BRC: You have no "right" to public land.

[RockMolester]

Originally Posted by cjcraig7

Summarily, I think you are right about the traffic, who would want to be there beside the participants? That factor only, IMO should be what regulates the usage without having to engage in an official closure.

Thank you for your efforts.

Agreed 100%

[phattboy]

Originally Posted by Mrs DuMass

Perhaps someone should make Gregg aware of this thread and then he can apologize or explain himself?

Actually, I regularly peruse this and other forums, so I am and have been aware of this thread.

Greg Mumm
Executive Director
BlueRibbon Coalition

[Mrs DuMass]

Originally Posted by phattboy

Actually, I regularly peruse this and other forums, so I am and have been aware of this thread.

Greg Mumm
Executive Director
BlueRibbon Coalition

And?




Did you mis-speak yourself or does your smug reply say it all.

(this is a pretty serious "mistake" don't you think?)






A trust-fund for legal action, managed by a board of directors elected annually by the contributing members, would eliminate any question of divergent philosophies regarding the "rights" of the collective membership.

With a trust the members would be guaranteed a voice in the equitable distribution of benefit from the funding, by state or at least region. Instead of 40% for salaries, 25% for legal and 35% for office and "other"......it'd be 100% for legal.

With $700,000-$800,000 donated to save our trails annually, I guarantee the
fee of the trustee would be substantially less than 75% of the gross.

...

[kf6zpl]

Actually, Mrs DuMass, your screen name speaks volumes for your intellect and cognitive reasoning capacity.

You are boring and add nothing of substance to the discussion.

Come out with a real identified persona and contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Or, go back to your corner until you reach maturaty...

[phattboy]

My post was not intended as a "smug reply." I take what I do very seriously. My post was pretty straightforward and sincerely intended to let you and the others in this thread (or monitoring this thread) know that I do peruse these and other forums, that I do listen, and am aware of what they are saying.

I agree that it would also be helpful for myself and others to know who exactly you are as John indicates above. It would surely lend volumes to both your credibility and your expertise in the discussion.

Greg Mumm
Executive Director
BlueRibbon Coalition

[fermentor]

Originally Posted by phattboy

My post was not intended as a "smug reply." I take what I do very seriously. My post was pretty straightforward and sincerely intended to let you and the others in this thread (or monitoring this thread) know that I do peruse these and other forums, that I do listen, and am aware of what they are saying.

I agree that it would also be helpful for myself and others to know who exactly you are as John indicates above. It would surely lend volumes to both your credibility and your expertise in the discussion.

Greg Mumm
Executive Director
BlueRibbon Coalition

Good save
I too perceived it as smug and without much substance.
Thanks for following up.

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by atvobsession

what I would like to know....

A) How much fundraising does BRC do in California

B) How much % of their total legal dollars spent, is it in California.

C) What State do they spend the MOST money in, as a %.


It's pretty easy to do fundraising in California, but spend it in Utah or where ever.

RTF, obviously 100% $ collected, is spent on the Rubicon.

Corva...California obviously.

Supporting national organizations is great, but for places like El Dorado County, Johnson valley, etc....I think it's going to take local/state horsepower to depend on...not a national organization.

IMO...Orgs like BRC, should be focusing on National influence...Lobbying at a Federal level....like NRA....not battling individual roads.

That should be orgs like CORVA for OUR (California) needs....and RTF if you love a specific trail.

Just my opinion.

I agree with you.

Ever since BRC was started I asked Clark Collins to keep to this concept and I'd support BRC. But, from the beginning, BRC collected money from California with a lot of promises. In turn, other California based groups found themselves battling for the same available dollar.

The new kid on the block is ORBA.

Started by Roy Denner, it was his concept to raise money from the motorized recreation business and then grant that money to the groups that had good folks working on issues but lacked sufficent funding. Roy assured me and others who were leadership positions this was his concept while attending a dinner at the 2006 Off-Road Motorsport Hall of Fame.

What I've seen is the hiring of some folks who were representing ORBA's view at meetings and the like.

My point here is that we don't need more organizations.

We need to properly fund California organizations so that they can do what they do best.

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by kf6zpl

Actually, Mrs DuMass, your screen name speaks volumes for your intellect and cognitive reasoning capacity.

