I posted in Nor Cal and it was suggested I post here, I will also likely post in gen 4x4 to try and get as much traffic as possible. Many people have either wheeled up at the High Lakes (above Paradise, Ca) or wish to. Two trails are in extreme danger of being closed and will actually be closed as of July 12th. Both links below have relevant information as to how we got here and what we're trying to do about it.

http://www.bentandtwisted.com/catalog/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=351&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

http://www.pantheus.com/tf/index.php/topic,43.0.html

Do not reply to this thread in "pirate form" If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it. The USFS does check these threads and we're trying to work on communication with them. I'm trying to draw attention to the issue and solicit intelligent, helpful responses.

This is in Lassen national right?

Looks like you guys are on step three of the Route designation Process up there, which while not a good thing, it's good in that you are not as far along as we are in ELDO so you have time to gather the troops.

On July 6th they will come out with the maps of routes that they called "discussion draft"

I would also suggest they you guys get a HUGE presence at these two meetings:

July 14th at ChesterMemorial Hall located on the corner of Gay and Bridge Streets in Chester, CA from 9 AM to 4:30 PM

July 21st at Burney Lions Hall located at 37006 Main Street, Burney, CA from 9 AM to 4:30 PM.


From reading the forest order, on the 12th of July you lost 90 miles of routes becuase of "serious resource impacts", but it also says that those routes may be considered for designation in the nest step.

Do you guys have a relationship at all with Allen Nosler? I would also make sure someone is in constant communcation with that guy becuase he is in charge of the route des process up there.

This is in Lassen national right?
Do you guys have a relationship at all with Allen Nosler? I would also make sure someone is in constant communcation with that guy becuase he is in charge of the route des process up there.

Got that covered, Kurt ... :p And one in the Field office.

And, 'ya you're right, the presentation of maps and news of stages 1 & 2 is July 14 & 21, and stage 3, the environmental aspect starts immediately after. We've studied the maps, and need a better define from them the extent and even location of "resource damage", elsewhere besides Saddle Lake - we KNOW what that issue is. I suspect I know where a bit of the rest is... almost all of the 90 miles is on one loop, that has been dealt a major lack of maintence and nature's damage, but nothing I feel we can't fix, when it is identified. I'm trying as I typo' to set up a field tour with them.

Yes, we are a r.c.h. behind Eldo in the plans. But a few of us are trying to stay on top of it, as best a human can do.

Ken

Save The High Lakes

For All:
Meeting At Round Table Pizza In Paradise 7 P.m. To 9 P.m.
Thursday July 12th
Bring An Open Mind And We Will Discuss More Options For The Saturday Meeting In Chester

Get Involved If You Use The High Lakes!!!!

on a larger scale it's happening everywhere

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=593785

inform yourself with every page of what's going on there on fordyce

Yesterdays meeting provided me with some information on the closures in the High Lakes area. Word did not travel down to Ranger Scott Bell to meet with us; but Chris (knucklehead) ran into him on Friday and told him we were planning on meeting him at Saddle Lake 3pm, saturday. Scott showed up at 4:30 and was busy ticketing a group for different violations. He finally made it down to the wall to talk with us around 5:30 pm.
He was able to give us some information, but is the wrong guy to talk to about what we can do to get these trails re-opened. According to him, the most important thing we can do is show up, in masses, at the meeting in Chester and express our desire to work and keep these trails open. The person we need to establish contact with is the depeartment hydrologist. He's the only person with specific knowledge about the problems with these trails that caused their closure.
Saddle Lake trail will be closed for a period of one year, no ifs ands or buts. I have heard several rumors over the past couple of weeks about what is damaged and what's going on with the trail. The problems I noticed yesterday were:
1. The bypass through the meadow area (original, historic trail) is still active. This bypass appears to be being used mostly by quads or motorcycles unable to climb the rock face. This does not rule out stockish vehicles or people who don't want to attempt the climb, but this bypass is narrow. This bypass has been blocked with logs several times, and has been torn down each time.
2. The "wall" has now been widened to 5 car widths or so. The trail is technically from the largest peak of the rock face to the left, where it intersects the bank. To the right of the tallest peak used to be manzanita and soil. People have begun to climb this section and now the brush is gone as well as much of the dirt.
3. After climbing the wall, another bypass has been made to the right of the original trail, on the first hill climb. My guess is that this was done to avoid the leaning tree that could come into contact with a truck cab on a full size truck or if a wrong line was taken. This bypass is mostly on loose soil, instead of rock (like the original trail).
4. Further up the trail is a mud/ water hole that has been bypassed by quads, wideneing the loose dirt in this section.

Pipejam:
According to Scott, the clearing job on pipejam was not approved or in cooperation with the Forest service. He admits that it is a historic route and is therefore able to be cleared, if done properly, but that the trail runs through private property and the Forest Service cannot encourage people to travel thorugh private property. He said from running the trail it is his impression that the historic route was not followed. A section of Pipejam will still be open from Bear Lake to Frying Pan falls, but the trail will remain an in/out trail.

