Look, folks, we need some letters. I ganked the posts below from some pretty important people and copied them out of that poll, to leave them here under the spotlight. WE NEED YOUR HELP -- the County needs to hear YOUR voice in YOUR words -- putting things on Pirate4x4.com does NOT mean you've put your thoughts on the public record.

Please write your specific suggestions to Tom Celio at: tcelio@co.el-dorado.ca.us

Randii

I voted "No - Never - Leave the box alone!". Anything else is retarded, IMO. If it's too hard for you, stack rocks (there are plenty), or go around.

Of course I'm sure the powers that be have already made up their minds and once again will do what they please.

I said it along time ago and I said it when I was a Director on the RTF. Decisions and direction in the County happen behind closed doors (Big Ones). Its at BBQ's, quiet conversations between bigwigs and people who are or think they are in the "KNOW".

While Public input and meetings are great and meets requirements, there is another element on the Rubicon that did'nt exist or was'nt apparent years ago. That element is Private Property Owners with Cabins on cabins being built at Spider lake and other propertys along the trail. It is my opinion that these folks have a vested interest in the long term Lil Sluice solution. If I had a cabin over the hill I might think differently as well. Don't discredit the weight these folfs hold with the powers to be at the DOT & County level.

Lance said what I have been holding back from saying. The Lil Sluice will be modified to some extent and that is a fact. The total extent and when it will happen is the $1000 question.

Thats my opinion...take it for what its worth.

Kevin Carey

I said it along time ago and I said it when I was a Director on the RTF. Decisions and direction in the County happen behind closed doors (Big Ones). Its at BBQ's, quiet conversations between bigwigs and people who are or think they are in the "KNOW".

While Public input and meetings are great and meets requirements, there is another element on the Rubicon that did'nt exist or was'nt apparent years ago. That element is Private Property Owners with Cabins on cabins being built at Spider lake and other propertys along the trail. It is my opinion that these folks have a vested interest in the long term Lil Sluice solution. If I had a cabin over the hill I might think differently as well. Don't discredit the weight these folfs hold with the powers to be at the DOT & County level.

Lance said what I have been holding back from saying. The Lil Sluice will be modified to some extent and that is a fact. The total extent and when it will happen is the $1000 question.

Thats my opinion...take it for what its worth.

Kevin Carey

I'm going to hope that a public process will at least allow us the opportunity to manage the area with volunteers before the decision is made to crack the rocks.

Hope against hope.

I said it along time ago and I said it when I was a Director on the RTF. Decisions and direction in the County happen behind closed doors (Big Ones). Its at BBQ's, quiet conversations between bigwigs and people who are or think they are in the "KNOW".
I believe that happens in all forms of government, to some extent. The challenge is to get good folks in that discussion for you -- preferably folks who try hard to dispell the smoke and mirrors, and at least crack the windows in that smokey back room. FOTR and RTF have been working to do this for years, and will continue to do so.

I honestly feel that my voice has no chance...
You definitely have no chance of being heard if you don't write a letter. The anti's are busily writing THEIR letters -- we need to be damn sure that our side writes as many or more! Often-times, the letters define the sideboards of the discussion, and compromise comes out of the middle -- your letter may not be about the middle, but it helps define the endpoints of discussion -- WRITE YOUR LETTERS!

Lance said what I have been holding back from saying. The Lil Sluice will be modified to some extent and that is a fact.
I respectfully disagree with both of you -- I believe this is not yet determined. I believe that *WE* can affect our reality, and I believe that all of us need to get to letter-writing...

All of YOU... not just Lance, Kevin, or Keith. If YOU don't write a letter, then YOU are surrendering. Yeah, there will be folks like me that are just too stubborn to even think of quitting, and we'll represent YOU anyway, but we'll be better armed, better prepared, and better able to defend this public right-of-way if YOU send in YOUR letter and say what YOU think.

Randii

Yeah, there will be folks like me that are just too stubborn to even think of quitting

:raises hand:

mee too:)

Extended Letter sent................

Mine tooooooo

Sent mine in a couple of days ago.

Me too

Excellent work, gentlemen -- by sending in a letter, you have secured standing in the process and guaranteed that your voice is heard. You'll have to keep on it to make sure your voice stays represented, but you've taken the first step. :mr-t:

Randii

While I'm not a big letter writer, I managed to put something together that states my position and values.

Sent

While I'm not a big letter writer, I managed to put something together that states my position and values.

Sent

Thanks Eric! I'm sure you got your point across :smokin:

I voted "No - Never - Leave the box alone!". Anything else is retarded, IMO. If it's too hard for you, stack rocks (there are plenty), or go around.

Of course I'm sure the powers that be have already made up their minds and once again will do what they please.

Hey Lance, if the box is gone what happens to THE pirates? No more prospects to blind-fold and run the gauntlet?

Another thought is that any folks that want hardcore action will find it elsewhere. An outlaw or two will surely cut new trails and pick new lines that will tweak other parts of the trail.

We'll stack on this hard to press it to not happen. Let's stay together and be ready when the time comes to fight it to the end.

You show me a "blow up date", I'll show you handfuls of people hugging rocks like the treehuggers do when their favorite tree is gonna get chopped...

:mr-t:

See you at the meeting. And I'll be talking to Tom next week. Been a while since he and I have had a chat. Diane R.(F. supervisor) was on the phone with me 2 days ago and she said she's not against the idea of restroom applications at sluice. She's ready to hear ideas. Tom said the same thing last year.

Sent my letter.

Listed my clubs and associations.

Todd

Done I really hope that the box will continue to be the jewel of the rubicon and remain untouched

Hey Lance, if the box is gone what happens to THE pirates? No more prospects to blind-fold and run the gauntlet?

Another thought is that any folks that want hardcore action will find it elsewhere. An outlaw or two will surely cut new trails and pick new lines that will tweak other parts of the trail.

We'll stack on this hard to press it to not happen. Let's stay together and be ready when the time comes to fight it to the end.

You show me a "blow up date", I'll show you handfuls of people hugging rocks like the treehuggers do when their favorite tree is gonna get chopped...

:mr-t:

See you at the meeting. And I'll be talking to Tom next week. Been a while since he and I have had a chat. Diane R.(F. supervisor) was on the phone with me 2 days ago and she said she's not against the idea of restroom applications at sluice. She's ready to hear ideas. Tom said the same thing last year.

Just so you know Lance isnt a Pirate Club member and has'nt been for years. I also recently retired my membership too. I am sure the club will find another location to hold initiations:)

We all have a vested interest in not losing anymore areas on the Rubicon!

Regards,

KC

My letter:

From: Lance Clifford
Date: August 3, 2009 2:11:16 PM PDT
To: tcelio@co.el-dorado.ca.us
Subject: Little Sluice

Dear Mr. Celio,

I wanted to take a moment of your time to give you my thoughts on the Rubicon Trail, more specifically "Little Sluice".

