Messages

91

Regional Issues / WPA-4XTRAC needs help to get Rock Run 4x4 trails opened!

« on: July 28, 2008, 11:53:29 am »

Rock Run is a recently developed multi-use park in western PA. While primarily intended for ATV use, the land was funded with grants from DNCR's ATV fund and is promoted for shared use by hikers, bikers, and equestrians, but not 4x4's.

However, the group WPA-4TRAC - Western PA 4x4 Trail Advisory Committee was formed by some local 4WD club members who were asked to sample some of the Rock Run trails in their 4x4 vehicles. The work of WPA-4XTRAC has lead to a Tots for Tots run last fall and a recent run on new trails at the beginning of the July 2008.

WPA-4xTRAC is calling for 4x4 enthusiast to write emails into Rock Run's managing committe to encourage them to continue 4WD trail development. Please follow the link to WPA-4xTRAC's website, read the full story and tell them you want trails opened for 4x4 use.

http://wpa4xtrac.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=164 There are also some pictures from the recent trail ride.

Not only is this an opertunity to open another off-road park, I think DNCR maybe closely watching the outcome of Rock Run as a model for development elsewhere in PA.

92

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: July 24, 2008, 07:47:06 am »

I just read an interesting fact in the press release for the Rock Run ATV / Snowmobile recreation area (May 2007):

"Pennsylvania currently has 236,275 registered ATV owners and 43,497 snowmobile owners."

And we got 140 surveys back this weekend ....  No wonder they are not worried about closing us out.

93

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: July 23, 2008, 08:29:31 am »

BoF Follow-up:

Well, we offered a booth to the BoF at the 2008 Jeep Show, but it was gratiously declined. I asked them to consider the same offer for next year.

We had 3000 Land Use Surveys for PA printed up and attempted to distribute as many as possible at the show. We got 140 completed surveys at the show. There may have been only 300 left that were not distributed. They were stuffed in event programs in the goodie bags, stuffed in the spectator programs and pushed at the raffle table. The remainder went home with clubs and vendors for further distribution. I'm hoping many more will be mailed in once folks find them. If you still have yours, send it in!. With someones help, we may be able to get an electronic version on the web for other clubs to link into.

As far as checking out the current Drivable Trail system, I have made trips to Tuscarora (Oct '07) and Sproul State Forests (June '08) to experience the most challenging trails as recommended by those forest's rangers. We have found some enjoyable stock trails, but fewer miles than the BoF advertises. In many cases, the stock trails seem to be an access to a cabin versus a stand alone trail. We have a return trip to Sproul planned for late Oct. '08.  I am also contemplating a trip to Bald Eagle State Forest in early Oct. '08.

Many Thanks to all who helped get the surveys out at the Show.

- Dave

94

Technical Advice and Questions / Re: how do i lift a 42 mb on the cheap

« on: April 10, 2008, 08:11:14 am »

Rancho and BDS probably make springs. Check Hoak's for BDS.

Weak link would probably be the axles, especially when you start lifting and going to larger tires. The rear should be a full floating D25. Definitely carry a spare axle shaft or two. The front is also a D25. Check what joints are inside. The close knuckle D25 can have one of three types of joints. 2 are CV joints and have a tendency to wear until, at a bad moment, the balls will lock between the shafts and housing and grenade. Later on, they changed to regular universal joints. Bensinger might have a set of these out of a later Jeep and trade you for the originals. The u-joint versions are repairable and less likely to destroy everything just due to wear. Depending on the life of the MB, the T-84? transmission and transfer case could be fairly worn. The transmission uses bushings for the countershaft versus the needle bearing in the CJ T-90's. The transfer case is an early Spicer 18 with a 1.89 low range and a 7/8" intermediate shaft (the smallest design). While this will hold up to moderate wheeling, if you start building it up, you may want to upgrade to the T-90 and get a D18 out of a 50's+ CJ which would have the 1.125" - 1.25" intermediate shaft. If you decide to just swap the axles for later ones, most of the 4 cyl Cj's had 5.38 gears versus the 4.88 gears in the MB.

This is just what comes to mind from the stories I've heard over the years. The MB will serve you well stock, but if you add grippy tires (which isn't tough compared to the military tires), or larger tires you might overload the stock components. In fact, I've heard of rear axle shaft failures in stock vehicles that may not have been doing what's up at RC.

