PDA

View Full Version : Table Mesa Under Fire Again !



Sandee McCullen
05-15-2007, 03:48 PM
LAKE PLEASANT ENTRANCE FROM TABLE MESA ROAD WILL BE CLOSED TO MOTORIZED USE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2007.

This closure is not totally due to OHV use....... correction: MISUSE............. but it certainly shows how important it is for us go get involved in the OHV Ambassador Program and help LEO's do Peer Patrol. I'm not very happy they have taken this stand following OHV applying thousands of dollars of signing, kiosks, and volunteer labor to help them when they do nothing to help themselves but closures are the easiest way to solve a problem for agencies......... mark my words............ CLOSURES WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE OF OUR LACK OF INVOLVEMENT OR RESPONSIBILITY.

NEWS for immediate release

MARICOPA COUNTY
Parks & Recreation
234 N. Central Ave , Suite 6400
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Ph 602-506-2930
www.maricopa.gov



Agencies to enforce motorized vehicle restriction

County and state agencies to enforce motorized vehicle restriction at Agua Fria Conservation Area
Effective July 1, 2007



(Morristown) – Effective July 1, 2007, in accordance with the Park Rule R-107 and 1995 Park Master Plan, the restrictions on motorized vehicle use at the Lake Pleasant Regional Park Agua Fria Conservation Area entrance will be enforced. The conservation area is located at the north end of the park just south of Table Mesa Road. The decision to enforce the park rule was made by the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department and Bureau of Reclamation to ensure public safety and to protect the conservation area. “This decision was not made lightly,” stated R.J. Cardin, assistant director for Maricopa County’s Parks and Recreation Department.



“Over the past four years, we’ve seen an increase in illegal activity in the area. Illegal activities have ranged from shooting to dumping and irresponsible use of off-highway vehicles to vandalism. These activities are causing damage to the desert and riparian areas and have created an unsafe environment for law abiding visitors who are there to enjoy the natural beauty of the area. This is very concerning to all the agencies who manage the public lands in the area and we’ve agreed that the motorized vehicle restriction needs to be enforced to protect both the public and the conservation area,” added Cardin.



A multi-agency task force, initiated by the Bureau of Reclamation, has been meeting to determine the best short and long-term solutions for the area. Until a long-term solution is developed, park visitors may continue to fish, hike, bike, picnic, and camp in the conservation area. All supplies must be carried into the site without the use of motorized vehicles.



Anyone who witnesses any illegal activity at the Agua Fria Conservation Area should contact the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office at (602) 876-1011. Future developments on the conservation area will be made available to the public. Lake Pleasant Regional Park is located at 41835 N. Castle Hot Springs Rd. in Morristown. For information on the conservation area, visit http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/lake_pleasant/AguaFria.aspx.

Lifes A Jeep
05-15-2007, 04:29 PM
the restrictions on motorized vehicle use at the Lake Pleasant Regional Park Agua Fria Conservation Area entrance will be enforced. The conservation area is located at the north end of the park just south of Table Mesa Road. The decision to enforce the park rule was made by the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department and Bureau of Reclamation to ensure public safety and to protect the conservation area. “This decision was not made lightly,” stated R.J. Cardin, assistant director for Maricopa County’s Parks and Recreation Department.


Sandee

Do we know exactly where the closure starts? Are they closing the Table Mesa exit off the I-17? Or is it somewhere along Table Mesa Rd? I found a map on the Maricopa.gov site and it appears to not affect some of our trails. But its hard to say for sure.

http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/lake_pleasant/Agua%20Fria%20Information/Maps/aeriallakephoto.jpg

Either way, this is hard to swallow.:(

Thanks

Sandee McCullen
05-15-2007, 05:23 PM
Sandee

Do we know exactly where the closure starts? Are they closing the Table Mesa exit off the I-17? Or is it somewhere along Table Mesa Rd? I found a map on the Maricopa.gov site and it appears to not affect some of our trails. But its hard to say for sure.

http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/lake_pleasant/Agua%20Fria%20Information/Maps/aeriallakephoto.jpg

Either way, this is hard to swallow.:(

Thanks

It will be closed at the entrance to the County Park at the end of Table Mesa Rd. There will be no entrance to the north, northeast side of Lake Pleasant nor will there be the connector trail to the Tip Top mine area.

It doesn't affect our trails other than it does take away from other recreationists within the area. MANY of our people as well as fishermen and ATV riders enter this side of Lake Pleasant. Large numbers of 4x4's camped within the Lake area as well as played in the water and a number of 4x4's would play in the mud.............. we're ALL to blame.

My main point of issue is OHV Gas Tax dollars and hundreds of grant dollars to the OHV Coalition has gone into education, signs, and kiosks for this area and they refuse to give it a chance to work. The biggest issue is this closure is due to ALL recreationists ABUSE of the area.

1BLKJP
05-15-2007, 08:50 PM
Joe and I were down there at the lake afte we ran Die Hard a couple weeks back and we saw some pretty jack arse things going on. Full size vehicles doing 50 or so mph with quads right around. Quad riders getting tossed off their bikes because they were being stupid. ****e just laying around everywhere. After seeing this I'm not surprised that it's come to this. I'm in full support of keeping everything open, but I gotta say I'm not surprised.

RufftyTuffty
05-17-2007, 11:00 AM
There goes the access to Lost World & Unforgiven.

Renob
05-17-2007, 03:04 PM
There goes the access to Lost World & Unforgiven.If they close the back way at the gate, then you will still be able to access these trails.

lostoffroad
05-18-2007, 07:56 AM
so this mean that we cant drive to tip top anymore or back in that area?

Sandee McCullen
05-18-2007, 08:03 AM
so this mean that we cant drive to tip top anymore or back in that area?

No, the trail to Tip Top is north of the park entrance. There is one trail that is a connector to the north but is not necessary to access any of our trails.

Frisbie
05-18-2007, 06:28 PM
Anyone who has spent any time up there knows that this is because the invaders from Mexico and elsewhere have made this area their own and have no regard for anyone else or the enviroment.And now our so called leaders in Washinton are going to make them legal.Can you imagine the attitude they will have now.If we dont resist,America is finished.

Sandee McCullen
05-18-2007, 09:50 PM
Anyone who has spent any time up there knows that this is because the invaders from Mexico and elsewhere have made this area their own and have no regard for anyone else or the enviroment.And now our so called leaders in Washinton are going to make them legal.Can you imagine the attitude they will have now.If we dont resist,America is finished.

Don't go blaming the illegals for OHV abuse !!!! Yes, there are illegal coyote camps in the area but the closure is due to OHV's OFF TRAILS, Not paying the park entrance, LANDSCAPING AND ROOFING dumps (illegals are not doing this) and shooting. We are our own worst enemy and it's easy for the feds to use this against us.

Frisbie
05-19-2007, 06:31 AM
Don't go blaming the illegals for OHV abuse !!!! Yes, there are illegal coyote camps in the area but the closure is due to OHV's OFF TRAILS, Not paying the park entrance, LANDSCAPING AND ROOFING dumps (illegals are not doing this) and shooting. We are our own worst enemy and it's easy for the feds to use this against us.

Landscaping and roofing dumps not done by illegals.Thats a funny one!They are the only ones who do landscaping and roofing.

FearTheDentist
05-23-2007, 07:26 PM
Anyone who has spent any time up there knows that this is because the invaders from Mexico and elsewhere have made this area their own and have no regard for anyone else or the enviroment.And now our so called leaders in Washinton are going to make them legal.Can you imagine the attitude they will have now.If we dont resist,America is finished.

I usually leave this sort of discussion to others, but I think it's worth chiming in here.

Let's not turn this thread into a soapbox for a pet political issue- there's plenty of other forums for that. While "illegals" may contribute to some of the issue, having spent my share of time there it's pretty clear the real issue is extreme disregard and abuse of the area by some, or even many recreational users. I avoid the area now, despite some great trails, because 1) it's depressing, and 2) it's getting downright dangerous out there. It's hard to describe my disgust for the situation at Table Mesa in language appropriate for this forum...:mad:

The trash lining the roadsides and parking areas is simply beyond belief. Most of it is not landscaping debris etc- it's beer bottles, shotgun shells, household items and rubbish, etc.- the detritus of lazy and irresponsible jerks. Some areas look more like a landfill than a recreational area...depressing. On top of all the trash, you can usually count on multiple flocks of gun-toting yahoos with far more ammunition than common sense. I've seen everything from beer-swilling hillbillys blasting away with shotguns in the I-17 staging area to a very clumsy Mr. Joe family-man knock over a stack of rifles (all prominently "displayed" leaning against his car which was parked in the middle of the trail) as he inadvertently points the shotgun he's carrying at his kids. The net result of all of this an entire recreational area that has just developed a dirty, abused, and trashy atmosphere or "karma" to it. Can anyone say they've been up there any time in the last several years that they felt the situation had improved? I've seen it get worse and worse, to the point I almost never go there any more.

Point is, you have multiple groups using the area for different purposes. Some people are ignorant of land use rules, some could care less, and some are just dangerously irresponsible. Unfortunately, there's little to no enforcement in the area, so it's easier for the powers that be just to limit access than to deal with the real issue. Also unfortunately, I see little hope for improvement in this realm as those who are working to improve the situation seem to be outnumbered by those who are causing the problem. I really, really hope to see the situation turn around, but I fear it will just continue to deteriorate while those of us who understand responsible land use are shut out and those who abuse it just move on to some other site.

OK, rant off...

DustDweller
05-23-2007, 09:02 PM
but I fear it will just continue to deteriorate while those of us who understand responsible land use are shut out and those who abuse it just move on to some other site.

That's the heart of the problem; the other site will most likely be the east side of I17

Sandee McCullen
05-23-2007, 11:15 PM
That's the heart of the problem; the other site will most likely be the east side of I17

Most of the east side of I-17 at the Table Mesa area is State Trust Lands that trails lead into Tonto Forest. Much of the Tonto area is still closed due to the fire from a few years ago followed by flooding rains. State Land Dept. are working diligently to CLOSE ALL State Trust Lands to OHV. There's not much in the form of any technical or moderate trails in this area either.

With HOPE the OHV bill will pass so we have the funds to continue paying LEO's to patrol Table Mesa; we can continue with pressure to get BLM to CLOSE UNSAFE AREAS to shooters, get some signs and education into the area. We have been allowed to do whatever we please for too many years................ with the thousands of additional 'recreationists'........... 4x4's; ATV's; campers; fishermen to the lake; shooters; equestrian uses and in general outdoor recreationists there's simply too much abuse................. it is NOT mostly illegals.

"Illegals are dumping roofing and landscaping materials"?????? Right! They're cramming the coyote vans with all the roofing materials from their shacks in Mexico!!! The trash dumping is coming from the local area communities that refuse to pay a couple of bucks to dump at the landfill.

Soap box again, sorry, but if WE don't get involved and start being the "solution" instead of "pointing fingers" we'll lose. Table Mesa was on the outskirts of urban developments a few years ago.......... it's now in the middle. Soooooooooooooooo............ if we decide "we don't care any more, let it go to "H".......... WHERE do we go from here?

DustDweller
05-24-2007, 07:25 PM
I'm all for increased LEOs and citizen involvement but closing unsafe areas is a dangerous concept, one that is very easy to abuse. Plus it is already illegal to discharge a firearm in an unsafe manner; which would include in unsafe locations. Additionally it's illegal to target practice on State Trust Land and really now that I think of it all the problem activities are already illegal.

If they close it, as a law abiding citizen, i'll have no other choice than to stop packing everyone else's junk back out :lol:

RufftyTuffty
05-25-2007, 07:42 AM
Okay...i've got a question.

With the amount of money people have vested in their OHV's, these said people will need somewhere to go, where is this mystical place?

Also, do they not realize the more they close the more the community fragments and goes off to find there 'own' private collection of runs.

So...for every one they 'might' close ten will 'open'.

~Mike

My1stJeep
05-25-2007, 09:20 AM
Okay...i've got a question.

With the amount of money people have vested in their OHV's, these said people will need somewhere to go, where is this mystical place?

Also, do they not realize the more they close the more the community fragments and goes off to find there 'own' private collection of runs.

So...for every one they 'might' close ten will 'open'.

~Mike

They don't care. They live in a non reality place where when they say it is closed no one will ever cross it, even though in most closed areas no-responsible users still cross over. What is comes to is that the land management has more people within in them that side with the green viewpoint and would rather see all OHV eliminated from the earth. In addition since there are little to no funds to enforce anything it is easier to sign in closed, keep out as many as will respect it and then they can always fall back on, "hey we closed it".

I have tried to drive the point home to every greenie out there, that the more you close the more problems are created. With a small foot print of closed areas that leaves more area for responsible OHV users, and some of the irresponsible users will not do the negative things that impact the environment based on the peer pressure of others they do not know being around. They will still run off into the closed areas and go nuts destroying everything. By creating a larger foot print of closed areas we are actually destroying more of the resources. To me it is a simple concept that common sense and data from already closed areas backs up, yet the don't see it. To them OHV represents all that is evil in the world and getting rid of them entirely is their mission.

John_P
05-25-2007, 11:22 AM
These conclusions...




By creating a larger foot print of closed areas we are actually destroying more of the resources.

The more you close the more problems are created.



Do not necessarily follow from these statements...




1) A small foot print of closed areas leaves more area for responsible OHV users.

2) Some irresponsible users will not do the negative things that impact the environment based on the peer pressure of others they do not know being around.

3)They [irresponsible users] will still run off into the closed areas and go nuts destroying everything.



Let look at number 1...

I generally agree, but I have to ask...obviously more area means fewer users per area, right?

and number 2...

If we assume peer pressure is 'effective', fewer users per area means less opportunity for said peer interactions.

You could easily argue the converse...if there is less open area, their are more opportunities for folks to 'notice' the irresponsible folks and apply pressure.

And finally, in regard to 3...

If people are going to go and trash open area anyhow, then would it not make more sense to increase the area of closure in order to 'spread out' the impact? (does this not sound familiar?)

I think you can make the case in either direction...that is why your points do not necessarily lead to your conclusions. They may very well lead to the opposite conclusions.

Thank you for playing.

RufftyTuffty
05-25-2007, 12:59 PM
Pedantics...i think we get the jist.

John_P
05-25-2007, 01:07 PM
Pedantics...i think we get the jist.

Do you? Because from I stand, your another face in the mob. :rolleyes:

My1stJeep
05-25-2007, 05:46 PM
These conclusions...



Do not necessarily follow from these statements...



Let look at number 1...

I generally agree, but I have to ask...obviously more area means fewer users per area, right?

and number 2...

If we assume peer pressure is 'effective', fewer users per area means less opportunity for said peer interactions.

You could easily argue the converse...if there is less open area, their are more opportunities for folks to 'notice' the irresponsible folks and apply pressure.

And finally, in regard to 3...

If people are going to go and trash open area anyhow, then would it not make more sense to increase the area of closure in order to 'spread out' the impact? (does this not sound familiar?)

I think you can make the case in either direction...that is why your points do not necessarily lead to your conclusions. They may very well lead to the opposite conclusions.

Thank you for playing.


John your logic does not fly in real world. Since you can't read between the lines let me see if I can break it down for you.

Example: You have a mass of 1000 acres. At this time there is only 20% closed, where irresponsible users roam freely, they also roam on the open areas, but with people watching they tend to stay more on trails in the 80% open. This is the peer pressure you don't think works.

Now we go and close 50% total, so now those irresposible users are running amok (seems to be the term going around right now). While you can argue that that means the irresponsible users are now spread out, you are correct, but let us think about this. If the irresponsilbe user in any case is tearing up 25% of the closed area (this is a very conservative number), then on the 20% closure they were tearing up 5% of the area. Now at the 50% closure they are tearing up 12.5%, an increase of 7.5%. See how it keeps increasing?

Next your comment or should I say opinion, that if more is closed and we see them tearing up closed areas they would be more likely to never be able to apply the peer pressure, as it would require entering the closed area to get close enough. Peer pressure works best at closer range where you could get a plate number, sticker number something to id the person.

As for your comment based on number 1, it is more likely that as more lands are closed and more people are tired of losing that more will become irresponsible and the number of irresponsible people crossing into closed areas will increase.

As for your comment on number 3 are you kidding me? If we close the larger area as you suggest and polute more of the land, yes it may not be concentrated in one area, but now you have more impact to the environment. Animals that may not have ventured that far to come in contact with the concentrated mess, may now come in contact based on it now reaching their habitat. So now instead of having some areas trashed and some prestine you want is all spread out so that everything looks somewhat trashed? Sure you were joking on this. This is the type of logic a greenie would spue here (not accusing, just stating a fact) as if more area was covered in trash, more area would be easy to justify closing.

Again, I tried to create a summary, to which most are capable of reading and understanding, but if you really want a long laundry list to nail it down to ensure you understand I will do it.

John_P
05-25-2007, 06:20 PM
John your logic does not fly in real world. Since you can't read between the lines let me see if I can break it down for you.

You think? Lets take a closer look at your attempt to respond to my comments...



Example: You have an area of 1000 acres. At this time there is only 20% closed [200 acres], irresponsible users roam freely, they also roam on the open areas, but with people watching they tend to stay more on trails in the 80% open. This is the peer pressure you don't think works.

First, I assumed peer pressure is effective (i.e. it works). Go back and read what i wrote.



Now we go and close 50% total [500 acres]...While you can argue that that means the irresponsible users are now spread out, you are correct, but let us think about this. If the irresponsilbe user in any case is tearing up 25% of the closed area (this is a very conservative number), then on the 20% closure they were tearing up 5% of the area. Now at the 50% closure they are tearing up 12.5%, an increase of 7.5%. See how it keeps increasing?

I agree...25% of 500 [125] is more than 25% of 200 [50].

However, you are making a critical assumption...

...That the degree of 'tear up' is equal in both cases

...That the concentration of people on the 12.5% is equal to the 7.5%.

I would argue that because the area is smaller the concentration of irresponsible users is greater. Lets throw some numbers around...

Assume we have 100 irresponsible users.

On the 125 acres (larger closure) that equals about 1 person per 1.25 acres. However, on the 50 acres (smaller closure) that is 2 people per acre...almost twice as many people.

Assuming irresponsible users damage equally, I would argue that the smaller closure will receive MORE damage PER ACRE than the larger closure.

How do you like that? :cool:



Next your comment or should I say opinion, that if more is closed and we see them tearing up closed areas they would be more likely to never be able to apply the peer pressure, as it would require entering the closed area to get close enough. Peer pressure works best at closer range where you could get a plate number, sticker number something to id the person.

I disagree. I think that if people are more concentrated you are more likely to see people entering closed areas to begin with...

Plus, if they happen to stay in an open area there is a greater chance of talking with people and LEARNING something from experienced, responsible users.



As for your comment based on number 1, it is more likely that as more lands are closed and more people are tired of losing that more will become irresponsible and the number of irresponsible people crossing into closed areas will increase.

Huh? So you are saying more closures creates more irresponsible users? On what basis? Let me ask you Chris, you are always talking about how they are closing more areas...Have you now become irresponsible over the years?



As for your comment on number 3 are you kidding me? If we close the larger area as you suggest and polute more of the land, yes it may not be concentrated in one area, but now you have more impact to the environment. Animals that may not have ventured that far to come in contact with the concentrated mess, may now come in contact based on it now reaching their habitat. So now instead of having some areas trashed and some prestine you want is all spread out so that everything looks somewhat trashed? Sure you were joking on this. This is the type of logic a greenie would spue here (not accusing, just stating a fact) as if more area was covered in trash, more area would be easy to justify closing.

YET, this is the same logic OHV espouses constantly...

"We need more area because it will reduce or diffuse (i.e. spread out) the impact of OHV use."

Why is that logic good for OHV and not for Greenies?



Again, I tried to create a summary, to which most are capable of reading and understanding, but if you really want a long laundry list to nail it down to ensure you understand I will do it.

I'm just tired of sloppy thinking and your argument is a great example.

My1stJeep
05-26-2007, 12:58 AM
I'm just tired of sloppy thinking and your argument is a great example.

Tired of sloppy thinking, John you hardly attend any land use meetings, you have no where near the back ground that I do in this area, nor the knowledge (and compared to Sandee, Jim and others that I am still learning from including those in the BLM, Forest Service, STL, NOVCC, the wilderness coalition, the sierra club, Game & Fish, and did I mention I also worked with an independant biologist to prepare factual findings, yes I have to work with people from all these groups at the land use meetings, I still feel I am no where near an expert, how many of these are you working with to gain your knowledge?). Sloppy thinking is something you don't like, then simply stop posting and it will go away.

I will be happy to go into detail if you would like, your stats are just that yours. Again if you were there to hear this stuff and see the impacts and see the numbers you would know, then again it would mean less time for you to wheel and more time learning the issues we face. I am talking about real world, not made up numbers (I tossed out some easy numbers to make a point, yet again to help paint a picture of something we know factually is happening) or logic that you think will get you ahead in your argument, which simply does not hold water.

Ok, if you stay in the open area you might be able to learn something from a more experienced user... uhh clue, irresponsible users think they know it all and don't believe they are doing anything to hurt the land or anything in the environment, it is part of what makes them irresponsible. Second as explained below, they are avoiding the crowds as they know what they are doing is wrong and don't want to get caught or talk to someone that is going to try and talk them out of it. I can't even believe you posted that, and you accuse me of sloppy thinking? :rolleyes:

As I stated earlier, it has been show that as more lands close that many responsible wheelers, who are tired of closures of their favorite areas, and know that law enforcement does no good to stop them have switched sides. Now people don't take to leaving trash, but they do cross over. I am not advocating this in anyway, but it has been proven, therefore your numbers of saying that the same nubmer of people spread out does not stand up. Have I become one, no. Do I know people I have met at meetings, do I know message boards where these discussions take place about people upset and they go there anyway, yes. Have I been to the borders of the areas and seen the tracks, have I tried talking to those encroaching and been met with the I am fed up with closures, yep. Has it come up in land use meetings, yep. So John what do you have to back it up except your own sloppy thinking? Just because John thinks it does not make it so, just because Chris thinks it does not make it so, but being there and seeing it first hand, being in the discussions and trying to persuade them it is hurting out cause and hearing their side etc... guess that kinda gives me a reason to know that it does occur.

Simple math and a diagram, which I would be happy to provide if you deem necessary can clear this up. When we are talking about hundreds of thousands of acres do you have any idea how many miles of land borders the closed vs not? Do you really think that the people that are knowingly heading off in to closed areas are going to do it anywhere near a major road or drop off point where there would be alot of people? Logic alone says that is not true. So now we have more people in less area, higher concentration so we are going to see them right? So now we have established that I think we can both agree irresponsible users are going to look for a place to enter that is least likely to be spotted, correct? Here is something you may not know, many of the closures start in the middle of the land mass, what happens when the circle gets bigger? The number of miles that the edge of the circle represents gets larger, thus more miles to try and see. So yes your thought of less land is correct, but it is how it is placed, if it were starting from one side and working across that would hold true, but it does not happen that way (see expenation below about riparian areas).

Often they go after the middle areas for a simple reasons, it is easier to expand, it divides the area and they can use the threat of illegal crossings to get more land closed. In addition most of the pristine areas are farther away from major highways and roads, in the middle of the large lands mass, this is more often where riparian areas are likely to be found. Thus the closures in the middle, then the ease to continue expanding, creating less land to use for OHV, but more miles that irresponsible users can find ways to enter without the threat of being seen.

As for why it works for OHV and not greenies, one is that we do know that there will be an increase in the number of irresponsible users, thus the closed area will have more impact. For those that stay responsible the trails will be over used, thus causing a larger impact. I wish it were as simple as logic, but it is not. Normal statistical thinking, at least from just using numbers drafted in ones head would support this, but the real numbers tell a different story. Why would a greenie tear down part of a cabin to make a no enter sign or paint a cabin or not show up for a clean up to help the environment or request that beaver dams be torn down because beavers never used to be there and are impeding the flow of the stream? Some of it does not make sense and requires thinking outside the box. Thinking outside the box can often show the real facts that end up with the real results.

So we now know:
The larger the closed area based on the closure starting in the middle creates a larger circle so more miles to try and see people illegally entering, yet less land to use.
More travel by all users on the open trails will lead to more impacts on those remaing trails.
The more lands closed will add some responsible users to the irresponsible list. Thus adding to the damage in the closed area.
Irresponsible users are going to avoid places where interaction of responsible users will occur and due to the above a larger circle means a larger area they have to find places to enter closed areas without detection.

John, before you go off and accuse me of sloppy thinking you might want to get your facts straight and maybe even be on the field instead of sitting on the bench.

John_P
05-26-2007, 01:40 PM
I will be happy to go into detail if you would like, your stats are just that yours.

You began with hypotheticals...I just played YOUR game.



Ok, if you stay in the open area you might be able to learn something from a more experienced user... uhh clue, irresponsible users think they know it all and don't believe they are doing anything to hurt the land or anything in the environment, it is part of what makes them irresponsible. Second as explained below, they are avoiding the crowds as they know what they are doing is wrong and don't want to get caught or talk to someone that is going to try and talk them out of it. I can't even believe you posted that, and you accuse me of sloppy thinking? :rolleyes:

Chris...YOU said peer pressure WORKS.. NOT ME. I assumed so...Now your flip flopping? Figures. :rolleyes:



As I stated earlier, it has been show that as more lands close that many responsible wheelers, who are tired of closures of their favorite areas, and know that law enforcement does no good to stop them have switched sides. Now people don't take to leaving trash, but they do cross over. I am not advocating this in anyway, but it has been proven, therefore your numbers of saying that the same nubmer of people spread out does not stand up. Have I become one, no. Do I know people I have met at meetings, do I know message boards where these discussions take place about people upset and they go there anyway, yes. Have I been to the borders of the areas and seen the tracks, have I tried talking to those encroaching and been met with the I am fed up with closures, yep. Has it come up in land use meetings, yep. So John what do you have to back it up except your own sloppy thinking? Just because John thinks it does not make it so, just because Chris thinks it does not make it so, but being there and seeing it first hand, being in the discussions and trying to persuade them it is hurting out cause and hearing their side etc... guess that kinda gives me a reason to know that it does occur.

Sounds like your 'data' is anecdotal Chris...show me some 'real' numbers and maybe I will buy your assertion.



Simple math and a diagram, which I would be happy to provide if you deem necessary can clear this up. When we are talking about hundreds of thousands of acres do you have any idea how many miles of land borders the closed vs not? Do you really think that the people that are knowingly heading off in to closed areas are going to do it anywhere near a major road or drop off point where there would be alot of people? Logic alone says that is not true. So now we have more people in less area, higher concentration so we are going to see them right? So now we have established that I think we can both agree irresponsible users are going to look for a place to enter that is least likely to be spotted, correct? Here is something you may not know, many of the closures start in the middle of the land mass, what happens when the circle gets bigger? The number of miles that the edge of the circle represents gets larger, thus more miles to try and see. So yes your thought of less land is correct, but it is how it is placed, if it were starting from one side and working across that would hold true, but it does not happen that way (see expenation below about riparian areas).

Numbers Chris...numbers. Until I see some hard evidence this is nothing but talk.



Often they go after the middle areas for a simple reasons, it is easier to expand, it divides the area and they can use the threat of illegal crossings to get more land closed. In addition most of the pristine areas are farther away from major highways and roads, in the middle of the large lands mass, this is more often where riparian areas are likely to be found. Thus the closures in the middle, then the ease to continue expanding, creating less land to use for OHV, but more miles that irresponsible users can find ways to enter without the threat of being seen.

As for why it works for OHV and not greenies, one is that we do know that there will be an increase in the number of irresponsible users, thus the closed area will have more impact. For those that stay responsible the trails will be over used, thus causing a larger impact. I wish it were as simple as logic, but it is not. Normal statistical thinking, at least from just using numbers drafted in ones head would support this, but the real numbers tell a different story. Why would a greenie tear down part of a cabin to make a no enter sign or paint a cabin or not show up for a clean up to help the environment or request that beaver dams be torn down because beavers never used to be there and are impeding the flow of the stream? Some of it does not make sense and requires thinking outside the box. Thinking outside the box can often show the real facts that end up with the real results.

So we now know:
The larger the closed area based on the closure starting in the middle creates a larger circle so more miles to try and see people illegally entering, yet less land to use.
More travel by all users on the open trails will lead to more impacts on those remaing trails.
The more lands closed will add some responsible users to the irresponsible list. Thus adding to the damage in the closed area.
Irresponsible users are going to avoid places where interaction of responsible users will occur and due to the above a larger circle means a larger area they have to find places to enter closed areas without detection.

John, before you go off and accuse me of sloppy thinking you might want to get your facts straight and maybe even be on the field instead of sitting on the bench.

You have not substantiated any of those facts. Until you do, they are just mere assertions.

My1stJeep
05-26-2007, 05:55 PM
John,

Once again you have managed to bring nothing of substance to a thread that was giving information to users. Instead you bring your condescending attitude, opinions that have no merit. See your face of the mob comment towards rufftytuffy with your sarcastic smile. When are you going to bring substance to a thread? These antics maybe ok in the off topic, but please do us a favor and keep your attitude to that forum or at least go out and gain some knowledge in this area before you speak to it.

Yes I gave easy mathimatical equations so that it would be easy to equate and see what is happening, yet instead you say go by data, yet you have supplied no data to refute what I know. How do I know, see previous post about all the people I am working with to gain the knowledge, again I ask where do you come up with your opinion that you have not data to back up? You come up with what you think is logical in your mind and to you that is fact, however without anykind of background it is nothing more than mythical.

Hard numbers, let me see just how many people do you think are really going to step up and put in writing? Have some, yes, but few will say it to the world in writing as it may be used against them, is there anything you can say to refute it? NO, is there anyway I am going to throw those who have said it under the bus by putting their names here, NO. They trusted me with the information and it will stay that way. There is nothing anecdotal about it, if you were at these meetings, if you were actually in the environment and were on forums/meetings where these conversations happen, then maybe you would know, again how can you say it is not true when you are never around any of these activities to know? Where do you get your facts? I do and will say this, my guess is that there are alot more people then have every fessed up to that would do this, but that is opinion.

THere was nothing flip flop about the peer pressure comment, again your reading and comprehension skills are severly lacking. Both posts support each other. For peer pressure to work you have to be close enough to be a deterant. If you are miles away and they can't see you will peer pressure work, no. If you are only 25 yards away and you might be able to get a plate of OHV sticker number or a license plate number off the vehicle might they stay away from entering a closed area, yes. If you come up behind a different group running a trail, would the other group continue to toss their trash on the trail or start keeping it their rigs? Since I have seen first hand that other groups on the trail often act better once they know you are there, yes I can say it works, and since I have seen groups watch until they see you are too far away to do anything (even though they were ready to go 20 minutes ago, but waited for you to leave) then enter into a closed area, and yes I went got the plate number of the truck that dropped the quads off and turned it into the sheriff's office, yes I know that it works. Will it stop everyone, of course not, but it can stop some. What I questioned in the second post was your comment that some of those might stick around to learn something, this was your idea not mine. I never said in either case they would stick around and learn something, I said it can work to alter their behavior while you are around, and I have pointed out to a copule of incidents where this was true, I know it is not a hard number, but John you have to live in a real world and not a glass bubble, not everything in life is as cut and dry as you would like it to be.

John are you really serious that you need me to draw you a map on how if a circle gets bigger the amount the borders miles increases and spreads out the points of entry into the closed area, thus putting the irresponsible OHV users farther away from users that are responsible, thus less likely to get caught, what kind of hard numbers are you asking for? Do you want the previous area closed and then the numbers as to what it expanded to? There are no numbers of where riparian areas are located, that would be GPS points, are those the numbers you are looking for? See this is a perfect example, you always want hard numbers, but have no clue what it is you are asking for.

As for your opinion that these are assertions, it is just that your opinion. You are asking for hard numbers, but what numbers are going to help you see the light, telling you the actual number of people that have said they would cross over? Giving you the GPS points of the riparian areas to prove they are in the middle and that is where the closure starts and then the circle begins to grow, then giving you the numbers of miles where the closed land and the open land meet to prove that as the circle grew so did the mileage?

Again I ask, where does your opinion come from? I know you are not at the meetings, so what is your source of information that makes you know everything? I am however working with the BLM, FS, STL, Game and Fish, OHV community, a biologist, and even the environmental groups. I am getting real world knowledge and learning more every day. So a far I have learned that you will stop at nothing to derail threads and still are condescending to everyone with your tone in your posts, even when you have not merit and now idea what you are talking about.

John_P
05-27-2007, 12:43 PM
So let me get this straight...You have no numbers to support your side?

I noticed that you did not respond to my numbers.

You want to believe your reasoning 'makes sense' yet you also say that logic doesn't work here...I am sorry...that sounds a bit fishy to me.

Overall, I don't understand why...

If there will be more irresponsible users...
and they will destroy closed areas regardless...
A larger closed area would not reduce the damage to any given area by diffusing said impact of irresponsible users.

This is the logic that I constantly hear from OHV concerning open areas...yet you cannot even tell me why it does not work...instead you start introducing stuff that is not relevant, like tearing down cabins and beaver damns???

Can you refute the above statements or not? Simple really...

Unfortunately, the whole land use problem appears to be treated as a zero-sum game. Is there a win-win for both sides? The $64k questions I suppose...

Bottom line...You don't want people like me involved Chris, because I have noticed that no one likes to be challenged or plans to be scrutinized...it is a follow the leader/group think mentality that I just don't work well with...

My1stJeep
05-28-2007, 09:27 PM
So let me get this straight...You have no numbers to support your side?

I noticed that you did not respond to my numbers.


I will try to work something out, again it is not just one side, this is a point of view agreed upon by the land management organizations, the environmental organizations and the OHV community, from actually having discussions with people representing each. One problem is determining actual number of irresponsible users, and what each different group has is fairly close, but because there is no one counting each person entering areas a perfect number cannot be established. With so many using the same tire tread patter do you count each time you see a new line, or the appearance of a new line as one user, or did one user make 20 of them? See why it is hard to get an accurate count? In addition I can only confirm that I do know of quite a few, from many different OHV use types that have said they would cross over, yet how do you quantify that, should I take the number that have told me, divide that into the number of users I know and tell you the percentage of all users that will based on that? That would be a very small set of numbers to work off of, but I would be happy to do that for you.

However if you had been reading you would have noticed I did respond to your numbers, I asked specifically which one you wanted? What do you want it to back up(see previous post toward the end where I asked what numbers you were looking for), the number of irresponsible users? The land mass as it grows creating more miles of borders between closed or not? Please tell me what it would take for you to stop asking such a wide open question. I am trying to give you what you want, by asking what numbers, but you again avoid it in an attempt to continue staying off tangent.



You want to believe your reasoning 'makes sense' yet you also say that logic doesn't work here...I am sorry...that sounds a bit fishy to me.

Overall, I don't understand why...

If there will be more irresponsible users...
and they will destroy closed areas regardless...
A larger closed area would not reduce the damage to any given area by diffusing said impact of irresponsible users.


I think you don't understand as we have not just hit the key words and you are stuck on a numbers thing and won't live not only in reality, but answer my question as to what numbers you want, there are many different issues and I could sit here and spout off numbers all day and they still won't be the ones that get the message across to you.

Yes the reason it makes sense, does someone doing something they know to be illegal want to get caught? Will they are will they not try to find a way to not get caught? In this case if you have say a small circle of area closed, let us say a 1 mile border between the closed area and open, would the person likely try to find a location along that 1 mile border secluded enough that they would not be seen be a responsible user? Of course. However if the border area is only 1 mile, it will be a bit more difficult to find an area that is out of sight from everyone, and in the case of the smaller border the presence of others (peer pressure) may deter some irresponsible users from entering the close area all together. Now increase that circle of closed area to a 20 mile border, it becomes much easier to find points of entry that are not within eye sight of anyone, thus also not providing any peer pressure by not being in sight to make the irresponsible users think twice. Does this make sense to you?

When I said the lgic did notmake sense I was referring to your reference to irresponsible users talking and taking lessons from responsible users. This was not the reference that I have presented when discussing peer pressure, I hope the above is more clearly defined. I will know when you respond.



This is the logic that I constantly hear from OHV concerning open areas...yet you cannot even tell me why it does not work...instead you start introducing stuff that is not relevant, like tearing down cabins and beaver damns???

Can you refute the above statements or not? Simple really...


Blah, Blah this is the same argument you use over and over and over and has never been backed up. The statements have been refuted and I have input from all the major land management orgs, the enviros and OHV, what other authorities out there do you want me to have information from? What information and orgs do you have information to refute what I have stated? Yes, very simple really... still waiting to hear back on this...

As for the beaver dams, the cabins etc... you seem to be on here to just question us, and present your case as if though you only believe what you seen as numbers and what you see from the other side. Is this true, do you only believe the numbers you are given from enviros groups? This is a yes or no?

If yes, those are some cases I have shown you where these people have lied or misslead or done a poor job in gathering those numbers. So if you only believe in the numbers, and the organizations you are listening to are the ones in falsifying the numbers, including lieing in court, does that call into question the numbers or are you still going to believe them?

If no, then how are the numbers I am going to give you help you figure it out? I have shown they have lied to put up numbers, even gone to court with them, and in some cases were caught, sometimes only after appeal. So if I give you numbers are you going to believe them too, my guess is not, cause you will spout off numbers from what ever sight you feel is right to refute mine, so is numbers really going to get us anywhere, not sure, you tell me. Based on your comments you are telling me you don't trust us, and if that is the case why are you here? So you won't really trust my numbers, and you have been shown the enviro side will make up and present false numbers and evidence when needed, yet you believe them?



Unfortunately, the whole land use problem appears to be treated as a zero-sum game. Is there a win-win for both sides? The $64k questions I suppose...

There is a win win, problem is that for many years the enviros close game has been winning hands down, and still is the favorite in the race, but we are making progress. I do feel some strides have been made, but we have along way to go. I wish it were only a $64K question.



Bottom line...You don't want people like me involved Chris, because I have noticed that no one likes to be challenged or plans to be scrutinized...it is a follow the leader/group think mentality that I just don't work well with...


Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet another attempt to derail this thread.

We have asked you to be involved, however we have been very specific, andyou have not only been very vague (see numbers question I have asked over to define what you are looking for and your repeated ignoring of it and repeating your where are the numbers). We asked what it is exactly you want to see, your response is numbers, but when asked numbers for what you side step and never come up with answers. When asked what data you feel would be good to preserve a trail for OHV use, it takes mutiple times asking, arguments, etc... an whole bunch of Bologna to get you to finally say a few words and then you dissappear and delete whole bunch of posts.

I have had many challenge my comments on here, it helps me see all sides and make an informed decision, same as when I talk and worth with the land management groups and the enviros.

In addition it has nothing to do with you asking, it is the way you ask, with demeaning statements and the sarcasm smilies, and a tone with the words and little emoticons that makes people feel like you are talking down to them. If the other threads are still around, read them, I am not the first or even just the 5 or 6 person to say this out loud to you, yet you continue. I saw your comment to RT, and it got under my skin, the same way the rest of this thread is getting, by your repeated attempts to derail this thread. I await your responses to the questions in the past few posts about what numbers you are looking for, and from this post on how they are going to make or break a case, based on the court records to back up falsified numbers by the enviros in some cases. How is that you believe them when court records show the lies, yet you don't believe us when we have yet to be caught as they have?

Maybe if you actually asked questions with a serious, but not negative (see above comments about talking down to people) then they would get answered instead of the direction it always seems to go when you get involved. By the way, if no one wanted you involved why were you repeatedly asked to come to the land use meetings, yet you chose not too? We did not stop asking you to show up, it was when your approach was scrutinized that you made such a decision to stop going, and you gave up. So why not thank those that are still working so hard to do something and not give up, instead you do your best to throw them under the bus?

Tell me what it is you get from this? You don't use this at meetings, or do you? It is not any the OHV community attend. So whether of not we change your opinion does us no good as you don't attend any meeting to help the cause. Just what is it that you want this information for and why do you even care?

Antman
05-28-2007, 09:40 PM
Chris, don't get so frustrated with JohnP. He IS just a kid after all. He banks on
education, not experience.:)

Sandee McCullen
05-29-2007, 11:35 PM
Chris, don't get so frustrated with JohnP. He IS just a kid after all. He banks on
education, not experience.:)

Sounds more like a true "radical enviromentalist" to me. He follows the enviros path of using big words in a format that make no, or very little sense with no, or very little DATA or fact.

We are constantly told "OHV fragments habitat"........ when asked "how" we're told stories such as "animals won't cross over a trail". hmmmmmmmmm how exactly does a deer know if it's a bike trail (12-15 inches wide) vs a wildlife trail ALL animals tend to create to reach a watering hole or sunny hillside or a favorite meadow etc. If animals "don't cross roads or trails, thusly OHV is causing fragmentation, how is it we find road kill on highways? How is it the deer or big horn sheep, or fox watch us from the side of the road as we drive by and then cross over after we pass? I just returned from a competition in a small town in Washington state............ private property where there were 4 does and 3 fawns wandering around the competition course both days. There were 70+ competition rigs, tow rigs, vendors, BIG trailers and a thousand spectators. Will be interesting to see how much a picture works vs an enviros personal opinion. John seems to want NUMBERS........ well how about the numbers I put together regarding the FJ area. If ALL trails (986 miles of them) were 40 ft wide the "footprint" left is 1/2 of 1% of the acreage in the MGCP area is used for OHV. But..................... 1/3 + of all public lands in Arizona is dedicated to Wilderness. Yes, I have the actual numbers but my point is DATA and FACTS are what the enviros don't like and DON'T USE. I have copy of one of the protests sent to D.C. requesting ALL OHV be eliminated from the Ironwood National Forest. So many of the graphs and cited data is nothing but BS. ie: 4 graphs all had the same bottom line numbers. When questioned in detail about how they came up with the numbers they finally admitted they set the bottom line numbers and made the others fit into that specific graph.

Another cite was really funny! They stated OHV "NOISE" was causing kangaroo rats to become extinct because they put "some" rats in a "quiet room" and some in a "noisy room". They then determined the rats in the noisy room were losing their hearing thusly the snakes were able to sneak up on them and eat them thusly they would soon be extinct!
We then asked "how did they determine" their hearing....... did they raise their pinky when they heard the bell?
When was the last time snakes made noise?
What was the size of the rooms?
What was the dbA used for the noisy room?
How long did they exist in the rooms?
Long story................. bottom line is this was cited to be a test done in 1968 and they knew NOTHING of the specifics. hmmmmmmmmmmmm kangaroo rats are still around and seem to be breeding like rabbits. They certainly took care of the electrical in our motorhome in short order!

Hundreds and hundreds of cites, issues and so called data are used by the enviros. We ask questions and we receive no answers. My "NUMBERS" are brushed off with statements like "It makes no difference that you declare only a certain amount of acreage is used..... OHV shouldn't be allowed to do any distruction". They post pictures of US traversing up a hill making it look like we're destroying the country and resources but if their picture would show the surrounding area they would find a ROAD? They also have numerous pictures on their sites with "Look at this damage"......... the pictures are of 3 OHV DEDICATED areas in Arizona.

Game & Fish tell us a hunter on an ATV does no damage and can go cross country but if OHV goes cross country it causes a "user made trail that is illegal".

We have documented studies that show non-motorized (hikers, mountain bikers or dogs with their masters) cause extremely more stress to wildlife than does a motorized vehicle. Studies have been done and DOCUMENTED in Oregon............. where is the enviros DATA?

John can continue picking everyones words or statements apart all he wants............. the bottom line is if we (OHV) do not unite to keep PUBLIC LANDS FOR PUBLIC USES we will lose. The enviros are pushing to close ALL roads and highways between major cities with wanting major cities to be within environmentally controlled bubble environments and leaving small communities to fend for themselves through gardening and agriculture. This goes for ALL third world countries. NO ADVANCEMENT.

Do we need to help via "Peer Patrols"? Absolutely................. there are less than 20,000 OHV enthusiasts within organized clubs that keep up with what's happening or what needs to be done or where they can or cannot go................. there are an estimated 500,000 OHV enthusiasts in Arizona. Why John seems to believe that we cannot help by "educating" many of these recreationists is beyond me. Most are very appreciative of knowing where to get maps of areas or trails they can use. They are joining in the land management meetings rapidly. Many ATV riders are moving forward with safety training to the limit the trainers can't keep up. We're certainly not going to be able to reach everyone but for everyone we reach, hopefully that person will reach another. That's what uniting is about.

Just read the papers or follow the enviros WEB sites. Actually I'd personally rather see John check out the enviros rag stuff and leave OHV alone. Battling every word and issue is simply splitting us. Enviros love this ......... we're our own worst enemy. Leave us alone and we'll kill our own sport.

John_P
05-31-2007, 09:24 AM
Sounds more like a true "radical enviromentalist" to me. He follows the enviros path of using big words in a format that make no, or very little sense with no, or very little DATA or fact.

Big words? Radical enviro? Geez Sandee, pretty low. All I did was poke a few holes in Chris's assumptions and poor argumentation.

All I have stated is that the same argument OHV uses can also be used for closing areas.

But rather than attack that point, you want to call me names? You want to rest your attack on my use of 'big words'....Laughable.



John seems to want NUMBERS........ well how about the numbers I put together regarding the FJ area. If ALL trails (986 miles of them) were 40 ft wide the "footprint" left is 1/2 of 1% of the acreage in the MGCP area is used for OHV. But..................... 1/3 + of all public lands in Arizona is dedicated to Wilderness.

Wow...those seem like impressive numbers.

Of course, the total area of the MGCP includes areas that are not usable areas, right? How much of that area includes the side of hills, unpassable creaks, the tops of peaks, etc...

How does the percent of OHV area compare to the amount of MGCP acreage that could be arguably 'used' for recreation?

EDIT: Commonsense says that it would still be a small percentage in absolute terms, but relatively larger.

Before you do so, you better define what constitutes a usable area.

Time to brush up on your Geographical Information System usage.

Provide some good evidence and I might change my mind.



Just read the papers or follow the enviros WEB sites. Actually I'd personally rather see John check out the enviros rag stuff and leave OHV alone. Battling every word and issue is simply splitting us. Enviros love this ......... we're our own worst enemy. Leave us alone and we'll kill our own sport.

Sandee, I belong to a Jeep club. I could probably rip their numbers too...Actually, I know I could, LOL.

If anyone actually payed attention, they might just realize that my scrutiny of OHV arguments can serve to strengthen them...if anyone cared to do that in the first place.

At my job and at school, I am paid to scrutinize and be critical. I receive an enormous amount of criticism as well and have to take it in stride...I have to improve my arguments.

If you took the same approach, you just might find more success.

Chris:

Your border theory is interesting, but it is contradictory to what you have said before concerning the nature of irresponsible users. You said before that irresponsible users will destroy closed area regardless. Thus, no matter how small the closed area perimeter is, under this assumption they would still cross and impact closed areas. The truth of your statement is brought to bear by the fact that no matter how many fences, signs, etc, you put up, they get destroyed and areas get violated.

Also, it is reasonable to assume that that if you make closed areas smaller, thus a smaller perimeter or border, you are opening up more land to impact by ALL who use it. So in theory, both the nature of irresponsible users and the reduction of closed area will create more damage per total area (i.e. closed+open).

Remember Chris, OHV and the Enviros are treating the problem as a zero-sum game. You need to figure out how to end that, and present a win-win solution, if that is even possible with a finite resource, such as land.

John_P
05-31-2007, 09:36 AM
Do you know how to turn a zero-sum game into a non-sero-sum game?

Cooperation.

As of now, competition is the nature of relationship between groups who would limit recreation and those who would increase it.

Therefore, the best solution will be one that is centered on cooperation.

Keep that in mind.

My1stJeep
05-31-2007, 10:32 AM
Chris:

Your border theory is interesting, but it is contradictory to what you have said before concerning the nature of irresponsible users. You said before that irresponsible users will destroy closed area regardless. Thus, no matter how small the closed area perimeter is, under this assumption they would still cross and impact closed areas. The truth of your statement is brought to bear by the fact that no matter how many fences, signs, etc, you put up, they get destroyed and areas get violated.

Also, it is reasonable to assume that that if you make closed areas smaller, thus a smaller perimeter or border, you are opening up more land to impact by ALL who use it. So in theory, both the nature of irresponsible users and the reduction of closed area will create more damage per total area (i.e. closed+open).

Remember Chris, OHV and the Enviros are treating the problem as a zero-sum game. You need to figure out how to end that, and present a win-win solution, if that is even possible with a finite resource, such as land.


John,

Again it goes back to your lack of attending or even being in the know, you are strictly going off your own opinion with no facts or experience to back it up.

You have totally missed the point of the border area and what it has to do with, funny how everyone else here and I have explained it to elsewhere can see the correlation and you can't. WHat I have stated has contradicted NOTHING I have said in the past. You seem to call into play peer pressure to the boundary when you want and drop it when you want, the two parts are tied together when I have talking. Lets try to break it down a little farther so that you can understand.

It is simple, when irresponsible users are under the eye of others, there is a deterant to entering a closed area for the irresponsible user does not want to get caught, just like a guy robbing a bank does not want to get caught, does this make sense? (preface: I am not saying all irresponsible users will stop and not enter, just some) Yes or no will do.

Ok, now if you have a smaller border (number of miles bordering the closed and open) it give less area for the irresponsible user to enter the closed area without being seen. Does this make sense? Yes of now will do.

So logically, if we know that some irresponsible users will not enter for fear of being caught and turned in based on the other OHV in the area, and we know that a smaller border gives them less access it is reasonable to assume that increasing the miles of border between the closed and open will increase the distance between OHV users, thus allowing the irresponsible users to find more secluded areas to enter the closed area without the chance of being seen, thus eliminating the peer pressure from being seen. Makes sense now?

Yes I have stated the irresponsible users will go in, the only time they may not enter is when they know they are being watched, will that stop them tomorrow when they go out and no one is watching? No.

Actually your theory of less closed and more open causing more damage is incorrect. Again this is where peer pressure still works to a point. If the area is open and other OHV people are around, the OHV users know you are to stay on the trail you are less likely to get people wandering off the existing trails. However in a closed area everyone that is knowingly in the closed area knows this and will cut cross country and tear it up. The cross country travel is far more detrimental to the environment, and it does happen more in the closed areas. I am not saying it does not happen in open areas, but in closed areas it is the norm to go where ever you please.

As for you zero sum game, this is just from your lack of being at the meetings. In sitting in the FJ meetings, we took in information from all the land management, Game and Fish, enviros, ranchers, etc... and then talked with people that use the area often. We looked at what made sense to sustain a trail network and the environment. We presented win-win solutions for everyone, and guess what it was only the OHV community working toward that. For awhile there it seemed that we were making progress, the WC actually put a proposal on the table, continued to negotiate until they saw that it appeared they were not going to get any more agreement on trails to be closed, called for a 5 minute recess and came back to the table and said all offers were rescinded. Again if you had been there you would have known, but to sit here an make accusations saying that the OHV community is not coming to the table with win-win solutions is just that, unfounded, and offensive to those who put in many hours to present solutions that helped everyone.

Just to give you an idea so you have the numbers:
There were 8 trails/areas brought up as great concern. And before you go nuts, just want to clarify that the OHV community presented this as a starting point in hopes that we could all work with this to get started and make progress. It was not presented or meant that they had to agree to all or nothing, it was simply to get the ball rolling as non of the other orgs were even willing to come up with something to start with.
1) A long river bottom that had quite a bit of riparian value. The OHV community was willing to allow this tobe closed and not traverse it from end to end if we could just have the ability to cross it for existing trail connectivity. The organization that was pushing for its closure originally agreed to it, until it got down to the final minutes, then wanted to see if they could eliminate those as well. OHV were using information presented by NOVCC to help make our decision.
2) Two areas (these were 2 of the 8 issues) where OHV come close to petroglyphs. One we agreed to take the bypass away from the petroglyphs in exchange for making the bypass harder to give the same challenge as the current entrance. The other we asked for an area that is already open to be made more into a OHV play area for giving up the area close to the petroglyphs. Now keep in mind, the petroglyphs the native Americans did not even know about until through the OHV community they found out. Being that we are not driving over them, there is a chance a good court battle would ensue and be might still win the right to keep the trail open, but in an effort to work with everyone we presented the option to close it and requested the play area.
3) A popular trail that was closed not following correct land management procedure was coming up for re-claiming, so we could have and when this started were discussing that we wanted it re-opened. However it was determined and agreed even by the OHV community that it is probably the most pristine riparian area out there, thus we backed off and had a request on the next trail.
4) Requested a gate be installed to minimize the traffic, it would have a free permit. Users would have to give information in order to obtain it, thus reducing the impacts on the trail. This we know to be true based on a results from another trail, Bull Dog Canyon that has been gated and seen great success in reducing the impacts, the same impacts we want to see on this trail in FJ. So we are not assuming this works, we know it works.

So counting this, we have 5 trails or areas (see number 2, it was two issues) that the OHV community came to the table with the solutions on. At first it was recieved fairly well, however it went down hill fast. It was very appearant that the only group at the table willing to talk and work toward win-win solutions was the OHV. None of the other groups were now saying anything but close, close, close. Actually one was asking for permits to all trails and to limit the numbers of vehicles on every trail to an average of about 10-12 vehicles on the trails per year, something not really realistic and if that could not be done, then they wanted them closed.

Hopefully this will give you a better picture, although I probably just wasted all the key strokes telling you, I am sure others will benefit from seeing it and know we are working hard, we do have our act together and are doing our best to be part of the solution.

So just who gave you the right to get on a high horse and make a blanket statement like that? Who gave you the authority to say that the OHV community is part of the problem and not the solution without knowing? Funny how you say you only make up your mind after seeing data, yet you were not there, you never asked what proposals were made, you did not ask specifics of what happened or what the OHV community was doing to work toward a solution, yet you made an assumption and try to pass it off as fact. Again I have to ask, what are you basing your opinions on? Is it numbers from enviro groups, which we already know have been proven false in court? Is it by the president of the CBD who parks his suburban very close to a tortoise habitat and says he does not have to buy a permit to enter the Imperial Sand Dunes, he is exempt? Just where is it you are getting your information?

My1stJeep
05-31-2007, 10:42 AM
Do you know how to turn a zero-sum game into a non-sero-sum game?

Cooperation.

As of now, competition is the nature of relationship between groups who would limit recreation and those who would increase it.

Therefore, the best solution will be one that is centered on cooperation.

Keep that in mind.

Uhhh, wow did it take your degree ti figure that out? Yes frustration is setting in at your lack of knowledge as to what the OHV community has brought to the table in these meetings, yet you assume you know and make accusations.

We have been asking for just that, we have been coming to the table with possible solutions and asked for input to see how we can use them as a starting point so we can all come out in a win-win fashion. We also understood and tried to help the situation by putting more Green/Orange lines on the map, less Blue ones. Green = Open trails we all agreed on, Orange = Closed trails we all agreed on and Blue meant no agreement. We all know that the more blue lines the BLM has to sift through the more possibilities one or multiple groups will come out on the short end of the stick, the enviro groups said they prefer that. They feel the more areas not agreed on, the more likely hood those trails will be closed, a chance they are willing to take. In fact they feel so strongly about that, they actually went back and said they now disagree on some trails they originally agreed should be green during the MGCP meetings.

Do you know how to stop wasting people's time? Don't make assumptions, get the facts first before posting.

John_P
05-31-2007, 11:06 AM
John,

You have totally missed the point of the border area and what it has to do with, funny how everyone else here and I have explained it to elsewhere can see the correlation and you can't. WHat I have stated has contradicted NOTHING I have said in the past. You seem to call into play peer pressure to the boundary when you want and drop it when you want, the two parts are tied together when I have talking. Lets try to break it down a little farther so that you can understand.

Have you ever thought that people agree because they carry the same sentiment regarding OHV in general as you? That is, they agree because overall, you are like minded individuals...not because your argument carries weight.



It is simple, when irresponsible users are under the eye of others, there is a deterant to entering a closed area for the irresponsible user does not want to get caught, just like a guy robbing a bank does not want to get caught, does this make sense? (preface: I am not saying all irresponsible users will stop and not enter, just some) Yes or no will do.

Wow...can you explain the hell hole that sycamore creek is than? There are tons of people there on any given weekend, yet that does not keep people from littering, trashing the place, etc...and this is in OPEN AREAS!

Also, how many are some? Obviously you believe it is enough to 'make a difference'....how many is that?



Ok, now if you have a smaller border (number of miles bordering the closed and open) it give less area for the irresponsible user to enter the closed area without being seen. Does this make sense? Yes of now will do.

No. Depends on the terrain and the percent of that border which present accessible routes.

It is possible that a portion of the Border is a deep canyon, or a river, or a steep mountain, in which accessibility via OHV is impossible. Do we still count that border? Of course not, we can only count the length of border that is accessible, and we cannot always be assured that a longer border translates into more accessible border. Dig?



So logically, if we know that some irresponsible users will not enter for fear of being caught and turned in based on the other OHV in the area, and we know that a smaller border gives them less access it is reasonable to assume that increasing the miles of border between the closed and open will increase the distance between OHV users, thus allowing the irresponsible users to find more secluded areas to enter the closed area without the chance of being seen, thus eliminating the peer pressure from being seen. Makes sense now?

No, because if you are neglecting the relation between border and area. If we reduce the amount of closed area in an effort to reduce the amount of border, have we also increased the amount of open area? I would assume this is implicit in your argument. So if there is more open area, than that necessary creates a situation where there are less people per unit of area...that is, less people to 'see' irresponsible users. So your idea breaks down...You would need to also decrease the amount of open area...



Yes I have stated the irresponsible users will go in, the only time they may not enter is when they know they are being watched, will that stop them tomorrow when they go out and no one is watching? No.

Actually your theory of less closed and more open causing more damage is incorrect. Again this is where peer pressure still works to a point. If the area is open and other OHV people are around, the OHV users know you are to stay on the trail you are less likely to get people wandering off the existing trails. However in a closed area everyone that is knowingly in the closed area knows this and will cut cross country and tear it up. The cross country travel is far more detrimental to the environment, and it does happen more in the closed areas. I am not saying it does not happen in open areas, but in closed areas it is the norm to go where ever you please.

Look...it you open previously closed area to all, and people will still violate closed areas, how are you not increasing the total amount of damage??? Is it not reasonable to assume that open areas are more impacted than closed? If so, then this is not correct.



As for you zero sum game, this is just from your lack of being at the meetings. In sitting in the FJ meetings, we took in information from all the land management, Game and Fish, enviros, ranchers, etc... and then talked with people that use the area often. We looked at what made sense to sustain a trail network and the environment. We presented win-win solutions for everyone, and guess what it was only the OHV community working toward that. For awhile there it seemed that we were making progress, the WC actually put a proposal on the table, continued to negotiate until they saw that it appeared they were not going to get any more agreement on trails to be closed, called for a 5 minute recess and came back to the table and said all offers were rescinded. Again if you had been there you would have known, but to sit here an make accusations saying that the OHV community is not coming to the table with win-win solutions is just that, unfounded, and offensive to those who put in many hours to present solutions that helped everyone.

Just to give you an idea so you have the numbers:
There were 8 trails/areas brought up as great concern.
1) A long river bottom that had quite a bit of riparian value. The OHV community was willing to allow this tobe closed and not traverse it from end to end if we could just have the ability to cross it for existing trail connectivity. The organization that was pushing for its closure originally agreed to it, until it got down to the final minutes, then wanted to see if they could eliminate those as well. OHV were using information presented by NOVCC to help make our decision.
2) Two areas (these were 2 of the 8 issues) where OHV come close to petroglyphs. One we agreed to take the bypass away from the petroglyphs in exchange for making the bypass harder to give the same challenge as the current entrance. The other we asked for an area that is already open to be made more into a OHV play area for giving up the area close to the petroglyphs. Now keep in mind, the petroglyphs the native Americans did not even know about until through the OHV community they found out. Being that we are not driving over them, there is a chance a good court battle would ensue and be might still win the right to keep the trail open, but in an effort to work with everyone we presented the option to close it and requested the play area.
3) A popular trail that was closed not following correct land management procedure was coming up for re-claiming, so we could have and when this started were discussing that we wanted it re-opened. However it was determined and agreed even by the OHV community that it is probably the most pristine riparian area out there, thus we backed off and had a request on the next trail.
4) Requested a gate be installed to minimize the traffic, it would have a free permit. Users would have to give information in order to obtain it, thus reducing the impacts on the trail. This we know to be true based on a results from another trail, Bull Dog Canyon that has been gated and seen great success in reducing the impacts, the same impacts we want to see on this trail in FJ. So we are not assuming this works, we know it works.

So counting this, we have 5 trails or areas (see number 2, it was two issues) that the OHV community came to the table with the solutions on. At first it was recieved fairly well, however it went down hill fast. It was very appearant that the only group at the table willing to talk and work toward win-win solutions was the OHV. None of the other groups were now saying anything but close, close, close. Actually one was asking for permits to all trails and to limit the numbers of vehicles on every trail to an average of about 10-12 vehicles on the trails per year, something not really realistic and if that could not be done, then they wanted them closed.

Hopefully this will give you a better picture, although I probably just wasted all the key strokes telling you, I am sure others will benefit from seeing it and know we are working hard, we do have our act together and are doing our best to be part of the solution.

Hey great...however, WHY were your win-win proposals rejected? I missed that...why were they not accepted??? WHY did it go down hill? What were the reasons?



So just who gave you the right to get on a high horse and make a blanket statement like that? Who gave you the authority to say that the OHV community is part of the problem and not the solution without knowing? Funny how you say you only make up your mind after seeing data, yet you were not there, you never asked what proposals were made, you did not ask specifics of what happened or what the OHV community was doing to work toward a solution, yet you made an assumption and try to pass it off as fact. Again I have to ask, what are you basing your opinions on? Is it numbers from enviro groups, which we already know have been proven false in court? Is it by the president of the CBD who parks his suburban very close to a tortoise habitat and says he does not have to buy a permit to enter the Imperial Sand Dunes, he is exempt? Just where is it you are getting your information?

You know what...I get ALL of my information from this website. Nothing more or less. That is why I laugh at people like Sandee who accuse me of being some enviro. I simply take YOUR statements and pull them apart. Nothing more, nothing less.

I tell you what...I had to take a job this summer as a data analyst. If you want, I will try and make the next meeting. After this week, I have considerable more time, and I am intrigued by public debate and policy.

I remember the first meeting I went to...Some folks stopped me outside and asked if I would be interested in helping out...they took my number and name but never called...thought that was interesting show of support.

John_P
05-31-2007, 11:12 AM
Uhhh, wow did it take your degree ti figure that out?

Uh no...point?



Yes frustration is setting in at your lack of knowledge as to what the OHV community has brought to the table in these meetings, yet you assume you know and make accusations.

Just call like I read it...



We have been asking for just that, we have been coming to the table with possible solutions and asked for input to see how we can use them as a starting point so we can all come out in a win-win fashion.

Yes, but if your 'solutions' are so win-win, why have they not been accepted?

Something is missing here...



We also understood and tried to help the situation by putting more Green/Orange lines on the map, less Blue ones. Green = Open trails we all agreed on, Orange = Closed trails we all agreed on and Blue meant no agreement. We all know that the more blue lines the BLM has to sift through the more possibilities one or multiple groups will come out on the short end of the stick, the enviro groups said they prefer that. They feel the more areas not agreed on, the more likely hood those trails will be closed, a chance they are willing to take. In fact they feel so strongly about that, they actually went back and said they now disagree on some trails they originally agreed should be green during the MGCP meetings.

Why does disagreement lead to closure again? You were a bit unclear about WHY.

My1stJeep
05-31-2007, 11:39 AM
Hey great...however, WHY were your win-win proposals rejected? I missed that...why were they not accepted??? WHY did it go down hill? What were the reasons?

You know what...I get ALL of my information from this website. Nothing more or less. That is why I laugh at people like Sandee who accuse me of being some enviro. I simply take YOUR statements and pull them apart. Nothing more, nothing less.

I tell you what...I had to take a job this summer as a data analyst. If you want, I will try and make the next meeting. After this week, I have considerable more time, and I am intrigued by public debate and policy.

I remember the first meeting I went to...Some folks stopped me outside and asked if I would be interested in helping out...they took my number and name but never called...thought that was interesting show of support.


John,

I am not going to go into most of what you posted, your admittance that you are just trying to shoot holes it in, without knowing is enough for me. Pulling them apart, and being a device to devide helps us how? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to cooperate and maybe ask questions in a less demeaning way to others and actually come up with solutions rather then tear people apart? It is people like you that make those working hard to try and make a difference that drives people away. You would rather sit here, stir the pot without facts, slam people and talk down to them, instead of bring substance to the table, talk with the people and be gracious enough to say thanks for those trying.

Funny that you say cooperation is the way to creating a non-zero-sum-game, yet you are not cooperative, but instead combative. Might want to try a different approach when asking your questions that would lead to a cooperative effort.

I am however going to respond to your request as to why our presented solution was turned down.

The enviro would prefer total closure to all OHV. So knowing that in the past the precedence has been set, that more often then not the enviros have come up big in closures, the less they argee to put in green, the better chance they have for more closure. This is not an assumption, this is based on conversations with two of the enviro groups there, they had with us off line. In addition, if you are trying to be cooperative, if a presented solution is not something you feel you can live with, then you would present a counter. This did not happen, they simply responded with we want it closed and we are not going to back off. They even tried to bait us and said if we would agree to closing one certain trail, they would maybe forsee being able to agree to a few more green lines on the map. So knowing that that one trail was not going to get agreed on, they wanted closure and we wanted the gate, keep in mind we had a biologist go out and run the trail and collect data and gave no reason why it should be closed, and did make some suggestions on some mitigation for things. They agreed that from what she saw the gate would pretty much take care of everything.

So as we started on the rest, because the enviros did not get that trail agreed upon they just stated closure, and even one group out right in the meeting stated, until that one trail was agreed to be closed they were not going to participate. They were going to sit at the table and listen, they would chime in, but would not agree to anything on any other trail until they got their way.

Does this give you any idea why our proposal was turned down? Simply they had what they wanted in their head and if they did not get their way they were not going to cooperate. We presented a plan and asked for input and alternatives, we were willing to listen to all alternatives and give and take to make a better decision for all. We simply said, give us information why you want something closed or limited, we even had agreed on some, one area had two trails running parrallel (one through the middle of sheep migration and one on the outskirts of that area), we agreed that it made sense to close one (the one going through the middle of the migration area we agreed could be closed and keep the one at the Southern outskirts would remain open). See we came to play nice and work towards good, sound solutions that not only preserved out right to use our OHV's, but also made sense to the environment. However one entity coming to the table and being open minded and willing to work with the other groups is not going to be a success. Why did it fail? The enviros did not want to play, they wanted to bully everyone into getting their way and were not going there with any intention of cooperating.

So John you can see why it gets to those doing the work, when you make statements like that with no justification, no facts, just an assumption. Yet you slam everyone for not having facts to back up their opinion. You basically called us out that were are being narrow minded people and not being cooperative. I think I have pretty well shown that we were being the cooperative entity in the process, so your insults were not warranted, nor welcome.

And before you go off asking how I know what you were thinking, try re-reading your post (pretty well spells out that you feel we, the OHV people representing the OHV community are not going a good job and not working toward solutions):

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_P
Do you know how to turn a zero-sum game into a non-sero-sum game?

Cooperation.

As of now, competition is the nature of relationship between groups who would limit recreation and those who would increase it.

Therefore, the best solution will be one that is centered on cooperation.

Keep that in mind.

John_P
05-31-2007, 11:48 AM
You didn't answer my question about disagreement leading to closure...please elaborate.

My1stJeep
05-31-2007, 11:50 AM
Why does disagreement lead to closure again? You were a bit unclear about WHY.

The past is what they are looking at. In the past more often then not, the land management orgs have closed more than they left open, so based on that precedence they are willing to leave more Blue lines, they feel that they will get more closed if they rely on the land management org to make the decision, then getting OHV to agree to closures on areas/trails.

They have also, before any decision is made, threatened a law suit if they don't get their way.

So you have the precedence, and you have put the threat of law suit, any thoughts as to why they think they are better off leaving the trail in disagreement?

Just to clarify for the purpose of these meetings and the maps, disagreement only means that one entity represented at the table did not agree, that could have been Game and Fish, enviros, OHV, ranchers, etc... any one entity did not agree then it went lined Blue as disagreed upon. In addition, each entity was able to just state they did not agree, they did not have to back it up with anything. In one case, we were even told, I disagree (by an enviro), they were not sure why, but they did not feel that we needed a trail there. Huh? Call me crazy, but shouldn't you have a clue why you want a trail open or closed before saying you disagree? Why are they going back now and asking for trails to be put in Blue, when they originally agreed on them being Green? We did not go back and ask for any that we agreed on to be Orange (closed) to be changed back to Blue. Simple, it gave them more opportunities for closed trails. This is by their own admission. They not only admitted it to us, their lack of a cooperative effort shows it as well.

John_P
05-31-2007, 12:01 PM
The past is what they are looking at. In the past more often then not, the land management orgs have closed more than they left open, so based on that precedence they are willing to leave more Blue lines, they feel that they will get more closed if they rely on the land management org to make the decision, then getting OHV to agree to closures on areas/trails.

They have also, before any decision is made, threatened a law suit if they don't get their way.

So you have the precedence, and you have put the threat of law suit, any thoughts as to why they think they are better off leaving the trail in disagreement?

Just to clarify for the purpose of these meetings and the maps, disagreement only means that one entity represented at the table did not agree, that could have been Game and Fish, enviros, OHV, ranchers, etc... any one entity did not agree then it went lined Blue as disagreed upon. In addition, each entity was able to just state they did not agree, they did not have to back it up with anything. In one case, we were even told, I disagree (by an enviro), they were not sure why, but they did not feel that we needed a trail there. Huh? Call me crazy, but shouldn't you have a clue why you want a trail open or closed before saying you disagree? Why are they going back now and asking for trails to be put in Blue, when they originally agreed on them being Green? We did not go back and ask for any that we agreed on to be Orange (closed) to be changed back to Blue. Simple, it gave them more opportunities for closed trails. This is by their own admission. They not only admitted it to us, their lack of a cooperative effort shows it as well.

Interesting strategy. It seems like they capitalilze on the decision making process used by land management.

Can you explain what qualifies a trail as open and closed? That is, what is necessary, in terms of information/evidence/etc for a trail to be deemed 'closed'? How is various information weighted in the decision making process?

I am trying to understand the threshold for 'closure'.

John_P
05-31-2007, 12:06 PM
I have copy of one of the protests sent to D.C. requesting ALL OHV be eliminated from the Ironwood National Forest.

This statement caught my interest.

A quick search of the 'net, I was able to find this...



Off-road vehicles (ORVs) must stay on 71 miles of existing designated routes. Restrict the repeated use of illegal routes by implementing a signed open policy, meaning that roads are not open unless specifically posted as such.

So my assumption is that some other group wants to close all OHV use in the monument?

Can you clarify this Sandee?

My1stJeep
05-31-2007, 12:16 PM
Interesting strategy. It seems like they capitalilze on the decision making process used by land management.

Can you explain what qualifies a trail as open and closed? That is, what is necessary, in terms of information/evidence/etc for a trail to be deemed 'closed'? How is various information weighted in the decision making process?

I am trying to understand the threshold for 'closure'.

Yet again you never cease to amaze me and side with them. Can you say flip flop = John? You say we need to be cooperative, I show were were they were not. I show how they bully everyone in an attempt to get their way. I show why they want to rely on the disagreements,not only from their actions but their own admissions, yet instead of saying thank you, saying anything good about the fact we are trying to be cooperative, you instead come up with a statement on how THEY are capitalizing on the the process, making it sound like they are still doing it right by be non-cooperative. Can you pick a side of the fence and stick to it? Until then you opinion holds not water and to continue this converstation makes not sense.

Ok, I am going to (probably lack of good judgement here) answer your last question as I feel it is a good one (about what classifies trails open/closed). However, based on your previous decisions to make us out to be the bad guys no matter what, I feel answering it may yield anything other than your continued slamming of those working their tails off for your rights to use the land, I will stop the discussion at first sign of your slamming. You ar going to have to understand, first that it is a VERY grey area. There is no black and white, if this then close, if this then open, and every trail is different, there is no blanket if X then close all that fit that mold. Are you open to understanding that?

John_P
05-31-2007, 12:26 PM
Yet again you never cease to amaze me and side with them. Can you say flip flop = John? You say we need to be cooperative, I show were were they were not. I show how they bully everyone in an attempt to get their way. I show why they want to rely on the disagreements,not only from their actions but their own admissions, yet instead of saying thank you, saying anything good about the fact we are trying to be cooperative, you instead come up with a statement on how THEY are capitalizing on the the process, making it sound like they are still doing it right by be non-cooperative. Can you pick a side of the fence and stick to it? Until then you opinion holds not water and to continue this converstation makes not sense.

All I said was that they seem to know how to play the game to their own end...I didn't mean to imply that they are in any way trying to cooperate...matter of fact, may statement is consistent with what I said abotu zero-sum games...that is what they are playing...they need to change too...I never said they did not...

No flip flop here.

Also, I did not call OHV the 'bad guys', I simply think you arguments are ineffectual. Big difference there, Chris. Don't put words into my mouth.



Ok, I am going to (probably lack of good judgement here) answer your last question as I feel it is a good one (about what classifies trails open/closed). However, based on your previous decisions to make us out to be the bad guys no matter what, I feel answering it may yield anything other than your continued slamming of those working their tails off for your rights to use the land, I will stop the discussion at first sign of your slamming. You ar going to have to understand, first that it is a VERY grey area. There is no black and white, if this then close, if this then open, and every trail is different, there is no blanket if X then close all that fit that mold. Are you open to understanding that?

After perusing the CBD and Sierra club websites for the last ten minutes I know exactly what is at issue...

What constitutes an 'system road/trail'.

That is why I asked my quesiton. Both groups are open to open OHV use, but on designated trails. The question is, what are those trails?

I would very grateful if you would explain it...

My1stJeep
05-31-2007, 01:11 PM
Well this is where it gets sticky. I will do my best to explain it and hopefully if I stray Sandee or someone will get me back on track.

Everyone differs on what they deem a trail. For rock crawlers most of the good areas happen to fall into washes, something the enviro groups are not really happy with, but as long as there is no constant running water they are willing to allow some of those areas. Game and Fish on the other hand feel that OHV should never be in a wash ever. Their opinion, based solely on themselves is that all washes are riparian and should not be traversed.

So it was decided that as a starting point, that an inventory of every trail (what looked like a trail or what was turned in to the BLM as a trail be put on a map) be performed, then take it on a trail by trail basis. THere are determing factors by width etc... that do determine if it is a quad, single track or 4x4 trail. A starting point had to be made to create a baseline. So the starting map is what it is. How it was first determined that someone wanted to drive down that path could be debated for ever so lets not even get into that, we just need to know that the map is the baseline. I guess if you want to call a good trail/road would be something that would be a sustainable pathway to traverse that would minimally impact the environment. No matter what you do, hiking, biking, horseback, OHV you have an impact, we just need to determine can that trail/road sustain long term use with minimal impact.

Based on my attendance at the NOVCC classes, riparian area does not mean it has to be closed. Each riparian area yields different assets, some can sustain travel within them, some cannot. So just calling it riparian does not qualify it as needing to be closed, however Game and Fish thinks it does. So the impacts on travel in the riparian area needs to be complete to see if it is sustainable. Game and Fish are trying to use a blanket statement, but again blanket statements cannot work. One example is the trail in FJ that most hard core wheelers would like to see open again as it comes up for re-claiming, yet in looking at the riparian value and impacts the OHV community could not with full confidence state that OHV use in that riparian area would not have a negative impact on that area. Thus why the OHV community backed off asking for it to re-open.

However there are other trails out there that have some riparian charaterstics, but can sustain OHV travel with no affect, and yes a biologist did go out an run them and write a report to validate this, this was not just an opinion, we got facts.

So one of the first things is are there riparian charaterstics or is this a riparian area. Based on the above it is one reason that may get a trail closed, but not in all cases as the impacts have to be assesed first. The big question the impacts have to answer is, Is this trail sustainable in the environment, within the riparian area? Once that is answered, you pretty well have your answer on if that trail should be closed or not.

Other things are things like errosion, fluids spilled, animal migration, destruction of surrounding areas or structures, just to name a few. What we have been asking is to look at mitigation before closure. If there is no way to mitigate that will put the trail/road into the sustainable catagory then it should most likely be closed. Again at the NOVCC classes I attended there are ways to alter the path, keep in mind before any altering the path of the trail/road can be done it has to be done with the Land Management Organization, no altering can be done without their permission and assistance. However things can be done to alter the pathway that would reduce the errosion problems. Education will help with fluid spill issues, as part of that getting the message out about things like Petesorb to clean them up. As for animal migration, this if a funny one. Enviros and others would like you to believe that the animals will not travel across the trail if it has OHV tracks on it, if this were the case we would not have road kill on our highways. That said, to help reduce any fracturing of the animals habitat we can look at reduction of duplicate trails. IN some cases you have easy paths and hard paths crossing an area, so you may want to keep both, but some cases the level of difficulty may be very close and the need for both is not necessary. Again it comes down to a case by case basis.

Pretty much to keep a trail open we need to show that it can sustain OHV use, and in alot of cases mitigation is possible to eleviate any issues that currently may have an impact on that.

To get a trail closed you should need to show that it cannot sustain the use. This has not always been the case, trails have been closed based on opinion, not actual facts as to whether it could be sustained.

One of the issues is in the past, opinions have been used to close trails, now with the options of mitigation and better defining what can be sustained vs what cannot it is beginning to stop just allowing opinions to close them. This is frustrating the enviros as they are having to start putting out an effort to show why it is not sustainable. IMO that is one reason they are being less then cooperative at the table, they are now not just deemed the authority and everyone bow down. It is still going to take time to level the playing field because of the threat of law suits, but it is progress. And yes we are going to have to continue coming to the table with a cooperative demeanor or we will lose the ground we have made.

You are correct, the main issue is what is a trail. The access roads that the enviros use to get to and from hiking points is what they want to call trails, and they would like to close everything else down. Pretty much every one of those trails is something a little economy car can drive over, not something you need or want 4 wheel drive for. So we are not, nor does anyone have any standard that states what is a trail, it basically comes down to whomever the land management organization is to set the standard as to what they call a trail. There are standards that if a trail is a certain width it is single track, vs ATV, vs 4x4 and those are standard. However determing a standard that X=Trail is not there, so that is why those meetings about FJ were so important. Each side was supposed to work toward which trails on the map (our agreed upon baseline) should be closed, open, required mitigation, were open but for admin purposes only.

What it comes down to, well should come down to is: "Is the trail/road capable of sustaining the travel on it?" If the answer is yes, keep it open, if it is no close it, wait more grey area here, if it can sustain a certain amount deem it limited access. Sorry, had to throw that out there too... There is not all or nothing answer to fix it one way or the other. I think we all wish there was, that is why it is sooooooo important to go the meetings, ask questions, get people on board like the biologist that went on those trails, just for the record the biologist is not a 4x4 owner and does not have a biased opinion, so lets not travel down that road.

So now in the FJ case, the BLM has to take the proposals from all groups and make a decision. This will give us what is a trail/road in that area.

Let me know if this does not answer your question, like I said there is still alot of grey area on this.

I think we can all agree if it were just black and white, if this close, if this open we would all be happier, if it were just based on facts in sustainability and not opinion presented and have to weed through that to find facts it would be an easy process, one we would all prefer.

John_P
05-31-2007, 01:27 PM
It does...kind of what I thought you might say, but good stuff.

Let me ask this...if you had to rank order (i.e. most to least critical) some of the issues surrounding what constitutes sustainable, how would your rank their importance?

For example, you mentioned 'riparian area' and 'fluid spills', etc...

You might rank them according to how addressable they are...that is, how well you can mitigate the issue...

Thanks.

My1stJeep
05-31-2007, 01:49 PM
It does...kind of what I thought you might say, but good stuff.

Let me ask this...if you had to rank order (i.e. most to least critical) some of the issues surrounding what constitutes sustainable, how would your rank their importance?

For example, you mentioned 'riparian area' and 'fluid spills', etc...

You might rank them according to how addressable they are...that is, how well you can mitigate the issue...

Thanks.

Not sure how to answer this. My rankings on this have little to do with, as even within the enviro groups they seem to have different ideas as to which or what makes the area sustainable or not. Each group would list a different issue as their top issue, this is part of the problem, none of the groups can agree on what the top issue is and then which issue comes next, and so forth. If we were all on the same page it would be much easier.

Not sure I can rank them in any order, but here are some of the issues and possible mitigation. Not sure if I am capturing truly what you are looking for.

Fluid spills - Mitigation is the supplies available to clean them up, however the only way to make it happen is education, which means dollars and cents to get the word out. If everyone would just clean up afterthemselves this would be a non issue, then again using the same logic we also would not have a trash problem (the trash problem is not just from OHV, it is also from partiers, road traffic, people that don't want to pay to use the dump, etc...).

Dust - Making Arizona hold to the same PM standards as places like Oregon is just plain dumb. However that is what they are doing. So we need to look at what do to on this. This means looking using mitigation of applying treatments to roads (access roads to and from trails), putting in areas that can sustain the travel and limit dust, and maybe even speed limits in some areas. This requires law enforcement to help curtail violations and help with education.

Noise - There are current noise level standards for the level of noise that is permitted for different types of vehicles. Education and law enforement (there are meters that can read the levels of noise be emitted from the vehicle to locate volations) are really the only way to fix this.

Riparian - This one is tough. Basically an impact study is necessary to determine if it can sustain the travel. While I know this to be true, I have not yet reached the level to know what within the riparian area makes the final if it can sustain it or not. I need to do more work on this, I do know from the NOVHCC that just being riparian deems it has to be closed.

There are more than just this, but did not want to type this all out as I am pretty sure I did not hit the nail on the head answering your question, sorry figured I would take a stab, but after reading it back don't feel I truly understand where you want to go with this information. Living in a grey area it makes life so much more fun.

Each trail has its own issues, so I am not sure how ranking them would help us. What are you trying to determine with the ranking and maybe I can answer your question better?

Sandee McCullen
05-31-2007, 04:17 PM
Clarification regarding "Riparian"............
NOHVCC does NOT deem riparian as "closed". ONLY G&F and many environmentalists do this. Riparian does not mean "running or surface water" is includes subsurface and is identified by the types of vegetation nearby.
OHV in riparian areas is not based on "sustainability" but on whether the riparian area is functioning, functioning at risk, or not functioning. There are specific standards as to how a riparian area should be functioning........... as well as how to rate the functioning. Not tough enough to be a rocket scientist but PERSONAL OPINION or WANTS enter into the picture many times. i.e. Upper Woodpecker has a sub-surface riparian area near the top. This area is surrounded by reeds and desert willows identifying it as riparian. G&F feel we should NEVER drive through this short strip of riparian.............. BLM find no problem with it at all. FACTS and DATA reflect no impact as the reeds continue to grow, are not lessening and do not reflect any problems where a narrow open pathway traverses through this area. ............. thusly this riparian is "functioning" normally.

There are numerous procedures and/or products to mitigate erosion.
1) Make a trail switchback up a hillside rather than straight up.
2) IF it's intended to be a "hillclimb" many of the OHV parks across the country simply MOVE the climb every couple of years............. make an alternate available until the eroded trail is rehabed.
3) There are several manmade products available (sorta look like eggcrates) that are placed on the ground and filled with native cover........ rocks, dirt, vegetation etc. It stops sensitive areas from eroding. This is used a lot for banks on single track trails but works well on soft base climbs for 4x4's also.
4) Manmade "Rooky Filters" at the entrance of technical trails. This keeps unequipped vehicles from entering thusly the rock stacking (which is NOT our God given right to do) lessens and the normal flow of a wash stays as Mother Nature makes it. It also lessens broken vehicle parts and oil and it allows for this trail to stay as the challenge it was meant to be.
5) Dust: This doesn't even need to be listed in order of priority as we, nor does the State, have any control. EPA standards come from D.C. and even though we all know that Arizona, or Oaklahoma, or Kansas, or Nevada, etc CANNOT meet standards set for states such as Oregon or Minnesota etc we have no choice. Yes, the State AQC are going bonkers in our views but the state is being fined millions of dollars for being out of compliance. They are doing what most of us do from time to time......... " they are asking for a mile......... hoping for an inch!" Where WE can use this problem to our advantage is by finding the dollars (hopefully something like the HB2443) to help treat the access roads or staging areas to enable these areas to remain within OHV use but not cause the monitors to close us out. This also applies to SIGNING and EDUCATION.
6) Noise is similar although "sound" off highway by OHV is the only identified "Noise factor". The "noise" from OHV's is NOT killing off wildlife. But............ if we can bring the noise factor down to a level the surrounding communities stop complaining many of our riding areas will be left open. The bottom line is "responsible use" and "common sense".
7) Cleaning up re oil................ this is simply common sense and common courtesy should be the ruling factor. If we roll, tip, or break and leave oil or fluids on the ground we need to clean them up. There are numerous products easily available for this that we can ALL carry with us: PIG pads or oil absorbant pads to absorb oil while fixing a break; Peatsorb to absorb oil actually into the ground (this product does not have to be removed like clay products that only absorb but cause a hazmat problem); use of something as easy as Simple Green cleaner.
8) Follow the "pack it in.... pack it out" with "leave it cleaner going out as when going in".
None of these issues can be numbered in order of priority. They all rate across the board but may differ from area to area. The bottom line is the same.

John_P
05-31-2007, 06:48 PM
Thanks Sandee.

Let me be more clear about what I asking Chris. It seems as if the decisions as to whether a proposed or existing route is a 'trail' is based on a number of factors...some of which have been listed...

Width
Riparian (functioning, functioning at risk, or not functioning)
Erosion
Dust
Noise
Archaeological sites
Human waste (i.e. oil/trash/etc)

As Chris has pointed out, some of these a easily mitigated, some are not at all (see discussion of width).

My question was, if you had an exhaustive list of all factors, how would you rank them in terms of importance? For example, 'width' clearly is a critical factor...if the trail is not wide enough it can never be considered a 4x4 trail.

See my point?

My1stJeep
05-31-2007, 07:48 PM
Thank you Sandee, I knew you would be able to answer this better then me... :D

My1stJeep
05-31-2007, 07:50 PM
Thanks Sandee.

Let me be more clear about what I asking Chris. It seems as if the decisions as to whether a proposed or existing route is a 'trail' is based on a number of factors...some of which have been listed...

Width
Riparian (functioning, functioning at risk, or not functioning)
Erosion
Dust
Noise
Archaeological sites
Human waste (i.e. oil/trash/etc)

As Chris has pointed out, some of these a easily mitigated, some are not at all (see discussion of width).

My question was, if you had an exhaustive list of all factors, how would you rank them in terms of importance? For example, 'width' clearly is a critical factor...if the trail is not wide enough it can never be considered a 4x4 trail.

See my point?

John,

I go back to my earlier post, what is this for? The OHV community most likely would not list them in the same order as the Enviros which also may differ from the land management organization. So if all three have the factors listed indifferent order, which I see as part of the problem, what does us giving a list here help with?

Sandee McCullen
05-31-2007, 08:37 PM
Thanks Sandee.

Let me be more clear about what I asking Chris. It seems as if the decisions as to whether a proposed or existing route is a 'trail' is based on a number of factors...some of which have been listed...

Width
Riparian (functioning, functioning at risk, or not functioning)
Erosion
Dust
Noise
Archaeological sites
Human waste (i.e. oil/trash/etc)

As Chris has pointed out, some of these a easily mitigated, some are not at all (see discussion of width).

My question was, if you had an exhaustive list of all factors, how would you rank them in terms of importance? For example, 'width' clearly is a critical factor...if the trail is not wide enough it can never be considered a 4x4 trail.

See my point?

Yes John........... I "see" your point but it is absolutely out of line and has nothing to do with the issues we're facing. "Width" has nothing to do with our issues......... width is only involved in determining what "OHV..... OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE" is designated to use the specific trail. There are roads/trails for ALL OHV vehicles........... within ALL National Forests anything less than 50 inches are not open to a 4x4 full sized vehicle. Thusly an obvious 12- 20 inch trail/route is not available to 4x4; ATV's; or UTV's. At this time Arizona has very few specific identified trails other than the 50 inch rule which has always been regulation within forests. An example of "specific designated" ROUTES (trails and/or roads) will be Sycamore. The major area in/around lower Sycamore will be designated for ATV's, bikes and UTV's other than the MAIN ROUTE through the area to the river. There will be a 4x4 Play area at the river but the only trails/routes for 4x4's will be the major routes out to specific play areas for 4x4's or the trail system outside Sycamore. Lower Sycamore will be more dedicated to training trails and tot lots. As one moves north most of the routes will be designated to ATV's with single track mostly incompasing the north portion. There will technical rock trails/ROUTES around Sugarloaf Mtn and each area will have different challenges. Yes, Sycamore is a mess at this time. If it wasn't for a very dedicated group of "OHV" (ATV's; 4x4's & bike) representatives working very diligently to plan for a manageble area Forest Service would have closed this entire area to OHV a long time ago. Actually, if the planning that we're doing at this time doesn't work this area WILL BE CLOSED but with the management conditions that will be implemented I believe we will end up with a very nice and SAFE recreation area.

Even though areas like FJ and/or Table Mesa do not have specific designations we are pushing for ALL level challenges for everyone. These plannings are NOT just for 4x4's. We have to consider OHV as a whole. How can we make this work for all?

Your previous comment regarding the "footprint" presented regarding the balance of lands used for OHV vs the remaining acres is wrong. The remaining acres that you question regarding the lands outside the trails are available to numerous other recreation uses as well as wildlife preserves or protected areas.

Of course, the total area of the MGCP includes areas that are not usable areas, right? How much of that area includes the side of hills, unpassable creaks, the tops of peaks, etc...

How does the percent of OHV area compare to the amount of MGCP acreage that could be arguably 'used' for recreation?


EDIT: Commonsense says that it would still be a small percentage in absolute terms, but relatively larger.

Before you do so, you better define what constitutes a usable area.

Time to brush up on your Geographical Information System usage.
Provide some good evidence and I might change my mind.

Who's to say these "peaks" or unpassable creeks or any of the lands outside OHV trails are unusable? Creeks are habitat for fish; sides of hills or peaks make very nice mountain bike trails or hiking trails. There are beautiful vistas and camping sites on some of these "peaks" you seem to believe are unusable. There are several habitat areas for Big Horn Sheep in the FJ area that are thriving even with those terrible OHV running everywhere. They even seem to enjoy watching the OHV users at Box Canyon. These things HELP US A LOT. This is DATA. We have PICTURES, dates, temperatures etc. The eviros or G&F cannot come back and say "close because we're disrupting the Sheep habitat".

There is a Wilderness area within FJ also. These lands we (OHV) have no right of access to and is totally protected from any motorized or mechanized travel. Why is it we cannot SHARE with other recreationists the public lands outside Wilderness.

I don't believe anyone can produce "good evidence" for you John. You seem to pick any/all data provided to you to pieces and want NUMBERS. Order of importance, numbers of "unuseable lands", numbers of legal vs illegal. For what cause? What exactly are you solving by putting a number on everything. The land planning is NOT even across the board. It is mostly specific to each area/trail/use. HOW can we make these plannings fair for all? Compromise or communicate with the enviros will not, nor does, work. The more we (OHV) stand up for our rights the more they push their little computer button to either protest or sue every public land use plan presented. Both BLM and USFS have more law suits or protests from 2006 than ever before. Do you think it might be because OHV are standing up to them demanding data and accurate data or just that they like doing it? The only way we'll win this battle is to produce DATA and FACTS to allow the federal land managers enough data they can stand up to the enviros in a courtroom. Even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is slowing beginning to turn because the OHV enthusiasts are producing DATA they cannot rule over.

If you would put your efforts to the environmental statistics and pull them apart you might just be of help to YOUR SPORT............ you're NOT HELPING YOUR SPORT John. I know you understand everything Chris and I have said........... you simply have a drive to keep a dialog going as to "who can question more". I, for one, do not have the time or inclination to continue with this stupidity.

John_P
05-31-2007, 09:21 PM
Yes John........... I "see" your point but it is absolutely out of line and has nothing to do with the issues we're facing. "Width" has nothing to do with our issues......... width is only involved in determining what "OHV..... OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE" is designated to use the specific trail. There are roads/trails for ALL OHV vehicles........... within ALL National Forests anything less than 50 inches are not open to a 4x4 full sized vehicle. Thusly an obvious 12- 20 inch trail/route is not available to 4x4; ATV's; or UTV's. At this time Arizona has very few specific identified trails other than the 50 inch rule which has always been regulation within forests. An example of "specific designated" ROUTES (trails and/or roads) will be Sycamore. The major area in/around lower Sycamore will be designated for ATV's, bikes and UTV's other than the MAIN ROUTE through the area to the river. There will be a 4x4 Play area at the river but the only trails/routes for 4x4's will be the major routes out to specific play areas for 4x4's or the trail system outside Sycamore. Lower Sycamore will be more dedicated to training trails and tot lots. As one moves north most of the routes will be designated to ATV's with single track mostly incompasing the north portion. There will technical rock trails/ROUTES around Sugarloaf Mtn and each area will have different challenges. Yes, Sycamore is a mess at this time. If it wasn't for a very dedicated group of "OHV" (ATV's; 4x4's & bike) representatives working very diligently to plan for a manageble area Forest Service would have closed this entire area to OHV a long time ago. Actually, if the planning that we're doing at this time doesn't work this area WILL BE CLOSED but with the management conditions that will be implemented I believe we will end up with a very nice and SAFE recreation area.

Even though areas like FJ and/or Table Mesa do not have specific designations we are pushing for ALL level challenges for everyone. These plannings are NOT just for 4x4's. We have to consider OHV as a whole. How can we make this work for all?

Your previous comment regarding the "footprint" presented regarding the balance of lands used for OHV vs the remaining acres is wrong. The remaining acres that you question regarding the lands outside the trails are available to numerous other recreation uses as well as wildlife preserves or protected areas.

Of course, the total area of the MGCP includes areas that are not usable areas, right? How much of that area includes the side of hills, unpassable creaks, the tops of peaks, etc...

How does the percent of OHV area compare to the amount of MGCP acreage that could be arguably 'used' for recreation?


EDIT: Commonsense says that it would still be a small percentage in absolute terms, but relatively larger.

Before you do so, you better define what constitutes a usable area.

Time to brush up on your Geographical Information System usage.
Provide some good evidence and I might change my mind.

Who's to say these "peaks" or unpassable creeks or any of the lands outside OHV trails are unusable? Creeks are habitat for fish; sides of hills or peaks make very nice mountain bike trails or hiking trails. There are beautiful vistas and camping sites on some of these "peaks" you seem to believe are unusable. There are several habitat areas for Big Horn Sheep in the FJ area that are thriving even with those terrible OHV running everywhere. They even seem to enjoy watching the OHV users at Box Canyon. These things HELP US A LOT. This is DATA. We have PICTURES, dates, temperatures etc. The eviros or G&F cannot come back and say "close because we're disrupting the Sheep habitat".

There is a Wilderness area within FJ also. These lands we (OHV) have no right of access to and is totally protected from any motorized or mechanized travel. Why is it we cannot SHARE with other recreationists the public lands outside Wilderness.

I don't believe anyone can produce "good evidence" for you John. You seem to pick any/all data provided to you to pieces and want NUMBERS. Order of importance, numbers of "unuseable lands", numbers of legal vs illegal. For what cause? What exactly are you solving by putting a number on everything. The land planning is NOT even across the board. It is mostly specific to each area/trail/use. HOW can we make these plannings fair for all? Compromise or communicate with the enviros will not, nor does, work. The more we (OHV) stand up for our rights the more they push their little computer button to either protest or sue every public land use plan presented. Both BLM and USFS have more law suits or protests from 2006 than ever before. Do you think it might be because OHV are standing up to them demanding data and accurate data or just that they like doing it? The only way we'll win this battle is to produce DATA and FACTS to allow the federal land managers enough data they can stand up to the enviros in a courtroom. Even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is slowing beginning to turn because the OHV enthusiasts are producing DATA they cannot rule over.

If you would put your efforts to the environmental statistics and pull them apart you might just be of help to YOUR SPORT............ you're NOT HELPING YOUR SPORT John. I know you understand everything Chris and I have said........... you simply have a drive to keep a dialog going as to "who can question more". I, for one, do not have the time or inclination to continue with this stupidity.

Your right on a few points...Any discussion of 'area' as a whole seems to be missign the real discussion...As Chris so willingly provided, and a perusal of the CBD and SC websites confirm, the issue is at the 'trail-level'.

What is considered a trail? (for OHV use obviously)

After reading through both your own, and Chris's comments, it struck me that the decision process is not uniform. In order for it to be uniform you have to have a clear idea of the criteria, which appears you do, and how important each criteria is to the overall decision.

Now that I think about it, mitigating factors should probably be listed as well...ranked in order to feasibility and practicality.

You mention courts...and lawsuits. Well...obviously the judge is making that decision based on how the evidence is reflected against a set of criteria. Like noise, biological impact etc...

The important thing is that if you have a defined decision process, you may be able to highlight the inconsistency in their own decision making process. Possibly even asking for a description of theirs as well.

Their needs to be transparency in the process is all I am saying...

Anyhow, if you are capable of ranking criteria and mitigating factors, it would be of great interest to me...

97badxj
06-12-2007, 04:51 AM
The main reason the enviros theory never pans out is simple and seems missed here so far. That is sheer numbers of users!!!!!! This is an ever increasing popular activity. All outdoor recreation is increasing exponentially. And education in that area is lacking, as the outdoorsman mentors of old are long gone. So, when you have ever increasing numbers of users, but ever decreasing opportunities to persue said activities due to closures, it puts extreme pressure on the remaining open areas as the numbers get concentrated.

cactuscatcher
06-12-2007, 07:06 PM
I hate to say it- but it has definitely been coming.
We ride the area several times each week via dirt bikes and our Jeep and over the past year we have noticed a tremendous increase in criminal activities and well armed "gang banger" types there.
Last month a man in a black Ford F250 came up to my 11 year old son while he was riding on his XR with a revolver in his hand looking for the person or persons who shot four holes in the side of his truck while he quading.
This past Sunday evening there was almost a dozen "bangers" up there shooting partially in the direction of the road coming from the east side at approx 7pm when we came down from the forest lands. It has seemed for some time that no one from MCSO is patrolling the area or if they are they are definitely not doing it reguarly.