- Location
- San Bruno, CA.
Big Red said:
What "crap"?
The only crap I see in this thread are your posts.
RIP Gatekeeper
- Thread starter Big Red
- Start date
What "crap"?
The only crap I see in this thread are your posts.
- Location
- Port Orchard, WA
Letterman said:
well - i guess all this did is make my next summer goal easier right?
Goal for summer: Run the Rubicon, Run the Fordyce, dont put junk on jackstands for more than 2 days.
BrettM
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- michifornia
Big Red said:
Goatman said:
Capt. Nemo
NAXJA Member #904
- Location
- Southwest, US
Wentworth would be challenging in a full-width rig. The trail gets fairly narrow and there's lots of vegitation on the way up that nips at the tires of a stock width rig with reasonable rims and tires...
- Location
- Bakersfield, CA
There are legitimate reasons why this was done. We might (and do) disagree with why, but spouting off about it here will accomplish nothing. If you really want to know why it was done, or what you can do to prevent other disagreeable actions on the Rubicon, it is senseless to ask a bunch of questions here. A link was posted to the Rubicon forum on POR that has many of the answers, if you're really interested, go read about it. If you don't belong to Blue Ribbon, or don't participate somehow in trail maintenance and cleanup, or attend meetings to express your views, or write letters or e-mails to the decision makers......you have little room to bitch about it here.
You want answers, go find them. That's what the rest of us did. If you're too lazy to find out for yourself, don't expect us to explain it to you. If you want to bitch, then bitch, get it off your chest, but then go do something about it.
You want answers, go find them. That's what the rest of us did. If you're too lazy to find out for yourself, don't expect us to explain it to you. If you want to bitch, then bitch, get it off your chest, but then go do something about it.
- Location
- Antioch, CA
Letterman said:
I was reading this post again and it got me thinking of my first time running gatekeeper. My first time over the rubicon was last year at the
XJ fest. I had to split up from the group and drive into Sacramento with Keven Patty to replace my rear brake line that I broke on Fordyce 2 days earlier. I got lost trying to find it, and when I made it past I was pretty pumped up. Nobody was around to see it, but I made it past The Gatekeeper.Richard is right! Bitching now won't do any good. Less talk and more action is the only way to help.
BrettM
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- michifornia
Big Red said:
Goatman said:
Read it! Embrace it!
Big Red
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Roscoe, IL 61073
BrettM said:
You've picked a bad time to try and silence me Brett. Your posts are becoming lame with your attempts. This is not the time to be quiet and sit on the sidelines.
BrettM
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- michifornia
Big Red said:
you posting over and over about it is sitting on the sidelines
and congratulations, you finally posted one response meeting Goatman's challenge; without asking stupid questions that could be easily answered if you opened your eyes and read a little.
CRASH
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Foresthill, CA
Big Red said:
Write a letter, join FOTR, send money to Blue Ribbon coalition, attend meetings to make your views known.
Simple Man
NAXJA Member #979
- Location
- Nevada
I guess I should apologize for not keeping up to date on what's been happening here on this board. I've been a little pre-ocupied on the Pirate Board.
Let me start by saying that there is no way to make everybody happy. That is the nature of compromise. There have been lots of questions about what has happened, most have been answered on the Pirate Board.
The ROC voted to destroy three boulders at the Gatekeeper. In the end five boulders were destroyed. Destroying the boulders was not a perfect solution but it was a solution. I am very upset that two extra boulders farther down the trail from Gatekeeper were destroyed.
Why were five rocks in the Gatekeeper downsized?
Traffic - The wait was becoming frustrating for everyone. Traffic was backing up on a regular basis. The delays from the slow going at Gatekeeper were causing road rage.
People were creating bypasses and driving through private property. By eliminating a few rocks, traffic should flow more freely. This is not something that will be applied to the entire trail. Gatekeeper is at the beginning of the trail and sees unusually long delays on the weekends. Farther in along the trail, traffic naturally spreads out and the delays are less frequent.