Grassy Lake:
The trail is closed 2.5 miles past grassy lake. Having run this route there's not much wheeling in this area anyways and it is mostly used by dirt bikes ATV's

Other info:
Scott says the Forest Service favors in/out routes vs. loop trails beacause it makes it easier for them to patrol and control traffic, instead of people coming into the High Lakes from three different directions (one thing these closures prevent). Make sure your reg. is current. Either street licensed or green stickered. Seat belts are required. Open containers will be cited. Fires are allowed in the Hihg Lakes area, with a burn permit. Fires are nto allowed at Spring Valley because it is private property.

Where we stand what we need to do:
The way I'm trying to look at this is that we've got one year to come up with and exectue a plan to block the bypasses on the Saddle Lake trail. To do this we need to do the following:
1. GO TO THE MEETING IN CHESTER.While pizza meetings are a good way to share information, the trail will already be closed at that time. It is more important and would be more beneficial that people go to the meeting in Chester Saturday the 14th. It is an all day "open House" meeting. Show up, express your concern and desire to work with the Forest Service to re-open these trails. Torey, I hope your flyers include information about the meeting in Chester, because that is the first step to getting these trails re-opened. Arm-chair quarterbacks will get nothing done on this. If people can't take one day to try and keep their trails open, then they really don't care.
2. We need to establish communication with the Hyudrologist and discuss what needs to be done and what can be done to restore these trails and prevent future damage. The Forest Service needs and supports volunteers, but due to liability issues (lawsuit happy people) the Forest Service cannot allow unauthorized trail repairs.
3. We need people to show up and work on these trails and take responsibilty for our efforts. By that I mean spread the word that it's not ok to bypass the trail, tear down blocks, etc. Take pictures, write statements and send them in to the Forest Service. Tickets will be issued and if that's waht it takes for people to realize what's ok and not ok, than that's how it's going to be.
_________________

Wow, Plumas has a completely different direction than Eldo or Tahoe.

I need to really take the time to read the route dez hand book. These guys sound like they are all over the place.

Other info:
Scott says the Forest Service favors in/out routes vs. loop trails beacause it makes it easier for them to patrol and control traffic, instead of people coming into the High Lakes from three different directions (one thing these closures prevent).

Both Tahoe and Eldo preferred loops.

Pipejam:
According to Scott, the clearing job on pipejam was not approved or in cooperation with the Forest service. He admits that it is a historic route and is therefore able to be cleared, if done properly

I think that's a little different down here too.....


but that the trail runs through private property and the Forest Service cannot encourage people to travel thorugh private property.


It really depends on whether or not historically they have had cooperation with the property owner, some may have easments....it's worth investigating.

Ken is looking into permission from SPI on the pipejam trail. If we can get that, then I think we're ok, besides re-opening the trail on the historic route.

Scott is a Ranger, but was clear that decisions are made by other people, he's just there to enforce the laws. I would think that loop trails would be more desirable to reduce the impact. If everyone ran the loop, it would cut the travel impact in half, that's HUGE! I was very suprised by his statement about in/out trails, although he was waiting for a group to come out of one of the lakes to finish writing tickets.

Good report, Wilson !

We spent the weekend on PipeJam, and ran into Scooterloo and Knucklehead (and several others) on the way out as we got out of Bear Lake.

I heard from Almanor District that the Hydrologist that is recommending to Susanville, is a "contract" Hydrologist hired by Susanville, (not a USFS employee) over the objections of Almanor, to do these surveys. And that HE will be up at the Saddle Lake "mess" on Tuesday (when none of us will be there to "influence" him).

As to the in and out vs loops, since that came from the LEO, Scott Bell, I feel that is HIM speaking, that it is easier to corral us, and therefore he can write more tickets faster and easier, rather than having us disbursed with several entrance and exit routes.

What I've gotten from Recreation Officers at Almanor, and the route designation guy at Susanville is that loops are desired, and surely having US spread over more territory makes sense, and therefore not all crammed at the 4 lakes they've left open for us, out of the 16 that are there!

Another point we need to make with them is that for fire escapes and human health more entrances and exit are needed, not us herded into only one way in and out, and at one of 4 lakes, which is what this plan does.

I sure hope there is more on Saturday for the "Open House" than the usual dog and pony show.

Another thought, too is that when we re-opened the route that had since it was a historic road, and for more than 40 years so designated, there was major downfall and huge overgrowth.

When we came to an area to clear, in one direction we could have cleared 40-50 dead fall or move 10 feet to the left and clear 2 ...not hard to figure out that revegatation of the old area could and would happen, and the route is 10 feet to the left. So fscking what!

We did clear back 40 years growth of manzanita, and cleared it right back to the old cut in the old growth. A couple places, the route may vary from the historic route by a few feet.... so sue me. In 5 years no one will know or care!

Ken

Wilson, (and anyone going to Chester Saturday July 14 !)

