I am down in SoCal at the camo glitter factory. So how was it?

Meeting went great out numbered the enemy 3 to 1 got concenus on making permanent access to the river. Stuff it to the greenies pretty good. All in all everything went our way in big part do to the great turnout BUT we need to keep it up until its is over. THANKS TO EVERYBODY THAT SHOWED UP YOU DID MAKE THE DIFFERENCE.
See you all next Thurs. Dec. 6 or at the party

The meeting definitely went well. We managed to get a statement promoting OHV use into the goals statement of the area. Now, we need more people to show up in order to keep the good stuff going. If we allow the homowners and eco-nazis to get a majority again, they can remove that or regulate us out of the area. And believe me, after this meeting, they'll be calling out their friends to show up and support their cause.

Keep supporting!!!

-John

The meeting went really well, but I expect the next meeting to have a more homeowners, so we had best be there with the same or greater numbers as last night or we will be back in deadlock and won't be able to get consensus.

I think we got through the vision statement, but I'm not sure it was ever stated as such. It would have been good to have had a "consensus" on the entire vision statement.

We started on some of the management issues, but little was agreed on.

NEXT MEETING --- MY OPINIONS ------

We need to listen to the homeowners and make sure two of their key concerns are adequately addressed during the management issues. This should buy us some political capital with the BLM.

The 2 main homeowner concerns are:

1) risk of wildfire
2) gunfire (including automatic gunfire, according to a resident, out of jurisdiction LEO that lives on the east side of Jergens Road.

IMO, these two issues are real and valid concerns and if these are not addressed then we will continue to have battles with the homeowners at each and every stage. If they can be addressed, their "just shut it down" arguement is weakened.

We need to stress that BLM must enforce existing laws and regulations, or actively work with other agencies to enforce this.

We should also stress adding new laws and new rules will do little since the current ones are being ignored.

So lets look at working some things that might be considered "consessions" but might help in the give and take discussions.

1) Campfires only in approved designated fire rings. Next step would be to define "designated", and if other things are required. eg special use permit? just a california campfire permit?

2) Shooting limited to:
-open hunting season,
-legal hunting hours,
-and only if in posession of a valid, current hunting tag.

As far as shooting, I don't want to see hunting outlawed, but I'm on the fence with target shooting, especially at night. This is when things get out of control. If there is a legitimate group wanting to keep target shooting, then they should step up and fight for it, otherwise I'd be OK with a ban on target shooting in the area if it would keep the trail open for other uses.


Another issue that is a concern is the trash and dumping. Jim (BLM) stated he knew it wasn't the 4x4 community causing this problem, and agrees it is a problem at the top of the trail where it is 2 wheel accessible. but it is a problem.

We need some positive solutions for the trash and dumping.

A cleanup effort is a start, but long term there needs to be a way where this area isn't such an easy dumping site. A trail filter at the top could help. This has a risk of making the access "elite" and only for serious 4x4s ( On guy wanted the road paved so he could go down in his mini van...)

So if we can have good solutions to these three things, then the biggest homeowners issues should be covered. No it wont be all hugs and kisses, but if we don't address the fire and the shooting, then they will continue to fight this each step along the way, and closure will keep coming back as a solution.


The other side of the fight is the preservation side. I really don't know enough about this to comment. I'm not against preservation, but It has to be balance with the other uses of the public land. We did get a big win by getting balanced use in the vision statement, but we missed the chance to get OHV in that sentance.

As far as how the road affects the preserve, I did bring up the fact that a 2 mile road, 25 feet wide is about 6 acres in area, or less than 1/2 of 1 percent of this parcel.

I also asked if these 6 acres were restored, and revegitated if that would really make a difference toward getting the endangered weeds, I mean plants off of the endangered list. Jim said probably not.

So we need to continue to stress that the road is *not* harming the area, and is the only access for vehicles.

So, everyone, do your homework, read up on the issues, http://www.ca.blm.gov/folsom/sfa_plan.html
and show up next week.

- Dan

Agreed -- the meeting went well. Celebration *IS* in order, but only a short celebration. We won a battle, but not the war... and we can't rest.

Three possibilities exist for future meetings:
1.) we keep our overwhelming majority, and continue to shape positive OHV-friendly recommendations
2.) we lose the majority, but no consensus exists, so our existing statements stand
3.) the homeowners show up with a majority, and rewrite all of this to their liking

Remember, if the anti-OHV folks regain an 80% majority, they can re-open past issues and steam-roll us.

The meeting went really well, but I expect the next meeting to have a more homeowners...
You are absolutely correct, Dan... we have to bring even MORE folks to combat what will undoubtedly be a major influx of homeowners. To retain the 80% ratio, we need FIVE OHV supporters for evert ONE anti-OHV person.

