Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum - Reply to Topic
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > Land Use and Trails > Rubicon Trail > Worried About the Rubicon Trail?
Notices

Thread: Worried About the Rubicon Trail? Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
11-21-2012 12:56 PM
LYIN' KING
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAR View Post
If BRC/Cal4 has so much to say about this.... then where were they BEFORE and DURING what happened?

To me this appears to be a tasteless opportunity to take advantage of a situation and ask for money.

Please prove me wrong.....
Why not ask the author himself?

Contact Del at [email protected], here on the forum at Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum - View Profile: Jeepndel or via PM at "Jeepndel"
11-21-2012 12:29 PM
BEAR
Quote:
IS GOVERNMENT LISTENING TO THE USERS?

I left my leadership position in Friends of the Rubicon (FOTR) and the Rubicon Trail Foundation (RTF) a few years back, thinking that we had laid a positive foundation to continue these incredible efforts to keep the Rubicon Trail open to all of us...all year; for all types of rigs; with challenges for us all.

NOT THE CASE!!!

I am sorely disappointed in the way the trail has changed in the last few years, and I am not afraid to step up and say that government is NOT listening to the users. Not in this case. Something is wrong and we need to bring some slap down on the deaf ones who "govern" our use of public lands in the case of the Rubicon Trail.

From the blowing of the Gatekeeper, conducted like an ambush in war, unbeknownst to users and unspoken in public forums beforehand; to the resizing and near paving of Little Sluice in spite of comprehensive surveys and public input against such maneuvers behind the scenes; to the changing and possible closure of Soup (Bowl, Kitchen). It is NOT what the users have asked for and have said in public forum. Government is NOT listening.

And do we have some of our own supporting these insidious, sneaky, behind the scenes moves? I'm not sure; but I am sure that the folks I talk to, do NOT support these radical changes to the Rubicon Trail.

Oh, let's ask ourselves who has invested tens of thousands of hours in hard work, sweat, blood and back-breaking work in making this trail a trail for all? Friends of the Rubicon (FOTR), that is who. Since the first work party in the summer of 2001, and hundreds of work parties since then, every summer....FOTR has earned the key to this trail. Why does Government think they know best on this one?

FOTR earned tens of thousands of dollars in grant money for government agencies to help us manage the trail, maintain the trail, and mitigate the issues with erosion and use. So why would not government LISTEN to the users in how the trail should look in the future? YOU GOT ME.


Here's my suggestion for you if this does not wrap your winch the right way:

1) make sure your membership is current in fighting outfits like BlueRibbon Coalition and Cal4wheel.

2) make sure you're participating in Google groups for FOTR with your voice being heard.

3) donate to those groups fighting for access THE RIGHT WAY, for you.


More on BRC here at Home | BlueRibbon Coalition

More on Cal4 here at Home - California Association of 4WD Clubs, Inc.

More on Del at Land Use, Access and Rubicon Trail Home Page by Del Albright including Volunteer Training and Outdoor Photography


Whatever you do; do NOT let your voice go unheard. Back it with donations and memberships. Be in the game. It is OUR public lands we are talking about.

Del



If BRC/Cal4 has so much to say about this.... then where were they BEFORE and DURING what happened?

To me this appears to be a tasteless opportunity to take advantage of a situation and ask for money.

Please prove me wrong.....
11-07-2012 08:27 AM
resqme
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcraig7 View Post
You are actually going to state, "I just happened to be at at LS that day?" Priceless.
Taken out of context, Craig. Of course it wasn't happenstance. Point I was making is that I didn't do this alone. Scott was making calls, Ken was making calls, Bob was at LS as well. I should have said I just happened to be the one who was at LS. You, sir, are the king of nitpick and literalism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcraig7 View Post
John, I am glad that after two Little Sluice threads and a tremendous amount of bickering and lost opportunities to unify users that you finally understand the Save Little Sluice position. The resolution was very vague (and abrupt), and therefore, RTF should have made a public push that included more interested party input, other than two personally interested parties.