Here's a good read from Lassen N.F. web site.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/lassen/projects/NEPA_projects/route/#status

Take a look at it, and compare that with what you heard Saturday... Apples and Oranges...and should be pointed out at next Saturday's Open house. Especially this part:

Current Status

The Lassen National Forest has now completed Step 1 and Step 2 of the Route Designation process.

* Contractors completed an inventory of 4,088 routes across the Forest in November 2004. They mapped a total of 1,121 miles.
* The public reviewed the inventory in 2005 and submitted maps of some missed routes. This added another 320 miles to our Forest inventory. A few more miles were also mapped in 2006.
* Final inventory maps were completed in October 2006 and posted on this site.
* The comment period for the route inventory is closed. The Forest Service will no longer be adding new routes to the inventory.

As of June 5th, 2007 Step 2 of the Route Designation process has been completed and will go into effect July 12, 2007. Once the Order is in effect maps will be available free of charge at Lassen National Forest Offices.

(me) Above do you see the net loss of 90 miles of trails they removed?

Then this:

From September 18th to December 8th, 2006, we asked for your help in “nominating” routes or areas you would like to either designate for motor vehicle travel, to close, or to convert to a non-motorized trail. Maps of your proposed routes have now been prepared and will be presented at two July open houses.

A “discussion draft” of our proposed transportation system has been developed based on public feedback and other evaluation criteria. Together, we will review the “discussion draft” and assess whether the proposed routes provide a sustainable OHV system.

The “discussion draft” includes loops and access to fishing areas or favorite dispersed camp sites with as many linking roads as possible. Route evaluation criteria for step 4 (the environmental analysis of the proposed system) will also be presented for your review.

(me) Do you see any loops left? (That answer is NO)

Then this:

Summary of Respondents Feedback from Fall 2006 Comment Period



An Overview of Public Comments
3/15/07

A total of 878 public feedback forms were submitted by December 8, 2006 with 2,140 non-system and system routes identified.

* Respondents wanted loops. They also wanted loops that would interconnect with each other. A lot of feedback forms mentioned being able to spend a part or a whole day in an area depending on how many different routes respondents felt like taking.
* Respondents liked routes that had a destination or a scenic trip to a destination. Feedback forms would have comments like “Route has great views of Lassen Peak up to the ridge top”, or “I ride this route often to see the lake.” There were fewer comments about the nice ride in the woods than comments about views or a destination.
* Respondents see no problem with mixed use and recommended it on most routes, both unclassified and classified.
* Respondents did not want to have to trailer up their vehicles to continue their ride. They wanted different areas connected by mixed use routes.
* Respondents preferred remote areas over more populated areas. Feedback forms had comments like “good ride in a remote area” or “a great place to ride in the woods”. There were also a few comments like “a great place for all the people from Redding to ride.”
* Respondents showed little concern if their route was on private property. Many feedback forms had routes or portions of routes highlighted across private land, even if the map legend showed there was no legal access.

There were only a handful of comments that said keep every route open.

Most feedback forms were well thought out. Respondents had obviously spent a good bit of time capturing their thoughts. The forms showed respondents were taking this quite seriously and were willing to use their free time to be heard.

Most feed back forms were completed by motorized users (over 90%). Besides one block of forms from one respondent, the “close the route” segment of our publics did not use the forms to express their input into the process.

There were not many comments from single track users. Not many requests for less than 50 inch routes, but respondents had no problem with mixed use.

Most feed back forms did not have question #5 about risks and risk avoidance completed. If they did mention risks or problems with a route they captured that thought in the comment section of question #6.

Many people did not use a numerical value to show how often they used a route. Instead of “20” they would say “every weekend during the summer”.

(me) Did they give us ANYTHING we asked for? (That answer is NO)

Ken,
who is posting here because our own boards are being read by those I'm talking about, they acknowledged that to Darryl & Chris

For the High Lakes closures they put the signs in the wrong spots from where they said they would be.:mad3:


More later.

We need to get our comment forms in by (postmarked by) August 1st!! So much for the 45 days that we thought we were getting. Check out the Betnt and twisted site posted at the top and the pantheus website as well for more info. Or post up here if you need more info on what to do. We are going to get these forms out to as many as possible and every shop in town.

wilson Get A Hold Of Me! I Did Some Work On The Bnt Board For You All You Will See It When You Log On ! Give Me A Call So I Cant Tell Ya How To Do A Few Things!

That's nice, thank you! So for all of us here we have:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is to help all of us fill out these forms accurately and just how they want them.

ROUND TABLE PIZZA PARADISE
WEDNESDAY JULY 25TH
6:30P.M. TO 9:30P.M.

SPREAD THE WORD LIKE WILDFIRE!!!!

