Deer Valley/Strawberry Closed?

[MT4Runner]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Kind of like when your husband does the dishes and leaves food all over them, he knows you're not going to ask him to do them again.

That's my job. When I leave food on them, I get asked to do them again.

I R whupped.

[RockMolester]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Phew!!!
Hell Hole is NOT on the list!!!!!

Well that's the first good news I've heard!

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by sandraider

Why are we so fast to blame organizations like CA4WDC and BRC when we all should be banding together to fight the real enemy. People like Karen S., CBD and all the other enviro-idoits out there. United we stand devided we fall. Its a old saying but its very true. Put aside your disagreements, your envy, your hatred or whatever keeps us apart and lets start working together or we will have nothing left.

Wises thing I've read for much of the day!!!

[76cjeep]

One thing we all have to remember here, and probably the most unfortunate fact of all this "temporary closure" stuff, is there is going to be a major over concentration of people wheeling on the trail system we have left. Kind of a bummer.

[ROCKLIMO]

HMMMMMM......Maybe the New Orleans Saints are on to something.

[Bebe]

I'll put this out there...why were folks who were local, with intimate knowledge of these trails not at the table?

And why did our reps not bring maps?

Curious...because I really don't understand.

Save the condescending/yoda speak....just explain it to me.


Please.

[RockMolester]

Originally Posted by Bebe

I'll put this out there...why were folks who were local, with intimate knowledge of these trails not at the table?

We bought our house on Echo Summit because we love the ENF. The forest gives us recreational opportunities we wouldn't have elsewhere. We pay property taxes and income taxes for the government to manage these public lands for the public.

Our property is about a 7-minute drive from the Strawberry trailhead, and about 25 minutes from the Barrett Lake trailhead. Do you think the Forest Service bothered to contact any of us locals about this?

This "Land Of Many Uses" has a motto proudly proclaimed on the Forest Service website: Caring for the Land and Serving People. There are an awful lot of points on this "MISSION" page that I don't see them following very closely:

About Us - Mission
Mission, Motto, Vision, and Guiding Principles

Mission

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Motto: Caring for the Land and Serving People

The phrase, "CARING FOR THE LAND AND SERVING PEOPLE," captures the Forest Service mission. As set forth in law, the mission is to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people: It includes:

Advocating a conservation ethic in promoting the health, productivity, diversity, and beauty of forests and associated lands.
Listening to people and responding to their diverse needs in making decisions.
Protecting and managing the National Forests and Grasslands so they best demonstrate the sustainable multiple-use management concept.
Providing technical and financial assistance to State and private forest landowners, encouraging them to practice good stewardship and quality land management in meeting their specific objectives.
Providing technical and financial assistance to cities and communities to improve their natural environment by planting trees and caring for their forests.
Providing international technical assistance and scientific exchanges to sustain and enhance global resources and to encourage quality land management.
Helping States and communities to wisely use the forests to promote rural economic development and a quality rural environment.
Developing and providing scientific and technical knowledge aimed at improving our capability to protect, manage, and use forests and rangelands.
Providing work, training, and education to the unemployed, underemployed, elderly, youth, and disadvantaged in pursuit of our mission.

Vision

We are recognized nationally and internationally as a leader in caring for the land and serving people.
We are a multicultural and diverse organization.
Employees work in a caring and nurturing environment where leadership is shared.
All employees are respected, accepted, and appreciated for their unique and important contribution to the mission.
The work is interesting, challenging, rewarding, and fun -- more than just a job!
We are an efficient and productive organization that excels in achieving its mission.
Responsibility and accountability for excellence are shared by employees and partners.
The American people can count on the Forest Service to perform.

Guiding Principles

To realize our mission and vision, we follow these 13 guiding principles:

We use an ecological approach to the multiple-use management of the National Forests and Grasslands.
We use the best scientific knowledge in making decisions and select the most appropriate technologies in the management of resources.
We are good neighbors who respect private property rights.
We strive for quality and excellence in everything we do and are sensitive to the effects of our decisions on people and resources.
We strive to meet the needs of our customers in fair, friendly, and open ways.
We form partnerships to achieve shared goals.
We promote grassroots participation in our decisions and activities.
We value and trust one another and share leadership.
We value a multicultural organization as essential to our success.
We maintain high professional and ethical standards.
We are responsible and accountable for what we do.
We recognize and accept that some conflict is natural and we strive to deal with it professionally.
We follow laws, regulations, executive direction, and congressional intent.

[fermentor]

Originally Posted by Bebe

I'll put this out there...why were folks who were local, with intimate knowledge of these trails not at the table?

And why did our reps not bring maps?

