Deer Valley/Strawberry Closed? - Page 14 - Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Land Use and Trails > Land Use Issues
Notices

Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-05-2012, 11:03 AM   #326 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,953
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71BRONCO71 View Post
Im glad you were not at the Alamo. Im glad that you were not in Boston December 16, 1773.
x 2
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:06 AM   #327 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brothergrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Member # 23319
Location: Playing in Traffic
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71BRONCO71 View Post
Im glad you were not at the Alamo. Im glad that you were not in Boston December 16, 1773.

If it is wrong, it MUST BE CHALLENGED. Laying on the ground in the fetal position does not help the case of getting these trail back open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MT4Runner View Post
Amen.

Accept it if it is right.
Fight it if it was made under the wrong pretenses.
I will fight tooth and nail for what is right, with in the law. This is not the birth of a nation or the expansion of said nation. This is a court case and will be resolved in the courts. I have been involved for sometime now, both on the ground and in the meetings. If you look at the OP you will see that I was already involved.
__________________
KI6ZFZ
Cal 4 Wheel, UFWDA, BRC, SEMA Action Network, & NorCal 4 Wheelers
Brothergrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-05-2012, 11:08 AM   #328 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brothergrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Member # 23319
Location: Playing in Traffic
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe View Post
x 2
You know me better then that.
__________________
KI6ZFZ
Cal 4 Wheel, UFWDA, BRC, SEMA Action Network, & NorCal 4 Wheelers
Brothergrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:12 AM   #329 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,953
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Laying down your arms when being oppressed by a government or attacked by Mexicans is the "point".

Judges and courts aren't the be all end all. There is an entire series of checks and balances.

Rolling over now when the first shot is fired is well....kind of like the liberal French now isn't it?
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:18 AM   #330 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brothergrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Member # 23319
Location: Playing in Traffic
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe View Post
Laying down your arms when being oppressed by a government or attacked by Mexicans is the "point".

Judges and courts aren't the be all end all. There is an entire series of checks and balances.

Rolling over now when the first shot is fired is well....kind of like the liberal French now isn't it?
Who is laying down not, me. 'I have yet to begun to fight' John Paul Jones



P.S. the Alamo was a Mexicans territory before the Texans push them out. The Mexicans were just defending the lands.
__________________
KI6ZFZ
Cal 4 Wheel, UFWDA, BRC, SEMA Action Network, & NorCal 4 Wheelers

Last edited by Brothergrim; 04-05-2012 at 11:23 AM.
Brothergrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:22 AM   #331 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Member # 3622
Location: Lakeside, CA
Posts: 1,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1966Scout800 View Post
Thanks for the link Bebe. Does a Judge declare whether a route is subject to NEPA? I guess my confusion is who determines whether the route significantly disturbed the soil or water, vegetation under on or surrounding the route.
This is the closest I am going to do to deliver information on a "silver platter".

Read and learn...

http://www.4x4voice.com/Notebook/ESA...t/index.html?1
__________________
John Stewart, KF6ZPL
Moderator, MUIRNet-News - [url]www.muirnet.net[/url]
kf6zpl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:23 AM   #332 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Member # 43526
Location: N.Cal
Posts: 676
Send a message via AIM to 71BRONCO71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brothergrim View Post
Who is laying down not, me. 'I have yet to begun to fight' John Paul Jones
Really?(see below)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brothergrim View Post
The judgement has been made, right or wrong, it is what it is.
_______________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brothergrim View Post
If you look at the OP you will see that I was already involved.
Were you in the Negotiations?
__________________
Libertarian- Root word: LIBERTY
KEEP PUBLIC LANDS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
71BRONCO71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:24 AM   #333 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,953
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CENTER FOR SIERRA NEVADA
CONSERVATION, et al.,
NO. CIV. S-09-2523 LKK/JFM
Plaintiff,
v.
O R D E R
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,
et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial vacatur (Dkt. No. 88), having
come on for hearing on February 13, 2012, the court orders as follows:


1. Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART, but only to the
degree it seeks to set aside that portion of the Forest
Service’s decision that designates 42 roads through
meadows for motorized vehicle traffic. That portion of
the decision is remanded to the Forest Service for
reconsideration in light of the applicable law.


2. The Forest Service is directed to submit a proposed
order that will set aside only that portion of its
decision that designates the 42 roads to the degree they
go through meadows, and not affecting the sections of
those same roads that do not go through meadows, unless
they cannot otherwise be reached.


3. The Forest Service shall submit the proposed order no
later than 30 days from the date of this order. If the
parties cannot agree on a joint submission, plaintiffs
and Intervenors shall have 14 days to respond to the
proposed order.