Wilson, what's the deal with this LEO? Sounds like he's got a hard on for wheelers. Perhaps some complaints need to be brought up against him. Also, find out about this contracted hydrologist. If he can be linked to any enviromental groups, his input can be challenged as conflict of interest. That goes for any other private entities involved in the process. The Forest Circus:rainbow: is only pretending to play nice with this Route Designation Process. I think the only way for this B.S. to really stop will be a big, expensive lawsuit. :barf:

He's working backwards. The biggest problem in the High Lakes is that it hasn't been patrolled enough for 15 years. I think he is trying to make a statement, but at the same time, people are used to getting away with things that are common sense or known facts becaseu no one was there to stop them. Your vehicle needs to be registered and current, you need to wear your seatbelt. Funny rocks is off lmits, open containers are not allowed....these are really what he's writing tickets for.

The hydrologist does seem to be a bit "green" google his name and see what you find; Roger Poff. He is responsible for recommending the closure of Saddle Lake, the trails past Grassy to Rock Creek and Cow Camp, and the "Pipejam" trail.

The stage we're currently in is really the last step for us to play by the rules, if at the end we still feel that our interests haven't been adequatley represented, we'll have to cross that bridge.

well 3 weeks ago i got a ticket from the red head guy. and the hydrologist was with him, and about 10 other wheelers and myself asked him on his opinion for the rock garden. and he said it was not hurting a damn thing and he thinks they should open it, the other guy is on a power trip and he just looking for anything to write you up for. now i have to tow to the t everytime i want to go to morris because there handing out tickets for green stickered rigs on the dirt road now. does this mean they tow there quads to the t also?

It has always been illegal to drive a green / red stickered, non-street legal vehicle past Inskip. That is the function of the California Vehicle Code, though, NOT the USFS. Yet, I know quite a few do ! It seems very lightly enforced, but sure could be !

There are two things in the "wind" that may in the future, help that issue.

If Kim Yamaguchi, Butte County Sup'r get his"fire exit road" off the ridge to go out to Butte Meadows, that would pave it and make it legal to go to the "Y" or "diamond", where we go straight and Butte Meadows turns left. I don't hold my breath for that one though.

The other would make the road system from the Philbrook turn a level 2 road, and you'd be able to tow to, for example, the fishing parking lot at Philbrook, and ride from there IF / or when that happened.

But the way it stands right now, towing to the "T", or to at least within 3 miles of it, is the best green or red stickered, non-street legal rigs, can get.

Just because we do it, and have for a long time, doesn't mean its been legal, and we can sure be ticketed.

But this has nothing to do with USFS or Lassen N.F. that is the realm of the CHP and or County Sheriff.

Been a while, good to see you Hans !

Ken

COMMENT FORM WORKSHOP MEETING WEDNESDAY 25TH ROUND TABLE PIZZA PARADISE. Show up between 6:30-9p.m. Tell everyone!!!!!!!

I attended the workshop meeting at round table last night and was wondering what website to go to so that I could find out the forest service system road numbers and have a better understanding of the maps that were shown and given out? I was glad to see that so many people showed up for the meeting but all the forms, maps, and crowd of people in that tiny room made things slightly difficult. I'm not giving up though and I will get those forms in asap if someone can help me and give me the website with more info.

The reason about 225 people showed up at the workshop last night was to HELP you understand what forms were needed, and what needed to be said about each trail, and what maps to attach, with the comment form. The maps and forms, and a lot of help was there.

I'm sorry you didn't ask what to do. Or find someone to help.

Since we are both in Magalia I'd offer to help again. If you'd rather do it by email then send me your email address to ken (at) pantheus (dot) com and I'll give you an "email workshop".

Having everything online would / could cause a bunch of cookie-cutter / rubber-stamp responses, and the USFS would ignore them. Each person has to find the correct map for each trail, and write individual reasons why that trail / segment is important to YOU.

Ken

Wheelinyotagirl.... The maps and decriptions will be on display at the OFF-ROAD CENTER @ 8935 Skyway thru August. Good luck catching him there....norm(joke of the day)

The reason about 225 people showed up at the workshop last night was to HELP you understand what forms were needed, and what needed to be said about each trail, and what maps to attach, with the comment form. The maps and forms, and a lot of help was there.

I'm sorry you didn't ask what to do. Or find someone to help.


Yeah I thought thats what the workshop was for too but I'm guessing that because there were so many people thats why I didnt get the individual help and questions answered that I needed. I was there, I was involved and went around and looked at and gathered info. but not everything was fully explained..sorry for asking. :shaking:

Wheelinyotagirl.... The maps and decriptions will be on display at the OFF-ROAD CENTER @ 8935 Skyway thru August. Good luck catching him there....norm(joke of the day)

Thanks for your help. I've gotten ahold of a friend of mine with a fully detailed map thats easier to read and explain to others. I'm going to reference that. Thanks again. :)

Having everything online would / could cause a bunch of cookie-cutter / rubber-stamp responses, and the USFS would ignore them. Each person has to find the correct map for each trail, and write individual reasons why that trail / segment is important to YOU.

Ken

Yeah I agree but there could also be some of us out there that will actually send in an individual, personal response that will mean something and stand out and be read. I'd rather take the chance of there being more help. Let em ignore the general responses.