Curious...because I really don't understand.

Save the condescending/yoda speak....just explain it to me.


Please.

Decent questions.

Also wondering why the plaintiff's attorneys were successful in putting the fear of sodomy in DOJ attorneys and ours failed?

Will settle for yoda-speak

[blondejon79scout]

i think they are suing over the red legged frog habitat?
in their lawsuit they specifically bring up this frog:
i know its just leverage to close trails, but maybe we can proactive in other counties with these same species so we can beat them to the punchline for places like slick rock

"The only particular species at issue in this order is the
California red-legged frog, Rana aurora draytonii, as plaintiffs
have not provided arguments regarding any other species."

http://www.sierranevadaconservation....rado%20TMP.pdf
all the research I've done talks nothing about these frogs in meadows? only near water?

his frog is in placer county, calaveras, the coast, and its endangered, its only a matter of time until they hit up other counties. i say we ask this Karen lady for a list of her species that she is worried about and we start finding out how we can mitigate this risk by altering available trails now that are still open around these other animals. i this could be mutually beneficial. if she then still continues to try to close trails, then she is a cold hearted biatc$


i personally just want to cover all bases,
there are more threats to this damn frog than us: bull frogs, pesticides, cattle grazing, weather changes, dams, reservoirs,

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/n...5-27-2011.html

fro their statement, its not about the meadows , its about the red legged frog?
SAVING THE CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG
Experts agree: Mark Twain’s favorite amphibian, “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County,” is none other than the California red-legged frog. Once so common it was a staple cuisine, California’s largest native frog has now lost 90 percent of its historic population. Thanks to Center litigation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated more than 4.1 million acres of critical habitat in 2001, but a building-industry lawsuit caused the agency to withdraw that decision — and even after Center intervention and a federal proposal to re-designate the original acreage, the Service protected only 450,288 acres. This decision, occurring through the influence of former Interior Department official Julie MacDonald, was based on a biased economic analysis and ignored scientific evidence of the species’ needs.

In August 2007, the Center warned we would sue over this decision and 54 other tainted endangered species rulings. Three months later, the Service announced the reversal of six rulings, including the one slashing habitat for the frog. In December 2007, we sued to ensure that the frog’s new critical habitat designation was adequate, and in 2010, the Service nearly quadrupled the designation to 1.6 million acres.
Unfortunately, the frog’s habitat has also been contaminated by pesticides — to which amphibians, with their permeable skin, are highly vulnerable. The Center filed a 2002 lawsuit forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to consult with endangered species experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that chemicals they register won’t harm the red-legged frog. In 2006, we reached a settlement agreement that prohibits the use of 66 toxic pesticides in and near core California red-legged frog habitats until formal consultations with the Service have been completed. When the EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service failed to follow through, in 2011 we took both agencies back to court.

In 2001, the Center submitted a comprehensive, scientifically based conservation plan for Southern California’s four national forests that would protect red-legged frog habitat, and we’re still challenging the Forest Service’s frog-harming management plans for these forests. We’ve also opposed numerous urban-sprawl projects in the San Francisco Bay Area to ensure that red-legged frogs aren’t squeezed out by golf courses and luxury condos.

so option 1, lets find a way to help these frogs while keeping our trails open? if thats what it takes, ill start giving a f$ck about these frogs , we can one up them and find ways that she the frogs and keep the trails open.
don't they have a frog tunnel under the causeway on I80 going towards davis?
we can build bridges, route off areas closer to their habitat, ad frog tunnels, kill some bull frogs, and reroute their habitats from the trails to nearby areas? do these things even hang out on the trails? they might stay away from the trails anyway?
i want to see proof they are on the trails listed in the closures.

basically she is using this frog as leverage to shut down trails because she hates wheelers. i bet she eats them . they used to be cuisine in california.

since the entire crux of their argument relies on these frogs, i feel like they have to prove there is a frog population there, then prove its a red frog, then prove that all the other reasons(dams, weather, bull frogs, cattle grazing, pesticides) aren't the problem, and not 4 wheeling. if wheeling is an issue, lets build bridges and block off parts of the trail that go near these frogs homes?

[R290]

Your thinking logical. Just drop that.

Don't forget the red legged frog is an important food source for the endangered garter snake.

[Reid Racing]

Karen & Friends aren't actually concerned about the frogs or any other endangered species du jour - they're just using that as a tool to get what they really want:

Complete Forest Closure

If frogs were what they were really concerned with, a handful of bridges and some easy trail reroutes would be all it would take to solve the problem. But if we humor them and go with the frog excuse, they'll just conjure up another random endangered species catastrophe as a tool in their next round of forest closure lawsuits.

