Pirate 4x4 banner

21 - 40 of 40 Posts

·
Land Use Zeus
Joined
·
2,881 Posts
Friends Groups at the Tables

Dave, you are doing an awesome job! This is not an easy process, but it is always a win-win process when the users of an area are behind you. You have a following of folks that want to keep JV alive and well. When you have a following, it's easy to lead. :)

The Friends group model works, and it works all over the country. And let me assure you, Friend groups that have the users as constituents (members) belong at any and every table where their trail/riding area is being discussed. Agency folks know that.

To use the Rubicon as an example, I can't imagine the County or the Feds having a planning meeting or some sort of long term scheme that did NOT include Friends of the Rubicon. Ain't happening.

As to fund-raising, I would tag along with many suggestions here. It seems too early and not directed enough. But on the other hand, if FOJV decides that the time is right, and the cause is well directed, then I'm in. There is only one real question to ask when it comes time to voting with your wallet -- and to me that is where will the money eventually go. If we're talking a possible lawsuit in the future, then put your money with someone/group that can hold up on that end of the bargain.

So my advice is to continue on your path of establishing your membership and commitment to saving JV for us, the users. Be at the table -- any table. Stand by each other and stand strong in what you are doing. Set aside boundaries (and barriers) like club names, organizations, etc. Just be FOJV.

Del
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
First off, Dave, it was nice to meet you again. I'm sorry we didn't get a few more minutes to speak but hopefully soon we'll be able to catch up.

And the two gentlemen I sat between, Mike and Richard, it was also nice to meet you too! I enjoyed our quiet comments....it was nice to know we're pretty much on the same page with our thoughts yesterday.

As John mentioned in a previous post, there is still much to do. I look forward to what the future holds and most importantly I look forward to more productive meetings.

Sincerely,

Vicki Cossey
American Sand Association
San Diego Off-Road Coalition
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
906 Posts
Well 1st of all it was nice meeting some new face's. I was really glad I was able to attend this meeting and I think your doing a great job Dave. I really think we have a big challange ahead of us but if we all can work together and have people that we can really trust to represent us I believe we'll have a great chance of saving Johnson Valley. I think the slide presentation was good but the communication was poor it was in my opinion pretty much our way or the highway. If I affend anyone I'm sorry but thats what I feel they pretty much said to all of us but these are my thoughts.
Thanks Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,850 Posts
Well 1st of all it was nice meeting some new face's. I was really glad I was able to attend this meeting and I think your doing a great job Dave. I really think we have a big challange ahead of us but if we all can work together and have people that we can really trust to represent us I believe we'll have a great chance of saving Johnson Valley. I think the slide presentation was good but the communication was poor it was in my opinion pretty much our way or the highway. If I affend anyone I'm sorry but thats what I feel they pretty much said to all of us but these are my thoughts.
Thanks Richard
It was good to see you at the meeting Richard, I intended to shake your hand and formally introduce myself after the meeting, but unfortunately it ran long and I had to cut out early to make another meeting in Long Beach.
I'll try to catch you at the net meeting.

John James
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
906 Posts
It was good to see you at the meeting Richard, I intended to shake your hand and formally introduce myself after the meeting, but unfortunately it ran long and I had to cut out early to make another meeting in Long Beach.
I'll try to catch you at the net meeting.

John James
yeah I also planned on introducing myself but I noticed you got up walked out and didn't return but it's cool I'll see you at the next meeting
Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
I am still confused as to what monetary donations are needed for? I asked in the RDC thread but never received a response? Can anyone here show me the *light*?

Thank you guys and I hope everyone can find a way to WORK TOGETHER WITH ONE GOAL IN MIND, THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECREATE IN JOHNSON VALLEY!
 

·
pro web-wheeler
Joined
·
21,639 Posts
I think we all agreed at that meeting that until we actually have a need for any money, nobody was going to ask for it. I guess there is a donation link on the PFJV site, but beyond that link, I haven't heard them pounding the bricks looking for donations. However, calling a spade a spade...like the majority of the organisations out there, they do take $ to operate, so them asking for donations isn't unlike anyone else...they did put together and pitch a presentation and take time to make contacts and attend meetings and such.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,399 Posts
I am still confused as to what monetary donations are needed for? I asked in the RDC thread but never received a response? Can anyone here show me the *light*?