4. The parties have advised the court that the 42 roads are
currently closed because of seasonal closings, but that
the seasonal closings end on March 31, 2012.
Accordingly, the Forest Service shall EXTEND the
seasonal closings of the 42 roads until further order of
this court.


IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 13, 2012.
So it was ordered back on 2/13 eh?
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:30 AM   #334 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brothergrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Member # 23319
Location: Playing in Traffic
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71BRONCO71 View Post
Were you in the Negotiations?
No I was not. But how did I get this information? Involvement in the organation that are fight the fight.
__________________
KI6ZFZ
Cal 4 Wheel, UFWDA, BRC, SEMA Action Network, & NorCal 4 Wheelers
Brothergrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:32 AM   #335 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Member # 43526
Location: N.Cal
Posts: 676
Send a message via AIM to 71BRONCO71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brothergrim View Post
No I was not. But how did I get this information? Involvement in the organation that are fight the fight.
Please enlighten us. Who is this organization that is helping us get these ILLEGALLY closed trails back open?
__________________
Libertarian- Root word: LIBERTY
KEEP PUBLIC LANDS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
71BRONCO71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:34 AM   #336 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Member # 159101
Location: Rescue, N.CA
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by kf6zpl View Post
This is the closest I am going to do to deliver information on a "silver platter".

Read and learn...

http://www.4x4voice.com/Notebook/ESA...t/index.html?1
Thanks for the link, all the info I need.

It was ordered almost two months ago and those directly affected just recently hear of this ?
__________________
Livin' the Dream
1966Scout800 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:37 AM   #337 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brothergrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Member # 23319
Location: Playing in Traffic
Posts: 209
Like some have said in this thread, " it is water under bridge", the in fighting and division of forces is what the anti's want. The phrase 'it is what it is' is not a white flag, but the acknowledgement that the next step in the fight has started.
__________________
KI6ZFZ
Cal 4 Wheel, UFWDA, BRC, SEMA Action Network, & NorCal 4 Wheelers
Brothergrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:39 AM   #338 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brothergrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Member # 23319
Location: Playing in Traffic
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71BRONCO71 View Post
Please enlighten us. Who is this organization that is helping us get these ILLEGALLY closed trails back open?
Cal4wheel and BRC
How is it ILLEGAL when a Federal judge says it is?
__________________
KI6ZFZ
Cal 4 Wheel, UFWDA, BRC, SEMA Action Network, & NorCal 4 Wheelers
Brothergrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:45 AM   #339 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Member # 3622
Location: Lakeside, CA
Posts: 1,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71BRONCO71 View Post
You lost me Del..


BRC and Cal4Wheel negotiated with these criminals (Center for Sierra Nevada Conservancy)

It sounds to me that they played a game of "go fish" and traded pokemon cards with each other.
You have a lot to learn.

The "criminals" you refer to are the PLAINTIFFS in the lawsuit. THEY filed the suit against the Forest Service (DEFENDANTS) to CLOSE the routes. BRC, CA4WDC and AMA-D36 filed as INTERVENORS on the side of the Forest Service to keep the roues OPEN.

The "negotiated" issue is the result of the JUDGE ordering the PLAINTIFFS and the DEFENDANTS, along with the INTERVENORS to go into the corner and discuss ways to reach a settlement.

And, yes, that was done in private, outside of public view and interruption -- just like normal court ordered settlement discussions.

Yes, it is "negotiations". And, yes, it included representatives from all parties named in the lawsuit.

Rather than trash BRC, CA4WDC and AMA D36, you should thank them for stepping in and representing OHV interests. NO OTHER GROUP WAS WILLING TO STEP IN AND BECOME INVOLVED.

BRC and partners DID NOT accept a number of alternatives proposed. Nor did the Dept of Justice negotiators representing the Forest Service accept any of the alternatives proposed.

Hence, as NO SETTLEMENT was reached, the suit went back to Judge Karlton. It is Judge Karlton that ordered the Forest Service to develop their plan; which is just no coming to light. And, that plan will go back to judge for the final ruling.

Throughout the process and still, BRC and partners OBJECT to the interim closure of routes in the absence of a route specific court finding that there is a likelihood of irreparable harm from continuing use, and that the balance of hardships and public interest both tip in favor of closure.

Gee, this means that in order to CLOSE the routes, BRC and partners are insisting the NEPA be used as the means rather than a judicial decision.

Yes, Bebe, NEPA does apply inspite of the fact that the routes were on the ground prior to enacting NEPA.

And, a couple people vocal in this thread need to stop the intellectual dishonesty and amnesia represented and fully disclose their part in the review of the routes in question and more. And, their lack of knowledge of many of the routes listed.

I will restate what I have been telling people for more than 10 years:

If you care about a route, you need to fully document the route and the current condition of that route.

