Splashing through puddles and driving in mud???

[1leglance]

Ok I need feedback from the group here on the "right" thing to do....
First some background..last weekend I ran the Camino del Diablo trail and I fully admit I enjoyed that rare thing we get here in Arizona called puddles. I fully admit I loved the effect of water splashing up as I hit the puddles with some speed. Now I have gotten feedback that splashing through these puddles is bad for the environment in that it displaces dirt from the road bed. I had not considered that since the Camino is regularly graded by the Border Patrol.This keeps it flat & level in order to lessen abuse of thier rigs and to better spot footprints of crossers. But if splashing in puddles is uncool then I want make sure I don't do it in the future (I know there are other reasons not to do it like, water in the engine compartment and such but boy was it fun).

The other concern that was raised was driving in the mud, as this creates rutts and that is bad for the trail also. Again I wasn't concerned on this trail due to the heavy use by Border Patrol but I would like some feedback for the future on other trails. And over the radio we opted not to follow exactly in each others tracks but just to the side in order to "squish" the road flat again vs deeper rutts.

The bad weather was part of the adventure for us and the amazing sites we saw of the raging San Cristobal wash, the green folage, the fresh smell after rain, the mini water falls at Tinajas Altas...all things that can only be seen during or right after rain.

So I would like feedback from everyone...
I can see not splashing through puddles if it does have negitive impact.
I can understand about rutts but then do you only go out in dry conditions?
I think foul weather is part of overland travel so not sure what to think on this one..

Looking to improve my habits and knowledge so let's hear your thoughts everyone.

[DaktariEd]

Sorry, Lance,
I don't want to get involved.
You're obviously a criminal....splashing through puddles and all. :safari-rig:
You know, I have my reputation to protect... ;)

So...I wouldn't lose any sleep over this.

I'll bet most of us would do likewise! :D

I usually take it easy through puddles, though honestly I can't remember the last one...too rare here in AZ.

As for ruts...can't really avoid them. The more you try to edge to one side, the more damage you might be doing to other vegetation along the trail. Pretty soon everyone is crashing around the ruts and the damage is far worse than just going through.

Just my 2 cents,

Ed
http://www.geocities.com/daktaried/safari.gif

[Skylinerider]

If you go around puddles in the trail you effectively make the trail wider which is not good. I just drive right through them.

[Scott Brady]

Yeah, a big splash, displacing material widely would not be considered "light". However, if the speed was necessary to make the obstacle, then it was what was necessary. And on that trail, the surface will be graded any day.

I was just there (a day ago), so I know what you were up against. Those silt beds were nasty, but could be traveled at moderate speeds.

[viatierra]

It is definately best to go through the puddles. El Camino Del Diablo in particular had significant problems with this. Sections of the trail were closed due to damage created by people leaving the trail to drive around puddles & mud. I would say that if you are in a sensitive area and the road is really gooey, keep in mind that chewing it up will make it more difficult for the next truck/group... temping them to drive off the trail to get around.

[viter]

It's not a river with it's own ecosystem, it's a puddle - temporary water on the road, so I wouldn't worry about "destroying the environment". hey, I could make an argument that you are "disrtibuting" nutrients dissolved in puddle water to the "environment" around the road by creating big splashes and thus "serving the environment" ;)

and like others said, from everything I've read before, remaining ON the road is always more "environmentally correct" since you are messing with the road and not the "untouched" nature around it, even when it involves driving thru mud and water on the road.

I think people get a bit carried away sometimes "protecting the environment" before giving a second thought to what they are actually talking about. just my 2 cents...

[Ursidae69]

The "environmental damage" (I use this phrase loosely) that could occur, that we should be concerned with, because some environmental groups are concerned with it, involves erosion. Going nuts in a flooded road will mobilize sediments. This really isn't as much of a concern on the C del Diablo because there are not sensitive riparian environments or fisheries nearby (I don't think) that could get affected by excess sedimentation. The main C del Diablo concern is simply road damage. The way to get through this with the least impact is to simply drive the speed necessary and not create ruts if you can avoid it and not to go around widening the roadbed.

