Camping near Big Bear/Fawnskin?

[blackZZR]

I wonder what part of a illegal by pass some people do not understand
Does the forest service need permission to block an illegal trail now days because you had been on that trail and did not know it was illegal? A balanced and managed trail system is managed, and that is what happened. I had watched quite a few of those trails develop, and I can say that if left then it would only have gotten worse. Sadly I can see why the Green side yells so much. It seems that for every person we have concerned we have 10 who feel entitled.

[nwoods]

You misunderstand my comment. What I said was HOW the SBNF did it is causing it's failure. They mismanaged the management aspect of this. The Adopt-A-Trail system failed here also, due to mismanagement. For years, the SBNF website was out of date on who was managing this trail. There was no decernable trail maintainence on this trail. SBNF should have activated the AAT club, but didn't. Two years ago my Land Rover club tried to donate money and time towards this trail, but was unsuccessful. SBNF did not even know who the current club was. There were three different ones that they had listings for, and did not have the contact info for any of them. Pathetic.

So instead of posting a sign on the most heavily traveled trail in all of southern california that they are considering squandering millons of dollars on this, they keep it a secret, and then attack this trail first. Of all the actions involved in this closure effort, the Cleghorn one is the most egregious, and in my opinion, unforgivable.

[NAILER341]

Please put spaces between lines of text. These stories are making my eyes hurt.

[dirtman13]

The problem is not everyone is like this....

"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.

....it's the ones like this that are causing the problem.

mariachi music, boozing gang bangers, screaming kids & barking dogs.

The forest needs management(lines drawn)because of the ones that are creating the illegal trails and illegal campsites. If we just let everyone travel where they want and camp where ever they please eventually the forest would be depleted of its beauty and the tree huggers would have a field day. Do you really believe that a campsite designed for 6 rigs would stay that way without management? Do you really believe that one trail would stay one trail without management? Unfortunately not everyone has the same respect for the forest that you do. The reality is that there are irresponsible individuals that cannot be changed that are ruining it for all of us.

You all have good points and I see and somewhat agree with why not just manage what is already there instead of closing it. But it seems the FS is just getting the forest back under control to what was approved on the original Motor Vehicle Use Map. Heck, we even gained some roads form the original plan.

[WAM]

Please put spaces between lines of text. These stories are making my eyes hurt.

Yeah, we need some simpler offerings. Like:

There's an upside to all of this. Those of you who never could read maps can now just drive between the white lines of boulders.

Think of the old Disneyland Autotopia...with Jeeps.

[WAM]

If we just let everyone travel where they want and camp where ever they please...

...someone might mistake this for a free country.

[dirtman13]

...someone might mistake this for a free country.

Just so I'm clear. You think everyone including those that don't have the same respect for the forest as you should be able to drive or camp anywhere they please regardless of the impact?

[nwoods]

Just so I'm clear. You think everyone including those that don't have the same respect for the forest as you should be able to drive or camp anywhere they please regardless of the impact?

I know that this is aimed at WAM, but I will state that it certainly does not reflect my opinion. I think responsible access to recreate with a motor vehicle is a priveledge, earned via training and enforcement. The benefits of mandatory training program is unfettered access.

[WAM]

You vill go vere vee tell you to go.
You vill camp vere vee tell you to camp.
Vat? You think you own this land?

[WAM]

Just so I'm clear. You think everyone...

Actually, I think your avatar shows you're "clear" on the main issue.

[dirtman13]

I know that this is aimed at WAM, but I will state that it certainly does not reflect my opinion. I think responsible access to recreate with a motor vehicle is a priveledge, earned via training and enforcement. The benefits of mandatory training program is unfettered access.

I agree 100%

[dirtman13]

Actually, I think your avatar shows you're "clear" on the main issue.

It's understandable you would think that not knowing me.

So, was I clear in that you think everyone including those that don't have the same respect for the forest as you should be able to drive or camp anywhere they please regardless of the impact?

[WAM]

It's understandable you would think that not knowing me.

Quite right. I don't know you...just what you choose to put here. And I like your avatar. If it doesn't represent you, why post it? Your call...I'm not the avatar police.

So, was I clear in that you think everyone including those that don't have the same respect for the forest as you should be able to drive or camp anywhere they please regardless of the impact?

I think all positions have already been stated. You know that's not what I mean (don't you). I'm for reasoned, justified, case-by-case protection of the land. And it's "clear" to me that's not what we have. And probably never will have again. Government control grab only goes one way. That horse has left the barn.

You're jeeping down a major trail. Hey, a nice trail cuts north into some sort of valley. A mine? Cabin? Viewpoint? But damn...there's no route designator on it. It's ILLEGAL. Guys with uniforms and handguns will come and drag you off their land if you dare check it out. A little dramatic for effect -- but true. And on your next visit you'll find a row of boulders, backhoe'd trail destrution and once-live tree branches spread over it.

Sorry...that's not okay with me. If it's okay with you I just don't understand.

[dirtman13]

If it doesn't represent you, why post it?

It represents my anger at what is happening. That doesn't mean I don't agree with some management to control the idiots that are ruining it for us.

I'm for reasoned, justified, case-by-case protection of the land. And it's "clear" to me that's not what we have. And probably never will have again. Government control grab only goes one way. That horse has left the barn.

I think you and I have similar position I was just questioning this statement.

...someone might mistake this for a free country.

[WAM]

When someone starts a statement of "if we let people travel wherever they want...", I just couldn't think of a better conclusion.

There's a price to be paid for living in a free society. But if the price is loss of the freedom, what's the point? I'm sure "Doug" will make fun of this too. It's just so uncool to worry about things like freedom these days. The government will take care of everything -- no making waves, no worries.


-- Uncool, because I care....why don't you care?

.....there are worse things than being uncool.