Horse Trails vs OHV Trails

[DRaider90]

This was news to me, and hopefully this will reach others that didn't know about this.

Very simply there are a number of old OHV trails that are now Horse Trails. I am aware that Horses supposedly don't have as big of an impact as OHVs do, but I don't see why we can't work to get some of these trails re-opened to OHV trail use.

Take the Rattlesnake trail we were looking for, its on the map as a Horse Trail (the Buttermilk Trail). The old Chrome Mine Road is another Horse Trail, and so is the Randolph trail. Not to mention the horses are actively using Gold Mine and other old OHV trails that have been closed down.

So beyond our efforts of hiking old OHV trails, we are going to start working on looking at having Horse Trails that were former OHV trails re-opened to OHV use. The Horse people may have to share, but sharing a couple miles of their many many trails shouldn't be an issue. They can afford to share a couple miles of trails, and they will still have them to their selves anyway in the off-season.

 

[GotWood]

I hate to agree, but the horses are less impact. that would be a hard argument.

 

[/dev/ram]

Great idea - make enemies of a group of users who likely have at least as much tied up in their "rigs" as the OHV folks. Make sure when you start talking this up with the rangers that you leave the "me" out of "we". Thanks in advance.

 

[shawn]

Great idea - make enemies of a group of users who likely have at least as much tied up in their "rigs" as the OHV folks. Make sure when you start talking this up with the rangers that you leave the "me" out of "we". Thanks in advance.

x2

 

[DRaider90]

It's amazing how many people jump on the defensive about things on here. I in no way bashed or attacked the Horse people. All I said was they could afford to "lose" a couple miles of trails seeing how many they have and that they used to be OHV trails. And its the truth they have nearly 4x the documented trails, and according to numbers thrown around there are roughly a 100 if not over 200 miles of trails that are ridden by horses that aren't documented. Horses can ride OHV trails also, so its not like us changing it back to an OHV trail would make it so they couldn't ride it. Horses can ride where ever they want.

If I was going to be negative or bash the Horse people there are plenty of arguments for that but this is not the place nor the time. My efforts here are to help the OHV community at Uwharrie, but at the same time we want to keep it open for everyone so I wouldn't attack any other user groups weather it be the Horses, Hikers, etc. This is talking about the Horse Trails VS OHV trails in comparison, and how if you compare the trails on maps the old OHV trails are now Horse trails. And what we can do to get them re-opened as OHV trails so we can also enjoy their use, along with the Horses or whom ever else wants to use them.

If anyone including the above wants to derail this thread and turn it into a OHV against the Horse people they can take that somewhere else.

 

[Ron]

If anyone including the above wants to derail this thread and turn it into a OHV against the Horse people they can take that somewhere else.

The Horse people may not like it, but they have many many more miles of trails than we do. They can afford to loose a couple miles, and they will still ride them anyway in the off-season.

lol


BTW its LOSE not LOOSE....unless the trails are big enough for dual passing full size rigs

 

[shawn]

What's with the royal we shit, anyway?

 

[snappy]

I think the defense comes from everyone is the fact we fight to keep trails open, horse trails included, and the idea of this will add another enemey againist us rather than them fighting to help keep all trails open. Together we have a greater good, divided we all fall.

 

[Tech11]

What's with the royal we shit, anyway?

The Royal "we"! You know, the editorial...

look, man, I've got certain information, all right? Certain things have come to light. And, you know, has it ever occurred to you, that, instead of, uh, you know, running around, uh, uh, blaming me, you know, given the nature of all this new shit, you know, I-I-I-I... this could be a-a-a-a lot more, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, complex, I mean, it's not just, it might not be just such a simple... uh, you know?




......Dude just wanted his trails back, fuck it, lets go bowling.

 

[DRaider90]

I think the defense comes from everyone is the fact we fight to keep trails open, horse trails included, and the idea of this will add another enemey againist us rather than them fighting to help keep all trails open. Together we have a greater good, divided we all fall.