Now, if the road you're talking about parallels a stream that has a salmon fishery in it, then erosion would be a real concern if a road is not stable and wet.

[toddunderscore]

Thanks for the information folks. I was with Lance the other weekend and trail abuse was on all our minds while traveling the road. The approach to San Cristobal wash was tense due to the visible rising of water on the road and deepening mud. I myself was concerned about stopping for an extended period of time while Jean Pierre waded out every 100 yards to make sure it was passable. I'd also like to add that any splashing that might have been unnecessary was NOT done on the preserve. The standing water in question was on the Barry Goldwater range where the graded roads were at least two lanes wide.

And Scott, the silt beds were so bad when we were there you almost couldn't tell were the road was. I imagine the Border Patrol was blasting through the mud the previous 24 hours desperately searching for a vehicle that never made it out of the Camino the night before. In some areas, the trail was so forked you didn't know which way to go. Exciting, yes. But maybe not the best laid plans to travel a road for the first time in those conditions regardless of the insisting approval of the Refuge office.

[Grim Reaper]

Yeah mud is bad M-Kay.

After all siltation never happens in nature. Dirt just never moves on its own before man came about.

You should go buy some carbon dollars and donate them to Al Gore to pay for his private Jet and his luggage to ride to hotels in Mercedes as penance.


Have you ever been to the grand canyon? :wings:


Tread lightly is a good thing. Move as little as possible but like all things Moderation is the key.

[soimu`]

how to wash a offroad car

[KevinNY]

Hitting puddles at speed is a good way to drive mud and silt into your alternator, starter, radiator etc. Fast enough and you will start to blow off licence plates and plastic trim. Slow as possible fast as neccessary. The guy in front of me hit this section too fast and stalled out at the end with a wet distributor.

[toddunderscore]

Excellent advice. We didn't have any debris in critical engine bay components so it sounds like we hit the obstacles just right (did have to spray the belts a bit though.) No one lost a plate or plastic trim either!

[upcruiser]

We have alot of wet, muddy weather in these parts. On small trails and unimproved surfaces, I try to be as carefull as possible in order to not displace sediment or dig uneeded ruts. The whole "I'm in the mud, I'm going to put my foot into it and show everyone how much mud I can get on my rig" mentaility is alive and well here. Like said earlier, going as fast as you need, but as slow as you can is the key for not only for preventing uneeded erosion, but also preventing a lengthy two hour rig cleanup after the outing. What always seems to get me though are the long slogs down muddy/wet dirt roads. I always seem to start off, avoiding the puddles and travelling slow through them when needed. I always end up kind of hauling *** after awhile, once the windshield has been doused enough that I know I'm going to be doing a complete powerwashing AND scrubbing of the whole truck. That's only on improved roads though that I know get graded and worked on regularly.

[Ursidae69]

Yeah mud is bad M-Kay.

After all siltation never happens in nature. Dirt just never moves on its own before man came about.

You should go buy some carbon dollars and donate them to Al Gore to pay for his private Jet and his luggage to ride to hotels in Mercedes as penance.


Have you ever been to the grand canyon? :wings:


Tread lightly is a good thing. Move as little as possible but like all things Moderation is the key.

Mocking the situation is not helpful, M-kay? :rolleyes:

Of course siltation happens in nature, it's a natural process, but what I described, that you mocked, is not a natural situation.

Each little bit helps, that is the point here.

[Ruffin' It]

I've never understood off-roaders who hold contempt (ie. sarcasim) for preservation of the land they go so far out of their way to visit. There is nothing eco-freaky about trying to make as little impact as possible, even if the impact you make won't cause mass destruction.
Don't forget - the off-roaders that give us all such a bad name are the ones that think their little part won't hurt anything.

Sorry for the tone.






Yeah mud is bad M-Kay.

After all siltation never happens in nature. Dirt just never moves on its own before man came about.

You should go buy some carbon dollars and donate them to Al Gore to pay for his private Jet and his luggage to ride to hotels in Mercedes as penance.


