[Slackkinhard]

Prior to this year, Reiter was 10K acres of mostly single track trails running thru and between some old dual track roads, a powerline trail, and some microwave tower maintenance roads. In and around Wallace Falls and Lk Isabel. Up until recently, this was unregulated, and other than people dumping/living/shooting in the lower areas off Reiter road, all was fine. Vehicles and sport quads pretty much stayed in the power line area, or on the roads. MC's single tracked the rest of the area. Enter extreme 4x4's and quads, and the single track into the upper regions have been steadily eroded into sites of destruction. They get stuck, cut trees, trench further. Don't get me wrong, it's somewhat amazing...but careless. The rainforest can't take that type of activity. Now, it's closed, the area has been cut down to about 2000 acres, and we're being asked to share what's left. For the most part, the roads that are already there, and have been there forever, are the only places a heavy footprint vehicle could go. If they weren't able to stay on them up til now, what makes anyone think after we designate places for them, they will stay on them? We are just taking on the cost now of armoring and policing them. Taxpayers will now pay more for a lesser resource. Sad that anything with a motor is considered equal.

[sdavies]

I've been reading this thread from it's inception but haven't replied because Reiter is not an area I ride. I know the general location but not the specifics.

Which brings me to a question. I recently received an e-mail from Mark Mauren, the DNR recreation guy. It's just a statewide DNR recreation update newsletter that many of you also probably receive.The e-mail was a heads-up for an upcoming "Reiter Work Meeting" or something to that effect.

Why would they call a meeting like this if Reiter is closing?

I'm not well-versed on the issues at Reiter.....just want to get the facts and learn from it.

Thanks.

Rieter is closed TILL things get worked on and approved. There is a lot of work that goes into making any area into an ORV santioned area. It is not like in the old days anymore. It will nolonger be exceptable to serch out an area go in and begin doing your own thing. For some thats not only hard to swollow but they want to yell and scream about it. I can't say I don't feel the same way BUT we need to get use to it and learn new ways to recive what we NEED. If ground such as THE SULTAN Basin, were desired,and identified, it would take 3-500k just to get things started for a santioned area. Along with 4to5 years,agreements,trail planing,ect ect ect.Before the gate could get lifted. If we don't aid,in a positive manor the DNR in it's method for Reiter I doubt if other areas are even going to be considered. The DNR has been faced with a lot of reaction from,EPA USFS Fisheries, AND all thoes folks that think we should not be able to do what we do. Thats why other areas,(noeth Fork,P5000,ect) have been closed as well, Along with a few lingering law suits makeing some outragous claims. The issues are complex, but for most of us the fix would take but a little time and son common sence. It was't the most that got things were they are now. Time and paticence.

[chuck4788]

Rieter is closed TILL things get worked on and approved. There is a lot of work that goes into making any area into an ORV santioned area. It is not like in the old days anymore. It will nolonger be exceptable to serch out an area go in and begin doing your own thing. For some thats not only hard to swollow but they want to yell and scream about it. I can't say I don't feel the same way BUT we need to get use to it and learn new ways to recive what we NEED. If ground such as THE SULTAN Basin, were desired,and identified, it would take 3-500k just to get things started for a santioned area. Along with 4to5 years,agreements,trail planing,ect ect ect.Before the gate could get lifted. If we don't aid,in a positive manor the DNR in it's method for Reiter I doubt if other areas are even going to be considered. The DNR has been faced with a lot of reaction from,EPA USFS Fisheries, AND all thoes folks that think we should not be able to do what we do. Thats why other areas,(noeth Fork,P5000,ect) have been closed as well, Along with a few lingering law suits makeing some outragous claims. The issues are complex, but for most of us the fix would take but a little time and son common sence. It was't the most that got things were they are now. Time and paticence.

Pretty well said.

The unfortunate issue for us single trackers is that we didn't create the situation that led to Reiter closing but we now must live in the political enviroment that was created to fix Reiter. If we work this in a co-ordinated fashion we may be able to move forward with good ST in Reiter and other areas, but it will not be easy. IMO WOHVA and NMA will be the leaders in this so stay tuned.