You are boring and add nothing of substance to the discussion.

Come out with a real identified persona and contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Or, go back to your corner until you reach maturaty...

John... what does it really matter if someone desires to remain "nameless" in such a discussion? There are a lot of reasons some folks wish to keep their real name off public discussion boards. Should we not respect the privacy of someone who requests it?

The concept of any message board is to exchange views on a subject.

Instead of bashing this person, I'd expect a contractor of CA4WDC to discuss the issues and debate what was posted by Mrs. Dumass.

If you disagree or agree with what was posted, then post to the issue(s) raised.

[randii]

Professional Behavior: Confront the problem, not the person.

Randii

[Jeepndel]

Originally Posted by randii

Professional Behavior: Confront the problem, not the person. Randii

x 2

[cruzila]

Originally Posted by kf6zpl

Actually, Mrs DuMass, your screen name speaks volumes for your intellect and cognitive reasoning capacity.

You are boring and add nothing of substance to the discussion.

Come out with a real identified persona and contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Or, go back to your corner until you reach maturaty...

The problem is, a paid representative of a California advocacy organization and a representative of a national advocacy organization treating a potential donor (i.e. customer) with disdain, disrespect and contempt. I have been witness to much worse only very recently from this same person. If I were the President or Executive Director of either of those organizations, I would be taking this problem very seriously.

Hack on a person? Maybe, but it is a problem and a recurring theme with a particular person. Where does it go from a problem to a person. People can be problems. Deal with the people, deal with problems. The reason this is so important is because people represent organizations and those faces of those people become the face of the organization. It is of the utmost importance that those faces are recognized as kind, compassionate, caring and understanding.

My suggestion would be for these organizations to have a professional public relations person or agency handling these issues and let the advocacy people do what they do best. Having the advocate do PR, fundraising et al. is too much of a drain on the resource and creates stresses that could cause these kinds of reactions. I have heard similar from many of the long time advocates out there that they have a hard time dealing with public opinion.
Well, the reason is: That's not your job, your job is to advocate for the public and form coalitions of groups to advocate together. It is someone elses job to relate it to the public in a constant positive manner so as to encourage more donations. A fundraisers job is to cultivate donors and manage fund raising events.

Mentioning that information has been loaded on to the web and saying it is the responsibility of the public to find it when asked to promote it should be met with apologies and a vow to do better to get the word out. It is as Bebe taught me, that every member, that organizations represent should be valued and treated as customers and potential customers. These organizations are all corporations of one kind or another. Most of them non profit in nature. They are all businesses and as such should be treating them as a service business where customer service is the most important value to bring.

Instead I see many of them not doing the best job at relations with the customer, not taking advantage of promotional opportunities, relying on the advocates to do too much, struggling with fund raising and wondering why it is so difficult. To me, as a Director of one of these types of organizations for the last 8 years, it is obvious where things could be improved easily and rapidly. The organization I am involved in has gone through this learning curve and though we are aware of the issues we need to fix, have a ways to go before we get really good at what we do. Improvement is always available and nothing ever stays the same. Things always change for the better or worse. The trick is to do what you can to always make it change for the better.

Good to see you read here Gregg, how's Charmin Hill these days, or Trespass? I can not believe it has been 12 years since I have enjoyed the Black Hills. Promise me you will do what you can to keep it open so I can come back some day?

[phattboy]

Originally Posted by cruzila

Good to see you read here Gregg, how's Charmin Hill these days, or Trespass? I can not believe it has been 12 years since I have enjoyed the Black Hills. Promise me you will do what you can to keep it open so I can come back some day?

Have been working with the FS and the local wheeling clubs to that very end. Charmin Hill was lost in the TMP but the surrounding two trails were saved which is pretty remarkable.

Greg

[Jeff Knoll]

Originally Posted by atvobsession

Yeah...of course. I was talking conceptually, not specifically. my bad.


I saw the other post talking about one organization. I agree....that one is simple...here's where my thoughts lie.

A gun is one thing. Like the NRA. And while, some local areas may try enact gun laws (like chicago) or at the State level..like California, they are fairly limited....the primary focus of Gun advocacy, is National. Hence..NRA. It's just not that fragmented.

