GWNF again

[Clark White]

River crossing?
The red arrow was the "trail" that Clark was crossing to.
Which is the sensible crossing assuming there was a trail there?

That picture is absolutely meaningless as it shows the same thing in far less efficient fashion then the pictures I have already posted. While you seam to make it seam there is nothing more there then that small rocky spot you can see, there is in fact a perfect little trail leading up that peninsula to an absolutely fabulous camping spot. As I know you are well aware, most every camping spot out there, and most every camping spot in the world, is at the end of a short little trail very much like that one. You can actually get there with far less river crossing by taking Dry River Rd., but that requires driving a very muddy and rutted trail so I cross the rocky creek so as not to further damage the already torn up trail (very plainly following the Tread Lightly Philosophy).

Here's your sign.

As stated, get real. That sign is nowhere near Dry River Rd., and if it were, then would you not be violating the very rules you are mad at me for violating by driving past thatsign in the first place?

Here is the actual trail that is so hard for some people to find. Sorry for the crappy cell phone pic. Forgot my camera again.

No, I have no trouble finding that trail as that is Dry River Rd. As mentioned, I do NOT go that way to get to the camping site because it would require damaging the road further (not Dry River Rd., the side trail going to the camp site).

I am well aware that the side trails are not on the map, but MANY open and legal trails in that are are NOT on the maps. EVEN DRY RIVER RD. ITS SELF DOES NOT FOLLOW THE MAP! Does that mean that you can't drive the county road anymore? No! The maps were published before the damn and reservoir were made and the trail now takes a different rout, AND IS STILL A LEGAL TRAIL. If that TRAIL that I crossed to is illegal then it must be posted, which is is CLEARLY not. Saying that a VERY clear and for all rights maintained trail is by common knowledge closed and illegal is absolutely ludicrous.

The fact that crossing that pool is illegal is fine, I don't have a problem with that. I did not know it was such a sensitive land use issue in the area and as such, taking the shortest rout seamed perfectly reasonable as it would have no detrimental effect on the location (we all seam to have agreed on that fact!). I now know that for legal reasons I will cross 20yrds down stream, which is JUST FINE WITH ME. However, as yet you have not shown one tiny, even microscopic spec of evidence to even indicate no less prove that that trail on the peninsula is closed. My, or anyone elses driving that trail, even if it is only 100yrds long (which is kind of the point, its 100yrds long, it's limited access, and that makes it perfect for camping), has ABSOLUTELY no detrimental effect on that peninsula. If we were plowing over bushes, trees, shrubs, what have you to do so, then yes, that would be illegal and I should be shunned for it. BUT I DID NONE OF THAT. My driving a perfectly respectable, AND STAYING ON THAT TRAILS, is in no way related to why Tellico was closed.

Clark

 

[mr_ed]

Here is the actual trail that is so hard for some people to find. Sorry for the crappy cell phone pic. Forgot my camera again.

I appreciate your attempts to educate us, but that particular photo means next to nothing to me...I saw several places on my 3-day trip this past weekend that, given my limited knowledge of this area, seem to match that view...

Ya gotta give me a clearer picture (i.e. establish where we are exactly) for me to be able to understand what it is you wish me to do in the future.

 

[Clark White]

Actually, mcm4090, that's not correct. I was at Dry Run today (10/18/2009), and those signs are posted for a stretch of at least 6-miles. They start at the Riven Rock park area and are posted about every 100-yards all the way to the foot of the mountain. In many areas the signs are on both sides of the road.

Dry Run road is a right-of-way. It's neither a road nor a trail. If the forest service saw the need, or if the City of Harrisonburg pressed the issue, Dry Run Road could be closed to traffic. A gate could easily be installed at Rt. 33 just like the one at the foot of the dam. Straying 1-foot off the right-of-way is trespassing. Obviously, the "island" is not part of the right-of-way.

Technically, the recorded right-of-way is a straight line from the current entrance to the river bed; directly to the current exit of the river on the other side. As mentioned, in 1996 mother-nature changed the path of the river. If everyone abides by the recorded right-of-way they would be driving right down the middle of the river where the earlier posted pictures of the Land Rovers are driving with water over their hoods.