I forgot to mention the deadline (Mailing post mark) is August 1st. But I will the marked maps up so the people who don't get off there butt, so they see the trails they lost.....thanks....norm

Yeah I thought thats what the workshop was for too but I'm guessing that because there were so many people thats why I didnt get the individual help and questions answered that I needed. I was there, I was involved and went around and looked at and gathered info. but not everything was fully explained..sorry for asking. :shaking:

I do hope that your friend's map has everything properly labled and that it is the right map to send in. It may be hard to understand, but the FS is not making this an easy process. The maps we had last night are the maps you need to send in, you can't just send in any map that you find on their website. Unfortunately the roads on the map they want you to send in, are not labled. You'll need to reference another map to get those, find the proper route number, and find the section umber, etc. Remember, 1 comment form per trail, but one map could be used to identify several trails (if they are in the same quarter-quadrant). The biggest problem last night was that everyone showed up right at 6:30. The response was incredible, and as a result there wasn't much time for general questions and answers due to the deadline we're up against. We had to focus on getting 225 people set straight on which map to use, how to label it, what to label and how to properly fill out the comment form. For 4 guys and a couple of rovers; it was a ton of work. Thank you Ken, Norm and Brian for lightening the load and trying to field questions.

We will hold another meeting either in August or early September, before the release of the DEIS. This will be an informational and discussion-based meeting. I'm closely watching how things are playing out with Eldorado, and if others do the same, you'll get an idea of what we can expect to be up against. I'll have some more breaking news in the next few weeks, but KEEP SPREADING THE WORD. WE WILL NEED EVERYONE'S HELP TO KEEP OUR TRAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS PM ME HERE, OR EMAIL: ONMYLID@AOL.COM

I do hope that your friend's map has everything properly labled and that it is the right map to send in. It may be hard to understand, but the FS is not making this an easy process. The maps we had last night are the maps you need to send in, you can't just send in any map that you find on their website. Unfortunately the roads on the map they want you to send in, are not labled. You'll need to reference another map to get those, find the proper route number, and find the section umber, etc. Remember, 1 comment form per trail, but one map could be used to identify several trails (if they are in the same quarter-quadrant). The biggest problem last night was that everyone showed up right at 6:30. The response was incredible, and as a result there wasn't much time for general questions and answers due to the deadline we're up against. We had to focus on getting 225 people set straight on which map to use, how to label it, what to label and how to properly fill out the comment form. For 4 guys and a couple of rovers; it was a ton of work. Thank you Ken, Norm and Brian for lightening the load and trying to field questions.

We will hold another meeting either in August or early September, before the release of the DEIS. This will be an informational and discussion-based meeting. I'm closely watching how things are playing out with Eldorado, and if others do the same, you'll get an idea of what we can expect to be up against. I'll have some more breaking news in the next few weeks, but KEEP SPREADING THE WORD. WE WILL NEED EVERYONE'S HELP TO KEEP OUR TRAILS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS PM ME HERE, OR EMAIL: ONMYLID@AOL.COM
I was able to grab a copy of all the maps from the meeting and they were all highlighted and labeled. I scanned them on my computer and posted them so people could see. I also posted links to the lassen national forest website so that they could download all the appropriate forms and maps from there too. I attached this thread to my posts so that everyone could reference what all of you guys have been posting as well. Just trying to get the word out there and get everyone the right info. so that people arent sending in a bunch of junk. I also want to thank the guys (Ken, Norm and Brian) for helping with the meeting. I think they did a great job. I was just left with a few minor questions but they have since been answered. Thanks and I hope we can all tackle this thing and keep our trails open :)

http://board.marlincrawler.com/index.php?topic=35507.new#new
There is the link to the thread I've been posting info. on for the Marlin guys. If you see an error or think you can explain it better or have an addition to the info. please feel free to help me and or correct my errors. I just ask that you keep in mind I'm only trying to help since no one else had posted anything about the meeting or info.

A lot of the info has already been posted on bentandtwisted.com and 4x4trailfinders.com as well.

A lot of the info has already been posted on bentandtwisted.com and 4x4trailfinders.com as well.
Yeah I know, i meant no one had posted anything about the highlakes meeting on the marlin board.

Wilson, good job on having enough maps:bounce: Next time we need to have the meeting in a larger place:eek: That was a amazing turnout of people, hopefully most of them will get their forms done and sent in by the Aug 1st postmark.

If anyone still needs help, just PM me for #

I'm down in Chico if you dont want to drive up the hill, and its easier to catch me after 5pm

Wilson, good job on having enough maps:bounce: Next time we need to have the meeting in a larger place:eek: That was a amazing turnout of people, hopefully most of them will get their forms done and sent in by the Aug 1st postmark.

If anyone still needs help, just PM me for #

I'm down in Chico if you dont want to drive up the hill, and its easier to catch me after 5pm

Yeah, we talked about needing mroe space, and it gets damn hot in that room. We had approximately 600+ comment forms and 4-500 maps on hand, at the meeting. I personally copied 300 maps and 400 comment forms. There were 4 of each when I left.

