Elorado Nat. Forest Closures - Tactic 1 - Page 4 - 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 04-12-2012, 11:17 AM   #76 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,901
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
Originally Posted by atvobsession View Post
Stop signing your stuff as "Jac"
Maybe they think Jacquelyne Bebe Theisen is french
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 12:01 PM   #77 (permalink)
Granite Guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Member # 99630
Location: El Dorado County CA
Posts: 745
We could all get together

And "Occupy" an area they want to close, say Deer Valley for example. What could the FS do? Write us all tickets for tresspass. We then fight the ticket in Placerville court.

Additionally is the FS going to spend limited funds and put up new signs all over the place? Seems like a huge waste of precious money that could be used for good somewhere else.

Someone please suggest additional means of fighting these closures. I am down to volunteer and will Paypal some $$ to the cause.

Last edited by Throttleman; 04-12-2012 at 12:02 PM. Reason: spelling
Throttleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-12-2012, 12:59 PM   #78 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
R290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Member # 46467
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,154
I think we need to use what the FS has published to help resolve the conflict about water crossings and or meadows.

since it's a PDF actual a lot of them. I can only post the link.

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/LowWaterCrossings/


Chapter 5 has some good examples of crossing that would resolve issue on some the routes being closed.
__________________
73 IH Scout
R290 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 01:27 PM   #79 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by R290 View Post
I think we need to use what the FS has published to help resolve the conflict about water crossings and or meadows.

since it's a PDF actual a lot of them. I can only post the link.

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/LowWaterCrossings/


Chapter 5 has some good examples of crossing that would resolve issue on some the routes being closed.
Isn’t this whole thing the result of an FS failure to include meadows, wetlands and water crossings in their study?
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 01:38 PM   #80 (permalink)
Wheeler
 
jjeep71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Member # 110523
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 283
If I read the info correctly these 42 trails are being closed because 4.6 miles of the 136 miles of trails cross meadows. There has to be a way to fix this. I have seen trails that cross critical watershed areas with log bridges or rocks in to keep erosion and sediment down. Is it too late to look at these areas and come up with a plan?
__________________
71' CJ5, 87' 231 V-6, SM465, D-18 w/Warn OD, D44-Detroit, D27 Powerlock & disc brakes, Warn 9000# winch.

Member: 4 Play 4 Wheelers
jjeep71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 01:45 PM   #81 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjeep71 View Post
If I read the info correctly these 42 trails are being closed because 4.6 miles of the 136 miles of trails cross meadows. There has to be a way to fix this. I have seen trails that cross critical watershed areas with log bridges or rocks in to keep erosion and sediment down. Is it too late to look at these areas and come up with a plan?
Is there not a lawsuit, which was brought against the Forest Service that prompted this to start with?

Is it possible the parties who brought it are going to stand down . . . I dunno?
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 01:51 PM   #82 (permalink)
Wheeler
 
jjeep71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Member # 110523
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by LYIN' KING View Post
Is there not a lawsuit, which was brought against the Forest Service that prompted this to start with?

Is it possible the parties who brought it are going to stand down . . . I dunno?
Ok, I get your point. Unlikely they will stand down.
__________________
71' CJ5, 87' 231 V-6, SM465, D-18 w/Warn OD, D44-Detroit, D27 Powerlock & disc brakes, Warn 9000# winch.

Member: 4 Play 4 Wheelers
jjeep71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 02:08 PM   #83 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjeep71 View Post
Ok, I get your point. Unlikely they will stand down.
Once the study is completed, depending upon the findings, the determination of the Judge, other lawsuits potentially resulting from his decision if any, and IF we finally are allowed back on ANY of the trails in question . . . then perhaps we can help with remediation of areas and issues deemed problematic, if allowed to do so.
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 02:11 PM   #84 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,901
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
Originally Posted by LYIN' KING View Post
Once the study is completed, depending upon the findings, the determination of the Judge, other lawsuits potentially resulting from his decision if any, and IF we finally are allowed back on ANY of the trails in question . . . then perhaps we can help with remediation of areas and issues deemed problematic, if allowed to do so.
What will likely happen is that the Adopt a trail clubs will get administrative access to mitigate any meadow issues - that's my guess. So if you want to wheel in Eldo this summer on the favorite trails, better cozy up to the AAT clubs and get in on a work party or two.

