RTF Position on Little Sluice - Page 2 - 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 > Rubicon Trail
Notices

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-31-2009, 11:31 PM   #26 (permalink)
Need an LS
 
Kurtuleas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Member # 23188
Location: Discovery Bay, CA
Posts: 16,215
Blog Entries: 1
There is NO way to argue with route des. If you wanted to, you should have listened when I was chicken little two years ago

You can camp wherever the bleep you want, you just can't drive there.

Either way, my offer still stands. Box bitch

Keith, are you with me and will you and your boys help?

Again, I do not agree with the BS enviro stuff, but if that means the box will stay, I am all over it.

All I ask is that there is a way to assess weather or not we have made a difference and what would be acceptable to maintain the box.

Darn it Kurt, language man!!!
__________________
KEEP PUBLIC LANDS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

Last edited by cruzila; 08-02-2009 at 11:17 PM.
Kurtuleas is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 12:04 AM   #27 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
Keith, the Forest Service made their rules during Route Designation, and are enforcing them everywhere but Little Sluice, and then some folks are wringing their hands about how horrible it is that users are driving all over the slabs against the rules, while failing to note that said users are staying downhill of signs that say not to proceed past them. I'd like USFS to either enforce their own rules or change them, but quit setting us up for failure so that the anti's can trumpet that we're ignoring the laws that are not to published, signed, or enforced. If that limits vehicle travel up the slab, that's better IMHO than being branded as outlaws who refuse to obey the law, and having the entire trail closed. They are giving us enough rope to hang ourselves - we can either change the rules, accept them, or continue to disobey their rules and stick our head in the noose. If I'm missing another possibilty, please point it out.

Remember that none of this applies to camping. It is a crummy solution, but you can still park by the trail, and camp up the slabs. This is the same lousy interpretation that makes people walk down to the prime campsites at Buck, and is one of the reasons I'm party to a lawsuit against Eldorado National Forest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Again I ask, where is the HARD FACTS to point to any hazards regarding contaminates from vehicles or people? I understand that fluids are spilled, and some unknowers will leave white flowers, but after YEARS and YEARS of the same behavior, are the numbers there to show it?
Great points -- I've made them for years at the ROC. Perhaps you'll have better luck making them there than I did, or perhaps we can make these points together during the public process... but I honestly believe that the wheels are in motion for something to be done, whether 'wheelers want it or not. RTF is staying involved in the process in hopes that we can identify the facts for the decision-makers... if we stomp off in a huff now, the anti's will have fewer to oppose them (not good).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
And, you state that your efforts with WAG bag, education, patrols, staff, and Loon toilets, are not effective. Even in spite of your strong efforts.
We believe the situation is much improved -- any fool can see it -- but we also believe that without the agencies cooperation, we're destined to fail. Volunteers and non-profits are making great strides, but we need agency cooperation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
RTF says the FS has failed, which means RTF wants to keep people 25' off centerline as a maximum around the LS. What else can I take from that?
See my first paragraph, above. USFS already has this rule, and they are making hay with our non-compliance to it, when they have not adequately promoted, signed, or enforced it. What do you recommend? Should RTF advocate general lawlessness, and put another brick in the wall toward trail closure?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Please explain to us what unsustainable concentrated use is.
Let's just do oil and bushes, for now:
* Oil -walk through the Sluice -- spills are common (and I'm stoked to hearsome of the cleanup ideas, now we need cash and volunteer commitment, and this is highly mitigatable IMHO). BTW bar oil is a red herring argument.
* Bushes, well, look at the progression over time, with pictures from this thread: https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=640828





Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
What are the complaints? Who are the folks? Complaints of the public, having fun in public lands? Is that what pisses them off?
Complaints are detailed elsewhere (I'll edit a link in shortly). The complainers are identified above. Their motives... well some honsetly believe they are doing the best thing for the trail, while others are taking aim at the best-known section of trail on the best-known trail in the world. They'd never have to pay for a near-beer again in their Sierra Club / Earth First tye-dye gatherings!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
They (Water Board) backed down cuz they did not have the data necessary to pull the plug. Their hypotheticals cant cut it.
It ain't that simple. They backed down because we spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars researching and preparing, and RTF and teamput together a team presentation that was significantly better than the anti-recreation team presentation. We prevailed because we were effective -- the underlying 'rightness' of our case had less to do with it than I would have liked, although we were indeed 'right.'
RTF could have left Sluice hanging, and we did not. I don't need a cookie or a group-hug for that, but you need to know that if we wanted to kill Little Sluice, there have been several opportunities.That's simply not who we are.

Who does what needs to be ironed out in the public process... our press release outlines some of the things we'd like to see considered: USFS to support trailside restrooms instead of fight them, EDSO and USFS LEO to have meaningful presence, improved trail signage, agencyhelp with implementation, education, and enforcement... basically, they need to commit to help set us up for success instead of setting us up for failure with errant signage, differential enforcement, and staff that documents problems but won't write a ticket to prevent the next instance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
If the agencies are not going to enforce what is in place already, then I see no option other than to crack the rocks, and make camping illegal in the area.
RTF is working to avoid that outcome, Keith. We think it can be done with volunteers and agencies working in tandem on a realistic plan, and we're hoping to work with youand others during the public planning process to generate a realistic plan that we can succeed with.