Yeah I know, i meant no one had posted anything about the highlakes meeting on the marlin board.

Don't have time to check now, but pretty sure I started a High Lakes in trouble thread, with a link to either Bnt or trail finders. I didn't do a good job of keeping up with that one. Most people are on this board as well and I relied on the link for others to follow.

Don't have time to check now, but pretty sure I started a High Lakes in trouble thread, with a link to either Bnt or trail finders. I didn't do a good job of keeping up with that one. Most people are on this board as well and I relied on the link for others to follow.
Well, not very many people over there really knew about it so I reposted and put up more info. Either way its there and people can see it, use the info.

WHEELINYOTAGIRL..... Great job with the posts and maps on martincrawler board. I have couple of other numbers for you if you get down town.....norm

Contact your Representatives. This site allows you to enter your zip, and will give you the contact info you need.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

someone i know said they have closed highlakes at springvalley lake...big yellow gate going across the trail.anyone hear anything about this??

someone i know said they have closed highlakes at springvalley lake...big yellow gate going across the trail.anyone hear anything about this??

The rumor floats, and I know of no one yet, to confirm or deny, but I'd be very surprised there was a gate. It *IS* an open area, and with the exception of three "emergency" forest order closures, nothing else can be in effect yet.

The ONLY entity that *could* have legal rights to close it would be the private land owners at Lott Lake or the private land owner at Spring Valley (SPI). The USFS does NOT (yet) have the rights to close anything beyond the three emergency closures.

My guess is that from newspaper articles particularly the first in the Paradise Post which mistakenly said OHV users need to find another way in, got twisted to closed.

I know a few guys going up this weekend and I'm sure by Sunday night, Monday morning we'll hear facts.

Ken

The rumor floats, and I know of no one yet, to confirm or deny, but I'd be very surprised there was a gate. It *IS* an open area, and with the exception of three "emergency" forest order closures, nothing else can be in effect yet.

The ONLY entity that *could* have legal rights to close it would be the private land owners at Lott Lake or the private land owner at Spring Valley (SPI). The USFS does NOT (yet) have the rights to close anything beyond the three emergency closures.

My guess is that from newspaper articles particularly the first in the Paradise Post which mistakenly said OHV users need to find another way in, got twisted to closed.

I know a few guys going up this weekend and I'm sure by Sunday night, Monday morning we'll hear facts.

Ken

I have to do some research, but there is a public right-of-way law regarding routes through private land. If the route has been around a certain amount of time, is regularly used, and/or is the only way from public land to other public land, then there exists a public right-of-way. I have been told that SPI has put the gate up at Spring Valley, and if that is the case it is illegal, but probably being done in cahoots with the Forest Circus, sleeping with the enemy sort of deal. Another legal issue may be whether or not SPI actually owns the land or just leases it from the Circus. I know that SPI doesn't pay much in the way of property taxes, indicating the most of their land holdings are indeed leases. If they are mere lessees, then they have no right what-so-ever to put up gates. I think I'll put a gate up across the road up in Campbelville and fix their little red wagon.
Anyone care to weigh in on this?
All info is appreciated.

RS2477 will get this gate(if it is up) taken down, but the county needs to do the intervening. This goes as well for all the SPI gates off of HWY32 and Cohassett Road.

In Hatch Bros. Co. v. Black, 1917, the Wyoming court addressed the validity of a public road right-of-way grant without formal acceptance of that right by state or local authorities. The court stated, “The grant is unconditional and contains no provision as to the manner of its acceptance. We think it is quite well settled that when land is granted for a right of way for a public highway, the grant may be accepted by the public without action by the public authorities. The continued use of the road by the public for such a length of time and in such circumstances as to clearly indicate an intention on the part of the public to accept the grant has generally been held sufficient.” (Hatch Bros. Co. v. Black, 165 P. 519, Wyoming 1917)

Justice Field, U.S. Supreme Court, in Jennison v. Kirk, 1879, stated that the 1866 act was a mere recognition by the government of its obligation “to respect private rights which had grown up under its tacit consent and approval. It proposed no new system, but sanctioned, regulated, and confirmed a system already established, to which the people were attached. Cong. Globe 1st Session, 39th Congress, Part IV, pp. 3225-3228.” (98 U.S. 453, 25 L.Ed. 240, 243, 1879.)