If you care about a route, you need to be involved with your local land manager to under stand their concerns and let them know your concerns.

If you care about a route, you need to be involved to ensure that the route is maintained to address the concerns of the land manager.
__________________
John Stewart, KF6ZPL
Moderator, MUIRNet-News - [url]www.muirnet.net[/url]
kf6zpl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:48 AM   #340 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Member # 43526
Location: N.Cal
Posts: 676
Send a message via AIM to 71BRONCO71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brothergrim View Post
Cal4wheel and BRC
How is it ILLEGAL when a Federal judge says it is?

I dont care who says it. They closed the lands because of hearsay and not facts. If you have any facts on why they were closed down, please step forward. But in this country, you are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY.

I can see that there is no getting through to you. Au revoir (as you would say...)
__________________
Libertarian- Root word: LIBERTY
KEEP PUBLIC LANDS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Last edited by 71BRONCO71; 04-05-2012 at 11:49 AM.
71BRONCO71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:52 AM   #341 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brothergrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Member # 23319
Location: Playing in Traffic
Posts: 209
Bebe, this is one of the reasons that I didn't post the information here on Pirates. You have people that think they know the law and the lawers,with the licenses to practice law, and a Federal judge don't know what they are doing. I will listen to the professionals instead of the web lawers. Hope to see you all at the next Cal4Wheel meeting.
__________________
KI6ZFZ
Cal 4 Wheel, UFWDA, BRC, SEMA Action Network, & NorCal 4 Wheelers
Brothergrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 11:56 AM   #342 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Brothergrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Member # 23319
Location: Playing in Traffic
Posts: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by kf6zpl View Post
You have a lot to learn.

The "criminals" you refer to are the PLAINTIFFS in the lawsuit. THEY filed the suit against the Forest Service (DEFENDANTS) to CLOSE the routes. BRC, CA4WDC and AMA-D36 filed as INTERVENORS on the side of the Forest Service to keep the roues OPEN.

The "negotiated" issue is the result of the JUDGE ordering the PLAINTIFFS and the DEFENDANTS, along with the INTERVENORS to go into the corner and discuss ways to reach a settlement.

And, yes, that was done in private, outside of public view and interruption -- just like normal court ordered settlement discussions.

Yes, it is "negotiations". And, yes, it included representatives from all parties named in the lawsuit.

Rather than trash BRC, CA4WDC and AMA D36, you should thank them for stepping in and representing OHV interests. NO OTHER GROUP WAS WILLING TO STEP IN AND BECOME INVOLVED.

BRC and partners DID NOT accept a number of alternatives proposed. Nor did the Dept of Justice negotiators representing the Forest Service accept any of the alternatives proposed.

Hence, as NO SETTLEMENT was reached, the suit went back to Judge Karlton. It is Judge Karlton that ordered the Forest Service to develop their plan; which is just no coming to light. And, that plan will go back to judge for the final ruling.

Throughout the process and still, BRC and partners OBJECT to the interim closure of routes in the absence of a route specific court finding that there is a likelihood of irreparable harm from continuing use, and that the balance of hardships and public interest both tip in favor of closure.

Gee, this means that in order to CLOSE the routes, BRC and partners are insisting the NEPA be used as the means rather than a judicial decision.

Yes, Bebe, NEPA does apply inspite of the fact that the routes were on the ground prior to enacting NEPA.

And, a couple people vocal in this thread need to stop the intellectual dishonesty and amnesia represented and fully disclose their part in the review of the routes in question and more. And, their lack of knowledge of many of the routes listed.

I will restate what I have been telling people for more than 10 years:

If you care about a route, you need to fully document the route and the current condition of that route.

If you care about a route, you need to be involved with your local land manager to under stand their concerns and let them know your concerns.

If you care about a route, you need to be involved to ensure that the route is maintained to address the concerns of the land manager.
X1000
That you John for all your hard work. See you on the 21st.
__________________
KI6ZFZ
Cal 4 Wheel, UFWDA, BRC, SEMA Action Network, & NorCal 4 Wheelers
Brothergrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 12:01 PM   #343 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Member # 48053
Location: Up 4
Posts: 101
The Calaveras Enterprise contacted me after my emails last night and want to do a REAL story (not just reposting the order from the USFS site). I don't know enough about land-use issues/law to represent our side well.

Can a few of you who are heavily involved PM me so I can give you the contact information?

Thanks!
Wheelin4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 12:03 PM   #344 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Member # 43526
Location: N.Cal
Posts: 676
Send a message via AIM to 71BRONCO71
Quote:
Originally Posted by kf6zpl View Post
BRC and partners DID NOT accept a number of alternatives proposed. Nor did the Dept of Justice negotiators representing the Forest Service accept any of the alternatives proposed.

