Daniel since RML Closed

GotLime?

GotLime?

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Location
Mooresville, NC
Have you guys found Daniel to be more busy since RML closed?

We were out there Saturday. Conservaively, there was a line of 15 rigs waiting at the first ledge. This was before noon. I don't recall the exact time.

We went straight to Daniel and there were 6 to 8 rigs from GA there. None had cleared the first ledge. They had an interesting combination of unlocked rigs or rigs w/o winches. It was moist. First guy gave up, second guy gave it a go. At that point it had been an hour. Even if he made it, it would have taken them more than an hour to winch the rest up. And that was just the first ledge. By then more rigs had pulled up behind us and we had to do the trail dance to try to get turned around and out of there. There probably 15 rigs i total waiting.

While waituing at Daniel a bike and a quad come through the woods and want to know if they can take the blocked off (illegal) bypass. I go over and talk to them and tell them they shouldn't take the bypass and explain the reasons why. There must have been 20 people there. I told him we would move vehicles, spot them through or even carry their junk past the Jeeps so they can get through.

5 minutes later, they're blazing up the bypass.
 
Stuntman Autoworks said:
And yet your complaining about it.
Click to expand...

That's an intersting take on it.

I've been going to URE for years nad this was the first time I've experienced such a trail jam and I was wondering if the experience was common.

If I was going to complain, it wouldn't be about "URE" but about inconsiderate people, in over their heads, unprepared, ill-equipped, uneducated and blocking the trail.
 
The backups are an all to common sight on the first ledge....but hey all the traffic has made that ledge pretty fun!
 
We are working with the Forrest service for a legal bypass..... Hang in there guys.
 
I've been there when it was backed up like that (was about a month ago). Luckily I heard that it was backed up at the ledges, so I drove down the trail in the other direction to where the 3 point turn is above the ledges, and walked down from there. There was at least 10 rigs lined up. When I got there they were in the process of removing a broke down TJ from the first ledge. 15 minutes later the next rig got to the ledge, romped on it like he had no sense, and immediately broke the yoke off the front axle. I left after that.
 
you walked down and then back up? Me,Dean,and fat bastard did that one december a couple ofr years ago...man that was a bitch! Oh wait..you parked at the turn back...we walked from the very top! I now park where you did.
 
We talked about that at the workday. It will be brought up to the FS I hope this week . We might have to have a hand in constructing it though.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
I have a question: Are the bypasses really that big of a deal?
Consider the following:
Uwharrie NF is 50,645 acres.
There are approximately 20 miles of trails (im being generous I believe).
The trail is on average 50 feet wide (again, being generous in my opinion).
20 miles of trails at 50 feet wide equals 132 acres of trails.
Thats 0.2% of the national forest, and we have to fight with them over a tenth of an acre because people are going around a difficult section? I honestly don't get it. We are being routinely hassled over a drop in the bucket. They are using us to relegate ourselves into our 0.2% and ONLY our 0.2%, how dare we have more than that!

Now I understand that you don't want outlaw trail making extravaganza, and that is where we need to police ourselves, but having a bypass at a difficult obstacle seems so insignificant in the big picture. Am I missing something? :confused:
 
In a word, yes.

The big problem right now is that the trail isn't stable. It's naturally eroding during heavy rains. A big part of that is structural -- the trail is trying to make up a substantial amount of elevation in a short distance, in an area where the top soil is thin and easily eroded, and there is little other than clayey subsurface soil mixed with football-sized small boulders (also easily displaced) and ridges of rock. The "bypasses" that have been created take worse paths up the mountain from an erosion standpoint. They're just not seeing enough traffic (thanks to the work of the trail volunteers) to allow a significant roadbed to develop and for erosion to begin.

The other problem is edges. We have a serious problem with users not staying on the trails. This is less of an issue where ground cover is heavy, but that side of the mountain at Daniel was burned last winter, so there isn't much (if any) ground cover. Part of the work this year has been in collecting large downed trees and relocating them along the trail to reinforce the edges of the trails. This is being done in lieu of installing guard rail. If you look at the areas where bypasses have been created, it's not a question of just adding a second parallel trail. It only takes a few weeks before users start crossing the vegetated area between the primary trail and the bypass, and we're left with a section of spider trails that are 50ft or 100ft wide. I strongly object to the description of 50ft wide trails. The trails should typically only be 10-20ft wide as measured by the disturbed soil (tree canopy/brush clearance may be wider).