In United States v. 9,947.71 Acres of Land, the federal district court determined that RS2477 was a grant in praesenti that became effective immediately upon construction of a road. This case addressed a road constructed across unreserved public lands in 1921 by Nevada miners seeking access to their mining claims. The court held that right-of-way to this road vested in the miners and their successors in ownership without any further action by the miners or any public official. Thus, although no recorded acknowledgement of this right-of-way existed, the United States had to compensate the mining companies for taking the associated land and road right-of-way to construct Lake Meade Air Base. The United States was not allowed to “require” public use of this road, that is, to “take” the right-of-way from the miners for public use without compensating the owners. (United States v. 9,947.71 Acres of Land, 220 FS 328, DC Nev. 1963)

There is a ton of legal presedent for this, dating back 100+ years, and recently as well. This one though is the sliver bullet:

In Wilkenson v. Dept. of Interior, the federal court addressed the nature or extent of use necessary to perfect an RS2477 right-of-way. “User is the requisite element, and it may be by any who have occasion to travel over public lands, and if the use be by only one, still it suffices.” (Wilkenson v. Dept. of Interior, 634 F. Supp. 1265, 1272, D.Colo. 1986)

We need a lawyer ASAP!!! Some lawyer out there has got to be a wheeler.

RS2477 will get this gate(if it is up) taken down, but the county needs to do the intervening.


The county isn't involved at that point in any way. It is either USFS, or SPI, or Lott Lake cabin owners. We have a verbal from the cabin owners, USFS is negotiating with SPI for rights, and we're talking to them, so it isn't likely them, either.

The USFS cannot create a closure without an emergency forest order, and I'm talking to them almost daily, and have not heard a whisper of any gate.

My guess is that there isn't a gate, and the rumor is false, but we'll know within 48 hours as many have gone up there last night and today. I'll then deal with whatever has (or hasn't happened.) My best bet is on false rumor though.


We need a lawyer ASAP!!! Some lawyer out there has got to be a wheeler.

We need to find out IF there is a gate, and by whom, and why, first ! I'm still feeling it is a rumor gone bad.

RS 2477, which I'm very well aware of, isn't the first choice, implied dedication, and prescriptive easements are way before RS 2477. No one needs another 10 year battle with RS 2477, without 100% resolution, and besides it appears Spring Valley has been PRIVATE ownership, since the 1903 / 4 acquisition by Diamond Match so never (in recent times) US Government property, anyway. Working with SPI is a lot easier than courts (with huge associated costs) !

Ken

I respectfully disagree on the part about it being easier to deal with SPI. Just ask the land owners in Cohasset and Forest Ranch. SPI has been gating roads up there for years without reason, and none have been reopened as of yet. I do have a querry in to an employee of SPI to see what's going on. I'll post if I find anything out.

it appears Spring Valley has been PRIVATE ownership, since the 1903 / 4 acquisition by Diamond Match so never (in recent times) US Government property, anyway.

Ken

RS2477 was enacted in 1866, and any land not privately owned was considered "public domain" or "public lands," open to homesteading and mining claims, and that was the case when RS-2477 became law in 1866. Basically, it says that if there's a public road constructed across public land, the public's right to use the road remains, even if there's a change in the status of the public land it crosses. In other words, that the land was sold to Diamond Match doesn't matter, if it was aquired in 1903-4.

I just received this email from the Recreation officer of Lassen N.F.


While taking the Botanists into the High Lakes area, we noticed that the
closure signs past Grassy Lake had been run over and removed (I looked
extensively, but couldn't find the old one). The botanists later reported
that the closure sign past Reese Flat had been sawed off and removed as
well. The signs at the turn off to Saddle Lake are still there. Don't
know about the closure south of Bear Lake.


This type of activity should NOT, and cannot be part of us keeping any part of the High Lakes for wheeling.

It must stop, and I know it isn't the 95% of the users, who go up there and act responsibly, but the 5% who just don't give a damn. But we who do care, have to stop those who don't care. Or we'll be learning to knit and selling the rigs.

Vigilante-ism is NOT the answer, as with one stroke of a pen, the whole area can be 'emergency-closed", and let the area rest and recover for 10-15 years, like the Hydrolgist's report says it will take to recover, from abuse and vigilante actions.

Any doubts? Look how easy it was for them to make the last three 'emergency' closures.

Ken

RS2477 was enacted in 1866, and any land not privately owned was considered "public domain" or "public lands," open to homesteading and mining claims, and that was the case when RS-2477 became law in 1866. Basically, it says that if there's a public road constructed across public land, the public's right to use the road remains, even if there's a change in the status of the public land it crosses. In other words, that the land was sold to Diamond Match doesn't matter, if it was aquired in 1903-4.

You are only partially correct, WRT RS 2477.

RS 2477 did NOT become law in 1866 ! Old mining laws did.

The 1866 mining laws from which RS 2477 grew were entirely thrown out with the 1976 FLPMA (Federal Land Management Act). BUT ... the one sentence of the 1866 mining laws remained and became RS (revised statute) 2477. That one sentence says: " the right of way for the construction of highways across public lands not otherwise reserved for public purposes is hereby granted."

So the date that matters as to ownership is 1976, not 1866. Since Diamond Match / SPI have owned it since 1903/4 RS 2477 is moot on Spring Valley, as well as section 3, needed for the North Valley Trail loop.