I love work parties....first we work, then we party
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 02:34 PM   #85 (permalink)
Wheeler
 
jjeep71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Member # 110523
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe View Post
I love work parties....first we work, then we party
This!
__________________
71' CJ5, 87' 231 V-6, SM465, D-18 w/Warn OD, D44-Detroit, D27 Powerlock & disc brakes, Warn 9000# winch.

Member: 4 Play 4 Wheelers
jjeep71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 02:38 PM   #86 (permalink)
Team 4554
 
Kurtuleas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Member # 23188
Location: Discovery Bay, CA
Posts: 8,410
Blog Entries: 1
We have to keep in mind that the Forest Service DID NOT want to close these routes. If they did, they would have been closed during the FEIS.

They are being MADE to close these routes becuase of the lawsuit by the CBD.
__________________
4554 OCD Racing

Our partners: Falken Tire, Vegas 4x4, CRAWL Magazine, Reid Racing, Metal Cloak, MJ Motorsports, Jessie Haines Fabrication, SFS Industries, Susanville Transmission, Pacific Fabrication, Raceline Wheels, Outlaw Grafix, The Kyburz Krawlerz, and Keith's credit card.
Kurtuleas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 02:58 PM   #87 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,068
Very optimistic!

I doubt that anything will be resolved so soon and am certain that no remediation efforts will be allowed in that short time frame, if at all.

Is it not the pattern of the FS to take the path of least resistance and act in a manner that minimizes the chance of further litigation over issues in any given area?
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 03:56 PM   #88 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,901
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtuleas View Post
We have to keep in mind that the Forest Service DID NOT want to close these routes. If they did, they would have been closed during the FEIS.

They are being MADE to close these routes becuase of the lawsuit by the CBD.
Interesting note:

FEDERAL DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED ORDER


Quote:
Federal Defendants hereby submit this brief in support of the proposed order submitted herewith and in compliance with this Court’s Order, ECF No. 106. Federal Defendants have consulted with the parties in this litigation. Plaintiffs have not yet had an opportunity to formulate a position on the proposed order. Intervenor Defendant opposes the proposed order
Federal Defendents = Forest Service
Intervenor Defendents = OHV groups
Plaintiffs = CBD/CSNC aka eco whackos

Quote:
To address the Court’s Order, the Forest Service proposes that public use of wheeled motorized vehicles be prohibited along the entire length of 18 of the 42 routes.
Link to said FS Proposal <----Click here.


Quote:
The Forest Service has created a field survey method for the revised RCO Analysis for S&G #100 to determine whether any specific route segment of the 42 routes intersecting a meadow may not meet S&G #100. Markman Decl. at ¶11-13. The Forest Service also has conducted some preliminary on-the-ground evaluations of all meadows along these 42 routes. Id. The preliminary data indicates that some of the route segments intersecting meadows may be consistent with S&G #100 while some routes may not be consistent. Markman Decl. at ¶13.The Forest Service will complete this analysis to determine which of the meadows crossed by these 42 routes may or may not be consistent with RCO#2 S&G #100 before issuing a decision.
This means the FS recommended Closure of these trails after the ENF Hydrologist did a somewhat "rapid assessment" to determine if he felt the trails could remain open (all or in part) during the summer.

Quote:
The Forest Service proposes that continued public use of wheeled motorized vehicles be permitted along portions of the remaining 24 routes. See Ex. A and 2012 Meadows Maps for 42 Routes (showing travel permitted on portions of routes 08N23B, 08N35, 09N01, 09N04, 09N08, 09N54, 09N82, 09N83, 10N03, 10N06, 10N13, 10N21, 10N32, 10NY04, 11N09A, 11N22, 11N23F, 11N70, 12NY06, 12NY15, 13N24, 14N05, 14N27, 17E24).
Again - it appears as though the DOJ/FS let us down. They went along with the order

Now we are waiting for the Judge to choose somewhere to the left, right or center...

In the mean time, we can make a little noise with our congress Critters who seriously need to know that the economy in ElDorado County is about to get hit really HARD.

El Dorado Forest Closure Tactic 1
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 05:41 PM   #89 (permalink)
I LOOOVE ROCKS!
 
RockMolester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Member # 28602
Location: Echo Summit, CA
Posts: 1,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe View Post
What will likely happen is that the Adopt a trail clubs will get administrative access to mitigate any meadow issues - that's my guess. So if you want to wheel in Eldo this summer on the favorite trails, better cozy up to the AAT clubs and get in on a work party or two.