We need to fight them on this now before we've lost everything!

After all, if a creature is so fragile that it can't survive in today's world, then isn't that just natural selection??? What could be more natural than Survival Of The Fittest? It's not like the frogs are being actively hunted and slaughtered - I don't think any of us would want to harm an endangered frog. Heck, we'll even make reasonable efforts to provide them with the habitat they need. But we won't stand by and let the anti-access elitists use the frog as a tool to have us locked out of our public lands!

[kcjeep6]

OHV’s don’t kill Frogs, Frogs kill frogs.

The Judge disallowed the frog issue.
Read all about it here. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNKO1NJKED.DTL
Biologists have discovered the Typhoid Mary of the frog world - a little green hopper that is spreading a deadly fungus disease to other frogs and amphibians in the Sierra while remaining largely immune to the infection itself.

The fungus, known as chytrid, has killed frogs, toads, salamanders and newts in the Sierra and is the same fungus that has wiped out hundreds of frog species throughout the world in what many biologists have termed a "mass extinction."

In California, two San Francisco State University researchers have discovered that the common Pacific chorus frog, an amphibian barely an inch long, appears to be the guilty animal. The chorus frogs are heavily infected with the killer fungus, but almost never show symptoms of the disease, biologist Vance T. Vredenburg and Natalie M.M. Reeder, a recent graduate student in his lab, reported in Monday's online journal PloS One.

Not so for the frog's neighbors, the yellow-legged frogs that also inhabit Sierra lakes are rapidly being infected and dying with a litany of severe symptoms, including "weight loss, lethargy, excessive skin shedding, muscle spasms and loss of reaction to stimuli," the researchers said.

The chorus frog is common to California. Its noisy "ribbit" call can be heard from dawn to dusk around lakes from the Bay Area to the High Sierra, but Vredenburg said in an interview that no studies have been done to determine whether the fungus it carries is affecting Bay Area amphibians.

Population crash

Worldwide, the chytrid fungus has spread to nearly 600 species of frogs, Vredenburg said, and has probably driven more than 200 species to extinction.

"It's the worst population crash of animals in history," he said.

Reeder, a UC Berkeley graduate with a major in integrative biology, backpacked across the Sixty Lakes Basin in the High Sierra east of Fresno to study the chorus frogs and the endangered yellow-legged frogs that inhabit the same lakes. She brought back samples of both species to Vredenburg's lab.

Throughout Sierra lakes, the yellow-legged frogs have been in catastrophic decline for many years, according to Vredenburg. In her backpacking travels, Reeder observed that with their sticky toe pads, the infected chorus frogs are able to move overland from lake to lake, spreading the chytrid fungus.

Back in the lab, Vredenburg said he determined that as the infected chorus frogs swim through water, their skin releases thousands of "zoospores" that disperse the fungus spores and infect the yellow-legged species.

The fungus spores attack the yellow-legged frog's skin, causing it to thicken and preventing the animal from absorbing crucial water and salts like sodium and potassium. In chorus frogs, however, researchers found patches of both normal and infected skin.

"The patches of healthy skin appear to function normally in the chorus frogs," Vredenburg said, "and that's what probably protects them against the infection." The normal skin holds elements of the chorus frog's immune system, he said.

Thwarting the fungus

Vredenburg believes that further analysis may provide a path toward thwarting the chytrid epidemic. The normal skin holds many species of bacteria, and among those bacteria could be some that destroy the chytrid fungus, he said.

The scientists are also studying the chorus frog's genome in search of genes that could be responsible for their immunity to the fungus, he said.

"We've figured out one piece of the puzzle," he said, "and understanding the genome will help us to understand differences between those two species of frog."

Allan P. Pessier, an immunologist at the Wildlife Disease Laboratories of the San Diego Zoo's Institute for Conservation Research, is a co-author of the report.

David Perlman is a San Francisco Chronicle science editor. dperlman@sfchronicle


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1sd3IfFbL

[Jeepndel]

I'll post this up, let you draw your own final conclusions, but I will summarize these key points:
1. There are over 13 pages of alerts, information and updates on the BRC website alone. All sent out and posted on dozens of forums.
2. ALL groups and forums were asked to respond to the Travel Management stuff and Route Designation, back to, hmmm, I've lost track of how many years ago that has started and been going on where WE were asked to SUBMIT our trails.
3. The folks at the table now DID have maps, trails and awesome representation -- the judge ain't buying it. That is why we are still in court and hoping for another hearing soon.
4. MOST IMPORTANTLY: Read this if nothing else. WHEN we filed the first legal filing on the El Dorado it was FRIENDS OF THE RUBICON that did the filing (and that included, as you all know, ANYONE who loved the trail). FOTR was far-sigthed enough then to see it was about more than the Rubicon, for sure...but we KNEW this mess would affect the trail so FOTR did the fling (thanks to BRC Paul Turcke and Cal4 Dennis Porter, who really were our attorneys). Still are.