I see the point here, but honestly I don't see why the Horse people would get upset. First off even though I used the word "lose" (I had a typo earlier), having it opened to OHV use wouldn't mean they couldn't ride it. Horses and Hikers for that matter can ride/hike anywhere they want including OHV Trails. So in reality they aren't losing any trails, they are just having to share a couple more miles with other users. I know as little kids we were all taught about sharing. So unless the various user groups (OHV, Horses, Hikers) are going to resort to childish bickering over sharing there should be no issue here.

So before we have a war on here lets try to step back and see the big picture. And if anyone still feels they don't support this effort to gaining more trail mileage and SHARING the trails with the Horse people they don't have to ride them if/when they get opened to OHV use.

(I edited my original post to make it more "politically correct")

 

[/dev/ram]

The big picture is bigger than you. I didn't elect you, and you don't represent me. Your idea is dangerous in several respects and, while debating it here may amuse some, the notion that you would proceed under a self-appointed title to speak in my name pisses me off.
.
I can attend my own meetings in Troy (and have), can volunteer on the trails myself (and have), can write my own letters to the NFS, state and federal representatives (and have), and don't need you to put at risk one of the best relationships between OHV users and government in the state.
.
Period.

 

[J.C.]

I know that when FOU was being talked about, even before it was formed, it was being discussed as a mulit-use organization that would promote many uses of the national forest, not just OHV use, hence the name, Friends Of Uwharrie, not OHV Friends Of Uwharrie, 4x4 Uwharrie, etc.

As a member of this forum and as a long time friend of uwharrie it does bother me that things like the OP are not discussed, and a group decision made, before being put out as FOU policy!

 

[drkelly]

When I first started going to Uwharrie back in about 1989-90, the horses and ORVs were all on the same trails.

 

[R Q]

Horses and OHVs on the same trails do not mix...period. Even when the OHVer is friendly and respectful, the horses get spooked. What happens when anon-responsible ATV rider blasts past one or a group of horses and one gets spooked and falls into the atv or the horse rider gets thrown and hurt?
The two don't mix. I am all for the efforts of opening our old and new trails. I would proceed with caution here.

 

[DRaider90]

In an effort to keep this from going down the path any further I am going to make the following reply.

First off these ideas don't just pop into my head, and then I randomly post them. This is a project that is going on outside of FoU, and after talking it over with a couple people I made the assumption that this would be an idea we (people on NC4X4) would be on the same page about. Obviously I was wrong, and that was my mistake.

Beyond this there were replies insinuating I present my ideas to the Forest Service as those of FoU. Which I never do, and just because I post an idea on here (what this is) does it not mean that its "FoU Policy" or the opinion of the group. When ever I deal with the Forest Service or anyone I present my ideas as my own, and the opinions of those posting here as separate. I make that extremely clear when talking with the Forest Service etc, because there are times my opinions don't always match those of some of the posters on here.

The bottom line is years back the Trails were shared between the OHV users, equestrian users, hikers, etc. Even what were considered "Roads" (such as the Chrome Mine Road) that were mainly for full size use, were shared. There was a segregation that took place, but mainly (almost only) effected the OHV users. Equestrian users, hikers, bikers, etc are still allowed on all the old trails, but now OHVs are not. We (OHV Users) ended up with less than 20 miles of trails, while the other groups have 100+ miles of trails (40+ documented, plus the OHV trails, and with unknown number of undocumented). Fees for the OHV Trails were also added during the time, and further down the road seasonal closures of the OHV trails.

In my opinion there should be no problem for the paying OHV users to be able to re-gain more usage of the Trail System. If this were an equal playing field all user groups would share the trails like it was in the past. But as posted by a few people on here, there are issues with this. ATVs/OHVs don't mix well with Horses, so yes there was a need to segregate the groups. But that doesn't mean we (The paying OHV community) should only have access to a fraction of the trails that were available to us and still available to all the other groups. This is beyond the fact that the other groups still use the OHV trails even during the off-season when they are closed to OHV users.

If we want to use the logic presented here by some, technically any trail (documented or not) would be considered a horse trail. Take Gold Mine for example, there are horse tracks all over it (recent ones even), so technically you could call it a Horse trail. But no one has an issue with us trying to get it re-opened. As stated above Horses and OHVs don't mix, so by re-opening the Gold Mine trail we would be "taking a trail away" from the Horse People for the 9 months the OHV Trails are open. The same would go for the Chrome Mine Road, which is now a Horse trail. If you want to get technical due to the fact any trail could be considered a "Horse Trail" (due to the fact Horses can go anywhere) there is no difference from re-opening old trails, and having what is currently a Horse Trail reverted back to a shared trail.

