I've been reading with great interest all the posts and discussions about the "Little Sluice". I have a general understanding about the problems there and the efforts to preserve that portion of the trail. In some of the posts "The Gate Keeper" has been mentioned and compared to the "Little Sluice". That comparison is what I don't understand. Can someone explain to me what happened to "The Gate Keeper" and why this shouldn't happen to the "Little Sluice"?

I had the great privilige of driving the trail this past August for the first time and it was a fantastic adventure. I would like to return someday and drive the trail again hoping it will be as beautiful as it was the last time.

I would also like to applaud all you dedicated people who are fighting to preserve the trail. Your time, efforts and passion is amazing.

"officials" have noted that blasting gatekeeper without us (users) involved was a mistake, basically, and won't happen again. That was then; this is now.
The Dept. of Transportation is led by an honorable man, Tom Celio, who stands by his word and his actions. We are included and involved. We were heard loud and clear during the public meetings and input -- leave the Sluice alone until we have a plan and some intense reasoning and user input.

No, not everyone agrees; but for sure we all know that picemeal anything gives piecemeal results. This issue needs a plan, a purpose, and some long term planning and involvement. Many think the Sluice is fine just as it is. Some think it needs changing. But the County DOT folks are listening and including us in their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

I do not think anyone is going to sneak out there and blow Little Sluice behind our backs, if that is what you're asking.
Del

Thanks for the reply Del, but why did they feel the need to "Blow Up'" the "Gate Keeper"? What were the reasons and did they really do it under the cloak of darkness?

P.S, I had the good fortune of meeting you about 6 years ago on my first trip to the Rubicon. You were leading a group of vehicles with VIP's on board to view the trail. You allowed me to tag along for awhile until the trail became too difficult for my Jeep. I parked my Jeep along the trail then rode to Spyder Lake and back with another rig. I'll never forget the kindness you and your friend showed me that day.

Thanks for the reply Del, but why did they feel the need to "Blow Up'" the "Gate Keeper"?
There's a LOT of history here... I recommend searching the Rubicon forum for "gatekeeper" ... here's a few threads to get you started.:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=490946&highlight=gatekeeper
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=417603&highlight=gatekeeper
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=434675&highlight=gatekeeper
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=416901&highlight=gatekeeper
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471937&highlight=gatekeeper
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=416894&highlight=gatekeeper
There's a lot more information spread out in a lot of other threads... there's no one single thread that has the whole story, due in part to how complicated the issue was for Gatekeeper, specifically, trail filters at RUbicon entrances, and trail modification/maintenance, in general.

What were the reasons and did they really do it under the cloak of darkness?
See above links for most of the reasons, and as for darkness... nope. The agencies did not announce the date, but they also did not hide in the dark. That said, it is reassuring to hear the Deputy Director of DOT say explicitly: This will note be another Gatekeeper -- we will engage in a public planning process.

Rubicon has a lengthy history, and it is tough to pick out the most important dates... but the Gatekeeper blasting is certainly among them, and not just because of the changes on the ground, but rather, for the changes in politics.

Randii

IMHO gatekeeper has gotten worse sense they blew it up... it's wider, more dug-out, and trees and bushes are getting further away from the trail.

What used to be left and over the larger rocks or fitting through the right on the correct path has turned into being able to drive any which way, and since there are multiple lines for people to read now some are just trying to go around them into the brush and trees exposing more rocks and eroding the hill side even worse :shaking: The trees that were harder to get to (bumping) are more exposed now too, and in the last couple years I've noticed a couple are already missing from this area too.