Have you ever been to the grand canyon? :wings:


Tread lightly is a good thing. Move as little as possible but like all things Moderation is the key.

[robert j. yates]

Sometimes a little sarcasm is good for the debate because it illuminates one sided thinking.

Frankly, it seems to me that with the original posting of this thread, the anti-recreationist/zero motorized access crowd has already won. If we are questioning going through mud puddles, when does it stop? How about the slickrock at Moab? How about the sand in Anza Borrego or the lake bed of Soda Dry Lake on the Mojave Rd? Good grief people....we are attempting to access areas where 4 wheel drive is in fact, needed.....there should be no question that at some point, we will need to use and it will leave a mark. That doesn't make what we do bad. Period. End of story.

The bottom line is as already suggested....as slow as possible and as fast as necessary and always on the designated trail. I hate mud and will try to avoid it but if that means straying off the trail...... then I have no problem approaching it and charging through it.

[Ursidae69]

Sometimes a little sarcasm is good for the debate because it illuminates one sided thinking.

Frankly, it seems to me that with the original posting of this thread, the anti-recreationist/zero motorized access crowd has already won. If we are questioning going through mud puddles, when does it stop? How about the slickrock at Moab? How about the sand in Anza Borrego or the lake bed of Soda Dry Lake on the Mojave Rd? Good grief people....we are attempting to access areas where 4 wheel drive is in fact, needed.....there should be no question that at some point, we will need to use and it will leave a mark. That doesn't make what we do bad. Period. End of story.

The bottom line is as already suggested....as slow as possible and as fast as necessary and always on the designated trail. I hate mud and will try to avoid it but if that means straying off the trail...... then I have no problem approaching it and charging through it.

The orginal posting implied that the anti-recreationists have won something? :confused: Why the rhetoric Robert? How does Lance asking about the right way to get through huge muddy sections of the CDD mean that anti-recreationists have won? We are not questioning going through, but how to go through.

On the Tread Lightly site (http://www.treadlightly.org/page.php/responsible-four/Recreation-Tips.html) it says "When possible avoid mud. In soft terrain go easy on the gas to avoid wheel spin, which can cause rutting."
That's pretty much what we've all been saying, so at least we are all in agreement on that.

[robert j. yates]

The "environmental damage" (I use this phrase loosely) that could occur, that we should be concerned with, because some environmental groups are concerned with it, involves erosion. Going nuts in a flooded road will mobilize sediments. This really isn't as much of a concern on the C del Diablo because there are not sensitive riparian environments or fisheries nearby (I don't think) that could get affected by excess sedimentation. The main C del Diablo concern is simply road damage. The way to get through this with the least impact is to simply drive the speed necessary and not create ruts if you can avoid it and not to go around widening the roadbed.

Now, if the road you're talking about parallels a stream that has a salmon fishery in it, then erosion would be a real concern if a road is not stable and wet.


Since you brought it up...how does travelling on an open and maintained/graded dirt road (that has recently experienced rainfall) qualify as "environmental damage"?

You are treading on dangerous ground here that typically results in resource management by closure and thats why I have a problem with folks trying to be politically correct with it.

[Ruffin' It]

I wasn't saying leave no trace, ever. I was simply saying it should be a goal (for many reasons) to minimize impact when possible. Likewise I think it does not bode well when people start rolling their eyes at those that have a geniune desire to behave responsibly. Equating "responsible conduct" with "the greenies have won" retoric speaks volumes about the lack of critical thinking about this topic by many off roaders.

Just my thoughts, I will now exit my soapbox.


Sometimes a little sarcasm is good for the debate because it illuminates one sided thinking.

Frankly, it seems to me that with the original posting of this thread, the anti-recreationist/zero motorized access crowd has already won. If we are questioning going through mud puddles, when does it stop? How about the slickrock at Moab? How about the sand in Anza Borrego or the lake bed of Soda Dry Lake on the Mojave Rd? Good grief people....we are attempting to access areas where 4 wheel drive is in fact, needed.....there should be no question that at some point, we will need to use and it will leave a mark. That doesn't make what we do bad. Period. End of story.

