PDA

View Full Version : Urgent!!! Florence Jct On Front Page Again!!!



Sandee McCullen
01-10-2007, 03:37 PM
FINALLY received the promised letter and maps from Tucson BLM regarding route planning and a Preferred Alternative for BLM routes in FJ. I'm sure many of you will receive, if not already, your copy within the next couple of days.

PLAN:
What we now need to do within the next 45 days is put together a proposed "ROUTE PLAN". This plan will then go to BLM and a workgroup (3-4 OHV persons; same for enviros; ranchers; miners; agencies etc) to develop a Preferred Alternative that will then go to the public along with the 3 Alternatives already proposed.

My suggestion is to gather some of our people that are interested and put together a plan that is 1/2 way between the Alternative D (open) and Alternative C (tweeners). We do NOT have to give substantive support to EACH trail as was suggested in the beginning. I would suggest we work on substantive justification and support for the trails we know the enviros and/or G&F will fight us on but most are easily supported from the evaluation data already available for each trail.

Forewarning......... the maps you'll get are worthless. Although the inventoried trails are reflected on the one maps no one could possibly make any sense of it...... certainly not be able to identify specific trails. I have the 3 alternative maps as well as the inventory maps.

You are asked via the letter to email or call Francisco if you're interested in the workgroup. If you send notice to Francisco will you please cc me so I can keep record of what/who is involved. We must keep a paper trail to stop any "opps, guess I missed that one; or I didn't receive anything from that person; or I don't recall".

THANKS all............... I'll get a room lined up for the week of Jan 22. One meeting on a Saturday and one on a week night.

Sandee McCullen
01-11-2007, 08:30 AM
IMPORTANT INFO...........

Obviously no one seems to be concerned re the trails within FLorence Jct but after taking a close look at Francisco's map you might be interested in something he's taken into his own hands and that is Lower Woodpecker; OverDose and some small trail near Axle Alley (???).... or maybe Axle Alley itself, is ALREADY DESIGNATED CLOSED !!!

He CANNOT do this without public input and NEPA reasons to close. I will follow up on this today but most likely this will take many, many letters to fight this. The entire inventoried trail system has been "evaluated". All trails have identified cultural, enviro, habitat, use patterns, mitigation needed etc........... If you notice half the trails noted on this map are identified in blue noting "additional analysis needed" BS.

Couldn't reach Francisco this morning. Didn't reach the field manager nor the OHV Coordinator from the State Office. You'd think this was a holiday Friday !!!!! More as I get it. Hopefully everyone will see what we're out to lose. Almost every one of our "trails" are identified in RED or BLUE............... Bottom line without support is "we've lost FJ". Table Mesa is next!!!

rockwerks
01-11-2007, 08:42 AM
IMPORTANT INFO...........

Obviously no one seems to be concerned re the trails within FLorence Jct but after taking a close look at Francisco's map you might be interested in something he's taken into his own hands and that is Lower Woodpecker; OverDose and some small trail near Axle Alley (???).... or maybe Axle Alley itself, is ALREADY DESIGNATED CLOSED !!!

He CANNOT do this without public input and NEPA reasons to close. I will follow up on this today but most likely this will take many, many letters to fight this. The entire inventoried trail system has been "evaluated". All trails have identified cultural, enviro, habitat, use patterns, mitigation needed etc........... If you notice half the trails noted on this map are identified in blue noting "additional analysis needed" BS.

Couldn't reach Francisco this morning. Didn't reach the field manager nor the OHV Coordinator from the State Office. You'd think this was a holiday Friday !!!!! More as I get it. Hopefully everyone will see what we're out to lose. Almost every one of our "trails" are identified in RED or BLUE............... Bottom line without support is "we've lost FJ". Table Mesa is next!!!



Sandee I am willing to help out, jsut need to know how and when, kinda hard for me being where live but I will do what I can LMK

Brian

Tom Jacobson
01-11-2007, 08:45 AM
IMPORTANT INFO...........

Obviously no one seems to be concerned re the trails within FLorence Jct

Sandee,

Not sure what the basis is for you making that lead-in statement???:confused: :confused:

But anyway...I will be available for at least one of the meetings you can set up for next week. I am not on any distribution for the maps...would it be possible to have them scanned in? Would they still be at all legible?

Tom

rockwerks
01-11-2007, 08:47 AM
Sandee,

Not sure what the basis is for you making that lead-in statement???:confused: :confused:

But anyway...I will be available for at least one of the meetings you can set up for next week. I am not on any distribution for the maps...would it be possible to have them scanned in? Would they still be at all legible?

Tom

X2 on the maps

I understand her frustrations when when she posts and 24hours later there are no responses...seems like the guys who live in that neck of AZ woud be all over this

the toad
01-11-2007, 09:09 AM
IMPORTANT INFO...........

Obviously no one seems to be concerned re the trails within FLorence Jct !!!


I am deeply concerned....

How can I help?

Marv

RufftyTuffty
01-11-2007, 09:12 AM
I can help/attend on Friday's, Saturday's or Sunday's.

Can you post up pic/pics of map? I can host it.

~Mike

jeff krause
01-11-2007, 09:24 AM
x's 2...

Sandee McCullen
01-11-2007, 09:37 AM
X2 on the maps

I understand her frustrations when when she posts and 24hours later there are no responses...seems like the guys who live in that neck of AZ woud be all over this

Thanks for the support........... yes, this is exactly where my frustrations build from. I realize many are simply tired of hearing from me but it also seems I'm up against a brick wall most of the time. If I don't post everything I get slammed for that............. if I do it mostly gets ignored. Is there a middle line somewhere?


The maps that were sent out are absolutely worthless. Even knowing the trails like the back of my hand it's hard to identify what's what. I do have the big maps that I will have at the meeting but I don't see a way of scanning this small map in any way it would help. Maybe one of our computer guru's out there can do something with it re scanning but I can't.

Re my "statement"................ Yes, I am frustrated beyond words. FJ is one of the busiest and largest rec areas in the state and it looks as though the general feeling is "can't take this away"......... It's happening guys/gals. I CANNOT fight this alone. Nor can a FEW do much good. It takes ALL.............. When a "call for letters" go out, whether for a Copper Sticker proposal, a trail closure, a political issue, an environmental issue...... whatever, we get a top number of 50ish. We need THOUSANDS. Doesn't anyone think of how the environmentalists WIN these issues? They send THOUSANDS of letter to everyone. Most of our people cannot even send a letter when they're given a letter with the issues and they only need to hit the "send" button.
I had the FJ maps and info at the Table Mesa Clean up a couple of months ago...... how many cared to update themselves on the issues or trails? A handful...............

I'm not doing this fighting to tick my fellow recreationists off but I am getting tired of fighting BOTH sides. Maybe it's time to quit.:( :mad:

My1stJeep
01-11-2007, 09:40 AM
Sandee,

Let me know what days, the pieces I have been working on are getting completed, will have them within the next two weeks (I hope).

06GrnRubi
01-11-2007, 09:55 AM
Sandee,

I am fairly new to wheelin, and am not familiar with most of the trails. I did go out with a couple of guys a while back through Box Canyon and Martinez cabin. It was beautiful, and I would hate to lose it. I am not a good speaker, but i am willing to attend meetings to increase the number of people showing support for what you are doing. Just let me know when and where, and if I'm not working, I'll be there.

I have spent many years on boards such as Chandler Rod & Gun, Scottsdale Sportsman, and Arizona Wildlife Federation, so I know how frustrating it can be when it appears that no one cares. But, I can assure you that we do care and APPRECIATE all you are doing to assist in the form of recreation we all enjoy. Personally, if I don't respond, it is because I have nothing worthwhile to add. It doesn't mean I don't care. I just don't post to increase my post count. But I am here a few times a day looking for new posts.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, but I know your work is appreaciated around this forum.

TBob
01-11-2007, 09:59 AM
Not so sure I fully understand all of this but am willing to help in any way needed.


FINALLY received the promised letter and maps from Tucson BLM regarding route planning and a Preferred Alternative for BLM routes in FJ. I'm sure many of you will receive, if not already, your copy within the next couple of days.

PLAN:
What we now need to do within the next 45 days is put together a proposed "ROUTE PLAN". This plan will then go to BLM and a workgroup (3-4 OHV persons; same for enviros; ranchers; miners; agencies etc) to develop a Preferred Alternative that will then go to the public along with the 3 Alternatives already proposed.

My suggestion is to gather some of our people that are interested and put together a plan that is 1/2 way between the Alternative D (open) and Alternative C (tweeners). We do NOT have to give substantive support to EACH trail as was suggested in the beginning. I would suggest we work on substantive justification and support for the trails we know the enviros and/or G&F will fight us on but most are easily supported from the evaluation data already available for each trail.

Forewarning......... the maps you'll get are worthless. Although the inventoried trails are reflected on the one maps no one could possibly make any sense of it...... certainly not be able to identify specific trails. I have the 3 alternative maps as well as the inventory maps.

You are asked via the letter to email or call Francisco if you're interested in the workgroup. If you send notice to Francisco will you please cc me so I can keep record of what/who is involved. We must keep a paper trail to stop any "opps, guess I missed that one; or I didn't receive anything from that person; or I don't recall".

THANKS all............... I'll get a room lined up for the week of Jan 22. One meeting on a Saturday and one on a week night.

k7mto
01-11-2007, 10:18 AM
Deja vu all over again...

From the LW work party thread in October...

http://www.virtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?t=16914


Originally Posted by azrubyman

Originally Posted by k7mto
First of all, kudos to everyone who attended and helped out. I was on pager so I had to stay local.

Sounds like the project was a success in that it provides access to those who otherwise might not be able to hike in to see the petroglyphs.

What worries me, is whether this project is/will be a catalyst to close Lower Woodpecker in the future. As the new trail becomes known to the general public, more folks drive in and hike down to view the ancient drawings, then a group of wheelers comes crawling past, interrupting their tranquility or something. God forbid someone gets stuck, rolls or spills fluids in front of greenie spectators.

Matt,
That certainly is my concern. And that concern was heightened considerably yesterday when I saw where the last "landing and view area is. It will be located ~5-10' of an obstacle by-pass trail.
I voiced my concern in another thread earlier and I was not going to participate in this because of the trail closure fears. I listened to what the BLM directors response was to Sandee and Chris (no closure of Woodpecker) and I thought, "OK. I will take his word for it this time." And I will participate and help with this, based solely on Patrick Madigans word. I'm using it as sort of litmus test.
If we get some BS from the BLM as you mentioned and/or part of the trail or all of it is closed, my response will be:
"I will never trust the BLM or any of it's employees again. I will never assist them, help them or otherwise be any type of BLM "friend". I will fight them in every way possible to include legal means as well as civil dis-obedience and through pressure on my legislature and the Whitehouse." This will include every single thing that the BLM attempts to do.

How many of us do you think will show up to help Franciso and his band of thieves the next time they post a trail/work party?

I will do my best to make at least one meeting, but as others, I do not have access to the maps. Are we positive the same crappy maps we were supplied are what the greenies received? I wouldn't put it past Francisco to have given them hi-res detailed maps and given us hard to read maps in hopes we will 'miss' some trails so he can tag them red.

Marty
01-11-2007, 10:19 AM
I might be able to help out with the plotting and scanning. I left you a PM let me know what I can do.

Hunter
01-11-2007, 10:22 AM
Sounds after all the hoopla, it has finally turned the corner and we now have a critical fight on our hands. I cant beleive he had the gall to close Lower Woodpecker.... after going out there for the trail build and now this. ...

Keep us posted Sandee....


Also, We need to spread the word to everyone about this to the other groups. A good example are those guys down in Tucson who came to help us out with the trail. We may have to prepare ourselves for a serious fight. At the very least, prepare to make a strong showing about that fact that are close to a scenario where they blantly stabbed us in the back and broke their word regarding the new foot path trail we built for them out at Wood Pecker. We must be ready to protest and let them know the consquences. Get the attention of people higher up than Fransico.

xFallen
01-11-2007, 10:28 AM
Thanks for the support........... yes, this is exactly where my frustrations build from. I realize many are simply tired of hearing from me but it also seems I'm up against a brick wall most of the time. If I don't post everything I get slammed for that............. if I do it mostly gets ignored. Is there a middle line somewhere?


The maps that were sent out are absolutely worthless. Even knowing the trails like the back of my hand it's hard to identify what's what. I do have the big maps that I will have at the meeting but I don't see a way of scanning this small map in any way it would help. Maybe one of our computer guru's out there can do something with it re scanning but I can't.

Re my "statement"................ Yes, I am frustrated beyond words. FJ is one of the busiest and largest rec areas in the state and it looks as though the general feeling is "can't take this away"......... It's happening guys/gals. I CANNOT fight this alone. Nor can a FEW do much good. It takes ALL.............. When a "call for letters" go out, whether for a Copper Sticker proposal, a trail closure, a political issue, an environmental issue...... whatever, we get a top number of 50ish. We need THOUSANDS. Doesn't anyone think of how the environmentalists WIN these issues? They send THOUSANDS of letter to everyone. Most of our people cannot even send a letter when they're given a letter with the issues and they only need to hit the "send" button.
I had the FJ maps and info at the Table Mesa Clean up a couple of months ago...... how many cared to update themselves on the issues or trails? A handful...............

I'm not doing this fighting to tick my fellow recreationists off but I am getting tired of fighting BOTH sides. Maybe it's time to quit.:( :mad:

I would hope by now you know we support your efforts and that those that use the area want it to remain open.

It wasnt clear that any action was called for in the first message other than to be at the meetings, so, what reply was required when one is in wait mode?
I see now that we're supposed to mail or email Francisco to become involved, maybe. I will happily go and dig out his contact details and send a note requesting to be included, but I am betting there would be more resounding support if the contact infoirmation and suggested wording was put right in front of people.

Nobody else seems to have access to these maps that are referenced. I think people need to be able to see them to understand what is at stake, or what is being suggested for any proposed plan, and to bale able to offer input. How many sheets of paper, and what size are they? If I cannot have them scanned personally I will investigate the cost of scanning them professionally. I have done a lot of that through work realted tasks and it is very cost effective.

Mike has offered to host them. Is that acceptable? If that is not practical, perhaps they can be emailed to people.

I think that would really help for people to see the impact and the proposals, oitherwise it is too abstract for most.

Also, how do we out here help get Franscisco's attention so this closure nonsense does not occur? He seems hell-bent on doing whatever he wants. That attitude of his has to change. Is he being paid by the greenies? Why is he not held accountable for actions that are not within policy or the law? Seems pretty strange to me. Something doesn't jive.

I have a hard time with the 50 people thing on the Copper State issue. I know for a fact at least 10 people close to me sent in a response, because I essentially made them do it. I saw responses on this board and others. Did BLM or the State tell you only 50 responses were received? If that is true, I can understand your sense of lack of support. But that number really sounds low.


Barry

zman
01-11-2007, 10:57 AM
For those of us that are three hours drive away, is there anything we can do via letters or e-mail. I like it when you already have templates set up, it is so easy to copy, paste, add a few things and hit the send button. Please keep this up.

I make it to FJ twice a year, my last trip was Dec 7th. I was disgusted with all the gear oil spilled in Lower Woodpecker. Seems a stock Toyota (or similar vehicle with drain plug on bottom) with very little ground clearance went over a 4" high rock and lost his drain plug. There was a 100 ft trail of gear oil before you even got to the obstacles. One spot was real bad with gear oil all over the place and right in front of the petroglyphs, so I can see why they want this closed. Between this and all the vandalism going on we are fighting two wars.

zman

xjstocker
01-11-2007, 11:19 AM
ill help let me know ill show with the kids to show that the younger gen cares. told them we cant go to the ovens and they were extreamly distraught.

Spinnas
01-11-2007, 11:39 AM
they blantly stabbed us in the back and broke their word regarding the new foot path trail we built for them

My thoughts exactly I could see that coming for a long time. X10 on wanting to see a map.

Tom Jacobson
01-11-2007, 12:04 PM
Coupla things...excuse the randomness:

1. Sandee's "comment"...didn't intend to attack or anything. Just know I was on here late yesterday afternoon and poked around the Coke Ovens closure thread again. Didn't catch this one then. Don't get on computer at home at night. Check in this AM and see the original message and only response from Sandee. Computer time for this forum is way off, so don;t when everything transpired. Water under bridge...am defintely willing to participate in meeting(s) next week.

2. Actions req'd - reading again, it looks like the only thing for "us" to do is wait for the meetings to be scheduled. UNLESS you want to be on this panel (3-4 each from OHV, greenies, ranchers, etc)...THEN contact Franciso (cc: Sandee).

3. Is Francisco's map showing the trail closures nothing more than his PROPOSAL? We're being given 45d to make our proposal...assuming he just finished the assignment early!?!?

4. And c'mon, is this serious??? Like Barry said, how the hell can one person behave like this? Laws and rules don't apply? He doesn't have a supervisor? If this is true, and ONE MAN has all this power...it won't matter how many people we have on our side.

5. Will there be (valid) proof and support presented to close the trails, just as we're asked to bring proof/reasons to keep them open?

Tom

Sandee McCullen
01-11-2007, 12:20 PM
"Seeing" a map is not the answer nor the solution. The map sent to those that have expressed in interest in the Middle Gila Conservation Partnership (MGCP aka Florence Jct) have received a map indicating the trails inventoried on BLM lands along with a letter describing the time line and what's happening to bring interested parties to the table to develop a Preferred Alternative for presentation to the public. Normally this is done within a complete Land Use Plan which takes 3-4 years to complete. Because of the rapid growth in OHV numbers and the increasing abuse by OHV recreationists, Tucson BLM is pushing forward with developing a DESIGNATED trail system outside the full Land Use Plan. The funding for the complete plan is not scheduled until 2009.

The designations and planning are only for the "Pilot" area of the MGCP. Hwy 60 on the north, Hwy 177/77 on the east, Hwy 79 on the west and Florence-Kelvin Hwy on the south. The OHV recreationist now need to join together to give substantive support and reasons/data to allow these trails to remain open. This plan will then go to a workgroup consisting of interested OHV recreationists, enviros, agency, cultural, ranchers, miners etc for decision to fit into a Preferred Alternative. Alternative A would be NO ACTION; Alternative B is the environmental plan (which by the way, closes almost all of the 900+ miles of trails in the FJ planning area); Alternative C is the "Tweeners" evaluation (this is somewhere between the enviros and the open); Alternative D is the Open plan and Alternative E will be the Preferred plan. All of these then go to the public for review and we can again propose OUR plan for individual trails. These public meetings is where we will need huge numbers to attend and respond to enable our needs to be heard. Trail/area designations will come from this process. This will be the bottom line that we will have to live with so if we don't ALL get involved and be heard................ we'll lose. G&F want all but 123 miles closed to us (This is the major ROADS only) No challenge; NO WASHES; no "Jeep" trails.

Again.......... I will set up the meetings to get together for planning sessions for an OHV Plan and will have all relevant maps then but the map I have in hand from Francisco is worthless. It's a bunch of lines on a piece of paper. Individuals sending messages to Tucson BLM at this time won't help us at all........... in fact it will most likely hurt us more than help.

Just try to make it to one of the two planning meetings to voice your input on "your favorite trail/s". Everyone is welcome to drop by my house to view the maps or get an update as to what's happening.

BLM is looking at a Designated Trail System by the end of the year. This will mean a number of hours involvement from all of us. I'm not saying we all have to dedicate 100% but we do need to do our individual share.

Hopefully by WINNING this issue it will pull our people together to fight the next battle on the horizon.......... there are many!!!!

Sandee McCullen
01-11-2007, 12:37 PM
Coupla things...excuse the randomness:

1. Sandee's "comment"...didn't intend to attack or anything. Just know I was on here late yesterday afternoon and poked around the Coke Ovens closure thread again. Didn't catch this one then. Don't get on computer at home at night. Check in this AM and see the original message and only response from Sandee. Computer time for this forum is way off, so don;t when everything transpired. Water under bridge...am defintely willing to participate in meeting(s) next week.


2. Actions req'd - reading again, it looks like the only thing for "us" to do is wait for the meetings to be scheduled. UNLESS you want to be on this panel (3-4 each from OHV, greenies, ranchers, etc)...THEN contact Franciso (cc: Sandee).

If you are interested in participating in the "workgroup" it will most likely mean several WEEKENDS sitting at the table. BLM has agreed to move the workgroup to weekends in lieu of weekdays as to allow more individual to be involved. If you send your name to Francisco this does not necessarily mean you'll automatically be a part of the workgroup. They will be selecting 3-4 from each group that know the area. REMEMBER........... you always have a voice and can ask to be on their mailing list.
3. Is Francisco's map showing the trail closures nothing more than his PROPOSAL? We're being given 45d to make our proposal...assuming he just finished the assignment early!?!?

4. And c'mon, is this serious??? Like Barry said, how the hell can one person behave like this? Laws and rules don't apply? He doesn't have a supervisor? If this is true, and ONE MAN has all this power...it won't matter how many people we have on our side.
He has, he does and he will continue unless we hold him to the rules/regs. I've been struggling with this issue for 6 years with him. He gets away with most due to ONE WORD.............. "minority". He's been staff under 5 different Field Managers of which he had all but 2 conned. It's my belief the current manager is feeling his way through a huge, muddy mess within the Tucson office but he is OHV positive and understanding. He is beginning to see through some of this but either way he wants to be fair to OHV. He over ruled Francisco re the Emergency Closure at Martinez. That's a start. We may lose Lower Woodpecker but we do have the RIGHT to submit substantive data objecting to the Native Americans statement: "This is a sacred area and do not want vehicles "driving" by thusly breaking our aura with the land". This is outright BS.
5. Will there be (valid) proof and support presented to close the trails, just as we're asked to bring proof/reasons to keep them open?
I have all the evaluation maps and the connecting DATA for each mile of trail. Cultural, habitat, sensitivity, mitigation, use..... who, how and where, historical, T&E, study areas, etc were evaluated on each trail. I also have copies of permits BLM issued for tours; rock quarrying (WITHIN LW); etc. I believe we can support our side. If this doesn't work for the Preferred Alternative then we have another chance when all goes to the public.

Tom

Sandee

My1stJeep
01-11-2007, 12:38 PM
I have to agree. Being at some of these meetings and talking face to face with Patrick he is not a huge fan of receiving a ton of email. In fact unless there is a very good reason it will turn him off to what ever cause you are trying to push. Since there is a 45 day period set up and we have time to give out input and make our voice heard I think sending him a bunch of letters would only tick him off. We need to work within the guidelines he has set up with this 45 day comment period. We do need to point it out in our comments through the proper channels. Patrick has made it very clear at least to me when I have talked with him, that if we follow the channels he is willing to listen. I seriously doubt he knows or knew that some of those trails were marked closed before it went out.

Sandee McCullen
01-11-2007, 12:42 PM
ill help let me know ill show with the kids to show that the younger gen cares. told them we cant go to the ovens and they were extreamly distraught.

BLM had nothing to do with the closure of Coke Ovens. The ovens have been closed and reopened several times over the past 30 years............... they are closed simply because of IRRESPONSIBLE RECREATIONISTS !!!!

Private owners have their rights. If I had been the owner of this historical site I would have never reopened it 10-15 years ago. It had been totally closed for a number of years. Maybe we can use this to help our youth understand the necessity of RESPONSIBLE use of our lands.

There are plans to post an interpretative sign at the overlook telling the story of the ovens along with oldtime pictures. Our hopes are to not only bring responsibility into the picture but RESPECT for our state's history.

Sandee McCullen
01-11-2007, 12:45 PM
For those of us that are three hours drive away, is there anything we can do via letters or e-mail. I like it when you already have templates set up, it is so easy to copy, paste, add a few things and hit the send button. Please keep this up.

I make it to FJ twice a year, my last trip was Dec 7th. I was disgusted with all the gear oil spilled in Lower Woodpecker. Seems a stock Toyota (or similar vehicle with drain plug on bottom) with very little ground clearance went over a 4" high rock and lost his drain plug. There was a 100 ft trail of gear oil before you even got to the obstacles. One spot was real bad with gear oil all over the place and right in front of the petroglyphs, so I can see why they want this closed. Between this and all the vandalism going on we are fighting two wars.

zman

Thanks for your support but at this time letters are not to our benefit. We need those recreationists that know the trails/area to make time to attend the planning meetings to develop an OHV plan to submit. AFTER the public meetings later in the year is when we need as many bodies at the meetings as possible, followed by THOUSANDS of letters.

For now just stay tuned..........

corwyyn
01-11-2007, 12:52 PM
Sandee, sorry I missed this post last night when I got home. Never think that your work is not appreciated; if it weren't for you we would not be as well armed with info on this travesty they call the 'Conservation Partnership'.

I personally do not have any experience with most of these trails. I've run Box Canyon a few times, been out to Martinez Cabin and the ovens but have yet to get on any of the other trails. That being said I am willing to do what I can to help out, whether it be attending meetings or just spreading the word.

I'll be sure to check back on this every day to see if there are any new developments.

xjstocker
01-11-2007, 01:00 PM
i understand the reason for the closure of the ovens. i was there in oct and it was dishartening to see their condition. my concern is to be able to show my children what AZ was. i guess this weekend i'll go to martinez before it is closed. where and when are these meetings planned to be held. would it help trail designations if people submited gps tracks to be overlayed on topo maps to mark designated routes? if francisco is not going provide good info then it is our responsibility to help ourselves any way we can.

corwyyn
01-11-2007, 01:10 PM
I believe they have all the GPS and other info they need. Now it's time to get all our ducks in a row and make sure Senor Francisco can't pull anymore of these under-the-radar closures.

Spinnas
01-11-2007, 01:36 PM
How is this fair if BLM is picking the people responsible to be in the workgroups? Sounds like a setup:confused:

RokNRich
01-11-2007, 01:42 PM
Please let me know when an action is required or a meeting is set up. You can count on me for support.

azcharlie
01-11-2007, 02:19 PM
Please let me know when an action is required or a meeting is set up. You can count on me for support.

X2

Jsk8r1
01-11-2007, 04:19 PM
I went out and helped build the lower woodpecker trail to the indian artifacts with about 15 other people from Tucson, did they really close that trail after all that??? I would like to help out too with anything that i can.

k7mto
01-11-2007, 05:00 PM
I went out and helped build the lower woodpecker trail to the indian artifacts with about 15 other people from Tucson, did they really close that trail after all that??? I would like to help out too with anything that i can.

As I understand it, LW is not officially closed (yet), just marked CLOSED on the maps Sandee received.

k7mto
01-11-2007, 05:02 PM
How is this fair if BLM is picking the people responsible to be in the workgroups? Sounds like a setup:confused:

My thoughts as well. Another thing I don't quite understand is how Francisco/Fish and Game have any authority over OHV recreation on BLM land? What does Fish and Game have to do with OHV recreation? Shouldn't they focus their efforts on, oh, say, fish and game, and leave OHV recreation issues to folks better suited to handle them and who aren't biased?

azcharlie
01-11-2007, 07:43 PM
I got this from Franisco today. It sounds like if we fill out the info card and send it in they'll send us some information on whats happening with the work groups and meeting times. I hope this is the right information. I tried to PM Sandee about this but her PM are full.

Thanks for the note of interest.
A letter announcing the BLM transportation planning effort this year went
out earlier this week which included the initial information about the
project. Included in the mailing was a card for persons interested in
helping to fill out mailing/contact information. The card info is below:
Could you fill it out and email it back to me. I will then send you a of
the mailing on the project. If you are interested in participating in the
workshop meetings, let me know what dates in Feb-Mar might work best for
you.

Thanks,

MIDDLE GILA CANYONS AREA BLM TRANSPORTATION PLAN
INTEREST RESPONSE CARD

If you are interested in participating in this project, of if you would
like to be removed from the planning list, please indicate your
preference and fill out your contact information below and return to the
BLM Tucson Field Office at 12661 E. Broadway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85748
by no later than January 19, 2006.

___ YES, I am interested in this project and will provide input but
will not be able to participate in the workshop meetings.

___ YES, I am interested in this project and will be able to
participate in the workshop meetings planned in February and March
2007.

___ NO, I am not interested in this project, please remove me from
the planning list.

Name: __________________________________________________ _

Address: _________________________________________________

Phone: __________________________________________________ _

Email: __________________________________________________ _



Francisco J. Mendoza
Outdoor Recreation Planner
12661 E. Broadway Blvd.
Tucson, AZ 85748
PH(520) 258-7226
FAX(520) 258-7238

Sean K.
01-13-2007, 12:59 PM
"we've lost FJ". Table Mesa is next!!!

BIG surprise.:rolleyes: Why is our community so incredibly gullible and trusting? Especially after repeated lies and abuse of power?

BLM and G&F told us that the route inventories we gave them starting back in 2000 were going to be used to "keep trails open".....well guess what? They wanted the inventory so they knew what trails to close and now they've begun the process. If we continue to tell them trail locations, they'll continue to close them.

As for the CopperState Sticker Program....get your heads out of your collective asses. The reason more trails are not closed now is b/c G&F and BLM have VERY LIMITED FUNDING. They have neither the money for signing nor the money for enforcement. Pass the Copperstate Sticker Program and they'll have plenty for both.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Sean

ASHMAN
01-13-2007, 06:26 PM
Id like to be kept in the loop on what we can do. Closing LW, OD and AA is ridiculous.

I also feel like the more trails they know about the more then can monitor them.

Sandee McCullen
01-13-2007, 08:00 PM
BIG surprise.:rolleyes: Why is our community so incredibly gullible and trusting? Especially after repeated lies and abuse of power?

BLM and G&F told us that the route inventories we gave them starting back in 2000 were going to be used to "keep trails open".....well guess what? They wanted the inventory so they knew what trails to close and now they've begun the process. If we continue to tell them trail locations, they'll continue to close them.

As for the CopperState Sticker Program....get your heads out of your collective asses. The reason more trails are not closed now is b/c G&F and BLM have VERY LIMITED FUNDING. They have neither the money for signing nor the money for enforcement. Pass the Copperstate Sticker Program and they'll have plenty for both.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Sean

Clarification:
The route inventory was NOT to insure "keeping our trails open". The inventory was to determine WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND. Period. The "evaluation" of these trails were to identify the use, issues, cultural, mitigation needed or closure. The trails that Francisco and John (G&F) want "closed" are simply a personal agenda. G&F are the worst in wanting everything closed other than the major ROADS............ absolutely NO WASHES.

What BLM Tucson Field Manager is now doing is "covering his back side". He is asking US to give substantive data/reason/background to support BLM keeping a route open above the environmental and/or Indian decision or demand. We CAN WIN THIS. Most likely we will lose some but the trails Francisco wants closed may have enough support to keep........................ One or two individuals will not do this.
Remember, Francisco and John wanted to do an emergency closure on Martinez..... as did the Environmental groups. (CBD and Wilderness Society) They actually wrote to D.C. demanding this closure. The field manager has supported us in this with allowing to gate the entrance requiring a permit for entry. No fee just a paper trail of who goes in and out. Hopefully this will keep the bubba's out and allow for restructure and signing within the canyon buildings.
I can say................... if OHV starts another letter campaign to the Tucson Field Manager it will HURT us more than help at this time. He IS TRYING and he HATES the letters. I'd ask we give him a chance.

After we propose an OHV Transportation plan it will go to the BLM and a group of volunteers from all walks to develop a Preferred Alternative. At this time it goes to the public and we have another chance to protest their decision. We've not lost yet.

Remember, the maps Francisco sent out is simply HIS DREAM.......... nothing is final until it's all done.

RE the Copper Sticker.................... as it was morphing last year would give us almost nothing....... it had no "enforcement capabilities" for the laws and it gave almost 50% of the money to G&F with NO ACCOUNTABILITY. They misappropriate $800,000.00 each year now............. what do you think they would do with $2.5 MILLION.
The new bill that Representative Jerry Weirers dropped on Friday is really scary. He combined last years bill with the new (G&F bill). Remember there has been a workgroup working on development of a satisfactory bill for over two years. Each time the workgroup agrees on a plan, G&F change it. They have been caught in so many lies I've lost count. They are constantly going behind our backs each time they don't get what they want or if they have to account for any dollars from OHV.

Representative Weirers knows the bill he dropped is not "gold" but he "says" he's willing to change to what will work for all. We'll see. We do have the Dealers Association; Sportsman Group and Cattlemens Assoc. siding with us this year. Another meeting with Rep. Weirers next week. We'll probably know more then.

Seans right that we MUST find dollars to fund education, signing and law enforcement but not to the point we get screwed in the process.

Offroader5
01-13-2007, 08:08 PM
Hey Sandee, I forget from the last time I have seen these maps, but are they on a backer board that makes them stiff? Reason I ask is that we have a full format scanner, but it has to be able to be fed through the machine. If you have copies that are full size and also still just the paper itself, I can make large copies at work (up to 36" wide and as long as you need)...only thing is that it would only be in black and white, so if the maps are based on a color system then I can't reproduce that color. Scott Blueprint in Mesa is our supplier for all of our large format materials and through work I could get some good pricing for them to reproduce the large format in color if need be.

I will be at any meetings you need the attendance, just let us know when.

Sandee McCullen
01-13-2007, 09:25 PM
Hey Sandee, I forget from the last time I have seen these maps, but are they on a backer board that makes them stiff? Reason I ask is that we have a full format scanner, but it has to be able to be fed through the machine. If you have copies that are full size and also still just the paper itself, I can make large copies at work (up to 36" wide and as long as you need)...only thing is that it would only be in black and white, so if the maps are based on a color system then I can't reproduce that color. Scott Blueprint in Mesa is our supplier for all of our large format materials and through work I could get some good pricing for them to reproduce the large format in color if need be.

I will be at any meetings you need the attendance, just let us know when.

Thanks a bunch but I cannot reproduce the maps at this time since they are "drafts" and besides the numbering matches up with the evaluation data files that I have in my possession simply through a friendship. I have full copies only because I "know the right people".........

There really isn't any reason to have dozens of maps out there anyway. What all the agencies (Not just BLM) are afraid of is these "inventory" maps getting into the hands of the public and then they think they are all "designated". As soon as we get the planning done and the public meetings for final designations copies will be an asset. The maps I have are also in color to recognize the land jurisdiction boundries......... this is really a must since very few of us, if any, know when we cross from BLM to State or onto F/S or back again. The access maps will be in color.

I will most certainly put you in my "resource file" as there are a number of times we need copies of large maps that we can "hold" for only a few hours....... what they don't know won't hurt them most times! :rolleyes:

Sean K.
01-13-2007, 09:28 PM
Well, if you want to head off a letter writing campaign, you might wanna visit Pirate's General Discussion Forum.....someone there is already posting up an email bombardment of TFO.

Sean

Sean K.
01-13-2007, 09:33 PM
Clarification:
The route inventory was NOT to insure "keeping our trails open". The inventory was to determine WHAT WAS ON THE GROUND. Period. The "evaluation" of these trails were to identify the use, issues, cultural, mitigation needed or closure.


I'm not willing to get into a huge debate about what we were told. Simply put, the end result of those inventories was evaluation of routes in existance (and together with MGCP) a plan was to be put into motion to safeguard most of the trails in FJ (all except Jawbreaker with its known "riparian" qualities).

Once MGCP was killed, the BLM plan went from safeguarding to now what amounts to closures.

Any way you slice it, we got ****ed and I only forsee it getting worse.

2 cents,
Sean

Sean K.
01-13-2007, 09:39 PM
Clarification:
Seans right that we MUST find dollars to fund education, signing and law enforcement but not to the point we get screwed in the process.


Also, I think you misunderstood my comments.....I am 100% against the Copperstate Sticker Program as it will give BLM and G&F the funds they need to sign our trails closed and the budget they need to hire enforcement to make sure the closures are upheld.



Sean

Sandee McCullen
01-14-2007, 10:05 AM
You're right Sean.......... no need to "debate" any of this. You are wrong, you do not know all the facts and you've evidently decided to take the negative side of all. If you believe we've already lost everything ........... go for it. Lets you out from under doing anything...... no meetings, no letters no support.
At no time were you ever told the inventory/evaluations GUARANTEE "ALL" trails to us.
Get yourself a copy of the CFR's......... BLM CANNOT simply sign trails closed without justification to do so unless WE sit back and let them do it. Yes, we've had to sue in many cases in the past few years but it's beginning to turn our way. This TAKES DOLLARS and unified support. BRC; ORBA; AMA; MIC; and state OHV Associations/Coalitions are joining together with DOLLARS and are beating the issues.

If a letter campaign heads to Tucson field manager you can be guaranteed WE LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The field manager is trying to work with us. The markings of "closed" on the presented maps are simply one man's opinion or wishes. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

The CS is good as long as we keep the majority of the money for OUR USE. We are getting there............. if not we simply kill the bill like we did two bills last year. Again......... WE can make a difference but not from our butts.

rockwerks
01-14-2007, 10:14 AM
You're right Sean.......... no need to "debate" any of this. You are wrong, you do not know all the facts and you've evidently decided to take the negative side of all. If you believe we've already lost everything ........... go for it. Lets you out from under doing anything...... no meetings, no letters no support.
At no time were you ever told the inventory/evaluations GUARANTEE "ALL" trails to us.
Get yourself a copy of the CFR's......... BLM CANNOT simply sign trails closed without justification to do so unless WE sit back and let them do it. Yes, we've had to sue in many cases in the past few years but it's beginning to turn our way. This TAKES DOLLARS and unified support. BRC; ORBA; AMA; MIC; and state OHV Associations/Coalitions are joining together with DOLLARS and are beating the issues.

If a letter campaign heads to Tucson field manager you can be guaranteed WE LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The field manager is trying to work with us. The markings of "closed" on the presented maps are simply one man's opinion or wishes. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

The CS is good as long as we keep the majority of the money for OUR USE. We are getting there............. if not we simply kill the bill like we did two bills last year. Again......... WE can make a difference but not from our butts.

x20, Im thinking Sean has no clue of the process because he fails to find out how it actually works.

Ill be to everything I can get to an write as many letters as possible. It ahs worked well for us in the past.

thanks for all you do Sandee! 99% of us appreciate all you do!

Brian

k7mto
01-14-2007, 10:33 AM
BLM CANNOT simply sign trails closed without justification to do so unless WE sit back and let them do it. Yes, we've had to sue in many cases in the past few years but it's beginning to turn our way. This TAKES DOLLARS and unified support. BRC; ORBA; AMA; MIC; and state OHV Associations/Coalitions are joining together with DOLLARS and are beating the issues.

Speaking of lawsuits...

If Francisco and G&F have been caught making unauthorized changes to the plans, it seems to me their actions might be cause for a suit, or at the very least, disciplinary action against them by their superiors up to and including termination. If we have proof he and others are acting unethically or worse, we should make their actions known to their superiors and/or the press and make them accountable for their actions. The threat of another law suit against them could force them to fire Francisco to prevent it.

Sean K.
01-14-2007, 11:10 AM
x20, Im thinking Sean has no clue of the process because he fails to find out how it actually works.

Ill be to everything I can get to an write as many letters as possible. It ahs worked well for us in the past.

thanks for all you do Sandee! 99% of us appreciate all you do!

Brian



Let the dog piling begin!

Sean

Sandee McCullen
01-14-2007, 11:12 AM
Speaking of lawsuits...

If Francisco and G&F have been caught making unauthorized changes to the plans, it seems to me their actions might be cause for a suit, or at the very least, disciplinary action against them by their superiors up to and including termination. If we have proof he and others are acting unethically or worse, we should make their actions known to their superiors and/or the press and make them accountable for their actions. The threat of another law suit against them could force them to fire Francisco to prevent it.



HOLY CRAP>>>>........
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE........... NO LETTERS, NO LETTERS, NO LETTERS............ It's an AUTOMATIC LOSE if Patrick receives any letters at this time. He is more than willing to work with us........... what we're being asked to do is HIS DECISION in lieu of any CLOSURES!!!! These trail noted in red on this BASE MAP are NOT CLOSED.
There have been NO "UNAUTHORIZED" changes. The maps out are one persons (actually two) take of the evaluations made last year producing the 3 alternatives. I have argued this fact that the "RED" lines should not have appeared and I've let the field manager as well as the state office know but........ bottom line is this map is simply considered a BASE map for US TO WORK WITH. THESE TRAILS ARE NOT CLOSED. To give our "friend" some credit it may have been done to draw our attention to these trails to remind us to find and produce some truly substantive data supporting these trails. You all know it sometimes takes getting our guys/gals HOT over an issue before they do anything. Think about this......... If there were no red lines depicted on this map how many of our enthusiasts would actually get involved or care? This may not be the case but it may certainly be something to think about.

Once again................ PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE...... NO LETTERS AT THIS TIME. Come to the table and be part of the planning. We can WIN this. As I just posted on the Pirate page.............. The only trail I'm worried about is Lower Woodpecker. BLM is required to consult with the Indian Nations regarding anything involving a cultural site. The consultations resulted in "it's a sacred site, OHV cannot DRIVE BY because we 'disrupt their aura with the land'". Yep, piece of ....*** but that's what we were told. BLM now, with our support, must justify this request is not substantive. What they need to hear is: how many events have been permitted; how much damage; any 'raiding of pictoglyphs'; results of the boulder quarrying permit issued by BLM; do users keep the trail clean........... OIL/trash; etc. My thoughts are we have a 50/50 chance to keep this trail. Although they are talking about "US" finding an equivalent trail area offering the same challenge. This is part of "partnering"..........

If everyone does not want to "Partner" that's ok........ just don't make it difficult for those that do want to try working through issues that affect us all as OHV recreationists. BLM is NOT AGAINST us. They're biggest problem is how to get around law suits from the enviros. If they/we can produce substantive, honest data the courts will throw the enviro cases out. This isn't going to happen over night and each and every BLM or agency employee is supportive of OHV but it IS changing and we CAN help make that change.

Clarification: It's almost impossible to "FIRE" a government employee. They can, and are, "relocated" or transferred to another field. Re "suing". Many of our people cannot and do not, dig into their pockets for $5.00 to help a business pay ORBA dues. ORBA DOES have the dollars and the attorney to sue "FOR US". Do you seriously believe we can raise $100,000.00 to $300,000.00 for legal action?

k7mto
01-14-2007, 11:27 AM
There have been NO "UNAUTHORIZED" changes.

Thanks for clarifying, Sandee. You're earlier entry stated...

"Each time the workgroup agrees on a plan, G&F change it. They have been caught in so many lies I've lost count. They are constantly going behind our backs each time they don't get what they want or if they have to account for any dollars from OHV."

Maybe these changes are authorized, I don't know. Either way they certainly don't appear to be on the up and up and in a non-government business situation, would certainly be cause for disciplinary action.

Sean K.
01-14-2007, 11:34 AM
You're right Sean.......... no need to "debate" any of this. You are wrong, you do not know all the facts and you've evidently decided to take the negative side of all. If you believe we've already lost everything ........... go for it. Lets you out from under doing anything...... no meetings, no letters no support.
At no time were you ever told the inventory/evaluations GUARANTEE "ALL" trails to us.
Get yourself a copy of the CFR's......... BLM CANNOT simply sign trails closed without justification to do so unless WE sit back and let them do it. Yes, we've had to sue in many cases in the past few years but it's beginning to turn our way. This TAKES DOLLARS and unified support. BRC; ORBA; AMA; MIC; and state OHV Associations/Coalitions are joining together with DOLLARS and are beating the issues.

If a letter campaign heads to Tucson field manager you can be guaranteed WE LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The field manager is trying to work with us. The markings of "closed" on the presented maps are simply one man's opinion or wishes. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

The CS is good as long as we keep the majority of the money for OUR USE. We are getting there............. if not we simply kill the bill like we did two bills last year. Again......... WE can make a difference but not from our butts.

Sandee,

I certainly don't know all the facts. I also certainly DIDN'T say that the scoping meetings and accompanying BS "guaranteed" that "all" of our trails would be protected....and I stated as much in one of my replies (i.e., Jawbreaker). I was told (and so were many others) that the route inventory was needed to get an idea of what trails were "on the ground" so that they could be evaluated. We were told towards the end of the inventory process that most of the trails looked to be of no significant impact and would remain open. Then there was all the talk of putting in facilities, signage, etc. not just motorized use, but hiking, equestrian, etc.....i.e., multi-use.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one always running around with the chicken little attitude? This thread is a perfect example.

In one post, you say, "after taking a close look at Francisco's map you might be interested in something he's taken into his own hands and that is Lower Woodpecker; OverDose and some small trail near Axle Alley (???).... or maybe Axle Alley itself, is ALREADY DESIGNATED CLOSED !!!

Then in the above, "The markings of "closed" on the presented maps are simply one man's opinion or wishes."

Was this just to rally support to the cause? As you said in another post before this reply....[paraphrase]....our enthusiasts don't get involved until they are "HOT" over an issue.

Sean

Sean K.
01-14-2007, 11:44 AM
These trail noted in red on this BASE MAP are NOT CLOSED.
THESE TRAILS ARE NOT CLOSED.

BLM is NOT AGAINST us. They're biggest problem is how to get around law suits from the enviros. If they/we can produce substantive, honest data the courts will throw the enviro cases out. This isn't going to happen over night and each and every BLM or agency employee is supportive of OHV but it IS changing and we CAN help make that change.




Is Francisco a BLM representative or not? Since he is, I think it's only reasonable to assume that at least some of BLM IS against us. I know a few of the G&F people are. They aren't bashful about it....ask.

The whole "we need you to substantiate why a particular trail should remain open" is complete and utter horse **** that has zero basis in any quantitative analysis. Saying, "I like to rockcrawl through Lower Woodpecker b/c it's got really cool obstacles" isn't a defense of why it should remain open. And so far, from what I've read, BLM is asking for that kind of worthless (from a legal standpoint) input.

Sandee, I think you're being snowballed by the officials you deal with. I think you know it too....otherwise you wouldn't be writing, "They have been caught in so many lies I've lost count. They are constantly going behind our backs each time they don't get what they want or if they have to account for any dollars from OHV."

I do agree with you on one thing....we won't be suing anyone to get Francisco fired, nor will he be fired. We as a community won't pony up the dough for that kind of action.....nor would likely be successful. Government employees are generally very secure in their positions.

Sean

rockwerks
01-14-2007, 11:58 AM
Is Francisco a BLM representative or not? Since he is, I think it's only reasonable to assume that at least some of BLM IS against us. I know a few of the G&F people are. They aren't bashful about it....ask.

The whole "we need you to substantiate why a particular trail should remain open" is complete and utter horse **** that has zero basis in any quantitative analysis. Saying, "I like to rockcrawl through Lower Woodpecker b/c it's got really cool obstacles" isn't a defense of why it should remain open. And so far, from what I've read, BLM is asking for that kind of worthless (from a legal standpoint) input.

Sandee, I think you're being snowballed by the officials you deal with. I think you know it too....otherwise you wouldn't be writing, "They have been caught in so many lies I've lost count. They are constantly going behind our backs each time they don't get what they want or if they have to account for any dollars from OHV."

I do agree with you on one thing....we won't be suing anyone to get Francisco fired, nor will he be fired. We as a community won't pony up the dough for that kind of action.....nor would likely be successful. Government employees are generally very secure in their positions.

Sean

Sandee has been dealing on both ends of this issue longer than most of us have owned 4x4's. She knows exactly what she is doing and if we follow her lead and suggestions, we will be successful in keeping our trails open. This is a long and drawn out process.

Sandee awaiting further instructions. and have ordered the transportation plan:D

Sandee McCullen
01-14-2007, 01:27 PM
Thanks for clarifying, Sandee. You're earlier entry stated...

"Each time the workgroup agrees on a plan, G&F change it. They have been caught in so many lies I've lost count. They are constantly going behind our backs each time they don't get what they want or if they have to account for any dollars from OHV."

Maybe these changes are authorized, I don't know. Either way they certainly don't appear to be on the up and up and in a non-government business situation, would certainly be cause for disciplinary action.

This statement "Each time the workgroup agrees on a plan, G&F change it. They have been caught in so many lies I've lost count. They are constantly going behind our backs each time they don't get what they want or if they have to account for any dollars from OHV." is ONLY in reference to the Copper Sticker project and what the "workgroup" agreed to vs what Game & Fish want. Game & Fish have been working on a Copper Sticker (OHV Use Sticker fee) for 6 years. Their original plan was to keep ALL the dollars for Game & Fish. When we got wind of these plans 3 years ago G&F called in a "task group" to develop a plan. This was good and the workgroup spent HOURS reviewing other states OHV laws and rules to put together a plan that would work for everyone. The money was not directed to BLM to CLOSE trails as Sean seems to believe. The major portion of the dollars is directed to OHV issues............. WITH an OHV Advisory Group reviewing where every dollar goes. There is money directed to "OHV" law enforcement as well as "OHV" education. Our biggest fight is making Game & Fish ACCOUNT for the "OHV" dollars they get. They have no accountability for the 30% ($800,000.00) they get from the Gas Tax money now. This was a legislative action when OHV refused to step up and be heard. We ARE getting this changed. Again, most of the dollars go directly to OHV projects overseen by US.

The discussion regarding "UNAUTHORIZED changes" referencing the maps from BLM are an entirely different issue. Although the "red" marks are identifying trail closures and they are not the consensus of the 3 alternatives already done they are NOT CLOSURES. These marks only identify the trails the enviros, G&F and Francisco want to see closed. WE CAN CHANGE THAT. We have substantive data and information that will reflect support for keeping the trails open. Yes we are fighting a long time philosophy of the land managers, and most certainly the enviros, that "there should only be a certain number of trails on any acre of land". That thought simply will not work with todays number of OHV on the lands. Some land managers are seeing this.............. some are not. If our people keep walking away from the issues with a negative attitude or what I see as a LACK OF KNOWLEDGE of the issues, we will lose. We all need to realize there may be justification or maybe "compromise" to close some of the trails that are on the ground now but if we stay involved and support RESPONSIBLE OHV RECREATION by not making by-passes; stacking rock to change the natural actions of the lands/water; cleaning our oil spills; not cutting vegetation or trees and similar negative actions, we will begin to save trails. Both the BLM and F/S allow for "future trails". We will not always get everything we want.

Re your mention of "cause for displinary action" you are absolutely right. Government however, function under different rules. Government employees are a lot like doctors or maybe even attorneys in that they many times "protect or support their own" BUT I can guarantee there are "files" on some of these people and mole hills do eventually become mountains. I keep asking if there is a BLM office in Afganistan. We certainly could send a staff!!!

These threads bring about several different issues into one making it hard to follow sometimes. ....... sorry.

Sandee McCullen
01-14-2007, 02:15 PM
Is Francisco a BLM representative or not? Since he is, I think it's only reasonable to assume that at least some of BLM IS against us. I know a few of the G&F people are. They aren't bashful about it....ask.

The whole "we need you to substantiate why a particular trail should remain open" is complete and utter horse **** that has zero basis in any quantitative analysis. Saying, "I like to rockcrawl through Lower Woodpecker b/c it's got really cool obstacles" isn't a defense of why it should remain open. And so far, from what I've read, BLM is asking for that kind of worthless (from a legal standpoint) input.

Sandee, I think you're being snowballed by the officials you deal with. I think you know it too....otherwise you wouldn't be writing, "They have been caught in so many lies I've lost count. They are constantly going behind our backs each time they don't get what they want or if they have to account for any dollars from OHV."

I do agree with you on one thing....we won't be suing anyone to get Francisco fired, nor will he be fired. We as a community won't pony up the dough for that kind of action.....nor would likely be successful. Government employees are generally very secure in their positions.

Sean

Substantive support/data is NOT saying: "I like to rockcrawl through Lower Woodpecker b/c it's got really cool obstacles. What we do have is this:
1) Only one of the 3 alternatives support closure.
2) There has been NO DAMAGE or displacement of the petroglyphs.
3) There has been 2 "boulder quarrying" permits issued for this area.
4) There have been 2 competitive OHV events permitted and 4 SRP's issued for this area. NO post problems or complaints. Each post report was good. [we have access to those reports]
5) Although the Indian Nation Consultations demand "no OHV" BLM must consider these are BLM lands and with there being no negative impact to the cultural issues they must consider "use for all"
6) Consider mitigation BEFORE closure: a) Do more interpretative signing to allow the public (ALL users) to understand the value of these areas b) gate the trail for permit only thusly limiting the numbers c) declare the number of years this has been open to the public and extend the history of the trail. [we have documentation and maps showing the right side (we call the by-pass was the original trail prior to the 1988 RMP] etc

Sean, there is NO DOUBT "some of BLM are against us". ... as are G&F and F/S. We will never have 100% of anything I simply want to work at the issue the enviros and agencies don't have 100% of everything!

The only reason the field manager is asking for "substantive" data supporting the trails remaining open is because these are the trails the enviros want closed and if he can gather more substantive data supporting OUR rights to these trails the less likely BLM will be sued over their decisions for final designations. I truly believe he is trying to make this work. Once again...................... field manager is who made the decision to NOT CLOSE MARTINEZ. It may be closed later in the public process but for now WE'VE WON. That didn't JUST HAPPEN. Patrick stuck his neck out against the enviros FOR US.

We will NOT get everything we want Sean but you can bet we won't get anything if we don't stand up for our rights with some common sense and knowledge behind us. The enviros have gotten away with false and "iffy" data for years............ it's now coming back to bite them. Now is the time for US to step up with honest data and maybe that will result in compromise.

Sandee McCullen
01-14-2007, 02:37 PM
what I've read, BLM is asking for that kind of worthless (from a legal standpoint) input.

Sandee, I think you're being snowballed by the officials you deal with. I think you know it too....otherwise you wouldn't be writing, "They have been caught in so many lies I've lost count. They are constantly going behind our backs each time they don't get what they want or if they have to account for any dollars from OHV."

Sean

Guess what Sean........... you're wrong. I believe you are again getting only bits and pieces of each story and do not understand what's actually happening.
My comment about being lied to was strictly and specifically regarding G&F and the Copper Sticker bill.
If I was "being snowballed by the officials" we wouldn't have caught G&F in their lies or the changes to the Copper Sticker bill and we would not have had the knowledge to kill the bad bill nor would I have had the knowledge or ability to work with friendly legislators to get the bill killed. There are a whole bunch more people (legislators, agency folks, lobbiests, recreation groups, cattlemen, & sportsman) that see through what G&F have been doing. Guaranteed many more know about G&F NOT accounting for OHV dollars. The public now know about the OHV Education Trailer being used as a "office" by G&F at the Ben Avery Shooting range. They now realize G&F have been receiving $600,000.00 a year from OHV Gas Tax for OHV Law Enforcement that has not been done, etc etc. This may be part of the reason the new CS bill does not identify G&F as administrators of the money. It's now tied in with the Gas Tax Dollars with State Parks administering the money. The OHV Advisory Group will remain as it is without G&F demanding 3 of 7 seats on this Advisory Bd.

Doesn't sound to me like I've been "snowballed". I know I've mellowed a lot since I started into this "battle field". I still "say my piece" but have also found making enemies doesn't help us. I could well do without Francisco but we have an ability to communicate. I KNOW where he stands but I believe I can feel out what he's actually doing behind my back. I have the support from more agency staff than not. I'm sure there are as many of them that wish I would go away. Even some of those that would rather OHV head to Pluto! As I said in an earlier post................... "maybe Francisco had an ulterior motive for showing these trails in red on the base map".......... If our people don't see any "problems or loss" they probably won't bother to step up to the table. Even if Francisco didn't foresee this he actually helped our cause by noting some favorite trails in red................. it ticked off enough OHV people that they will "fight for their rights" now.??????????

Yes, I've probably "played both sides of the fence" now and then but I would never throw my fellow sportsmen to the wolves but I will support "compromise" or "mitigation" if needed. I serve on the BLM/RAC for my 3rd 3 year term, I am on the State Parks OHV Advisory Group for my 5th year, I am one of the founding members of the MGCP (this group was formed as a result of the BS we went through to get the first ARCA Competitive Permit in early 2000); I am a working member of 5 separate Partnerships to help keep our lands and trails open. Do you believe that Sycamore would be open today if it wasn't for a number of our people stepping up to form a partnership group to designate this area for responsible recreation?
I have a number of doors open to me that helps me see both sides. I DO NOT know it all but will most certainly will keep trying.

Sean K.
01-14-2007, 02:38 PM
Substantive support/data is NOT saying: "I like to rockcrawl through Lower Woodpecker b/c it's got really cool obstacles. What we do have is this:
1) Only one of the 3 alternatives support closure.
2) There has been NO DAMAGE or displacement of the petroglyphs.
3) There has been 2 "boulder quarrying" permits issued for this area.
4) There have been 2 competitive OHV events permitted and 4 SRP's issued for this area. NO post problems or complaints. Each post report was good. [we have access to those reports]
5) Although the Indian Nation Consultations demand "no OHV" BLM must consider these are BLM lands and with there being no negative impact to the cultural issues they must consider "use for all"
6) Consider mitigation BEFORE closure: a) Do more interpretative signing to allow the public (ALL users) to understand the value of these areas b) gate the trail for permit only thusly limiting the numbers c) declare the number of years this has been open to the public and extend the history of the trail. [we have documentation and maps showing the right side (we call the by-pass was the original trail prior to the 1988 RMP] etc

Sean, there is NO DOUBT "some of BLM are against us". ... as are G&F and F/S. We will never have 100% of anything I simply want to work at the issue the enviros and agencies don't have 100% of everything!

The only reason the field manager is asking for "substantive" data supporting the trails remaining open is because these are the trails the enviros want closed and if he can gather more substantive data supporting OUR rights to these trails the less likely BLM will be sued over their decisions for final designations. I truly believe he is trying to make this work. Once again...................... field manager is who made the decision to NOT CLOSE MARTINEZ. It may be closed later in the public process but for now WE'VE WON. That didn't JUST HAPPEN. Patrick stuck his neck out against the enviros FOR US.

We will NOT get everything we want Sean but you can bet we won't get anything if we don't stand up for our rights with some common sense and knowledge behind us. The enviros have gotten away with false and "iffy" data for years............ it's now coming back to bite them. Now is the time for US to step up with honest data and maybe that will result in compromise.


Sandee,

I'm not saying we shouldn't stand up for our rights.....I am in complete agreement with you there. However, it seems like we are constantly in "reactive" mode when something like this comes about (perhaps that is b/c I'm not nearly as involved as you are.....I'm just saying that's how it seems). And even when we're in reactive mode, we're extremely inefficient in coming to a solution or a step by step process to reach a resolution.

Can you please clearly explain what constitutes "substantive" data?

What are BLM officials really looking for? If your answer is your numbers 1-6....hasn't this already been covered and isn't BLM already aware?

In past threads, reading the reasons seemed very much like what I posted.... in addition to comments about the family nature of 4 wheeling, etc. IMO, these feel good commentaries don't strengthen our position from a legal standpoint. I guess I just don't get what BLM is asking us to do.

Further, I'm very much against the "gating" of our trails. Why? On the surface it seems like a great idea.....until BLM or G&F go behind our backs and close the trail.....once the gate is locked, that's it. We've already discussed that we lack the funds to really sue for resolution.....which is one of the reasons I was told ASA didn't sue over the Jawbreaker closure (well, that and it called into question every "extreme" trail not on the 89 RMP....including the grand daddy Upper Woodpecker).

Also, please don't think I don't appreciate all your hard work. I sincerely do. But, it's very hard for me to get involved when it's never clear what I need to do. In this instance, it appears I need to contact Francisco to see about getting on the list of people for the focus groups....but only 3-4 OHV people will apparently get on the committee.

I guess the other thing I don't understand with this latest FJ issue is.....what do you want us to do? I'm still not 100% clear.

Thanks,
Sean

Sean K.
01-14-2007, 02:43 PM
Guess what Sean........... you're wrong.
My comment about being lied to was strictly and specifically regarding G&F and the Copper Sticker bill.
If I was "being snowballed by the officials" we wouldn't have caught G&F in their lies or the changes to the Copper Sticker bill and we would not have had the knowledge to kill the bad bill nor would I have had the knowledge or ability to work with friendly legislators to get the bill killed. There are a whole bunch more people (legislators, agency folks, lobbiests, recreation groups, cattlemen, & sportsman that see through what G&F have been doing. Guaranteed many more know about G&F NOT accounting for OHV dollars. The public now know about the OHV Education Trailer being used as a "office" by G&F at the Ben Avery Shooting range. They now realize G&F have been receiving $600,000.00 a year from OHV Gas Tax for OHV Law Enforcement that has not been done, etc etc.
Doesn't sound to me like I've been "snowballed".
Yes, I've probably "played both sides of the fence" now and then but I would never throw my fellow sportsmen to the wolves. I serve on the BLM/RAC for my 3rd 3 year term, I am on the State Parks OHV Advisory Group for my 5th year, I am one of the founding members of the MGCP (this group was formed as a result of the BS we went through to get the first ARCA Competitive Permit in early 2000); I am a working member of 5 separate Partnerships to help keep our lands and trails open. Do you believe that Sycamore would be open today if it wasn't for a number of our people stepping up to form a partnership group to designate this area for responsible recreation?
I have a number of doors open to me that helps me see both sides. I DO NOT know it all but will most certainly will keep trying.

Sandee,

I think you misunderstood my "snowballed" comment. I never meant to suggest you were selling us out. I only meant (and you've already stated) that you've been LIED to by govt. officials. In this case, you said it was G&F. I would wager that at least Francisco of BLM hasn't always been completely honest with you. My point is: the precedence is there. I don't think we can trust the BLM or G&F 100%.

You do realize I'm Sean King, right? You needn't go into your credentials....I've been in two clubs with you and have wheeled with you countless times. I know you, your husband, your sons and your grand children. You are an asset to our community.

Sean

John_P
01-14-2007, 02:56 PM
Just my thought here...


Substantive support/data is NOT saying: "I like to rockcrawl through Lower Woodpecker b/c it's got really cool obstacles. What we do have is this:
1) Only one of the 3 alternatives support closure.

How does this represent "substantive data" supporting the view that this area should remain? All this says is that there are three different plans for the area...So because it is 2 to 1 we win? Not sure I buy that reasoning...Rather, you need to have data that supports the 2 that DO NOT advocate closure.



2) There has been NO DAMAGE or displacement of the petroglyphs.

THIS is good data. However, my question would be; IS THIS TRAIL SPECIFIC OR AREA SPECIFIC? I would think that TRAIL SPECIFIC data is the most useful for our cause, given that they will mostly likely take a trail specific approach to closure. Just my .02 though...



3) There has been 2 "boulder quarrying" permits issued for this area.

Again, more "area" talk...Does "area" in this context consitute "trail" or is it carrying the broad meaning? Again, I would be hard pressed to consider this "supporting data" if the permits are issued in areas where there are no trails. Again, clarification would be nice, as I am ignorant to what you mean here.



4) There have been 2 competitive OHV events permitted and 4 SRP's issued for this area. NO post problems or complaints. Each post report was good. [we have access to those reports]

This seems like good "supporting evidence"...at least for the trails they took place on.



5) Although the Indian Nation Consultations demand "no OHV" BLM must consider these are BLM lands and with there being no negative impact to the cultural issues they must consider "use for all"

No comment...although it seems more like another group for closure...majority wins? Seems to be our argument in #1.



6) Consider mitigation BEFORE closure: a) Do more interpretative signing to allow the public (ALL users) to understand the value of these areas b) gate the trail for permit only thusly limiting the numbers c) declare the number of years this has been open to the public and extend the history of the trail. [we have documentation and maps showing the right side (we call the by-pass was the original trail prior to the 1988 RMP] etc


Most likely mitigation OR a piecemeal approach to closure will win the day, as it represents a middle ground. Therefore, I would suggest that you focus on trail specific data as it should be most useful in combating said approach.



The only reason the field manager is asking for "substantive" data supporting the trails remaining open is because these are the trails the enviros want closed and if he can gather more substantive data supporting OUR rights to these trails the less likely BLM will be sued over their decisions for final designations.

I would highly suggest you consider the TYPE of data they will use for justifying closure. The "no cultural damage" evidence is most representative of what I mean. With that in mind, I would HIGHLY suggest that someone pony up some dollars for some scientific evaluation on our part (i.e. evaluation of drainage, vegatation, ecology, ,etc) on a trail specifi basis. At the very most you will have data that is on par with theirs, and possibly force a stalemate.

The benefit of this approach, which happens to be what the Republican party as been doing for years, is you turn the argument ffrom the issue to the science. Thereby you muddy the waters possibly of what is "true" and "best". (and all this coming from you local, neighborhood liberal!...see you know you like it when I stick around!)

Sandee McCullen
01-14-2007, 03:39 PM
Sandee,

I'm not saying we shouldn't stand up for our rights.....I am in complete agreement with you there. However, it seems like we are constantly in "reactive" mode when something like this comes about (perhaps that is b/c I'm not nearly as involved as you are.....I'm just saying that's how it seems). And even when we're in reactive mode, we're extremely inefficient in coming to a solution or a step by step process to reach a resolution.

Can you please clearly explain what constitutes "substantive" data?

What are BLM officials really looking for? If your answer is your numbers 1-6....hasn't this already been covered and isn't BLM already aware?

In past threads, reading the reasons seemed very much like what I posted.... in addition to comments about the family nature of 4 wheeling, etc. IMO, these feel good commentaries don't strengthen our position from a legal standpoint. I guess I just don't get what BLM is asking us to do.

Further, I'm very much against the "gating" of our trails. Why? On the surface it seems like a great idea.....until BLM or G&F go behind our backs and close the trail.....once the gate is locked, that's it. We've already discussed that we lack the funds to really sue for resolution.....which is one of the reasons I was told ASA didn't sue over the Jawbreaker closure (well, that and it called into question every "extreme" trail not on the 89 RMP....including the grand daddy Upper Woodpecker).

Also, please don't think I don't appreciate all your hard work. I sincerely do. But, it's very hard for me to get involved when it's never clear what I need to do. In this instance, it appears I need to contact Francisco to see about getting on the list of people for the focus groups....but only 3-4 OHV people will apparently get on the committee.

I guess the other thing I don't understand with this latest FJ issue is.....what do you want us to do? I'm still not 100% clear.

Thanks,
Sean

OK.............. sorry for the lengthy posts. What we need to do :

1) No letters at this time.
2) Meet at the table with the maps and the official "evaluation data" to build substantive data support for the trails we want.
(This means we use both the resource data from the evaluation [habitat study area; big horn sheep area; tortoise habitat; cultural; administrative use; ranching; mining; right of way; etc etc. This is full documentation by the field specialists from BLM; F/S; & G&F as well as information regarding permits issued, no damage, suggested mitigation etc.)
3) IF you have time and/or interest or knowledge of the area and want to be involved in the next phase of developing a Preferred Alternative......... let Francisco know. Please cc me too. BLM will, along with the RAC members, select 3-5 people to serve on the workgroup. I was told each will be asked to send a short bio regarding their knowledge and/or use of the area. The selection will simply be used to obtain the best information or knowledge of the area as possible.
4) At the end of 45 days the BLM will take approx. 20 days to evaluate and sort the "plans" submitted.
5) The interested parties from all walks of recreation or field issues will join at the table (BLM will do these work sessions on weekends to allow our participation...... they foresee 2-3 2 full day weekends)
6) The Preferred Alternative (alternative E), along with Alternative A.. No Action; Alternative B.. Closed (Environmental); Alternative C... Tweeners; Alternative D.. Open then goes to Public Scoping.
7) The public can then propose another plan by combining issues from each/all of the Alternatives.

If WE do not submit a proposed OHV Transportation Plan BLM will have to side with the enviros as there won't be any other plans or support for BLM to do otherwise.

It probably does feel "reactive" to the greater OHV community but it's unrealistic to believe that everyone wants all the details from meetings or happenings from the agencies. Personally I don't believe this is "reactive" as much as jumping on the band wagon to "write letters"; threats or comments regarding issues that they don't know the whole story. THAT is reactive.

I don't like "gating" any trail either but it beats CLOSING. Gates can come down........ closures are very hard to re-open. It's called "compromise".

Substantive data is NOT "fuzzy, warm feeling commentaries". It is the combination of what's on the ground re cultural, habitat, etc as well as additional "substantive data" reflecting no damage, prior permits, mitagation, alternate routes or gating etc. Yes, BLM know these things but to stop the enviros from backing BLM to the wall it takes this information data from the PUBLIC to allow BLM to do something other than what the enviros demand. I don't know how to explain this Sean.... it's probably playing political games but we must find ground where we can stand toe to toe with the enviros. Or at least support BLM to do this. We haven't shown much interest in anything but our "playing" in past years.

Re Jawbreaker.......... we did not have the ability to sue. This was done as an Emergency Closure that allowed us to Appeal. We did that. The problem is we did not have enough "substantive data" for our side; BLM outright lied; and the enviros still had an upper hand with "their data". IBLA (Internal BLM legal Dept) simply ruled against us. Technically a true Emergency Closure is for no more than 3 years at which time it is to be reevaluated and most times re-opened. Ya!!! This entire procedure was illegal as they never specifically called it an Emergency Closure...... it was partly stated it was only a closure to the Jamboree event that year; another statement was they were closing for "riparian values". This in itself would fall under an Emergency Closure to be reevaluated but it would end up in a very costly law suit that we would probably lose because this trail is certainly riparian sensitive. As much as I fought this closure this is a true example of where we "can't have it all". The entire procedure was new to me nor did I have the contacts then that I have now. I LEARNED ALOT....... it would not happen again.

This may not be the best plan or avenue to a final designation of our trails as mandated by DOI/BLM but I do understand where Patrick is coming from in "covering not only his butt" but our rights/needs also. This is the first time WE have been included in Tucson planning. It's certainly more light than we've ever seen from them in the past...............
Is everything they say or do going to be on the up and up...? I doubt it. BUT.......... many years ago someone much higher on the ladder than me told me: "You CAN beat them........... know their rules (CFR's) better than they know them". It HAS worked. So have my trips to D.C.

We don't ALL have to do ALL, but everyone needs to build an understanding of how government works.

Sandee McCullen
01-14-2007, 03:57 PM
Just my thought here...

THIS is good data. However, my question would be; IS THIS TRAIL SPECIFIC OR AREA SPECIFIC? I would think that TRAIL SPECIFIC data is the most useful for our cause, given that they will mostly likely take a trail specific approach to closure. Just my .02 though...

Again, more "area" talk...Does "area" in this context consitute "trail" or is it carrying the broad meaning? Again, I would be hard pressed to consider this "supporting data" if the permits are issued in areas where there are no trails. Again, clarification would be nice, as I am ignorant to what you mean here.

Most likely mitigation OR a piecemeal approach to closure will win the day, as it represents a middle ground. Therefore, I would suggest that you focus on trail specific data as it should be most useful in combating said approach.



The "substantive data" will be specific to EACH TRAIL.
We have professional "evaluations" for several of the trails AND surrounding area involving cultural or riparian issues from a certified biologist.

The "Planning" meetings will identify EACH trail and the substantive support data for each. NOT AREAS.

Sean K.
01-14-2007, 07:03 PM
OK.............. sorry for the lengthy posts. What we need to do :

1) No letters at this time.
2) Meet at the table with the maps and the official "evaluation data" to build substantive data support for the trails we want.
(This means we use both the resource data from the evaluation [habitat study area; big horn sheep area; tortoise habitat; cultural; administrative use; ranching; mining; right of way; etc etc. This is full documentation by the field specialists from BLM; F/S; & G&F as well as information regarding permits issued, no damage, suggested mitigation etc.)
3) IF you have time and/or interest or knowledge of the area and want to be involved in the next phase of developing a Preferred Alternative......... let Francisco know. Please cc me too. BLM will, along with the RAC members, select 3-5 people to serve on the workgroup. I was told each will be asked to send a short bio regarding their knowledge and/or use of the area. The selection will simply be used to obtain the best information or knowledge of the area as possible.
4) At the end of 45 days the BLM will take approx. 20 days to evaluate and sort the "plans" submitted.
5) The interested parties from all walks of recreation or field issues will join at the table (BLM will do these work sessions on weekends to allow our participation...... they foresee 2-3 2 full day weekends)
6) The Preferred Alternative (alternative E), along with Alternative A.. No Action; Alternative B.. Closed (Environmental); Alternative C... Tweeners; Alternative D.. Open then goes to Public Scoping.
7) The public can then propose another plan by combining issues from each/all of the Alternatives.

If WE do not submit a proposed OHV Transportation Plan BLM will have to side with the enviros as there won't be any other plans or support for BLM to do otherwise.

It probably does feel "reactive" to the greater OHV community but it's unrealistic to believe that everyone wants all the details from meetings or happenings from the agencies. Personally I don't believe this is "reactive" as much as jumping on the band wagon to "write letters"; threats or comments regarding issues that they don't know the whole story. THAT is reactive.

I don't like "gating" any trail either but it beats CLOSING. Gates can come down........ closures are very hard to re-open. It's called "compromise".

Substantive data is NOT "fuzzy, warm feeling commentaries". It is the combination of what's on the ground re cultural, habitat, etc as well as additional "substantive data" reflecting no damage, prior permits, mitagation, alternate routes or gating etc. Yes, BLM know these things but to stop the enviros from backing BLM to the wall it takes this information data from the PUBLIC to allow BLM to do something other than what the enviros demand. I don't know how to explain this Sean.... it's probably playing political games but we must find ground where we can stand toe to toe with the enviros. Or at least support BLM to do this. We haven't shown much interest in anything but our "playing" in past years.

Re Jawbreaker.......... we did not have the ability to sue. This was done as an Emergency Closure that allowed us to Appeal. We did that. The problem is we did not have enough "substantive data" for our side; BLM outright lied; and the enviros still had an upper hand with "their data". IBLA (Internal BLM legal Dept) simply ruled against us. Technically a true Emergency Closure is for no more than 3 years at which time it is to be reevaluated and most times re-opened. Ya!!! This entire procedure was illegal as they never specifically called it an Emergency Closure...... it was partly stated it was only a closure to the Jamboree event that year; another statement was they were closing for "riparian values". This in itself would fall under an Emergency Closure to be reevaluated but it would end up in a very costly law suit that we would probably lose because this trail is certainly riparian sensitive. As much as I fought this closure this is a true example of where we "can't have it all". The entire procedure was new to me nor did I have the contacts then that I have now. I LEARNED ALOT....... it would not happen again.

This may not be the best plan or avenue to a final designation of our trails as mandated by DOI/BLM but I do understand where Patrick is coming from in "covering not only his butt" but our rights/needs also. This is the first time WE have been included in Tucson planning. It's certainly more light than we've ever seen from them in the past...............
Is everything they say or do going to be on the up and up...? I doubt it. BUT.......... many years ago someone much higher on the ladder than me told me: "You CAN beat them........... know their rules (CFR's) better than they know them". It HAS worked. So have my trips to D.C.

We don't ALL have to do ALL, but everyone needs to build an understanding of how government works.

Sandee,

Here's the problem as I understand (if I understand) what you've written:

99% of the motorized users of the FJ area have no expertise to even begin to comment on habitat study area; big horn sheep area; tortoise habitat; cultural; administrative use; ranching; mining; right of way; etc. It seems that kind of information is what BLM is considering "substantive", if I understand you correctly.

If that's the case, very few of us can have any positive impact with our comments or participation, right?

I'd guess none of us are "field specialists" and only a very few of us (yourself included) have any experience trying to get special permits for events like Jamboree and comps.

That being the case, are we better off having specific people from our community (such as yourself and others) who have had a hand in dealing with BLM regarding comps and events like Jamboree get on this 3-5 person work group?

Maybe we need to be contacting the experienced persons directly and see who actually has time to participate in the focus groups.

From what you wrote, it seems like my participation would have little to no impact at this point as I am not qualified to speak about the "substantive" data to support keeping the trails open. Is this incorrect? What I'm trying to say is I want to help, but I (and I'm guessing others) have no idea what it is that we actually need to do. I understand now is not the time for letters. I also understand that I WILL be needed at the scoping meetings....once we get to that point. I'm just not sure where I'm needed now.

Just re-read your post....number 2) looks like there will be a meeting at some point where we will all go over the maps??? Any idea when and where?

Another thing that scares me is if "BLM outright lied" to close Jawbreaker....what will they be willing to do to close other trails? I still say they can't be trusted, but you deal with them on a daily basis so I have no choice but to trust your judgement.

Thanks for explaining it to me.

Take care,
Sean

Sandee McCullen
01-14-2007, 08:10 PM
Sandee,

Here's the problem as I understand (if I understand) what you've written:

99% of the motorized users of the FJ area have no expertise to even begin to comment on habitat study area; big horn sheep area; tortoise habitat; cultural; administrative use; ranching; mining; right of way; etc. It seems that kind of information is what BLM is considering "substantive", if I understand you correctly.

If that's the case, very few of us can have any positive impact with our comments or participation, right?

I'd guess none of us are "field specialists" and only a very few of us (yourself included) have any experience trying to get special permits for events like Jamboree and comps.

That being the case, are we better off having specific people from our community (such as yourself and others) who have had a hand in dealing with BLM regarding comps and events like Jamboree get on this 3-5 person work group?

Maybe we need to be contacting the experienced persons directly and see who actually has time to participate in the focus groups.

From what you wrote, it seems like my participation would have little to no impact at this point as I am not qualified to speak about the "substantive" data to support keeping the trails open. Is this incorrect? What I'm trying to say is I want to help, but I (and I'm guessing others) have no idea what it is that we actually need to do. I understand now is not the time for letters. I also understand that I WILL be needed at the scoping meetings....once we get to that point. I'm just not sure where I'm needed now.

Just re-read your post....number 2) looks like there will be a meeting at some point where we will all go over the maps??? Any idea when and where?

Another thing that scares me is if "BLM outright lied" to close Jawbreaker....what will they be willing to do to close other trails? I still say they can't be trusted, but you deal with them on a daily basis so I have no choice but to trust your judgement.

Thanks for explaining it to me.

Take care,
Sean

Sean, I'm having a difficult time understanding what it is I'm doing wrong that you don't seem to understand this process.

The habitat specialists or cultural specialists, historians or biologists, hydrologists or any other person/s that it's their JOB to be specialists in their degreed fields are who sat at the table during EVALUATIONS to tell the group "what was there or what the issues were". They made NO DECISIONS....... only gave information. The OTHER SIDE of "substantive" data is from us. How do we use the trails; what has been the history; use; who; ........ those issues I've already explained. This, along with substantive data from the evaluation meetings is what we need to address in our ROUTE PLAN.

OHV enthusiasts that KNOW THE TRAILS AND AREA have been asked to step forward to help develop the Preferred Alternative because THEY ARE THE SPECIALIST in this field.

We DO HAVE a couple of private, unbiased, biologists that will "testify" or make statements in our behalf. We will add this data to our ROUTE PLAN proposal.

The meetings in the next couple of weeks...... I will find a room tomorrow.......... will be for interested OHV enthusiasts to develop a route plan with substantive data from OUR SIDE. We DO NOT, nor are we capable, of supplying data regarding the movement of big horned sheep, or the study areas for tortoise, or cultural areas etc. other than what is already available through the evaluations. We DO have recreation data. THAT IS ALL WE NEED to support our side of an OHV transportation plan. We have all the other specialists data from the evaluations. I have that data on CD that corresponds to each individual trail or portion of it.

Because of being on the BLM/RAC as well as the MGCP most likely I will be one of the OHV recreationists on this workgroup but I certainly cannot do this myself. All I'm saying is they would like persons that know the area and trails and can make common sense decisions and offer information, maybe mitigation, and in general work with and consider ALL recreation needs. This area is NOT and has never been designated for OHV only. All sports/users will have to work together to make this work. There may be compromise or concessions.

Don't ever think I am the only person able to do this. I'm not and I hope I've never given this impression. Each and every one of you that have a passion for their sport can and should do the same.

Re Jawbreaker........... one more time. We have, and most likely will continue to be lied to, but the difference between then and now is we are all a bit wiser. Today they could not get away with what they did. More and more of us understand the process and we now "have contacts" supporting our side. Tucson now has a very positive OHV, as well as recreation as a whole, supportive manager.

As I stated earlier............. we could probably sue to get Jawbreaker re-opened but the cost would be prohibitive due to the true riparian issues within the canyon. Most likely we would lose anyway. I've discussed this at length with ORBA and I have to agree with them............ we are NOT going to keep each and every trail we want. If there are resource issues we will have to find an alternative whether we like it or not.

If recreationists that know the area and trails and have the time to dedicate to this planning would feel more comfortable on doing the appointments of 4-5 persons to recommend to BLM to work on the Preferred Alternative lets do it. I doubt BLM cares "how" we find the persons to do this.

Bottom line.............. WE are ALL specialists and we ALL have a voice.

Re the "Route Planning" meetings I would like to hold one or two during a weeknight (6-9 maybe) and at least one Saturday meeting. I believe I can get a free room for an all day Saturday and we can go to Barros Pizza in the Greenway and 19th street area for an evening. Will look into an evening meeting in the Tempe/Mesa area also. If anyone would like one on the west side just let me know.
I will have the evaluation maps; the 3 alternative maps along with the evaluation data on CD and a projector so we view the existing data on screen. I'll type and format...... you all can dictate/tell me what everyone knows of each trail. I think it's going to be fairly easy with most of the trails that are indicated in blue on Franciscos map. The major trails we have to really support are: LW; Overdose; Martinez; Axle Alley; & Woody's Wash. These seem to be the major trails Francisco and G&F want closed really bad. I think we can support them.

06GrnRubi
01-14-2007, 08:40 PM
Many of our people cannot and do not, dig into their pockets for $5.00 to help a business pay ORBA dues. ORBA DOES have the dollars and the attorney to sue "FOR US". Do you seriously believe we can raise $100,000.00 to $300,000.00 for legal action?

I'm new here, and don't remember anyone ever asking me to donate $5.00 to help a business pay ORBA dues. I'm willing to chip in. Which of the businesses here wants my $5.00?

Sandee McCullen
01-14-2007, 08:45 PM
I'm new here, and don't remember anyone ever asking me to donate $5.00 to help a business pay ORBA dues. I'm willing to chip in. Which of the businesses here wants my $5.00?

Thanks............. a couple of years ago the AZVJC chose to support Hunter Off Road to an ORBA membership. Several clubs pay the $1,000.00 yearly membership for local fab shops in the valley. 4=Wheeler Supply has been a huge supporter and member of ORBA for the past 3 years.

There was a pay-pal account originally set up for donations to the Hunter Off Road fund but I believe it's been shut down. Anyone want to take this project on again and help get Hunters ORBA membership back on line?

John_P
01-14-2007, 09:20 PM
...The OTHER SIDE of "substantive" data is from us. How do we use the trails; what has been the history; use; who;

...We DO have recreation data. THAT IS ALL WE NEED to support our side of an OHV transportation plan. We have all the other specialists data from the evaluations. I have that data on CD that corresponds to each individual trail or portion of it.



Reference to bolded comment specifically:

We have recreation data? Sorry...I'm a data kinda guy, so I am just curious...What kind of data is this?

Do you have the average number of users, per trail, on a given weekend? How about per month?

For the area in general?

I am just curious...because a lot of times the only "recreation" data I ever see pertains to the number of, or the amount spent on recreation and the toys that go with these activities.

That is, how do you make a case for recreation beyond the comments and memories of some "hardcore" wheelers?

Again, this is just for my own curiousity...but I do feel it would be insightful for others.

Sandee McCullen
01-14-2007, 10:40 PM
Reference to bolded comment specifically:

We have recreation data? Sorry...I'm a data kinda guy, so I am just curious...What kind of data is this?

Do you have the average number of users, per trail, on a given weekend? How about per month?

For the area in general?

I am just curious...because a lot of times the only "recreation" data I ever see pertains to the number of, or the amount spent on recreation and the toys that go with these activities.

That is, how do you make a case for recreation beyond the comments and memories of some "hardcore" wheelers?

Again, this is just for my own curiousity...but I do feel it would be insightful for others.

Once again............. The evaluation data contains the specific stuff like tortoise habitat; big horn sheep habitat; cultural; riparian; study areas; hunting areas; etc etc. It also contains low; med or high OHV use. It does not reflect exact numbers and we don't really need that detailed information. It does contain the types of vehicles.
What we now need to do is justify the data we have as follows:
Example for Lower Woodpecker:
We will pick up the major issues from the evaluation...... no habitat; no vegetation; in a wash.......... then we move on to substantive data as follows:
1) Only one of the 3 alternatives support closure of this trail.
2) There has been NO DAMAGE or displacement of the petroglyphs.
3) There has been 2 "boulder quarrying" permits issued for this trail and surrounding area.
4) There have been 2 competitive OHV events permitted and 4 SRP's issued within this trail and area. NO post problems or complaints. Each post report was good. [we have access to those reports]
5) Although the Indian Nation Consultations demand "no OHV" BLM must consider these are BLM lands and with there being no negative impact to the cultural issues they must consider "use for all"
6) Consider mitigation BEFORE closure: a) Do more interpretative signing to allow the public (ALL users) to understand the value of these areas b) gate the trail for permit only thusly limiting the numbers c) declare the number of years this has been open to the public and extend the history of the trail. [we have documentation and maps showing the right side (we call the by-pass was the original trail prior to the 1988 RMP] etc
7) Can show on 1968 - 1990 aerial maps this was a trail for years. Ranchers used this wash as the major route prior to the graded road.
8) Is an existing route from the 1988 RMP.

Some of these issues will fit most of the trails we need to support.

The data we need has nothing to do with "hard core 4-wheelers or their memories". It's strictly the data we can supply that would stand up as "showing no significant impact" to a court. If BLM is confident records/data shows they have done due diligence and can show no significat impact we CAN win. I know this is a lot to absorb and I know there are tons of questions but I cannot answer everyones personal on going questions on this. I cannot explain this process any differently than I've done.

John_P
01-14-2007, 10:56 PM
Thanks...

Tom Jacobson
01-15-2007, 09:58 AM
The major trails we have to really support are: LW; Overdose; Martinez; Axle Alley; & Woody's Wash. These seem to be the major trails Francisco and G&F want closed really bad. I think we can support them.

Why these particular trails??? Do we/you already know what SPECIFICS will be given by our enemy to support their closure?

LW - Issues with Petroglyphs? (also exist in/on several other trails/locations in FJ, as well as across, oh I dunno, ALL OF AZ!)

OD - No idea...Starts/stops on established road. Follows a wash/canyon bottom. Non-riparian(?)

Martinez - Issues with private property, vandalism.

Axle Alley - see OD comments

Woodys - see also OD

I just want to know and understand what exactly we're fighting against. And have stated before, I can't play if I don't know the rules. So...what are the rules for a trail being an "acceptable trail"????

Habitat fragmentation argument appears to be bunk. Oil spills, not that they aren't an issue, but can happen on any trail, including the main roads that G&F is OK with leaving open (seen it happen - idiots joyridding a subaru a few years ago). So again, why these trails? Which are next?!?!?

Tom

My1stJeep
01-15-2007, 10:29 AM
Sandee,

I certainly don't know all the facts. I also certainly DIDN'T say that the scoping meetings and accompanying BS "guaranteed" that "all" of our trails would be protected....and I stated as much in one of my replies (i.e., Jawbreaker). I was told (and so were many others) that the route inventory was needed to get an idea of what trails were "on the ground" so that they could be evaluated. We were told towards the end of the inventory process that most of the trails looked to be of no significant impact and would remain open. Then there was all the talk of putting in facilities, signage, etc. not just motorized use, but hiking, equestrian, etc.....i.e., multi-use.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one always running around with the chicken little attitude? This thread is a perfect example.

In one post, you say, "after taking a close look at Francisco's map you might be interested in something he's taken into his own hands and that is Lower Woodpecker; OverDose and some small trail near Axle Alley (???).... or maybe Axle Alley itself, is ALREADY DESIGNATED CLOSED !!!

Then in the above, "The markings of "closed" on the presented maps are simply one man's opinion or wishes."

Was this just to rally support to the cause? As you said in another post before this reply....[paraphrase]....our enthusiasts don't get involved until they are "HOT" over an issue.

Sean

Sean,

On the maps Francisco can mark anything he wants, and at this time he marks the trails closed, however it is a proposed map. Therefore legally it is not closed, however if we don't work together to get that map changed it will become legally closed.

Quit making a stink, and no this is not chicken little, this is the real thing.

What Sandee said was that she received the proposed maps and he marked it closed, but she never said it was final, she made it very clear this was proposed and that we can make a difference and get it changed.

Now if we go with your plan, don't tell them, guess what, if it is not on the map it is already closed and when they catch you on it and write you a ticket you will have no defense and just have to pay it. Why is this concept so hard to believe?

In addition, Francisco may be against us, but his boss is not. A letter campaign will only tick him off and them he may also be against us. There is not reason for the letters yet, but there is a reason to come to the table. So at this time everyone has a choice to make, follow Sandee and come to the table where we have a chance or follow Sean and lose everything. Patrick is new to the BLM here in the Tucson office and needs to be given a chance, his previous work in Moab there could have been alot more closers, but there were not while he was there.

Also, consider this, Sean have you been to a meeting or talked to Patrick on the phone? I have and have also talked with previous leaders in the BLM. He is different and I feel more trustworthy than his predecessors. Again, the maps came from Francisco, they are not final and don't have his blessings as final so why do you want to give up Sean?

If Sandee had to write each posting as explicit as you need they would each be ten pages long, I think most everyone understood what they saw and if you don't question it, don't attack it. Even if Sandee is saying the sky is falling, according to you it has already fallen and everyone should five up, or are you just a greenie hoping to get us to just give up?

Sandee McCullen
01-15-2007, 11:37 AM
Why these particular trails??? Do we/you already know what SPECIFICS will be given by our enemy to support their closure?

LW - Issues with Petroglyphs? (also exist in/on several other trails/locations in FJ, as well as across, oh I dunno, ALL OF AZ!)

OD - No idea...Starts/stops on established road. Follows a wash/canyon bottom. Non-riparian(?)

Martinez - Issues with private property, vandalism.

Axle Alley - see OD comments

Woodys - see also OD

I just want to know and understand what exactly we're fighting against. And have stated before, I can't play if I don't know the rules. So...what are the rules for a trail being an "acceptable trail"????

Habitat fragmentation argument appears to be bunk. Oil spills, not that they aren't an issue, but can happen on any trail, including the main roads that G&F is OK with leaving open (seen it happen - idiots joyridding a subaru a few years ago). So again, why these trails? Which are next?!?!?

Tom

In short.............. ALL OF THE ABOVE.

We believe "habitat fragmentation" is bunk but others do not.
OIL is a huge issue when it's NOT CLEANED UP. If we do not start "cleaning as we are messing" you can be guaranteed we will lose it!

I believe I've covered all the issues I can over the past several days. It truly does not matter if WE don't agree with the mandates from Washington. The land managing agencies have mandates and we will simply have to live with them. Tucson BLM is giving us the chance to be a stakeholder in these decisions. If you don't care to be involved don't................. many of us feel it's serious.

2dollah
01-15-2007, 12:06 PM
Has the letter to Francisco been posted up yet?

Tom Jacobson
01-15-2007, 12:35 PM
I give up. I must not be able to ask questions or get my point across clearly or correctly on the forum.

Just tell me when and where the Mesa meeting is going to be held.

But if anyone wants another chance at answering...

Q1. Why is Francisco targeting these particular trails?

Don't cite oil spills - they happen on every trail at some point in time.
Don't cite petroglyphs - they exist on other FJ trails not on this closure list.
Don't cite vandalism - can happen on any trail (spraypaint on walls of Box Canyon is vandalism)

Q2. What constitutes a "legal" trail? Is there something about the trails on the closure list that is not "legal"????

What I'm getting at is that there is nothing unique about these trails that warrants their closure over any other trail out there (OK...Martinez is a bit different situation). If nobody else is reading between the lines, let me spell it out...

ANY REASON CURRENTLY BEING GIVEN FOR THESE FIRST 5 TRAILS CAN BE APPLIED TO ANY OR ALL OTHER TRAILS IN THE AREA.


Tom

RufftyTuffty
01-15-2007, 03:58 PM
It's called herding...he closes a few now.

The remaining trails get lots more traffic and get destroyed or people get bored and go other places.

.....then when no-one's looking he closes the rest of them in a couple of years.

Don't bother replying as it's all BS anyway...Mike

rockwerks
01-15-2007, 04:09 PM
It's called herding...he closes a few now.

The remaining trails get lots more traffic and get destroyed or people get bored and go other places.

.....then when no-one's looking he closes the rest of them in a couple of years.

Don't bother replying as it's all BS anyway...Mike

HE on his own has no authority to close any trails.


I guess you guys cant read, or refuse to, HE has not closed anything and his supervisor is and has been open to the OHV side.

I personally have not been on many of the trails in FJ.

It is common practice for an agency to ask for an accounting of what is going on in the area of the survey from all the interested parties. That is what a government is supposed to do.

Will we keep all our trails? probably not. But I'm betting we will keep most.

Jsk8r1
01-15-2007, 04:18 PM
We will be keeping almost all of the trails, not all of them but the majority of them, ive seen the maps directly given from Francisco of what their plans are and what they are doing studies on as of right now. People need to calm down about this entire thing ya its a big deal... some trails will be closed but there is many trails in FJ, plenty to still be doign out there even with a couple trails closed.

rockwerks
01-15-2007, 04:34 PM
We will be keeping almost all of the trails, not all of them but the majority of them, ive seen the maps directly given from Francisco of what their plans are and what they are doing studies on as of right now. People need to calm down about this entire thing ya its a big deal... some trails will be closed but there is many trails in FJ, plenty to still be doign out there even with a couple trails closed.


and the trails marked closed have not been closed yet. or at least all of them

cool heads prevail, Ill jsut wait for Sandee's direction:D

Jsk8r1
01-15-2007, 04:39 PM
Yes, they say trails are closed but for the most part it seems to be hearsay, people were goign through lower woodpecker on saturday, thought that was closed.... not so much. All i know is certain trails will be closed but for the most part we will be keeping at least 80% of them. If you really want to get to some of the places and your a die hard history fan then you will get some hiking gear and park where you have to and walk out to what you want to see, just like the environmentalists.

Tom Jacobson
01-15-2007, 04:46 PM
but there is many trails in FJ, plenty to still be doing out there even with a couple trails closed.

NO...there isn't "plenty"!!!! In fact, I'll still maintain that any plan needs to propose a way to deal with growth and new trails.

And who wants to concede which trails are "OK" to give up? You might say "Ahhh, no biggie. Just a couple short, 'extreme' trails that I'll never run." Well, what if I say we "just close the Coke Ovens and Box Canyon. Those are boring beyond belief...no big loss."

ALL the trails are equally important.

So if they were to take away AA, OD and WW, what would be left? H2H and Bad Medicine. How long before overcrowding and overrunning of these two remaining trails would take an irrepairable toll and they make the next "Hit List"???

Tom

Tom Jacobson
01-15-2007, 04:51 PM
Yes, they say trails are closed but for the most part it seems to be hearsay, people were goign through lower woodpecker on saturday, thought that was closed.... not so much. All i know is certain trails will be closed but for the most part we will be keeping at least 80% of them. If you really want to get to some of the places and your a die hard history fan then you will get some hiking gear and park where you have to and walk out to what you want to see, just like the environmentalists.

NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!

NOTHING IS CLOSED YET!!!!!!!! (except for the Coke Ovens private property)

It's been said over and over again that the closures noted are just Fransisco's PROPOSAL. We will be getting together once Sandee gets a time/location set up to work on OUR PROPOSAL.

And what's the basis for this comment: "All i know is certain trails will be closed but for the most part we will be keeping at least 80% of them" ??????

I don't think we KNOW any of that yet. And I, as well as many, many others on here are not willing to accept that without a fight.

Tom

Jsk8r1
01-15-2007, 04:59 PM
Im not trying to argue with you guys or piss anyone off, I hope we can figure out some sort of plan to keep as many trails open as possible but eventually in the near future a couple of trails will be closed. Whats to say some of the environmentalists dont have friends with 4wd and have them come out and tear up some of the terrain take pictures and then post up just to help their cause. FJ is a great place and i hope that the trails stay open but the inevitable is that trails will be closed with or without a fight.

rockwerks
01-15-2007, 05:22 PM
We need to make a united stand here so when Table Mesa comes up next we can be ready

Sean K.
01-15-2007, 05:30 PM
Sean,

On the maps Francisco can mark anything he wants, and at this time he marks the trails closed, however it is a proposed map. Therefore legally it is not closed, however if we don't work together to get that map changed it will become legally closed.

Quit making a stink, and no this is not chicken little, this is the real thing.

What Sandee said was that she received the proposed maps and he marked it closed, but she never said it was final, she made it very clear this was proposed and that we can make a difference and get it changed.

Now if we go with your plan, don't tell them, guess what, if it is not on the map it is already closed and when they catch you on it and write you a ticket you will have no defense and just have to pay it. Why is this concept so hard to believe?

In addition, Francisco may be against us, but his boss is not. A letter campaign will only tick him off and them he may also be against us. There is not reason for the letters yet, but there is a reason to come to the table. So at this time everyone has a choice to make, follow Sandee and come to the table where we have a chance or follow Sean and lose everything. Patrick is new to the BLM here in the Tucson office and needs to be given a chance, his previous work in Moab there could have been alot more closers, but there were not while he was there.

Also, consider this, Sean have you been to a meeting or talked to Patrick on the phone? I have and have also talked with previous leaders in the BLM. He is different and I feel more trustworthy than his predecessors. Again, the maps came from Francisco, they are not final and don't have his blessings as final so why do you want to give up Sean?

If Sandee had to write each posting as explicit as you need they would each be ten pages long, I think most everyone understood what they saw and if you don't question it, don't attack it. Even if Sandee is saying the sky is falling, according to you it has already fallen and everyone should five up, or are you just a greenie hoping to get us to just give up?

They have to have funding in order to have an officer actually write you a ticket. In almost 9 years of going to FJ I've run across 1 BLM officer who was checking permits. What you don't seem to realize is BLM and G&F don't have it in their budget to cover enforcement. As soon as CopperState Sticker passes.....that may very well change.

As for "just giving up".....I never said that. In fact, I said I wanted to help, but still don't know what I need to do. The "substantive" data that Sandee alluded to from the recreationists still doesn't seem like it would add up to any meaningful contribution to a legal defense of keeping the trails open.

My understanding that "washes" on BLM land are open unless posted closed as long as no significant environmental impact is placed on the wash, no vegetation is damaged and no habitat is disturbed....at least those were the premises we were opening trials under in the late 90's and early 00's with BLM and G&F attendees. If that hasn't changed, then they can only close them based on impact....and that would mean a scientific analysis, wouldn't it?


Regardless, I will question something when I don't understand or agree with it. If you don't like it, don't read my posts.

Sandee,
Please post up the time and place for the Mesa/Tempe meeting.

Sean

Sandee McCullen
01-15-2007, 07:42 PM
I give up. I must not be able to ask questions or get my point across clearly or correctly on the forum.

Just tell me when and where the Mesa meeting is going to be held.

But if anyone wants another chance at answering...

Q1. Why is Francisco targeting these particular trails?

Don't cite oil spills - they happen on every trail at some point in time.
Don't cite petroglyphs - they exist on other FJ trails not on this closure list.
Don't cite vandalism - can happen on any trail (spraypaint on walls of Box Canyon is vandalism)

Q2. What constitutes a "legal" trail? Is there something about the trails on the closure list that is not "legal"????

What I'm getting at is that there is nothing unique about these trails that warrants their closure over any other trail out there (OK...Martinez is a bit different situation). If nobody else is reading between the lines, let me spell it out...

ANY REASON CURRENTLY BEING GIVEN FOR THESE FIRST 5 TRAILS CAN BE APPLIED TO ANY OR ALL OTHER TRAILS IN THE AREA.


Tom

Tom,
You have received answers......... you simply don't seem to want to believe the answers.

OIL does enter into the pictures. Yes, oil is on all trails/roads/highways but OIL DOES polute water holes and it does endanger wildlife if in mass amounts.

Petroglyphs DO enter into the pictures. LARGE sites are declared as "SACRED" by the Native Americans and this can sway a designation if we don't fight for OUR side of rights!

Vandalism is ILLEGAL no matter where you are. In the instance of LW they are concerned about the petroglyphs being broken out of the wall itself. Some of the boulders taken under the permits had petroglyphs on them. Taking "cultural" artifacts anywhere is a felony.

Overdose: Want it closed because a TREE WAS WINCHED down from the banks because one of our own was not recreating responsibility. Rock stacking changes the flow of water or displaces natural water holes.

Woody's Wash: A tree was CUT DOWN........... to allow a vehicle through. BLM feels this trail must have been rehabing and OHV cut the tree to get through.

Axle Alley: Misunderstanding of a connecting trail. It is not looking at closure.

Martinez is truly Historical and the damage out there is massive............. OHV is an easy target.

I KNOW there are petroglyphs everywhere........ I know EVERYONE loses oil (but EVERYONE does not leave huge amounts from a ripped diff cover or roll over); hikers or mountain bikers do not stack rocks.

Francisco is targeting these specific trails mostly because the ENVIROS are pushing and OHV do not stand their ground. THIS IS WHAT PATRICK (FIELD MANAGER) IS TRYING TO ALLOW US TO DO. Game and Fish want to CLOSE EVERY TRAIL IN EVERY WASH. Want that?

A "LEGAL TRAIL" for OHV is an existing trail in compliance with the 1988 RMP. MANY of the FJ trails were NOT in existance in 1988. In 2007 G&F and the enviros are pushing BLM to close trails to number what THEY believe were in existance in 1988 and that does mean NO washes.

For exact wording on the regs: BLM Code of Federal Regulations. Second book, section 8340...

Sandee McCullen
01-15-2007, 07:46 PM
Has the letter to Francisco been posted up yet?

There had better NOT be a letter to Francisco sent. If we lose this before we have a chance to be stakeholders someone's not going to be happy and I will say I will be at the top of the list.

What does everyone feel an ugly, accusatory letter will do at this time? You've all been told the "RED lines on the BASE MAP are NOT LEGAL CLOSURES".......... The "green" lines reflect what G&F and Francisco believe are not of concern (already open per all 3 alternatives); the "blue" lines are the rest of the trails (these are almost ALL of our trails off the major roads) they believe need "additional analysis" which is what we are trying to get done; the "red" lines are simply partly what the 3 alternatives agreed to close (appox. 2.5 miles) with Francisco's additions of LW; the one entry into UW; Axle Alley and OVerdose. I have already had a lengthy heated discussion over this. I still don't understand his motive but he simply keeps with "This is only a DRAFT; this is not final". I've told him it would start a WWIII and I've told him he "was out of line". Big deal. He marches to his own tune but............... that is beginning to change. His field manager is beginning to see some of what he's up to so if we can be RESPECTFUL stakeholders in this project we can WIN. Will this ENSURE we keep ALL trails?.................. NO. Will it help us keep most? Most assuredly. We CAN indicate NEW TRAILS. If in this planning we do if someone knows of a trail or area that would be great.............. we can indicate this for future or alternative trails/area. It won't happen over night as BLM then must do complete NEPA studies but it is possible and it IS MANDATED by D.C. to "allow for new trails".

If we join together to develop a plan reflecting good data for these trails remaining open we stand a heck of a better chance to keep these trails than if letters start pouring into the Tucson office.

RufftyTuffty
01-15-2007, 08:36 PM
So...the cutting of one tree causes closure?

Seems at bit harsh...considering how many trees, bushes and cactus the annual floodes knock down.

Now we're talking...yes we need new trails...1, 2 or 3 a year?

rockwerks
01-15-2007, 08:43 PM
So...the cutting of one tree causes closure?

Seems at bit harsh...considering how many trees, bushes and cactus the annual floodes knock down.

Now we're talking...yes we need new trails...1, 2 or 3 a year?

Harsh? destruction is destruction. Remember we are the enemy to most out there.

Yes cutting down a tree (where there are few) damaging a saguaro cactus (endangered) polluting the environment (not cleaned up oil spill)

these are all ways of loosing trails........ever heard of tread lightly?

This land is there for us to use, but not abuse.

Sean K.
01-16-2007, 06:24 AM
Tom,
You have received answers......... you simply don't seem to want to believe the answers.

OIL does enter into the pictures. Yes, oil is on all trails/roads/highways but OIL DOES polute water holes and it does endanger wildlife if in mass amounts.

Petroglyphs DO enter into the pictures. LARGE sites are declared as "SACRED" by the Native Americans and this can sway a designation if we don't fight for OUR side of rights!

Vandalism is ILLEGAL no matter where you are. In the instance of LW they are concerned about the petroglyphs being broken out of the wall itself. Some of the boulders taken under the permits had petroglyphs on them. Taking "cultural" artifacts anywhere is a felony.

Overdose: Want it closed because a TREE WAS WINCHED down from the banks because one of our own was not recreating responsibility. Rock stacking changes the flow of water or displaces natural water holes.

Woody's Wash: A tree was CUT DOWN........... to allow a vehicle through. BLM feels this trail must have been rehabing and OHV cut the tree to get through.

Axle Alley: Misunderstanding of a connecting trail. It is not looking at closure.

Martinez is truly Historical and the damage out there is massive............. OHV is an easy target.

I KNOW there are petroglyphs everywhere........ I know EVERYONE loses oil (but EVERYONE does not leave huge amounts from a ripped diff cover or roll over); hikers or mountain bikers do not stack rocks.

Francisco is targeting these specific trails mostly because the ENVIROS are pushing and OHV do not stand their ground. THIS IS WHAT PATRICK (FIELD MANAGER) IS TRYING TO ALLOW US TO DO. Game and Fish want to CLOSE EVERY TRAIL IN EVERY WASH. Want that?

A "LEGAL TRAIL" for OHV is an existing trail in compliance with the 1988 RMP. MANY of the FJ trails were NOT in existance in 1988. In 2007 G&F and the enviros are pushing BLM to close trails to number what THEY believe were in existance in 1988 and that does mean NO washes.

For exact wording on the regs: BLM Code of Federal Regulations. Second book, section 8340...

The first time Upper Woodpecker was run was in 1990. I've seen the video of when the Mesa club opened the trail. That means just about EVERY "extreme" trail in AZ (especially in the FJ area is not on the 88 (btw, I thought it was 89) RMP) should be slated for closure. Do the rest of you "get it" now????? If we're going to base everything off the 88 or 89 RMP, we are SCREWED. Everything is already illegal. From what I understand.....the BLM isn't trying to base everything off the 88 RMP...which is why they wanted the inventory in the first place. The enviros want everything based off the old RMP....for obvious reasons.




Sean

Sandee McCullen
01-16-2007, 07:43 AM
The first time Upper Woodpecker was run was in 1990. I've seen the video of when the Mesa club opened the trail. That means just about EVERY "extreme" trail in AZ (especially in the FJ area is not on the 88 (btw, I thought it was 89) RMP) should be slated for closure. Do the rest of you "get it" now????? If we're going to base everything off the 88 or 89 RMP, we are SCREWED. Everything is already illegal. From what I understand.....the BLM isn't trying to base everything off the 88 RMP...which is why they wanted the inventory in the first place. The enviros want everything based off the old RMP....for obvious reasons.




Sean

You are forgetting that we are now asked to help develop a NEW RMP.......... Don't think most of BLM don't know the status of the "existing" trails. The inventory was the actual BASE map.................. that's what we spent over 100 hours at the table reviewing ALL the data we could on each trail.

1990 was NOT the first time the trail was run........ maybe as a club "recreational" use but this trail had been used by the miners many years prior to the graded road. H2H has a foundation at the side; LW, the ranchers used the wash long before the road was graded. Martinez was gated and the caretaker lived there until 1991. GET OFF THIS TRACK.

This "picking" issues apart truly needs to stop. The ranchers and miners have used every open wash and route possible many years before "4-wheeling" was a recreation. My first 4x4 meant WORK, not PLAY and was way before you were thought of. If everyone does not want to be involved........... so be it but the whinning and BS needs to stop.

Tom Jacobson
01-16-2007, 07:46 AM
Tom,
You have received answers......... you simply don't seem to want to believe the answers.

OIL does enter into the pictures. Yes, oil is on all trails/roads/highways but OIL DOES polute water holes and it does endanger wildlife if in mass amounts.

Petroglyphs DO enter into the pictures. LARGE sites are declared as "SACRED" by the Native Americans and this can sway a designation if we don't fight for OUR side of rights!

Vandalism is ILLEGAL no matter where you are. In the instance of LW they are concerned about the petroglyphs being broken out of the wall itself. Some of the boulders taken under the permits had petroglyphs on them. Taking "cultural" artifacts anywhere is a felony.

Overdose: Want it closed because a TREE WAS WINCHED down from the banks because one of our own was not recreating responsibility. Rock stacking changes the flow of water or displaces natural water holes.

Woody's Wash: A tree was CUT DOWN........... to allow a vehicle through. BLM feels this trail must have been rehabing and OHV cut the tree to get through.

Axle Alley: Misunderstanding of a connecting trail. It is not looking at closure.

Martinez is truly Historical and the damage out there is massive............. OHV is an easy target.

I KNOW there are petroglyphs everywhere........ I know EVERYONE loses oil (but EVERYONE does not leave huge amounts from a ripped diff cover or roll over); hikers or mountain bikers do not stack rocks.

Francisco is targeting these specific trails mostly because the ENVIROS are pushing and OHV do not stand their ground. THIS IS WHAT PATRICK (FIELD MANAGER) IS TRYING TO ALLOW US TO DO. Game and Fish want to CLOSE EVERY TRAIL IN EVERY WASH. Want that?

A "LEGAL TRAIL" for OHV is an existing trail in compliance with the 1988 RMP. MANY of the FJ trails were NOT in existance in 1988. In 2007 G&F and the enviros are pushing BLM to close trails to number what THEY believe were in existance in 1988 and that does mean NO washes.

For exact wording on the regs: BLM Code of Federal Regulations. Second book, section 8340...


Sandee -

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!! (Seriously! :) )

The details you just provided were exactly what I was looking for. I was trying to understand what was making Francisco target the specific trails he is for closure. The incidents cited for WW and OD...I hadn't heard that before (other than maybe some rumor, or similar, in regards to one of those trails being included for one of the last ASA Jambo's a few years ago).

Now we're getting somewhere. Now the rest of us know the case our opposition will be making in support of their proposal. I think that's very important, no???

And PLEASE don't misunderstand, I do believe that oil spills, vandalism and "sacred lands" can be reasons to close trails. However, my point was that these arguments weren't specific to only the trails proposed for closure. I wanted to know what else was going on that put these trails in the cross-hairs.

If LWP is closed for oil/petroglyphs, the EXACT same reasons could be used to close UWP. There are some very nice petroglyphs on the wall of the "gatekeeper" squeeze. And Firehole, which has eaten its fair share of rigs, is but a hundred yards up from that.

Thanks again...look forward to hearing about all this in the upcoming meeting.

Tom

Tom Jacobson
01-16-2007, 07:54 AM
Harsh? destruction is destruction. Remember we are the enemy to most out there.

Yes cutting down a tree (where there are few) damaging a saguaro cactus (endangered) polluting the environment (not cleaned up oil spill)

these are all ways of loosing trails........ever heard of tread lightly?

This land is there for us to use, but not abuse.

I think you might have missed RT's point. Yes it is harsh. The disrepectful treatment of the land is bad. We all wish these incidents would never happen.

But closure does not equal prevention. The same idiot who thinks cutting a tree down is OK on WW will do it again on another open trail.

Tom

Sandee McCullen
01-16-2007, 07:59 AM
Sandee -

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!! (Seriously! :) )

The details you just provided were exactly what I was looking for. I was trying to understand what was making Francisco target the specific trails he is for closure. The incidents cited for WW and OD...I hadn't heard that before (other than maybe some rumor, or similar, in regards to one of those trails being included for one of the last ASA Jambo's a few years ago).

Now we're getting somewhere. Now the rest of us know the case our opposition will be making in support of their proposal. I think that's very important, no???

And PLEASE don't misunderstand, I do believe that oil spills, vandalism and "sacred lands" can be reasons to close trails. However, my point was that these arguments weren't specific to only the trails proposed for closure. I wanted to know what else was going on that put these trails in the cross-hairs.

If LWP is closed for oil/petroglyphs, the EXACT same reasons could be used to close UWP. There are some very nice petroglyphs on the wall of the "gatekeeper" squeeze. And Firehole, which has eaten its fair share of rigs, is but a hundred yards up from that.

Thanks again...look forward to hearing about all this in the upcoming meeting.

Tom

Whew.............. glad that's over.

BTW: Gatekeeper "Squeeze Rock" IS up for closure!!! That is one that we most likely will lose because our roll cages are scraping the rock "near" the petroglyphs. I believe we can again use the data that "no damage has been done" and show data "it won't happen because the petroglyphs are above the reach of a cage". The Indian Nations are again fussing about us "driving by their sacred locations thusly breaking their aura with the land" . I guess if it works..............????*@#*#*@ Although they don't seem to care about the miners painting/graffiti on the petroglyph rock past Fire Hole.????

Quite frankly I believe our biggest battle is within our own!!! The abuse and outright distruction by our OWN are the main reasons for planned closures. We must ALL use common sense and good judgement........... many don't.

Spinnas
01-16-2007, 08:31 AM
Interesting that they are fusing about a tree winched and a tree cut. Now sure a tree shouldn't be cut down. But I also remember the talk from the work group that made the walk path at LW and they said what they were told to do basically required ripping up brush, bushes, cactus..... Seems a little hypocritical. The greenies wanted a walk path and got one by moving vegetation out of the way:rolleyes:

rockwerks
01-16-2007, 08:32 AM
Interesting that they are fusing about a tree winched and a tree cut. Now sure a tree shouldn't be cut down. But I also remember the talk from the work group that made the walk path at LW and they said what they were told to do basically required ripping up brush, bushes, cactus..... Seems a little hypocritical. The greenies wanted a walk path and got one by moving vegetation out of the way:rolleyes:

thats different....its a different group LOL

westy
01-16-2007, 08:36 AM
Maybe I'm off base here, but to me it doesnt seem like it is in our best interest to hand BLM/GF the exact locations (GPS Coordinates) of all the trails in the FJ area.

I understand they are trying to put together this route management plan, but now they know exactly where most of the trails are - this in time will only speed the process to get them closed - and now with the copper sticker program we are paying them money - but I dont see that benefiting us. Money in their pockets means more management, enforcement and signs??

We need to use our neighboring state California as a prime example. Surprise Canyon, Panamint Valley area.

RufftyTuffty
01-16-2007, 09:07 AM
Maybe I'm off base here, but to me it doesnt seem like it is in our best interest to hand BLM/GF the exact locations (GPS Coordinates) of all the trails in the FJ area.

I understand they are trying to put together this route management plan, but now they know exactly where most of the trails are - this in time will only speed the process to get them closed - and now with the copper sticker program we are paying them money - but I dont see that benefiting us. Money in their pockets means more management, enforcement and signs??

We need to use our neighboring state California as a prime example. Surprise Canyon, Panamint Valley area.

I suggest you run and hide :D

It's a nice idea and been covered before but in reality we HAVE to work with them as otherwise all 900 miles of trail/road would be closed down in FJ...therefore we would not even have access to the trails secret or not.

Also...my point about the tree is....you guys obviously have not been out within a few weeks of the storms....every wash is FILLED with washed out/broken down cactus, bushed & trees (large bush)....mother nature did this distruction.

~Mike

Sandee McCullen
01-16-2007, 09:16 AM
Maybe I'm off base here, but to me it doesnt seem like it is in our best interest to hand BLM/GF the exact locations (GPS Coordinates) of all the trails in the FJ area.

I understand they are trying to put together this route management plan, but now they know exactly where most of the trails are - this in time will only speed the process to get them closed - and now with the copper sticker program we are paying them money - but I dont see that benefiting us. Money in their pockets means more management, enforcement and signs??


We need to use our neighboring state California as a prime example. Surprise Canyon, Panamint Valley area.

They already know what's on the ground. An inventory was complete and an "evaluation" (data concerning each trail) has been done.

MOST will NOT BE CLOSED........... at least not if WE join in as a stakeholder of PUBLIC LANDS.

westy
01-16-2007, 09:21 AM
I suggest you run and hide :D

It's a nice idea and been covered before but in reality we HAVE to work with them as otherwise all 900 miles of trail/road would be closed down in FJ...therefore we would not even have access to the trails secret or not.

Also...my point about the tree is....you guys obviously have not been out within a few weeks of the storms....every wash is FILLED with washed out/broken down cactus, bushed & trees (large bush)....mother nature did this distruction.

~Mike

Yeah I figured :cool:

I'll stay tuned and keep a watch for the meeting dates and times. Thanks for all those putting their time into saving the trails

Sandee McCullen
01-16-2007, 09:38 AM
I suggest you run and hide :D

It's a nice idea and been covered before but in reality we HAVE to work with them as otherwise all 900 miles of trail/road would be closed down in FJ...therefore we would not even have access to the trails secret or not.


Also...my point about the tree is....you guys obviously have not been out within a few weeks of the storms....every wash is FILLED with washed out/broken down cactus, bushed & trees (large bush)....mother nature did this distruction.

~Mike

Another issue........... the tree in Jawbreaker and the trees within Overdose and Woody's wash were not the result of Mother Nature.......... they were the result of one of our own with a SAW IN HAND!!!! Like it or not we are perceived to be the "bad guys" out there and until we step up and PROVE we are NOT, the blame will be laid at our feet. i.e.: The cabin at Martinez that has collapsed was BLAMED ON US but pictures and common sense show was actually the result of Mother Nature. Had we not stepped up and proved what happened we would have remained being the ones they blame.

As each of you join in you will begin to "understand" the mandates, regs and ideas that are out there. Trying to explain each and every situation and issue is very tough. Remember............... sometimes "government regs and/or actions" do NOT include common sense. Nonetheless, they have to follow their mandates as managers of public lands. WE (OHV) are not the only users of public lands. We have to share. The enviros haven't yet got that absorbed yet. WE need to keep pushing this fact!! Whinning about what we don't have or what the land managers are or are not doing isn't helping our cause.

Tom Jacobson
01-16-2007, 10:56 AM
Thanks for your patience with us, Sandee. I think everything has been brought up, discussed, argued about, and what not. I do really look forward to the upcoming planning meetings. Want to really listen...and then do what I can to help out.

Hey, one good thing about all the "heated discussion" in this thread...maybe it has allowed us to get much of it out of our systems prior to the meeting!!!

You know the bottom line here, right everyone? "They" just don't like OHV and will use whatever justification it takes to eliminate us. "Driving by sacred lands"???? Gimme a break! Someone remind me again how much it COSTS to thru Wupatki or visit the ruins in Walnut Canyon in Flag (Nice big, paved road thru Wupatki, too)??

Or how much it now COSTS to visit the cliff dwellings in Sedona (rangers now have a trailer and guided tours through one area that you used to be able to simply drive to and walk thru)?

And c'mon, nobody places FJ anywhere on their list of places to go mtn biking or hiking.

It's a popular (and awesome) place for OHV...pure and simple.

Sean K.
01-16-2007, 12:19 PM
You are forgetting that we are now asked to help develop a NEW RMP.......... Don't think most of BLM don't know the status of the "existing" trails. The inventory was the actual BASE map.................. that's what we spent over 100 hours at the table reviewing ALL the data we could on each trail.

1990 was NOT the first time the trail was run........ maybe as a club "recreational" use but this trail had been used by the miners many years prior to the graded road. H2H has a foundation at the side; LW, the ranchers used the wash long before the road was graded. Martinez was gated and the caretaker lived there until 1991. GET OFF THIS TRACK.

This "picking" issues apart truly needs to stop. The ranchers and miners have used every open wash and route possible many years before "4-wheeling" was a recreation. My first 4x4 meant WORK, not PLAY and was way before you were thought of. If everyone does not want to be involved........... so be it but the whinning and BS needs to stop.

I think I know why you really want me off this track.

Since closure is NOT my goal.....I'm going to leave this discussion before I say something I shouldn't.

Best of luck to you in your endeavor to keep our trails open.

Sean

rockwerks
01-16-2007, 12:25 PM
I think I know why you really want me off this track.

Since closure is NOT my goal.....I'm going to leave this discussion before I expose the truths that will get you, me and many of our former club members into trouble.

Best of luck to you in your endeavor to keep our trails open.

Sean


????????? smoke and mirrors....................... LOL:rolleyes:

Tom Jacobson
01-16-2007, 02:08 PM
BTW: Gatekeeper "Squeeze Rock" IS up for closure!!! .

Geez! I didn't realize that was what you referred to in an earlier post about UWP. Bummer.

I assumed the reference was to the BYPASS at the gatekeeper, or perhaps to a new access point that just kinda skips that first little section all together. There is a little flat spot/parking type area just to the right as you start UWP, and I 'think' a new entrance may actually have already been started from that point.

Tom

RufftyTuffty
01-16-2007, 03:19 PM
Geez! I didn't realize that was what you referred to in an earlier post about UWP. Bummer.

I assumed the reference was to the BYPASS at the gatekeeper, or perhaps to a new access point that just kinda skips that first little section all together. There is a little flat spot/parking type area just to the right as you start UWP, and I 'think' a new entrance may actually have already been started from that point.

Tom

No...you have to carry your rig for the first 30 feet...then put in down and continue :p

Spinnas
01-16-2007, 03:30 PM
No...you have to carry your rig for the first 30 feet...then put in down and continue :p

Good one Mike. I think I might have to cut holes in the floor of the Jeep so I can Flintstone my way through UWP and the Firehole.:rolleyes: Then it would be considered a bike right?

Sandee McCullen
01-16-2007, 04:12 PM
Geez! I didn't realize that was what you referred to in an earlier post about UWP. Bummer.

I assumed the reference was to the BYPASS at the gatekeeper, or perhaps to a new access point that just kinda skips that first little section all together. There is a little flat spot/parking type area just to the right as you start UWP, and I 'think' a new entrance may actually have already been started from that point.

Tom

There has been 3 entrances into UW for many years. The main road is to the right. Going straight in staying to the left is the Squeeze rock where the petroglyphs are but there is also a by-pass that branches off to the right just before you enter the Squeeze Rock (Gatekeeper as it's also called).

The Indians wanted both the Squeeze Rock and the nearby by-pass closed but as far as I know, BLM is only "considering" the squeeze rock itself......... I guess we'll see how much power the Indians have regarding insignificant sites on BLM lands.

I don't know where this is going to end up any more than anyone else. I have been involved in the issues since day one and do understand the actions of BLM probably better than most of our casual users but it doesn't make me some kind of guru in this............... I'm simply trying to keep our access open and make the process understandable (if possible) to my fellow enthusiasts. Those jumping in here with alleged "secrets" they think BLM doesn't know about is not helping our cause. If the bubbas intend to stay bubbas........... that's their choice. I don't want to be associated with this nor will I be blamed for it. BLM......... the land managers as a whole........... know there are bubbas out there and always will be, but they do respect the AZVJC and I will support that to the ends. Hopefully our respectful members will also not support the bubba's.

I truly do not mind answering everyones questions or trying to make these issues understandable but it is sometimes overwhelming when some enthusiasts that should be joining the fight simply want to whine about THEIR issues or what THEY can get away with. Whether we win or lose (losing a couple of trails is NOT losing) will depend on the support from our fellow enthusiasts. If we don't join TOGETHER and accept we may not KEEP EVERYTHING the enviros and G&F definitely WIN.

My THANKS to all of you that have actually paid attention to my rambling. To those of you that don't seem to care......... ?????????? :p :p :(

I'm off to confirm a contract for a Sat. meeting in Mesa.
Hopefully place and dates official tomorrow.

Sandee McCullen
01-16-2007, 07:01 PM
CONFIRMED MEETING LOCATIONS, TIMES AND DATES FOR THE FJ ROUTE PLANNING ARE BELOW.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24
6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Barros Pizza
15440 N. 7th Street, Phx
(in a strip mall on the northwest corner of 7th STREET & Coral Gables just south of Greenway)

SATURDAY, JANUARY 27
1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
El Galeon Restaurant
1526 E. Main Street, Mesa
(North side of Main Street 2 blks west of Gilbert)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31 (if needed)
6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
El Galeon Restaurant
1526 E. Main Street, Mesa
(North side of Main Street 2 blks west of Gilbert)

I will have the computer with the Evaluation Data as well as the maps that correspond. What I need from all of you is specific information regarding each trail.

I would like someone to start the action with a specific trail. I will be at the computer listing all the issues or data each can apply.

After we compile all we have we can put it together in a Proposed Plan. Each meeting will have a sign in sheet and each of these will be included in the proposed plan.

Any additional ideas are appreciated.

RufftyTuffty
02-03-2007, 08:17 PM
Looks like Quartsite (and maybe Parker) have the same issue.

Dean, on Tuesday, 2/6, the blm will be at the Quartzsite Senior Center at 1 pm to present their proposed management plan for the Yuma district.

If it's anything like they've done other places, it won't be any good for people who like to 4 wheel, or even just ride desert roads.

I'll be at the meeting, but if you can get others to come and make our feelings clear, it might be of some use.

Bill McClatchie>

Sandee McCullen
02-03-2007, 09:05 PM
Looks like Quartsite (and maybe Parker) have the same issue.

Dean, on Tuesday, 2/6, the blm will be at the Quartzsite Senior Center at 1 pm to present their proposed management plan for the Yuma district.

If it's anything like they've done other places, it won't be any good for people who like to 4 wheel, or even just ride desert roads.

I'll be at the meeting, but if you can get others to come and make our feelings clear, it might be of some use.

Bill McClatchie>

I will be at the Quartzsite meeting also. I have been involved in the Yuma proposals for over a year. These guys have done a great job on retaining trails/areas for OHV. They are positive towards recreationists and have identified a couple of "open" riding areas. This is the DRAFT PLAN to the public. It will go back to the office for review to put together another plan that most likely is parts from all alternatives submitted in the draft plan.

The Yuma office is NOTHING like Tucson and have no one on staff like Sir Francis. The AZVJC; ASA4WDC and the Coalition is well thought of and their ideas and input are respected. Hopefully our people will go into these plan proposals with an open mind. Most likely we will not keep every road/trail that is existing open to our use but most districts are recognizing the need for upgraded use and both Yuma and Havasu are submitting OPEN areas........ Their decisions are NOT accepted by the enviros. The hardest issue for OHV enthusiasts is the idea we CANNOT continue making new trails wherever/whenever we please. There is a procedure. 4x4 are not the top issue however. The biggest headache to the land agencies are the ATV's / bikes doing donuts or across country whenever they please. This is not only in violation to existing use rules it is in direct violation to the federal Air Quality regs. If we want a new trail it simply needs to be proposed to the field office for review and NEPA. It may be that we will need to dig into our pockets a bit more to pay for NEPA to move these issues along.................

Please remember Tucson is NOT within an actual Land Use Plan for the FJ area. Because it has been inventoried and evaluations done it is felt this area cannot wait until Tucson has funding to start their land use planning until 2009. What is happening at FJ is they are doing an "amendment" to the existing land use plan from 1988.

Phoenix north; the Strip; Havasu and Yuma are ready to go forth with actual land use plan proposals. The Strip has completed their final on both monuments........... Parashant and Vermillion Cliffs. Phoenix north (aka Hassyampa) has presented it's 'draft' for the Agua Fria NM and is working on the draft for the BLM lands....... mostly Table Mesa and White Tanks. Draft probably out late 2007. Yuma is presenting their draft. Havasu is presenting their final I believe.
OHV have lost VERY LITTLE, if any, across AZ so far. If we continue with substantive and reasonable responses we CAN WIN. A combative attitude won't work for us.

Anyone that attends Quartzsite, please look me up.

RufftyTuffty
02-09-2007, 09:11 AM
Who the hell are these people?

------------------------

February 8th, 2007

Dear interested participant,

The Middle Gila Canyons Travel Management Planning Project has officially begun.

During the coming months, a collaborative process will be underway to develop a proposed action for travel management planning in the Middle Gila Canyons area.

This collaborative process, sponsored by the BLM’s Tucson Field Office, will be convened, facilitated, and documented by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
The U. S. Institute is a federal program established in 1998 by the U. S. Congress to assist parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and public land conflicts.

The Institute is a program of the Tucson-based Morris K. Udall Foundation, an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States Government (for more information on the U. S. Institute and its programs, see: www.ecr.gov).

You have been invited to be a part of a broadly representative working group that will participate in a series of workshops that will seek agreement on the key elements of a proposed action for a comprehensive travel management plan. The planning process will
take a landscape-scale approach, but will focus only on the federal lands administered by the BLM. The discussions will also seek to reach agreement on specific prescriptions for key controversial sites such as Martinez Canyon.

The results of these collaborative discussions will offer recommendations for the BLM in defining the proposed action for the travel management plan. The proposed action will be analyzed for compliance with the NEPA and other public land laws. The environmental review will be completed by BLM after the description of the proposed
action is finalized.

The initial organizational meeting for the Middle Gila Canyons Travel Management Planning process has been scheduled for Thursday evening, February 22, from 6:00 –
8:00 P.M. at the U.S. Institute located in Tucson. This meeting will offer an overview of resource management and recreation issues in the Middle Gila Canyons area, a
description of the decision process, and a general
discussion of meeting procedures.

The Institute is pleased to be working on this
project and we look forward to working with you
all in the months ahead. If you cannot attend this
meeting, the Institute will continue to deliver updates on future opportunities to include your input into this process.

Please R.S.V.P for this meeting by sending a message to caringer@ecr.gov no later than February 15th, 2007.

Sincerely,
Larry Fisher, Ph.D.
Senior Program Manager
Public Lands and Natural Resources Management
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
130 S. Scott Ave., Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 901-8544; FAX: (520) 901-8545
E-mail: fisher@ecr.gov; Web site: www.ecr.gov
Attachment: Meeting Agenda

MIDDLE GILA CANYON TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS
Organizational Meeting
Thursday, February 22, 2007
U. S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
130 S. Scott Ave., Tucson, AZ
(520) 901-8501
Purpose of the meeting:
 Provide an introduction to the travel management planning process, including an
overview of the resource management area and the decision-making process
 Clarify protocols for the collaborative process, including participants’ roles and
responsibilities
 Reach agreement on all logistics related to the process
6:00 PM Welcome and review of agenda (U. S. Institute)
General introduction to the travel management planning process
(BLM TFO)
Participant introductions
6:30 PM Overview of the planning area, resource management and
recreation issues (BLM TFO)
 Questions and discussion
7:00 PM Overview of the NEPA planning and decision process (BLM TFO)
 Questions and discussion
7:30 PM Discussion of the collaborative process
 General protocols
 Participants’ roles and responsibilities
 Schedule, venue, and logistical issues
 Other concerns and questions
8:00 PM Adjourn

Sandee McCullen
02-09-2007, 10:25 AM
Who the hell are these people?

------------------------

February 8th, 2007

Dear interested participant,

The Middle Gila Canyons Travel Management Planning Project has officially begun.

During the coming months, a collaborative process will be underway to develop a proposed action for travel management planning in the Middle Gila Canyons area.

This collaborative process, sponsored by the BLM’s Tucson Field Office, will be convened, facilitated, and documented by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.
The U. S. Institute is a federal program established in 1998 by the U. S. Congress to assist parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and public land conflicts.

The Institute is a program of the Tucson-based Morris K. Udall Foundation, an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States Government (for more information on the U. S. Institute and its programs, see: www.ecr.gov).

You have been invited to be a part of a broadly representative working group that will participate in a series of workshops that will seek agreement on the key elements of a proposed action for a comprehensive travel management plan. The planning process will
take a landscape-scale approach, but will focus only on the federal lands administered by the BLM. The discussions will also seek to reach agreement on specific prescriptions for key controversial sites such as Martinez Canyon.

The results of these collaborative discussions will offer recommendations for the BLM in defining the proposed action for the travel management plan. The proposed action will be analyzed for compliance with the NEPA and other public land laws. The environmental review will be completed by BLM after the description of the proposed
action is finalized.

The initial organizational meeting for the Middle Gila Canyons Travel Management Planning process has been scheduled for Thursday evening, February 22, from 6:00 –
8:00 P.M. at the U.S. Institute located in Tucson. This meeting will offer an overview of resource management and recreation issues in the Middle Gila Canyons area, a
description of the decision process, and a general
discussion of meeting procedures.

The Institute is pleased to be working on this
project and we look forward to working with you
all in the months ahead. If you cannot attend this
meeting, the Institute will continue to deliver updates on future opportunities to include your input into this process.

Please R.S.V.P for this meeting by sending a message to caringer@ecr.gov no later than February 15th, 2007.

Sincerely,
Larry Fisher, Ph.D.
Senior Program Manager
Public Lands and Natural Resources Management
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
130 S. Scott Ave., Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 901-8544; FAX: (520) 901-8545
E-mail: fisher@ecr.gov; Web site: www.ecr.gov
Attachment: Meeting Agenda

MIDDLE GILA CANYON TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS
Organizational Meeting
Thursday, February 22, 2007
U. S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
130 S. Scott Ave., Tucson, AZ
(520) 901-8501
Purpose of the meeting:
 Provide an introduction to the travel management planning process, including an
overview of the resource management area and the decision-making process
 Clarify protocols for the collaborative process, including participants’ roles and
responsibilities
 Reach agreement on all logistics related to the process
6:00 PM Welcome and review of agenda (U. S. Institute)
General introduction to the travel management planning process
(BLM TFO)
Participant introductions
6:30 PM Overview of the planning area, resource management and
recreation issues (BLM TFO)
 Questions and discussion
7:00 PM Overview of the NEPA planning and decision process (BLM TFO)
 Questions and discussion
7:30 PM Discussion of the collaborative process
 General protocols
 Participants’ roles and responsibilities
 Schedule, venue, and logistical issues
 Other concerns and questions
8:00 PM Adjourn

Larry Fisher is a facilator hired by the MGCP to facilitate the process of developing a Preferred Alternative.

I have already written back demanding an explaination of this Tues evening meeting in TUCSON. We were told these meetings were to be on Saturday to be available for the average "working" person. There is NO WAY any of us will attend a Tucson meeting........ especially on a weeknight.

Larry Fisher called me early this morning but I was on a conference call with our lobbyist for the Copper Sticker bill and was not able to connect with him. I will continue trying. I also wrote to Francisco asking "WHO" authorized this meeting plan.

Before everyone goes ballistic............ Larry Fisher is fair, understands OHV issues and yes, he's a through and through environmentalist. BUT........... aren't we all in our own way. Just not extreme in our views. I've worked with Larry over the past 4 years in OHV, route evaluation issues, seminars, and work groups. I was the one that suggested Larry as a facilitator following receiving a grant from BLM to fund "operations" of the Middle Gila Conservation Partnership. By having Larry involved it brings the environmentalists to the table with an open mind as they also respect Larry and his leadership.

This is not a bad thing other than the scheduling of meetings. There is no way Francisco is going to be allowed to ramrod something through to deliberately push out OHV.

More as I get it.

I will be out of town from 3:00 today until Sunday afternoon. (ASA4WDC Delegate Meeting in Laughlin) so unless I hear from Larry or Francisco before I leave I will be unable to post any news until Sunday. Hang in there.

My1stJeep
02-09-2007, 12:34 PM
Sandee,

Let me know what you find out, for now I am planning on attending, not sure how I will make it happen, but I plan on making it happen as there is no way I am going to let them have a meeting without us.

I would like to know why it is not somewhere closer to Chandler or Tempe even so those in the far north and west valley could attend. I will be bringing that up at the meeting if they don't change it.

Sandee McCullen
02-09-2007, 01:13 PM
Sandee,

Let me know what you find out, for now I am planning on attending, not sure how I will make it happen, but I plan on making it happen as there is no way I am going to let them have a meeting without us.

I would like to know why it is not somewhere closer to Chandler or Tempe even so those in the far north and west valley could attend. I will be bringing that up at the meeting if they don't change it.


I just spoke with Larry Fisher. He is not happy about the location either but Francisco evidently put the monkey on Patricks back and told Larry "Patrick wanted this first 'organizational' meeting in Tucson". Larry assured me this meeting was going to cover WHERE we would continue to meet, WHO would be at the table, WHAT was expected and what our final objective would be. There will be NO discussion regarding TRAILS or issues.

Larry agrees our Workgroup Meetings must be in a central location................. Tempe area would be a great area. He will personally be facilitating these meetings and he will not let the agenda get off course.

If you can make it Chris that would be GREAT.......... I will be going, probably against my better judgement, but as Larry stated: "Don't let their (BLM) back door tactics win."

That's where I am right now. If anyone else is interested in attending............ I'll drive if that helps.

RufftyTuffty
02-09-2007, 06:36 PM
Looks like Quartsite (and maybe Parker) have the same issue.

Dean, on Tuesday, 2/6, the blm will be at the Quartzsite Senior Center at 1 pm to present their proposed management plan for the Yuma district.

If it's anything like they've done other places, it won't be any good for people who like to 4 wheel, or even just ride desert roads.

I'll be at the meeting, but if you can get others to come and make our feelings clear, it might be of some use.

Bill McClatchie>

The Quartzsite meeting didn't go well apparantly....currently there are NO 4x4 trails on the map :eek:

The local club is working to correct this.

~Mike

Sandee McCullen
02-11-2007, 06:33 PM
The Quartzsite meeting didn't go well apparantly....currently there are NO 4x4 trails on the map :eek:

The local club is working to correct this.

~Mike

The meeting went well. Several ATV'ers spoke to the issue of closing trails near/around Dripping Springs but for the most part that was their biggest issue.

There are many 4x4 trails within the Yuma plan and I'm not aware of any being closed. The issue is the "inventory" of trails is at this time 10 years old. There are a number of trails not indicated on the presented map but they NEED OUR INPUT. We MUST IDENTIFY the 4x4 trails or they will not be in the plan. The Sandbowl at Eherenburg is now identified as an "open" area. They are looking at trying to make this a "fee area" in line with their developed sites along the river........... same fee. The "fee" advisory work group of the RAC met at Havasu the next day and it was addressed that this cannot happen and the advisory group did not approve the fee structure Yuma BLM proposed. ALL OHV (4x4; ATV; bikes; UTV's) MUST address any/all trails that are not reflected on the existing maps. BLM know there is a large number of trails needed to be included.................... if we don't do it............. it won't be done. The Yuma people are truly trying to work with OHV.

If those of you in the Yuma or Eherenburg area want to meet at the table to strategy/plan I'll help where I can. Again, if we sit back and do nothing but complain our bottom line is............... change sport.

RufftyTuffty
02-11-2007, 08:59 PM
Hey don't shoot the messager ;)

Sandee McCullen
02-11-2007, 09:04 PM
Hey don't shoot the messager ;)

I didn't intend to "shoot the messager".......... just stating the facts of what's happening out there.

My apologies if my message sounded like "pointing fingers". Not intended. Just trying to explain what's happening. There seems to be more looking for the negative than the positive sometimes. :( :o