In closing, yes, the original poster was in the wrong for driving where he did. Do people do it anyway? Sure they do. That's the problem. Do we really want a sign every 100-feet posted in our National Forest? Seriously, think about it. We go to the woods to get away from civilization. Next thing you know people will be complaining that there are no STOP or YIELD signs at the intersections.

Your right, those signs are everywhere, BUT THEY ARE NOT AT THE ENTRANCE TO DRY RIVER RD. No, I don't want signs posted everywhere you go, any 3 digit IQ fella can figure that from my postings. What were saying is if you have perfectly maintained trail on public land, that trail is not muddy/rutted/etc., then you can not reasonably expect people to know your not allowed on it with out some sort of a sign (that sing could be a long dead tree thrown across the start of the trail, it does NOT have to be an actual sign).

As far as a right of way that is Dry River Rd. only and nothing going of of it, did I miss something? I am not from there, I do not own a property boundary's map for that area, but is that not National Forest? I ask that as an honest question given your right of way statements. I never saw anything indicating otherwise, but I could see how the city could own it for water rights purposes? If that is not public land, then there is nothing pointing that out anywhere along Dry River Rd. If it is public land, then there is nothing illegal about staying on the trails regardless of their being on a USGS map or not (USGS publishes all the maps that the FS maps are printed and based from). The issue at hand is not whether or not it is legal to drive any trails off of Dry River Rd., it is whether or not anyone but a well informed local who follows all the latest and greatest in regulatory political changes could know that. According to my USGS maps, that area is National Forest. In the National Forest, no ranger would ever ticket you for driving an unmarked, well maintained trail. Even on public land, the law states that there must be a reasonable attempt to inform that you are trespassing, which there clearly is not as there is no indication that you are even on private land, no less not allowed to drive anything but the main road.

Clark

 

[jeepfreak]

For those of you confused as to what's going on in the area, here is a detailed PDF. http://www.harrisonburgva.gov/fileadmin/user_upload/cityman/files/plans/HBGFORMGTPLAN.pdf
This plan as been approved and is not being implemented.

Some other information can be found here http://www.dnronline.com/news_details.php?AID=34075&CHID=2

If you're still questioning the legality of the rover crossing, please contact:
Kimberly L. Alexander
Assistant to the City Manager
Office of City Manager
345 South Main Street
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
Phone540) 432-8923
Fax: (540) 432-7778

The area in question is not part of the national forest. The area in question is owned and managed by the city of Harrisonburg, VA. According to the City code, you cannot even swim in this water shed.

 

[jeepfreak]

Your right, those signs are everywhere, BUT THEY ARE NOT AT THE ENTRANCE TO DRY RIVER RD. No, I don't want signs posted everywhere you go, any 3 digit IQ fella can figure that from my postings. What were saying is if you have perfectly maintained trail on public land, that trail is not muddy/rutted/etc., then you can not reasonably expect people to know your not allowed on it with out some sort of a sign (that sing could be a long dead tree thrown across the start of the trail, it does NOT have to be an actual sign).

That has been done, Clark. Believe me, it's very frustrating to the people of the community.

Notice the white sign on the tree!

 

[Clark White]

For reference, here are some satellite views of the area in question:

Google map link so you can scan around and see the entire surrounding area...
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=38.564572,-79.088801&spn=0.00155,0.002411&t=h&z=19

Here is a screen shot from Google Earth:

Clark

 

[jeepfreak]

As far as a right of way that is Dry River Rd. only and nothing going of of it, did I miss something? I am not from there, I do not own a property boundary's map for that area, but is that not National Forest? I ask that as an honest question given your right of way statements. I never saw anything indicating otherwise, but I could see how the city could own it for water rights purposes? If that is not public land, then there is nothing pointing that out anywhere along Dry River Rd. If it is public land, then there is nothing illegal about staying on the trails regardless of their being on a USGS map or not (USGS publishes all the maps that the FS maps are printed and based from). The issue at hand is not whether or not it is legal to drive any trails off of Dry River Rd., it is whether or not anyone but a well informed local who follows all the latest and greatest in regulatory political changes could know that. According to my USGS maps, that area is National Forest. In the National Forest, no ranger would ever ticket you for driving an unmarked, well maintained trail. Even on public land, the law states that there must be a reasonable attempt to inform that you are trespassing, which there clearly is not as there is no indication that you are even on private land, no less not allowed to drive anything but the main road.

