Splashing through puddles and driving in mud???

[robert j. yates]

Sometimes a little sarcasm is good for the debate because it illuminates one sided thinking.

Frankly, it seems to me that with the original posting of this thread, the anti-recreationist/zero motorized access crowd has already won. If we are questioning going through mud puddles, when does it stop? How about the slickrock at Moab? How about the sand in Anza Borrego or the lake bed of Soda Dry Lake on the Mojave Rd? Good grief people....we are attempting to access areas where 4 wheel drive is in fact, needed.....there should be no question that at some point, we will need to use and it will leave a mark. That doesn't make what we do bad. Period. End of story.

The bottom line is as already suggested....as slow as possible and as fast as necessary and always on the designated trail. I hate mud and will try to avoid it but if that means straying off the trail...... then I have no problem approaching it and charging through it.

 

[Ursidae69]

Sometimes a little sarcasm is good for the debate because it illuminates one sided thinking.

Frankly, it seems to me that with the original posting of this thread, the anti-recreationist/zero motorized access crowd has already won. If we are questioning going through mud puddles, when does it stop? How about the slickrock at Moab? How about the sand in Anza Borrego or the lake bed of Soda Dry Lake on the Mojave Rd? Good grief people....we are attempting to access areas where 4 wheel drive is in fact, needed.....there should be no question that at some point, we will need to use and it will leave a mark. That doesn't make what we do bad. Period. End of story.

The bottom line is as already suggested....as slow as possible and as fast as necessary and always on the designated trail. I hate mud and will try to avoid it but if that means straying off the trail...... then I have no problem approaching it and charging through it.

The orginal posting implied that the anti-recreationists have won something? Why the rhetoric Robert? How does Lance asking about the right way to get through huge muddy sections of the CDD mean that anti-recreationists have won? We are not questioning going through, but how to go through.

On the Tread Lightly site it says "When possible avoid mud. In soft terrain go easy on the gas to avoid wheel spin, which can cause rutting."
That's pretty much what we've all been saying, so at least we are all in agreement on that.

 

[robert j. yates]

The "environmental damage" (I use this phrase loosely) that could occur, that we should be concerned with, because some environmental groups are concerned with it, involves erosion. Going nuts in a flooded road will mobilize sediments. This really isn't as much of a concern on the C del Diablo because there are not sensitive riparian environments or fisheries nearby (I don't think) that could get affected by excess sedimentation. The main C del Diablo concern is simply road damage. The way to get through this with the least impact is to simply drive the speed necessary and not create ruts if you can avoid it and not to go around widening the roadbed.

Now, if the road you're talking about parallels a stream that has a salmon fishery in it, then erosion would be a real concern if a road is not stable and wet.

Since you brought it up...how does travelling on an open and maintained/graded dirt road (that has recently experienced rainfall) qualify as "environmental damage"?

You are treading on dangerous ground here that typically results in resource management by closure and thats why I have a problem with folks trying to be politically correct with it.

 

[Ruffin' It]

I wasn't saying leave no trace, ever. I was simply saying it should be a goal (for many reasons) to minimize impact when possible. Likewise I think it does not bode well when people start rolling their eyes at those that have a geniune desire to behave responsibly. Equating "responsible conduct" with "the greenies have won" retoric speaks volumes about the lack of critical thinking about this topic by many off roaders.

Just my thoughts, I will now exit my soapbox.

Sometimes a little sarcasm is good for the debate because it illuminates one sided thinking.

Frankly, it seems to me that with the original posting of this thread, the anti-recreationist/zero motorized access crowd has already won. If we are questioning going through mud puddles, when does it stop? How about the slickrock at Moab? How about the sand in Anza Borrego or the lake bed of Soda Dry Lake on the Mojave Rd? Good grief people....we are attempting to access areas where 4 wheel drive is in fact, needed.....there should be no question that at some point, we will need to use and it will leave a mark. That doesn't make what we do bad. Period. End of story.

The bottom line is as already suggested....as slow as possible and as fast as necessary and always on the designated trail. I hate mud and will try to avoid it but if that means straying off the trail...... then I have no problem approaching it and charging through it.

 

[Ruffin' It]

I hate trail closures as much as anyone I know of. But I also acknowledge that they are often closed due to abuse by those that roll their eyes at the mention of conservation. I don't think it is fair (or correct) to place the blame for trail closures squarely on the "anti-fun" crowd without sharing any of the blame with the "anti-responsibility" crowd.