Thank you guys and I hope everyone can find a way to WORK TOGETHER WITH ONE GOAL IN MIND, THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECREATE IN JOHNSON VALLEY!

My "guess" is that PFJV is being established as a non-profit political action committee, or "PAC." Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000. Remember its all politics. To get in the door of the Congressman or Senator, a group that is established as a PAC has more clout than a simple organization because they can CONTRIBUTE $$$$ to said Congressman or Senator. Greasing the wheel is part of the game. :shaking:

As discussed at the last meeting in Colton, FOJV ultimately will be faced with seeking contributions too.
 

·
pro web-wheeler
Joined
·
21,639 Posts
First, I’ll start off with my take on that meeting.

Beginning with the presentation: The PowerPoint presentation was a decent "slice" of some of the important areas regarding region/users/collateral damage. The sky is not falling after seeing the presentation they gave, however, had they used the assets they truly had available to them, they could have done a better job. I cannot say that any other single group out there would have done better, but I do know that a collaboration of groups would have made a BIG difference. Anyone saying otherwise would be a fool. Next, they had ideas in there that many may have not considered, and I applaud a unique approach to a couple of things that are not easy to describe, nor important to this review.

Moving on to the meeting itself:
1. Mark is an excellent presenter if running off a set of guidelines in a narration situation. The flip-side is he may be a bit of a loose-canon when on his own. This was very relevant when in this meeting, two very uncalled-for comments were made by him in a loose-context manner. I was disappointed to see this considering how he came off the starting line. In a certain situation, he is an amazing asset, in other situations; he's going to need to use restraint. We saw good examples of restraint, especially from the main targets of many of the comments directed to Ed and Harry. Not that silence is always an answer, but the antagonistic comments were far worse than nothing at all. Mark should have let them drop or answered with a defense or clarification, or apology, or whatever…not an antagonist statement. Mark, if you’re the point man, get ready for some hits and respond with unarguable statements and word them in the most un-antagonistic way possible, or, let them drop. Is Un-antagonistic even a word??? Oh Well, it fits.

2. Calling a spade a spade out of fairness, there were a few other people working hard and struggling with restraint in that meeting. I quickly found that history and past issues definitely played a role in people’s emotions as a few times it appeared as people had an axe to grind. Luckily, those parts were over in short order. Mike Bishop, Meg from ORBA, and Dave Cole all found themselves at odds with someone or some statement at one time or another and I am glad to see they pulled some punches they wanted to let go. The reason I point this out is that it is unfair to point out one side (Mark) without pointing out how ALL sides played their hands in this game. You could see who the pros were (amazing poker faces), you could see who really wanted to speak out but somehow held their tongues, and then you could see who “took the bait” a few times. That said, ALL sides only had occasional slips, and overall, I believe the objective of this meeting was to gauge where we stood and where we're headed. Funny thing is, Mike, Dave, Meg and Mark were all major players in the meeting and many of their comments turned into important focal points of the meeting, especially the list that Dave prepared. I personally want to thank many of you for holding the line on your reactions as I know many of your personalities make it hard to do just that...I include myself in that list as well...I'm FAR from perfect, but having John Stewart sitting in front of me reminded me that decorum will get us further than in-fighting...he didn't have to say a word, yet I read the message in his eyes.

3. As a disclaimer for my above comments about Mark, Mike, Dave, and Meg…that is just a reflection of decorum from time to time during the meeting. The majority of the time, everyone was well within bounds of where they should be, you all brought up very relevant points, your participation was critical to the meeting and I applaud you all for your energy/dedication to getting things on the table…but, sometimes we need a mirror in front of us to see that a few brush stokes can make a difference in our appearance. Accept that mirror example for what it is…an example, not a bag on your good looks.

4. There are some things we have asked of the PFJV, including releasing their bylaws and tax scenario in order for many of the outside organizations to decide whether they can, in accordance with their own bylaws, ethics, or just “gut-feeling”, support the PFJV. I hope PFJV is able to handle that immediately so we can get that obstacle out of the way and figure out the viability of a true support group.

