I Leak Oil
Expedition Leader
That could have ended badly if the rock had gone over by accident still attached to the rigging. But you gotta do what you gotta do sometimes...
Jason T.
Jason T.
Clearing Obstacles
- Thread starter R_Lefebvre
- Start date
dust devil
Observer
Exactly what I was thinking when I read your post.....:drool:
In this instance, however, the tree that was removed was removed from the by-pass, not the trail.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
This is becoming a good discussion.
Nonimouse brings up some very good points, luckily for me not much of it applies in Canada. I don't claim to be a legal expert, so this is just my observation. We tend to have more of a "no-harm, no-foul" system, largely due to the amount of unused land we have, I think. If you're not on a private person's land, or even if you are, if the plaintiff couldn't justify a claim for damages, you'd never get it through the system. Tearing up somebody's front lawn or a wilderness preserve is one thing. Tearing up a small portion of a huge plot of unused land just doesn't carry the same weight. In fact, it seems to me we put the onus on the government or land owner to fence and/or erect signs to prevent use of the land.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this, it's just the way it seems to be. It's a completely different perspective here. Evidenced by our antiquated mining laws. Any person can buy a Prospecting Licence for$25, no test or anything required, and that absolves you from anybody suing you for tresspassing. The way the law stands now, a prosepctor can hop a fence and start digging holes in somebodies yard, and there's nothing the land owner can do to stop it.
The only time we have problems with trails getting closed, is more because of user group disagreements than anything. If you're away from civilization, nobody cares much. If you're closer to civilization, you'll have hikers, naturalists or horseback riders trying to get the trail closed.
That would be hard. This is getting into classic Canadian Shield topography. There's usually non-porous rock sitting several inches to several feet under the soil. It's quite irregular, with pockets like this one. This was the low point to which an area would drain. There is nowhere else for the water to go. This mud-hole probably happened because the road was drawn on a map, then cut, rather than being built around the holes and then put on a map. The logical solution is in fact to make the bypass into the new road, which is on higher ground.
Some of the water which collects in the area could be diverted somewhere else, but it would be an extensive system.
No, you can't see the tree at all. The trucks you see parked were on part of the bypass, but not the tricky part of it. Those trucks did not cross either the mud hole, or the bypass, they turned around and went back.
I agree, I prefer to drive out, obviously. But in this case, the only way through the mud, as exemplified by the Defenders that went through, was to charge through with some momentum, tires spinning, etc. Potentially damaging the truck, and definitely damaging the trail.
That's how I see it. The logical solution in this case seemed to be to make the bypass difficulty similar to that of the rest of the road.
I disagree with that. If left alone for 5-10 years, a blink of an eye in ecological terms, most people would hardly even notice it was ever damaged. These areas regrow very fast. I should take some before and after pictures of logging roads up here, it's pretty incredible.
Now, that's not to say that some rare species weren't destroyed or something. But just that, it will revegetate, absolutely.
That is the problem, I think. There's no way anything I could do would stop the masses of people who enjoy this sort of thing. None of the ATV's we saw seemed to be part of any group. Just a bunch of guys (and gal's). In fact I did say that after witnessing two new ATVers show up, and repeatedly charge through the mud, back and forth until they were stuck, that we should leave them there to suffer... well, nobody else in my group went with that idea, and we rescued them. I seem to be a lone voice on this stuff.
Absolutely! That's what I see here. Either people attempt to drive over it, digging the soil more, or they drive around, tearing up more land. I seem to be in the minority carrying and axe, and even more so in knowing how to use it. I can usually cut a 12" log in less time than it takes to get a chainsaw prepped and fired up. But I have though about carrying a chainsaw, just not yet due to logistics of it. Whenever I break out the axe, people complain about the time or effort, but I find it's always easier than the alternatives.
A good thought, but it seems to be hopeless up here. We have no chance against the masses who are not part of any organization. Perhaps it is that sentiment that prevents us from forming a powerful group like the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs. That's a powerful group that actually had an Act of Parliament passes which gives them quasi-government powers, and legally defines the rights of snowmobilers. They charge fees for the use of trail systems that they set up on public and private land, and have the right to charge tresspassing and damages to anybody using the trail without a permit, or damaging the trail (such as driving a truck on a groomed snowmobile trail). I am a member of the Ontario Federation of Trail Riders (motorbikes) and Ontario Federation of 4WD, and neither of them have much of a voice, and certainly can't control what goes on on public land.