With no disrespect intended, Todd, I remember it differently... I remember that it used to be narrow with the 'taillight tree' claiming more than a few right rear fenders on backup... that lasted through 2002 or so. Then it started to get w-i-d-e, and it was at least two-lanes wide (I recall oubound traffic passing a stuck inbound rig in 2003 or so? -- right in the obstacle!) not even counting the illegal bypass that some jerkweeds blazed through the manzanita on the north... now, once you get past Gatekeeper proper, but before you snake around the Alligator Pit, it is a bit wider (people keep camping there?) and I have noticed one tree gone. :( If people persist in driving AROUND the bumps (c'mon, this is the Rubicon Trail -- quit AVOIDING the obstacles), logs may be needed to keep them out. :rolleyes: The

Gatekeeper obtacle itself is about the same width as was in 2003, and has rejuvenated some of its 'teeth' while still retaining improved drainage on the south side, and the obstacle is less muddy less late in spring. I'm still pissed at how what happened there went down, and that the forest service blaster hit five rocks instead of the three that were discussed in ROC, and that public process was not used to manage this very public trail...

Still, the agencies REALLY learned from this, and it was a b*tch-slap of a wake-up call for trail users. I hope we can all move forward from it in communication and cooperation.

Randii

Wasn't 2003 the year a volunteer group cemented in some of the rocks, improved drainage, and blocked a bypass ??

2003
2004
and
2005
all concrete years

With no disrespect intended, Todd, I remember it differently... I remember that it used to be narrow with the 'taillight tree' claiming more than a few right rear fenders on backup... that lasted through 2002 or so. Then it started to get w-i-d-e, and it was at least two-lanes wide (I recall oubound traffic passing a stuck inbound rig in 2003 or so? -- right in the obstacle!) not even counting the illegal bypass that some jerkweeds blazed through the manzanita on the north... now, once you get past Gatekeeper proper, but before you snake around the Alligator Pit, it is a bit wider (people keep camping there?) and I have noticed one tree gone. :( If people persist in driving AROUND the bumps (c'mon, this is the Rubicon Trail -- quit AVOIDING the obstacles), logs may be needed to keep them out. :rolleyes: The

Gatekeeper obtacle itself is about the same width as was in 2003, and has rejuvenated some of its 'teeth' while still retaining improved drainage on the south side, and the obstacle is less muddy less late in spring. I'm still pissed at how what happened there went down, and that the forest service blaster hit five rocks instead of the three that were discussed in ROC, and that public process was not used to manage this very public trail...

Still, the agencies REALLY learned from this, and it was a b*tch-slap of a wake-up call for trail users. I hope we can all move forward from it in communication and cooperation.

Randii

I pretty much agree with you 100% except you said it better than me :flipoff2:

I also agree with Randy's interpretation.

That being said, generally speaking, blasting or even cold cracking of large rocks in the trail IN THE PRESCENCE OF SOIL UNDERLAY is a bad idea, IMO.

Historically, well meaning non-agencies have popped the tops of rocks in order to keep people from dragging their undercarriage, theoreticlly reducing erosion by keeping folks from spinning tires while stuck. What has really happened is that this has been effective in the short term, but in the long term has caused the trail to become incised in some areas.

The long term answer to these problems is a combination of proper trail drainage features and cobble infill/armoring. Our attempts to do this in the past at Gatekeeper were admirable, but inadequate. I believe we have learned much since then. A quantity of sharp edged cobble large enough to infill between the boulders in Gatekeeper, NOT more rock cracking is the answer to maintaining the obstacle, in my personal opinion.

Edit: THis spot needs to continue to be on our radar...the fix there (or anywhere, on any road) is not "permanent". The Rubicon, and all roads or trails, require maintenance.

John said "sharp-edged cobble" -s this is key. Many of the rocks that have spent significant time on the trail are somewhat round and they stay mobile. Well-compacted sharp-edged cobble stays in one place well... especially if trail users 'wheel gently on it.

This may be the wrong place to say it, but with maintainability in mind, 5000rpm assaults that launch cobble ten feet in the air... that ain't gentle! Bouncing, rutting, and digging makes maintenance harder, as well.

There's a long, rich history of volunteer maintenance on Rubicon, and some of it includes blasting. With good public planning, appropriate, well-planned maintenance, agency cooperation' and responsible use, things are looking up for Rubicon.

Randii