DAMN Riders - No rules, Just ride!

Yup wssc, as far as I can tell govt. land is govt. land. People go boating on WSSC property as well as hiking, why not biking? Could be a joint effort with DNR. Plus it would mean most people dont have to spend half a day driving to ride.

Joker wrote:Yup wssc, as far as I can tell govt. land is govt. land. People go boating on WSSC property as well as hiking, why not biking? Could be a joint effort with DNR. Plus it would mean most people dont have to spend half a day driving to ride.

this is a good idea - do you have maps of all their land? can you plot it on Google Maps?

Just read the report. Not good.
A couple of thoughts-
Increasing use fees is a good idea. It will create more funding.
And I also support seizing vehicles from riders caught doing illegal riding, maybe return it for a large fee. I think that will go a long way as a deterrent.
Closing ORV will just create more illegal riding.

Ya'll be good and report back.

I also just read the report and the Magic Alliance's proposal for a new ORV "park." I could not be more vehemently opposed. One of the reasons I love riding so much is to be in the forest.. in nature. And these forests do belong to us - the people.

The bias in the reports is remarkable. Page after page of ground with tire tracks... Of course there are going to be tire tracks where vehicles pass.

Also, their use of the dramatic rise in ORV licenses is clearly a manipulation of statistics. They cite 1992 numbers and the explosive rise in permits over the years. If 1992 was the first year permits were issued, of course there are going to be more people who discover the ORV and apply for permits - that doesn't mean to imply that the rate of growth will continue into perpetuity; the increase in the number of ORV permits is simply a function of the existing population discovering that the ORV was available.

Inherent in the language, the description and tone of the messages seems dangerously biased. Of course, using that as an argument to defeat the proposal of closing the ORV is a dead-end and I would advise against it.

Question: Do all ORV permit fees go directly to the state forest where the ORV permit is issued? I would think not since you can get an ORV permit anywhere and use it anywhere it is applicable, right? It may not be accurate that increasing the ORV fees will have a direct impact on an increase in funding for Green Ridge State Forest. The money may be returned to the general DNR budget or even the general fund.

To you all planning to attend the meeting, Godspeed and best of luck using your heads. My own particular temperment is not what's needed. I am too confrontational and would ruin any attempt to gain favor.

I can try to find out about wssc land, I do know they have a huge chunk of property 10 minutes away.

As far as permits for riding areas go, I think it would be a good idea to bring up that California has over 52 public riding areas. We are seriously lacking in public riding access, the more areas we can ride the less impact we will make in one specific place.

I've now read the full report pertaining to GR.

It is very light on why GR is unsustainable. It appears to be fairly balanced as far as attributing impact to all users. It recognizes that the GR ORV is the most popular trail in MD and that it will require extensive community involvement to close.

I suggest an initial response strategy as follows;

1. ask for the data and rationale that says GR is not sustainable
2. propose that no closure happen until a new ORV is established if GC must be closed
3. engage as volunteers to mitigate and damage to GR that has resulted in the unsustainable determination
4. point out that as new riding areas are brought online, the user load to GR will go down and reduce damage to the area and hopefully negate the need to close it
5. support fines and penalties for illegal riding

lastly, I think their proposal for registration of all ATVs and requiring all ATV riders (regardless of where they ride) to meet safety standards, and restricting the age of riders is WAY out of scope as it pertains to the DNR. This is not an area of responsibility of the DNR. They should focus on their property only - their proposal is state-wide, public or private.

Joker wrote:I can try to find out about wssc land, I do know they have a huge chunk of property 10 minutes away.

As far as permits for riding areas go, I think it would be a good idea to bring up that California has over 52 public riding areas. We are seriously lacking in public riding access, the more areas we can ride the less impact we will make in one specific place.

cool - I think the Hatfield McCoy area is a terrific example too

i will see you guys there, not sure we should do much planning online, never know...

Hare wrote:i will see you guys there, not sure we should do much planning online, never know...

good point. I'll create a restricted forum that is only open to registered users and move this thread

Forget WSSC. No one is going to support a ORV trail around a major souce of drinking water.