5. This is not a negative statement, but a realistic one...the stone has been cast...as in, the presentation has already been given that MAY be our shot at convincing the military to turn east in their quest for more land. I am positive that THIS is the beef that everyone had, that not enough "experts" were used in assembling this presentation and I agree fully that this IS the case. Like I said in my opening statement, it was a good presentation, but would have been a lot stronger in the same time needed to deliver, with a little help from more expert parties. If they deny that they fell short, they are only kidding themselves. As looking back is NOT going to make us go forward, I’ll state this: This should NOT happen again! The point group will be sharper if they have more people standing behind them. There MAY be other opportunities, and in that case, we need to be ready.

6. Regarding who the point group is…we can argue this up and down all day but assembling a point group with a powerful speaker/presenter, someone who has their foot in the door and can speak and be respected by their audience (the military in this case) and who can turn around and disseminate the information properly to all of those potentially affected, so that new steps, plans, information, and strategies can be started on with haste, is the group we need as our “point”. It doesn’t matter if we like who they are, where they came from, or how they got there as long as they are effective in the areas I stated. This is not a “fair for all”, it’s a war we’re going to lose if we continually pull back and re-group. Truly, there can be more than one “point group”, but they all need some idea of what the big picture really is, and from an off-roader’s standpoint, we need to supplement the info the different entities have already assembled. PLUS, for each situation, the point group MAY need to be different, depending on the situation we are in. For a casting director, they must cast the perfect “actor” for each role if they want any Academy Awards. Nobody can play every role so we need to urge that point groups be “cast” wisely.

7. I have posted a thread in chit chat because I opened my mouth and made a suggestion that a modern day “phone tree” is needed to keep information flowing effectively, up-stream as well as down-stream. PLEASE, check this link and add your perspective and/or information that will help me assemble a method of communication that will be effective. http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=692426


8. Someone asked what happens if we put together such a diverse group of people (geo cachers, land sailors, film commission, OHV, etc) and the ultimate decision favors one group over the next??? My answer is “war makes strange bed-fellows.” If we put together a united front that Johnson Valley is the home to MULTIPLE users, we’re far better off than if we present a disjointed front. If one group wins, yet another loses, we still tried our best, with the best tact we could find, and at least SOMEONE won out where the odds of anyone winning would be far less if done any other way. I feel that is a fair statement, even if it is a run-on sentence from hell. Regardless, of utmost importance is that OUR story is properly told but without discounting others.

9. What happens if the military doesn’t / didn’t buy our pitch? Well, one issue is we MAY have other chances…but if not and they decide to take the land anyway…we must have our ducks in a row to present a unified front of information, groups, and users, to Congress. No, I have NO CLUE or understanding of that process, but if someone does and can spearhead it, maybe this effort we are putting together can be an asset…? That APPEARS logical anyway…

10. The timing of the meeting. Yes, it sucked but many people put aside very important things to attend. Like EVERY meeting out there, it’s impossible to make everyone happy but I look at it this way…Dave wrote a comment that transparency was needed and a response and meeting was assembled IMMEDIATELY, just as we ALL should hope it would. If people wanted to be there, even with the late notice, they made an effort to get there. No, not everyone, but the room was FULL, and was a good cross-section of the OHV user group. It was noted that for many, evening meetings would be easier for many…not all, but many. The next strategy meeting is tentatively scheduled for the evening in the first week of July…more details will be available from someone else…I cannot find my page where I wrote that down.

11. The statement of “MAY have other chances” came up a few times in this review. I need to clarify that what we heard in this meeting is that the military will base their decision off of the information given in that presentation. That is the words of Ed, Harry, Mark, and Helen. However, the military is opening their doors to offer some groups a tour and that means opportunities MAY arise, plus, if the presentation was actually intriguing, maybe the military will ask for more information…MAYBE. I cannot say one way or another as I am going off of what was said in the meeting and making my own assumptions. Regardless, we need to be ready.