I have been a user of the Rubicon Trail for 20 years now, ever since I first got my driver's license at 16 years old. I consider myself a responsible user of not only the Rubicon Trail and have always practiced what I preached, and always haul out more than I haul in. As a past member (and founder) of the Pirates of the Rubicon 4wd club that Mike Overmeyer is now president of, I have helped orchestrate many cleanups in the Little Sluice and Spider Lake area. Before our cleanups, there was 50+ years of trash in the area. We recognized the issue way before the county and/or CA Water Board had Rubicon on their radar screen. Please see the following article written in 1997 - http://www.pirate4x4.com/trailreports/trail_cleanups/spider_lake_1997/index.html

As you know, back in the early to mid 1990's a few decided the Little Sluice was too easy and pulled a rock into the middle of the trail. In the following year yet another rock was pulled into the sluice, and then another rock fell in (from natural causes, I believe). Fast forward 15 years to 2009. We now have every evironmentalist with nothing better to do than to spend their waking hours trying to get Rubicon Trail, the United State's off roading crown jewel, closed. And as you know, they are using whatever means they can to close it.

The off road community has stepped up each time a so-called problem arises by the environmentalists, and the "issues" are mitigated. With the recent so-called water quality issues in the spot light, Little Sluice is now center stage for so-called water quality issues, and possible crowd control issues.

I can say with certainty that there is no "new" problem at Little Sluice. There has been crowds there for 20 years. Here are two photos of Little Sluice from 1998, you can see there are plenty of people there -

[pic1] [pic2]

The crowds are no larger now than they were back then. Some might even argue that they are smaller now with the closure of Spider Lake camping.

So what is the point of my email? I guess my point is this - Nothing really has changed in the Little Sluice area for well over a decade. I do see how things CAN be improved, however. I understand it is DOT's intention of blasting the Little Sluice to mitigate water quality issues, and to reduce the "Little Sluice Circus". I really believe that the proper answer is not blasting (as there is a legal and established bypass - I use it, my poor little Toyota isn't cool enough to make Little Sluice!) but education. I know that FOTR and others would be happy to take on the Little Sluice as a project, cleaning up the area even more, removing stains, possibly filling in holes with rocks (to make it a little more "doable by the average rock crawler") and educating users about how their actions are under a microscope. Trail Patrol efforts could be stepped up, and the encouragement of more of a law enforcement presence would certainly keep the unruly folks away. Perhaps an oil spill vending kiosk could be setup in the area to provide easy access to spill kits. There are so many options available and many volunteers willing to get their hands dirty that I hope you will consider before just deciding to "blow up the problem".

Thanks for your time,
Lance Clifford

Dear Mr. Celio,

I would like to thank you for allowing me an opportunity to make my comments on the issues that surround the Little Sluice, and my personal objection to removing, cold cracking, or clearing the obstacle in any way. As one of the Friends of the Rubicon Trail Bosses and Incident Commanders for this years work projects, I want to be clear that these comments are my own, and while they may represent some of the FOTR volunteers sentiments, I am certainly speaking only for myself in this correspondence.

In my personal opinion, this 'public right of way' is not static - it dynamically changes. As Eldorado County and the USFS took no action when the boulders were placed in the Little Sluice Box in 1992, they defaulted and thereby accepted the changes to the public right of way and those changes have become the present legal route. There are other routes that are usable in this area under the County's ROW (The Rubicon Trail and it's Variants) that should be satisfactory options to those who do not have 4x4's capable to tackle the current difficulty of the Little Sluice.

The "Little Sluice Project" has ranked 3 out of 5 on ROC's Priority list for the last two years (2007-2008). To begin a public process now in 2009 seems reasonable, but to put this project ahead of others that are critical to satisfying the CAO seems unwise. There is no indication from the CGS survey that the Little Sluice itself is causing erosion problems, nor is there evidence that the Little Sluice is contaminating Waters of the State. There is no reference to the Little Sluice in the Clean-up and Abatement Order. We have a limited amount of time to complete the work outlined by the CAO. Dividing forces over the controversial and highly emotional Little Sluice topic, and risking the reduction of willing volunteers at this time could be very detrimental to the volunteers willingness to support the trail work we so desperately need for the next 2-3 years at a minimum.

Any identifiable issue with the area can be fixed with already in place management practices, as it is already dealt with on the rest of the trail. The conditions at the box have improved exponentially over the last 2-3 years as education and law enforcement have improved. Because use is so concentrated in the Sluice/Spider area, it is more visible, but I can assure you that oil spills occur all along the trail, not just the box.

A bypass was made in 2003 by FOTR with ROC, RTF and FS approval so that all could enjoy the trail. Yet, this was not satisfactory for the traditionalists. Minimizing boulder size will not satisfy them either.

Friends of the Rubicon built the official Little Sluice bypass to ensure access and enjoyment for all types of users. We believe this bypass is an appropriate and viable alternative to keep traffic moving on the trail, and does not reduce user satisfaction on The Rubicon. We stand by our actions of the past, and we will continue to stand by our users.

Please allow me to quote directly from FOTR's Official response to the Draft RTMP in March 2005:

Common ground. FOTR recognizes the following:


The lawlessness at Little Sluice is a problem that is unacceptable.
The volume of people on the trail during the three major weekends created an unacceptable human waste issue at the Little Sluice/Spider Lake area.
There is an overall human waste issue on the trail.
Overuse has occurred in the Spider Lake and Little Sluice regions
There is a parking problem at Loon Lake on the access road and dams.
Volume spikes on the three weekends, Memorial Day, 4th of July and Labor Day generate most of the issues on the trail and left unmanaged will continue barring a drop in use.
A small percentage of trail users have acted without regard for the environment, themselves or the safety of others.
The 2004 closure of Spider Lake and the continued private property closure there along with anticipated Forest Service (FS) setbacks around Spider Lake will affect future use patterns drastically over the next several years.
Finally, FOTR also recognizes all these issues would have been avoided with engineered trail management, education and law enforcement.


How These Problems Evolved:

FOTR recognizes the issues on the trail evolved over several years and to put all the blame at one group’s feet is not fair. But no one should be shocked to see issues develop on the Rubicon Trail when it is virtually unmanaged by the counties and agencies that are responsible for trail. Problems will occur and should be dealt with in a timely manner or they snowball. This lack of management, education and law enforcement over the last decade is the problem. Not recognizing a change in use patterns and reacting accordingly is the problem. Rather than deal with the specific problems, the responses are emergency closures and talk of restrictions. Yes, closures and restrictions are the easiest and least expensive way to solve the problems. It worked at Bassi Falls. But locking the public out is failing the public. This pattern of closing land as a management solution is a major frustration within the off-road community. The Rubicon trail is the crown jewel for the off-road community. The management plan revolving around the Rubicon trail should be held up by the 4 wheeling community and the agencies countrywide as an example of how to properly manage such a trail without closure. Closures should be reserved for when the management process fails. Despite our frustrations and disagreements we do want to address the issues we see as problems.