Randii

Last edited by randii; 08-01-2009 at 12:35 AM. Reason: changed order of pics
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Old 08-01-2009, 12:05 AM   #28 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 52
Location: Janesville, CA
Posts: 7,402
Ofcourse Kurt, I am with you. Problem for me currently is, I dont have the rig done and it is difficult to pull myself away from the shop. I no doubt could pitch in a couple of weekends or so next year. Since I drive a "street legal vehicle" I could drop in from the Tahoe side. I cant speak for the other guys, I dont know there situations. I'd be willing to bet that Baggy is up for it.
__________________
Rockzombie Smurf
Keith is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2009, 12:15 AM   #29 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 52
Location: Janesville, CA
Posts: 7,402
My head hurts Randii. I am still at work, need to go home. I'll take off my foil off and put my thinking cap on in the morning
__________________
Rockzombie Smurf
Keith is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 12:15 AM   #30 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2000
Member # 993
Location: Hangtown, CA
Posts: 1,810
In.
__________________
USMC 0351
Rock Zombie
bagman is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 12:22 AM   #31 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
A problem for RTF is they have, in effect, announced they will (reluctantly) support reducing the boulders since they call the idea a solution.
That's what my Board gave me to work with. I'm backing their play. If that weakens support for RTF, that's not our intent, but it is what we came to after repeatedly reviewing our mission: to enhance the future health and use of the Rubicon Trail, while ensuring responsible motorized year-round trail access and our bylaws. If some other organization steps forward to commit to the Sluice Box, with no regard for the rest of the Rubicon Trail, some of you may find a better fit with them... in the meantime, we'll be fighting for the Rubicon Trail *and* Little Sluice, and trying hard to avoid compromising one for the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
...RTF appears to refuse to believe the community will unite against the reduction of boulders.
More words in my mouth... I knew I'd need to have a thick skin, but was unaware that I'd need mouthwash!
FWIW, we pray that users can come together to fight effectively for Rubicon, and for Little Sluice... but we haven't seen them in ROC. If this is the wake-up call they need, then GREAT, but look around -- some of 'em are still saying it ain't no big deal, and there's few letters received yet by DOT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
...I see it as the organization just shot itself in the foot by attempting to represent wider interests than just the 4X4 user community majority on a highly charged issue.
We're not trying to represent wider interests than the 4x4 Community -- we're trying to represent a range of the OHV community. We're working to keep you informed and offering you the opportunity to affirmatively engage… and we try to represent *ALL* user viewpoints – big tires and small ones, full-body and buggy, politically active and not. Everyone.

Randii
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 12:34 AM   #32 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtuleas View Post
I propose two years for us to educate the "up and coming" user base and to clean up the box before any action is taken.
GREAT! Makes sense to me, but then again, I don't think the box is a significant impact to the environment... you've gotta talk to the folks who make the decision, and they've been listening to the anti's who have been trying to push this through for YEARS (it would have been great had you proposed this solution several years ago!). The anti's believe that we are selling postponement in bad faith, with no plan to improve anything... so good luck with that delay, Kurt. I sincerely hope you can sell it, but I'm braced with other alternatives for the public process just in case you can't sell it to the decision-makers, because if you can't sell it, the anti's would love to suggest flat closure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtuleas View Post
I will personally work on mitigating the supposed damage to the enviroment.
Been there and done that -- this is not my first Rodeo with this batch of anti-recreationists. They'll claim we are delaying just to lengthen our opportunity to play, with no intent or ability to deliver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtuleas View Post
I will push bio-degradable fluids, camping elsewhere, staying off private property and packing poop out.
Great -- in doing so, you'll be going back in time to what RTF was doing in 2005. It is a good effort, Kurt -- but the anti's are gonna fight for more.
On the bright side, in 2005, RTF was just getting rolling, but now in 2009, we're cooking with gas, pulling down serious grants, and putting staff on the trail. Our Mid-Trail Staff can support your push, and we can help fund your hand-outs and promotionals, just like we have funded every significant FOTR project these last five years (and several projects of our own: Rubicon Repeater, Wentworth Springs Kiosk, and soon-to-be Tahoe Kiosk -- all before you talk about our 2009/2010 OHMVR Grant).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtuleas View Post
If that means the box and soup bowl will stay as is, I am sure I will get a ton of help and support. How bout it?
Dunno about the rest of your support, but I'll be there to help, 'specially if you buy the beer.

Randii

Last edited by randii; 08-01-2009 at 12:34 AM.
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 12:51 AM   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Member # 126704
Posts: 363
So randii - why didn't RTF come to us with what you just said? This should be among the first posts - would have saved this ugly trip to the dentist. It gives people background for your message of urgency - it draws them in.