- Dave   

95

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: November 07, 2007, 08:03:39 am »

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the effort. I'll keep you posted if I get any additional responses from the BoF.

They certainly can't ignore us this go round.

- Dave

96

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: October 26, 2007, 07:57:12 am »

The deadline for public input is almost upon us (Oct. 31st).

What have you done to help open up PA public land for 4x4 trail riding???

Last weekend, Grant, my brother Joe, and I went to Tuscarora S. F. and experienced some of the roughest miles of open "drivable trails" that they had to offer to us there. There were only a few that I wouldn't drive my Corolla on. In correspondance with one of the Assisant Foresters, he gave me this quote to use in my public feedback, "If it requires 4wd we generally close it to public access because of environmental concerns."

So that is it. Yes, PA state forest land is truely beautiful to see and experience, but if you want to need your 4WD you may as well go somewhere else according to their current policy. And it's not the Forester's fault, this directive is written into their management plan based on past abuse.

They (the Foresters) were very eager to hear what I thought and encouraged me to write in additional comments if I wanted that policy changed. He even hinted at a technical rock trail if the conservationalist wouldn't scream so loud. But they aren't going to change anything just for me. We as a recreational users need to express who we are and what we would like to responibly use our land for. Only the numbers will make a differnce in their direction for the future.

Remember, Oct. 31st is the deadline. Do your part for your sport.

Here's the link to submit your comments:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/sfrmp/update.aspx

And remember they are just people doing their job too. They are listening, just tell them what you want, it's that simple.

- Dave

97

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: October 08, 2007, 08:26:44 am »

In at least one of my emails, I added links for the PA Jeeps, MAFWDA, UFWDA and recommended the BoF have some kind of presence at the new show. So, they should be able to get to the PAJEEPS website and probably this forum. I hope someone from the BoF is monitoring this thread.

Here is the response that was sent to Rick Bear and I based on the comments we sent in. It is interesting that while I didn't copy Rick on any of my letters, whoever is getting all the comments lumped the response together based on our affiliation. Which is good because that means they are getting read and looked at closely. WHEN YOU SEND YOUR COMMENTS IN, send me a copy or post it here. I'd like to keep track of the position we are presenting as a club.
__________________________________
Dear Mr. DeChristopher & Mr. Bear:

Mr. DeChristopher: This reply is follow-up to your conversation with Scott Rimpa, DCNR-Bureau of Forestry’s Recreation Section, and Kurt Leitholf, DCNR-Conservation and Recreation Advisory Council’s Executive Director; and,

Mr. Bear: This reply is follow-up to your inquiry letter to the DCNR-Bureau of Forestry’s Resource Planning Section, both in regards to Off-Highway Vehicle and 4x4 trails on DCNR-Bureau of Forestry administered lands.

The DCNR-Bureau of Forestry has restricted mileage of Drivable Trail road class.  Drivable Trails are limited maintenance roads that are open to licensed motor vehicles.  The 435 miles of roads in this category (open to the public, are for use by licensed, registered, and inspected motor vehicles) typically receive limited use and are not recommended for low clearance vehicles.  Road maintenance is limited to the amount necessary to control soil erosion and sedimentation pollution.

    The following forest districts administer Drivable Trails:

         Buchanan State Forest, 23 miles
         Tuscarora State Forest, 25 miles
         Rothrock State Forest, 4 miles
        Bald Eagle State Forest, 86 miles
        Moshannon State Forest, 86 miles
         Sproul State Forest, 148 miles
         Tiadaghton State Forest, 6 miles
        Elk State Forest, 10 miles
        Tioga State Forest, 26 miles
        Weiser State Forest, 12 miles
         Loyalsock State Forest, 9 miles

This class of roads are in flux.  They can be closed to the public at any time due to negative environmental impacts and degradation. 

State forest roads, which are open to the public, are for use by licensed, registered, and inspected motor vehicles.  DCNR-Bureau of Forestry does not currently offer Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) trails.  However, private entities throughout Pennsylvania provide an avenue for OHV use.  If you have access to the world wide web, you may view a couple of web links to riding areas at: http://www.offroaders.com or http://www.enduro.4t.com/riding.htm .

