Deer Valley/Strawberry Closed?

[NorCalPR]

Wow, what a shame


Sent from my iThingy using Tapatalk

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by NorCalPR

Wow, what a shame

The shame lies in the "Sham" as much as the losses, both of which continue with no end in sight!

That and the fact that 53 million people who use motorized means to access Public Lands in a Nation of 313 million haven’t changed the course.

[NorCalPR]

It's mainly because all 53 million don't speak up


Sent from my iThingy using Tapatalk

[WLDWUN]

FYI
11N26F

is Barrett Lake Jeep Trail

[Kurtuleas]

Originally Posted by WLDWUN

FYI
11N26F

is Barrett Lake Jeep Trail

Sh*t.

So it is on the list

[cmarjeep]

We need to make land use like gun ownership. Almost every gun owning American will fight tooth and nail to stop politicians from limiting gun rights. Many politicians are afraid to even mention the topic because they know how adamant the people are about the issue.

When it comes the land use, a few voices fight for the majority. We have the numbers, we just need to make those numbers speak up for their rights.

We can't let our trails get taken away. Once they are gone they are too hard to get back.

In the 1930's our government started taking away our gun rights with legislation like the National Firearms Act. Every decade they took away more and more. That all came to an end in 2004 with the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban. Now we are slowly taking back our gun rights. More states than ever are shall issue concealed carry and we are slowly regaining our rights every year.

The point of this is, we can't turn a blind eye to land use. Once it all gets taken and the people finally realize what happened, it will be too late. By then the only way to get back our trails will be through the courts which is very expensive and takes a very long time.

[connor0770]

Thats a very good point. Personally I think any judge who has a say in this matter needs to be taken out on these trails so he can experience the beauty of them.

On a more serious note. Can someone get ahold of the C4WD lawyer and ask them what we need or can do to fight for these trails to be re-opened. Even if they do get closed for a year, we need to start fighting back now.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by cmarjeep

We need to make land use like gun ownership.

Heck after our Presidents meeting with Mexico's President today where the foreign leader laid out what our policies should be here in the US of A regarding guns among other things.

He went so far as to blame our "loose" gun laws and desire for drugs on his Country’s problems while OUR President stood there with his head bobbing up and down as if on a hinge!!

It won't be long until our gun rights go the way of our multiple-use sustained-yield rights when the "hinge" is re-elected to another four . . . think his recent "off-mic flexibility” comment to a major Russian diplomat as an example!

Granted, the “Fast and Furious” deal was a REAL debacle but that wasn’t the fault of, or a decision made by, “we the people”!!!

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by connor0770

Can someone get ahold of the C4WD lawyer and ask them what we need or can do to fight for these trails

John Stewart is receiving all this traffic as a contributor to this discussion and he has the line to said lawyer. It is a wait and see deal at this juncture.

[WLDWUN]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

John Stewart is receiving all this traffic as a contributor to this discussion and he has the line to said lawyer. It is a wait and see deal at this juncture.

John has known about this for a while.

John should have given us information sooner than where we have heard it from.

John asked me for information on many of those routes last July. I supplied it, and told him keep us informed.

he didnt

[Brothergrim]

You are right cmarjeep, everyone that uses any of the unpaved NF or BLM roadway system need to get involved with Land Use. We need money to pay for the lobbyist and lawyers to fight these fight in the State Assemblies, Congress, and the court system (State and Federal). We have to much infighting within our land-use community's. You rarely hear about secondary or tertiary gun rights groups. As FS road users we should try to drop all of our egos and focus on the issues. To many times we fight against our selfs and loss sight of the big picture. What if BRC, and Cal4Wheel was as big as the NRA, think what we get get done with that type of commitment.




P.S. To cmarjeep, Cal4Wheel is looking to start a Nevada Offroad Association soon.

[Curly]

"Wetland" and "Meadow" terms that all of a sudden have been adopted on the new map put out by the FS for the Rubicon. When I posed the question about the adoption of these terms to the Forest Service I was told that "Well this is just an easy way to describe the areas not necessarily a true description of the areas in question"

Right....all of a sudden we have "Soup Bowl Wetllands" and "Little sluice box wetlands" hmmmmmm.....and people say I'm paranoid.