I love work parties....first we work, then we party
Count me in!
RockMolester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 07:04 PM   #90 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,068
If in fact the FS was interested in keeping any of the 42 trails open they would have exercised due diligence when inventorying them the last go around and found what their recent “rapid assessment” now reveals.

Discovering these issues back then and proactively addressing them would have been the way to prevent this lawsuit to begin with and actually worked to keep these trails open.

IMHO, it is the same approach they have taken leading to closures nationally over the past decade.

They overlook the obvious (one of many check boxes on a standard form), a lawsuit is filed because of their negligence and they fold.

Seems to be a well-established, intentional and contrived way of reducing motorized access and the responsibilities that come with managing this valid form of recreation to me.
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 07:32 PM   #91 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,901
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
Originally Posted by LYIN' KING View Post
If in fact the FS was interested in keeping any of the 42 trails open they would have exercised due diligence when inventorying them the last go around and found what their recent “rapid assessment” now reveals.

Discovering these issues back then and proactively addressing them would have been the way to prevent this lawsuit to begin with and actually worked to keep these trails open.

IMHO, it is the same approach they have taken leading to closures nationally over the past decade.

They overlook the obvious (one of many check boxes on a standard form), a lawsuit is filed because of their negligence and they fold.

Seems to be a well-established, intentional and contrived way of reducing motorized access and the responsibilities that come with managing this valid form of recreation to me.
Thank you.
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 07:38 PM   #92 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Member # 3975
Posts: 2,068
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe View Post
Thank you.
Back at ya!
LYIN' KING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2012, 12:24 PM   #93 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
ddestruel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Member # 20999
Location: Lost in Nor Cal
Posts: 2,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by LYIN' KING View Post
If in fact the FS was interested in keeping any of the 42 trails open they would have exercised due diligence when inventorying them the last go around and found what their recent “rapid assessment” now reveals.

Discovering these issues back then and proactively addressing them would have been the way to prevent this lawsuit to begin with and actually worked to keep these trails open.

IMHO, it is the same approach they have taken leading to closures nationally over the past decade.

They overlook the obvious (one of many check boxes on a standard form), a lawsuit is filed because of their negligence and they fold.

Seems to be a well-established, intentional and contrived way of reducing motorized access and the responsibilities that come with managing this valid form of recreation to me.


This ^

It is funny in montana the exact same thing occured, inventory, public opinion, then do route desigantion and mapping. Once the paper work was filed it was funny how so many of those "inventoried and mapped jeep trails" suddently had tecnicallities that require the entire trail be closed or just the middle section of the trail. (Gold lake trail by philipsburg) The tactic is well known. question is will we actually be able to over come this or do these 42 joint all the other trails of the last 15 years that have been snatched away......... the list of accesible ares is rapidly becoming shorter than it already was.
__________________
I AM ONE OF MANY WHOM WASHINGTON HAS CHOSEN TO IGNORE OR FORGET
But i Vote

GO UM Montana Griz

"Jeep Lurker"

KEEP REMEMBERING 9/11

Jeep with Rambler motor, SUA, front 608.9 and some bolt on stuff.

I miss my old 4bt powered chief

Support Frank the Tank

Last edited by ddestruel; 04-16-2012 at 12:47 PM.
ddestruel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2012, 12:58 PM   #94 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Member # 21815
Location: Pollock Pines, CA
Posts: 3,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by LYIN' KING View Post
If in fact the FS was interested in keeping any of the 42 trails open they would have exercised due diligence when inventorying them the last go around and found what their recent “rapid assessment” now reveals.

Discovering these issues back then and proactively addressing them would have been the way to prevent this lawsuit to begin with and actually worked to keep these trails open.

IMHO, it is the same approach they have taken leading to closures nationally over the past decade.

They overlook the obvious (one of many check boxes on a standard form), a lawsuit is filed because of their negligence and they fold.

Seems to be a well-established, intentional and contrived way of reducing motorized access and the responsibilities that come with managing this valid form of recreation to me.
I haven't been a fan of the FS and I'm not getting cozy with them now.

BUT.

Technically, the ENF didn't apply Riparian Conservation Objective guideline # 102 to their analysis of these trails. They admit it and know they blew it.

ENF is closing these trails under the order of a federal judge, not necessarily because they want to. From their point of view, they were leaving these trails open under the TM forest order in 2008. Why, if they already signed a ROD leaving them open , would they cause themselves the extra work of doing the NEPA all over again just so they can close them? Doesn't make sense.