If you would like additional information on the Bureau of Forestry’s Drivable Trail system, please contact the forest district you’d like to visit.  This contact information can be found at: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/stateforests/index.aspx.  Thank you for taking the time to write about your concerns.

Matt Beaver
Recreation Section
Operations & Recreation Division
Bureau of Forestry
Department of Conservation & Natural Resources
______________________________________________________

It may not sound like it, but this is a good response to my some of my questions. It has the official tone it needs to when communicating with the public. The fact that 3 letters were responded to at once means this is probably our official contact for the issue. It indicates what is currently available, the status of what is available, and alludes to what the BoF position is as far as access and maintenance. It's a good start and I plan to respond back to it.

While I don't know what Rick's original comments where, it looks like there may be two different categories of vehicles here:

1. Street legal, registered, insured  - 4x4.
2. Non-street legal, registration/insurance questionable - OHV.

OHV can be confused with ATV in some of the BoF documents I have read. So be careful how you use that term.
At first, I am mostly interested in the 4x4 category. This is a large majority of the club and the type of trails we are most likely going to have or gain access to. At this point it is easier to deal with because PennDot already takes care of managing the vehicle end of it. Just for your information ATV's must be registered and the driver insured for it to use them on State Forest land. Plus, lets face it, the BoF is not going to cut a trail over a boulder ridge just for us. Plus, I'm not sure if I want them too.

I posted the trail mileage and forest location with reservation. I want to keep everyone in the know, but I don't want our reputation destroyed. If you go to check out these "drivable trails" make sure you are adhering to Tread Lightly! Also, make sure you're not driving a leaker!

Report back where you went and what you thought of it here. I'll start compiling a database which will help build our case.

Sorry, another long post, but it's a big, delicate issue and there's a lot of info to share.

- Dave

98

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: October 05, 2007, 11:24:53 am »

Ebeck,

I understand, things come up. Make sure you write in and say you wanted to make the meeting.


Was anyone else able to make the Carlisle meeting to represent the club?
If not you better get those comments in. Any work I do for access will be in vain if there aren't numbers backing me up!


Steve,

Thanks for the thoughts. Based on what I have learned over the last week or two, I plan to take this further. Maybe I can get a progress update in the newsletter monthy. Since we don't seem to be getting support from the membership, I might need to look for some political backing. I think anyone can see the access given to ATV and snowmobiles and scratch their head why 4WD isn't included. Plus, the attitude at the meeting was that the BoF is looking for input. I want to make sure they get it. Then they can't blame us on the lack of progress. Send me your direct email and maybe we can combine our efforts. I know of at least two trails we used to wheel on that have been closed. Even if they have good reasons for teh closure, they should replace them with other trails that are similar.

- Dave

99

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: October 02, 2007, 07:36:13 am »

Yes, the email and snail mail comments all count. In fact, it would be best to write one for each of you instead of lumping them together. The only way major changes to their policy are going to happen is if we show some sort of majority in the public comments. That means numbers.

Everyone has to write in or we won't get anywhere!

- Dave

100

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: September 28, 2007, 01:40:52 pm »

It was exactly as Mel described: about 20 or so Forestry Folks, and maybe 40 guests. Grant and I were only ones representing 4x4 recreation. That was discouraging.

We got there 30 min. early and it was easy to wander around and talk to several of the DNCR staff about the plan and anything else. They were very friendly and most were enjoying the meetings as a chance to reach out to the public and understand it's needs.

I learned a lot even before the meeting started by just talking to people. The 45 min. presentation was good background for why the Bureau of Forestry (BoF) does what it does and what all their goals and requirements are.  It's a tough job.

The round table meeting were educational in understand other user groups interests and struggles. Lots of discussion, we had some Q&A with the forestry guy at our table on a whole host of topics.

The evening went fast because there was so much to digest. I highly recommend if you can make to any of the meetings it is well worth the effort ... and the publicity for 4x4 recreation. If fact, I had to explain to our table's facilitator what organized 4x4 is. Imagine that?

When I asked questions about getting involved, I was told about the Advisory Committes and their meetings. There is one for ATV and Snowmobiles, but 4x4 is lumped into the general committee. Their meetings are open to the public where anyone can log comments, etc.

I made a contact with someone from the Divisions of Operations and Recreation and I hope to do more digging and get involved.

