Trail Closures- Fight Back
Thread Starter
JK Enthusiast
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: Mi Wuk Village, CA
Trail Closures- Fight Back
How many of you belong to a group such as Cal 4 Wheel, The Blue Ribbion Coalition or CORVA? If you dont, you better sign up now.
These organizations work hard to protect your off road rights.
Check out the attached link. Some of you may know this already and to others this will be a surprise- the Federal courts have shut down 42 trails in NorCal including Barret Lake, Deer Valley and Strawberry Pass.
Cal 4Wheel the Blue Ribbion Coalition are fighting the court order, do what you can to help them win.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/eldora...TELPRDB5362068
These organizations work hard to protect your off road rights.
Check out the attached link. Some of you may know this already and to others this will be a surprise- the Federal courts have shut down 42 trails in NorCal including Barret Lake, Deer Valley and Strawberry Pass.
Cal 4Wheel the Blue Ribbion Coalition are fighting the court order, do what you can to help them win.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/eldora...TELPRDB5362068
Last edited by miwukjeep; Apr 6, 2012 at 05:21 AM.
JK Junkie
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 1
From: Twain Harte, CA
There is a large thread on Pirate that goes over everything that is going on. But I do not think I am allowed to post a link to Pirate here. But its a pretty easy post to find. Its entitled "Deer Valley/Strawberry Closed?".
For a synopses on what is going on, here is a copy/paste of what John (Owner of Muirnet) has said on the subject. Needless to say he does a lot to keep trails open for us. But when all is said and done, the Forest Service itself is partially to blame for the trails being shut down. The group that brought the lawsuit on is not without merit. But hopefully something can be figured out to help keep the trails open.
Here is the quote:
================================================== ==========
"Wow. What a way to mix a multitude of unrelated concepts and arrive at a desired conclusion.
Ladies and Gentlemen, take a step back and reflect on the reality of this situation.
The Center for Sierra Nevada Conservancy filed lawsuit against the Forest Service requesting closure of virtually everything in the Eldoredo based on adverse impacts to frogs, water, meadows, and wetlands.
BRC and Cal4 filed as intervenors. This is well known to all that bother to keep up with information put out by BRC and Cal4Wheel. Sorry, those organizations do not make house calls to ensure everyone receives the information. (Yes, I am being condescending and sarcastic.)
After a court hearing, Judge Karlton denied the basic claims and ordered boths side to enter into settlement discussions to resolve the remaining issues.
At this point, Dept of Justice and BRC went behind closed doors to negotiate with Center for Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
I provided sufficient GIS data which dropped the frog issue from further discussion.
Don Amador, Jim and I provided enough data to remove a large number of routs from further discussion.
At the end, it came down to about 40 routes that were at issue. Thanks to Bebe, Rick and a f others, sufficient data was provided to bring it down to the 40 number and have a good rational why those 40 routes should remain open.
That is where settlement talks broke down with the enviro's wanting a full and immediate closure of those and many more rites.
The DOJ lawyers balked and everything went back to Judge Karlton's court.
To his credit, the judge threw out all but the 40 routes and ordered the FS to come ack with a plan dealing with the identified routes that crossed meadows or impacted water.
So, that is where we are at this point. The FS has to return to court with a plan.
As I stated early in this thread, WORST case means 40 routes may be subject to closure by judicial order.
Yes, I hear you abut the length of time the rutes have existed. And, about the other stated reasons why you don't believe the routes should e subject to any type of closure.
You don't like the law? Work to change he law by supporting trail friendly politicians.
Don't think you are getting enough information? Try branching out to other sources besides this forum which is not the end all source of information.
And, how about attending a Cal4 meeting? This info was presented at the Cal4 North District meeting in January and a shortened version was presented at the Cal4 convention in February.
Just remember, while the courts have jurisdiction over a case, there will be little information that will be available for public review and discussion. Don't like it? Sorry, I really don't relish being held in contemp of court.
Still have question? Or, want to bitch?
I am easy to find via PM, email or phone...."
For a synopses on what is going on, here is a copy/paste of what John (Owner of Muirnet) has said on the subject. Needless to say he does a lot to keep trails open for us. But when all is said and done, the Forest Service itself is partially to blame for the trails being shut down. The group that brought the lawsuit on is not without merit. But hopefully something can be figured out to help keep the trails open.
Here is the quote:
================================================== ==========
"Wow. What a way to mix a multitude of unrelated concepts and arrive at a desired conclusion.
Ladies and Gentlemen, take a step back and reflect on the reality of this situation.
The Center for Sierra Nevada Conservancy filed lawsuit against the Forest Service requesting closure of virtually everything in the Eldoredo based on adverse impacts to frogs, water, meadows, and wetlands.
BRC and Cal4 filed as intervenors. This is well known to all that bother to keep up with information put out by BRC and Cal4Wheel. Sorry, those organizations do not make house calls to ensure everyone receives the information. (Yes, I am being condescending and sarcastic.)
After a court hearing, Judge Karlton denied the basic claims and ordered boths side to enter into settlement discussions to resolve the remaining issues.
At this point, Dept of Justice and BRC went behind closed doors to negotiate with Center for Sierra Nevada Conservancy.
I provided sufficient GIS data which dropped the frog issue from further discussion.
Don Amador, Jim and I provided enough data to remove a large number of routs from further discussion.
At the end, it came down to about 40 routes that were at issue. Thanks to Bebe, Rick and a f others, sufficient data was provided to bring it down to the 40 number and have a good rational why those 40 routes should remain open.
That is where settlement talks broke down with the enviro's wanting a full and immediate closure of those and many more rites.
The DOJ lawyers balked and everything went back to Judge Karlton's court.
To his credit, the judge threw out all but the 40 routes and ordered the FS to come ack with a plan dealing with the identified routes that crossed meadows or impacted water.
So, that is where we are at this point. The FS has to return to court with a plan.
As I stated early in this thread, WORST case means 40 routes may be subject to closure by judicial order.
Yes, I hear you abut the length of time the rutes have existed. And, about the other stated reasons why you don't believe the routes should e subject to any type of closure.
You don't like the law? Work to change he law by supporting trail friendly politicians.
Don't think you are getting enough information? Try branching out to other sources besides this forum which is not the end all source of information.
And, how about attending a Cal4 meeting? This info was presented at the Cal4 North District meeting in January and a shortened version was presented at the Cal4 convention in February.
Just remember, while the courts have jurisdiction over a case, there will be little information that will be available for public review and discussion. Don't like it? Sorry, I really don't relish being held in contemp of court.
Still have question? Or, want to bitch?
I am easy to find via PM, email or phone...."
JK Junkie
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,818
Likes: 3
From: Folsom, CA
Our clubs trail master was allowed to attend the response forum. Our club will still be allowed trail access during the closure for maintenance. The Same is the case for the club that sponsors Barrett.
It is important to be involved if we want to see many of these trails open in the future.
It is important to be involved if we want to see many of these trails open in the future.
JK Super Freak
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
From: South Lake Tahoe
Originally Posted by BKGM Jeepers
Our clubs trail master was allowed to attend the response forum. Our club will still be allowed trail access during the closure for maintenance. The Same is the case for the club that sponsors Barrett.
It is important to be involved if we want to see many of these trails open in the future.
It is important to be involved if we want to see many of these trails open in the future.
It's your national forest.
Stuka, remember CORE?
JK Junkie
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,818
Likes: 3
From: Folsom, CA
The USFS has been very supportive of open access. The problem is California's pathetic legislature and related Eco environmentalists. Pelosi and Feinstein have been trying to close our trail for a decade even though theyve never been up there. Pathetic....