Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Messages

Deep Creek Hot Springs

The Moon is Waning Crescent (4% of Full)


Re: OHV connectivity?

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

February 25, 2004 11:46AM
Katrina writes:

<<If J1299 was an existing open route, then it should have been included in the public comment process when discussing the route designation for the area. All interested members of the public should have been able to comment on these routes. Have you checked the minutes to the meetings to ascertain if J1299 was in the public discussion?>>

J1299 was not on any previous maps and was not included in public discussion prior to publishing the Decision Record, CDCA Plan Amendment in June 2003. That is the reason for the subsequent public protest.

<<If J1299 was in existence on the topo map of 1976, it could be subject to being claimed as an open route by the County under RS2477. If someone just created a trail across private lands that is trespassing and vandalism of private property.>>

RS2477 does not apply to routes on private lands. Also, to correct a current misconception, J1299 is entirely within the ACEC and does not cross private land.

<<I believe that the BLM did not notify the private land owners of these meetings that would affect their property so that the private land owners could be part of the decision process. I repeatedly requested to be on their mailing or notification list so that I could notify people of these meetings and attend some myself. The BLM intentionally did not inform me of these meetings until near the end when most everything had been decided. In addition, I requested that the BLM notify private land owners in the area of these meetings.>>

That is absolutely correct. We were excluded.

<<The BLM have been paid to protect the Indian Cultural Artifacts. They were paid to erect a large fence around one such area (the fence was never put in) and they were paid to place gravel caps on top of the artifacts that were in places near or on a road. The BLM were budgeted annual funding for monitoring these Indian Cultural sites. I think that an examination of their funding versus their records of billing for these purposes would be very interesting. Did they in fact monitor these sites?>>

None of this work has been done.

quid pro Castro?

mojavegreen 1086February 23, 2004 06:39PM

Re: quid pro Castro?

Wizard 627February 23, 2004 10:27PM

Re: quid pro Castro?

mojavegreen 686February 24, 2004 01:17AM

Re: quid pro Castro?

mojavegreen 626February 24, 2004 11:32AM

Castro's OHV event in '93

mojavegreen 633February 24, 2004 11:48AM

Re: Castro's OHV event in '93

Rick 620February 24, 2004 11:50AM

Emergency closure

mojavegreen 600February 24, 2004 12:03PM

Open Route Network

mojavegreen 670February 24, 2004 12:13PM

OHV connectivity?

mojavegreen 690February 24, 2004 12:22PM

quid pro Castro-J1299 for J1021

mojavegreen 690February 24, 2004 12:37PM

Re: OHV connectivity?

Rick 620February 24, 2004 12:50PM

Re: OHV connectivity?

mojavegreen 585February 24, 2004 05:28PM

Re: OHV connectivity?

Paul P. 598February 24, 2004 05:37PM

Re: OHV connectivity?

Rick 593February 24, 2004 06:34PM

Re: OHV connectivity?

mojavegreen 663February 24, 2004 06:45PM

Re: OHV connectivity?

Rick 647February 24, 2004 06:33PM

Re: OHV connectivity?

katrina island 713February 25, 2004 02:07AM

Re: OHV connectivity?

mojavegreen 639February 25, 2004 11:46AM

Re: quid pro Castro?

LaughingBear 680February 24, 2004 06:28PM

Re: J1299 excluded from RS2477

LaughingBear 1321February 25, 2004 09:17AM

Re: J1299 excluded from RS2477

Arizona Mike 700February 25, 2004 09:56AM

Re: J1299 excluded from RS2477

Arizona Mike 647February 25, 2004 10:00AM

Re: J1299 excluded from RS2477

Wizard 652February 25, 2004 12:28PM

Re: J1299 excluded from RS2477

Rick 646February 25, 2004 01:35PM

Re: quid pro Castro?

DCR 710February 25, 2004 11:14AM

Re: quid pro Castro?

Wizard 639February 25, 2004 11:24AM

Re: quid pro Castro?

Wizard 618February 25, 2004 11:33AM

mangled posts?

Rick 660February 25, 2004 01:37PM

Re: mangled posts?

mojavegreen 666February 25, 2004 02:25PM

Re: quid pro Castro?

Paul P. 629February 26, 2004 05:13PM

Re: quid pro Castro?

Wizard 719February 26, 2004 08:24PM

Proper authorities? Nelson?

mojavegreen 1048February 26, 2004 11:51PM

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login