The bottom line is as already suggested....as slow as possible and as fast as necessary and always on the designated trail. I hate mud and will try to avoid it but if that means straying off the trail...... then I have no problem approaching it and charging through it.

[Ruffin' It]

I hate trail closures as much as anyone I know of. But I also acknowledge that they are often closed due to abuse by those that roll their eyes at the mention of conservation. I don't think it is fair (or correct) to place the blame for trail closures squarely on the "anti-fun" crowd without sharing any of the blame with the "anti-responsibility" crowd.


Since you brought it up...how does travelling on an open and maintained/graded dirt road (that has recently experienced rainfall) qualify as "environmental damage"?

You are treading on dangerous ground here that typically results in resource management by closure and thats why I have a problem with folks trying to be politically correct with it.

[robert j. yates]

Please....now you are grasping for straws. Implying that we are all stupid rednecks without regard for environmental quality simply reinforces my point that the anti recreationists have won. I for one am not interested in rolling over and am willing to admit that our sport creates an impact. That impact cannot be avoided or glossed over but it can be mitigated as some here have suggested and to which I agree with.

Just so that folks can get some perspective....I am one of 50 property owners (and my 21 YO daughter is another) of the Little Chief claim at the top of Surprise Canyon in the Panamints. I hear this nonsense about environmental damage from water fordings in the canyon all of the time. Our access was taken away without any scientific calculus and I submit that if accessing Panamint City via motorized vehicle was so inherently destructive....how come there is now a big push to name the creek a wild and scenic river when it was afterall.........a paved road back in 1980.

Yes there are rednecks out there but I would wager that most everyone on this particular board sees themselves as an environmentalist. I will not make any excuses that my preferred mode of access happens to be motorized.

[DaktariEd]

I think the original intent of the post was sound. It is a question of how best to approach muddy trails. Whether it be a graded road or not, the question is a good one.
Even on a graded road, attacking mud full speed just to see the it fly can have detrimental effects on surrounding landscape and wildlife. It's not just the Camino del Diablo that is in question but any offroad areas that we travel.
No, I don't think the first post implies at all that "the anti-recreationist/zero motorized access crowd has already won" but rather he (and I for that matter) is more thoughtful now about the unintended impact when off-roading.
This is the kind of discussion that benefits all of us....

http://www.geocities.com/daktaried/safari.gif

[robert j. yates]

No doubt that discussion benefits all. :)

[Ursidae69]

Since you brought it up...how does travelling on an open and maintained/graded dirt road (that has recently experienced rainfall) qualify as "environmental damage"?

You are treading on dangerous ground here that typically results in resource management by closure and thats why I have a problem with folks trying to be politically correct with it.

I've made my point already Robert in post#7. I'm not treading on dangerous ground at all, I'm simply responding to the original query which we've all answered in the same basic way, which is great. Have a nice day.

[Grim Reaper]

Please....now you are grasping for straws. Implying that we are all stupid rednecks without regard for environmental quality simply reinforces my point that the anti recreationists have won. I for one am not interested in rolling over and am willing to admit that our sport creates an impact. That impact cannot be avoided or glossed over but it can be mitigated as some here have suggested and to which I agree with.

Just so that folks can get some perspective....I am one of 50 property owners (and my 21 YO daughter is another) of the Little Chief claim at the top of Surprise Canyon in the Panamints. I hear this nonsense about environmental damage from water fordings in the canyon all of the time. Our access was taken away without any scientific calculus and I submit that if accessing Panamint City via motorized vehicle was so inherently destructive....how come there is now a big push to name the creek a wild and scenic river when it was afterall.........a paved road back in 1980.

Yes there are rednecks out there but I would wager that most everyone on this particular board sees themselves as an environmentalist. I will not make any excuses that my preferred mode of access happens to be motorized.


Thanks for backing me up and understanding just how overboard some stuff has gotten and how it has lead to the loss of access to so many places.

