is the only way we will be able to keep them open.
>> Access for ALL.
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Stewart
>> Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org
>> Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
>> Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster,
>> Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
John Stewart
Director, Environmental Affairs, UFWDA, http://www.ufwda.org Recreation
Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com Webmaster, Tierra
del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com Webmaster, Jeep-L:
http://www.jeep-l.net
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/