This is a huge part of my reason for posting this thread. It seems to be that the majority of off-roaders in North America see this the opposite way. Kudos are earned for finding the hardest obstacle you can, and blasting through it. Damage is looked at as a badge of honor. Those same pictures where people here are saying "Oooh, that's a bad mud pit" were met with ridicule elsewhere.
Nonimouse brings up some very good points, luckily for me not much of it applies in Canada. I don't claim to be a legal expert, so this is just my observation. We tend to have more of a "no-harm, no-foul" system, largely due to the amount of unused land we have, I think. If you're not on a private person's land, or even if you are, if the plaintiff couldn't justify a claim for damages, you'd never get it through the system. Tearing up somebody's front lawn or a wilderness preserve is one thing. Tearing up a small portion of a huge plot of unused land just doesn't carry the same weight. In fact, it seems to me we put the onus on the government or land owner to fence and/or erect signs to prevent use of the land.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this, it's just the way it seems to be. It's a completely different perspective here. Evidenced by our antiquated mining laws. Any person can buy a Prospecting Licence for$25, no test or anything required, and that absolves you from anybody suing you for tresspassing. The way the law stands now, a prosepctor can hop a fence and start digging holes in somebodies yard, and there's nothing the land owner can do to stop it.
The only time we have problems with trails getting closed, is more because of user group disagreements than anything. If you're away from civilization, nobody cares much. If you're closer to civilization, you'll have hikers, naturalists or horseback riders trying to get the trail closed.
That would be hard. This is getting into classic Canadian Shield topography. There's usually non-porous rock sitting several inches to several feet under the soil. It's quite irregular, with pockets like this one. This was the low point to which an area would drain. There is nowhere else for the water to go. This mud-hole probably happened because the road was drawn on a map, then cut, rather than being built around the holes and then put on a map. The logical solution is in fact to make the bypass into the new road, which is on higher ground.
Some of the water which collects in the area could be diverted somewhere else, but it would be an extensive system.
No, you can't see the tree at all. The trucks you see parked were on part of the bypass, but not the tricky part of it. Those trucks did not cross either the mud hole, or the bypass, they turned around and went back.
I agree, I prefer to drive out, obviously. But in this case, the only way through the mud, as exemplified by the Defenders that went through, was to charge through with some momentum, tires spinning, etc. Potentially damaging the truck, and definitely damaging the trail.
That's how I see it. The logical solution in this case seemed to be to make the bypass difficulty similar to that of the rest of the road.
I disagree with that. If left alone for 5-10 years, a blink of an eye in ecological terms, most people would hardly even notice it was ever damaged. These areas regrow very fast. I should take some before and after pictures of logging roads up here, it's pretty incredible.
Now, that's not to say that some rare species weren't destroyed or something. But just that, it will revegetate, absolutely.
That is the problem, I think. There's no way anything I could do would stop the masses of people who enjoy this sort of thing. None of the ATV's we saw seemed to be part of any group. Just a bunch of guys (and gal's). In fact I did say that after witnessing two new ATVers show up, and repeatedly charge through the mud, back and forth until they were stuck, that we should leave them there to suffer... well, nobody else in my group went with that idea, and we rescued them. I seem to be a lone voice on this stuff.
Absolutely! That's what I see here. Either people attempt to drive over it, digging the soil more, or they drive around, tearing up more land. I seem to be in the minority carrying and axe, and even more so in knowing how to use it. I can usually cut a 12" log in less time than it takes to get a chainsaw prepped and fired up. But I have though about carrying a chainsaw, just not yet due to logistics of it. Whenever I break out the axe, people complain about the time or effort, but I find it's always easier than the alternatives.
A good thought, but it seems to be hopeless up here. We have no chance against the masses who are not part of any organization. Perhaps it is that sentiment that prevents us from forming a powerful group like the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs. That's a powerful group that actually had an Act of Parliament passes which gives them quasi-government powers, and legally defines the rights of snowmobilers. They charge fees for the use of trail systems that they set up on public and private land, and have the right to charge tresspassing and damages to anybody using the trail without a permit, or damaging the trail (such as driving a truck on a groomed snowmobile trail). I am a member of the Ontario Federation of Trail Riders (motorbikes) and Ontario Federation of 4WD, and neither of them have much of a voice, and certainly can't control what goes on on public land.
This is a huge part of my reason for posting this thread. It seems to be that the majority of off-roaders in North America see this the opposite way. Kudos are earned for finding the hardest obstacle you can, and blasting through it. Damage is looked at as a badge of honor. Those same pictures where people here are saying "Oooh, that's a bad mud pit" were met with ridicule elsewhere.
frumpy
Explorer
I'm not quite sure I get this. You are part of OF4WD and you think most trails are being closed because user disagreements? In addition, there are a TON of clubs in the area. Get together and do something about it. Dig small drainages, fill in the worst spots, prevent further damage.
