Pirate 4x4 banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Land Use Zeus
Joined
·
2,881 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
At today's meeting of FOTR, we agreed to continue our voluntary agreement to donate the winter use of the Loon Lake area to our non-motor friends. It was unanimous at the meeting. Here is the new sign we came up with. Please spread the word. FOTR does support this and we are asking everyone to jump in and help educate our fellow users to avoid the Loon Lake area during winter.

We can use Wentworth for winter access. We are going to really fix up the Wentworth access this summer, also.

Our compliance with this voluntary donation of part of our trail is absolutely necessary to the success and future of our trail. Please help by getting the word out to other clubs and Bulletin Boards.

thank you,
Del

Here is the sign we agreed to:

OHV USERS VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO AVOID WINTER USE OF LOON LAKE ROAD BEYOND THIS SIGN

OHV USERS PLEASE USE WENTWORTH SPRINGS ROAD FOR WINTER ACCESS

For Motorized Rubicon Trail Access, back track 6 miles, turn right, and enter the trail via Wentworth Springs Road.

The OHV community helps preserve the Loon Lake Winter Recreation Area for non-motorized winter recreation enthusiasts.

Thank You,
Friends of the Rubicon in cooperation with the Rubicon Trail Foundation, El Dorado County, Eldorado National Forest, and El Dorado Nordic Ski Patrol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,607 Posts
neato, honestly I've never gone that way in the winter anyway but still I don't think there is a shortage of non-ohv areas. Ohv on the other hand..


It is good to hear the OHV community in one sentence. I once heard a radio show not too long ago between cal4 (I think, maybe it was BRC), some snowmobile users group, and the sierra club. My gawd did the "OHV" community look bad! All we did was argue with the snowmobile people when reality we are BOTH motorized OHV vehicles and if we are not united were not going to go anywhere..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,346 Posts
There certainly isn't a shortage of non-OHV recreational oportunities out there but we really do need those people(skiers, etc.) on our side and not against us.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,991 Posts
We all worked on the wording and agreed to what you see in Del's post. It's a good agreement for both OHV users and the Nordic Skiers ;)

Del- thanks for taking the heat on this one :cool2:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,568 Posts
Thanks to the folks who could attend the meeting and hammer out good verbiage for the new sign... :cool2:

This is a good result for all users -- motorized and non-motorized -- as there was significant risk that FORMAL SEASONAL CLOSURE of this route might have been enacted, had we not worked together to recreate the voluntary agreement.
Randii
 

·
Apple
Joined
·
11,705 Posts
wasn't this a little premature to post as accepted by FOTR but not list the other entities involved in this agreement, or that they also needed to agree to this?

Especially since it was shot down at the march meeting?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
makya said:
wasn't this a little premature to post as accepted by FOTR but not list the other entities involved in this agreement, or that they also needed to agree to this?

Especially since it was shot down at the march meeting?
Not in my opinion, as it was what we at FOTR agreed on. Maybe having the other entities names on it as presented here, but at the meeting it was stated that we had to present it to them and see if they agreed.

Would you have wanted us to go to the ROC meeting without posting it up thus not informing all of those who didn't make the FOTR meeting?

The problem here is that this is public domain. It was brought out at the ROC meeting that the enemy surfs here as well. So all the negative comments posted here about the issues were read by a lot of them. Not good IMO!

I think we need a place to discuss business privately, a place where we are not antagonizing our foe by publicly lambasting them. Also a place where thay are not privy to our plans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
So does this Agreement end when the forest service closes the challet to the skiiers daytime use, And when ski patroll stops patrolling on april 1, or does it extend until there is little or no snow?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
We have that place already. The problem with the internet is it is only as safe as it's membership. Meaning you can have all the private conversations you want until by mistake or otherwise, something is said or copied or posted from that place.

It is my understanding SMUD is cut loose on April 1 to plow at their discretion. Last year, it was not until way after that that they actually plowed.
 

·
Apple
Joined
·
11,705 Posts
It could have been posted on the FOTR mailing list only. or it could have been presented here with the understanding that it needed to be looked at by others at the ROC meeting. The way it reads is that it is accepted as is. FOTR is not the only ones who vote on this, it needs to be accepted by the other parties listed on the sign first before saying it is what will happen.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Mayka, I reread Del's post. It only says that the people at the FOTR meeting agreed to the sign as seen in the first post here, It does nothing to say it was discussed, approved, rejected, cogitated on or anything else by anyone other than FOTR.

Scott
 

·
Land Use Zeus
Joined
·
2,881 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
The Sign and Who is mentioned...

Yes, Cruzila is right. The FOTR sign, that was NOT accepted by the ROC, by the way, is FOTR's language of our agreement to voluntary surrender access in cooperation with....that is the important language...in cooperation with.
We worded it this way to show we were doing it, here's our language, and we're doing it in cooperation with....not with any agreement or signed document or voted upon blah blah.

