Off-Highway Vehicle Policy

joebartels · Post by **joebartels** » May 03 2003 2:11 pm

The policy for driving motorized vehicles on this National Forest is tied to the State of Arizona's motor vehicle policy.

On all state, county, and those forest roads marked by a horizontally-numbered route marker (ie 249), the motorized vehicle and its driver must be "street legal."

On unmarked forest roads or forest roads that are marked by a vertical route number, then the driver and the vehicle do not need to be licensed.

Driving off of forest roads is not encouraged but may be legal if no damage is done to plants or soils or if wildlife is not harassed and if a muffler/spark arrestor is in place.

curious what hikers think of the Off-Highway Vehicle Policy

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » May 03 2003 3:46 pm

I think off roading should be seperatley liscenced. Liscensees should be required to go through a training course on both driving method and environmental responsibility. Off-Roaders should also be required to pay a yearly fee to re-register. These fees could be used to put more rangers on the popular 4x4 trails, and put SOME rangers in the less popular areas. This alternative liscensing would only apply to non-marked trails, or purely off-road driving. Of course hunters and those who are already paying access fees of some sort should get a discount on liscensing fees.

Right now anyone with an SUV (oh yeah... everyone...) can just drive off road, this system would keep a lot of those people from taking chances and doing things they might not even realize are irresponsible. It would also put a little more money in the old coffers. This would also mean that everyone that was offroading would be educated in how to take the least damaging trail, or leave the least impact in a given area.

Right now it seems like both sides of this argument want all or nothing. Four wheelers say that they are all responsible and no one is trying to destroy anything; so why overregulate? Sierra Clubbers say every four wheeler is an anti-environmental maniac, with a grudge against groundcover; so ban every quad, dirtbike, and jeep in sight. Obviously both groups are wrong in some aspect, (by the way, I'm a member of both groups. Thats right, a four wheelin' sierra club tree-hugger). I think this is a fair and equitable way to solve a lot of both groups problems.

Nighthiker · Post by **Nighthiker** » May 03 2003 6:04 pm

The national forests in Arizona are amending their forest plan on off highway vehicle travel at this time. If interested contact them to obtain a copy of their proposal.

joebartels · Post by **joebartels** » May 03 2003 6:17 pm

Nighthiker wrote:The national forests in Arizona are amending their forest plan on off highway vehicle travel at this time. If interested contact them to obtain a copy of their proposal.

exactly

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/ohv/

Daryl · Post by **Daryl** » May 04 2003 9:10 pm

last I heard it was illegal to run over plants/cactus/trees... Why not enforce the laws we have instead of wasting time and money creating new ones for people to break? The morons that do this know there is no enforcement in the forest so they don't think twice about speeding, driving drunk, dumping trash and making their own roads.

P.S. The OHV drivers that do this sort of thing are the minority, just like the hikers that drop candy wrappers, cigarette butts, water bottles, toilet paper and feminine hygiene products on the trail.

azhiker96 · Post by **azhiker96** » May 05 2003 12:29 pm

I agree with Daryl. As I read Matt's post I thought those arguments could be applied to hiking also. We need to enforce the laws we have rather than make new ones for the irresponsible folks to ignore. Maybe we need stiffer fines for littering, destroying plants, etc and publicity when someone is caught and fined.

CindyC · Post by **CindyC** » May 05 2003 2:24 pm

I guess I must not pay alot of attention so please set me straight. I cannot ever remember seeing a horizontal route marker. Aren't they all vertical?

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » May 05 2003 7:30 pm

The route markers for four by four "trails" are 5 foot high, 6 inch wide brown signs with the road number printed vertically in reflective white. They are not like the trail signs while hiking. The reason (I think) that they are verticle is so they can be run over without damage (they are relatively flexible as well). they are also apt to be overlooked. The brown tends to blend very well with its desert surroundings. Generally they are only seen in the highly trafficked areas where there are many crossing routes, or where many routes have been closed for re-vegitation. You really have to be on the look out for them or you will probably miss them.

In response to some of the talk of not adding new laws. I whole-heartedly agree. I just want to clarify that I am not for adding new laws to the books, only a new system to better enforce the old laws. The laws in place now are good laws, it is just the few people who break those laws that cause problems. We need a system in place that will enforce the laws. I am not saying mine is the only solution either. I would be happy with ANY system that facilitated punishing the few that are ruining it for the many.

hoppy47m · Post by **hoppy47m** » May 15 2003 10:39 pm

I think all travel should be restricted to roads and all drivers should be licensed. Unlicensed drivers are usually more harsh on the environment, more reckless. I have come across too many places which have been ruined by Quads roaming thru marshy grasslands which completely destroys areas like that. The forest is a fragile environment, and even more fragile when wet.....tracks become ruts, ruts become runoff courses, runoff courses become gullies.....it may not be seen immediatley, but vehicles do cause a domino effect......