How'd' ya like me know

[Brothergrim]

Originally Posted by WLDWUN

John has known about this for a while.

John should have given us information sooner than where we have heard it from.

John asked me for information on many of those routes last July. I supplied it, and told him keep us informed.

he didnt

I beg to differ with you. He is the one, along with Jim Bramham, and Dennis Porter that I got the information from.

[cmarjeep]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Heck after our Presidents meeting with Mexico's President today where the foreign leader laid out what our policies should be here in the US of A regarding guns among other things.

He went so far as to blame our "loose" gun laws and desire for drugs on his Country’s problems while OUR President stood there with his head bobbing up and down as if on a hinge!!

It won't be long until our gun rights go the way of our multiple-use sustained-yield rights when the "hinge" is re-elected to another four . . . think his recent "off-mic flexibility” comment to a major Russian diplomat as an example!

Granted, the “Fast and Furious” deal was a REAL debacle but that wasn’t the fault of, or a decision made by, “we the people”!!!

The whole point was that if you don't fight now it will be too late.

The lawyers over at Calguns are trying to restore our gun rights. But it's a case by case kind of thing that costs 10's of thousands of dollars per case and is a painfully slow process that takes years for each suit filed.

I'd hate to see the same thing happen to our trails. Look at what just happened here. All of a sudden we find out 40 trails have just been closed temporarily, possibly permanently. Just like that.

[Bebe]

So as I had posted earlier in this thread a link to the copy of this ruling:

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the parties’ motions for summary
judgment (Dkt. Nos. 52, 57, and 58) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART.

1. The court GRANTS summary judgment to defendants as to
plaintiffs’ claims regarding Subpart A of the Travel
Management Rule, the NEPA alternatives analysis, and the
adequacy of site specific data. Plaintiffs’ motion is
accordingly DENIED as to these claims.

2. The court GRANTS summary judgment to plaintiffs as to
the NFMA and ESA claims, as explained in the body of
this order. Defendants’ motions are accordingly DENIED
as to these claims.

3. The Eldorado National Forest Public Wheeled Motorized
Travel Management Record of Decision dated March 31,
2008 and the underlying Final Environmental Impact
Statement dated March, 2008 were adopted in violation of
the National Forest Management Act and the Endangered
Species Act.

4. The court will conduct further proceedings regarding
remedy. Within fourteen (14) days of the effective date
of this order, the parties SHALL file briefs proposing
a process and briefing schedule for use in addressing remedies.

So what you are seeing the remedies.

So if it is the COURT that decides these trails must be re-evaluated according the the NFMA and the ESA, how do those 2 acts trump the MYSYA (multiple use and sustained yield act)? How is it that they trump the fact that OHV Access is a bonafide "USE" of the National Forest per Executive Order 11644 (1972), amended by Executive Order 11989 (1977).

Many of these routes have existed prior to these orders. And over the course of time, have been evaluated MANY times...over and over.

And the 9th circuit has said that an agency's timing of analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is not arbitrary and capricious if it is performed before a critical commitment of resources occurs.

Well, I think these resources were committed (trails, soils, habitat etc) during the Gold Rush and long before NEPA existed. So wouldn't it be true that performing a NEPA analysis on these long existing routes "Arbitrary and Capricious"?

You have to perform a NEPA on a route to open it, or close it. And to close it, the NEPA is done on the ground disturbing activities in the ACTION of closure, in other words, the planning and execution of the closure.

[Bebe]

Originally Posted by Curly

"Wetland" and "Meadow" terms that all of a sudden have been adopted on the new map put out by the FS for the Rubicon. When I posed the question about the adoption of these terms to the Forest Service I was told that "Well this is just an easy way to describe the areas not necessarily a true description of the areas in question"

Right....all of a sudden we have "Soup Bowl Wetllands" and "Little sluice box wetlands" hmmmmmm.....and people say I'm paranoid.