Trails and Public access, isn't that simplified. Within each State....and even some counties..there can be HUNDREDS of trails. A National organization, like BRC would find it very problematic to fight every battle, for every trail , in every state, in every county.

I'm not saying BRC doesn't have its place...on the Contrary. I think BRC plays a pivotal role....but at a National level. BRC should be focused on lobbying congress, working on national appointments, like the head of the FS or BLM. Working with lawmakers to prevent bad legislation, and promoting good legislation. We need to build better relationships at the top, and that takes money, salaries to hire good people, influential people. Just imagine, if OHV had someone as charismatic and influential as say Bill Clinton talking to senators and representatives on OHV legislation..like Johnson Valley? No jokes about Bill...I'm talking about in theory..not the actual person.

It takes money to make money...BRC should be help focus fundraising on a national level, to a local level. Manufacturers, fabricators, parts makers, etc....need to wake up. When there's no place to wheel....people won't need a tire that costs $1000, or cryo frozen axle made of space age material, or an ATV, SxS...etc. If BRC was focused on that....local orgs could apply to them for grants to help their local areas.

So what I'm saying is....having one organization to give money to...isn't a horrible idea.....the problem is more local in nature...and that transferring of funds from a National to more localized area, with Orgs ready to use it in the right fight....would have to be in place.

We actually do have this now thanks to the donations at savethehammers.org. Press release will be out this week after the ink is dry on the contracts, but we are in the process of hiring the Livingston Group. which is lead by former house appropriations chairman Bob Livingston. In addition we are working closely with Former Senator Wayne Allard on the matter both of which we have met with at length on the subject.

[Jeff Knoll]

Originally Posted by cruzila

The problem is, a paid representative of a California advocacy organization and a representative of a national advocacy organization treating a potential donor (i.e. customer) with disdain, disrespect and contempt. I have been witness to much worse only very recently from this same person. If I were the President or Executive Director of either of those organizations, I would be taking this problem very seriously.

Hack on a person? Maybe, but it is a problem and a recurring theme with a particular person. Where does it go from a problem to a person. People can be problems. Deal with the people, deal with problems. The reason this is so important is because people represent organizations and those faces of those people become the face of the organization. It is of the utmost importance that those faces are recognized as kind, compassionate, caring and understanding.

My suggestion would be for these organizations to have a professional public relations person or agency handling these issues and let the advocacy people do what they do best. Having the advocate do PR, fundraising et al. is too much of a drain on the resource and creates stresses that could cause these kinds of reactions. I have heard similar from many of the long time advocates out there that they have a hard time dealing with public opinion.
Well, the reason is: That's not your job, your job is to advocate for the public and form coalitions of groups to advocate together. It is someone elses job to relate it to the public in a constant positive manner so as to encourage more donations. A fundraisers job is to cultivate donors and manage fund raising events.

Mentioning that information has been loaded on to the web and saying it is the responsibility of the public to find it when asked to promote it should be met with apologies and a vow to do better to get the word out. It is as Bebe taught me, that every member, that organizations represent should be valued and treated as customers and potential customers. These organizations are all corporations of one kind or another. Most of them non profit in nature. They are all businesses and as such should be treating them as a service business where customer service is the most important value to bring.

Instead I see many of them not doing the best job at relations with the customer, not taking advantage of promotional opportunities, relying on the advocates to do too much, struggling with fund raising and wondering why it is so difficult. To me, as a Director of one of these types of organizations for the last 8 years, it is obvious where things could be improved easily and rapidly. The organization I am involved in has gone through this learning curve and though we are aware of the issues we need to fix, have a ways to go before we get really good at what we do. Improvement is always available and nothing ever stays the same. Things always change for the better or worse. The trick is to do what you can to always make it change for the better.

Good to see you read here Gregg, how's Charmin Hill these days, or Trespass? I can not believe it has been 12 years since I have enjoyed the Black Hills. Promise me you will do what you can to keep it open so I can come back some day?

Agreed. Roberts Rule of Order offers good advice on this subject which I try and keep in my mind when playing in this medium.

It goes something like this.

Ideas are not people, and any idea laid on the table for discussion should be debated absent of personal feelings for the person whom suggests it. In addition a person who presents an idea should not make a personal investment in the idea debated for fear of corrupting his position at the table. Once a decision has been made the idea becomes representative of the group, or cast away and forgotten.