Erosion - There is a natural spring at Gatekeeper. We can't direct the water away. The large rocks were an obstacle that promoted the spinning of tires in the wet or loose dirt. This erosion was unacceptable. Concrete was applied (twice) but unsuccessful.
Harder - Over the last few years, the erosion has exposed more and more of the boulders at Gatekeeper. This obsticle has become harder and harder. More spinning of tires and new lines or approaches to the obstilce caused further erosion.
Because it is harder, more people have been breaking down in the Gatekeeper. This leads to more traffic delays, which leads to illegal bypasses, which leads to more erosion, which will lead to closing the entire trail.
The NEW line - The new line at Gatekeeper became wide right. This was because it was becoming harder and harder to take the obsticle straight on. By driving father right then turning hard left, you got a straighter shot over/between the two big boulders. The problem was the erosion of the hillside. You could measure this erosion in feet not inches.
The Gatekeeper had also become a spectator spot. Guys were trying to show off for the crowd. The bushes were getting trashed and the litter was increasing. The trail grew wider and wider in the area.
How should the trail be maintained?
There is an ongoing discussion as what level the trail should be maintained. Should it be maintained for a 100" vehicle running 31" tires or a 110" vehicle running 39" tires? Once determined, the goal would be to maintain erosion to the point where that rig could get through with a competent driver. A less equipped rig would have a harder time. A better equipped rig would have less of a problem. No specific type of rig would be excluded.
Why was there no prior notice on the Pirate board or the FOTR e-mail list?
The decision had been made by the county. The county asked everyone present at the November ROC meeting to keep it quiet. Safety was the reason given.
Users have posted that the users present should have protested the blasting and made the fact public. I can only speak for my self. Although blasting was not a prefect solution, it solved the problems listed above. I didn’t have a huge problem with it. I am very upset about the two extra boulders that had nothing to do with the problems discussed.
Bottom line, the county has no duty to get ROC approval.
Why was Gatekeeper addressed before the Little Sluice?
The Gatekeeper was a smaller project. It was almost a test for what could take place in the Little Sluice. The County failed that test! The Little Sluice has a legal bypass, the Gatekeeper does not.
What is the plan for the Little Sluice?
To make a long story short, any illegally placed boulder in the Little Sluice will be removed. They will be blasted and/or split and carried further up the sluice to fill in where rocks have been slowly pushed down the sluice for years.
The date for this has not been set. The county plans to secure the rocks on the cliff face around the time the rocks are dealt with.
Again, there is no way to make everyone happy.
One of the things that came from this mess is the need for better communications. The ROC meetings are open to the public. The minutes and agendas are posted on the El Dorado website.
I make it to most of the ROC meetings and on occasion post up about things. The FOTR e-mail list is probably the best place to keep informed on what is happening with the Rubicon.
We need to find people with some free time that can make all of these meetings. There is talk about having quarterly meetings about the Rubicon in places like the bay area, Sac, Redding, Reno/Tahoe, Modesto, etc. I'm going to have to slow down. It takes too much time and fuel costs for me to drive over from Reno to make these meetings.
I'll try and answer any other questions you guys might have.
Let me start by saying that there is no way to make everybody happy. That is the nature of compromise. There have been lots of questions about what has happened, most have been answered on the Pirate Board.
The ROC voted to destroy three boulders at the Gatekeeper. In the end five boulders were destroyed. Destroying the boulders was not a perfect solution but it was a solution. I am very upset that two extra boulders farther down the trail from Gatekeeper were destroyed.
Why were five rocks in the Gatekeeper downsized?
Traffic - The wait was becoming frustrating for everyone. Traffic was backing up on a regular basis. The delays from the slow going at Gatekeeper were causing road rage.
People were creating bypasses and driving through private property. By eliminating a few rocks, traffic should flow more freely. This is not something that will be applied to the entire trail. Gatekeeper is at the beginning of the trail and sees unusually long delays on the weekends. Farther in along the trail, traffic naturally spreads out and the delays are less frequent.