After digesting this information for a day, communicating with a number of people on their takes, outlooks, and putting Johnson Valley BEFORE anything else, I must say that I have sat here for dozens of hours just as confused as I was going into Monday’s meeting. There are deep divisions among the groups that attended yesterday’s meeting and they come from a long history that I don’t even want to begin to learn about. That said, my confusion has been, WHO should we support?

I think I found a simple answer…

OURSELVES…we support ourselves.

FOJV was assembled with the intent to gather members and distribute information as a support group in this fight. Of all the paths that lay in front of us, I think FOJV is the obvious choice. We put together a stronger communication plan and act as a support group to those willing to fight the fight, and then answer the call to become point on any issues where we are asked to become the point group and we can do so effectively. FOJV does not need to be THE ONE, but after sitting at a totally different meeting of Extreme Sports CEO’s last night, one of them said something that fits this situation: “You know your backyard better than the neighbor’s backyard!” We do know our backyard and as a group of internet users, we know how to use the web effectively for communication. We also have an untapped depth of talent within that can be an amazing asset and by strengthening our numbers, strengthening our communication methods, and by letting all sides in this situation know we are here and ready, we can make a difference.

Dave Cole stepped up in a time where he is as busy and pressured as he can be, yet he’s making the effort to push this forward. I will continue to back him when he asks, stand at his side when he asks, and step up if I can when he asks…Dave, this isn’t YOUR battle, it’s OUR battle…let’s set a course where you don’t have to play politics, let’s do what we all do best which is to work as a group to get to the end of that trail!

We will be a part of the strategy workings for PFJV but will do so with the public knowledge that our work is everyone’s work as long as it is being used to forward our cause. We’ll also work with the Leadership Council that meets next week if they ask, and will do the same for any entity needing the support of OHV users that use Johnson Valley. We may not be a huge group and may not have a ton of experience, but we do have two things…passion, and integrity. Those two things will remain intact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
871 Posts
The representatives from NAXJA both called me after the meeting with just about the same views as mentioned in this thread.
Too early to give any thumbs up for financial support, too early to really tell how well Partnership for JV will keep us 'in the loop' and too early to say what the Marines will have in mind...

Our chapter of NAXJA (SoCal Chapter) are committed to the point that we have established a position within the group (guess who? :D) of someone who will keep the rest of the chapter fully informed about this as well as to make sure we have someone at every meeting.

Its our hope that FOJV can find its leadership and be our voice when working with both PFJV and the Marines.
Money has been set aside...

Let me know if I can be of any help.

Rick Rethoret
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,151 Posts
Many thanks to everyone who was able to attend this meeting, and thanks for the reports. It is great to see folks in our sport pull together and step up to make themselves available.

I agree that, if at all possible, we need our own support group, which can represent us whenever the need or opportunity arises, and . In the current scope of things this would be Friends of Johnson Valley. Obviously, PFJV has established themselves as the lead group in this, and they appear to have capable leadership and partners, even if there are a few issues. However, we still need our own voice, and our own group that we can work with and support, for whatever issues or work that might arise. I hope that there is sufficient interest, and folks willing and able to step into leadership, to get Friends of Johnson Valley established. Even though PFJV has some offroaders, we still need a group of JV users who know our own issues and concerns, and who can coordinate whatever efforts might be needed.
 

·
pro web-wheeler
Joined
·
21,639 Posts
In my last paragraph, I mention "leadership Council. I guess I should clarify what that is. This is NOT part of PFJV. It was a group established to fight another issue entirely a couple of years ago. Numerous major organisations came together in what I will call an "alliance" to fight something and because of the depth of thegroup, found success. I don't have the exact details of what they fought, but rumor has it that it was something important and because of the cooperatioon of so many groups, they had the bases covered and as far as I know, acheived their goals. The group hasn't had much on their plate recently and because of some of the personal issues a few were having with one another, the group didn't do much. It appears they are meeting again this next week and will discuss the situation and what they can do to make a difference in this battle. It's clear to me after talking to a number of them, that there are still some rifts within the group, but they will hopefully put them aside and come out of this meeting full of passion to up the ante on our side of the Johnson Valley issue.

