whats up with the 50" width limit?

[Teleskier]

I see on some forums where folks talk about not exceeding a 50" width limit. What is that all about?

[GrizzlyGuy]

It's real, at least out in Utah. If you're over 50" and you go on one of their trails, big fines. See here.

I just wish they would increase the fines and jail time by about 3x. They have hundreds of miles of pure 2-track trails that you have to see to believe, and wider vehicles just ruin them. When our national forests get done with their route re-designations, it will be real here too.

[Ken]

Fortunately, we live close to a magical place, called NEVADA

[Teleskier]

They are doing the same thing here in the Six Rivers and Shasta Trinity NF. They have people believing they are going to get this magical trail map of all riding paths when in reality it is going to close and make it illegal to ride in most areas. They are trying to keep us on main arteries. As it is, most of the good jeep trails I rode when I was in college are now so grown over you can't even find most of them if you don't know where to look and private land owners are gating roads and access even if there is NF beyond there property. I just met one such land owner the other day who has 160K acres of prime riding and hunting area that he has gated but it denies access to the NF land surrounding him. He said if it were not for the cabin owners inside those gates getting things stolen, vandalism etc. they would have no gates up. By the end of the conversation he did offer a key to his gates when I wanted one. Only time will tell if that comes to fruition when I ask.

As far as the width goes, take a look at the John Muir trail. I hiked it back in 1975 and even then there were multiple trails side by side going through fragile areas (meadows), some ruts a couple feet deep. This stemming from people not wanting to walk on a wet trail so they make a new path. So now, I hike the Theodore Solomons trail or totally Xcountry and don't see a sole and have pristine wilderness. Even when I hiked the PCT at age 16 in 1976, a lot of areas were already very damaged.

[GrizzlyGuy]

As far as the width goes, take a look at the John Muir trail. I hiked it back in 1975 and even then there were multiple trails side by side going through fragile areas (meadows), some ruts a couple feet deep. This stemming from people not wanting to walk on a wet trail so they make a new path.

Yeah, that is one of the big reasons behind the 50" width restrictions in Utah. If you look at my Assault on Arapeen video, you'll see us crossing various narrow bridges on Arapeen 29. The longest one isn't actually a "bridge", just a narrow planked route across a big meadow. That protects the meadow while still letting us ride through, so it's all good. They have those in the Paiute system as well, such as Paiute 89.

Utah also has a lot of trails created by ATVs for ATVs, as opposed to our trails out here which were usually created by wider vehicles (jeeps, old logging roads, etc.). So it makes sense for them to keep the narrow trails from getting wider. Out here, I fear that the forest service will go overboard on designating things as trails. That will just keep out the wider vehicles for no good reason.

IMHO, the best stuff in Utah are the 50" max 2-track trails, so that's something to take into consideration when thinking about getting a SxS. Unless you're on a stock RZR, you'll be limited to the roads and won't be able to ride those trails. Even when upgrading a quad's rims/tires, you can easily go over 50" if you're not careful. I'm at 48.5" across the rears on my Grizzlies so I'm a happy camper.

[GPER]

Ohio has four atv trails and they can't be wider than 50 inches also. So that just leaves the pay to play parks in Indiana since the Ranger is wider.

[ATVUtah]

The 50" rule is a new nation wide Forest Service designation for "trails". It's not just a Utah thing.

From the conversations I've had with several of the Forest Service motorized route managers you will be seeing it put in place all over the country. In simplified terms they have basically designated 2 types of motorized routes on forest service lands. The first is called a "Trail" or "Motorized Trail" and is limited to motorized vehicles 50" or less in width. The second designation is simply referred to as a "Motorized Route" and is for all other motorized vehicles over 50" in width. There will be some variations on these two designations at the discretion of the local forest managers but from what they tell me, plan on more restrictions not less.

The BLM is copying this same basic policy.

[GPER]

The 50" rule is a new nation wide Forest Service designation for "trails". It's not just a Utah thing.

From the conversations I've had with several of the Forest Service motorized route managers you will be seeing it put in place all over the country. In simplified terms they have basically designated 2 types of motorized routes on forest service lands. The first is called a "Trail" or "Motorized Trail" and is limited to motorized vehicles 50" or less in width. The second designation is simply referred to as a "Motorized Route" and is for all other motorized vehicles over 50" in width. There will be some variations on these two designations at the discretion of the local forest managers but from what they tell me, plan on more restrictions not less.

The BLM is copying this same basic policy.

On the "Motorized Route" and is for all other motorized vehicles over 50" in width. From what I have seen in KY on this one, you will also need to have the rig licensed and insured. So all the new rules will leave the sxs's out.

[ATVUtah]

On the "Motorized Route" and is for all other motorized vehicles over 50" in width. From what I have seen in KY on this one, you will also need to have the rig licensed and insured. So all the new rules will leave the sxs's out.

According to my sources the rules on licensed and insured seems to vary from state to state and doesn't seem to be set by the forest service but rather by local laws. In Utah if you are on any unpaved route not specifically designated as restricted to automobiles, OHVs (which include all off road vehicles) do not need to be licensed and insured at this time. There is a push to require insurance and there is already a requirement for having the Utah OHV permit unless your home state has a reciprocity agreement with Utah.