After all those ATVs were ripping through and getting stuck, did anyone in your group politely talk to them and explain the damage they are doing?
After all those ATVs were ripping through and getting stuck, did anyone in your group politely talk to them and explain the damage they are doing?
BigAl
Expedition Leader
The NOLS Wilderness guide says you should walk thru the mud to avoid widening he trail. I think the same would apply to driving, that and the hole looks like fun:sombrero: You should drive trails suitable to your skill and vehicle. If you get thru with your vehicle/winch then you picked a suitable trail.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Yes, I think most trails are closed due to user disagreements. This is also visible on the bike side. I've never seen an area get closed unless a naturalist group was involved in pushing the government. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. With the exception of conservation areas, the government and industry want to use land in far more destructive ways than we do, I don't think they close areas except under pressure from environmentalists.
I'm exploring the local club scene. I've been out with a local club, which was a member of OF4WD, and was not impressed. Some members of the group went tearing through *virgin* wetlands for fun, and nobody said anything about it.
I did say to everybody on my side of the mud pit that we should leave the ATV's there as a lesson, but nobody else cared. When I went to clear that log, I got complaints. I'm pretty cautious around the 4wd scene, and for good reason. As the new guy, I'm not going to be telling other people what to do.
Last edited:
frumpy
Explorer
I'm not trying to start an argument here. I am in NB and realize the biggest issue for Ontario (and yes I lived there and was part of OF4WD as an independent) is the misuse of trails. The only user issues I have heard of is snowmobiles vs summer usage. Aside from that it is environmental issues and government closing trails to allow for regeneration. A lot of the trails in southern Ontario were closed due to lack of permission, people going out on private land with no permission. Certain trails that may even be part of snowmobile trails require permission from landowners.
We do have a ton of land but we are loosing it, thats why everyone needs to tread lightly.
We do have a ton of land but we are loosing it, thats why everyone needs to tread lightly.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Probably because of different locations within Ontario, but I haven't seen many trails I've used get closed due to misuse, or government taking the initiative. It was always user groups. I'm talking about patches of forest such as Simcoe Country Forest, Northumberland County Forest, Larose, etc. It's always the hikers/etc that want to shut out the motorized users. I don't spend much time around big cities, which maybe is where you've seen the government take the initiative.
I believe in Tread Lightly, but I also think it's a bit of a lost cause. I don't think that we, the responsible participants, have much of a chance of controlling the uneducated masses who are typically drawn to off-road motorized recreation. There's just too many of them. Everybody and his dog in rural Ontario has an ATV, and seems to like tearing stuff up. Many of the trails up near Minden are darn near impassible on motorcycle, due to the ATV's tearing them up and causing bottomless mud holes.
I haven't seen the OF4WD having much activity, other than organizing CampNL every year.
I believe in Tread Lightly, but I also think it's a bit of a lost cause. I don't think that we, the responsible participants, have much of a chance of controlling the uneducated masses who are typically drawn to off-road motorized recreation. There's just too many of them. Everybody and his dog in rural Ontario has an ATV, and seems to like tearing stuff up. Many of the trails up near Minden are darn near impassible on motorcycle, due to the ATV's tearing them up and causing bottomless mud holes.
I haven't seen the OF4WD having much activity, other than organizing CampNL every year.
92 red cummins
Observer
I think the trail should be rated harder because of the mud hole or shut down the mud hole and make the by pass the only way(enviromentally friendly). It's all ready there and easier on the land. That way the next generation will still be able to drive that trail!:truck:
michaelgroves
Explorer
Here's how I see the issue.
The objectives are (in order of priority):
And the options are (in no order):
As I see it, providing objective A is met, the most important criterion is whether going through the mud hole is ecologically more sound than clearing the bypass and using that. Since the bypass already exists, to my mind it's by far the best option. Especially as it also seems to best meet Objective C.
I really can't see any strong argument against the idea of the bypass permanently becoming the trail in this particular case.
It's probably a bit trickier deciding when to make a new bypass if the main trail becomes irreversibly damaged. If the comparative ecological impact doesn't make the choice obvious, then I think Objective C would be the right criterion to use, i.e. if the damage unintentionally makes that section hugely more tricky than the rest of the trail, then a bypass seems reasonable in principle. If the bypass will also be ecologically harmful in the long term, then turn around and go home.