[Jeepndel]

Here ya go. First filing. FOTR knew it was coming; invited all players to help; got support from BRC and Cal4 (and later others); and whipped it on the court.

[Jeepndel]

If you look closely at the Eldorado, you'll find that there are (have been) several lawsuits filed about it. In fact, that is why it's kinda held in a separate light from other Forests -- it's more of a court ordered Travel Management.

So, this 2005 lawsuit that I am listing here with FOTR doing the filing (thanks to BRC and Cal4), is actually what started the whole mess and got TRAILS OPENED for us. Yup.

John Stewart reminded me there was another earlier lawsuit in the 1990's (by our side, Cal4 and BRC) against the feds for their "Closed Unless Signed Open" garbage. We slapped them on that as well.

If you notice, this suit is for intervenor AND cross-complaint. In other words, we filed against the anti-access folks for wanting to close the WHOLE foest; AND we filed against the feds for closing all those (our) roads during Travel management that they did close. We got them back opened.

But now we have a new suit, filed 2011 by the same anti-access folks for the most part, affecting our 42 routes in question now. BRC, Cal4, Cal.Enduro Riders, and AMA D36 are carrying this ball.

This can be very confusing to follow...I get that. But I hope this helps. Key points: without a few key groups fighting for the El Dorado like BRC, Cal4, Enduro Riders, AMA D.36, we would have NOTHING left, and less in the future.

So now you know why it's critical to work with the big orgs and established groups in the big fights -- they know what they are doing. Johnson Valley is our next battle, going on now. It could come to court action....get in the game.
Del

[forbergler]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Because it's a Cherry Stem....designated by Congress. The very section of trail that crosses a meadow and has 2 hardened water crossings are Cherry Stemmed.

See map , post 194, page 8 of this thread

What of this? I don't remember seeing an answer to the question of the private property issue. How can the Circus be sued, and close down a route that does not belong to them? There are only two creek crossings, both of which are in meadows, but both appear to be on private property that the trail runs through.


Also, why don't we use some of there tactics and start gating off or blocking access to popular trail heads because we "believe" that people hiking, dogs running loose and the noise they make disturb all the animals' peace and tranquility? I bet the hypocrites would be pissed if they had to walk an extra 10 miles to there favorite trailhead.

I think it's high time we started fighting them with there own tactics.

[R290]

Del How can we get to partner status on the law suit? It looks like we are not at the table. We are listed as intervenor. Maybe I got this all wrong, but unless your at the table it won't amount to a hill of beans. The deals will be made and we get to find out after the fact.

Edit: So the trail has travels through a meadow for 100 years? What so special about a meadow? Is this the primordial soup that all life forms comes from? I like to look at nice Meadows and I don't drive in them like its some OHV park mud hole. We are going in single file through them.

[Jeepndel]

Originally Posted by R290

Del How can we get to partner status on the law suit? .

We ARE at the table thru our membership and partnership with Cal4 and BlueRibbon Coalition. That is what several folks are missing here. We are there and have been there all along (for those that submitted trails; for those that did their comment letters; for those that participated in the Scoping and NEPA process; and for those that ARE members).

Remember, there is more than one lawsuit on the Eldo. Above, I am writing about the 42 trail closure one that is going on right now (we basically already won the other two). Cal4, BRC, AMA D. 36 and Calif. Enduro riders are representing all their members and partners in the lawsuit (filed last year by the anti-access crowd).

Here is a vicious circle for you: lawsuits take money. Big money. Most orgs don't have the kind of money it takes so they do fund-raisers and membership drives. ALL our big orgs are member-based. There are no big Exxon or Mobile type donors. So not trying to sound mean, but if folks are NOT members (individual, dues paying, annual or lifetime members), you are NOT in the game. (not directed at you, R290, but to anyone out there that has let their membership lapse, or is not in the "organizational" game.). So without members, it's hard to fully fund lawsuits; without fully funded lawsuits and money to support the marketing and outreach that goes with them, people feel left out and therefore let their memberships lapse. And the vicious circle continues until we lose everything.


Del

[R290]

Thanks for the update Del.

I sent a letter to this site asking that we could become blue star members at anytime vs waiting until your subscription was up. I had auto pay with pay pal and was not allow the opportunity to become a blue star member. I've since cancel my pay pal subscription to prevent this in the future.