The fact of the matter is I am very serious about land preservation. I served as the land use director for my club for 2 years. I worked on the 10 year revisions for the SE forests that contain Tellico. I have worked and helped organize several big clean ups. I am not some armchair eco know it all. The fact is I don’t know it all but I know enough to understand just how out of hand the eco extreme has gotten.

I actually endorse the seasonal closing of some trails that border riparian area’s and I HATE MUD! That said in the areas close to me we are wet almost all the time (except this 10 year drought we are in). It is a given that I will encounter mud and short of driving off trail I have no way to avoid it.

That said jumping a little mud puddle every once in a while can be fun but this poor guy has been subjected to the eco extreme so long it sounded like he was picking out a sharp blade and getting ready to commit “hara-kire”.

Our species is going to leave marks and every species does to some extent. So does every major storm especially in that area that has minimal ground cover and for the most part is a big dried out mud flat left over from the last ice age. Look at that big 2000ft deep washout from outer space if you don’t understand how that happened.

I simply was pointing out erosion is a natural occurrence and you don’t need to kill yourself over it if you create some. Minimize it when possible.

[upcruiser]

I understand erosion is going to happen but I can't believe how defensive some people get over someone showing concern and consideration for reducing impact. I'd take 100 people with this kind of attitude and consideration then 10 without who plead ignorance and make a bad rep for everyone else. The offroad recreation comunity is has far more people who believe the world is their's to conquer and that damage is anavoidable then those who truly try to leave a small footprint. More people concerned and acting responsibly should help keep trails open versus closed in my mind.

[DaktariEd]

You, know....I went back and read this thread over again to make sure I wasn't missing anything. And I'm not.

This thread is not about route closures nor loss of access.

It is simply a request from a thoughtful member for opinions regarding the crossing of mud puddles in the trail:
Looking to improve my habits and knowledge so let's hear your thoughts everyone.

He's not about to commit Hari kiri, nor have the "anti-recreationist/zero motorized access crowd...already won," and no one has accused anyone of being a stupid redneck.

Bringing the thread back on track (pun intended), I think it's clear that "as slow as possible, as fast as necessary" is a good general rule, but there are certainly areas that rule can be relaxed, and some that it should not.

Minimizing impact is an admirable goal.

My 2 cents...

http://www.geocities.com/daktaried/safari.gif

[Ursidae69]

There is no need for us here on ExPo and other forums to be so adversarial. We are all on the same page, or should be. I work in the environmental field and I drive trucks through mud puddles too. I have background in what the “other” side claims, accurate or not. Educating oneself with what someone on the other side thinks about an issue is not a bad thing to do, from there, dialog occurs and a middle ground can hopefully be found.

The majority of us in the online OHV world are very good about treading lightly, we are not the problem, but we are the minority when it comes to overall OHV recreationists. The problem lies with the vast majority of OHV uses, none of which ever join or post on a forum. They don’t even know that Tread Lightly exists and/or why it exists. We see the end result of these users’ negative impacts on tracts of land in land closures. I don’t have any idea how to reach this group, all I can do is change myself and my own driving styles to reduce my impact, and that is what the spirit of this thread was about.

[robert j. yates]

I apologise if I came across as adversarial as it was not my intent. I am simply very passionate about preserving access.

I do however believe the quote below is a pipedream. The anti-access crowd could care less about responsible use....its our aesthetic (motorized access) that infuriates them and no amount of responsible use is going to change that. I am not advocating irresponsible use at all but rather access. As Grim says....we will leave a mark no matter what and there is no getting around it and trying to placate those folks is simply wasted energy.



More people concerned and acting responsibly should help keep trails open versus closed in my mind.

[Scenic WonderRunner]

You, know....I went back and read this thread over again to make sure I wasn't missing anything. And I'm not.

Bringing the thread back on track (pun intended), I think it's clear that "as slow as possible, as fast as necessary" is a good general rule, but there are certainly areas that rule can be relaxed, and some that it should not.

Minimizing impact is an admirable goal.

My 2 cents...

http://www.geocities.com/daktaried/safari.gif

OK....