Simply put, FOTR takes the position that given timely management, law enforcement and public education on this county road, like any other county road or heavily used recreation area, the need for closures and restrictions would not be necessary.

FOTR believes that implementation of the below improvements will drastically change the trail for the better. Volume will go down. People will know what is and is not allowed. The trail will be marked. Enforcement will be seen. Facilities for waste will be in place. These improvements are cheaper. They are acceptable to the off-road community. They include the off-road community as part of the solution and make overall sense with the effort to preserve the trail for future generations.

First Priority Improvements:

1.Install, service and/or repair permanent toilets at the Loon Lake and Wentworth entrances to the trail. Provide dumpsters at these locations as well.
2.El Dorado County and the Forest Service need to establish mandatory pack it out waste rules with each vehicle possessing wag bags for human waste and larger trash bags for general trash. Also each vehicle must possess an oil spill kit.
3.Address immediate needs in Little Sluice by anchoring rocks above Sluice with appropriate methods.
4.El Dorado County and the Forest Service need to establish a significant and regular law enforcement presence at the trailheads and on the trail. It must be visible and heavy on the three major weekends of the off road season.
5.El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office needs to coordinate and establish regular trail patrols by trained volunteers.
6.The Forest Service and El Dorado County need to establish a temporary/quick plan to resolve parking issues that include trailer parking at both Wentworth and Loon Lake.
7.FOTR and the Rubicon Trail Foundation need to establish kiosks at Wentworth and the Tahoe side to match the Loon Lake kiosk.
8.ROC and DOT need to establish trail signage that designates the proper routes of the trail. Specifically signs should clearly detail proper bypasses, environmentally sensitive areas, repair locations, distance markers etc.
9.Rubicon Trail Foundation along with FOTR & El Dorado County will provide from the kiosks: Wag bags/Trash bags and oil spill kits with education on their proper use. They will distribute trail maps and information on proper driving techniques and other general trail information.
10.USFS will provide a “reasonable” setback from Spider Lake and Buck Island Reservoir for camping, with certain distances well marked, considering water flow and geological formations.

Second Priority Improvements:

1.Eldorado County and the USDA Forest Service should establish toilet facilities at Ellis Creek, Spider Lake, and Buck Island to be brought in via helicopter upon snowmelt or Memorial Day and removed at first snow or following October 1st. Explore composting or other less expensive, self-sustaining facilities that could be brought in and out via helicopter or permanently fixed.
2.TheUSFS along with FOTR should develop and formalize spurs for camping areas at Spider Lake and Buck Island Reservoir.
3.El Dorado County and the USFS should develop and implement a permanent plan for parking.
4.El Dorado County and the USFS should identify and mark on any published maps GPS coordinates for emergency airlift. Also, they should coordinate with Cal Star and any other agencies to provide those coordinates.
5.If problems persist at Little Sluice, take actions to reduce volumes at that location…consider organized camping first as mentioned above. Then and only then consider modifying the conditions within Sluice to 1998 or prior levels, easier than it is now yet still tough and challenging. But then seriously consider developing an alternate location for extreme rock crawling not because anyone is encouraging it but because it is a reality and will find a new home on the trail if not addressed smartly.

FOTR has the following specific concerns with the RTMP:

Little Sluice:

It is FOTR’s position that if the above improvements are implemented the overall issues at Little Sluice will go away. And, FOTR recognizes that competition style rock crawling should not occur on the trail. However, we view discussions of blasting the rocks within the Sluice Box as premature and such actions should only occur if a completed and approved RTMP calls for such actions. The idea of modifying the Little Sluice without the other improvements listed above will resolve nothing. We do believe the above detailed improvements will resolve the problems there. But, in the event they don’t, we refer you #5 in the “Priority two improvements” listed above.

Del Albright has outlined above a similar program that I am prepared to personally assist groups in planning, managing and executing in the following months/years. It is a shame that there has been very little guidance for this user group, although the outreach has been effective, there are additional steps necessary to make the Little Sluice/Soup Bowl/Spider Lake area sustainable.

What truly amazes me is that what Mr. Albright asserts on behalf of Friends of the Rubicon is strikingly similar to the Friends of the Rubicon position today, 4 1/2 years later. Not much has changed except that in that time the area and conditions have improved.

Since this has come to light, I have stated that I do not feel that the users of Little Sluice have been allowed to organize and manage the area specifically. The education that has been so successful on the whole of the trail has not been focused with leadership in the Little Sluice area. We've preached tread lightly, use a wag bag, and pack out what you pack in and then some. It was definitely effective, and the area has improved, but not enough, it needs more specific management if it is to remain in tact.

Some possible SOLUTIONS to the known issues:


Human Waste - We'd like to organize a LS group pick up PETT systems (6) at the kiosk and set them up at sluice over the weekend.. Then pack everything up and take it back to the kiosk to the new wag bag collection receptacles.

Oil Containment and Clean Up - We'd like to have an oil spill containment crew assigned at Little Sluice for every weekend, either to provide the spill kits to the person that spilled, or help them get the spill cleaned up, or in case of an inconsiderate trail user, have the crew clean up the spill for them. The box should be cleaned early in the weekend and also before the end of the day on Sunday every weekend during the normal use periods.

Trail User Education - The Little Sluice team will talk to people, explain their presence, why they're doing it, and encourage them to get involved.

Rule Enforcement - Watch the crowds and if anyone is breaking any of the posted rules, let them know.. It does not have to be confrontational. Education is effective and a key component.

Water Quality - Water quality here is important, knowing that in the spring during the melt there is a lot of water going through the box, and into the lily pond. The lily pond drains into the Rubicon River. Containing petroleum spills and sediment issues will be key to avoid risks of water quality issues.

Area Over-Use (camping) - permanent camp spots with fire rings and large logs may be needed for the crew working over the weekend. This can be obtained by permit from the FS, and be run much like the Ellis Creek camp. Designing camp sites around LS with fire rings, large log borders and tent areas will hopefully keep folks from camping too close to each other and spread out the camping to reduce the impact on the area.

Signs - Groups are willing to make signs to give users a guideline for using the area. Simple statements that have been valuable to the rest of the trail will work well here too:

Stay on the Trail *
Pack out what you pack in and then some *
Use portable sanitation *
Clean up your spills *
pick up your TP *
Don't travel the trail if your vehicle is leaking


Manufacturers, local businesses and clubs, have voiced their concerns about how modifying Little Sluice could affect their businesses. Many 4x4 related business owners feel that they can, with an asserted presence, support and encourage appropriate behavior at the Sluice and are willing to commit to a management plan with defined goals and objectives.

Clubs, organizations and trail users have voiced their opinion on modifying the rocks in Little Sluice They would like the opportunity to organize with other 4x4 related business owners, the County Department of Transportation, the Forest Service, and FOTR/RTF in a comprehensive plan that will effectively manage the Little Sluice, and believe that the area is manageable in it's current condition. and that a reduction in the boulder size at Little Sluice is unnecessary.

