Re: DCV Meeting Minutes

Sycamore you are correct, members that did not attend a meeting have a week to post their vote. In fact the wording we used in our internal document is: "All issues discussed at a meeting will be posted on the Forum and non-attending members will have one week to post their vote or post their input."

We posted the intention to send the letters after our June meeting and I don't recall anyone voting not to do so after that meeting. If it is in a post I missed please direct me to it. I then posted that we would discuss the format of the letter at this meeting. I did not receive one email against the letter prior to our meeting or I would have shared it at the meeting. The consensus of all posts was to work with the USFS, and the intention of this letter is just that.

The problem that the USFS has with this trail is the potential for erosion in two sections as indicated by Ranger Brad to Sycamore. He has told me on several ocasions that a person can hike in any way they please. They just do not want anyone doing work with tools on a trail that has not been officially designed considering enviromental studies and approved by them. If the USFS does not want people to hike a trail they would post it an cite people that go that way, but this is not the case. At no time has the USFS asked DCV to discourage the use of the trail by it's members or anyone else. How would we do this even if we agreed to do so? Are any of you planning to stay on the trail and ask people not to use it. Speaking for myself, I am not willing to do so, as I prefer to spend the day down at the springs. We have a hard enough time trying to discourage people not to stay overnight, and that is that we are there at the springs on a regular basis.

Furthermore, as part of our internal document we also agreed to the following: "They (DCV members) are also free to access the springs by whatever road they feel most convenient for them."

I am in favor of sending the letter as we agreed on Saturday as I favor each individual's freedom to access the springs whichever way they please, and consider the posibility of discouraging the use of any specific trail unpractical and unaceptable. Doing so would only justify Mike Castro opposers discouraging people from going through the Bowen Ranch.

I do not favor those that try and discourage people from using the Bowen Ranch to access the springs, nor will I support those that discourage people from using the JF3 trail (or the spillway or Bradford Ridge for that matter). I try to be impartial and treat both sides of the so called "feud" equally. I hope we will try and work with the USFS as a group to try and reduce the enviromental impact.

Take care and look for the post with the letter to the USFS.