nea4wd.org


Welcome To The Northeast Association of 4WD Clubs

as long as we have tried to save a trail

*Public* Our trails are an endangered species. Please visit and contribute to this forum often.

as long as we have tried to save a trail

Postby PatriotJeep » Tue May 18, 2010 9:35 pm

Yes It's sad we are losing the Gutter as with any trail .If we have tried everything we can then that's all we can do.I just wanted to know we tired.
PatriotJeep
 

Postby Scott Hatch » Tue May 18, 2010 10:08 pm

I'm tired but its been a long day....:lol:
User avatar
Scott Hatch
 
Posts: 13823
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:59 pm

Postby jsongy » Tue May 18, 2010 11:29 pm

It's all about the money, sad but true. The explanation given to me about what the state proposed, was that Cowl's will recieve state monies for conservancy(limiting allowed sport use), while still being able to forest as they already do.

If the state offered me seven figures to work the land as I have, yet restrict other useage - I'd have to follow Cowl's lead.

The trick for us all is to PROVE to the state that RESPONSIBLE use of such land masses can be achieved. I've been in contact with some local DCR employees, discussing how to keep people from dumping/partying in my area. They agreed that the trash is being left in the least travelled areas, rather than the frequently traveled areas... I brought up the point to allow LEGAL access to increase traffic through some areas.

There are those that are starting to realize that when an area is considered illegal to access, only illegal acts are commited in those areas.

Thanks
A$$hole @ Large...Again
jsongy
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 10:17 pm

Postby smokinsilverrt » Wed May 19, 2010 1:16 am

yup alot of the time it comes down to the money. if your business was struggling and you were offered in one hand a large amount of money and the other a great group of volunteers using your land and keeping it clean what would you do? im willing to bet 99% would take the money most have bills to pay and family's to feed. so yes its a sad day but we cant win them all we have to acquire new land and try to up keep what we have.
Tim Connors,delagate for Deep Woods Extreme
User avatar
smokinsilverrt
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:50 pm
Location: Lowell,MA

Postby Zaedock » Wed May 19, 2010 8:06 am

Cowls tried to include access in the deal. Unfortunately, they are in a difficult position and had to go with the stipulations of the state.

The bottom line:This state sucks. Plain and simple. Look at the way Coy played out. Besides the subject of access, the willingness to work with us was absent. How about the cleanup with Smith & Wesson. This state won't even allow us in to CLEAN WMA areas. It's a load of crap. The folks in charge can't stand our usergroup. Read back to any of the attempts made by Mike Belben. All shot down. OFR will succumb at some point - it's just a matter of time and the states money and persistence. I think they would rather see us all as renegades. More tickets, more money.
User avatar
Zaedock
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: Sturbridge,Ma

Postby mrfreakinwhite » Wed May 19, 2010 12:25 pm

Zaedock wrote:Cowls tried to include access in the deal. Unfortunately, they are in a difficult position and had to go with the stipulations of the state.

The bottom line:This state sucks. Plain and simple. Look at the way Coy played out. Besides the subject of access, the willingness to work with us was absent. How about the cleanup with Smith & Wesson. This state won't even allow us in to CLEAN WMA areas. It's a load of crap. The folks in charge can't stand our usergroup. Read back to any of the attempts made by Mike Belben. All shot down. OFR will succumb at some point - it's just a matter of time and the states money and persistence. I think they would rather see us all as renegades. More tickets, more money.

I hate to say this, but Belben's behavior was pretty inappropriate with MARTAB, as I recall watching him post their e-mails. They remember him, too, which isn't great for us because he had sent over a fairly nasty e-mail he had posted on the old fOch forum.
WMA roads are open to vehicles unless gated, not all gates are even locked.
They don't write tickets, so it is not revenue. If they did write tickets, we'd have more than 5% of the wheeling community involved in clubs because they joined to get legal or quit after getting tickets. The VTP from UFWDA is INTENDED to show government that the problem is not a crime problem, but a lack of enforcement problem.
The state does have a department to work with us. Well, two. The RTP office and MARTAB, with some cross over employees (unless I'm mistaken, MARTAB may not have employees?). The DCR is spread so thin they don't have the resources to be involved. As Mark Shea and John S(p)ongy have mentioned here before, The DCR would probably be really receptive to 4x4 volunteers if they had some way to manage it.
2015 & 2016 NEA4WD Vice President of Environmental Affairs
Mohawk 4x4 Adventures - President, co-founder 2014
Baystate Jeepers - Member
MARTAB Full Size 4WD Delegate (Massachusetts Recreational Trail Advisory Board)
RLTC Graduate
User avatar
mrfreakinwhite
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:01 am
Location: MA

Postby mrfreakinwhite » Wed May 19, 2010 12:27 pm

At any rate, it is absurd that the state or a state agency will offer more money to tell someone what they can or cannot do on their own property than they'll offer to buy it outright for.