The objectives are (in order of priority):
A: Stay within the law
B: Limit damage to the ecology
C: Keep the level of difficulty of the trail as originally intended
B: Limit damage to the ecology
C: Keep the level of difficulty of the trail as originally intended
And the options are (in no order):
1) Go through the mud hole
2) Take an existing bypass (if it's clear)
3) Clear the bypass (if it's blocked)
4) Make a new bypass (if the old one's blocked)
5) Turn around and go home
2) Take an existing bypass (if it's clear)
3) Clear the bypass (if it's blocked)
4) Make a new bypass (if the old one's blocked)
5) Turn around and go home
As I see it, providing objective A is met, the most important criterion is whether going through the mud hole is ecologically more sound than clearing the bypass and using that. Since the bypass already exists, to my mind it's by far the best option. Especially as it also seems to best meet Objective C.
I really can't see any strong argument against the idea of the bypass permanently becoming the trail in this particular case.
It's probably a bit trickier deciding when to make a new bypass if the main trail becomes irreversibly damaged. If the comparative ecological impact doesn't make the choice obvious, then I think Objective C would be the right criterion to use, i.e. if the damage unintentionally makes that section hugely more tricky than the rest of the trail, then a bypass seems reasonable in principle. If the bypass will also be ecologically harmful in the long term, then turn around and go home.
good discussion. Here in Manitoba we are starting to feel the same pressures on land use. In one area called the Sandilands Provincial Forest which is rated as a multiuse area quad derbies have become very popular. A large fire occured last year and was blamed on a derby. Eventually the truth came out and though the way it was reported in the news was a faulty spark arrestor caused the fire was incorrect, the fire was actually caused by other land users, either smokers or a careless cooking fire. Either way it forced the ATV riders to form an assoc and abide by new government regs regulating large groups.
I belong to a local Jeep club and we have developed a rock trail on the edge of the Canadian Shield. It now is facing increased useage and trying to inform people of the proper way to off road is an uphill battle. For what its worth we have left the entrance to the trail narrow and difficult to keep full size trucks out, around here they are the ones that like to tear up soft spots and mow down trees. We now no longer freely give out info on where to go off roading.
As far as winch use, thats the way to go. why in the world would we put winches on our vehicles if not to use them. I routinely take groups of our club members into the bush and maybe 1 out of every 4 times winch use is mandatory. Usually I get, hey, put a strap on my truck and pull me out. The answer is almost always no its lesson time, get your winch cable out along with the tree saver strap we made you buy and lets have fun. This is usually followed by a bit of grumbling, then they learn what can be accomplished and there are smiles all around. After discovering this site I have taken my Cherokee more down the the Expedition route. This involves an off road trailer and gear like a chainsaw, axe, saw plus 2 aluminum 6 foot folding ramps that can support 1200 lbs each. The goal is not to show hey look at me and watch this, it is to proceed slowly using my gear and brain and make it to that lake or wherever with the least fuss and damage to the environment and my vehicle. To that end we have recently been venturing into Ontario near the Kenora area where we have found numerous lakes and campspots it takes an equipped vehicle to reach. Heres a couple of pictures of our last expedition just east of Kenora Ontario.
I belong to a local Jeep club and we have developed a rock trail on the edge of the Canadian Shield. It now is facing increased useage and trying to inform people of the proper way to off road is an uphill battle. For what its worth we have left the entrance to the trail narrow and difficult to keep full size trucks out, around here they are the ones that like to tear up soft spots and mow down trees. We now no longer freely give out info on where to go off roading.
As far as winch use, thats the way to go. why in the world would we put winches on our vehicles if not to use them. I routinely take groups of our club members into the bush and maybe 1 out of every 4 times winch use is mandatory. Usually I get, hey, put a strap on my truck and pull me out. The answer is almost always no its lesson time, get your winch cable out along with the tree saver strap we made you buy and lets have fun. This is usually followed by a bit of grumbling, then they learn what can be accomplished and there are smiles all around. After discovering this site I have taken my Cherokee more down the the Expedition route. This involves an off road trailer and gear like a chainsaw, axe, saw plus 2 aluminum 6 foot folding ramps that can support 1200 lbs each. The goal is not to show hey look at me and watch this, it is to proceed slowly using my gear and brain and make it to that lake or wherever with the least fuss and damage to the environment and my vehicle. To that end we have recently been venturing into Ontario near the Kenora area where we have found numerous lakes and campspots it takes an equipped vehicle to reach. Heres a couple of pictures of our last expedition just east of Kenora Ontario.