The bottom line is that on that side of the mountain, sooner or later, the new bypass is going to look exactly like the current trail... somewhat unstable, difficult to maintain, in an area with very little ground cover and natural enclosure along the road, with a lot of elevation change and steep grades.
 
.2% hurts any arguement you make IMO it .2%


if they made an offical bypasses then there would be no problem, right?


Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk 2
 
jeepinmatt said:
I have a question: Are the bypasses really that big of a deal?
Consider the following:
Uwharrie NF is 50,645 acres.
There are approximately 20 miles of trails (im being generous I believe).
The trail is on average 50 feet wide (again, being generous in my opinion).
20 miles of trails at 50 feet wide equals 132 acres of trails.
Thats 0.2% of the national forest, and we have to fight with them over a tenth of an acre because people are going around a difficult section? I honestly don't get it. We are being routinely hassled over a drop in the bucket. They are using us to relegate ourselves into our 0.2% and ONLY our 0.2%, how dare we have more than that!

Now I understand that you don't want outlaw trail making extravaganza, and that is where we need to police ourselves, but having a bypass at a difficult obstacle seems so insignificant in the big picture. Am I missing something? :confused:
Click to expand...
I will use the kodak area as a prime example of this happening. The original trail was lets say 15 ft. Then a bypass to the right of it popped up. The guard rail was installed then another bypass to the right of that and another to the right of that.... It is almost 300' across there now and closed so yes most miss the point...
 
snappy said:
Correct. It would have proper grading and drainage.
Click to expand...

Except that it wouldn't go through that area at all. What would most likely happen is that it would get closed. If they had the money to construct a trail, it would be routed through another section of the forest where the trail grades were more gradual.
 
shawn said:
I strongly object to the description of 50ft wide trails. The trails should typically only be 10-20ft wide as measured by the disturbed soil (tree canopy/brush clearance may be wider).
Click to expand...
I agree, that in general, the trails are/should be 15-20ft wide max. I knew however, that if I said that, 6 people would come in here and tell me about how it so much wider than that and my numbers were all wrong, etc. so I was leaning on the generous side.

Cory said:
.2% hurts any arguement you make IMO it .2%
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are saying.

snappy said:
I will use the kodak area as a prime example of this happening. The original trail was lets say 15 ft. Then a bypass to the right of it popped up. The guard rail was installed then another bypass to the right of that and another to the right of that.... It is almost 300' across there now and closed so yes most miss the point...
Click to expand...
And likewise I would use the Kodak area as a prime example of my point:
The MOST POPULAR area in entire OHV system grew because of traffic, from what, 1/4 acre, to 2-3 acres, and now it is CLOSED (yeah yeah other reasons too: artifacts, not enough dollars, etc). Next the hillclimb on Daniel will need to be closed, then Dutch John, then Slab Pile, then the parking lots....It just doesn't make sense to me. The reason these areas get popular is because they become challenging, and draw people there. If its using such a small portion of the 50k acres, why is it unacceptable for it to grow to accomodate the traffic?

And please understand, this is not an attack or insult to those blocking off the bypasses. I appreciate and commend your efforts.
 
Matt i will say this and more than likely take heat for it. URE is a national forrest, not an offroad park,they give us trails to ride not obstacles to play on. This there stance, had been and will be. When the trails get to the point that break downs and rigs being left on the trail due to being above what the average weekender can do then they will shut it down.....
 
snappy said:
Matt i will say this and more than likely take heat for it. URE is a national forrest, not an offroad park,they give us trails to ride not obstacles to play on. This there stance, had been and will be. When the trails get to the point that break downs and rigs being left on the trail due to being above what the average weekender can do then they will shut it down.....
Click to expand...
No heat from me, thats very true and valid.
 
jeepinmatt said:
I agree, that in general, the trails are/should be 15-20ft wide max. I knew however, that if I said that, 6 people would come in here and tell me about how it so much wider than that and my numbers were all wrong, etc. so I was leaning on the generous side.
Click to expand...

Damned if you do.... Damned if you don't. :flipoff2:
 
shawn said:
Except that it wouldn't go through that area at all. What would most likely happen is that it would get closed. If they had the money to construct a trail, it would be routed through another section of the forest where the trail grades were more gradual.
Click to expand...

That is depressing.
 
I'm going to have to buy a stock Samurai or Sidekick and run street tread 215's to bring the challenge back to URE.
 
Back
Top