"I think your land is worth $100k. I don't want to pay that much for it, so, can I just pay you more to tell you what you're allowed to do on your land?"

Freaking stoopid.
2015 & 2016 NEA4WD Vice President of Environmental Affairs
Mohawk 4x4 Adventures - President, co-founder 2014
Baystate Jeepers - Member
MARTAB Full Size 4WD Delegate (Massachusetts Recreational Trail Advisory Board)
RLTC Graduate
User avatar
mrfreakinwhite
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:01 am
Location: MA

Postby tammylynn » Wed May 19, 2010 12:59 pm

mrfreakinwhite wrote: The VTP from UFWDA is INTENDED to show government that the problem is not a crime problem, but a lack of enforcement problem.


As will be the intentions of the Northeast Recreational Patrol Program..which nobody has signed up for yet. :shameless plug:
tammylynn
 
Posts: 7917
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:24 pm

Postby jsongy » Wed May 19, 2010 1:18 pm

tammylynn wrote:
mrfreakinwhite wrote: The VTP from UFWDA is INTENDED to show government that the problem is not a crime problem, but a lack of enforcement problem.


As will be the intentions of the Northeast Recreational Patrol Program..which nobody has signed up for yet. :shameless plug:


Does DCR recognize this program Tammy?
A$$hole @ Large...Again
jsongy
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 10:17 pm

Postby Jeepin Dave » Wed May 19, 2010 1:21 pm

tammylynn wrote:
mrfreakinwhite wrote: The VTP from UFWDA is INTENDED to show government that the problem is not a crime problem, but a lack of enforcement problem.


As will be the intentions of the Northeast Recreational Patrol Program..which nobody has signed up for yet. :shameless plug:


How does one, such as myself or someone from MK, go about signing up for this in Mass? Im sure I missed it somewhere on the site, but I cant find it right now... :oops:
Get involved! The world is run by those who show up!
"I drive where I can't walk, and I walk where I can't drive."
MassKrawlers Director
User avatar
Jeepin Dave
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:49 pm
Location: Western Massachusets

Postby tammylynn » Wed May 19, 2010 1:29 pm

jsongy wrote:
tammylynn wrote:
mrfreakinwhite wrote: The VTP from UFWDA is INTENDED to show government that the problem is not a crime problem, but a lack of enforcement problem.


As will be the intentions of the Northeast Recreational Patrol Program..which nobody has signed up for yet. :shameless plug:


Does DCR recognize this program Tammy?


Most likely not since we just resurrected it. I did ask awhile ago for a rep from each state to contact their respective offices with information about the program and it didn't really go anywhere. I've said in the info about the first training session that we can use this program not only in our own group but promote it to state and local agencies, etc. There are brochures for the program now that can be passed into the appropriate hands.

Jeepin Dave wrote:
tammylynn wrote:
mrfreakinwhite wrote: The VTP from UFWDA is INTENDED to show government that the problem is not a crime problem, but a lack of enforcement problem.


As will be the intentions of the Northeast Recreational Patrol Program..which nobody has signed up for yet. :shameless plug:


How does one, such as myself or someone from MK, go about signing up for this in Mass? Im sure I missed it somewhere on the site, but I cant find it right now... :oops:

http://forum.nea4wd.org/viewtopic.php?t=4084
and
http://www.nea4wd.org/articles/index.cf ... CLE_ID=298
tammylynn
 
Posts: 7917
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:24 pm

Postby navman » Wed May 19, 2010 5:09 pm

tammylynn wrote:
mrfreakinwhite wrote: The VTP from UFWDA is INTENDED to show government that the problem is not a crime problem, but a lack of enforcement problem.


As will be the intentions of the Northeast Recreational Patrol Program..which nobody has signed up for yet. :shameless plug:


I feel for you Tammy, my ideas of an organized sticker program got pissed on by many, including the one that started this rediculous thread. Here's the reality patriotjeep NO WE DIDN'T. I guess when all the trails are closed up to wheeling, I will continue to put stickers on my snowmobile and ride that everywhere.
Mark
WM4x4
User avatar
navman
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:59 pm
Location: East Brookfield Ma

Postby Eric » Wed May 19, 2010 7:41 pm

I was going to post earlier but did not because the original topic was RSG. Now that we have drifted a bit I'll chime in with some thoughts.