Erosion - There is a natural spring at Gatekeeper. We can't direct the water away. The large rocks were an obstacle that promoted the spinning of tires in the wet or loose dirt. This erosion was unacceptable. Concrete was applied (twice) but unsuccessful.
Harder - Over the last few years, the erosion has exposed more and more of the boulders at Gatekeeper. This obsticle has become harder and harder. More spinning of tires and new lines or approaches to the obstilce caused further erosion.
Because it is harder, more people have been breaking down in the Gatekeeper. This leads to more traffic delays, which leads to illegal bypasses, which leads to more erosion, which will lead to closing the entire trail.
The NEW line - The new line at Gatekeeper became wide right. This was because it was becoming harder and harder to take the obsticle straight on. By driving father right then turning hard left, you got a straighter shot over/between the two big boulders. The problem was the erosion of the hillside. You could measure this erosion in feet not inches.
The Gatekeeper had also become a spectator spot. Guys were trying to show off for the crowd. The bushes were getting trashed and the litter was increasing. The trail grew wider and wider in the area.
How should the trail be maintained?
There is an ongoing discussion as what level the trail should be maintained. Should it be maintained for a 100" vehicle running 31" tires or a 110" vehicle running 39" tires? Once determined, the goal would be to maintain erosion to the point where that rig could get through with a competent driver. A less equipped rig would have a harder time. A better equipped rig would have less of a problem. No specific type of rig would be excluded.
Why was there no prior notice on the Pirate board or the FOTR e-mail list?
The decision had been made by the county. The county asked everyone present at the November ROC meeting to keep it quiet. Safety was the reason given.
Users have posted that the users present should have protested the blasting and made the fact public. I can only speak for my self. Although blasting was not a prefect solution, it solved the problems listed above. I didn’t have a huge problem with it. I am very upset about the two extra boulders that had nothing to do with the problems discussed.
Bottom line, the county has no duty to get ROC approval.
Why was Gatekeeper addressed before the Little Sluice?
The Gatekeeper was a smaller project. It was almost a test for what could take place in the Little Sluice. The County failed that test! The Little Sluice has a legal bypass, the Gatekeeper does not.
What is the plan for the Little Sluice?
To make a long story short, any illegally placed boulder in the Little Sluice will be removed. They will be blasted and/or split and carried further up the sluice to fill in where rocks have been slowly pushed down the sluice for years.
The date for this has not been set. The county plans to secure the rocks on the cliff face around the time the rocks are dealt with.
Again, there is no way to make everyone happy.
One of the things that came from this mess is the need for better communications. The ROC meetings are open to the public. The minutes and agendas are posted on the El Dorado website.
I make it to most of the ROC meetings and on occasion post up about things. The FOTR e-mail list is probably the best place to keep informed on what is happening with the Rubicon.
We need to find people with some free time that can make all of these meetings. There is talk about having quarterly meetings about the Rubicon in places like the bay area, Sac, Redding, Reno/Tahoe, Modesto, etc. I'm going to have to slow down. It takes too much time and fuel costs for me to drive over from Reno to make these meetings.
I'll try and answer any other questions you guys might have.
Simple Man
NAXJA Member #979
- Location
- Nevada
CRASH
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Foresthill, CA
Thanks for summarizing Doug.
The ROC is not perfect, but it's what we have, and they are generally pretty effective in persuading the county on issues. We should continue to support them, but offer our criticisms as well.
I thank you for your service.
Andy
The ROC is not perfect, but it's what we have, and they are generally pretty effective in persuading the county on issues. We should continue to support them, but offer our criticisms as well.
I thank you for your service.
Andy
- Location
- West Sacramento, CA
Thanks for clearing that up, Doug.
Hopefully the problem stays solved there. It would be a shame to blow up Gatekeeper, and then have to go in and perform further actions because the problems continued.
Hopefully the problem stays solved there. It would be a shame to blow up Gatekeeper, and then have to go in and perform further actions because the problems continued.
- Location
- San Bruno, CA.
I think it will just increase traffic on the trail causing more problems in the long run. I seem to remember traffic counts last year and "use limits" in the RTMP.