Hence, as NO SETTLEMENT was reached, the suit went back to Judge Karlton. It is Judge Karlton that ordered the Forest Service to develop their plan; which is just no coming to light. And, that plan will go back to judge for the final ruling.
Then I am confused. Why did the trails get shut down? If nothing was agreed upon, why am I not allowed on the trail?
__________________
Libertarian- Root word: LIBERTY
KEEP PUBLIC LANDS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
71BRONCO71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 12:04 PM   #345 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,953
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
Yes, Bebe, NEPA does apply inspite of the fact that the routes were on the ground prior to enacting NEPA.
How? I can't find anywhere that there was any new "action being taken affecting the environment". Proposed is just that...proposed, before, in front of.

Quote:
And, a couple people vocal in this thread need to stop the intellectual dishonesty and amnesia represented and fully disclose their part in the review of the routes in question and more. And, their lack of knowledge of many of the routes listed.

So you want me to post your e-mail to me from last year?

OK.
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 12:10 PM   #346 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Member # 3622
Location: Lakeside, CA
Posts: 1,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71BRONCO71 View Post
Then I am confused. Why did the trails get shut down? If nothing was agreed upon, why am I not allowed on the trail?
The "closure" is proposed until the judge issues his final decision. The "proposal" does call for extending the seasonal closure.

So, no agreement was reached. The judge issued an order "closing" the routes pending final analysis and resolution by the Forest Service.
__________________
John Stewart, KF6ZPL
Moderator, MUIRNet-News - [url]www.muirnet.net[/url]
kf6zpl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 12:13 PM   #347 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Member # 3622
Location: Lakeside, CA
Posts: 1,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe View Post
How? I can't find anywhere that there was any new "action being taken affecting the environment". Proposed is just that...proposed, before, in front of.


So you want me to post your e-mail to me from last year?

OK.
You are one of those claiming lack of local involvement. Seems to me you are one of the "locals" that did have a part in the discussions...

Like I said, intellectual honesty would go along way towards moving the thread from a "trash everyone" tone to something that would be constructive.
__________________
John Stewart, KF6ZPL
Moderator, MUIRNet-News - [url]www.muirnet.net[/url]

Last edited by kf6zpl; 04-05-2012 at 12:14 PM.
kf6zpl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 12:21 PM   #348 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Member # 3622
Location: Lakeside, CA
Posts: 1,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe View Post
How? I can't find anywhere that there was any new "action being taken affecting the environment". Proposed is just that...proposed, before, in front of.


OK.
Before you begin mincing words and inventing definitions, study the material at: http://www.4x4voice.com/Notebook/ESA...t/index.html?1

Pay close attention to the verbiage within the law. For additional material, get the book: Mastering NEPA: A Step-by-Step Approach authored by Ronald E. Bass and Albert I. Herson.

That is the text used by federal agencies in their NEPA training session.
__________________
John Stewart, KF6ZPL
Moderator, MUIRNet-News - [url]www.muirnet.net[/url]
kf6zpl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 12:25 PM   #349 (permalink)
Phobohomic
 
fermentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Member # 55687
Location: sacramento
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71BRONCO71 View Post
They closed the lands because of hearsay and not facts. If you have any facts on why they were closed down, please step forward
Ryan, they don't call it "Junk Science" for nothing. It is like the search for WMD, you don't have to actually find any to cause a reaction. That is their strategy when they come up empty with one cause, they just move on to the next.

It is up the the USFS to prove them wrong, again and again. That's the law.

If I understand correctly, Karlton wasn't satisfied with USFS studies on the 42 routes that were unable to be negotiated and ordered them closed while USFS completes the analysis to his satisfaction before he will make final ruling.

In addition to WMD, they also have a Saddam Hussein (OHV) component to put the hate on. Never did any damage here, but is general scum and needs to go.

Makes me sick too.....................
__________________
Dale
RUBICON ROCK HEADS

______________________________________________

R.I.P. Dennis Mayer. W2DWM. Rubicon Rock Head & Pirate of the Rubicon.
fermentor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 12:31 PM   #350 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Member # 43526
Location: N.Cal
Posts: 676
Send a message via AIM to 71BRONCO71
Quote:
Originally Posted by fermentor View Post
Ryan, they don't call it "Junk Science" for nothing. It is like the search for WMD, you don't have to actually find any to cause a reaction. That is their strategy when they come up empty with one cause, they just move on to the next.
Sounds like a violation of the 4th amendment

And along with harassment against the OHV community.
__________________
Libertarian- Root word: LIBERTY
KEEP PUBLIC LANDS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
71BRONCO71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.