How'd' ya like me know

How about if I repost this here:


Source Link: /forum/rubicon-trail/1027827-rubicon-trail-easement-resource-improvement-project-deis-available.html

Originally Posted by Bebe

Note the new "Wetlands" marked on the map. Note the Location of these "Wetlands":




IMHO - the FS has come up with the ultimate "lingo" to shut this trail down forever:

Here is a case that is being brought to the Supreme Court in January 2012 by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

Sackett Family Comments on EPA During Property Rights Forum - YouTube


And they did everything right. Their parcel is in a residential area – a platted subdivision – with sewer and water hookups. They obtained all the needed permits to begin building.

But when they began laying gravel, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency swooped in without warning. The Sacketts were told their land is “wetlands.”

They were ordered to return their property to EPA’s liking – on pain of $37,500 per day in fines!

Shocked, the Sacketts thought: There must be some mistake! They hired a soil expert and a biologist, who provided a certification that their parcel is not a wetland.

Mike and Chantell wanted to challenge the “wetlands” finding in court – but EPA (and the Ninth Circuit) said, No: They would have to restore their property (at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars), seek a “permit” (costing 12 times the purchase price of the land!), and bring a legal case when the permit was denied. Or, alternatively, they could violate EPA’s commands, and be hit with ruinous fines.

Watch this from Lou Dobbs

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1191105733001/

If this is the case on Private Property - you think Public Land, especially OHV's has a chance?

Little Sluice "Wetlands"??

FYI - the Sacketts WON their case.

They were challenging the 9th circuits ruling that they could not fight the EPA's determination that there were wetlands on their property. They had the GPS coordinates that showed there were no wetlands using the EPA's GIS data layer and a study that said there were no wetlands. But the 9th circuit said they were not entitled to Judicial review and that they had to "Complete the Process".

Well the 9th circuit was overturned on that one. The Sacketts can now have their day in court, and prove there are no wetlands on their property.

The Supreme Court found that the EPA was violating the Administrative Procedures Act.

How many times have we been screwed because we never thought of this??? How many "rulings" have we suffered in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act?

Rubicon, Clear Creek etc etc.

[Curly]

Agreed!

[cmarjeep]

I remember hearing about that Bebe. It's simply another case of a government organization using their power to further their agenda. They don't care if they don't follow the proper procedures. They don't care how many lives they ruin. They have infinite resources to flex their muscles like that. Even though that couple eventually won their case, they are financially ruined. They now live in a trailer on that property.

And what happens to the EPA who unlawfully fined and sanctioned that couple? Nothing. There is no accountability in the system. They will simply move on after losing that case and find more American citizens to screw over.

[connor0770]

This is garbage. How can the EPA get away with this?

[Brothergrim]

Originally Posted by connor0770

This is garbage. How can the EPA get away with this?

(Insert tongue in to cheek) Because the government must save us from ourselves. They must save the world. (remover tongue from cheek)

[Bebe]

Well it will be interesting to see if it is judge karlton who is ordering this closure while the trails are re evaluated or if it is just the forest service being jerks and punishing us.

Since when do you need to close a trail to do a Nepa? IMHO that is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by cmarjeep

it's a case by case kind of thing that costs 10's of thousands of dollars per case and is a painfully slow process that takes years for each suit filed.

I'd hate to see the same thing happen to our trails.

Huh?? That is exactly what has been happening to our trails for decades!!!

[cmarjeep]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Huh?? That is exactly what has been happening to our trails for decades!!!

Yeah and it's been happening with our guns since the 30's. Just imagine what trails we'll have left in 50 years if it keeps gong like this.

[connor0770]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Since when do you need to close a trail to do a Nepa? IMHO that is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious

I agree 100%

stole this off wikipedia "The CEQ regulations begin by calling for agencies to integrate NEPA regulations and requirements with other various planning requirements at the earliest possible time to ensure that all decisions are reflective of environmental values, avoid potential delays in the future and eliminate potential future conflicts"

maybe im interpreting this wrong? but it seems spot on that this is exactly what they are doing.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Brothergrim

I beg to differ with you. He is the one, along with Jim Bramham, and Dennis Porter that I got the information from.

Originally Posted by WLDWUN

John has known about this for a while.

Even if he did know, he is in a wait and see mode too and can't come up here and hand the opposition the keys to the puzzle . . . cum awn!!!