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » May 15 2003 11:05 pm

You are absolutely right hoppy. But what roads should vehicles be restricted to? Just paved roads or fire roads also?

If off-road drivers were trained in environmentally sound techniques, much of the damage could be minimized. Of course, just limiting the quad and dirtbike population would do wonders

hoppy47m · Post by **hoppy47m** » May 16 2003 2:41 pm

As far as I'm concerned Matt, if it's a road then we should be able to travel it. There are thousands of dirt roads to be explored, pavement is for wimps.....but....stay ON the road...
What I don't like are the people who think they need to cut thru the forest just because they see a flat patch of ground that looks like it would be fun........yea it would be fun, but not for the forest... Last year near Whitehorse Lake, I saw the butt end of a toyota pickup sticking out of a field, it looked as tho it was dropped from an airplane. Curiosity got the best of me and when I investigated I discovered the front end, up to the doors was in a gully that was hidden by the tall grass in the field they were running....and it was also obvious that they weren't wearing seat belts, there were to very nice spots in the windshield indicating an impact with someones skull....(ohhhhhh mommmmmm)...I'll bet that cured those people of driving cross country,

Abe · Post by **Abe** » May 17 2003 7:35 am

Daryl wrote:last I heard it was illegal to run over plants/cactus/trees... Why not enforce the laws we have instead of wasting time and money creating new ones for people to break? The morons that do this know there is no enforcement in the forest so they don't think twice about speeding, driving drunk, dumping trash and making their own roads.

P.S. The OHV drivers that do this sort of thing are the minority, just like the hikers that drop candy wrappers, cigarette butts, water bottles, toilet paper and feminine hygiene products on the trail.

I believe the above sums it up. I am surprise there is very little response to this topic, I sometimes debate this issue with co-workers who are avid 4 wheelers. I talk to them because I drive a 1988 Jeep Cherokee {it sits in the shop now having the radiator replaced} and we do compare notes on road conditions, repair of the vehicles if we need info, ect. And I do encourage them to get out and hike sometimes, even misquoting Edward Abbey from his book Desert Solitaire, A season in the Wilderness, he wrote, "In the first place you can't see anything from a car; you've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk, better yet crawl, on hands and knees, over the sandstone and through the thornbush and cactus.When traces of blood begin to mark your trail you'll see something, maybe. Probably not." My co-workers do not like Edward Abbey. They rather sit on their duff, comfortable, cozy and enjoy the view from behind the bug splattered windshied. Nevertheless, I try and with no success. However, the one issue which burns me up is watching the various SUV commercials; their product ripping up the enviorment! Mud slinging, sand ripping, turf grinding, or sitting on top of a mesa. This is what really chaps my fanny.

Giving, what I believe, the false impression you can get away with anything driving the SUV you purchase.

RedRoxx44 · Post by **RedRoxx44** » May 18 2003 5:40 pm

I like to participate in hiking, backpacking, canyoneering and off roading- whatever that is--I have a Jeep set up for very rough conditions whether it is to get me to a trailhead or up an old mining road.
If its a road I'll try it- otherwise a big no no to leave new trails- we have enough of them already if not closed off. The ranchers and miners opened up a lot of country to people to see- for better or worse. Now its up to us to take care of what we tread on. I think all vehicles and drivers should be licensed unless on their own private property. If its public or state land all should be licensed and responsible. Howver I think if a road is open it should be accessible; like hiking permits for popular places. Thats my opinion----

big_load · Post by **big_load** » Jun 29 2006 3:51 pm

RedRoxx44 wrote:I think all vehicles and drivers should be licensed unless on their own private property. If its public or state land all should be licensed and responsible.

'Nuff said. What we don't need is more accident victims in hard-to-reach places who may go undiscovered much longer than if they were on a road. Based on some of the self-propelled junkpiles I've seen in Phoenix, I concede that vehicle licensing doesn't ensure roadworthiness, but that's fixable. Same for driver licensing.

Off-Highway Vehicle Policy

How do you feel about the Off-Highway policy?

Off-Highway Vehicle Policy