Expect to see more trash and more POS junkers broken on the trail next year. Unfortunate, because this year there was a lot less garbage laying around than years past.
On the bright side, the locals now have a place to go dump their old refrigerators and the Jeep Jamboree can get more rigs through per hour so they can make more money.
Expect to see more trash and more POS junkers broken on the trail next year. Unfortunate, because this year there was a lot less garbage laying around than years past.
On the bright side, the locals now have a place to go dump their old refrigerators and the Jeep Jamboree can get more rigs through per hour so they can make more money.
Simple Man
NAXJA Member #979
- Location
- Nevada
Jes,
Traffic has been down since the first Spider closure. It won't be back to "normal" for more than five years. So traffic will increase from last years use as it returns to normal and as new people come in to the sport.
The work at Gatekeeper might encourage more people to try the trail with less equiped rigs. The kiosk will be staffed most weekends next summer. We will try and educate those passing by about what lies ahead.
Again I bring up the idea of maintaining the trail to a certian level. What level would you propose?
There have been talk of limiting vehicles to 250 per day. I am very much opposed to this. I alone can not stop limits and capacities. Every user that is opposed to limits should e-mail El Dodaro county at [email protected] and let them know.
I would have hoped for a more positive attitude from you but I do understand your doubts. As crazy as this sounds, the Gatekeeper was worked on to keep the trail open. SMUD, Fish & Game or the FS could have filed suit againt the county to close the trail for erosion and sedimentation run-off.
If you don't think that could happen, I'll refer you to 2000 and the Tahoe side of the trail. The Lahonton Water Authority ordered the county to close the trail. No talks, no negotiations, closed.
FOTR was formed and by working with the county, FS and Lahonton, a solution was found and implemented.
I won't deny that JJ has an interst in the trail. But they want it kept open and healthy just as much as anyone else. Last year they made hundreds of trips through the gatekeeper. Each one probably got harder, causing more erosion, which made it harder, which cause more erosion......
.
Traffic has been down since the first Spider closure. It won't be back to "normal" for more than five years. So traffic will increase from last years use as it returns to normal and as new people come in to the sport.
The work at Gatekeeper might encourage more people to try the trail with less equiped rigs. The kiosk will be staffed most weekends next summer. We will try and educate those passing by about what lies ahead.
Again I bring up the idea of maintaining the trail to a certian level. What level would you propose?
There have been talk of limiting vehicles to 250 per day. I am very much opposed to this. I alone can not stop limits and capacities. Every user that is opposed to limits should e-mail El Dodaro county at [email protected] and let them know.
I would have hoped for a more positive attitude from you but I do understand your doubts. As crazy as this sounds, the Gatekeeper was worked on to keep the trail open. SMUD, Fish & Game or the FS could have filed suit againt the county to close the trail for erosion and sedimentation run-off.
If you don't think that could happen, I'll refer you to 2000 and the Tahoe side of the trail. The Lahonton Water Authority ordered the county to close the trail. No talks, no negotiations, closed.
FOTR was formed and by working with the county, FS and Lahonton, a solution was found and implemented.
I won't deny that JJ has an interst in the trail. But they want it kept open and healthy just as much as anyone else. Last year they made hundreds of trips through the gatekeeper. Each one probably got harder, causing more erosion, which made it harder, which cause more erosion......
.
- Location
- Bakersfield, CA
Doug, thank you for having the commitment and energy to do a somewhat thankless job. I know it hads to be tough at times hearing all of the opnions and frustration, but people have to get it out. Hopefully, along with this, comes a motivation for more action and involvement from individuals.
Now, indulge me for a moment.
While we're on the subject, I'll take the liberty to voice a couple of my main personal gripes about how FS and BLM handle trail maintainance. The first is errosion control. I know this is nearly impossible to argue with them, but we need to keep making this point. Their whole errosion argument and standards are ludacris, and silly. Much of the beautiful landscape we enjoy in both our mountains and desert was created by errosion. One huge storm, or one extremely wet season can do considerably more change (damage, from their view) than many, many seasons of offroad use. I've yet to hear them say a good explanation of why natural errosion is OK but man enhanced errosion is a huge no no. Now, I undestand that there will always be particular areas where it is the right thing to do to minimize and control errosion from vehicle use, but their whole philosophy of any errosion being bad is stupid. While we need to cooporate with them, we should still resist this dumb standard that they adhere to.