Whether you can or can't get to the meetings, email in some comments about for the BoF is currently handling 4x4 trails on State land. Unless our feed back is a large portion of the recreational interest, nothing may happen. In fact, I did some digging on the DNCR website and found the comments from the last set of public meetings. One of the first statements in the summary was that 60% of the public feedback was related to OHV. Then I read further to find out it was all negative about abuse, noise and illegal running. Then I read that it was actually ATV's that were being targeted. So, now there is an extensive management plan for ATV's including openning up trails and parks, publishing guideline and etiquette brochures, etc. But as I mentioned above, it may not be really clear who we are and what we would like to do.

When you write in (not if):

- Suggest that a 4x4 usage survey be performed. One each was done for ATV and Snowmobiles and it really gives the DCNR direction on how to target their management plan.

- Request that an Advisory Council for 4x4 be created or that 4x4 be added to the current ATV & Snowmobile Council so that there is a focus on 4x4 development and planning.

- Of course request that existing trails be openned which would be less cost intensive that building new trail systems.

- Added some local economic impact evidence of developing 4x4 recreation.

- Mention that we are organized 4x4 enthusists, interested in providing the resources for future enjoyment and willing to adhere to the guidelines that are developed.

Here's the link for comments:
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/sfrmp/comments.aspx

Anyway, sorry it got so long, but it was a full evening.

- Dave

101

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: September 27, 2007, 07:48:36 am »

I posted on the Blue Mountain Jeep Alliance Forum yesterday to try to drum up more interest. They already had a State Forest use thread going but there wasn't much mention of the meetings.

But someone did post this response:

_________________________________________________________________________
I attended the DCNR meeting in Ligonier last night... just to let you know how it works...

There were a BUNCH of DCNR folks there... one guy did about a 45 minute powerpoint presentation. Then there was a break & everyone split into groups at tables.... this was determined by a number that was in your informational folder you recieve when you sign in at the door.

At the table they had two DCNR representatives & it was a round table discussion, each person at the table got their chance to make a statment about one particular topic related to the DCNR. One of the DCNR guys wrote down the main jist of the statement (he read it back to you to make sure he had it right). It went around the table many times (I think it went around probably 8-10 times).

Once all the comments were taken, the DCNR guys asked if we could collectively work on a summary of the main issues that were discussed at the table. After that, a DCNR rep of each table stood up one by one & stated the main issues that were discussed at each table (which was interesting to hear the similarities/differences).

The point is.. your voice will be heard.. will it make a difference SOON...? Hmmm.. I didnt get that feeling, but the DCNR has stated that they are going to have updates to their "plan" every 5 years (vs. every 15 years before 2003)...

Oh.. and the presentation was pretty interesting, just in general, and fwiw.. I didnt get out of there until around 10 PM.

Mel
_______________________________________________________

So, there you go, everyone gets a chance to speak. The more we send, the more individual messages we send. That might mean the sooner something gets implemented.

102

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: September 27, 2007, 07:33:48 am »

Excellent Ebeck, I'll let everyone know how the meeting goes so any preparations can be made for the next one.

To answer your questions, the example already exists: the ATV community (and the snowmobile users).

The ATV user group has all the exact same management issues:

1. How do you police the users
2. How do you fund the maintenance
3. Where are the use guidelines

And in the forest planning, they have addressed them as best tehy could:

1. Policing the users - instead of trying to keep people off the trails they don't belong on (renegades), the ATV development looks and improving the trail system so that it is attractive enough (challenging, enough miles) that there is no need to be where a rider doesn't belong. There are even guideline on difficultly level and what percentage of each level there should be.

2. Funding - much of the funding comes from ATV license fees. Another big chunk comes from Federal money for trail development which is designated for motorized recreational development. For us, be don't have specific license fees that go solely for recreation, but the Fed money applies for OHV also. I think this was part of the SIMS Trail Act.

3. There was a ATV usage guided developed as a result of the 2003 strategic plan. There is also a shared use Trail Etiquette guide which was developed and includes interaction among hikers, hunters, snowmobilers, wildlife, and ATV riders.

So, the precedent on how to handle these issues is already there. I just needs to applied to or include OHV users.