In the end we share the trail system and the trails in it. For me to want us to gain trail mileage when we have by far the least amount of trails isn't attacking any of the user groups at Uwharrie. There is a very ironic saying, "You can only lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink". The interesting thing here is I don't see any equestrian users on here arguing this point, and I know there are OHV users on here that also ride horses.

If you want to be the only group paying to ride the trails and remain with a marginal number of miles to ride, then so be it. If we don't try to get trails re-opened to OHV use (closed or current horse trails etc) no one will. I for one am willing to try, and this project will move forward with or without the support of the FoU.

 

[nubarbar]

I agree with. Draider and give him permission to include me into his we. What's fair is fair and please don't come back with life is not fair. This l know if you do not follow your passion you stand alone in a croud of others that are doing the same (NOTHING).....

 

[Ron]

Eli,
You and I have rarely if ever seen eye to eye on well, anything. I think other than a shared passion for our hobby/sport we probably have very little in common.

I am going to try as nicely as I can here to express my opinion without adding any verbage that could insult or without any negative conotations. So here goes:

All to often how a person says something is much more important than what they say. Words have 2 messages, their denotation and their conotation. The way an idea is presented is almost always much more important than the idea itself. So when you start an idea with "Group X may not like it" or even "Group X may have to share or can aford to share" intentionally or not you have just brought an aggressive voice to the argument. To minimize the impact to an offended a passive voice is always preferred, so long as you in fact want to minimize the offense. (I am talking active/passive in the macro or paragraph view not the micro sentence word view for any English majors, before they start shooting holes in my statement..though there is something to be said for passive voice there as well)

Let's take a look at a different approach.
"I have been looking at lots of maps and see some really cool areas to ride that we currently can not. I would like to pursue opening these areas to OHV traffic. Currently these areas are Equine trails, but I am positive with proper planning and great communiation our two groups can amicably share these areas and make everyone happy."

See the difference?
I am sure others do.

I am starting to think you are one of those guys who is so good hearted you dont realize how others may take you. You may enter into every endeavor with the bstof intentions, but it is often not portrayd that way here.

Finally, when you accept a title, such as President, for a public group you lose your individual voice. A broadcaster does not have a right to express his prejudices publically and expect there to be no recourse. Same here. Your role with FoU is to be the figure head for all of us, to lead our joint efforts, to be a liason with the FS. You should ensure that all of your actions represent all of us, or step away from your authority. Its no different than any other job, if I decided tomorrow to start singing the praises of my competitor's product even here on a non related pedestal, I should expect my company to cut ties with me in short order.

I would fully support more miles of trails to ride at UNF....I would not support them if it brought us into the crosshairs of any other usergroup however.

 

[drkelly]

Full trail map:

 

[Lrgrnr]

Finally, when you accept a title, such as President, for a public group you lose your individual voice. A broadcaster does not have a right to express his prejudices publically and expect there to be no recourse. Same here. Your role with FoU is to be the figure head for all of us, to lead our joint efforts, to be a liason with the FS. You should ensure that all of your actions represent all of us, or step away from your authority. Its no different than any other job, if I decided tomorrow to start singing the praises of my competitor's product even here on a non related pedestal, I should expect my company to cut ties with me in short order.

this^

 

[krzyabncanuck]

Having been going on the trails now since the mid 80's i remember clearly how us in our Cruisers and Jeeps and the likes would share the trails with Horses. From the bunch that i talked to they never had an issue with sharing the trails as they could hear us along way out and could prep for us.

Now things have changed over the last few decades and now we have more users of the OHV trails.

With all this being said i do not think it would work very well between the 2 anymore. Now understand that i also take my horses up on the horse trails during the year also. I would love to be able to have my wife and her friend take the horses out and be able to meet up with them on any trail for lunch or the likes.

Just .02 cents from someone that tries to enjoy everything that Uwharrie has to offer me.