If I hear more details about this meeting, I will offer an update.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,424 Posts
Let me amplify what Dustin is referencing.....

About 3 years ago, four of us pulled together representatives from each of the incorporated recreation groups in the state to deal with the OHMVR Commission in a coordinated fashion.

The result is that major changes were accomplished in the OHMVR program with a major change in the commission. No longer can a small block of commissioners divert OHMVR funds from the legislated purpose.

Since the passage of SB 742, the "leadership" group has not been a priority. There are emerging issues where it is now time to re-focus the energies of the incorporated organizations.

Wilderness proposals were on the agenda. Johnson Valley has risen as a very high priority.

From that perspective, the organizations that have membership are participants and hopefully concerned about the issues of importance to their membership.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I can help clarify about this leadership council that keeps getting mentioned. Here's the Readers' Digest version.

Last year a very liberal Democrat Senator introduced legislation that made some serious changes to the current legislation that the OHMVR Division runs by. This legislation was ugly. A handful of organizations got together, along with their lobbyists, to stand united and work as one voice. At the end of last year in this Democrat state we live in, we turned an ugly piece of legislation (which would have made our already existing OHV Program into more of an Environmental Program with little OHV opportunity) into legislation that changes the existing broken OHV Program into an OHV Program with environmental balance. This legislation was known as SB 742.

What we learned last year is that standing together as a united front could accomplish things and this is how we need to continue to fight for what we all love so much......recreating off-road in the so many different ways we do.

The organizations that worked together and continue to work together are as follows:

American Motorcyclist Association
American Motorcyclist Association, District 36
American Motorcyclist Association, District 37
American Sand Association
Blue Ribbon Coalition
California Association of Four Wheel Drive Clubs
California Nevada Snowmobile Association
California Off Road Vehicle Association
Friends of Oceano Dunes
Off Road Business Association
San Diego Off-Road Coalition

I personally wouldn't call us 'leadership' like the way the Baker's did on Monday but more of an OHV Coalition, a California OHV Coalition. Our goal is continue to communicate with eachother, fight the fight.....united. This is done by each of the Orgs continuing to work in their areas of concern but to reach out to our fellow organizations to ask for help if need be. We keep everyone on top of issues that surround our state (from the forests to the deserts to the snow and everything in between).

Next week's meeting is just that. All the orgs will be bringing summaries of what they have been working on, timelines, support needed from the others, new issues we're facing, strategy, concerns, etc. We also have a working agreement that we will not act without consulting with each other, this could be on land issues and/or legislative issues. Johnson Valley will be discussed next week, just as Route Designation, ESA, lawsuits, Federal Hearings on OHV use, etc, etc, etc.



On a personal note, I hope that one day we can wake up the rest of our fellow off-roaders to help fight the fight. We've got a lot of very passionate folks in our community....if we can only get more of them involved we can have the majority vote in our state....

....maybe one day before it's all gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
So John, tell us, who set the representatives representation? Who made the rules? The group? Are they written?

thanks, Del
Here's what we got at the pfjv meeting. Don't know if all the ohv orgs. are invited. Doesn't cal4 have some districts too, like AMA does? Guess they forgot to invite the Pismo guy. Del's right we heard that the meeting is in Sacramento on the 25th, but the folks on this invite list that were at the Monday meeting, didn't seem to want a lot of people to know about it.

I just want to know, if all these folks get along so good, why do they have to sign something, why can't they just shake hands?

James

California OHV Leadership Working Agreement
May 20, 2008

The following groups make up the California OHV leadership group:

1. American Motorcyclists Association – National
2. American Motorcyclist Association – D36
3. American Motorcyclist Association – D37
4. American Sand Association
5. BlueRibbon Coalition
6. California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs
7. California Nevada Snowmobile Association
8. California Off-Road Vehicle Association
9. Off-Road Business Association
10. San Diego Off-Road Coalition

The purpose of this California OHV leadership group is to communicate and coordinate our efforts throughout the state on land use issues. This group is not a replacement for CLORV. CLORV’s mission is political education in nature.

