+- Arctic Offroad Forums (http://www.arcticoffroad.com)
+-- Forum: Talk (http://www.arcticoffroad.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Land Useage/Permissions Discussion (http://www.arcticoffroad.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Rex Trail (/showthread.php?tid=2129)
Rex Trail - 78calico - 10 Jan 08
http://www.alaska4x4network.com/showthread.php?t=33910
Interesting stuff in here about what DNR can aparently do regardless of RS2477.
Rex Trail - akram - 10 Jan 08
I have been out there a few times, never in the jeep though. I've been told numerous times not to take the Jeep out there. they were talking about closing alot of that area due to ppl spider webbing off of the main trail. It is nasty out there. I watched two argos get buried trying to get out to the flats to hunt. I've seen a 4 wheeler buried up to the seat out there. Great hunting though.
Rex Trail - ZMonster - 11 Jan 08
so i hate to be the slow one on the forums, but i have stayed awake reading their entire thread, and i am not sure what i read...
can someone read to me the readers digest version, in a nutshell, in like, not a whole paragraph, what the DNR is, and what it can/can't do...
thanks
Rex Trail - ChevyKev - 11 Jan 08
Readers Digest version:
RS2477 trails are trails we are supposed to be allowed to run.
DNR - Department of Natural Resources - they are protectant police for the environment.
Long and short of it is:
1. Rex trail is an RS2477 trail.
2. However, those who established the trail knew it was a "winter trail" thus should only be run in the winter when the ground was frozen because the swampiness wouldn't sustain summer-fall traffic.
3. People use this trail year round and have caused damage to it.
4. To protect the natural resources that are being damaged - which is their job - DNR has imposed restrictions on the Rex trail, even though it is an RS2477 trail.
5. On one hand this makes sense - if people can't take care of the land themselves - the govt will enforce rules to protect it.
On the other hand - it is setting a dangerous precedent that the Gov't can restrict and fine us even on trails we are supposed to be allowed on.
Big question is - how do we protect ourselves in the future?
Problem is most of us in here are responsible wheelers - how do we get others without a tread lightly attitude to understand the impact of their actions?
Rex Trail - TJVigilante - 11 Jan 08
It's RS2477, gov't should have no say in what happens on it. Such is life. People who tear it up should be responsible, but that's not going to happen half the time up here anyway.
Plainly: gov't is overstepping their bounds, it should be the people's responsibility to school the people out there tearing it up in the summer, not the Man's. If the people don't do it, it'll become a mudpit, and people will start losing their vehicles out there, then they'll stop. Until then, there's nothing anyone can really do other than protest this restriction and educate the twits ruining it for the rest of us.
Rex Trail - ChevyKev - 12 Jan 08
Joe, I see your point. but it seems we are in the proverbial conundrum
WHat do we do when "the man" shouldn't be allowed to police it
Yet the people who should, don't?
What are we normal citizens supposed to do when we encounter someone tearing it up and confront them and they tell us not so politley to go way - who are we to tell them what to do? Etc...
Fisticuffs? gunslinging? Burning rigs?
How do we hold those who tear it up responsible?
The facts:
When we (general public) don't police ourselves, the govt will.
The fact is those that tear it up are ruining it for the rest of us.
I as an individual don't have any authority to make someone tread lightly
Don't get me wrong, I am not for more government...
But there are those who will do whatever they want and cause damage unless they think they will be ticketed, fined, and have vehicles impounded.
So what is the answer?
Rex Trail - ZMonster - 12 Jan 08
the answer is, we are still responsible. even if the gov't does take more action than its own rules would allow, would that be any different than its people doing more than their rules would allow...
either way, we are still responsible, and after reading your breifs on the topic then the other's responses make sense now.
what i have gathered is pretty much what everyone else gathered:
2 ways this will go, and at this point we have no control over which way it will go. too late in the game to make an impression...
1 -DNR takes more action over these trails ("these"- i am sure that rex is not the only one) and sets via the media new standards on what it will and will not do, right or wrong as we may see-it. [thought: would it really be that wrong for them to step in?]
2 -They allow us to continue to attemptto police ourselves and do the right thing from this point on. stragglers aside.
either way we can all accept as far as this trail goes, sadly, "another one bites the dust". and yes for that, we are still responsible not DNR
but from here on out do we wash our hands of it or protect the trails we have left? ways i see it, their are many trails up here that have not seen the kind of damage that this trail has seen (i have never seen this trail so i am going by the rough description that others have left). so what happens if this repeats up here?
what do we do? and to what end does our responsibility take us? as alaskans? as arctic offroader's?
luckily i am not a member so you guys deal with it:lol:
Rex Trail - 78calico - 12 Jan 08
What is happening to the Rex trail is what I'm afraid could happen to the Stampede.
Rex Trail - ZMonster - 12 Jan 08
yeah, but i think rex is in the "impending doom" catagory. moreso than stampede...
i think the differences are vast in the situations. but the consequences of either do have a big effect on each other.
like rex is appearantly being scrutinized due to its missuse,
stampede, for other reasons from what i have read
in fact, no viable reasons from what i have read. the whole stampede situation looks like there is one small group (who has little to do with this trail in the first place) who wants to change something. and is now looking for the reason.
am i alone in this trail of thought? am i the sole conspirator of this forum?
Rex Trail - Ronster - 12 Jan 08
I think your mode of thinking is more of the "Hollywood" singer/actor point of view
lap:
Rex Trail - ZMonster - 12 Jan 08
Ronster Wrote:I think your mode of thinking is more of the "Hollywood" singer/actor point of viewhey man, everyone loves a little conspiracy, haha.
no im serious though, i mean if i am way off then by all means let me know.
i'd hate to sound dumb.... yeah i know, too late right?
Rex Trail - SHoppe715 - 13 Jan 08
It's not unheard of for "The Man" to close roads seasonally. Usually it's a winter closure, but in Rex's case it could be a summer closure. Try driving the Denali Hwy in January and see what happens... "The Man" isn't overstepping any bounds by ticketing, fining, whatever (I didn't actually read the other thread) someone who leaves the "road" and tears up the surrounding countryside. If the designated "road" is getting torn up then that's a horse of a different color and another facet of the "conundrum". If the "road damage" results from poor maintenance of a public "road", can J.Q. Public be fined for tearing up a poorly maintained "road"? How could you possibly maintain a "road" that's realy just a line through a muskeg swamp? Anyone watch History channel? The truckers know they can't drive on a lake after the ice melts and, at least to me, muskeg seems right up there with driving over a lake. The difference is that although roid-raging, big-tire-truck driving, mudslinging, not caring about the environment dip$#!ts don't need signs telling them not to drive on water, a few signs saying an area can't actually be crossed when melted might be called for.
I'm not calling roid-raging, big-tire-truck driving, mudslinging, not caring about the environment dip$#!ts dumb for wanting to drive through muskeg. (or maybe I am) They just have a bit too much stubborn arrogance in thinking their rigs can go anywhere and that pretty much overrides any common sense they may actually possess.