Since you brought it up...how does travelling on an open and maintained/graded dirt road (that has recently experienced rainfall) qualify as "environmental damage"?

You are treading on dangerous ground here that typically results in resource management by closure and thats why I have a problem with folks trying to be politically correct with it.

 

[robert j. yates]

Please....now you are grasping for straws. Implying that we are all stupid rednecks without regard for environmental quality simply reinforces my point that the anti recreationists have won. I for one am not interested in rolling over and am willing to admit that our sport creates an impact. That impact cannot be avoided or glossed over but it can be mitigated as some here have suggested and to which I agree with.

Just so that folks can get some perspective....I am one of 50 property owners (and my 21 YO daughter is another) of the Little Chief claim at the top of Surprise Canyon in the Panamints. I hear this nonsense about environmental damage from water fordings in the canyon all of the time. Our access was taken away without any scientific calculus and I submit that if accessing Panamint City via motorized vehicle was so inherently destructive....how come there is now a big push to name the creek a wild and scenic river when it was afterall.........a paved road back in 1980.

Yes there are rednecks out there but I would wager that most everyone on this particular board sees themselves as an environmentalist. I will not make any excuses that my preferred mode of access happens to be motorized.

 

[DaktariEd]

I think the original intent of the post was sound. It is a question of how best to approach muddy trails. Whether it be a graded road or not, the question is a good one.
Even on a graded road, attacking mud full speed just to see the it fly can have detrimental effects on surrounding landscape and wildlife. It's not just the Camino del Diablo that is in question but any offroad areas that we travel.
No, I don't think the first post implies at all that "the anti-recreationist/zero motorized access crowd has already won" but rather he (and I for that matter) is more thoughtful now about the unintended impact when off-roading.
This is the kind of discussion that benefits all of us....

 

[robert j. yates]

No doubt that discussion benefits all.

 

[Ursidae69]

Since you brought it up...how does travelling on an open and maintained/graded dirt road (that has recently experienced rainfall) qualify as "environmental damage"?

You are treading on dangerous ground here that typically results in resource management by closure and thats why I have a problem with folks trying to be politically correct with it.

I've made my point already Robert in post#7. I'm not treading on dangerous ground at all, I'm simply responding to the original query which we've all answered in the same basic way, which is great. Have a nice day.

 

[Grim Reaper]

Please....now you are grasping for straws. Implying that we are all stupid rednecks without regard for environmental quality simply reinforces my point that the anti recreationists have won. I for one am not interested in rolling over and am willing to admit that our sport creates an impact. That impact cannot be avoided or glossed over but it can be mitigated as some here have suggested and to which I agree with.

Just so that folks can get some perspective....I am one of 50 property owners (and my 21 YO daughter is another) of the Little Chief claim at the top of Surprise Canyon in the Panamints. I hear this nonsense about environmental damage from water fordings in the canyon all of the time. Our access was taken away without any scientific calculus and I submit that if accessing Panamint City via motorized vehicle was so inherently destructive....how come there is now a big push to name the creek a wild and scenic river when it was afterall.........a paved road back in 1980.

Yes there are rednecks out there but I would wager that most everyone on this particular board sees themselves as an environmentalist. I will not make any excuses that my preferred mode of access happens to be motorized.

Thanks for backing me up and understanding just how overboard some stuff has gotten and how it has lead to the loss of access to so many places.

The fact of the matter is I am very serious about land preservation. I served as the land use director for my club for 2 years. I worked on the 10 year revisions for the SE forests that contain Tellico. I have worked and helped organize several big clean ups. I am not some armchair eco know it all. The fact is I don’t know it all but I know enough to understand just how out of hand the eco extreme has gotten.

I actually endorse the seasonal closing of some trails that border riparian area’s and I HATE MUD! That said in the areas close to me we are wet almost all the time (except this 10 year drought we are in). It is a given that I will encounter mud and short of driving off trail I have no way to avoid it.

That said jumping a little mud puddle every once in a while can be fun but this poor guy has been subjected to the eco extreme so long it sounded like he was picking out a sharp blade and getting ready to commit “hara-kire”.

Our species is going to leave marks and every species does to some extent. So does every major storm especially in that area that has minimal ground cover and for the most part is a big dried out mud flat left over from the last ice age. Look at that big 2000ft deep washout from outer space if you don’t understand how that happened.

