[at-l] ORVs

[Bob C]

Barriers work only occasionally. If there are natural barriers separated by a narrow ATV access point, you can keep the machines out. But it involves a lot of digging and carrying heavy in of a lot of heavy materials.  Essentially you have to connect a row of metal and concrete posts. The posts are formed on site with eight inch metal culvert filled with rebar and concrete, connected at the bottom of a trench with more rebar and concrete, and then backfilled.  The machines can pull a single post with ease. What has to be created is a row of interconnected posts so that pulling one requires pulling the whole row. I've done it once. It took four of us three days, five years ago. So far it's held. 

We got to the site with a four wheel drive pickup. Had we had to carry the materials any distance it would have taken us all summer.

Weary


------------Original Message------------
From: "Jim Bullard" <jim.bullard at gmail.com>
To: Bror8588 at aol.com
Cc: at-l at backcountry.net
Date: Sat, Mar-22-2008 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [at-l] ORVs
The nature of the problem as noted in some of the testimony (for those who read it all) is that barriers don't work. Barriers are simply deemed to be a challenge and there is to much area to effectively create a border fence high enough and strong enough. Because of population growth adjacent to Federal lands it was noted that some of the offenders can access the areas from their backyards. 

Sabotage strategies (tire slicers) are legally questionable to say the least. Anything capable of slicing a tire for example, could also present a hazard to other users as well. 

Weary can tell you that barriers have been tried on some of the land he protects but with limited success. The same is true in the Adirondacks. Enforcement does work over the long term but the problem being highlighted in the testimony is that money is being taken out of enforcement. Think of it like this, you are out on a hot day, you are sweating and you spot two ponds. Both have No Trespassing signs but one is secluded and although there is a fence you'll have to climb over there is no one within miles to see you. The other is in full view of a home where there are clearly people at home. Which one are you more likely to take an illicit dip in?


2008/3/22 <Bror8588 at aol.com>:

In a message dated 2008-03-21 20:36:12 Eastern Daylight Time, daveh at psknet.com writes:
There was a time when the danger on the AT was primarily at the trailheads and 
those few shelters that were too easy to walk in to.  Drunken rowdy 
all-nighters are beginning to overtaking shelters well away from the roads
Some wonder how wars get started but confrontation about cherished territory may be one explanation.  Perhaps the solution lies in building barriers to vehicles such as fallen trees, rocks on the trail, tire slicing apparatus, or whatever the authorities (ATC Trail Maintainers) can think up.  Disabling the vehicles in the early morning light  or pre dawn darkness may cause some to think about where they have come and how far they must hike for assistance.  If Park personnel are called then fines can be imposed for being in a restricted area, or confiscation of illegal vehicular traffoc on hiking trails could take place.  

Certainly some creative management types on the ATC Board can come up with some good ideas.

Skylander






Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home.

_______________________________________________
at-l mailing list
at-l at backcountry.net
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l





-- 
Jim Bullard
http://jims-ramblings.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ 
at-l mailing list 
at-l at backcountry.net 
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20080322/826f2a80/attachment.html