My post is not about continuing some argument that went on here.....I didn't even read all the post's because I don't want to get into the arguments.

I'm just going to share my worst experience with mud.

A couple winters ago I headed up to Big Bear. It was a snowy and rainy day. I was on the trail that heads south toward the lake and west of the old ranch. It appears to me that this trail could have been there for 150 years. The forest service is well aware of it. The way the terrain goes....it causes water to hole up, resulting in a mud bog. They could spend big money to fix it with an undertrail drain culvert.....etc. But my feeling is they just keep filling and grading it every season, and they might even be leaving it there for the enjoyment of the off roaders that like mud............I HATE MUD!

My friend and I came upon the massive mud hole. We sat and talked it over on the radio's. Finally a mad man in a 4x4 came FLYING toward us from the opposite direction! I never knew I could back up so fast in deep MUD! You can see him in his old Dodge pick up behind me in the pics. He was going way too fast and sliding everywhere! A Very poor steward of our trails!

We watched his progress....then we knew we could do it.

We went as slow as possible and as fast as necessary.....common sense ruled along with our care for the land.

Sorry the pics are so bad....but hey! I didn't taken them!:rolleyes:

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/ScenicWonderRunner/MuddyBigBearTrail.jpg

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/ScenicWonderRunner/MuddyBigBearTrail2.jpg


When I got home.....it took at least one hour to get all the mud off.

I don't do mud well.............

[Flounder]

I can understand about rutts but then do you only go out in dry conditions?
I think foul weather is part of overland travel so not sure what to think on this one...
I think many are quick to dismiss the fair weather comment, but it really is a valid point. Do I go out in fair weather only? For the most part, yes. If I can avoid using easily impacted areas during wet conditions, I surely will.

I've spent thousands of hours over the years doing trail maintenance so when muddy months or sloppy days roll around, I don't use the trails most likely to be negatively impacted by usage in wet conditions. Simple matter of trail preservation. Also helps keep it nice when it eventually does dry out. I apply that same logic to riding my motorcycle off road or even my Rover.

I'm not afraid of rain or mud, but I think anyone who uses the backcountry is under obligation to help not only preserve the conditions but help MAINTAIN them. Most don't do squat to maintain. Few do enough to preserve. Too many don't shy away from damaging trails, roads and routes.

[1leglance]

ok it is 4 pages of post later and I figure I better jump back into the thread I started....
First I am really gratefull for all the dialog...even if it did get heated there for a bit at least it was for good reason....
Second, anyone who has ever run a trail with me and had to listen to my freq complaints about trash or stopping for trash comments over the radio knows how I feel...yeah my trail runs are slower since I stop so often to pick up stuff but at least things are better than before I got there...
Third, I have ingrained "slow as possible & fast as necessary" into my mind and got a chance to practice it the last couple of days with a run from phx to crown king and another from florance junction to superior....lots of mud puddles and lots of chance to try my new style.
However there was 1 place which is under a railroad bridge in a wide gravel wash that is man made and no matter how fast you went the water stayed in the wash area....that we hit hard and fast for fun since it was man made, all the water stayed in the pool and the gravel meant no ruts....so the fun was guilt free and great.
That splashing made it much easier to be respectful on the rest of the trail and not splash mud around...also where the trail was wide enough I followed just off to 1 side of the ruts the rig in front of me made so as not to make his deeper...seemed like a good idea.

So thanks again to everyone who chimed in...slow as possible, fast as needed worked great...usually I was able to go through slow enough not to even splash and the couple of times I did need more speed it was "just enough"...worked great.
Oh and lastly...the battleax trail from outside superior to the gila river (almost coke ovens) starts easy but is getting really really washed out towards to gila river and may soon be impassible, do get out there soon...plus it is green and nice looking right now.

[H2O_Doc]

Even though this thread has been quiet for quite a while now, I thought I'd offer the following as sources of information:

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/staylor/jof_stream_crossings.pdf
http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_ayala001.pdf

Careful driving in and along those streams.

Paul
www.wagnerphotographic.com