The meeting we are calling on August 15th is a SOLUTIONS meeting, we are not there to debate anything but how to best manage the area, environmental impacts and people management being a focus. We will be looking for commitments from attendees. When we have received and documented the commitments and finalize our plan we will present it to the ROC for approval. Execution of the plan can begin immediately.

Here is the bottom line as I see it:


We have 2 years to address the issues on the CGS map and outline, why are we wasting time on the Box?
We are at risk of seriously dividing our forces and reducing our labor pool and funding sources by even talking about this now.
We can improve the box conditions further during this time.
We have a plan designed to effectively clean the sluice and can train volunteers to properly manage it.
The area has shown a vast improvement over the last 2-3 years.


Let's give this a chance to be successful.

Thank you,

Jacquelyne "Bebe" Theisen
theisen at starstream dot net
a Friends of the Rubicon Trail Boss
Member - Cal4WD, Friends of Greenhorn, Rock N' Roll 4x4 Club

Attachments:
FOTR /RTMP response 3/2005

Nice letter Jacquelyne :wink:

Thanks for reminding me to post up... here's the letter I sent in.


August 11, 2009

Dear Mr. Celio and the El Dorado County Department of Transportation:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the management of the Rubicon Trail, specifically in the area known as the Little Sluice Box. I am writing in my capacity as the President of the Rubicon Trail Foundation (RTF), as well as an individual trail user.

RTF works hard for trail access, to support our mission:
To enhance the future health and use of the Rubicon Trail, while ensuring responsible motorized year-round trail access.
We do this in partnership with other agencies, organizations, and volunteers – that’s government, as well as private groups and individuals. It can be tough work, but at the end of the day, the Rubicon Trail is well worth the effort, and we appreciate El Dorado County’s dedicated efforts in this regard.

RTF’s statement is clear, as spelled out in our Press Release:
Rubicon Trail Foundation (RTF) supports a full public process led by DOT to address unsustainable concentrated use near Little Sluice. RTF believes that there is no single easy answer to the multiple challenges of Little Sluice and the immediate area around it and welcomes the opportunity to work within a public process to develop a multi-pronged plan that coordinates agencies, organizations, and volunteers.

<attached press release>

Personally, I have been an active volunteer with Friends of the Rubicon (FOTR) since its inception, and have served as an Officer of the Rubicon Trail Foundation since its inception, as well – so I’m writing this as myself, and not as one person representing either FOTR or RTF (each of them has clearly press-released their own position). My personal opinions follow, and are based on my appreciation for public lands and public access, and in particular, the Rubicon Trail. I’ve spent many years recreating on and around the Rubicon Trail with my family, and look forward to many more.

Rubicon is a high-value trail to the OHV hobby, and is incredibly unique as it winds its way over the Pacific Crest – it is the only year-round access still available over the Sierra without resorting to pavement. That’s just one of the many ways Rubicon is unique – it bears an iconic status in the hearts and minds of OHV, and many folks think regularly about it, whether they have driven it, or just dreamed about someday doing so. That dream drives impact far beyond El Dorado County, and we are thus accountable to managing the trail for all current AND potential users… it both complicates the issue and simplifies it, because in the end, it is about both the nitty-gritty on-the-ground conditions, as well as the ephemeral issue of recreational access: Rubicon Trail is a public treasure to be kept open to all in perpetuity, and Little Sluice is a high-value portion of this treasure, which must be considered both on its own merits and also in the context of the larger trail of which it is a part.

In my personal opinion, the single most important thing we can do for Rubicon is to make sure all current and/or potential trail users have the opportunity to have a say in how it is maintained – a well-publicized public management process can achieve this. Not every current and/or potential trail user will participate, but it is critical to give them opportunity to do so, even beyond the regular Rubicon Oversight Committee meetings. I know this may seem burdensome, but it is necessary because of how well-known Rubicon is.

I do NOT believe we should have every step planned before we execute the next steps (this is how the anti-recreationists have attempted to paralyze the process), but at the same time, we can’t just take action without considering the greater context. It is a tough balance, one that I believe the Department of Transportation has succeeded well in maintaining – we need to work forwards towards a long-term management plan, but keep building incrementally in the mean time so that our actions are consistent with the plan, when we get there, and our plan is consistent with the actions we’ve been executing, all along.

In plan and in action, we need to work together with the various user groups, agencies, and property owners that either have jurisdiction or are affected by the Rubicon Trail. No unilateral solution can adequately address the issues at Little Sluice, or anywhere else along the trail, for that matter – we need a unified approach between most, if not all, of the stakeholders, including but not limited to the organized volunteers, the El Dorado County and Placer County Departments of Transportation, El Dorado County and Placer County Sheriff, the Eldorado and Tahoe National Forest resource managers, and the Eldorado and Tahoe National Forest Patrol Units. Solo intervention by any one of these groups is unlikely to succeed without support from the others – please help us drive them forward to work together, in well-coordinated cooperation between agencies, organizations, and volunteers.

Let’s work together to publicly discuss the issues and concerns at Little Sluice, and frame the scope of the problem that we are trying to solve, including both primary issues like sanitation and spills, and the secondary issues, like displaced usage and social impacts. After we’ve framed the problem, THEN let’s work towards framing potential solutions, and integrating cooperative efforts between agencies, organizations, and volunteers. With common sense and good leadership, I believe we can find a multi-agency, multi-organization set of solutions that addresses the majority of concerns with respect to Little Sluice – but it is critical that we do this within a public planning process.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on this trail. The Rubicon Trail is in good hands with the El Dorado Department of Transportation and along with the Rubicon Oversight Committee, the Rubicon Trail Foundation, and Friends of the Rubicon, and I look forward to continuing to assist these organizations in maintaining the Rubicon trail and retaining responsible, year-round motorized access to the lands over which it travels.

Randii
Randy Burleson
President, Rubicon Trail Foundation
Frequent Volunteer, Friends of the Rubicon and Friends of Eldorado National Forest
Member, Sierra Treasure Hunters Club
Organization Member, California Association of Four Wheel Drive Clubs
Organization Member, Blue Ribbon Coalition

Thanks for reminding me to post up... here's the letter I sent in.

"Let’s work together to publicly discuss the issues and concerns at Little Sluice, and frame the scope of the problem that we are trying to solve, including both primary issues like sanitation and spills, and the secondary issues, like displaced usage and social impacts. After we’ve framed the problem, THEN let’s work towards framing potential solutions, and integrating cooperative efforts between agencies, organizations, and volunteers."


I like that, sounds a little further from being on board with blowing the box, and a little closer to actually addressing the issues.

Let's get an outline, with specifics on what the problems at the box are.
Something like this:

#1: Oil, from busted axles and trucks tweaking wrong. Or from jeeps brought to the trail in state of disrepair. Or from underbuilt trucks with small tires trying to play in the big boys sandbox... ;)

#2: Water and waste, TP and poopoo and such.

#3: Displaced "usage"? Does this mean camping in the wrong area, or traveling off the designated trail?