The county failed, RTF failed, Jack Sweeney failed, you failed, so the county got emailed, and it will not be the last time when the people's business get personal.
I won't be adddressing this. I have made a vow to correct the incorrect and not argue with the unconvinceable.
11-07-2012 06:42 AM
cjcraig7
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqme View Post
Both. The decision was made almost three years ago. To be clear, it wasn't just me alone and we didn't change the resolution, but shaped it's outcome. I just happened to be at LS that day. Lots of folks worked behind the scene. Look at the resolution, it is very vague. We were able to influence the outcome of that resolution.

Again, pretty simple. Though you frame your statement as resolution and outcome being by definition the same, they weren't and they're not.
You are actually going to state, "I just happened to be at at LS that day?" Priceless.

John, I am glad that after two Little Sluice threads and a tremendous amount of bickering and lost opportunities to unify users that you finally understand the Save Little Sluice position. The resolution was very vague (and abrupt), and therefore, RTF should have made a public push that included more interested party input, other than two personally interested parties.

The county failed, RTF failed, Jack Sweeney failed, you failed, so the county got emailed, and it will not be the last time when the people's business get personal.
11-06-2012 09:45 PM
cruzila Craig both of those are opinions. Based on my extensive interaction with the County and the knowledge gained there. Both are valid. To me.


Sent from my cool iPad I won at the Rock Zombie rig wash!
11-06-2012 08:59 PM
resqme
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcraig7 View Post
And, as to the decision being made two-three years ago (cracking the LS), apparently nothing was set in stone or you would not have been as effective at saving rocks the same day of the work. Which position is the Vice-President of RTF going with?

Not a lot separates us John, it is just a matter of clarity.
Both. The decision was made almost three years ago. To be clear, it wasn't just me alone and we didn't change the resolution, but shaped it's outcome. I just happened to be at LS that day. Lots of folks worked behind the scene. Look at the resolution, it is very vague. We were able to influence the outcome of that resolution.

Again, pretty simple. Though you frame your statement as resolution and outcome being by definition the same, they weren't and they're not.
11-06-2012 05:14 PM
cjcraig7
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruzila View Post
The user outcry could possibly have had the exact opposite effect intended. It did not thankfully.
John - Scott already posted this, in response to the email blitz. You two say so much, I just think you forget the bridges that have already been crossed. And if anybody called anyone at the county an asshole, that would be inappropriate. Which position is the President of RTF going with?

And, as to the decision being made two-three years ago (cracking the LS), apparently nothing was set in stone or you would not have been as effective at saving rocks the same day of the work. Which position is the Vice-President of RTF going with?

Not a lot separates us John, it is just a matter of clarity.
11-06-2012 02:07 PM
atvobsession
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Ape View Post
So I must be lost? I just wonder why the person who was recieving a paycheck from BRC(according to the quote above and the first post in this thread) is urging us to donate to BRC?
I (My own personal opinion) think it is fantasy land to expect BRC to file lawsuits for every trail in trouble in the entire USA. That would take MILLIONS and MILLIONS. IMO, what BRC should be doing exclusively, is lobbying at the Federal level to create legislation that would give OHV a hook to hang their hat on, in terms of suing FOR access.

Which is why I think the original post is an improbable assumption....that somehow donating money to BRC = Saving Gatekeeper. I don't see it being productive of a national organization thinking they could have made a difference on 10 feet of trail.

That's like the American Cancer Assoc saying if you had donated to us, we could have helped my grandfather's co-payment at Kaiser.
11-06-2012 02:05 PM
atvobsession
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Ape View Post
Ill admit ,I blindly donated to more than one of the save trails organizations thinking my $ are going in for the big fight,lawyers,legal battles....and hopefully some kinda win for all users.
In the case of RTF, almost all of our money is going toward the trail and property (that we are working hard for public access). If there was an actual lawsuit that we would need to file on something...you would hear about it!

In the case of other organizations....You've seen several comments on here...but I'll repeat it again. The "other" folks sue the Gov't on procedural violations. We, don't have that leverage in our favor. Is it fair? No. But that's what it is.
11-06-2012 01:30 PM
resqme
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Ape View Post
It just seems like the wheelers/volunteers are rail roaded a bit, I mean how many tree hugger groups(providing countless hours and free man power to do projects) are out fixing the trail to show they care? Maybe there are? I have never heard of any...though their agendas are clearly heard.
No, this assumption is correct, I don't believe they do. Never seen it, and I've been to a ton of work parties.