The other big gripe I have is there "alternate route" standard. How, with any intelligent reasoning, can a section of trail that is 80 ft wide be more damaging than a section of trail that is 40 ft wide (just arbitrary figures)? With a single route going through tens of thousands of acres, how can it ever be justified that only one route is OK, but if there are sections with multiple routes that is bad? What f'n difference does it make if, through thousands of acres, there is a 30 ft wide trail or a 60 ft wide trail? It makes absolutely no difference to the ecology of the entire area. So, the only logical reason to not allow multiple routes in some areas is because of resourse damage, or purely for aesthetic reasons. The minimal resource damage is a silly argument, since we're talking about a few plants, which FS themselves put little value in, easily mowing down shrubery for their own projects and for fire preventive actions. The other is for aesthetics, which I can see, to a point. I don't like trees getting messed up, since it's nice to have them along the trail, but it's not a huge deal. However, aesthetics is not dramatically affected by a few multiple routes on some areas, and we like the extra opportunities that multiple routes provide. The FS shouldn't worry about how it looks to hikers, since it's not a hiking trail, it's a 4x4 route!! There are tons of hiking trails around, let us have our very limited number of 4x4 routes....without having to please the eye of potential hikers.
I'm not for tearing things up on the trail, and I like it to look nice, but for heaven's sake let's at least resist the silly standards that government uses to manage our 4x4 routes.
Now, indulge me for a moment.
While we're on the subject, I'll take the liberty to voice a couple of my main personal gripes about how FS and BLM handle trail maintainance. The first is errosion control. I know this is nearly impossible to argue with them, but we need to keep making this point. Their whole errosion argument and standards are ludacris, and silly. Much of the beautiful landscape we enjoy in both our mountains and desert was created by errosion. One huge storm, or one extremely wet season can do considerably more change (damage, from their view) than many, many seasons of offroad use. I've yet to hear them say a good explanation of why natural errosion is OK but man enhanced errosion is a huge no no. Now, I undestand that there will always be particular areas where it is the right thing to do to minimize and control errosion from vehicle use, but their whole philosophy of any errosion being bad is stupid. While we need to cooporate with them, we should still resist this dumb standard that they adhere to.
The other big gripe I have is there "alternate route" standard. How, with any intelligent reasoning, can a section of trail that is 80 ft wide be more damaging than a section of trail that is 40 ft wide (just arbitrary figures)? With a single route going through tens of thousands of acres, how can it ever be justified that only one route is OK, but if there are sections with multiple routes that is bad? What f'n difference does it make if, through thousands of acres, there is a 30 ft wide trail or a 60 ft wide trail? It makes absolutely no difference to the ecology of the entire area. So, the only logical reason to not allow multiple routes in some areas is because of resourse damage, or purely for aesthetic reasons. The minimal resource damage is a silly argument, since we're talking about a few plants, which FS themselves put little value in, easily mowing down shrubery for their own projects and for fire preventive actions. The other is for aesthetics, which I can see, to a point. I don't like trees getting messed up, since it's nice to have them along the trail, but it's not a huge deal. However, aesthetics is not dramatically affected by a few multiple routes on some areas, and we like the extra opportunities that multiple routes provide. The FS shouldn't worry about how it looks to hikers, since it's not a hiking trail, it's a 4x4 route!! There are tons of hiking trails around, let us have our very limited number of 4x4 routes....without having to please the eye of potential hikers.
I'm not for tearing things up on the trail, and I like it to look nice, but for heaven's sake let's at least resist the silly standards that government uses to manage our 4x4 routes.
Big Red
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Roscoe, IL 61073
Doug you're awesome. Thanks so much for laying out what has happened and what is being planned in the future as well as who to contact. It sucks, but it doesn't make sence to cry about stuff that is already in the past. The people that did the blasting and decided by themselves to blast 2 more boulders in the Alligator Pit need to be held accountable and be fined, lose their jobs, be suspended something. We cannot let them get away with this. By making a firm stand now, we will have a huge impact on how the Little Sluice situation is handled and how much blasting will go on. Can the blasting be better documented as to what exactly the blasting will consist of, what the area looked like before and after etc? This will make it harder for these people to start blasting and being vague as to what exactly they are doing. I know that there is a huge safety concern with blowing up dynamite, but maybe we can have people (4x4 people who use the trail) view the area before and then view it again right after the action is taken. People miraculasly do better work when you are there to watch them. The same people take short cuts and do what they want (do a 1/2 hearted job) when you don't watch them and they take it upon themselves to do what they want within their broad parameters.
Thanks again Doug for the update and the info. You mean so much to us here and we appreciate it. :wave:
Troy
Thanks again Doug for the update and the info. You mean so much to us here and we appreciate it. :wave:
Troy
Simple Man
NAXJA Member #979
- Location
- Nevada
Goatman,
As you read this remember I'm trying to explain the FS and County decisions and actions. That doen't mean that I agree with them.
The Rubicon and Ellis Creek Trails are a 50 wide easement through the national forest. Within that 50 easement there is supposed to be a 10 foot (?) wide Jeep trail.
Erosion - This is a tool the FS uses to mess with and control OHV activities within the forest. They can speak up about erosion within the county right of way because the water runs out of the right of way and in to the forest.
The FS is extremely serious about erosion. I you haven't read the Notice of Intent, go get a copy. The ENF has proposed to close every dirt road within the ENF from Nov 1st through May 1, due to POSSIBLE erosion.
They have also refused to look at the 700 plus miles of non-system roads for possible inclution as future system roads. That means 700 miles of trail within the ENF will be closed to wheeled motor vehicles.
E-mail Tony Scardina, [email protected] if you have a problem with this.
"alternate route" standard - "How, with any intelligent reasoning, can a section of trail that is 80 ft wide be more damaging than a section of trail that is 40 ft wide (just arbitrary figures)?"
Their argument is more exposed dirt with a little rain means more sedimentation running off in to the water system. They are very serious about this and use it as a tool against OHV use.
We have tried to argue that if there is a specific trail that has erosion potential, let the users know and we will go fix it. But the FS has put a blanket closure over the whole forest.
There is a meeting December 14th in Placerville at 7pm regarding this very issue.
.
As you read this remember I'm trying to explain the FS and County decisions and actions. That doen't mean that I agree with them.
The Rubicon and Ellis Creek Trails are a 50 wide easement through the national forest. Within that 50 easement there is supposed to be a 10 foot (?) wide Jeep trail.
Erosion - This is a tool the FS uses to mess with and control OHV activities within the forest. They can speak up about erosion within the county right of way because the water runs out of the right of way and in to the forest.
The FS is extremely serious about erosion. I you haven't read the Notice of Intent, go get a copy. The ENF has proposed to close every dirt road within the ENF from Nov 1st through May 1, due to POSSIBLE erosion.
They have also refused to look at the 700 plus miles of non-system roads for possible inclution as future system roads. That means 700 miles of trail within the ENF will be closed to wheeled motor vehicles.
E-mail Tony Scardina, [email protected] if you have a problem with this.
"alternate route" standard - "How, with any intelligent reasoning, can a section of trail that is 80 ft wide be more damaging than a section of trail that is 40 ft wide (just arbitrary figures)?"
Their argument is more exposed dirt with a little rain means more sedimentation running off in to the water system. They are very serious about this and use it as a tool against OHV use.
We have tried to argue that if there is a specific trail that has erosion potential, let the users know and we will go fix it. But the FS has put a blanket closure over the whole forest.
There is a meeting December 14th in Placerville at 7pm regarding this very issue.
.
Similar threads
- Locked