:tinfoil hat:
__________________
WWDD?

N6YBH
-
"If you need a tool and don't buy it, you will ultimately find that you have paid for it but don't have it". -Henry Ford


Use Goodsearch and support the Rubicon Trail Foundation.
resqme is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2012, 01:29 PM   #95 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,901
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Not sure why you all keep missing this but:
Quote:
To address the Court’s Order, the Forest Service proposes that public use of wheeled motorized vehicles be prohibited along the entire length of 18 of the 42 routes.
There has been no order YET - the FS was assuming this would make everyone including the Judge happy. They Proactively volunteered to close these trails even though there was no order to do so.

The only order as it exists right now is the one that extends the Wet weather Closure on ALL trails to 4/30. The Judge has until then to come up with his final order on the Meadow Routes.
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2012, 02:00 PM   #96 (permalink)
Zeus of the Sluice
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Member # 21815
Location: Pollock Pines, CA
Posts: 3,581
I see your point, Bebe. What is the source of the quote? They told me that some trails would be shut down in their entirety and some, "where feasible" will be shut down at the meadow section, unless Judge Karlton orders otherwise.

I guess we'll wait and see if they follow through on that.
__________________
WWDD?

N6YBH
-
"If you need a tool and don't buy it, you will ultimately find that you have paid for it but don't have it". -Henry Ford


Use Goodsearch and support the Rubicon Trail Foundation.
resqme is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2012, 02:16 PM   #97 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,901
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqme View Post
I see your point, Bebe. What is the source of the quote? They told me that some trails would be shut down in their entirety and some, "where feasible" will be shut down at the meadow section, unless Judge Karlton orders otherwise.

I guess we'll wait and see if they follow through on that.
The Court Documents.

All links provided in Post #88 of this thread

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showp...2&postcount=88
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL

Last edited by Bebe; 04-16-2012 at 02:17 PM.
Bebe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2012, 02:34 PM   #98 (permalink)
flamethrower
 
Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Member # 75270
Location: Auburn, CA
Posts: 8,901
Send a message via Yahoo to Bebe
Quote:
II. Directive Two: Review of the 42 Routes for Compliance with this Court’s Order.
In compliance with Directive Two of this Court’s order, the Forest Service conducted a thorough review of the 42 routes. In this review of the 42 routes, the Forest Service identified the portions that pass through meadows as well as what portions, if any, may in its judgment remain open to the public for wheeled motorized vehicle use.
The correct answer would have been "ALL". But it wasn't.
__________________
What's all the Hub-bub about Blue Stars??? Click Here
Haulin the Groceries AND Haulin the MAIL
Bebe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2012, 07:53 PM   #99 (permalink)
Rock God
 
Curly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member # 20205
Location: California
Posts: 1,180
Received a response today



Dear Timothy:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about public lands and off-highway vehicles. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Preserving our nation's public lands and outdoor recreation heritage are priorities of mine. As such, I will support efforts to ensure that the millions of acres of pristine public land are protected for the public's recreational use and enjoyment.

As you may know, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more public land than any other federal agency; however a 2003 out-of-court decision left it without the means of protecting the land for which it is responsible. In order to provide the BLM with a comprehensive strategy for protecting public land, Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar introduced guidelines through Secretarial Order 3310, which direct BLM to work with the public and local governments to designate wilderness-quality areas, called "Wild Lands." This designation differs from the Congressional designation "Wilderness Area," and the order re-establishes the authority of BLM to protect our nation's public lands, but does not change the status of any specific lands, or those awaiting Congressional designation.

Please know that I understand and appreciate the importance of outdoor recreation, and I will keep your thoughts in mind should legislative initiatives concerning recreational access reach the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your views on this important issue. To learn more about my work in Congress, or to sign up for periodic e-mail updates, please visit my website at www.house.gov/matsui.


Sincerely,

DORIS O. MATSUI
Member of Congress
__________________
KI6PPU
It's very black and white. It becomes Gray when you give quarter....
Curly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2012, 08:13 PM   #100 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Member # 105691
Location: P'ville
Posts: 238
Send a message via Yahoo to sloyoter
Doris Matsui... ase useless as tits on a Boar...completely clueless
__________________
Rubicon Rockheads
Facilitator of Conceptual Continuity
sloyoter 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 10:01 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.