Here's the lawsuit problem: You have to sue based on something. Karen et. al. are very good at picking out tiny little pieces of environmental laws to sue over (for example, the 42 trails suit was based on Standard #100, basically a sentence, out of 124 standards in that particular document). As Scott stated earlier in this thread, there isn't a law that says we have a right to wheel. We just have to stay a jump ahead, on top of, or sometimes a jump behind if we get caught with our pants down (like with the CAO, lotsa catchup work on that one).

Their agendas are heard because they attend, because in many agencies their viewpoint is shared, especially at the top, and because they are willing to dig out the obscure stuff and sue over it. Simple, and yet not.
11-06-2012 12:18 PM
Rock Ape
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1uglyranger View Post
Its posts like this that get everyone fired up, and angry, and they make no sense, and contain no facts...

I agree, someone should get paid full time to fight. Who is going to pay them? The owners of the springs? Why don't contact them then, instead of running off with the mouth here?

Again, you assumed you knew where donated funds were going, now you are assuming them go elsewhere? Where do you think they go? Have you checked to see where they are actually going? Or have you just assumed once again that you know where they are going?

There are places to donate money that is ear marked for lawsuits, etc. If you made a donation to one of these, than yes, thats where it is going. If you made a donation to a "general" fund of "X" org, than you have to trust they will use it accordingly.
Most of what Im asking about is talked about in this thread.....

Ill admit ,I blindly donated to more than one of the save trails organizations thinking my $ are going in for the big fight,lawyers,legal battles....and hopefully some kinda win for all users.

And just like we talked about in a text, most wheelers are just wanting to wheel... so they think giving $ gets it handled. Clearly thats not all that gets it done. I thank all the people involved and their efforts even if Im not understanding the big picture and how it all comes together.

And maybe that has happened? I lay no claims to know the inner workings of any of the organzations.

everyone has their opinion,Im just asking why things have gone this way....

It just seems like the wheelers/volunteers are rail roaded a bit, I mean how many tree hugger groups(providing countless hours and free man power to do projects) are out fixing the trail to show they care? Maybe there are? I have never heard of any...though their agendas are clearly heard.
11-06-2012 11:50 AM
Rock Ape
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruzila View Post
BRC supported (financially) Del Albright for almost a decade while he was Trail Boss and the Rubicon Trail Foundation President. That is enough for me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqme View Post
Huh? The two are un-related. The caretaker at the Springs is paid by Rubicon Soda Springs Incorporated (RSSI), the partnership that owns the Springs.

Maybe you're talking about RTF's mid trail staff? Not paid for with donated dollars. That program is grant funded. We have tried but have been unsuccessful funding full time advocates from grant funds.
So I must be lost? I just wonder why the person who was recieving a paycheck from BRC(according to the quote above and the first post in this thread) is urging us to donate to BRC?

Again Im trying to wrap my head around the fact there is so many save trail organizations that see donated $ and we seemingly are missing our heavy hitter that fights above the county level like the person I asked about above....or is aleast is on par to give our fight some weight and have the same voice.

This thread makes it appear that all we can do is let the decisions be made and try to lessen their effectiveness after the fact.....?

If the only win for all users is "be glad the trail is still open" How much of a win is that really?
11-06-2012 11:40 AM
1uglyranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Ape View Post
So there is enough funding to pay to keep someone in the springs but not for fighting this where its really needed?

Maybe someone should start a trail foundation that is gonna do just that... Do what Karen does.... ( I for one would feel better knowing that my $ were fighting on that front....)

I guess ,I assumed this is what donated $ were already going to.... Until this thread.....
Its posts like this that get everyone fired up, and angry, and they make no sense, and contain no facts...

I agree, someone should get paid full time to fight. Who is going to pay them? The owners of the springs? Why don't contact them then, instead of running off with the mouth here?