[lttlbddy]

Originally Posted by kf6zpl

Actually, Mrs DuMass, your screen name speaks volumes for your intellect and cognitive reasoning capacity.

You are boring and add nothing of substance to the discussion.

Come out with a real identified persona and contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Or, go back to your corner until you reach maturaty...

[Anonymous1]

Originally Posted by kf6zpl

Actually, Mrs DuMass, your screen name speaks volumes for your intellect and cognitive reasoning capacity.

You are boring and add nothing of substance to the discussion.

Come out with a real identified persona and contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Or, go back to your corner until you reach maturaty...

Muirnet,
Is the "trail of 100 trees" for motorized users? Did the USFS violate, the spirit if not the letter of, the law in cutting live trees in addition to the dead and dying trees?

and you defend the USFS





Mr Mumm, you have danced around the op's question:

yes or no, is our access to public land a right?

and you pay the USFS' legal bills with money you've gotten from sincere people who are fighting the USFS, how do you sleep?



Good for you Mrs DuMass, thanks for shining some light to expose the cockroaches hiding the plain truth.

[YellowSub1962]

Originally Posted by kf6zpl

Actually, Mrs DuMass, your screen name speaks volumes for your intellect and cognitive reasoning capacity.

You are boring and add nothing of substance to the discussion.

Come out with a real identified persona and contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Or, go back to your corner until you reach maturaty...

Wow John, so a persons screename gives them credibility with you?

I'm really disappointed in BRC AND Land Use leadership in this discussion, and for the first time am embarrassed to be a member.

(EDIT - I edited my post as I was not aware John was no longer part of UFWDA)

[atvobsession]

Originally Posted by Jeff Knoll

Ideas are not people, and any idea laid on the table for discussion should be debated absent of personal feelings for the person whom suggests it. In addition a person who presents an idea should not make a personal investment in the idea debated for fear of corrupting his position at the table. Once a decision has been made the idea becomes representative of the group, or cast away and forgotten.

Great point Jeff.

A good example...Ever seen a REALLY BAD Commercial? You watch the commercial, and think UGH! Who came up that idea??

I always say....Don't blame the idea person! That's person's job is to come up with ideas...good, bad, mediocre...it doesn't matter. It's the SECOND or THIRD person that says...."HEY...that's a great idea for commercial!" That's the guy you blame! Not the idea guy.

I've said this to our RTF board....If you come up with an idea and it's not accepted....don't take it personally....it has nothing to do with you. It was rejected because either you didn't explain it well enough, or it just wasn't a great idea at the time. Doesn't mean you suck or we hate you....your next idea might be fabulous...so don't get butt hurt.

[Mustard Dog]

Originally Posted by Anonymous1

Good for you Mrs DuMass, thanks for shining some light to expose the cockroaches hiding the plain truth.

Quit trying to act all clever, you're not as anonymous as you think and are on very thin ice. Knock it off.

[Anonymous1]

Originally Posted by Mustard Dog

Quit trying to act all clever, you're not as anonymous as you think and are on very thin ice. Knock it off.

Could it be that you are more clever than you seem or profess?

Is it impossible for you to observe your own forum rules and address the topic rather than to habitually abuse and intimidate people who offer you help for free?


The issue is OUR RIGHTS, IS IT NOT?

Do you share the perspective that public land accessibility is a priveledge as Mr. Mumm espoused?



Or do you agree that our Rights are being infringed when user fees and agency regulations trump the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

This coming Sunday is Earth Day and the beginning of National Parks week. We need to present ourselves as bigger environmentalists than the eco-green movement. We need to emphatically state OUR RIGHT as we address the entitlement mentality of those who seek to "preserve" our public lands by using the management plans to "preserve" wilderness like last summer's fruit in a jar. Make no mistake about it, our rights to public land are for sale to the highest bidder. For the right price you can do anything you want on public land while at the same time your right to 1st Amendment free speech seems to have a pricetag, not so free huh? Are you an elite member of an entitled group? Pay up and you can tour any restricted wilderness to "experience", "study" or "report". Are you one of the peasants, sorry charlie....closed.

When our tax dollars are intended to cause a government agency to perform a task on our behalf, paying for their services a second time is fiscally unsound. In the alternative, like the greens who seem to prevail with their strategies, we need to compel the public servants managing public rights that there will be consequences to their incompetance and mendacity.





Whether or not you like the messenger, the message is clear, our work needs improvement. Representatives who do not represent our core values will likely not ultimately represent us in the best fashion possible.

Wouldn't you agree md?

So a "statement of faith": so to speak a "code of conduct" reflecting our collective beliefs and objectives may be a wise idea at this point of divergant perspectives of "what's best for everyone" as we collectively bargain for access.

Silencing criticism is wonderful if you're a totalitarian, not so much in a democracy or this American Republic.

[aphantomduck]

I really like when someone is thinking "out-of-the-box" and rejects the converntional wisdom sometimes displayed on this forum.

Sometimes the stupid shit I see posted by our "OHV leadership" is nothing short of amazing to me.

I'm really glad that some here are calling bullshit when they see it.

I have been doing this land access stuff for nearly 35 years. I'm so tired of the stupid - un-thoughtout (is that a real word?) decisions that are being made.

The bottom line here is that the membership of BRC and others who live here in California are not buying the commentary espoused by the leadership of the same.

All the back tracking and mis-direction is not in keeping with the ultimate goal.

John, who is a paid contractor of a California group and a board member of a national group put his foot in his mouth on this topic. Instead of providing a simple "sorry" to the person who he ranted at - he has chose not to further add to this discussion.

Shame on John for his remarks and inability to make amends to those he offended.

Shame on all of you that have defended him in some way.

Shame on BRC's leader for talking down to all of us that use public lands.

[Bebe]

I spent a 17 year career working my way up through the retail ranks of a very well known retail company, Federated Department Stores, where the Customer is, was and always will be king. I managed and succeeded in all forms/levels of Management during that time.

We are Customers to both BRC, Cal4 UFWDA etc. This is how I see it:


The Problem

Instead I see many of them not doing the best job at relations with the customer, not taking advantage of promotional opportunities, relying on the advocates to do too much, struggling with fund raising and wondering why it is so difficult. <snip> Mentioning that information has been loaded on to the web and saying it is the responsibility of the public to find it when asked to promote it should be met with apologies and a vow to do better to get the word out.

The Solution

<snip> that every member, that organizations represent should be valued and treated as customers and potential customers. These organizations are all corporations of one kind or another. Most of them non profit in nature. They are all businesses and as such should be treating them as a service business where customer service is the most important value to bring.

The fine point

<snip> our work needs improvement. Representatives who do not represent our core values will likely not ultimately represent us in the best fashion possible.

To this comment I will say, that if we excuse a behavior on the sales floor because, well lets say he was having a bad day - is not going to bring that customer back - the rep should apologize to the customer and offer something free to amend the action. This is how we did it in retail, because the ultimate goal of customer service is to assure that customer comes back.

The direction

I would like to suggest that a Management structure to our Major .orgs be that of a Retail Corporation.

Frontline is Key: Sales representatives who are the first contact with the customer. These people are educated in selling the product, it's features and benefits, and knows how to draw parallels from the product to the customers needs to make the sale.

Second Level Management: Department Managers, these could be our Paid Consultants ie Field reps. These folk are involved in product training and sales training, to make sure the customer is satisfied, both with the product and the service.

Third Level Management: These are the key to success, this person keeps the Frontline and the Second level in lock step with the Company's goal, customer service and Product presentation and representation.

Fourth Level Management: Tracks trends, evaluates Product performance through sales results and trends. As a Products Popularity wanes or is shown to be defective, these are the folks who bring the information to the upper level, who are the same who work with the Suppliers (FS), to constantly perfect the existing product or develop new and exciting products to boost sales. (all of this is based of Customer feedback).

Upper Level Management: This is the direct line to Suppliers. If a product fails, or is defective, the buck stops here. They take most of the heat and need to be the most adaptive. If the product sucks, there are no customers. They are responsible for taking the word back down the chain to find out why a particular product did well, or why it failed.

An example of a product failing:

Have been working with the FS and the local wheeling clubs to that very end. Charmin Hill was lost in the TMP but the surrounding two trails were saved which is pretty remarkable.