I re-read the recreation document and some of the sub documents in preparation last night. I really get the overwhelming feeling that these public meeting are meant to get feedback from the users and potential users. I can only guess that when they changed their focus to be more customer based (like industry) the OHV community was too busy with private land to voice any interest. That is the only way I can explain that there is no mention of OHV and 4x4 usage in any of the 2007 plan. I found one reference at the begining of the manual of trail signs, but that was it. So, I'm curious what their current policy is towards OHV and then I hope we can give them some direction as to where we would like it to go. The bottom line is that the trails are already there, is a matter of developing the plan for managing their usage.

Hopefully we can learn some things from this meeting and send a delegation to the Carlisle meeting.

SO, EVERYONE SHOULD BE CLEARING THEIR CALENDERS IN ANTICIPATION OF BEING PART OF A DELEGATION NEXT THURSDAY. In fact, lets start a list in the Events forum Thread of who is coming.

- Dave

103

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: September 26, 2007, 08:34:11 am »

63 views, still no action .... not even any excuses...

PA Jeeps mission reads:

"PA Jeeps Inc. is a local, non-profit, educational organization which strives to protect everyone's right to use public lands, not only for safe off-highway driving but also for hiking, horseback riding, camping, etc."

How much have we been working on these efforts lately?

(By"we" I mean the general membership. I know some of the officers are working on this stuff behind the scenes and I don't want to make light of their efforts.)

104

Regional Issues / Re: PA State Forest Management Plan

« on: September 25, 2007, 08:50:47 am »

WOW! Do you realize that the State Forest service is actually coming to us!!!

Well, not to us specifically, but that is because we might not be there. If you follow the above thread to the offiicial documents, you can read that the PA State Forest Service has implemented a customer feedback clause in their forest plan. That means every 5 years they need to hold public meetings before they can implement their strategic plan. THIS IS A GOOD THING! They are willing and have to listen to their customers (forest users like us). Now the best part is that we don't have to drive halfway across the state to participate. Actually, they are coming to a town near you. In fact, the two closest meetings are in Reading (Sept 27th) and Carlsile (Oct. 4th) and they are at 7 PM in the evening, so average working folks like us can attend.

I think we all need to try to make one of the meetings for two reasons:

1. Having the oppertunity to talk to the State Forest management organization is an excellent step in the right direction. We need to commend and support this change in the policy. Just being there sends the message that we are glad they are listening.

2. The State Forest Strategic Plan for 2007 doesn't have any provisions for developing OHV recreation in the future. None that I could find! So, that means that if we don't go and say anything, they will get the impression that we are happy with the current level of access to the State Forest trail system and nothing will change.

And the typical response is: well, why would they listen to me and even if they did, they're not going to do anything about it.
WRONG! There is actually significant spending in the plan allocated for developing ATV trail networks to the tune of $2 million. The ATVers did get that kind of support without sharing their needs and desires with the State Forest Service. We should be able to use the present set by the ATV development to fuel OHV development. But, there needs to be a start and we will only get the chance every 5 years. The roads and trails are there, we just want some access, but even if there is work to be done to open them, the State Forest Service has access to Federal money to do it.

Over my years of being a PA Jeeps member, I've been involved and even led trail rides in Sproul, Tuscarora and Michaux State Forests. The trails we found and enjoyed the most are now closed. This trend will continue unless we speak up.

I'm going to the Reading meeting Thursday night and I hope that most of the members in Lancaster Co. can join me since it is so close. It might be boring and long and we may not even get a chance to share anything, but if we are on record as being there, they have to acknowledge that we are a customer base that they need to take into account in their future planning.

If you are planning to attend a meeting, review/scan at least Appendix 9 on Recreation including most of the supporting documents so that you have an idea about what is going. Let me know via email (ddechri@yahoo.com) or by phone (I'm in the directory) if you plan to attend the Readinmg meeting so we can discuss what I found in the documents and what we should discuss while we are there. Getting there early would help also.

So, I'll step off the soap box and give someone else a turn to chime in. But before giving up I want to mention that even if you can't be at one of the meetings, send comments in by mail. At the beginning of the document, there is a mailing address to send public comments to. Actually, they are asking for comments. Do it now before you forget because the deadline is Oct. 31st.

Thanks for listening and I hope to see some familiar faces on Thursday.
- Dave DeChristopher