Again, you assumed you knew where donated funds were going, now you are assuming them go elsewhere? Where do you think they go? Have you checked to see where they are actually going? Or have you just assumed once again that you know where they are going?

There are places to donate money that is ear marked for lawsuits, etc. If you made a donation to one of these, than yes, thats where it is going. If you made a donation to a "general" fund of "X" org, than you have to trust they will use it accordingly.
11-06-2012 09:52 AM
fermentor
Quote:
Originally Posted by r290 View Post
have you done your duty yet?

If not take a break and get it done now!


[email protected]

productive comments please. See the other thread for some examples click here.

Short and sweet is fine.

Basic letter format is good.

.................................................. .......................your name
.................................................. .......................your address
.................................................. .......................your ph number

kathryn d. Hardy
forest supervisor
eldorado national forest


Dear Ms. Hardy,

be polite and just say something, every comment counts!!!
fify
11-06-2012 09:44 AM
R290 Have you done your duty yet?

If not take a break and get it done now!


[email protected]

Productive comments please. See the other thread for some examples click here.

Short and sweet is fine.

Basic letter format is good.

.................................................. .......................your name
.................................................. .......................your address
.................................................. .......................your ph number

Kathryn D. Hardy
Forest Supervisor
Eldorado National Forest


Dear Miss Hardy,

Be polite and just say something, every comment counts!!!
11-06-2012 09:20 AM
resqme
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcraig7 View Post
Based upon your opinion of the county's diminishing resolve, would you then suggest that Rubicon Trail users stop donating time and money to the trail now? Possibly, you can go into comprehensive detail about the underlying support for your statement.
I'll let Scott reply to this specifically...the underlying point is that beating an agency up in email because you're angry about a decision that was made two years ago is unproductive. Well thought out opinions about resolution and action are good, personal insults and ranting are unproductive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcraig7 View Post
Butthurtness among a few county employees or elected taxpayers representative hardly qualifies for a generalization that the County as a whole, now has a damaged resolve related to a $7-$10 million dollar/year economic engine.
Yes, actually it does. Whether anyone realizes it or not, all politics IS local, and often it is about individuals and their resolve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcraig7 View Post
John stated that his longstanding relationships with the county were very productive. So much so, that the county cracked less than a third of the substantial rocks in Little Sluice that it had originally planned.
OK, true, but I'm not sure what the point is here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcraig7 View Post
thread dedicated to mass communications to the FS related to user opinions of the 42 trail closure was started by John (a great idea imo) but, individual user advocacy is off limits with respect to the Rubicon/County, and therefore, communications should be left to RTF?
NO, not left to RTF. Here is the point, exactly: If you wait almost three years after the decision is made and send a hundred emails to the Forest saying, "you're an a**hole for closing 14N39", it will be counter productive to whatever the community is trying to acheive at that point. That's why I discouraged people from sending hate emails to the County (counter-productive) in the same month that I encouraged people to send subtantive comments to the Forest regarding 14N39 and the other 42 trails (productive!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjcraig7 View Post
Simply......ridiculous. RTF communications can be so confusing.
No, not really.
11-06-2012 09:02 AM
resqme
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Ape View Post
So there is enough funding to pay to keep someone in the springs but not for fighting this where its really needed?
Huh? The two are un-related. The caretaker at the Springs is paid by Rubicon Soda Springs Incorporated (RSSI), the partnership that owns the Springs.

Maybe you're talking about RTF's mid trail staff? Not paid for with donated dollars. That program is grant funded. We have tried but have been unsuccessful funding full time advocates from grant funds.
11-06-2012 08:35 AM
resqme
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jes View Post
Does she actually have what us working folk call a "job"?
Nope, she's long retired and has made this her crusade.
11-06-2012 08:14 AM
cjcraig7
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruzila View Post
This one was not thought out at all and really damaged the resolve of the County to continue to support the trail.
Based upon your opinion of the county's diminishing resolve, would you then suggest that Rubicon Trail users stop donating time and money to the trail now? Possibly, you can go into comprehensive detail about the underlying support for your statement.

Butthurtness among a few county employees or elected taxpayers representative hardly qualifies for a generalization that the County as a whole, now has a damaged resolve related to a $7-$10 million dollar/year economic engine.