First, responding to the earlier comments about crime problem vs enforcement problem I think its more of a crime problem. If the gates were opened then I don't believe for a second that an army of enforcement officers could keep the low lifes from going out there and dumping or the kids (or other idiots) from going out there drinking & scattering beer bottles all over the place. And of course there is about zero chance that this army of enforcement officers would ever get hired in the first place.

I also don't see much hope for change by dealing with bureaucrats. Sure, there may be some that are supportive but absent mandates from the director and/or regional managers nothing is likely to happen. Furthermore, if by some miracle we do gain some traction with DEM (or whatever they are called in MA) then what happens when a new (and unfriendly) director comes on board? Start over?

As I see it the only real hope (other then just focusing on private land) is to pursue a political agenda. If the legislature passes a law saying such-and-such land should be set aside for OHV's then the DEM has to implement it. I would not envision an open-gate free-for-all. Instead, the land could be gated with access only by prior arrangement. Or it could be set-up as financially self-supporting OHV parks (i.e. pay-per-use) that are staffed during regular business hours. Under such a system I believe that we could demonstrate stewardship over the land while still maintaining a mechanism (i.e. gates) to restrict the riff raff (as much as thats possible).

I've been lurking around here for a while and have not found much evidence of political action. Looks like some good things are going on in NH but thats about it. Why not set a goal to ping every legislator, tell our story, and see where they stand? I think we have a great story to tell: Strong local/regional/national organizations, numerous mainstream periodicals catering to our sport, demonstrable history of giving back to our communities, representation from across the social spectrum, and business support. With a list of friendly legislators in hand we can start lobbying them to draft legislation (see previous paragraph). We could even invite some to join us on a trail ride. For sure, the radical environmentalists will try to cast us in with the scum bags that out there dumping and drinking but if we can get the message out then the facts are on our side.

So am I being naive or what? Yea, yea, yea . . . I know . . . go smoke another one right?

Cheers!
Eric
User avatar
Eric
President
 
Posts: 2751
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Exeter, RI

Postby tammylynn » Wed May 19, 2010 10:30 pm

Actually, Mark Dupont and others wrote a proposed bill that was pushed through a few ladders in MA but it only went so far and was denied. Since then, we have not had anyone willing to pick up the ball and run with it or anyone with the contacts Mark had. A few have worked with local towns/state offices regarding specific areas in MA such as Old Florida Road, Coy Hill, etc.
Those who are active here that could do it are already up to their eyeballs with other projects. We need new blood dedicated to the specific task of lobbying and political projects.
tammylynn
 
Posts: 7917
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:24 pm

Postby mrfreakinwhite » Thu May 20, 2010 6:57 am

Political - We should be wholeheartedly fighting the Future Forests Vision plans with MA gov't.

Enforcement/Criminal Activity - Crime exists, mostly where property is closed or off limits, & less traveled by responsible users. By Trail Patrols documenting crimes for the gov't and then being able to say, "Improper management & a lack of enforcement is the problem - all you needed to do was follow up on our complaints," it puts the responsibility back on them, documents responsible use and maybe educates a few illegal users along the way. It makes a case for proper management. Proper management could be aided by volunteers working with them instead of putting us in a position of having to fight for access against them.
If there was a way to help them enforce laws, they begin to see a difference and support us/cooperate with us.

I do agree about private property. Public property access is a steep, uphill battle that is rarely successful. Even when it is, it is still two steps forward and one step back.

BRC just won a lawsuit for access in CA. Not too long later, they are going back to court because of a different reason, but for the same properties. Consequently, they're going back to court because the state hired a contractor that caused some serious erosion issues while 'repairing' the main road. Now the erosion problem belongs to the users, because the state did it for them using poor technique. (hopefully that makes sense to readers)
2015 & 2016 NEA4WD Vice President of Environmental Affairs
Mohawk 4x4 Adventures - President, co-founder 2014
Baystate Jeepers - Member
MARTAB Full Size 4WD Delegate (Massachusetts Recreational Trail Advisory Board)
RLTC Graduate
User avatar
mrfreakinwhite
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:01 am
Location: MA


Return to Trail Conservation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest