Camping near Big Bear/Fawnskin?

[WAM]

Can I ask what you did during public hearings about these wildernesses? I ask bcause I can count on 2 hands the number of concerned people who show up at these meetings. Your apathy is not an excuse.

Yes you certainly can. We wrote letters. We drove political bigwigs around on the trails. We send reprentatives to every meeting we can. We conduct gps/mapping efforts to define the used trails. We fund/subscribe to all the normal pro-access organizations. You're picking on the wrong folks if you want to throw "apathy" around. Thanx for asking.

My bad...I was reminded that we also provided formal testimony to the US Senate and House in opposition to the CDPA. Not me personally -- my club. It's in the public record. "Your apathy is not an excuse" -- I'm sorry...your point was?

[GrimJeeper91]

What exactly would you consider a camp unit if not you and 7 of your buddies sharing a campsite. There are places in the SBNF designed for this activity. For whatever reason you chose not to use these designated facilities but rather try to change the very clearly written regulation on dispersed camping to suit your needs.

Designated facilities??? Do you mean the $75 per night Group Equestrian sites? These are the only facilities that the SBNF associates have been able to identify as viable options. Besides, we don't need or desire facilities, just a bare spot suitable for approximately 8 families (typically 6 RV's and 2 tents). We don't need bathrooms, picnic tables or fire rings because we have our own gear. Nor do we want to pile into camp grounds with the flat landers that we are trying to get away from. Again, just an empty spot in the forest would suit us perfectly. Unfortunately this may no longer going to be an option. When they have finished pushing rocks around I guess I have to do some exploring and see if there's anything left.

[WAM]

And I'll add, one of our more responsible members spent hours picking up glass shards (target bottles) and clay pigeons instead of doing John Bull. The place probably hasn't been this clean in a decade. It will be in pristine shape next year when no one gets to use it.

[Schmo]

One of my concerns is that the method of blockage is like dangling meat in front of a kennel of underfed dogs. It's going to cause people who want to obey reasonable law and order to become scofflaws. This indecent, reckless, abusive, and in my opinion, criminally wasteful expense of public funds is only going to aggitate and seperate out otherwise decent folk and get them hammered by Big Government. Making them into examples of why we need more spending and more government instead of training people so that we can be more self-policed per my idea posted earlier. My government hates me, hates what I believe in, and hates what I enjoy.

Preach it Brother Nathan!!!

[NAILER341]

Woooh- heavy shit.

All parties are being constructive and decent in the argument. Carry on.

[FishPOET]

Designated facilities??? Do you mean the $75 per night Group Equestrian sites? These are the only facilities that the SBNF associates have been able to identify as viable options. Besides, we don't need or desire facilities, just a bare spot suitable for approximately 8 families (typically 6 RV's and 2 tents). We don't need bathrooms, picnic tables or fire rings because we have our own gear. Nor do we want to pile into camp grounds with the flat landers that we are trying to get away from. Again, just an empty spot in the forest would suit us perfectly. Unfortunately this may no longer going to be an option. When they have finished pushing rocks around I guess I have to do some exploring and see if there's anything left.

Now we get to the core of your beliefs. The forest owes you an open spot meeting your specific needs for you and your entire crew. Anything less and the forest managers are "taking over total OWNERSHIP of the lands...not stewardship"

[nwoods]

Now we get to the core of your beliefs. The forest owes you an open spot meeting your specific needs for you and your entire crew. Anything less and the forest managers are "taking over total OWNERSHIP of the lands...not stewardship"

No Doug, you're being a bit intractable on this too. It's really really simple. There are suitable spots that already exist. Now they are being destroyed to "preserve" the area with patently unnatural, asthetically jarring, soil disrupting features to block future use and access.

[FishPOET]

No Doug, you're being a bit intractable on this too. It's really really simple. There are suitable spots that already exist. Now they are being destroyed to "preserve" the area with patently unnatural, asthetically jarring, soil disrupting features to block future use and access.

How did those spots get there in the first place?

Where does the forest service draw the line? Grim and WAM think the line should be drawn allowing 6 RVs to disperse camp in one camp unit. There was a group last year in Holcomb Valley that wanted the line drawn at 12 vehicles. Two years ago there was a group from TTORA that wanted the line drawn at 35 vehicles. Forest Fest and Jeep Jamboree draw hundreds of vehicles. Why not let them disperse camp at a location of their choosing?

Tracy and I have camped over 200 nights in the SBNF in the last 6 years. Most of it dispersed or Yellow Post camping. The few nights we have been with bigger groups we moved to facilities designed to handle larger groups. There are over 40 campgrounds in the SBNF designed for group style camping. I think TPTB are doing a pretty good job. We have over 300 miles of trail and roads available to us, hundreds of maintained campsites and hundreds of dispersed campsites.

[nwoods]

How did those spots get there in the first place?

Where does the forest service draw the line?

Well... We bought the land from the Spanish Dons, who stole it from the Indians, then it was absorbed by the Great State of California, who then surrendered it to the Feds in exchange for infrastuctre grants and investments. President Taft and Rosevelt then determined, rightly, that these Forest areas were too fun to screw up with industriazation and developement, and then creates the Forest Service to make sure we could all enjoy them. But of course, that should apply only to those of us healthy enough to hike up 8,000 feet to visit the area.......for the priveledge of camping 7 feet from the squaling baby, barking Poodle ( I wish I was making that up), and marrachi music way past 10pm, at a camp site that I paid about half The rate of a cleaner, better maintained, less ant infested standard motel room for, and had to reserve 6 months in advance.

As for your second question... so when Did you stop beating you're wife? Why does a line need to be drawn? If a group is able to camp and recreate responsibly (verified by mandatory training, testing, and inspection and fees), why draw a line? Nature is a fast healer. Areas that are closed for a year or two quickly revert back to thier natural state, roads and trails disappear, until you start cutting shelf roads and dragging rocks all over the place.

[blackZZR]

good point Fish, as stated it is one of the heaviest used natioal forest. I deal with the issue of clousure on a daily basis, and still have a positive outlook, but to me wheeling is not a hobby but a outshhot of a lifestyle. Being in the outdoors is the point. I find most of those with the apathetical attitude of there is nothing they can do, have never truely commited to the cause or see both sides of the issue. Controlled management is an issue they cannot fathom. Being desert forest, watershed issues and arevalid points when a new 30 yard trail is cut around a mud puddle. I feel that we are discussing something with a person who will claim anything to win his point. I will say such, when the trails are shut down, it will not be the guys who argued amoung themselves who won, it will be the ones who kept on the trail and kept in the fight.
As of rigght now the green side is showing true colors over what is going on in the gulf and more. We have the ability to vote out many and send a huge message to washington, let us gather on the front, not fight in thr ranks

[nwoods]

As of rigght now the green side is showing true colors over what is going on in the gulf and more. We have the ability to vote out many and send a huge message to washington, let us gather on the front, not fight in thr ranks

? I don't understand the analogy. Can you elaborate?

[FishPOET]

If a group is able to camp and recreate responsibly why draw a line?

Do you honestly believe that a group should be allowed to disperse camp with unlimited vehicles in the SBNF?

People are predictable. New trails get burned in every day and new campsites get created by groups looking for a spot for 6 rigs or 8 rigs or 20 rigs every weekend. From experience the answer is always "I didn't know" to your face and then behind your back it is always "look at what we got away with"

3 weeks ago the bypasses on Cleghorn were blocked and now every one of them has a new burned in bypass around the blockage from folks who felt entitled to use the land the way they felt best rather than using the land the way the land managers set forth.

The blockages in the rest of the forest will suffer the same fate. Every one of them. I guarantee it. Next year Grim and WAM will once again feel entitled to camp "their way" in the SBNF because the forest owes them their space on their terms.

[GrimJeeper91]

No Doug, you're being a bit intractable on this too. It's really really simple. There are suitable spots that already exist. Now they are being destroyed to "preserve" the area with patently unnatural, asthetically jarring, soil disrupting features to block future use and access.

Thank you nwoods, well stated.

Do you honestly believe that a group should be allowed to disperse camp with unlimited vehicles in the SBNF?

Who's asking for campsites for groups of unlimited size? Those are your words, not ours. I don't consider 6 RVs & 8 Jeeps (15 people) a "camp with unlimited vehicles." This is still a relatively small group in my opinion.

I don't condone or participate in trail cutting or creating new campsites. I also don't understand what is wrong with continuing to camp in well established existing sites. Sites that have been used responsibly for 10 plus years. I also don't feel that I'm being unreasonable for wanting to avoid the undesirable option of a campground for obvious reasons (just drive through any of these on any given weekend and look around). Lets see, what sounds better, communing with nature while listening to the birds and wind blowing through the pine needles or mariachi music, boozing gang bangers, screaming kids & barking dogs. Hmmm, tough choice.

...Next year Grim and WAM will once again feel entitled to camp "their way" in the SBNF because the forest owes them their space on their terms.

Entitled, no. Once again those are your words.

"Our way", yes, we would be happy to responsibly use existing sites with zero impact to the environment. Just like we have done for the last eight years. When we pull out after a fantastic weekend you can't even tell we were there. As a matter of fact, the campsite looks better when we leave because we clean up after those that were there before us (usually minimal). So yes, I don't see a problem with "our way."

[blackZZR]

? I don't understand the analogy. Can you elaborate?

yes I can
we all accuse the government of being in bed with lobbyist, and they are proving ti right now
Laws are written and wilderness areas are created, regulations are mandated for one purpose and one purpose only, Politicians need a job. The only way they can keep a job is by acting on the issue at hand in a manner that draws votes. That is why we will continuously have this Access issue we are so passionate about. Green Org. lobbyist are some of the most influential there are because of the money making machine they have. All they have to do is show a picture that jerks tears or is a place of beautiful scenery and in come the funds. Most of the people donating have never and will never go to the places or wildlife they are protecting, all they now is if they send X many dollars then they do not have to feel guilty about the fact that they consume to much carbon based fuel to be eco-friendly. I have even read that some of the huge "Eco-Vacations the upper crust now find trendy is actually hurting the environment. But no one complains as they write huge checks after they infringe upon nesting penguins or go power boat around birthing whales. The fuel to get to Antarctica and keep them warm is huge. But money is generated. All this money is from voters, you donate a dollar and they call you a member, each member is a voter. So now the lobbyist shows how many voters he has and demands action.
And getting money and members is easy, show a picture of a wounded seal, sponsor a National Geo Special, or send out mailers of starving kittens and the money pours in.
In order to get to those dollars and the votes Politicians do exactly as asked, and will continue to. They make rules, wilderness, and laws for the green orgs showing how much they care. However they do not enforce them.
Now look at the gulf oil spill, a substandard oil rig that had a blow off valve that did not even match the pressure rating of the strata being drilled fails. Where was the government when that rig should have been checked out before being allowed to drill 1 mile deep? And since then what has happened? Oh a whole lot of hearings are going on, and Blame is being affixed to the responsible parties or whomever they can sluff it off onto. But what has been done to help shut off the well, or done to clean up the spill.
Sadly Washington has done little in response. Why has Obama not sent out our navy with its ships, underwater welders, and vast resources of men and material to help contain this spill? Why has congress help hearings with BP executives in stead of going down and seeing what needs to be done to stop this spill. Why have the many vendors who say they have material to absorb the oil and help the cleanup not been contacted? Why is our navy not out there controlling the containment booms?
Easy answer, because the action is not required by the green groups, In fact they love the fact we have a Giant spill going on. They will soon have double the resources from the public as they promise to make sure this never happens again.
In the middle of this all, while he could be nailing the nails into the coffin of anyone attacking his global warming campaign where is AL Gore? It was released yesterday he was in the middle of buying a 9.5 million dollar home in Mendocino county Ca. Another home that will spout pollution from it's 5 fireplaces and cost more than most pay in a year for power each month. Didn't he go through this with his house with Tipper? He could care less about his footprint on the earth as long as he gets money from the donors to listen to him spout out about global warming as is the same with all the Politicians in Washington.
If we got action, it been 6 friggin weeks guys, If we had sent out our resources, millions of acres of wetlands are being destroyed, the fisheries are being ruined, the beaches are going have a oil haze to them. This is going effect the lives of hundreds of thousands and the economy of a huge section of the nation. But they have steeped on their toes because they needed a scape goat and had one in BP.
THEY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING TO HELP. What matters is they look like they are doing something, being a face on TV to prove they investigated it seems to be the strategy.
I fully agree with the Tea Party movement, we need to vote out each and every politician in office, get in some people with a clue on how to cure problems not hold hearings. We need action not steeping on their own toes. All Obama needs to do is raise the call, but they really do not care or else it would be aready going on.

[nwoods]

Do you honestly believe that a group should be allowed to disperse camp with unlimited vehicles in the SBNF?

People are predictable. New trails get burned in every day and new campsites get created by groups looking for a spot for 6 rigs or 8 rigs or 20 rigs every weekend. From experience the answer is always "I didn't know" to your face and then behind your back it is always "look at what we got away with"

3 weeks ago the bypasses on Cleghorn were blocked and now every one of them has a new burned in bypass around the blockage from folks who felt entitled to use the land the way they felt best rather than using the land the way the land managers set forth.

The blockages in the rest of the forest will suffer the same fate. Every one of them. I guarantee it. Next year Grim and WAM will once again feel entitled to camp "their way" in the SBNF because the forest owes them their space on their terms.

Doug, the way in which SBNF inflicted these closures garrunteed active resistance. The fact that they started on Cleghorn, the single most widely enjoyed trail in all of Southern California, created this scofflaw behaviour. This is the fault of malignant mismanagement, not the users. I myself was angered to the point of wanting to cause physical harm to those who perpatrated this against me. I have NEVER been this angry, I have lost sleep over this, I'm grinding my teeth each night, I am enraged. I am trained, educated, engaged, highly active and reasonably knowledgable compared to the majority of offroaders, and I never once heard of SBNF's plan to waste millions of dollars of my taxes to destroy my local environment. How do you explain that? How can their outreach and solicitation efforts be so diabolically ineffective as to preclude my not knowing anything about it! I have not personally bypassed any of the blockages, but I do not consider them lawful, right, appropriate, reasonable, warrented, or neccessary. I think those responsible should be fired, and tried in court for abuse of the public trust, and willful mismanagement of tax payers money. I am seething mad over this.