John stated that his longstanding relationships with the county were very productive. So much so, that the county cracked less than a third of the substantial rocks in Little Sluice that it had originally planned.

A thread dedicated to mass communications to the FS related to user opinions of the 42 trail closure was started by John (a great idea imo) but, individual user advocacy is off limits with respect to the Rubicon/County, and therefore, communications should be left to RTF?

Simply......ridiculous. RTF communications can be so confusing.
11-05-2012 11:39 PM
Rock Ape
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruzila View Post
If there was enough funding, some more of us could advocate full time. Problem is, folks do more to undermine that effort than to support it. Go figure?


Sent from my cool iPad I won at the Rock Zombie rig wash!
So there is enough funding to pay to keep someone in the springs but not for fighting this where its really needed?

Maybe someone should start a trail foundation that is gonna do just that... Do what Karen does.... ( I for one would feel better knowing that my $ were fighting on that front....)

I guess ,I assumed this is what donated $ were already going to.... Until this thread.....
11-05-2012 10:29 PM
cruzila If there was enough funding, some more of us could advocate full time. Problem is, folks do more to undermine that effort than to support it. Go figure?


Sent from my cool iPad I won at the Rock Zombie rig wash!
11-05-2012 08:42 PM
Jes
Quote:
Originally Posted by resqme View Post
Karen Schambach,

PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility)
CSNC (Center for Sierra Nevada Conservancy)

She and almost all the environmental groups that have targeted the rubicon do so because it's the brass ring. They feel like if they can pick off Rubicon, the "Granddaddy", they can get the rest. Which is not to say she hasn't also targeted Clear Creek, Red Rock, Carnegie, Pismo, Glamis, and others.

Because she attends (she's always at every meeting), she picks out .gov employees who tend to agree with her and recruits them to her cause, and most of all because she's willing to do the groundwork and SUE! And she does, regularly and successfully.

Does she actually have what us working folk call a "job"?
I wish I could spend all my time mad at the world, plotting, and scheeming a way to feel better about myself... oh wait... nevermind.
11-05-2012 08:21 PM
LYIN' KING
Quote:
Originally Posted by cruzila View Post
Remember, there is no requirement, no law that says there has to be recreation like we like it.
Reality sucks and THIS IS IT! /\ /\
11-05-2012 08:13 PM
cruzila
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bebe View Post
That's really sad.

So what I hear you saying is that we cannot voice our opinions with the County without punitive action by the County, and that e-mail campaigns pi$$ the County off and the only acceptable venue is ROC?

IMO without additional venues for the working "man" or the "non-local", this is somewhat reserved for those who can prioritize their time to show up at the ROC to be heard in person.

How about we work with the County to come up with another way for people to voice their "opinions"? I'd hate for the ROC to be termed an "elitist" group where only some can participate. (Based on logistics only of course).
Uhh, not really. Just saying you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. A well thought out plan always is better. This one was not thought out at all and really damaged the resolve of the County to continue to support the trail. The message there was: support OHV, Rubicon and we'll beat you up. Good move. Not.

Remember, there is no requirement,no law that says there has to be recreation like we like it.


Sent from my cool iPad I won at the Rock Zombie rig wash!
11-05-2012 08:10 PM
resqme
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Ape View Post
Can someone fill some of us in on "Karen"....what group does she belong to? Why is the Rubicon her target? Why does she seem to have more pull than the average person?

I see the reference to her...Im sure a a few of us would like a small history lesson...
Karen Schambach,

PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility)
CSNC (Center for Sierra Nevada Conservancy)

She and almost all the environmental groups that have targeted the rubicon do so because it's the brass ring. They feel like if they can pick off Rubicon, the "Granddaddy", they can get the rest. Which is not to say she hasn't also targeted Clear Creek, Red Rock, Carnegie, Pismo, Glamis, and others.

Because she attends (she's always at every meeting), she picks out .gov employees who tend to agree with her and recruits them to her cause, and most of all because she's willing to do the groundwork and SUE! And she does, regularly and successfully.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may 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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.