[sdavies]

Pretty well said.

The unfortunate issue for us single trackers is that we didn't create the situation that led to Reiter closing but we now must live in the political enviroment that was created to fix Reiter. If we work this in a co-ordinated fashion we may be able to move forward with good ST in Reiter and other areas, but it will not be easy. IMO WOHVA and NMA will be the leaders in this so stay tuned.

It was the political eviroment that closed it as well. The stuff is so complicated I'm reallt suprised they are even trying to help us with our needs.The DNR is struggeling with all kinds of ruels regs ect.Lack of funds too. Yet they are still moveing ahead. They have even chose to turn a blind eye to some issues.Issues that would for sure end it.( so you'll never hear it from me.not even in private) It is a big reason I back the DNR so much, they could have done things so different. Yet the take abuse from the user groups and trudge on in our behalf. I don't like the way it is turning out but it is better than perm close.

[tod701]

Thats why other areas,(noeth Fork,P5000,ect) have been closed as well, .

The P5000 area was closed because the it was the easiest way for the DNR to manage the area and nobody that recreated there was willing to put forth the basic effort to refute the DNR's claims.

The DNR said that the closure was based on safety/liability concerns relating to high speed road use/quaders getting dead and evidence of environmental degradation.

I did a public records request and found that the "environmental degradation" evidence was limited to a couple of pages of photos of random mud puddles.

The safely/liability issue was legit, but addressable. Idiots were hauling a$$ and occasionally getting dead. Since the DNR knew that, it could legally be considered as facilitating the deadly situation. Perfect example of where a little bit of law enforcement would have gone a long ways. Write a few easy speeding tickets and the word would get out. At the time, a NOVA grant for enforcement money would have been doable.

I only rode there once in my life (the day it closed) and tried to share what I info I found with people/clubs that rode there, but it fell of deaf ears :banghead:

[tod701]

It was the political eviroment that closed it as well. The stuff is so complicated I'm reallt suprised they are even trying to help us with our needs.The DNR is struggeling with all kinds of ruels regs ect.Lack of funds too. Yet they are still moveing ahead. They have even chose to turn a blind eye to some issues.Issues that would for sure end it.( so you'll never hear it from me.not even in private) It is a big reason I back the DNR so much, they could have done things so different. Yet the take abuse from the user groups and trudge on in our behalf. I don't like the way it is turning out but it is better than perm close.

SD makes good points, but there is an underlying reason for the DNR tolerating our existance.

Don't forget that even with the NOVA ripoff that the DNR get between $1.5M and $1.7M of our gas tax money every year (RCW 46.09.170(a). Regardless of the ups and downs of the politics, most of the DNR recreation side know that we do bring the coin that pays most of their wages. Some DNR folks are great people, but even the ones that would rather we would go away still like their paycheck.

[chuck4788]

What you posted is a good example of what DNR, or any govmt agency, responds to. Our job is to demonstrate that ST is a politically safe solution for recreation, and low cost to DNR compared to other OHV recreation.

[sdavies]

SD makes good points, but there is an underlying reason for the DNR tolerating our existance.

Don't forget that even with the NOVA ripoff that the DNR get between $1.5M and $1.7M of our gas tax money every year (RCW 46.09.170(a). Regardless of the ups and downs of the politics, most of the DNR recreation side know that we do bring the coin that pays most of their wages. Some DNR folks are great people, but even the ones that would rather we would go away still like their paycheck.

I learned a long time ago that the DNR uses the easy form to tell why the things they do makes sence. There are issues that won't and don't get disclosed to the public due to the fact they themselfs are not at liberty. Give me a call sometime and I will chat about it withyou. But I will not put it to post. I won't try to say I have agreed to a lot of the stuff. But if you want to talk about the income to the DNR,what we bring to them is a spit in the scop of what the DNR recives over all. Thier budjet is not as easy as someones checkbook. I hope everyone sees that.

[sdavies]

Just a little note to put money on the value line. The DNR sold over 226 million in timber last year ! 1.5 or 1.7 million is about .25% . The not only do timber but also land all over, leased to the public. I keep saying this not to be disrespectfull, but what we put in to the funds are so small on the scope of things. Being too loud isn't always the best.

[tod701]

Give me a call sometime and I will chat about it withyou. .

Will do.

But if you want to talk about the income to the DNR,what we bring to them is a spit in the scop of what the DNR recives over all.

DNR trust land revenue cannot be legally used for recreation.
Not one penny or a constitutionally valid law suit would have them by the balls.

Recreational use funding is a totally seperate issue.

Some funding occasionally comes via legislative allocations, but the heavy coin comes from RCW 46.09.170 (a) and (d).

Where else does the DNR get recreational use funding?

If you are aware of other big suppliers of DNR recreational funding please share. We would all benefit by the improved understandiing.

[tod701]

Just a little note to put money on the value line. The DNR sold over 226 million in timber last year ! 1.5 or 1.7 million is about .25% . The not only do timber but also land all over, leased to the public. I keep saying this not to be disrespectfull, but what we put in to the funds are so small on the scope of things. Being too loud isn't always the best.

This is correct, recreation is just a pimple on the butt of business at the DNR.

Public land is much easier to manage without public access.

The turd in the pool for the anti-access advocates is the fact that RCW 79.10 mandates multi-use public access when it does not interfer with protecting the value of the public lands.

[Crashfab]

I wish we had somebody as knowledgeable as yourself tod in the 4wd cummunity that was active on the major PNW forums.

You always hear so much misguided info. Heck I have learned a few things from reading what you have had to say...

[Slackkinhard]

Never found anybody more on target than Tod. Wherever he points, we should go. Basic common sense...and well worded.

Thanks for all your efforts Tod...I can only assume reiterating your position constantly is a burden. We owe. :thumbsup:

[sdavies]

:bonk:This is correct, recreation is just a pimple on the butt of business at the DNR.

Public land is much easier to manage without public access.

The turd in the pool for the anti-access advocates is the fact that RCW 79.10 mandates multi-use public access when it does not interfer with protecting the value of the public lands.

Thats what I've been tring to get across,(without access). the other point is the money from nova, gas refund,along with IAC. do you think it's easy for them to distrube in a way that seems fair throughout the state. We sometimes get a glimps of what is happening.Another point logging revenues do come back to the land that they came from for planting and recovery projects. Most of the time they don't do much and they don't repair or rerout trail. Most of the time they let us do it. Protecting vaule? It's in the eye of the beholder,up for interpitation,vauge,lax. As we see it it seems kind dumb. I've said it befor to them on many occations,(how does our sport compare to what nature does on her own,and how does it compare to clear cut) so from my stand I can see no reason not to be able to do what we want. All of ORV. At the same time can see the points of the folks in charge,and feel we will get more by supporting,addressing concerns positively,politely. As we take it in the you get the drift.:bonk:

[JamesB]

WAM,

Don't worry about James's comment: I'm old, got two kids, wife, dog that farts stench bombs, and an alternative life style would be way too over-the-top for me.

But, I'm glad the guy knew about the initiative.

An informed citizenry is our best defense against tyranny, except for DNR/Greens/4x4's and the occasional ignorant comment in an internet forum! :lol::lol::lol:

BullTaco

Hey Bull, sorry my bad. but humor is better than hate. Point is, like Ref 71 as long as King Co wags the dog the pollitical change on issues discussed here are not going to happen.
WAM, people in King co dont like that word.
Ok get back to kicking the horse but you know what he aint looking to good

[tod701]

Thats what I've been tring to get across,(without access). the other point is the money from nova, gas refund,along with IAC.

The motorized recreation money that came from the IAC is our NOVA funds (state gas tax and tabs) and National Recreational Trails Program, which comes from your federal gas tax. The DNR has also received nonmotorized recreation funding via the IAC from the NOVA program and from the Wildlife Recreation Program.


do you think it's easy for them to distrube in a way that seems fair throughout the state.