#4: Social impacts-> I take it this is the partying and shennanigans and such going on?

#5: Maybe that tree at the box?

Then we can put together an outline to tackle that one, such as:

#1 solution: - spill kits, work parties stepped up, information by mail from vendors to users, charge fee for parking or camping at box, etc.
#2 solution: - wag bags, white flower parties stepped up, added to info by mail, add a bathroom to area finally, etc.
#3 solution: - clear and visible signage, more enforcement.
#4 solution: - peer pressure, personal information, if all fails - enforcement.
#5 solution: - may not be needed, depending on what a certified arborist says about the current and future state of it. I'll have one out there within a month. To be continued...

You are on the mark Martin. That is where we have been headed all along. Rock sizing may or may not fit in there but these issues all hold more validity than rock sizing.

I have heard that from users and agency folk for near on 7 years. Change has been implemented and we are not done yet. this thing with Rubicon is like a house, never done and always needs some sort of maintenance. Sometimes when that transmission blows up, you have to put in a new one.

Scott

My e-mail to Tom two weeks ago which I have not got a response to. I'm working on another more detail one.

Hello Tom,

Thank you for taking the time to read this e-mail. I would like to start by saying I am in favor of not changing little sluice. With that said I do know there are some environmental impact problems in the area. I think with help from signs and volunteers we can get to all the users. The way I look at it with the condition little sluice is in only 10% (I do not know what the % is) of the vehicles that travel the Rubicon actually go through little sluice. I do travel through little sluice and know how hard it is and this is why only 10% of the vehicles travel through it. Imagine if you broke each of the big rocks into 4 pieces. I will admit it will probably still be fun. But instead of 10% of the vehicles traveling through it there will be 60%. If I see someone broke on the side of the trail I will stop and do what I can to help get them moving again. I will also say people do break things while traveling little sluice but not as much as a regular user on the trail. If 60% of the vehicles can now travel trough little sluice there will be a bigger impact on the area around it.

I am the vice president of WeBilt 4WD Club, we are and adopt a trail club for the Fordyce trail. Two weeks ago we repaired part of the trail and had to shut it down to complete the work because it was unsafe to pass while we were working. The TNF allowed us to shut the trail down for 4 hours but did not want it closed any more so users had access. This was a big project but we took this time limit on and with our 30 volunteers we were able to complete the project and open the trail in 3 hours. This project could not have been completed on time if it had not been for the 30 people that took time out of their lives to help. This is the thing I love about this sport!

I know we have enough people dedicated to this sport that we can fix the area around little sluice without changing the geological aspects of the terrain. Again thank you for your time and I appreciate all you have done to allow myself and my family to recreate in the ENF.

Have a great day,

Jason Dunn
VP WeBilt 4WD Club

I voted "No - Never - Leave the box alone!". Anything else is retarded, IMO. If it's too hard for you, stack rocks (there are plenty), or go around.

Of course I'm sure the powers that be have already made up their minds and once again will do what they please.

Does "leave the box alone" include NOT illegally dragging rocks into it to make it harder? That being said should we correct that and THEN leave it alone, or should we leave it alone in its current state or ???

I'm going to hope that a public process will at least allow us the opportunity to manage the area with volunteers before the decision is made to crack the rocks.

Hope against hope.

Me too. Waking up vendors and LS users is pretty damn late in the process at this point IMO, but if it works and the spillage, poo, and silt can be taken care of, then I'm all for it.

You show me a "blow up date", I'll show you handfuls of people hugging rocks like the treehuggers do when their favorite tree is gonna get chopped...

Now if only you could get all those people to get constructively involved inthe long term process...

Dear Mr. Celio,

...In my personal opinion, this 'public right of way' is not static - it dynamically changes. As Eldorado County and the USFS took no action when the boulders were placed in the Little Sluice Box in 1992, they defaulted and thereby accepted the changes to the public right of way and those changes have become the present legal route.

...Thank you,

Jacquelyne "Bebe" Theisen
theisen at starstream dot net
a Friends of the Rubicon Trail Boss
Member - Cal4WD, Friends of Greenhorn, Rock N' Roll 4x4 Club

Attachments:
FOTR /RTMP response 3/2005

"dynamically changes"? So vandalism is OK if you let it go for twenty years? How bout 5? 3? What about a season? Where do we draw the line?

Dynamic changes are OK if they don't do damage, don't cause erosion, don't cause spills, and don't keep folks from running the trail. I don't believe that is true of the LS.

I'm still OK with keeping LS as it is IF the LS users can step up and police it. I've been saying that for years, but have been frustrated with the lack of concern. Maybe these rumors are what it will take to make that happen!

Sorry about all the answer posts. I feel like multi-quoting dilutes the message. I sent my letter too.

BTW, FOTR put out requests in the last month for volunteers to help fix the damaged LS bypass (yes, it needs maintenance once every five years or so) and got 10 volunteers, not enough to get the job done. Where are all the vendors and protestors ready to go to work to fix the problem? You want to keep LS as it is? Sign up to haul concrete, drill and tie rebar, and repair the darn thing.

If the Save the Sluice coalition works long term, I will back off from pressing to have the rocks reduced. Show me the money, folks!

All,

El Dorado County has dedicated to a panel of DOT, ENF and RTF folks to put together something that make sense of this Little Sluice issue.

I would like to say that my personal opinion will not affect my ability to represent the public in this matter. I am hoping to be on the panel that discusses this issue. If I am, I will represent the publics right to travel the little sluice and have safe alternate(s) for those that do not want to. If not RTF will have some sort of representation there.

My idea of the bigger issue is the area surrounding the sluice and agency efforts to follow it's own rules first, then planning beyond that.

This has to be a coordinated effort and must consider all effects to be successful. The list is long and complex and just like when setting up or modifying a rig. A thing done in one place will affect several other things. (move the axle just a bit and you need a driveline and may need to relocate under carriage stuff)

I will not be submitting a personal letter to Tom as I feel that will compromise the representation I have been working on so far. The ROC meeting minutes may not reflect it but I have been saying since 2004 that we need a public process for the Little Sluice area. Back then it was the Spider Lake area. We fought hard to keep that and I was disappointed that driving access to Spider was lost. I still disagree with it. I still hope that someday the public will be able to drive to a parking place and camp in sight of Spider. I guess I am a dreamer, but without dreams reality can not happen.

I urge everyone reading this to send your letter to Tom. I am not sure if he is committed to a reply but I do know he is committed to present them to the panel. Without your voice in this, my and others hard work to have this be a public process will not be as effective.

Please send in your thoughts to Tom Celio <tcelio@co.el-dorado.ca.us>


Scott Johnston
Director, Rubicon Trail Foundation

I would like to say that my personal opinion will not affect my ability to represent the public in this matter.

I'm confused Scott - which public is that? Not being flippant, it is a serious question about the process. RTF is attempting to represent the entire electorate? I am thankful for your personal comittment.

I agree sending letters to Tom is a good idea - but the County has to set a public process and define what the public process is. I am not aware the County has committed to anything yet.