That still leaves, however, the reducing boulder issue - which became the big explosion and faux pas.

Why does RTF have so little faith in the community cleaning up Little Sluice that it has to admit breaking boulders is a possible solution? How can you even fathom that with all the vendors and people involved it is going to be "no change"???? I can't believe you are even saying that. We must be burning you out this week...

You gave me the usual anti list as supporting reducing boulders - but that was not what I meant. RTF fights those people every day and I don't see capitulation in prior press releases as an option.

"Save the sluice" issue is a uniting issue. If the 4X4 community does not unite against reducing boulders in Little Sluice and addresses the oil/poo concerns then it will likely never happen. I am betting the community can emerge from this challenge stronger then ever - but RTF needed to be there.

Yes, I know not everyone in the 4x4 community is against reducing boulders and some of those have likely worked hard for the trail and RTF and earned being considered (someone like me has not earned that). A wide tent works for letting voices be heard - and reducing boulders is an issue that needs consideration toward those historical voices - but not now with a CAO gun to our heads! If parts of the 4X4 community wish to force the issue because of historical stances then they become part of the problem instead of the solution.

Let's clean the freakin trail up - argue about what the trail will be once things stabilize enough to know there is going to be a trail! Argue it out after the April 2011 CAO milestone!

I know absolutely nothing about living life as a land use non profit - but the old sales/marketing manager in me would be embracing the energy and supporting it in every way instead of throwing water on the poll and selling the doom and gloom that we may wind up with Little Sluice rubble.

If RTF doesn't like it - why not just stay out of it on message boards? It would make life for Randii a lot easier - because I know Randii is against reducing boulders, has said so again and again for at least 5 years, and now has to the management thing and dodge the tomatoes.

It's cool, the rest of us can become a F-word (FOE, FOTR) and box bitch.

(Got delayed while writing this and I'm probably way behind - this is in response to the post that starts "Charles, I don't have your contact info" which I will send you).
chasinternet is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 01:13 AM   #34 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
My head hurts Randii. I am still at work, need to go home. I'll take off my foil off and put my thinking cap on in the morning
I'll see you then, Keith.

You'll be up before I am in the AM, so chew on this:
Quote:
If locals tell you that your back wall is going to collapse, is it reasonable to move to the front of the house, even while you are still trying to shore up the back wall?

Quote:
quotesfrom: https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=807191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance View Post
Of course I'm sure the powers that be have already made up their minds and once again will do what they please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGET IT View Post
The Lil Sluice will be modified to some extent and that is a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bagman View Post
Word on the street, (Pville only has one street) October/November.
Now say you've been attending a monthly meeting for years and years that talks about little more than how unstable the land is under the back of your house, with self-proclaimed experts about home stability predicting doom, some of whom are regularly seen on the back hill behind your home taking cameras and holding something that looks like a shovel... is it reasonable to maybe take some precautions against losing the back wall, even while you solidify the foundation up front?

Now you're looking at the County meeting minutes (http://co.el-dorado.ca.us/rubicon/Ov...18_Minutes.pdf) and you see: There was a discussion regarding <your back porch> and what to do. Tom said there will be a good public process before anything is done. You think to yourself, "Damn, looks like SOMETHING is going to get done -- the gubmint is talkin' about it!" You call your insurance agent to ratchet up your coverage, and he tells you that there are no guarantees, and that your home is irreplaceable.
Little Sluice is the back porch for the house that is the Rubicon Trail. RTF's mission is to protect the house, and we're trying to do so as best we can, while Rich, Monte, and Karen call every inspector that they can imagine to try to condemn the whole damn house. Rubicon is our home away from home, so RTF is pouring time, labor, and effort into it, but we're worried about that back porch, and we're trying to rouse volunteers and partner with the agencies to make as small a change as is possible to stabilize the hillside.

...and some dude named Charles keeps walking by in front of the house, questioning why your house is tied to the tree, and all your furniture is in the front yard.

Randii

Last edited by randii; 08-01-2009 at 01:13 AM.
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 01:45 AM   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Member # 126704
Posts: 363
Anyone that can make sense of that allegory all the way through I want to hire them to read some judge's orders

As I said awhile back - between growing up in New York and working in litigation for 16 years I seem to piss people off even while sleeping...

I know I'm annoying you but you haven't exactly kept it simple either.

I guess the next time I ask if you want a public discussion you might know to take the rope off the house and put it around my neck?
chasinternet is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 02:06 AM   #36 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
So randii - why didn't RTF come to us with what you just said?
I have been reporting the anti's activities in the ROC as long as I can remember on Pirate4x4.com and elsewhere. I've also reported the growing urgency... I've sent but it hasn't been received. Maybe it is signal/noise and too much in other folks' lives, dunno, but this has been posted here, discussed in FOTR meetings, and some folks have even attended ROC meetings and sat through the calls for something to be done at the Sluice.

People only started listening when that rediculous rumor was circulated about Mark Smith bombing the Sluice himself before Jamboree (ignore that he's well past 80, doesn't 'wheel much anymore, was at his cabin in Montana, and isn't directly involved with Jeepers Jamboree these days anyway). Apparently, while listening for that, they finally heard the message that Little Sluice was in the cross-hairs.

So great -- just friggin' great. RTF has been relaying that the anti's have been ratcheting up pressure for years, and now that folks are finally listening, they're saying that RTF has sold them out? Huh? We're heroes in March/April at the Water Board, and dogs in July/August as we try to prepare people for a public process to plan or Little Sluice. That's OK, we're focused on doing the right thing for the Rubicon Trail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
Why does RTF have so little faith in the community cleaning up Little Sluice that it has to admit breaking boulders is a possible solution?
It isn't a lack of faith in the users, but what we believe is a lack of willingness from the agencies to consider anything less than breaking box boulders. They've had many opportunities to engage education, enforcement, and engineering near Little Sluice, often with state funding provided and offers of volunteer support, but it has been easier for them to not deliver, and continue to set the users up for failure. The anti-recreationists outside the agencies have turned enough of a blind eye to allow the situation to worsen... and now we find ourselves at the beginning of a public planning process, and we're being asked to work with these same agencies to avoid the very action that their lack of action seems to have been driving towards? Geez, they think blasting the box will solve all their problems. They like the idea because it is EASIER to blast a way for a day than commit to long-term enforcement of their own rules and changing their programmatic execution. They have been unwilling to help near Little Sluice for years, why does anyone think the agencies will change now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
How can you even fathom that with all the vendors and people involved it is going to be "no change"????
My comments were i respect to suspecting that the agencies were not going to accept 'no change' to the rocks in the Sluice -- in other words, that altering the rocks was likely unavoidable, from an agency perspective. If I understand correctly, you are meaning 'no change' at all, and that's a HUGE no-brainer: something has to be done. More to my point, though, I believe that the agencies think something has to be done to the rocks in Little Sluce.
Look, I believe that the vendors and volunteers can pull together, but our challenge is to convince the agencies, not me. We won't even TRY to convince the anti's -- they are certain that whatever we promise, there will be 'no change' on the ground. We have an opportunity to SHAPE the proposed action through a public process -- let's work this as hard as we can and AVOID having to change the rocks.

This ain't capitulation or appeasemenet -- read it again: RTF is willing to consider any solution, up to and including reduction of rocks in Little Sluice, but believes this should not be the first or only option considered. If agencies, organizations, and volunteers can come together, RTF believes solutions can be found that require less destructive management techniques.
If we would have wanted to blow up the box, we would have just said it. It was pretty clear that we were gonna take some heat over saying we wanted to work SHORT of that outcome, if we were willing to just go there, it would have been WAY less argument to name it, claim it, and enjoy the resulting shower of rotten tomatoes and invective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
"Save the sluice" issue is a uniting issue.
It is a uniting issue for some segments of a broader hobby. As you observed, not every 'wheeler is rooting for the Sluice, and more than a few OHV fans who do not enjoy the Sluice in its current configuration have shown up repeatedly at ROC meetings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
Let's clean the freakin trail up - argue about what the trail will be once things stabilize enough to know there is going to be a trail! Argue it out after the April 2011 CAO milestone!
See my response above to Kurt -- I'd dearly love to be able to just focus on CAO stuff until 2011. Imagining it from the flip side, I expect the anti-recreationists are cooking up other plans to divide us and distract us from the CAO objectives, in hopes of closing the trail via the Water Board. I can just picture them chuckling and reading this thread while imitating Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
I know absolutely nothing about living life as a land use non profit - but the old sales/marketing manager in me would be embracing the energy and supporting it in every way instead of throwing water on the poll and selling the doom and gloom that we may wind up with Little Sluice rubble.
I'm trying to support any potential future developments (I hope, I hope, I hope) and keep people in the loop for the planning process, all while trying to get a few responsible letters into the DOT inbox.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
If RTF doesn't like it - why not just stay out of it on message boards?
Think about it, you're suggesting that we just let people continue unawares... isn't that the TRUE root problem? Yeah, it is easy to point fingers at RTF, but if people were truly aware, they'd have their own representative at the ROC meeting, have Supervisors on speed dial, and wouldn't be asking what the complaints are from the anti's. It would certainly make my life easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
It's cool, the rest of us can become a F-word (FOE, FOTR) and box bitch.
None of those functions have had regular attendance in ROC ever. None of them have been asked to work with the agencies in a focus group that excludes the anti's. None of them have captured hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant funding.
I fully support FOTR, FOE, and Kurt's proposed box bidness, and will pitch in with my personal time and energy, but these informal coalitions have their limits, and work best in partnership with a business entity that can collect and track funds. RTF is proud to have been able to support both FOTR and FOE, and if Kurt gets his box-boys together, it would be consistent with RTF's mission for us to fund them, as well.

