Deer Valley/Strawberry Closed?

[fermentor]

Scott, where is that published?

[MochaMike]

http://www.laketahoenews.net/2012/04...unty-is-wrong/

[fermentor]

Originally Posted by MochaMike

http://www.laketahoenews.net/2012/04...unty-is-wrong/

Thanks Mike.

[Mark 5]

have been reading over the list of trails. it appears slick rock is not listed,
or did i just miss it? can anyone confirm this please.

[Kurtuleas]

Originally Posted by Mark 5

have been reading over the list of trails. it appears slick rock is not listed,
or did i just miss it? can anyone confirm this please.

Slick Rock is not on the "closed" list.

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by Mark 5

have been reading over the list of trails. it appears slick rock is not listed,
or did i just miss it? can anyone confirm this please.

The SlickRock I know is in Stanislaus National Forest.

[pepe]

Originally Posted by Mark 5

have been reading over the list of trails. it appears slick rock is not listed,
or did i just miss it? can anyone confirm this please.

As stated above Slickrock off of Hyw 4 is in the Stanislaus Nat. Forest. The other popular trail up Hyw 4 Deer Valley Trail is in either Stanislaus, or Carson Iceberg NF. Possibly neither since it is in a corridor, not sure how that works.

The only National Forest affected by this is Eldorado.

[Wheelin4]

I thought Deer Valley was part of the closure. . . . .???

[Bebe]

The last section of Deer Valley is in Stanislaus (HWY 4).

[pepe]

Originally Posted by pepe

As stated above Slickrock off of Hyw 4 is in the Stanislaus Nat. Forest. The other popular trail up Hyw 4 Deer Valley Trail is in either Stanislaus, or Carson Iceberg NF. Possibly neither since it is in a corridor, not sure how that works.

The only National Forest affected by this is Eldorado.

I want to correct my mistake.

Deer Valley Trail is in either Stanislaus, or Mokelumne Wilderness! Is what I ment to say.


But upon looking at this map
http://www.gentryoffroad.com/php/map...oradoblank.jpg

it gets even more confusing. It looks like a very small part of the trail does touch Eldorado NF. The rest of it is in Toiyabe NF or the Mokelumne Wilderness. I still dont understand how it works when the trail is in a wilderness corridor.

Bebe, maybe you can explain?

[Bebe]

Click on this link, it will open a PDF Map in Stanislaus NF and show the different boundaries.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5112671.pdf

I can put it up as a map tomorrow.

This map shows the portion of the route that is unjustly and unnecessarily closed

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5364201.pdf

[WLDWUN]

Originally Posted by pepe

I want to correct my mistake.

Deer Valley Trail is in either Stanislaus, or Mokelumne Wilderness! Is what I ment to say.

Deer Valley trail is both in Eldorado National Forest and Stanislaus.
The only part affected is on the Eldorado side.
Naturaly, none of the trail is in the Mokelume Wilderness, it is a cherry stem between the wilderness boundry.

regardless, no matter what part of the trail is affected, it will be impossable to travel from Blue Lakes to highway 4, unless the judge decides that the trail can remain open while the suplimental study is done

[renolaw]

so it appears one may leave hermit valley and climb up the deer valley trail to just about the southern water crossing, then turn back. Some of the better obstacles are in this area anyway. Maybe camp at the old shingle mill site and return to Hwy 4. If true, its going to be busy and crowded up there this summer.

[MtnYota]

Has there been any word about when the Judge is going to make his decision regarding this summer? (ie. trail open/closure of the wetlands areas only/complete trail closure)

[Wheelin4]

Hwy 4 over Ebbetts Pass opened last week so Hermit Valley is accessible. . . .

[Wh1t3NuKle]

Originally Posted by MtnYota

Has there been any word about when the Judge is going to make his decision regarding this summer? (ie. trail open/closure of the wetlands areas only/complete trail closure)

We had a couple Rangers attend our Club meeting a week ago. The best response to this was, "expect within a couple weeks to a couple months" (see red font below denoting the dependency on this timeframe).


As a fellow wheeler, it's encouraged to abide by the law --

If you see people entering or leaving on CLOSED Trails, then kindly inform them of the status.

In need of contacting enforcement -- CALL the Forrest Service as they have the jurisdiction.

Local law likely will not lift a finger unless the "attitude" is quite flagrant, again as described to us.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/eldorado

[Bebe]

Hmmmm...

This is where I think most folks miss the details.

Taken from the JUDGES 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.

And from Lesters "synopsis"

* He addressed the forest service's responsiveness to the Judge's instructions over the past few years, and why the judge has ordered the trails closed until a decision is made based on a "Supplemental Environmental Impact Study".

[Sesame Street Song on]

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

[/Sesame Street Song off]

[71BRONCO71]

I'm still lost on why the judge ruled to close the trails. The "study" could have been made with the trails open.

