EISPIRATEN

This was a poll. These haven't been imported. Sorry.

You see, that's why I never trust polls these days. Our choices are agree or don't agree yet? No option for disagree?

May I remind you that the general mission of the US Forest Service is one of conservation; that is, productive use of the natural resources for the current generation, with consideration for future generations second. This is different from the preservationist mission of the Park Service.

I believe that a conservation approach is best for the US forest with a larger urban interface than any other. The city isn't going anywhere, nor are the folks that depend upon it and its multiple uses. If we put the San Gabriels under glass, all we are going to get is a bunch of broken glass. Besides, it will remove the rights of the respectful Citizen owners.

I, one of so many these days, am tired of giving up my rights to whims and contrarities and do-gooder BS of a few. I have caught hell here before for saying so, but I have warned against giving in to the NPS take-over of the San Gabriel watershed as a slippery slope, and I condemn this as an example of another government take-over.

I know that this will not solve all the problems associated with managing one of the most heavily visited National Forests in the country however, it seems to me that work to ensure our lands are managed better at the federal level is a good thing.

They are already letting The Angeles go to pot, and can't keep competent employees. How is more regulation going to create an Angeles-adjacent Utopia? The only way to enforce more wilderness areas is to hire law enforcement employees, for which they say they don't have the money.

Maybe we could put the wilderness area boundaries on the honor system, like we have at the US borders. Of course, we would then have 100's of acres of marijuana guarded by heavily-armed cartel personnel - more than we have know - that kill any bear or mountain lion or hiker that gets in their way, and kill any deer that try to eat their crop. Then nobody will enter the wilderness, except those that do not obey the law.

I am against further wilderness in this area.
Give us a third option; I am convinced I'm afainst it.
Most of these pro Wilderness arguments mention that NPS will have more $ and resources and this will solve the problems. Like magically, the diaper droppers and spray painters will stop.
If this were truly the case, then just give it to USFS.

SGMlover is obviously a political hack - a mouthpiece for David Drier. I won't go off on him (unless provoked) and his previous lack of interest in The Angeles, but this is just more feel good BS, and I am very, VERY suspicious of his [political] relationship with Jody Noiron.

@ Rumpled: Although the National Park Service is in the Department of the Interior, and the US Forest Service is in the Department of Agriculture, it is the DOI that budgets the FS. If the DOI is suddenly interested in spending money in the Angeles, there must be a lucrative reason......

I want hand rails put in on the San Antonio Ridge maybe like Half Dome... oh and a trail between Rattlesnake and S. Hawking

There's a third option now.

TacoDelRio wrote:There's a third option now.

Seppuku?

In general I think Wilderness is good, but areas should not be designated just to get the total acres of Wilderness increased. I also don't like that mountain bike trails get closed due to Wilderness designation.

If the Sheep Mt. Wilderness is expanded to include all the trails up Mt. San Antonio, that would be a major loss to mt bikers and possible hikers. Perhaps Wilderness permits would be required? Would cut down on the number of people, but also exclude many many more. The fewer people out enjoying nature the harder it will be to protect nature. I think the San Gabriel mountains have larger threats than development that need to be addressed by the USFS.

I have started a campaign to try and get mt bikers to contact Rep. David Dreier and ask that the Wilderness boundaries be adjusted to keep some trails open to mt bikes, if your organization would be interested in agreeing to keep some trails open to bikes, you could gain several more allies.

pm me your email, if you would like to discuss this.

Thanks for adding the 3rd option. Admittedly the wording was faulty.

I do have a bias since I have helped San Gabriel Mountains Forever. Including picking up the diapers mentioned by another poster. No ties to Dreier or the USFS though.

I have heard them talk about working to get better law enforcement and a big part of the NRA is getting the National Parks Service involved. Of course education is a big part of it too. Programs that simply ask people to take out their trash and hand out trash bags at the parking lots have been effective reducing trash by 90%. You're not born knowing no trace ethics you have to be taught.

Do you guys have other suggestions for improving the SGMs? I've also done tree plantings and trail work but, feel like there needs to be a bigger change.

SGMlover wrote:Do you guys have other suggestions for improving the SGMs?

Sure. The local NFS district should prioritize the recruiting, training and deployment of a corps of volunteer rangers for trail patrols and parking lot orientation and education. Last time I was at Icehouse Canyon I noticed there was a ranger in the parking lot. No one on the trails, though.

The only way to enforce existing regulations (which as far as I'm concerned are the only regulations we need) is to have feet on the ground up in the mountains. Obviously they can't afford to hire rangers, so a volunteer corps is required.

They've been doing this in the San Gorgonio Wilderness for 30 years, and it has been pretty effective. I suspect the reason it isn't adopted more widely in the San Gabriels is bureaucratic inertia as well as civil service abhorrence of volunteers.

Getting the NPS involved invariably means more regulations; more rules; maybe more money but certainly spent less efficiently; and the banning of dogs from trails.

I think there is plenty of "wilderness" in the san gabriels.

This IMO is a ploy for politicians to hang their hat on some 'GREEN' thing with no concern for what actual users want or need.