You if you are going to advocate willy-nilly use of RS 2477, spend a week at: http://www.rs2477roads.com/ taking EVERY link from it, and reading and digesting it, like I did. Don't just take a couple posts on PBB as fact, that anything can and will happen within decades via RS 2477, if ever, to regain ground.

Ken

Actually, I was citing case law from as recently as 1986, and none of the information I have referred to was taken from PBB, for your information. It was all from law and news websites that I found from googling "public rights-of-way" that in turn referred to RS2477. Apparently you know everything there is to know about this though. The issue here is existing RS2477 routes, which are rights-of-way. Repealing RS2477 didn't take away what already existed, it just means that it can't be used to create new rights of way. So, if it can be proven that a road was created prior to 1976 under the RS2477, or the Mining Act of 1866, which it was part of, then that route can be protected by it.

In Wilkenson v. Dept. of Interior, the federal court addressed the nature or extent of use necessary to perfect an RS2477 right-of-way. “User is the requisite element, and it may be by any who have occasion to travel over public lands, and if the use be by only one, still it suffices.” (Wilkenson v. Dept. of Interior, 634 F. Supp. 1265, 1272, D.Colo. 1986)

The route we are talking about is from public land to public land, over private land that was not always private. It was once public land, possibly as recently as 1902 or 1903.

From the National Public Lands website:
"R.S. 2477 was adopted by Congress in 1866 and granted a right-of-way for the construction of highways across public land not reserved for public uses. In the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), enacted in 1976, Congress repealed R.S. 2477, but did not terminate valid rights-of-way existing on the date of FLPMA's enactment. "
There is nothing willy-nilly about this, and I do not appreciate your tone. A negative attitude will only discourage people from helping. Your rude response has made me want to say ,"screw it, I haven't wheeled up there for six years, I don't give a shit, so what if it closes."
Perhaps you need to rethink your strategy, and spend one more week going over http://www.rs2477roads.com/.

Guys, don't get hung up on RS-2477.

Going back to the original statue, there is a clause you are overlooking that is key -- "...not otherwise reserved..."

Basically, you need to look at every parcel of ground and determine when it was "reserved" for a purpose.

Keep in mind, RS-2477 applies to lands in FEDERAL ownership.

The Utah Association of Counties is perhaps the most knowledgeable "authority" on RS-2477.

At issue is to "prove" RS-2477 means you need to have the county putting forth the assertion AND keep in mind that validity will be determined by the court. In this case, the Ninth Circuit will be deciding the validity. That is not a friendly court to have rule on an important issue.

forbergler,

I apologize if my tone was found to be rude or condescending. I've been beat up with issues, largely with the RDP in Lassen, and the High Lakes in general, for about 3 weeks, 24/7.

Before that I spent (too much) time researching RS 2477 in hopes it could or would be of help up there. I finally decided implied dedication or prescriptive easement may offer a better possibility.

While I did find an Appeal in a California case, that may provide a glimmer of help, I found most of the case law was Utah and Colorado based, and each state has their own ability to decide. What else I found is that in Colorado some cases have spent more than TEN years, with no judgment, yet.

I also found that (most) judgments were Department of Interior (BLM), not Agriculture (USFS) based.

I apologize to you if I was sharp, and too fast on the draw. That (RS 2477) is a sore subject with me, knowing it isn't likely even possible, in time to do anything. And unless a pro bono firm would get involved, far beyond the scope of any groups I know.

Keep up the good fight.

Ken

I understand. I'm trying to be involved in the RDP for Eldorado, Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe, as all have areas that are very important to me, and have been for a long time. It just seems very plain to mean that if one could prove that any route was established by RS2477, that it could be defended easily because of its history as such. I can understand how recent "land grab" attempts under that statute are being shot down, but not how they can deny what was already there. Alas, neither here nor there, I will be calling the Plumas County Clerk on Monday to see if I can determine whether an easement exists on the SPI property at Spring Valley. My money is on "Yes", just due to a recent property purchase where the parcel maps I looked at were full of easements. If there is a gate up at SV, an existing easement will be the quickest way to get it taken down, without legal intervention. Hopefully.

someone i know said they have closed highlakes at springvalley lake...big yellow gate going across the trail.anyone hear anything about this??

The rumor is FALSE !

Here is what Scooterloo who just returned reported on another board:

from: Wilson on Today at 12:58:05 pm
Sooooo, any new yellow gates up there?


Negative. Smiley

There were alot of people up there though, exactly why we camped at xxxxxxxx..........

Don't tell anyone but nobody camps there!! Just the way we like it Grin

BTW. The emergency closure map was posted at the new kiosk at spring valley.


Just as I suspected. The rumor mill runs faster than those who join the fight..

Ken

That's good news.

no gates. but it is confirmed that the red markers going into grassy the back way were ran over a few weeks ago and only a little bit of red stubs stick out. Then exiting from grassy towards the r-line, there are no red markers indicating the trail is closed anywhere that I saw nearby, but I don't know exactly how far back they posted it being closed. Saddle remains closed and properly marked. That's my report as of sunday with lots of traffic!!