Is there anyway a group of users (not .orgs) sit down with these idiots and discuss the closures?

[R290]

Hey I got a response to my e-mail

Dear Mr. Ervin,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the closure of routes in the Eldorado National Forest. I appreciate the opportunity to learn of your views.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, on May 26, 2011, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton found that the Forest Service failed to comply with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) when it designated 42 existing wheeled motorized vehicle routes that cross portions of meadows. The court found that the routes failed to meet standards and guidelines for meadow management contained in both Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA). The primary concern was segments of the routes that may affect meadows.


On February 14, 2012, the court directed the Forest Service to submit a proposed order that will set aside the decision that designates the 42 routes 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. The Forest Service submitted the proposed order on March 14. The court also directed that the current seasonal closure for those routes remain in effect until the court order is issued.


Judge Karlton is currently reviewing the Forest Service's proposed order and the response by the plaintiffs. The Eldorado National Forest will begin the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement after the Judge's final ruling. An updated, free-of-charge motor vehicle use map that shows the routes that are open to wheeled motor vehicle use will be available at all Eldorado National Forest offices in June 2012.


While I support the protection of our National Parks, wilderness areas and public lands, in my view, it is essential to consider all factors, including recreation use, when making decisions as to the best use of public lands. Although I am committed to the preservation of our nation's land, it is my belief that the American people should also be able to enjoy these resources. The lands are owned by the people. Our policy should balance the protection and enjoyment of our public lands. If our public lands are well managed both wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation should be able to be accommodated.

Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should OHV related legislation come to the House floor.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views with me.

Since no legislation is on the house floor, its in the courts. The different groups ( there are many) will continue to tie things up in court as it works for them.

The F.S. is waiting to see what the ruling will be, ( i.e how they need to close the routes) as one side wants permanent gates, while the FS likes whats cheap and easy, like Carsonite's


Since it will take at least a year for the EIS and then there will be a lot of back an forth for several months. But in the end, I don't think I will see DV reopened to 4x4's in my life time. Even with the FS wanting to open the routes.

[Runzoff]

R290,
Who is the response from?

[71BRONCO71]

That response seems to be researched. Like he/she does not want to offend any sides.

But I'm still saying that we the people have been proven guilty before innocent.

Jerry McNerney still hasn't responded to my letter.

[TN1776]

I may have missed this somewhere in the thread, but is there a definitive answer that the part of the Deer Valley trail that's in the Stanislaus National Forest will remain open? Short of installing another gate where the two forests meet I am not sure how they'd regulate people running in and back out to the Highway 4 side.

I am hoping to at least run the Stanislaus side of the trail this year... I feel like that trail owes me something after I broke real bad last year there! Nice little trail, great camping and scenery, sad to see it closed (even if temporary).

[Bebe]

You'd need to call Stanislaus NF for that info.

And, to Craig and Ryan...I give up. I don't know how many ways I can explain it.

You both should read the Court orders. There were no orders that the meadows were "bad", he (Karlton) said they didn't do their due diligence for the Riparian Conservation Objectives I and II in the study.

It's a paperwork thing...period. That's how CBD and Karen always screw us.

The FS doesn't hear anything except what they want to hear. So they are using this opportunity to hurt us. Because well, their goal is to shut down Off Roading.

I only know (personally) 3 people in all of Region 5 that are not evil.

3

[71BRONCO71]

Originally Posted by Bebe

And, to Craig and Ryan...I give up. I don't know how many ways I can explain it.

I'm more confused with the politics more than anything. I dont understand how things got this way.
I will not lay down any time. Like Kurt says, "I will fight tooth and nail for every INCH OF TRAIL!"

Originally Posted by Bebe

The FS doesn't hear anything except what they want to hear. So they are using this opportunity to hurt us. Because well, their goal is to shut down Off Roading.

"offroading" is much more than big tires and suspension. I really wish "they" would understand it is really taking a car/suv/truck/station wagon/hybrid off of the pavement and driving to a lake, driving to clearing to spend the night, driving to the stream to cool off, driving to go out doors and live life the way it was meant to be lived.

[R290]

Originally Posted by Runzoff

R290,
Who is the response from?

Dan Lungren.

Ok so its a paper work snafu.


I've been talking to anybody that will listen.
I bring the topic up slowly, maybe about going green. Like going green is transferring money from my pocket to the government or environmental groups.
I talked with my dentist and mention that you can't drive your car into camping places I know they have been too.
I've posted on other forums, where readers still think the CBD is a good org that plays a balancing role with "offroaders"

Once I post up a map of 50,000,000 acre's they want classified as critical habitat for the Mexican Jaguar in there home state. I did not hear back. Well it covers 2 states. But once classified all federal land will be impacted within the 2 state area.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/s...al_habitat.jpg