I simply was pointing out erosion is a natural occurrence and you don’t need to kill yourself over it if you create some. Minimize it when possible.

 

[upcruiser]

I understand erosion is going to happen but I can't believe how defensive some people get over someone showing concern and consideration for reducing impact. I'd take 100 people with this kind of attitude and consideration then 10 without who plead ignorance and make a bad rep for everyone else. The offroad recreation comunity is has far more people who believe the world is their's to conquer and that damage is anavoidable then those who truly try to leave a small footprint. More people concerned and acting responsibly should help keep trails open versus closed in my mind.

 

[DaktariEd]

You, know....I went back and read this thread over again to make sure I wasn't missing anything. And I'm not.

This thread is not about route closures nor loss of access.

It is simply a request from a thoughtful member for opinions regarding the crossing of mud puddles in the trail:

Looking to improve my habits and knowledge so let's hear your thoughts everyone.

He's not about to commit Hari kiri, nor have the "anti-recreationist/zero motorized access crowd...already won," and no one has accused anyone of being a stupid redneck.

Bringing the thread back on track (pun intended), I think it's clear that "as slow as possible, as fast as necessary" is a good general rule, but there are certainly areas that rule can be relaxed, and some that it should not.

Minimizing impact is an admirable goal.

My 2 cents...

 

[Ursidae69]

There is no need for us here on ExPo and other forums to be so adversarial. We are all on the same page, or should be. I work in the environmental field and I drive trucks through mud puddles too. I have background in what the “other” side claims, accurate or not. Educating oneself with what someone on the other side thinks about an issue is not a bad thing to do, from there, dialog occurs and a middle ground can hopefully be found.

The majority of us in the online OHV world are very good about treading lightly, we are not the problem, but we are the minority when it comes to overall OHV recreationists. The problem lies with the vast majority of OHV uses, none of which ever join or post on a forum. They don’t even know that Tread Lightly exists and/or why it exists. We see the end result of these users’ negative impacts on tracts of land in land closures. I don’t have any idea how to reach this group, all I can do is change myself and my own driving styles to reduce my impact, and that is what the spirit of this thread was about.

 

[robert j. yates]

I apologise if I came across as adversarial as it was not my intent. I am simply very passionate about preserving access.

I do however believe the quote below is a pipedream. The anti-access crowd could care less about responsible use....its our aesthetic (motorized access) that infuriates them and no amount of responsible use is going to change that. I am not advocating irresponsible use at all but rather access. As Grim says....we will leave a mark no matter what and there is no getting around it and trying to placate those folks is simply wasted energy.

More people concerned and acting responsibly should help keep trails open versus closed in my mind.

 

[Scenic WonderRunner]

You, know....I went back and read this thread over again to make sure I wasn't missing anything. And I'm not.

Bringing the thread back on track (pun intended), I think it's clear that "as slow as possible, as fast as necessary" is a good general rule, but there are certainly areas that rule can be relaxed, and some that it should not.

Minimizing impact is an admirable goal.

My 2 cents...

OK....

My post is not about continuing some argument that went on here.....I didn't even read all the post's because I don't want to get into the arguments.

I'm just going to share my worst experience with mud.

A couple winters ago I headed up to Big Bear. It was a snowy and rainy day. I was on the trail that heads south toward the lake and west of the old ranch. It appears to me that this trail could have been there for 150 years. The forest service is well aware of it. The way the terrain goes....it causes water to hole up, resulting in a mud bog. They could spend big money to fix it with an undertrail drain culvert.....etc. But my feeling is they just keep filling and grading it every season, and they might even be leaving it there for the enjoyment of the off roaders that like mud............I HATE MUD!

My friend and I came upon the massive mud hole. We sat and talked it over on the radio's. Finally a mad man in a 4x4 came FLYING toward us from the opposite direction! I never knew I could back up so fast in deep MUD! You can see him in his old Dodge pick up behind me in the pics. He was going way too fast and sliding everywhere! A Very poor steward of our trails!

We watched his progress....then we knew we could do it.

We went as slow as possible and as fast as necessary.....common sense ruled along with our care for the land.

Sorry the pics are so bad....but hey! I didn't taken them!

When I got home.....it took at least one hour to get all the mud off.

I don't do mud well.............