Randii

Last edited by randii; 08-01-2009 at 02:23 AM.
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 02:15 AM   #37 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
I took a whack at that mixed-up metaphor... it couldn't be any more complicated than the real story (truth is stranger than fiction).

I'm tired and frustrated about this, maybe a little annoyed, but I'm strangely not pissed. There's a lot of history to this, that is not at all obvious on first, second, or even tenth examiniation.

I'm confident that if people dig into this far enough to understand the issues, that they'll grasp RTF's actions, and judge our actions favorably.

Randii
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 04:23 AM   #38 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Yota Up's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Member # 57128
Posts: 14,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by randii View Post
the anti's have finally built up enough leverage from beneath andenough influence from abobe to force a public process to consider change
What does this mean? Just be specific and say what's up. Is there a petition with a thousand signatures from anti's that hit the Tom's desk or something?
This is way too much of a political statement, full of vague reference shadowed by "monster under the bed" paranioa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randii View Post
RTF is willing to consider any solution, up to and including reduction of rocks in Little Sluice
That is not a solution, that is an elimination. There's a big difference. Just because the house is dirty doesn't mean you should tear it down. CLEAN HOUSE.

I would think RTF would hold a position that would state "we'll do anything we can to prevent reduction of the sluice, and will fight it to the end". If you represent the majority of the trail users, this would be your position.

Unsustainable. <- What does that mean? What is unsustainable? What needs to sustain what? Again, too much politics. Not clear on what you're saying here.

Last edited by Yota Up; 08-01-2009 at 04:23 AM.
Yota Up is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 09:40 AM   #39 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Lil Uzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Member # 6359
Location: Pond
Posts: 15,262
How Can they Not Know ??

That is the title from another thread on this BB. How can people not know ? That thread is about off trail abuse, PET and WAG, etc. This thread is about the RTF. The fillowing statements were made:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by randii
the anti's have finally built up enough leverage from beneath andenough influence from abobe to force a public process to consider change


What does this mean? Just be specific and say what's up. Is there a petition with a thousand signatures from anti's that hit the Tom's desk or something?
This is way too much of a political statement, full of vague reference shadowed by "monster under the bed" paranioa.
Please be patient. I am not trying to be sarcastic or bithcy. But if I read the second paragraph, I think, WTF ?

Are you serious ?

I consider a Clean Up And Abatement order to very damn specific. It says, to El Dorado County, backed by what passes for the law of the land,

"Comply or be fined up to $10,000 a day."

Did we miss this or what ?? There is no, I repeat no other need for nothin else. No signature, no nothin.

A CAO has been filed.

Christ, The USA Defense Department, Chevron USA, anybody can be slammed by the Water Board. Millions in legal fees, to no avail. The CVRWQCB interest came because three individulas were peristent in complaining about the Trail,

IN PARTICULAR LITTLE SLUICE.


They got the center for biological diversity to threaten to litigate.

Do you understand that ??

Is that specific enough for you ???

Said for the umpteenth time.

What matters is what matters to the County and CVRWQCB.

The Sluice is a potential $10,000 a day fine. The county will not go there. They will close the trail except for permitted users.

You are about to lose the whole enchilada.

And starting to piss me off with ignorance.

Leave Randii the F alone.

Should we meet for that beer ?
__________________
not surprized yer confused yer face was burried in the pillow pretty deep as gizim drunk as you were
Lil Uzi is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 11:01 AM   #40 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Member # 19251
Location: Cedarville, Michigan
Posts: 1,501
If it wasn't for the efforts of RTF, FOTR and a few very dedicated individuals, I find it hard to believe that that the Rubicon trail, much less the Little Sluice, would still be available for the use by the public. In my view, the future success of efforts to keep the Rubicon trail available for motorized use is directly correlated to the success of RTF and FOTR.

While I do not always agree with everyone in these groups on all issues, I will stand behind and support them because I share their views of continued year round motorized use for all users. With that in mind, it boils down to one thing.

How can I help?
microtus is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 11:22 AM   #41 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Up View Post
What does this mean? Just be specific and say what's up.
There is no specific. If you don't trust my senses, or any of the other folks that have told you here that something is gonna happen... or any of the many other people that have told ME off the record that they believe something is gonna happen, I don't know what to tell you. Let's put it a different way -- in any other year are you aware of a Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board action, with a significantly-increased number of complainers in ROC, followed by plans for the County committing to a public process? None of those things have happened before, but this year, you think it is just a fluke? You can chalk it up to paranioa if you want, Martin, but that smells like denial to me, even without a petition. I've raised the call to arms -- wouldn't you rather be ready, just in case I'm right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Up View Post
That is not a solution, that is an elimination.
Bullshit. The ONLY solution being brought by the anti's is to blow it up, and they have said in so many words, "make it gravel." RTF is saying let's get EVERYONE to the table now, and make sure that this is not he first or only option considered. If OHV users do NOT come together to push hard on the agencies, many of them are primed to accept that breaking up the Sluice is the easiest, most expeditious solutions to their problems -- the anti's have been telling them that for more than a decade. RTF on the other hand, is insisting that the agencies NOT make this decision in a vacuum, and we're not gonna let the agencies off the hook -- If agencies, organizations, and volunteers can come together, RTF believes solutions can be found that require less destructive management techniques. We're trying to avoid the very outcome you claim we're pushing, Martin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Up View Post
I would think RTF would hold a position that would state "we'll do anything we can to prevent reduction of the sluice, and will fight it to the end".
You need to read our mission again: www.RubiconTrailFoundation.org
Our position is this: "we'll do anything we can to prevent closure of the Rubicon Trail, and will fight it to the end".
If you want to start up your own non-profit expressly for protection of Little Sluice, do it... but know that when and if Little Sluice starts exporting mess and mayhem to the ress of the trail, RTF will be against you -- see the press release" * Agencies to plan implementation / education / enforcement to ensure that changes in one area don’t just divert impacts to other areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Up View Post
If you represent the majority of the trail users, this would be your position.
You keep telling me that, but my samples and my polls suggest that there is no clear majority, and that Little Sluice users are just one of several demographics within the hobby. I envy the simplicity of your black and white world, Martin, but RTF's Board of Directors elected me to speak for a broad range of users.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Up View Post
Unsustainable. <- What does that mean? What is unsustainable?
See above for oil and vegetation. That's obvious. Do you need still more? See the press release -- we included this sentence for a reason: Change is needed because of vegetative loss over the years (bushes), potential damage to the cypress tree, re-occurring vandalism, water shed impacts downstream, and risk of oil contamination in the Little Sluice.
Let's pull a couple more items out:
* watershed impacts downstream -- Little Sluice drains through a mud lake north of Winter Camp. We know the numbers are fine further downstream, but we lack samples for the mud lake, but samples exist that show oil, grease, and heavy metal contamination in the soil at the Sluice. I'm concerned for those numbers -- we got bad science thrown out at the Water Board, but what if the anti's actually do their homework this time?
* re-occurring vandalism -- Can anyone possible be sufficiently deluded to fail to admit that users have kept pulling in rocks over the years?
Both of these are unsustainable without change -- and IMHO, sustainable WITH change, which is why we need the agencies to step up and not just take 'the easy way out.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yota Up View Post
Not clear on what you're saying here.
Go ahead an keep asking specific questions -- I'll keep providing the answers that I have. RTF's position and Press Release were well-thought out -- we agonized on this; it was not just slammed together and blasted out the door. We make this statement with more than 300 years of trail experience spread out across the Officers and Directors, and thousands of hours in meetings to manage the trail during that time. El Dorado County DOT is in a 'perfect storm' situation right now, and RTF believes that trail access is under serious threat unless we can get volunteers, vendors, organizations, and agencies together. The anti's are touting Sluice Destruction as an 'easy out' but we can all see that once the extreme playground is removed, users will find another place on the trail to play... and the anti's are setting this trap so that they can use that to close us out entirely.

You may think I'm a chicken-little paranoid nut-bag... but I've been attending the meetings, and I see a slow change and sweeping agendas. Other RTF directors/officers do, as well, and we felt compelled to make this Press Release, based on our experience, our wide exposure, and our own internal compasses.

Randii
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 11:32 AM   #42 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
Thanks for the words of support, Robert.

Quote:
Originally Posted by microtus View Post
...it boils down to one thing.
How can I help?
I know you have written a letter to Tom Celio -- and I appreciate the time and thought you put into it.

The help we need is continued participation and on-the-trail peer-monitoring. We need to keep moving on the CGS-scoped CAO milestones, and somehow also be ready to defend against this second front that the anti's are trying to start at Little Sluice.

FOTR has a work weekend on August 22nd work day, and members of RTF are helping plan the tasks, while RTF stands ready to support FOTR's regular request for funding the food and supplies. Volunteers will be needed for this: https://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=805548

Thanks,

Randii
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 11:37 AM   #43 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 52
Location: Janesville, CA
Posts: 7,402
Wow, I thought my head was hurting last night
__________________
Rockzombie Smurf
Keith is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 12:38 PM   #44 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Wow, I thought my head was hurting last night
I threw in pretty colors to help with the hang-over.

This is serious stuff, but I am committed to help keep answering questions.

Randii
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 12:49 PM   #45 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 52
Location: Janesville, CA
Posts: 7,402
I just had an idea. Maybe it's already been thought of.
What about a area caretaker, like the guy that comes from New York every year to Meadow Lake. We could bring in supplies, take out the PETT droppings, etc. Keep an eye on the business of the day, hand out education, stay on top of the spills etc.
__________________
Rockzombie Smurf
Keith is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 01:58 PM   #46 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I just had an idea. Maybe it's already been thought of.
What about a area caretaker, like the guy that comes from New York every year to Meadow Lake. We could bring in supplies, take out the PETT droppings, etc. Keep an eye on the business of the day, hand out education, stay on top of the spills etc.
Who's gonna fund that... the Little Sluice Foundation?

Heck, Keith, I like it -- it is a solution-focused suggestion and shows that you're looking to move forward. RTF can look at expanding duties for the Mid-Trail Staff we already have in place. We've already got a Sluice-focus in our education program, but we can ratchet it up.

Solution-focus is good... that's why RTF provided a bulleted list in our press release. Read it again.
Rubicon Trail Foundation (RTF) supports a full public process led by DOT to address unsustainable concentrated use near Little Sluice.
We're getting crucified for admitting this, but we called it like we saw it, to prove our commitment to changing it. The very next sentence states WHY we feel the current situation is unsustainable: Change is needed because of vegetative loss over the years (bushes), potential damage to the cypress tree, re-occurring vandalism, water shed impacts downstream, and risk of oil contamination in the Little Sluice.
Then we start right into a list of solutions, and tagging the responsible agencies who must get involved to help.
RTF believes that there is no single easy answer to the multiple challenges of Little Sluice and the immediate area around it and that at minimum, the following solutions must be considered: (seven bullets follow)
We're happy to add more solutions to this list, but they will have to be well-defined and backed up with hard commitments to sway the public process.

Randii
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 02:12 PM   #47 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Member # 52
Location: Janesville, CA
Posts: 7,402
Did you ever meet that guy at Meadow Lake? Dedicated to traveling across the country to spend the summer at the campground. Awesome guy. I don't have a clue how to locate someone like that. But I do have a clue on how to keep his essentials stocked, and haul his poo and trash out.

I don't have a problem with a pay system. You can pay at the entrance, or pay at his camp if you come in another way. Don't have an answer how to keep him from getting robbed! Pay system in place at the Tahoe side staging area.
__________________
Rockzombie Smurf

Last edited by Keith; 08-01-2009 at 02:15 PM.
Keith is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 02:51 PM   #48 (permalink)
Pirate4x4 Addict!
 
Rubicrawler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Member # 2037
Location: Brentwood, CA 150 mi. from the 'Con
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
I just had an idea. Maybe it's already been thought of.
What about a area caretaker, like the guy that comes from New York every year to Meadow Lake. We could bring in supplies, take out the PETT droppings, etc. Keep an eye on the business of the day, hand out education, stay on top of the spills etc.
That's a very good idea Keith. The RTF has hired 2 people to work mid-trail throughout the remainder of the Summer to do much of what you've suggested

Fella's, I understand your frustration and appreciate your passion for the Rubicon Trail because I share it with you. Many of you don't like the wording in our Press Release but it's something we worked long and hard at developing. Is it perfect, probably not but it's what we, as a Board of Directors, could finally agree upon.

I've been running the Rubicon since 1975 and, for me, the trail is more that a place I go to recreate. It's part of who I am. It was the one place I could go with my Dad when I was a rebelious teenager and we became friends again, it's where I raised my kids and tought them how to drive and, it's where made most of my friends. It's in my blood and I'll fight anyone that attempts to take it from us. I drive what our critics call an "exteme" or "over-built" vehicle and enjoy driving through Little Sluice just like many of you. I like the challenge of the Little Sluice and will fight the people that want it "blown to gravel". As we go though this process, please remember that we're on your side. I've enjoyed 34 years on the Rubicon and, God willing, I plan on enjoying another 34 so, I'm all in. We're fighting so that your kids and grandkids can enjoy this special jewel that we all so dearly love.

I know Randii has been beating this drum but, PLEASE send your comments and suggestions to Tom Celio. The Closurists are fighting hard against us and your input is needed if we're going to win this fight.

We're going to have our differences but don't let the Anti's pull us apart. We need to pull together and demonstrate the power and resolve of the OHV community.
__________________
Mark Langford
KI6TMK


'86 CJ7, ProRock60's, 4.88's/Detroits/35 Spline Alloys/CTM's, TBI 350, 700R4, 4:1 D300 w/Twin Stick, 17" x 8.5" Trail Ready HD Aluminum beadlocks, 37x13.5x17 Toyo MT's

Dysfunctional Rockcrawlers (TDO)

Wheelers for the Wounded of California
Rubicrawler is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 03:17 PM   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Member # 126704
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil Uzi View Post
The Sluice is a potential $10,000 a day fine. The county will not go there. They will close the trail except for permitted users.
Ok, you finally went over the edge enough that I'll waste a post. The reality is your own backyard is a potential $10,000 a day fine. Please quote from the CAO the section concerning Little Sluice. You can't use that old stuff that got taken out - RTF took care of that remember?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil Uzi View Post
You are about to lose the whole enchilada. And starting to piss me off with ignorance.
That is an ignorant statement. The "family" is hashing out a dispute and as usual it gets ugly sometimes - if an outsider enters to break up or take advantage of the argument they will get the rarely seen full wrath of the family. Even cops know that potential - right?