Greg

Note that the named and popular trail in this conversation was "Lost" but the two un-named, obviously less significant surrounding trails were kept - and somehow that's supposed to be remarkable?

That, in retail, would be a massive failure. It would equate to losing the Levi's brand to the "plain pocket" jean. Would you shop at a store that doesn't have Levi's (or Wranglers)? Or are you the type of person who buys whatever fits?

Lastly, the most successful person at the upper level is the one who has worked up through the ranks starting with the front line. And, who frequently returns to keep his/her relationship solid with the front line.

Because, and the most important part of this discussion: If the person who represents the needs of the customer to the supplier isn't able to to effectively work with the customer, how are they really working with the supplier to express the needed changes in order to keep the customer coming back?

How are they going to be able to accurately predict the customers reactions to a product, if they do not know us?

They need to care about the customer.

[fermentor]

Also manifesting itself here is the ignoring of feedback that the "product" is flawed. Instead of trying to improve the "product", dissatisfaction with the "product" is blamed on the customer.

I also question how the loss of a popular trail, but retention two less noteworthy trails is touted as success. That's like the N. Korea saying that although the rocket blew up, nobody knows about it except the internet.

All of the orgs would be better served by improving their own "product" and the public understanding of it, instead of throwing rocks at the other guy's "product".

The customer always determines the "winner" via checkbook, but the "product" can still survive minor hiccups when customers feel management is responsive to their concerns.

[phattboy]

Wow! You all have covered a lot of ground since I last checked in here.

It might be helpful to share that my response to Scott Johnston was based on knowing that he had been to the Black Hills and, as such, I knew he was aware of the area/trails. Not everyone is, obviously. The Charmin Hill reference (as in, don’t squeeze the Charmin) I took actually to be a fun poke at me for the fairly serious upending I had on that obstacle several years back as a result of driver error… pictures and a video (taken by my own wife) circulated in abundance documenting the mistake I made. Great fun was had at the ole phattboy’s expense for sometime and rightfully so. Scott’s direct reference is evidence that (sigh), I fear I will never live that down, and I am good with that. FWIW, we put Simba back on his wheels and I made the hill—err—cliff.

Charmin Hill, was not actually a trail, but rather a rather nasty optional obstacle laden, 100 yard, hill (better described as a cliff edge) situated between two very challenging trails known as Bikini and T-Back (don’t ask, I didn’t name them). Both trails are very challenging and really are very important to everyone I know back here and thus, not at all “obviously less significant” as described. Everyone and all the clubs worked hard to keep those trails, and those familiar with the area and the trails will all agree that it is a good thing to have gotten those trails designated. It is disappointing to have lost the added challenge of Charmin Hill none-the-less.

I guess I was just “remarking” to Scott in context that, having been to the BHNF, he would surely understand.

Greg Mumm
Executive Director
BlueRibbon Coalition

[phattboy]

From the moment I saw the title of this thread, I was troubled. “BRC: You have no ‘right’ to public land” is not what I said in the article. In fact, that is the subject of an entirely different discussion altogether. Was that intentional, or an accident? Judging from many of the posts, I can only assume and I certainly don’t want to do that.

First, I apologize to anyone who feels offended by my statement in the TLCA article. My intent was certainly not to offend the reader. At the same time, I cannot apologize for the statement itself, for that would be a betrayal of what I believe to be true—whether you agree or not. I have had this discussion with very intelligent people on multiple occasions. I have yet to see or hear an argument that compels me to change that belief. In fact, quite the opposite.

While I am happy to share some of the logic behind my assertion, it bears noting that I am a realist and I did not choose my words flippantly.

Rather, I chose my words specifically because there is a hierarchy at play. I recognize, along with the founders of my country, that my “rights” are God given, defined in the Constitution, and, as such, that my government should both acknowledge and protect them. They are unconditional. At the same time, there are “entitlements,” or “privileges” provided to me by my government. Some folks call those rights, and that may well be a fair use of the word, even in “legal” terms. But, they are not on the same level as “God given” and that is primarily why I chose to make the distinction.

Regardless of whether you or I deem them a right or a privilege, my fight is to protect them in earnest and so should yours. I am not the enemy, indeed, BRC is not the enemy. My fight is not with you.

Greg Mumm
Executive Director
BlueRibbon Coalition