Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

California The Day Single Track Trails Died in N. Cal

Recommended Posts

For those that would like to know what the hell the actual subject is without going to another site, he's talking about the massive closures coming in the Shasta Trinity National Forest Travel Management FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) and ROD (Record of Decision). The plan will be closing pretty much all of the single track trails in that forest, along with much more.

Edited by OldeDude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I musta missed the alert for the Lassen NF on the generals blog. It got virtually no ST on the entire forest. Not that it is a welcome concession becuase in no way is the closure a good thing., but Shast/Chappie does have some good stuff for a OHV Park.

Too bad for every other NF too. Every one of them will loose 1000s miles of roads and trails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sent email after email to heywood and moore, spoken with mooney on the phone. The forest service is pissing on our head and telling us it is raining. They don't answer emails, the don't listen, yet they say they include the public, only to go against the will of the public.

What is the fine for getting caught on an unathorized route vs evading a forest service LEO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but shast/chappie does have some good stuff for a ohv park.

that is because the blm controls most of the park and they are actually building trail not closing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLM fine for riding in closed area is $275. It might come down to paying a memebership fee to ride private ranches or pay a small civil fee to ride your own land. You gotta to pay to play one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

been looking for my own 40 acres in ONO for awhile, just need a few investors to go in on it, we can have our own area to ride and get others to buy up adjoining land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen you engaged in the fight, Don. You have been telling all that we cannot win in court, in California? In fact, you encouraged those that took the time to write substantive comments on the El Dorado NF and had "standing" during the appeal process to withdraw. Such as AMA/D36. Take what they give us and be happy that they gave us anything. We lost our ability to litigate on the El Dorado NF based on the Generals bad advice.

Now the General does his basic fund raising stunt, interveneon the El Dorado NF. Look we are doing something, wrong. You are allowed to be a fly on the wall and not much more. Which side are they intervening on? The El Dorado NF, these are the same people that screwed OHV recreation and CLOSED many OHV routes. The Enviros are correct, many process errors, which OHV advocates could have litigated on ourselves, had we not lost our "Standing" Thanks Don! Now instead of intervening on the side of the litigates, we intervene on the side defending the El Dorado NF. If anyone would take the time to read AMA/D36 substantive comments on the El Dorado NF, one would see that Dave Pickett built a strong case demonstrating the process errors committed by...? That's right, the El Dorado NF, the bad decision was made by the El Dorado NF, not the enviros. Our fight is with the USFS, not the enviros in the administrative process, NEPA.

The Montana case was won because they wrote strong "substantive comments". Who wrote the substantive comments that allowed the BRC to win in Montana? Many have done the same, here in California. We needed the BRC to back us up and not run from the fight. Don Amador has been provided every opportunity to help keep trails OPEN. Don has not been engaged in advocacy, just using the closure issues for fund raising. Read his worthless comments and it is clear why "we can't win in California Court".

Others have written substantive comments, individuals, Organizations such as the CORVA Comments Project. They have trained many OHV volunteers to write more effective substantive comments. Hired a consultant to draft substantive comments on several forest in CA. Such comments have been effective forcing the Tahoe NF to issue a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact report. On the Plumas NF they have been delayed releasing the Draft Environmental Impact report. CORVA has already appealed many of the ROD. Creating "Standing" to Litigate, NOT intervene.

Don you refused to attend the trail tractor meeting in Upper Lake several years ago with USFS, Kathy Mick. It required Bill Dart speaking to Brian Hawthorne and pressure from Brian to get you there. Even Kathy could see the issues created by the improper use of the Trail Tractor. Have you helped to assure that Trail Tractors are used correctly, NO. Many more routes have been widened to ATV/PUV width, remain below grade, channel water down trail... The USFS has destroyed legal, system routes, not creating a system of "sustainable" trials. Creating a unsustainable mess of unsafe, high speed Quad Routes. How are these routes going to fair, in sub-part A, when system trails see site specific analysis? Perhaps you should be clear that the enviros wanted system trails looked at now, in this part of the process. The Forest contends that system routes will be looked at in sub-part A. Either way, now or later they will be looked at and more closures will follow.

To win a race one must enter the race. To win in the administrative process, one must be engaged in the process at each step to have "standing". No litigation without "Standing".

How about Sub part A, the TMR rule looking at system trails? This is what the Enviros are up to on the El Dorado NF. They are complaining that the USFS did not do site specific analysis on all the designated system trails. They are correct. The USFS plans to look at the NFTS routes in Sub-part A and the Enviros wanted all those trails looked at now. The General bailed on litigation on the El Dorado NF and gave up the needed "standing" to litigate.

The General has failed to advocate for OHV recreation in the State of California. Dave "His strength has always been fund raising, not advocacy", Bill Dart. Fund Raising is needed, but if you are not funding individuals that have the education, knowledge or experience to advocate for OHV recreation, you lose more trails. OHV recreation does not need more paid volunteer advocates. We need to hire those with the conditionals to win in Court, we need a Army of Volunteer advocates to become informed at ones favorite riding areas.

The General wants to be the hero on the White Horse, send him money and he will save the trails. Just what most OHVers WANT to hear. Send a check, go ride, I did my part, head stuck in the mud/ignorant to all the issues. Sorry but this strategy did not work and will not work.

Understanding that we have a large turnover in this sport. Many riders have no clue what is at stake until it is ones favorite trail or area is Closed. Why would one be concerned about the loss of single track trails when many riders have never experienced such? How many times do we read how great Stonyford is. What Legal single track remains at Stonyford? Less than ten miles, if that? Virtually the entire network is machine groomed, Quad Crap, jeep roads, old fire lines or skid roads. However, to a rider that never rode the miles of great Single track that did exist at Stonyford, what is he losing? Nothing, they like the smooth, graded routes which allows the squids to twist the throttle on ones 450 moto bike. More waterbars, great jumps!. Wham, head on, we need one way "trails" not. Complaining that the Quad crap is getting to rough, please get out and grade it smooth...never recognizing that wide smooth routes increase trail speeds and decrease safety.