That is what the various RCO boards are for. Easy job when there is more money than grant applicants. Sadly this does happen. Money that we could use is left on the table. It definitely will not be easy for the NOVA board when we get our money back because there will be a backlog of well qualified grant applications.



We sometimes get a glimps of what is happening.Another point logging revenues do come back to the land that they came from for planting and recovery projects. Most of the time they don't do much and they don't repair or rerout trail. Most of the time they let us do it.

True, some logging revenue is spent of protecting the land. That is part of the DNR’s legally mandated obligation.


Protecting vaule? It's in the eye of the beholder,up for interpitation,vauge,lax.

Just like every other legal obligation imposed upon the state. They can do whatever they want unless challenged via the judiciary system.

Example: WOVHA / NMA v. State of Washington (NOVA ripoff)


As we see it it seems kind dumb. I've said it befor to them on many occations,(how does our sport compare to what nature does on her own,and how does it compare to clear cut) so from my stand I can see no reason not to be able to do what we want.All of ORV.

According the DNR, our impact does not need to be compared to anything. Any negative impact from us cannot be allowed. Based on the DNR’s legal mandate there is some validity to this position. I believe that if the negative impact is mitigated by either on the ground action or monetary compensation then the impact issue should be moot.



At the same time can see the points of the folks in charge,and feel we will get more by supporting,addressing concerns positively,politely. As we take it in the you get the drift.:bonk:

While I am capable of understanding the DNR’s positions, understanding is far different than agreeing with them. When it appears as though the DNR’s management of the public land is not in the public’s best interest I have (and will continue to) politely oppose their position. If at times the DNR does not view my actions as positive, that does not diminish the validity of my position.

Example: The actions taken by the NMA to secure the reopening of Walker Valley.


At times politicians and government employees need to be reminded of this part of the state constitution:

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to
protect and maintain individual rights.

[DNR area user]

"Reiter was shut down because Peter Goldmark did not like it" I heard that from a 30+ year employee of the DNR today.

Peter Goldmark is not a supporter of ORV use. He has hiked all the legal and non legal ORV trails on DNR land in the state. More areas are in jeopardy of closing as long as Peter Goldmark is in charge.

Dirtbike, quad, SXS and 4x4 people need to work together or we all lose.

While we argue and point fingers at each other, the hikers and anti ORV people are closing the places we enjoy.

[sdavies]

"Reiter was shut down because Peter Goldmark did not like it" I heard that from a 30+ year employee of the DNR today.

Peter Goldmark is not a supporter of ORV use. He has hiked all the legal and non legal ORV trails on DNR land in the state. More areas are in jeopardy of closing as long as Peter Goldmark is in charge.

Dirtbike, quad, SXS and 4x4 people need to work together or we all lose.

While we argue and point fingers at each other, the hikers and anti ORV people are closing the places we enjoy.

Understand this. At the public meeting it was stated BY mark that they needed to compleate the trail plan and do work that would be better of being compleated in the summer but thought it could be acomplished and reopened .They felt that a partial closure would hamper the work and add unessary costs to the area that would be better used on the ground. I along with others that have been part of the process belive that to be as close to the truth as we will hear. Peter has not determined that Reiter stays closed nor has pushed for the closure.If you are reciving information of a different nature than what has been said in a public meeting than give us the name and thier athority to make such a statement.Please.

[sdavies]

I would like to add this for the ones that don't know. Snohomish county till mid 2000's did not permit ORV in the use of the forest. What that ment was that funds,desination of ORV the ORV use was NOT legal within the conty. Even though it was happening what ever we did was illegal. On that alone we all were on thin ice. Now that the law has been changed we can move forward. Getting through the conflicts are going to be one of those things that will distract from the big picture till we start to agree and move forward. It's one of those things everone was wrong but everyone was right. You can blaim who ever you want but it is not just one anything. Peter did not start this and I don't see him closeing everything up.