We need to listen to the homeowners and make sure two of their key concerns are adequately addressed during the management issues. This should buy us some political capital with the BLM.
The 2 main homeowner concerns are: 1) risk of wildfire and 2) gunfire
Great analysis, again, Dan... we have to be willing to cooperate on those issues, or the BLM will plan it for us. If we do not flex to permit not just 80% majority, but near-unanimity, the anti-OHV folks will still fight us at every turn. Keep in mind that fire is one of the BLM's largest concerns, as well.

So, everyone, do your homework, read up on the issues, http://www.ca.blm.gov/folsom/sfa_plan.html and show up next week.
Amen, Dan ... great job at the meeting, and good thinking here.

Randii

So lets look at working some things that might be considered "consessions" but might help in the give and take discussions.
Cool.

CAMPFIRES
Campfires in designated rings is as good an outcome as we can expect. We may have to accept dry-camping only, or worst-case, dry-camping and ONLY day use. The latter is more than I'd like to see, but is also a solution I could make peace with, if I had to.

The question is, how will our recommendations be filtered, first through Deane Swickard (the BLM manager), then through Al Franklin (who is interim coordinator for the Pine Hill Preserve and will present the BLM recommendations, and lastly, through the Pine Hill Planning process itself? Remember, that planning process occurs in private, and we only get to comment on the draft AFTER it is written. Considering these three levels of possible dilution of our recommendations, how reasonable should we try to be at this stage? Should we take the hard line (free camping, no permits, fire allowed), or strive for the solution that could get near-unanimous support (day use, no fires)?

SHOOTING
I support Dan's suggestion of limiting shooting to hunting season restictions, with a valid tag, UNLESS there's a local shooter's organization that is willing to sponsor cleanups of a designated shooting area. I've yet to see any organized shooters at the meetings. :(

DUMPING
I think the key to this revolves around:
1.) establishing trail filters to keep out the low-clearance 2WD folks that do most of the dumping
2.) working with the recreational users to self-police and turn-in offenders. As a community, we need to do a better job of this.
3.) scheduling regular cleanups and working with organizations to encourage responsibles use. Adopting the Trail to several local clubs would be an outstanding extension of this.

We did get a big win by getting balanced use in the vision statement, but we missed the chance to get OHV in that sentance.
When we wrote that sentence more than a year back, I was pretty lonely, and could not get OHV included even after repeated use. We should attempt to use our higher numbers to re-open the vision statement, and add OHV to the listed uses, but that will take a repeat 80% majority.

Great work, folks (especially Dan Hoover and Brian Gutierez), but we gotta keep showing up...

Randii

Hey My freind Owns a house on the road That is on the road that you could come up out of, if say you went down the trail and came up the other side. Would they listen to him at all? or is it just the landowners bordering the land? I could get him to show up I think. He would say anything I told him to. As far as shooting goes I used to go shoot out there everyweekend about 6 years ago. I cleaned up after myself but it never looked like anyone else did. Sad to see No shooting but if they are not cleaning up then I guess the hunter only thing might work.

yup, what they said, the meeting was good! So was the pizza and :beer:! These meetings just tend to remind me of how slow our goverment process works!!

I was pleased with the progress we made in the last meeting. Frankly, it went better than I would have expected.

I'm hoping that we'll be able to keep our numbers up for the next meeting, because there will be additional points that we'll need to make sure we gain the majority vote on.

I for one am willing to concede some issues so that we ensure keeping the trail open for wheelers. I don't care if they close the trail to punk kids that cause the homeowners to want to close it down for good. Even if it's permit only access, that would be fine with me. It's not like any one of us that actually cared about the trail would have a problem getting a permit to use the trail.

The homeowners don't like guns and they don't like fire. So if you want to keep it open for camping, make it camp stoves only for cooking purposes and no open fires. I also like the idea of guns for people with hunting permits only. We all can find another place to target shoot. Let's keep the landowners as happy as possible, so they won't mind when we want to take our trucks down to the river...

Anyway, I'm out of time on my lunchbreak. It's an uphill battle, but I really like the support our community got last night at the meeting. Wheelers Rock! :D

Audra
www.mountainhightoys.com

Oh, and on the topic of garbage... organized trail clean-up runs are a great idea, and I'm sure the BLM would work with us. I know MHT has hauled multiple truckloads of garbage out of there already... and I'm sure it won't be the last group clean-up run we make.

Gating the trail (permit access only use) might help curb this problem as well... now I for one wouldn't want to see it gated all year round unless there was no other way... but again, if it keeps our access...

Audra