In racing, the Generals record would have him in the mid pack of the C class. In Land Use he is loved by many because he is a nice guy. But when do we examine his advocacy record? His success on behalf of OHV recreation and his failures. BRC should be, but they will not because his success has been in fund raising.

How do you feel about sending in money for a specific issue, say Clear Creek, did you send it in for general operating expense or thinking BRC had a strategy? Try Carnegie, what did BRC do and how was your money spent to keep Carnegie OPEN? The California Attorney General had to defend the State of California in this case. Not the BRC. Your money went to the BRC General fund, to fund operating expenses. Nothing wrong with that, if the donor understands that ones donation is paying operating expenses.

I agree that Don Amador is a nice guy and has the ability to raise funds. Has his experience made him a more effective advocate for OHV recreation? Who has a better track record for those they represent over the years, Karen Schamback or Don Amador? I think any volunteer understands and can report about closures. I think most ignorant riders understand and can report on closures? I think a paid Land use Advocate needs to have the ability to develop a winning strategy and motivate others to support that strategy. Of course you can't win them all, like you can't win every race, unless your McGrath, RC or Stewart...don't you have to enter the race to have the chance to win it? We don't lose or win in Court if we are not even there...

Some of us are in the fight and keeping trails OPEN. Legally building new single track trails by learning the process. Legally mitigating the issues that can close a trail. Maintaining trails and using peer pressure to get other riders to minimize impact to what little Single Track we have left in this State. My hero's are the volunteer trail advocates, those that love the sport/recreation enough to get involved to keep trails OPEN. All that follow benefit from the one(s) that went before and created, maintained our trails.

It seems that the paid OHV advocates, Stakeholders, those with a seat at the table, to often fail to advocate for OHV recreation. They compromise, keeping ones seat at the table and we lose another trail/area. I think the paid advocates need to learn to fight for OHV recreation, or we should hire those that can fight with what little money we have.

Don Amador needs to resign, he is not even in the race, just another paid volunteer advocate that spends his time raising money to cover ones salary, but not advocating for our trails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

Thanks for the rant. I had missed your hate. Glad to see you still have it.

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave,

Thanks for the rant. I had missed your hate. Glad to see you still have it.

Don

Ah, I would not label Dave's post as a rant. It was a very cogent argument, presented in a thoughtful substantive and yes polite style. Good job Dave.

I know Don is capable of a thoughful, cogent and spirited reply sharing with us his many years of land use battle experience and views, perhaps we’ll get that reply once he gets off the floor from the one-two knock down punch of Dave’s post.

We await the General's rebuttal.

I for one contributed a couple $100 to clear creek and was part of a $3000 contribution effort back from the TT WCCT ride 05 too. Many of us here have volunteered and donated and wrote letters. A rebuttal argument from the general would be useful to clear the air more here in dirt biker land. I know that not untill I got a reply from Bill? was it about my gripe about logging roads, did I feel some better mutual understaning that he at least agreed with my rant, though he could see not a legal route to solve the problem

sometimes, Don all we need is a recognition that our frustration is valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proverbs 26:4

Now that is one of the most arrogant replies I have ever seen. I guess that is one way to say that one is holier than the rest of us.

Of course it is true to form, just reference the scripture, don't bother taking the time to spell it out. Perhaps one day we will see the response BigBob asked for, I'd like to hear it myself. Then again the biblical quote above may be all there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

proverbs hey, I told ya the General is coming to now, back from the blow to his head, 👍 he's waking up and seeing some light, give him more time then he'll speak, for now just refer to the Rock n Roll Bible is all ya need

That's all right, that's all right, that's all right.

Sometimes you feel like trouble, sometimes you feel down.

Let this music relax you mind, let this music relax you mind.

Stand up and be counted, can't get a witness.

Sometimes you need somebody, if you have somebody to love.Sometimes you ain't got nobody and you want somebody to love.

Then you don't want to walk and talk about Jesus,You just want to see His face.

You don't want to walk and talk about Jesus, You just want to see His face. - the Rolling Stones, from the Bible of Rock n Roll: Exile on Main Street, circa 1972

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proverbs 26:4

A fool would have just been abusive and foolish. Dave's post was anything but. It was thoughtful, took some serious time to write, and is obviously backed up with insider info into how the "game" works and plays out in CA. Obviously you two don't see eye to eye, but to call him a fool only makes you look like one.

If you disagree, answer his comments with your perspective.

Oh yeah, and don't forget to do it in 3rd person....... 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me wonder where all of my brc donations went (Ive given quite a bit). Dave's idea of an expert to help groups out is great. Something has to change or we are done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, I would not label Dave's post as a rant. It was a very cogent argument, presented in a thoughtful substantive and yes polite style. Good job Dave.

+1.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on the specific issues to make any judgements, but I know that Dave puts his money and time where his mouth is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't trust politicians or gov't workers. I have been pounding on ST national forest, heywood specifically, asking to volunteer to build trails. No response> asking why they don't build approved trails< no response.

HMM No response seems to be a common them here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

I will respond to just one of your points to show you don't know what you are talking about. You talk about substant. comments and how !/BRC won't fight in CA. Yet, BRC is the only group to date that has actually won a travel mang. related appeal.

See appeal win

http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article/?id=1518

You know we won that yet you will not give me or BRC credit. That fact alone makes the rest of your rant just as worthless and non-factual.

Thanks again for your continued attacks... the anger of which should be redirected at the real enemy (the anti-OHV groups) and not me/BRC.

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...