Reducing Little Sluice has nothing to do with the CAO. I've hung around the water board stuff a little, I'm a panicky type who goes off at any sign of danger. I see nothing here to do with the Water Board - if I did you wouldn't see my posts. I have not read the file at the Water Board office yet but RTF has not indicated the CAO shifted either.

We're entitle to our opinions. I see ROC, the County, and some catalyst elements forcing the Little Sluice issue. That puts RTF in a bind because they are not internally united on reducing boulders, regardless they still have to position themselves as agency cooperative. I look at RTF as mostly user representative but part quasi government interface because they have to operate within agency constraints to be able to receive state funding - and more importantly have standing with the agencies.

Under Water Board pressure, I have seen counties do some strange things. I don't think it is unusual for the County to look for easy to implement ways to please the Water Board staff individuals but have little to do with the CAO. Problem is, I know of no case where that bought the County anything but more headache. I think it was important for RTF to hold the line - they don't see it that way.

Little Sluice will likely take user intervention and clean up outside of the traditional agency structures. If the County wishes to go forward anyway and reduce the rocks (might be a coin flip) then we'll have to discuss that act of war when it comes.

Carlo Bartolucci/Charlie Barret: That phone call I got, it came from outside high walls and fancy gates; it comes from a place you know about maybe from the movies. But I come from out there, and everybody out there knows, everybody lies: cops lie, newspapers lie, parent's lyin'. The one thing you can count on - word on the street... yeah, that's solid. - Christopher Walken in Suicide Kings (1997)

There is a meeting in 2 weeks and I know there will be a lot of great ideas put forth. But if it does not include volunteers stepping forward to clean up Little Sluice before the "word on the street" County action date - it is likely all for naught. I will fight to be there or if I really can't get out of work I'll donate money (I wish money could fix this but it can't - it takes people putting in days of work)

Last edited by chasinternet; 08-01-2009 at 03:18 PM.
chasinternet is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-01-2009, 04:12 PM   #50 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Member # 347
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 9,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
Reducing Little Sluice has nothing to do with the CAO.
Perhaps not directly, but indirectly, the ROC has been to some extent walking on eggshells, and the tone, perhaps not obvious from review of the minutes, has changed. As proof of this, please note that NEVER before has the ROC committed to an external public planning process beyond itself. That's irrefutable proof that the tenor has changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
We're entitle to our opinions. I see ROC, the County, and some catalyst elements forcing the Little Sluice issue.
That's a start. You acknowledge the basis for this 'perfect storm' -- now you just need to fathom the scope of the influence in play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
That puts RTF in a bind because they are not internally united on reducing boulders,...
Where do you get this, Charles? "RTF is willing to consider any solution, up to and including reduction of rocks in Little Sluice, but believes this should not be the first or only option considered. If agencies, organizations, and volunteers can come together, RTF believes solutions can be found that require less destructive management techniques." RTF is internally and externally united on this statement.

FWIW, your other comments are interesting in that we need position as agency cooperative insofar as we need to synch enough to get support for state funding -- but please note that we are going RIGHT at the Forest Service and Sheriffs Office and identifying what we need from them, and in some cases, what they have promised and fell short of delivering. That ain't so agency-cooperative, but that sort of check is required to keep them from committing but not delivering again, which would only solidify their arguments of the need for demolition in the box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
I don't think it is unusual for the County to look for easy to implement ways to please the Water Board staff individuals but have little to do with the CAO. ...I think it was important for RTF to hold the line - they don't see it that way.
We're busy holding a different line, and driving at a real plan to address complaints in the Little Sluice area -- well short of the easy way out, which would be to blast the boulders. This Press Release puts the agencies on notice that they will need to deliver, and lets the public see who they need to make accountable. If the public can see past crucifying RTF, the heat needs to be focused on the agencies, who have tacetly encouraged the problems at Little Sluice by electing not to address them. By acknowledging the problems and identifying responsible agencies, RTF is framing the solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
Little Sluice will likely take user intervention and clean up outside of the traditional agency structures.
Yes, it will likely take ADDITIONAL user intervention BEYOND traditional agency structures... but IMHO, this is doomed without agency support (just about every proposed action requires some sort of permit). This is why we said: "Overall, RTF believes that successful intervention at/near Little Sluice will require a multi-pronged effort that coordinates agencies, organizations, and volunteers."

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasinternet View Post
There is a meeting in 2 weeks and I know there will be a lot of great ideas put forth. But if it does not include volunteers stepping forward to clean up Little Sluice before the "word on the street" County action date - it is likely all for naught.
This meeting has the potential to generate game-changing economic impact date, planned solutions, and hard commits for cash and volunteer support. I fear that if it does not generate all three of these, that it won't impress the arbiters of the upcoming process.

Randii (hope for the best, plan for the worst)
randii is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:15 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.