In theory, the "public process" could be anything - just a notice of intent to have RTF walk the rocks with USFS and County and decide which ones to remove. Tell the public what the done deal is and see what happens? Create a panel as a litigation shield? No one knows what "public process" the County will do yet because it isn't the County saying it. It is like poll taking - ask a question the right way and can get predetermine responses.

What panel will Tom be forwarding the emails to? Can you descibe the panel, selection process of members, and its charter.

If the Save the Sluice coalition works long term, I will back off from pressing to have the rocks reduced. Show me the money, folks!

I love chutzpah, it brings back so many good childhood memories walking the streets of New York...

....money is kept in banks, trusts, and deeds. Got any?

I'm confused Scott - which public is that? Not being flippant, it is a serious question about the process. RTF is attempting to represent the entire electorate?
No, we are not trying to represent the entire hobby... we'd LOVE it if folks from within the hobby would represent themselves, and it looks like changeis on the horizon in that regard, but I'll tell you,we have represented the entire hobby many times when nobody else was in the room to speak up. I've argued in favor of 54" tires, even though I run (park) only 35s, and have only driven up to 38s. The folks with the larger tires weren't in the room, so I stepped up to defend their use because really, it is the driver and his/her ability that affects impact to the trail... not the size of his rubber.

Folks, PLEASE show up and be counted in the public process. If you assume the battle is lost -- it will be... if you stay and fight, your voice will be heard. The County is responding to public pleas for a public process, and will detail that public process tomorrow at the Rubicon Oversight Committee (ROC) meeting. Your voice has been heard -- now you'll get a public process. Don't puss out and give up... prepare yourselves and fight even harder for what you believe in.

Details of the public planning process will be discussed at the ROC meeting.

I'll be there, and will share the results with those who cannot attend. I work hard to be able to flex my schedule and am lucky enough to make most of these meetings. and I will represent those who are not in attendance, as I have always tried to do.

Randii

that needs to be done earlier or later in the year, when people have more time, everybody's calendar is too crazy in the middle of the summer

Sorry about all the answer posts. I feel like multi-quoting dilutes the message. I sent my letter too.

BTW, FOTR put out requests in the last month for volunteers to help fix the damaged LS bypass (yes, it needs maintenance once every five years or so) and got 10 volunteers, not enough to get the job done. Where are all the vendors and protestors ready to go to work to fix the problem? You want to keep LS as it is? Sign up to haul concrete, drill and tie rebar, and repair the darn thing.

If the Save the Sluice coalition works long term, I will back off from pressing to have the rocks reduced. Show me the money, folks!

Finally sent a letter with my say.

Finally sent a letter with my say.

Thank you!

I sent mine in too. Not nearly as verbose as some of you, but I made my point.

that needs to be done earlier or later in the year, when people have more time, everybody's calendar is too crazy in the middle of the summer

So I guess some folks were put off by my post. Kate, you and Mike have a long and distinguished record of service to the trail, and I would certainly not be taking shots at you. I'm not pointing fingers, I'm not taking a jab at anybody. I am simply challenging folks to come and work on keeping the LS as it is by keeping the bypass viable.

Kind of a moot point now, as the plan has now changed to reflect the volunteer turnout:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=805548

I sent mine in too. Not nearly as verbose as some of you, but I made my point.

LOL verbose? :laughing:

Thank you, any and all letters have an impact on the situation. I think its important for both side of the issue to be communicated.

LOL verbose? :laughing:

Thank you, any and all letters have an impact on the situation. I think its important for both side of the issue to be communicated.

verbose is kind of like taurine, but different.:homer:

verbose is kind of like taurine, but different.:homer:

http://www.thedrhcollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/soup-tureen.jpg

Toureen, Tourine, Tureen.....whatever :flipoff2:

Dynamic changes are OK if they don't do damage, don't cause erosion, don't cause spills, and don't keep folks from running the trail. I don't believe that is true of the LS.


If we can do something to prevent damage, if we can mitigate the erosion, if we can prevent or clean up the spills, then we should have that chance. Doesn't everyone agree with that?

And folks have and can continue to use the bypass.

I really don't like the fact that a lot of folks continue to say that LS is blocking traffic or preventing people from running the trail. You can only sell that line of BS to someone that's never been out there.

verbose is kind of like taurine, but different.:homer:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verbose i.e wordy

Taurine? had to think for minute then it hit me, thats the chit in Rockstars:shocked:

http://www.thesupplementguide.org/g/Emotional_Health_Cognition/taurine-11.html

If we can do something to prevent damage, if we can mitigate the erosion, if we can prevent or clean up the spills, then we should have that chance. Doesn't everyone agree with that?

So here's where my frustration lies, Martin. I am skeptical because we've been preaching erosion, poo, and spills for five years and talking about LS solutions for five years. Though it has gotten better, I expected higher quality peer policing and a generally better job from the folks I wheel with (us!). I hope this is a wake up call that makes that come to pass. If that is where this goes, then I will support leaving the rocks intact in LS (because that is what is best for the trail).

And folks have and can continue to use the bypass.

I really don't like the fact that a lot of folks continue to say that LS is blocking traffic or preventing people from running the trail. You can only sell that line of BS to someone that's never been out there.

I think the point is that a lot of people "will" miss LS as it is today if it gets altered tomorrow. So if I miss LS as it was before it was illegally vandalised in 1992 and subsequently, does that make me wrong? Hypothetically I would like to drive the whole trail, all of it, including LS (actually I don't care about running LS, but I can see why the "old guys" do). So whose iteration of the trail is correct?

Personally, I say the one that is correct is the one that will keep the trail open. Yes, I would be in favor of reducing rocks, if that would keep the trail open. On the other hand, if the LS supporters can do such a fantastic job at policing themselves that their work will keep the trail open, then I will support that too.

BUT, knocking the opinion that it should be a certain way because YOU don't remember it that way, or because that is not the way it is NOW, is just wrong (your proverbial line of bullshit). I don't know who has a greater right; those who remember it fondly one way or another, but at the very least, they aren't wrong to think it should be the way they remember it before it was vandalized.

John

Thanks John..............

I think the point is that a lot of people "will" miss LS as it is today if it gets altered tomorrow. So if I miss LS as it was before it was illegally vandalised in 1992 and subsequently, does that make me wrong? Hypothetically I would like to drive the whole trail, all of it, including LS (actually I don't care about running LS, but I can see why the "old guys" do). So whose iteration of the trail is correct?

John

I think that discussion could be debated forever, and do nothing but continue to divide the 'old guys' and the 'new guys'.

The only way it could truly be decided and debated with an outcome that no one will like is in a court of law. I don't think we want to go there...that would be devastating to the trail.

So we may as well let that one fall to the floor.

I think that discussion could be debated forever, and do nothing but continue to divide the 'old guys' and the 'new guys'.


Agreed, Jacquelyne. That was the point I was making. Both "sides" feel like they have a right, and seemingly neither can truly establish that right conclusively to the satisfaction of the other. I'll say it again: I am in favor of the solution that works, what is best for the trail.