Clark

Clark,
You have to remember that this is a river bed. Dry River, is, well, dry........at least for most of the year. Once the snow starts falling at the higher elevations (like it was today), that water has to go some place. It's during this time of year, through March, that the river fills up. Any logs, rocks, posts, signs, etc... will get washed away. There will be several times in a year that the river is completely impassable, even by boat. Where that water was 5-feet on the 4-runner last week, it will be over 15-feet later in the year with a current that will carry 60-feet poplar trees away.

The national forest boundary is actually very well marked. The boundary is marked with red dots spray painted on trees. These dots are very much noticeable and common.

 

[Clark White]

That has been done, Clark. Believe me, it's very frustrating to the people of the community.

Notice the white sign on the tree!

Really? LIKE THE PREVIOUS PICTURE, THAT IS NOT DRY RIVER RD. OR THE SIDE TRAIL I WAS ON. I saw those signs and I followed them where they applied. I saw tank traps and I did not go beyond them. THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS ON DRY RIVER RD.! I don't know, I'm human and could have missed one, but something tells me if it were there you, DiscoD, or Roverhound would have posted a picture of it plainly showing the sign and its placement on Dry River Rd. Please, for the sake of intelligent conversation, if you are going to keep trying to trick those who do not know the area with absolutely ludicrous posts such as this, STOP POSTING. A no trespassing sign on someones property does not mean you cant go anywhere in the forest. A rock pile and sign saying stay off trail A does not meant stay off trail B 2mi further down the HW which has no such signs, it means stay off trail A. There are no signs/tank traps/downed trees/etc on Dry River Rd, so stop fabricating pictures from other areas and trying to make it seam like they are on Dry River Rd.

As far as people going around the signs and driving areas that ARE in fact closed, I DO feel that is wrong, I DO try to stop those people, and I DO find their flagrantly disobeying they law to be extremely frustrating, so I feel your pain on that. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I DID!!!

Clark

 

[jeepfreak]

Actually, if you want to get technical about it, Clark, I have highlighted in White another trail that would have even less impact than your route. I'm sure you saw this trail while you were in the area. Again, the trail is illegal. There have been signs posted that only get tore down. Tank traps have been installed only to have been washed out by floods. The last option is a gate at Rt. 33. Sad, but true.

I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm just telling you that what you did was NOT legal. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that does not make it right. Many many people drive these trails. They are in the wrong, too.

Where you camped was illegal. If you built a fire that was illegal, too. If you put your feet in the water, that's also illegal.

This is a water shed for the city. From Switzer Dam all the way to Riven Rock Park.

 

[Clark White]

Clark,
You have to remember that this is a river bed. Dry River, is, well, dry........at least for most of the year. Once the snow starts falling at the higher elevations (like it was today), that water has to go some place. It's during this time of year, through March, that the river fills up. Any logs, rocks, posts, signs, etc... will get washed away. There will be several times in a year that the river is completely impassable, even by boat. Where that water was 5-feet on the 4-runner last week, it will be over 15-feet later in the year with a current that will carry 60-feet poplar trees away.

The national forest boundary is actually very well marked. The boundary is marked with red dots spray painted on trees. These dots are very much noticeable and common.

I don't doubt the flooding of the river and the inherent difficulties in trying to mark that trail as closed. I appreciate that. However, you can't expect anyone who is not very familiar with the area to know that. I have also been going there for many years and have never noticed that there has been any flood damage done to that road or the surrounding vegetation, so I don't think some sort of barrier on the peninsula would be washed away regularly (though again, I don't doubt that it does flood from time to time, making that a difficult thing to mark).

I noticed the red paint on the trees, but in most of the US and the world, bright paint on a tree is related to logging, maintenance, research, etc. It is NOT the legal marking of the NF boundary. There is absolutely no way for ANYONE not from there (or many people who are) to know what those red stripes mean. Travel around the US and you will see that the NF boundary is, if marked at all, marked with small steel signs with black lettering on yellow background stating, GWNF BOUNDARY or something very similar, not red stripes. If that is the marking then fine, but don't expect ANYONE to know that if they are not intimately involved.