Each one of these groups is allowed one official representative and one alternate to participate in OHV leadership meetings and conference calls in order to keep these meetings manageable and efficient. It is the responsibility of the official representative or alternate to communicate to the rest of the group the details of any ongoing land use issues that their organization is working on. It is also the responsibility of the representative or alternate to communicate to their own member group the information provided on the various land use issues reported on during these meetings or conference calls.

By signing this agreement each organization included in this group agrees to communicate on a regular basis with all the member groups and not represent themselves as the sole representative of the OHV community unless prior approval by the member groups has been established. Signatories to this agreement shall not enter into any land use negotiations or agreements without first informing the entire OHV leadership group. Whenever possible local area specific groups will be consulted with and kept informed as negotiations proceed. Local input will always be considered but no one group shall be allowed to negotiate on behalf of the rest of the leadership without prior agreement.





1. Nick Haris - AMA National



2. Dave Pickett – AMA D36



3. Jerry Grabow – AMA D37



4. Vicki Cossey – ASA



5. Don Amador – BlueRibbon Coalition



6. Don Spuhler – CA4WD



7. Jay Dobler – CNSA


8. Ed Waldheim – CORVA



9. Fred Wiley – ORBA



10. Meg Grossglass – SDORC
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,424 Posts
So John, tell us, who set the representatives representation? Who made the rules? The group? Are they written?

thanks, Del
First, this group was not call together by Ed. Second, what rules???

Initially, the focus was on OHMVR legislation. As long as that was an issue, it was the "rule".

Representation was selected based on the groups that had been funding the 2 Sacramento lobbyists.

Any group that was helping pay for the lobbyists was part of the discussion group.

The lack of a formal structure is noted and an issue that needs to be corrected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,653 Posts
Looks like some of us are having power issues :shaking:

It doesn't matter what group you support, they/we all need to be heard.
Just because one group over another takes the ball and runs with it is by no means reason to whine. We need to share what info we have with each other.
We are not the only ones effected by this threat.

The more groups that pressure the military, the better. The military has said they will listen to all...in due time! So lets continue to collaborate...and be heard...CIVILLY!...ASAP!


BTW, I just came from a FOGR meeting that included the PFJV folks. I heard no mention of them asking for funds whatsoever. I also saw that PowerPoint presentation that was presented to the military. I was very impressed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,568 Posts
...a walk through of the pitch given to the Marines a couple of weeks ago. The pitch was fairly represenative and accurate in the facts. It was 'pitched' professionially and recieved very well by the group.
I finally laid my own eyeballs on this slide presentation last night at Sierra Trek after I failed to win anything in the 117-item raffle (ah well, good money for a good cause). Harry ran through the slides to a small group of interested folks, and Helen and Harry both stayed after for a good while afterward to address individual questions.

I'm impressed with the presentation, and stoked to see Tinbender data in a few of the charts - we're stongest when we work together!

I haven't been immersed in these issues, so I was surprised to learn that we should expect some withdrawal prior to NEPA study... I guess that makes sense when I stop to think about it, since they'd want to study what's on the ground as it exists today, instead of shooting at a moving target 2-3 years out. I surely hope to see withdrawals identified on the East side of the base, as well -- that'll prove that the Marines are considering other options.

I hope that all can work together to keep JV and the Hammers open -- I'm wishing you well from afar, as were many others at Sierra Trek, but keep us in mind when we can pitch in -- whether with letters or dollars, or a trip down to say what's on our mind when it is most important. I'm more than six hours away and I care about JV -- help us identify how we can engage, and we'll help you by doing that, regardless of the miles.

My appreciation goes out to the Friends and Partners who are putting their time and energy into this, especially the locals who have stepped up to lead... sometimes in separate groups, but almost always, I'm confident, for the betterment of JV.

We need them...whether we like it or not. They need us... whether they will admit it or not. They have the 'keys' to the table right now. We need to be a united front.
Even if everyone is not always on the same exact page organizationally, if we're fighting for the common goal of retaining access to JV, we'll be flying the same direction, if not in formation. I'm not sure PFJV and FOJV will ever be wing-men, but they're a formidable force together, to be certain!

Randii
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Top