The only way it could truly be decided and debated with an outcome that no one will like is in a court of law. I don't think we want to go there...that would be devastating to the trail.

So we may as well let that one fall to the floor.

Don't necessarily think there would be "an outcome that no one will like" and believe it would be decided out of court, but maybe not. Either way, it is ridiculous for two groups of OHVers to fight each other over this. We all need to do what is right for the trail.

At this point, I believe that means considering all the solutions offered and starting with the least destructive. The reality is that what has been tried so far (trailhead education, outreach, free wag bags and spill kits, etc.) has worked, but not as well as we would like. If a serious, well backed, well funded, well organized group wants to step up and police the LS, I say let's give it a shot. Re-evaluate, and if it works, great. If not, we can then consider stepping it up.

Don't necessarily think there would be "an outcome that no one will like" and believe it would be decided out of court, but maybe not. Either way, it is ridiculous for two groups of OHVers to fight each other over this. We all need to do what is right for the trail.



And...unfortunately, what I may think is right for the trail and what anyone else may thing is right for the trail can differ greatly.

Everyone loves to think that they are right. THAT's the problem.

If anything is looking like it's going to cause a raucous or a division in our ranks, we need to collectively shoot that monkey (http://www.vantage-west.com/PDFs/Who%27s_Got_the_Monkey.pdf).

THAT is the right thing to do. (sayz mee):D

And...unfortunately, what I may think is right for the trail and what anyone else may thing is right for the trail can differ greatly.
That's where I was when I posted that 'selfishness' thread. We each naturally want what's right for us, what's right for our tire size, what's right for our business, etc. Until we can step back and consider solutions separate of our immediate selfish needs, I see chaos... and the County is gonna have to decide for us if we can't do it on our own.

If anything is looking like it's going to cause a raucous or a division in our ranks, we need to collectively shoot that monkey (http://www.vantage-west.com/PDFs/Who%27s_Got_the_Monkey.pdf).
What's the "monkey," though? Is it me, or maybe Charlie, who keep trying to discuss and understand, and have such a hard time letting it go? Is it the old-school jeeper, or maybe the new buggy guy? If we all shoot our personal "monkeys" without taking a step back, there will be nothing but friendly fire, and the last sound any of us will hear will be the delighted laughter of the anti-recreationists, who never even had to chamber a round.

The answer is more letters, more solutions, and more commitments to step up and support the trail... that's what's going to impress the agency arbiters in the public planning process. Finger-pointing and lawyering won't impress anywhere near as much as commitments for the future based on promises delivered in the past... proof of this is the Water Board decision, where proven volunteer deliveries won out over shrill chickens-little.

Randii

The Monkey is any issue that will divide our cohesiveness.

That's where I was when I posted that 'selfishness' thread. We each naturally want what's right for us...
Randii

I think that's just being human. People are people, and we over step our bounds when we try to perfect them to meet our own self image (that's selfishness).

The answer is more letters, more solutions, and more commitments to step up and support the trail...

Randii

That is exactly what we are doing.

Thank you RTF and all involved for supporting those who would like to see Little Sluice remain in tact.

Now we've got a crapload of work to do.....:D

Well after alot of thought. I am for blowing it up... If it saves the surronding area then so be it. I don't want to see pick nick tables, fire rings, and log barriers on the Con. Not sure if getting rid of it will solve the problem though. ...They are only rocks. If it will preserve the trail then so be it.

The Monkey is any issue that will divide our cohesiveness.
We are divided in opinion... anyone can see that.
The question is, can we come together?
We need to try.

Thank you RTF and all involved...
You are welcome -- RTF continues to support a full public planning process led by DOT, and we believe that there is no single easy answer to the multiple challenges of Little Sluice and the immediate area around it. We'll welcome all earnest participation in the public process to develop a multi-point plan to coordinate agency, organization, and volunteer actions.

Something has gotta change -- the status quo can't continue unchanged. Let's work together to figure out the least destructive management techniques required and commit to executing them...

Now we've got a crapload of work to do.....:D
We sure do -- let's work together to create solutions and commitments that will impress the DOT.

Randii

Well after alot of thought. I am for blowing it up... If it saves the surronding area then so be it. I don't want to see pick nick tables, fire rings, and log barriers on the Con. Not sure if getting rid of it will solve the problem though. ...They are only rocks. If it will preserve the trail then so be it.

Even if those picnic tables are in the vicinity of Spider Lake?? I am not throwing that off my particular list of dreams for the future.

Remember the real issue is NOT the rock size, it is the overall use and overuse issue. Personal responsibility.

Some people find it impossible to do that.

Welcome to my world, Mike.

Solutions, we need solutions!

Yep, If I wanted that kind of experience I could go to one of hundreds of different spots to camp in USFS style camping atmosphere. Send back to old school state, and let the crowd migrate elsewhere. I go the Con because it lacks those kind of amenities.

Here is my letter. Quite sane from an individual that most here would think off the rocker insane. LOL! I even got a much appreciated response from Mr. Celio!

Mr. Celio,
Although I have yet to get all the way through the Little Sluice Box in my rig I have tried, and I would like the opportunity to try again. It sounds as though something is going to happen to the “box”, which I am strongly opposed to. I feel that the bypasses that are legal should be allowed to remain. In addition I hope that the “Little Sluice Box” should remain intact as it sits today. I realize there are issues related to sanitation and oil spills, and I want to be part of fixing those problems so that in the future myself and others are allowed to be challenged by the magnitude of this one of a kind OHV obstacle. The history surrounding it and the fun that I have had participating and watching at this location are in my humble opinion some of the greatest times that I will never forget. I am hoping that a logical and clear solution be made to this issue.

I am sure that RTF and FOTR can help to mitigate the sanitation and fluid situations. I am willing to put my money behind any project that will help to solve the current issues related to this section of the Rubicon Trail. It is an ICON for the hardcore and an absolute must see for those who may not have the time or energy to try and get through it.

It is my opinion that with some enforcement by the EDSD and RTP as well as focused attention from FOTR on the cleanup and education end of things that the current issues can be resolved. We the OHV community have very few places we can go and see this sort of challenge. It is my opinion that if the “box” is renovated that this will only push the issues to other areas in the EDNF. We the OHV community only have a limited number of areas we are even allowed to go. It is my opinion that we need to leave the “box” as it is and deal with the issues in a proper manner which serves all parties involved. Once again I am willing to put my money and time where my mouth is.

Best regards,


Hope yall get responses for your letters! Send em up the line and see what we can pan out!! Our Passion is on the line after all. GET INVOLVED!!!

Letter sent ............

We are divided in opinion... anyone can see that.
The question is, can we come together?
We need to try.