Clark

 

[Clark White]

Actually, if you want to get technical about it, Clark, I have highlighted in White another trail that would have even less impact than your route. I'm sure you saw this trail while you were in the area. Again, the trail is illegal. There have been signs posted that only get tore down. Tank traps have been installed only to have been washed out by floods. The last option is a gate at Rt. 33. Sad, but true.

I'm not trying to belittle you. I'm just telling you that what you did was NOT legal. I'm sorry if you're offended, but that does not make it right. Many many people drive these trails. They are in the wrong, too.

Where you camped was illegal. If you built a fire that was illegal, too. If you put your feet in the water, that's also illegal.

This is a water shed for the city. From Switzer Dam all the way to Riven Rock Park.

The trail you marked in white is the trail I mentioned that is VERY muddy and rutted, so I avoid driving it as it will cause great damage to that trail which I try to avoid. As I have stated many times if you read the entire thread (lengthy at this point, I know), I don't have a problem with it being closed. As I have also said many times, I will not go there now that I know it is closed. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with (and this really doesn't pertain to you as you are being reasonable) was mainly DiscoD, who has since been banned for his ridiculous comments on this and other threads, his blatant insults, and the fat that I am somehow supposed to magically know not to drive a perfectly good road. I do know no, and I will not drive that road again.

Clark

 

[jeepfreak]

I noticed the red paint on the trees, but in most of the US and the world, bright paint on a tree is related to logging, maintenance, research, etc. It is NOT the legal marking of the NF boundary. There is absolutely no way for ANYONE not from there (or many people who are) to know what those red stripes mean. Travel around the US and you will see that the NF boundary is, if marked at all, marked with small steel signs with black lettering on yellow background stating, GWNF BOUNDARY or something very similar, not red stripes. If that is the marking then fine, but don't expect ANYONE to know that if they are not intimately involved.

Clark

That's what's nice about these web forums - you can always learn something new! http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/about/hi_neighbor.shtml

Boundary Lines

Most of the lands in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests were acquired in the early 1900s. These lands were accurately surveyed, but the boundaries were re-marked in later years using less accurate, hand-held instruments. As a result, many of our boundary lines are not marked according to today's standards.

The Forest Service is now working with contractors to resurvey existing lines, adjusting some to correct past errors. The contractor will contact adjacent land owners before surveying along their property.

The line may be moved to meet corrections made by the new survey. That means landowners should build structures or other improvements away from the "Red Line" or Forest boundary in case the property line must be adjusted.

As a landowner, you should survey your land before constructing any improvements. The Forest Service will often share in the cost of surveying common boundaries, providing a registered land surveyor is used and there are enough government funds for the project.

On file in the Ranger District offices are the boundary descriptions for all tracts that have been acquired locally by the Forest Service. They contain descriptions of corners, features along the property lines, and the bearings and distances between the corners.

Property corners are designated by a variety of objects, including iron pins, rocks, stakes, posts, and monuments. Two to four "witness" trees are marked near each corner with a band of red paint at eye level. The bearing and distance from these trees to the corner is recorded in the survey notes so that corners can be replaced if they are destroyed. In cases where actual property corners are located in roads or streams, a witness corner might be set on the adjoining roadside or stream bank. It is important not to mistake a witness corner for the actual corner.

We each have a responsibility to protect our common corners and the boundary markers along property lines. We look forward to working with you to accomplish this.

 

[jeepfreak]

What I have a problem with (and this really doesn't pertain to you as you are being reasonable) was mainly DiscoD, who has since been banned for his ridiculous comments on this and other threads, his blatant insults, and the fat that I am somehow supposed to magically know not to drive a perfectly good road. I do know no, and I will not drive that road again.

Clark

Don't be offended. He was only stating what everyone else was thinking but did not want to say publicly.:ylsmoke:

 

[gjackson]

Jeepfreak, thanks for the information and the rational posts. Goes a long way to educating us all.

cheers

 

[ijeep_2]

While there has been some good info in this thread, I can't believe I just wasted so much time reading it all. I wonder if a mod could go through and edit out the fluff... saving the next sucker some time. Too bad jeepfreak couldn't have posted about 7 pages ago. Great photos Clark!
Thanks