I voted "Not convinced yet" before I had the option "No"

I've been opposed to this since I first heard about 2-3 years ago and am still opposed to it.

SGMlover wrote:No ties to Dreier or USFS

Why no personal information, and why was this your first post here?

simonov wrote:

SGMlover wrote:Do you guys have other suggestions for improving the SGMs?

I suspect the reason it isn't adopted more widely in the San Gabriels is bureaucratic inertia as well as civil service abhorrence of volunteers

A prime example is the plans to get contractors to fix trails damaged in the Station Fire. (most of these contractors are current or former FS employees)

Volunteers stand ready to get the job done without very destructive, trail machines that a contractor would have to use.

In some limited situations... Yes equipment would be needed, a thing that wilderness designations will prevent.

I have said a wilderness designation would be a De Facto permanent closure, and I maintain it would be given the volunteer work force, the available time, and the amount of work required.

First, I am opposed to any designation that would close off the backcountry. In many cases, Wilderness designation closes access roads. I'd like to be able to get in to hike; a road closure can in effect ban hiking (unless you're someone with time on their hands who can afford extra hours or days to hike in).

I would love to see more enforcement of existing regulations in the Forest, particularly with respect to alcohol, trash, illegal fires, graffiti etc. The problem that I see with the NPS is that they tend to over-regulate things, sometimes with absurd reasoning. When I hike in the Sierra, it's almost always eaiser to hike in a USFS area than one controlled by the NPS (the Whitney Zone being the exception).

Having said that, I've not been impressed with the way the USFS has run the Angeles NF. Maybe it could be better under NPS management. The problem is, that once the NPS is in, they're in permanently. It's not like you can try it for a trial period and then "non-renew" the NPS if it doesn't work out. It's a pretty permanent crap shoot.

Sometimes the devil you do know is better than the devil you don't.

HJ

mattmaxon wrote:

simonov wrote: I suspect the reason it isn't adopted more widely in the San Gabriels is bureaucratic inertia as well as civil service abhorrence of volunteers

A prime example is the plans to get contractors to fix trails damaged in the Station Fire. (most of these contractors are current or former FS employees)

Oooohh, so you are suggesting patronage and corruption might actually be behind the anti-volunteer mentality among some NFS personnel?

For those who think more heavy-handed regulation and enforcement (which is what the NPS will bring) is needed in the San Gabriels, let's make sure this isn't a solution in search of a problem.

First, before talking about agencies or anything else, identify the pressing issues you think need to be addressed. Itemize them one by one. Maybe prioritize them. Then solicit suggestions from professionals and the public for how these issues might be tackled.

I suspect that once this exercise is completed, it will be revealed the NFS has all the regulatory tools at its disposal needed to run through the fixit list.

So, has San Gabriel Mountains Forever performed such an exercise? Ar the results published anywhere?

Throwing another agency at the problem (a problem that hasn't yet been defined, as far as I can see), won't solve much.

PS: Apparently there is a lot of anti-NPS sentiment on this board. I think it's one reason Damocles disappeared.

PPS: Has anyone ever seen a volunteer working in a public-contact capacity in an NPS-administered park or recreation area? Wouldn't it be ironic if an NPS takeover led directly to a reduction of the manpower available in the San Gabriels due to a "no volunteers" policy.

Did I miss something? The NPS wants to take over the San Gab's?

NPS San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study:
http://www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel/

406 wrote:Did I miss something? The NPS wants to take over the San Gab's?

I doubt it. Hinda Solis started this decades ago by getting the study forced on them. When they said the SGs wasnt worthy of being a national park(duh), there were all kind of charges of racism being thrown around. The NPS was cornered into trying to see what if anything they could do for the Latinos, and they came up with a plan, but it was blasted even though it focused on the SG river corridor.

The demands are basically
1) Public shuttle service up to Crystal Lake and as far down as Whittier Narrows.
2) Change the recreation plan for the SG river by planning for way more people...trashcans everywhere, etc..and then do whatever to make it accomodative and secure(but dont discriminate at any point).
3) Additional off-road areas

Instead, they find the East Fork road basically closed to recreation unless you are paying to be on private property. OHV area seems to be smaller instead of getting larger.

I feel discriminated against, and my panties have begun to bunch. What is the NPS going to do for us Slavs in the area?

TacoDelRio wrote:I feel discriminated against, and my panties have begun to bunch. What is the NPS going to do for us Slavs in the area?

Subsidized supplies of SPF 1000.

AW wrote: Hinda Solis started this decades ago...

I think you might be referring to Linda Solis, yes?

The NPS will create more off road areas? What kinda wilderness protection is that?

HJ

Hikin_Jim wrote:

AW wrote: Hinda Solis started this decades ago...

I think you might be referring to Linda Solis, yes? HJ

Actually, her name is Hilda Solis.

HikeUp wrote:

TacoDelRio wrote:I feel discriminated against, and my panties have begun to bunch. What is the NPS going to do for us Slavs in the area?

Subsidized supplies of SPF 1000.

Spot on! As long as I don't have to wait in line at the DMV for it.