Anyway, the ROC didn't accept our language because the ski patrol and some others threw a fit claiming the old sign was the deal and that was the one that still should be up. That's the one that is three years old and NEVER renewed by the ROC or FOTR. We just sort of let it ride. And we had 100% agreement and cooperation two years, then one minor incident this year and the whole *let's hold hands and sing kum-by-ya* went out the window in a heart beat.

You cannot compromise with exclusionary elitists and expect any kind of payback....at least not a payback that you want. You just have to cut deals and compromise where it does not go against your basic prinicples. And until such time as we have the kind of money and membership that the exclusionary elitists do, we have to play our hand differently and lose a few.

Del
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
Jeepndel said:
Anyway, the ROC didn't accept our language because the ski patrol and some others threw a fit claiming the old sign was the deal and that was the one that still should be up. That's the one that is three years old and NEVER renewed by the ROC or FOTR. We just sort of let it ride. And we had 100% agreement and cooperation two years, then one minor incident this year and the whole *let's hold hands and sing kum-by-ya* went out the window in a heart beat.

You cannot compromise with exclusionary elitists and expect any kind of payback....at least not a payback that you want. You just have to cut deals and compromise where it does not go against your basic prinicples. And until such time as we have the kind of money and membership that the exclusionary elitists do, we have to play our hand differently and lose a few.

Del


Del, thanks for posting both FOTR's objection to having the obsolete agreement taken for granted (by the same folks who benefit but remain disagreeable) and the voluntary FOTR cooperaton to extend the obsolete agreement with recognition (the proposed sign changes, even if rejected).

The fact the OHV community offered a formal cooperative agreement is to be praised, much like other recent cooperative decisions by OHV enthusiasts (your recent article hits this very well). The disagreement of the non-motorized faction only refects their inability to accept compromise even when the proposal enhances their principles and goals (for exclusive seasonal non-motorized trail access). Recognition of cooperation on a sign in trade for formal agreement to keep motors off the trails is a small concession, but the denial truly exposes how trite the non-motorized folks can get. This denial reinforces the opinion that these folks are not advocating (and cooperating) to protect the land. They do not think like traditional sustainable resource conservationists, they only act to protect their own vision of trail control (power, corrupting power).

Regardless of the motorized community's continued respect for this season's closure (I believe the FOTR cooperation is valid even if not formally accepted) what is the ROC's next move? Will the ROC need to formally extend the current signs provisions (and verbage) or is this an issue to let lie?

Have any of the local newspapers printed the record of FOTR offering the cooperative agreement, and who disagreed and rejected the idea of formal seasonal closure agreement? I ask because if we were to reject a formal cooperative agreement we would be accused of "bulldozer" tactics in a press release penned by the OHV opposition (maybe the ski patrol needs to be exposed for ;) snowplow tactics).

Happy Trails!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
i would just like to express my gratitude and relief for people like you guys involved in these posts. it is nice to see people getting involved to protect our hobby/way of life/religion. i wish more people were aware of these issues. or better yet, that they gave a damn. Kudos to you.
 

·
4x4 Consultant
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
Our pleasure.................Please find time to get involved yourself if you arent now. Have a look at the link below and feel free to email me if you have any questions.

www.rubicontrail.org

Regards,

Kevin Carey
RTF Director
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,568 Posts
I'm tempted to keep him around just to see how many words? he can put together before punctuating. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

But right now, as we try to process comments for the EIR NOP, I'm killing it so we don't have to deal with the distraction...

Randii
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5 Posts
info you havent see yet

randii said:
I'm tempted to keep him around just to see how many words? he can put together before punctuating. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

But right now, as we try to process comments for the EIR NOP, I'm killing it so we don't have to deal with the distraction...

Randii
to get the history most of you are not smart enoughf to find on the rubicon trail you need to look into united states postal routs and pull up docket files very interesting and if the county makes the lil sluice a historical land mark when the reward for info leading to the arrest and convection of persons who did the damage gets to a million let me know i have some very interesting photos witch are disturbing and quite shocking DO NOT CHALLANGE WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE RUBICON TRAIL MAKES DEL LOOK LIKE A example when del firts started telling people what to do andhow to get things done he was all hot in the head about self potrol self police the trail and edcuate people on tread lightly and take license plate numbers and pictures and we if we can show e l dorado county we can be responcible the sherriff dept wont be needed and actuall members can be on patrole well del what happend there are more cops on the trail then at dunkin doughnuts in fact last year i saw 14 sherrif on the trail 4 of them were hiding in the bushes monitering noise polition and taking pictures and licesne plate numbers del why dont tell us what up DEL ALBRIGHT ISNT IT TURE YOU ARE AGAINST OFF ROAD 4X4 IN NATIONAL FOREST WELL I HAVE INFO SAYING THAT YOU ARE WANNA CHALLANGE I HAVE WEB INFO YOU DIDNT KNOW WAS AVAIBLE
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,906 Posts
Rofl
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top