I never heard back on my request.

[fermentor]

Originally Posted by R290

Thanks for the update Del.

I sent a letter to this site asking that we could become blue star members at anytime vs waiting until your subscription was up. I had auto pay with pay pal and was not allow the opportunity to become a blue star member. I've since cancel my pay pal subscription to prevent this in the future.

I never heard back on my request.

Had same condition. Lance said to just add it and cancel the other. It was a while back, but I just added the Blue star and when authorizing the autopay, canceled my Red star. Red star didn't renew and nothing bad happened to Blue star. Think it just added a year to existing account remaining - otherwise I'd have been pissed.

[R290]

Originally Posted by fermentor

Had same condition. Lance said to just add it and cancel the other. It was a while back, but I just added the Blue star and when authorizing the autopay, canceled my Red star. Red star didn't renew and nothing bad happened to Blue star. Think it just added a year to existing account remaining - otherwise I'd have been pissed.

Thanks, but I was looking for cut and dry approach.

Like click this button to become a blue star member now!
You will be a blue star member for the remain time on your current red star subscription.

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/payments.php

Or spell it out on the link above

[cruzila]

El Dorado County weighs in in an editorial piece.

El Dorado County is dismayed to learn that the plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court in the case of Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. U.S. Forest Service (E.D. Cal. No. S-09-2523) have asked the court to consider the blanket closure of 42 roads in the Eldorado National Forest because those roads happen to pass through very small meadow areas. The court has ordered those roads closed until a final order has been issued, which may cause the loss of a number of the most popular recreation trails in Eldorado County for this summer season.

These roads have been in use for recreation for decades (some for a century), and provide a unique and irreplaceable opportunity for citizens to enjoy the land which they own. The court's decision on the merits of the litigation found that the U.S. Forest Service must supplement its analysis of whether the roads crossing meadows affects the hydrology of the meadow, a process that the Forest Service estimates will take a full year, mostly because of the various procedural time limits applicable to supplemental environmental impact statements under NEPA. The 42 roads total about 120 miles in length, of which less than 5 miles involve meadow areas, and 23 out of the 42 roads involve meadow crossings of less than 300 feet.

The court has extended the normal winter closure of all 42 roads into the summer recreation season, while it considers various alternative orders it might issue to be in effect during the period while the supplemental analysis is being done. The closure of all42 roads for an entire summer recreation season just because they happen to pass through a meadow area for a short distance would be an unnecessarily blunt remedy that fails to maintain the status quo of many years of public use on those roads, and that fails to distinguish between different roads with different circumstances. For
example, the Barrett Lake Trail has been in use for decades, and over the years has been upgraded and maintained by users so it is in a better condition to sustain its popularity without degradation of the environment than many other
trails in the forest. It is considered a model of user-maintained road. It has several short sections involving meadows, but in many instances it has been re-routed around the meadow and in other sections it has been improved so that any hydrological problem has been eliminated. The Barrett Lake Trail ends at Barrett Lake, so that closing it at a short meadow section anywhere along its length effectively closes it entirely. The closure of this road for an entire recreation season is simply not justified by its particular circumstances. Furthermore, the closure of some of the most popular recreational roads in the Eldorado National Forest will divert users to other trails (such as the Rubicon Trail, a public road under R.S. 2477 and thus not involved in the current litigation), potentially overburdening these other trails which are
not involved in the litigation.

Most importantly, a blanket closure of all 42 roads fails to take into account the enormous negative economic impact this will have on El Dorado County (and the other counties affected by the closure- Amador and Alpine Counties). Closure of 42 roads will discourage citizens from coming here to recreate this summer, and the resulting confusion and uncertainty will no doubt discourage recreational use of the Eldorado National Forest for subsequent seasons also. It has been estimated that vehicular recreation in the Eldorado National Forest produces a net positive economic effect estimated to exceed $2 million per year to El Dorado County. An order carefully tailored to recognize the decades of prior use of the 42 routes, which recognizes the different circumstances of particular roads among the 42 at issue, can help alleviate unnecessary damage to the local economy.

The environmental and planning laws must be honored, but in a way that is both rational and realistic, without causing unnecessary damage to a fragile economy, and without unjustified restrictions on a citizen's right to use federal land. El Dorado County believes that the roads should be kept open for this season while the remaining environmental analysis is being performed.

[renolaw]

bravo and well stated.

[k5chevyblazer]

very nice to whomever wrote it!

[Jeepndel]

I posted up the all you want to know about NEPA stuff here if you are interested:
/forum/land-use-issues/1061518-all-about-nepa-part-i.html