If nothing is held sacred - then all is profaned. What not to do is sometimes as important as what to do. The issue of breaking rocks has to be completely withdrawn from - trail user lawsuits would be an annoyance, but there are much larger things that go bump in the night....

http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/isco/isco13/PAPERS%20A-E/BAKER.pdf
....While conflicts like this can indeed be stabilised rather than resolved, this is often achieved by processes of marginalisation where some people and/or issues are devalued and derogated (regarded as profane) by those who work in, or can command the support of, the key institutions of authority (Midgley, 1992; 1994; 2000). The result is likely to be a dismissive attitude toward alternative perspectives, leading to mutual distrust. Constructive dialogue becomes difficult and strategic battles ensue where each side uses whatever means it has at its disposal to either enforce its own preferred strategy (in the case of an institution of authority), or to resist this enforcement (in the case of people who find themselves marginalised). In the case of a water conservation campaign, where the acceptance and involvement of the population is crucial to success, strategic battles of this kind will most likely fatally undermine the campaign.....

.....introduces the metaphor of a dirty football: ‘Memory, then, is not a stack of facts that is fluidly passed on untainted. It is more like a ball that is bounced around among players, accumulating dirt and scars, bruises and patches. It can be lost, even forgotten, only to be rediscovered and kicked about yet again’ (Beck, 1997; 17).
Paradoxically then, an unsullied record can contain the seeds of its own undoing. As experience and a successful track record is built up, requests for involvement in more complex and intractable cases are likely, with the ensuing controversy and publicity having the potential to easily undermine a good reputation."

What's the "monkey," though? Is it me, or maybe Charlie,

"Not I," said the Duck.

I guess the fool can seem somewhat like the clowning monkey.... but a fool is different than the clown... and has to be willing to become an object of scorn at times...

"Queen Elizabeth (reigned 1558-1603) is said to have rebuked one of her fools for being insufficiently severe with her. Excessive behaviour, however, could lead to a fool being whipped, as Lear threatens to whip his fool."

"Lear, insisting on his fictitious majesty, seems ridiculous to him. All the more ridiculous because he does not see how ridiculous he is. But the Fool does not desert his ridiculous, degraded king, and accompanies him on his way to madness. The Fool knows that the only true madness is to recognize this world as rational."

I think the point is that a lot of people "will" miss LS as it is today if it gets altered tomorrow. So if I miss LS as it was before it was illegally vandalised in 1992 and subsequently, does that make me wrong? Hypothetically I would like to drive the whole trail, all of it, including LS (actually I don't care about running LS, but I can see why the "old guys" do). So whose iteration of the trail is correct?
John

Awesome info there. I never thought about their point of view and they remember it being pre-1992. I can appreciate that position a lot more.

But let's stop kidding ourselves and using the misleading language(otherwise known as BS) - when we say things like the box "impedes traffic" or "prevents people from running the trail" when the bypass is right there. Those statements mislead the general public into thinking there is no bypass.

I sympathize with folks that miss the way it used to be, but all this war over taking a bypass for less than 1% of the trail? Just seems weird, and I have a hard time focusing on any one angle because it feel it has so many dimensions to it.


Well after alot of thought. I am for blowing it up... If it saves the surronding area then so be it. I don't want to see pick nick tables, fire rings, and log barriers on the Con. Not sure if getting rid of it will solve the problem though. ...They are only rocks. If it will preserve the trail then so be it.

99% of the people against altering sluice agree with that. But don't let tales of the monster under the bed get too deep in your head. Don't be fooled and mislead.
* The Rubicon is not going to get shut down because of the box.
* Blowing up the box will not "save the Rubicon".

Make sure you capitalize that "IF" in your statement above, because it's huge.

I know it won't be shut down. I just don't want to see it become a park with Picnic tables and fire rings.

I know it won't be shut down. I just don't want to see it become a park with Picnic tables and fire rings.

So show up and Saturday and be a part of the solution. Nothing we've designed this far is set in stone....

90% of life - is showing up.....
- Woody Allen

So show up and Saturday and be a part of the solution. Nothing we've designed this far is set in stone....

90% of life - is showing up.....
- Woody Allen

Ok, so remind me who is going to be at the dog and pony show on Saturday.

...all this war over ... less than 1% of the trail?
This battle cry works equally well for both sides of the discussion, no?

Randii

Ok, so remind me who is going to be at the dog and pony show on Saturday.

You, me and about 100 of our closest friends.:D

If nothing is held sacred - then all is profaned. What not to do is sometimes as important as what to do.

Ok, do nothing......


http://video.tvguide.com/The+Scorpion+King/Fire+Ants/1181002?autoplay=true&partnerid=OVG

FYI and FWIW, in the spirit of full exposure, I just moved one of Charles posts here another thread: http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=809874

I don't want to take anything away from his thoughts, but I do want to prevent this thread to getting sucked into the Little Sluice Bermuda Triangle, where a perfectly good original topic gets pulled into the strong emotions surrounding Little Sluice, and the original topic is never seen again. There's gotta be a balance here, and not every thread has to be about Little Sluice... so I moved Charle's post here.

I hope that doesn't feel too heavy-handed.

Randii

FYI and FWIW, in the spirit of full exposure, I just moved one of Charles posts here another thread: http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=809874

I don't want to take anything away from his thoughts, but I do want to prevent this thread to getting sucked into the Little Sluice Bermuda Triangle, where a perfectly good original topic gets pulled into the strong emotions surrounding Little Sluice, and the original topic is never seen again. There's gotta be a balance here, and not every thread has to be about Little Sluice... so I moved Charle's post here.

I hope that doesn't feel too heavy-handed.

Randii

Hmmm... the topic of funding was already in the thread and resqme's post is all about Little Sluice. So I think your exposure is sufficient but hardly full. I deleted the post - it wasn't a game.

I said this in another post, Martin...if RTF folks are skeptical about the Save the Sluice plan, that is because we have been educating, handing out, begging and preaching to save the sluice (and the trail) for years. As soon as the public process began (the process that likely would not have happened except that we insisted on it), we were blamed for an outcome that hadn't been decided yet.

Trash, spills, poo, and sediment have gotten better on the Rubicon, but some of the problems still exist, especially at Sluice. RTF is in favor of whatever method works, and we are willing to consider all ideas and plans. If the Save the Sluice method works, then that will be a good outcome. If not, we will be in favor of trying something else. Size reduction of rocks in Sluice is towards the bottom of that list, but RTF would be irresponsible to say that it is out of the question.

Saying that RTF is in favor of rock size reduction in Sluice is like saying that the Sheriff's Department is in favor of shooting people...it's one of the tools in the toolbox, just not the first tool we want to reach for.

If you want donate $$$ to either group, you can, but really understand the differences in public participation, accountability, transparency, and corporate structure so you know what you're getting.

Kinda weird to delete one post and then pull over the post that you responded to, but OK. :shrug:

My continued intent is to have good, fair discussion, and not let any one topic, or person (not even me!) get in the way of free discourse on this forum. Funding discussions were the main focus of that thread, and this one started out being about what peoples' positions were and making them known to the County via email, and then became about trying to change others' opinions and answering questions.

With respect,

Randii