EISPIRATEN

06/03/2008 Mtn Lion Sighting Chantry Flats - Zion Trail
06/02/2008 Fractured Leg Search & Rescue Eaton Canyon at the 2nd Falls
06/01/2008 Large Bonfire Cattle Cyn. at the first stream crossing
05/31/2008Posb. Siffened Gas Miscellaneous Little Jimmy Campground/Trailhead Area
05/31/2008 Vandalism Islip Saddle parking lot

"REGION: Forest-plan appeal rejected"
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/06 ... 7ce043.txt
...."A federal official Monday rejected an environmental group's challenge to new management plans for the Cleveland and three other Southern California national forests, saying the blueprints adequately protect wildlife, plants and water......
"The plans really favor commercial exploitation such as development of transmission lines and new reservoirs, grazing and other destructive activities," said David Hogan, conservation manager for the group in San Diego County. "The plans also emphasize harmful industrial recreation, like expanded off-road vehicle recreation, over protection of natural areas. All of this means there will be fewer places where endangered species can persist unmolested."
John Stewart of Lakeside, a resource consultant for California Association of Four Wheel Drive Clubs, said, "It's time to stop the litigation arguments and get on with implementing the management plans. If changes or issues arise, let's just deal with them then."
Stewart took exception to the environmental group's characterization of off-roading.
"We do not engage in an industrial activity," he said. "It's recreation. It is people out enjoying themselves. We're not out there creating new areas. Were trying to keep the roads that we have."

"New Bill Would Protect Wilderness and Wild & Scenic Rivers in the Eastern Sierra and San Gabriel Mountains"
http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20080523.cfm
..."Residents of the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys expressed their delight that the bill also includes wild lands in northern Los Angeles County: some 40,000 acres in the Magic Mountain and Pleasant View Ridge areas and seven miles of Piru Creek. The Pleasant View Ridge area features 8,200-foot Mt. Williamson and other dramatic peaks, the headwaters of Little Rock Creek, and some of the most magnificent and remote ridge and canyon country in southern California"

Do you have any more information on the 5 incidents that were noted by date?

No info on those incidents...which are are from the incidents website( http://63.196.254.151/WildWeb/WCANFrecent.htm ) that I grabbed it off of, and I get the feeling its supposed to be a private website, but why not public? LA Fire dept lists stuff.. http://lafd.blogspot.com/ . I dont want to portray it as if thieves are waiting for cars to park or anything like that, as those are just a one time happenings. But I think it will get interesting as the year goes on, to get a more accurate picture of the SGs...so far its been rather tamer than I expected...

I normally would not list a S&R, but the Eaton cyn one helps to correct that the 2nd falls adventure is not all see it on Youtube and then go there and its that easy...and the mountain lion, of course I have to put that one on there even though they might have seen nothing.

THanks for the link, AW.

Big Horn mine transfers ownership

http://www.wildernesslandtrust.org/news ... _mine.html

"On September 21st, 2007 the Trust secured long-term financing for the entire parcel in anticipation of eventual transfer to Angeles National Forest"

That wilderness land grab by the McKeon and the self appointed "Forest Police" makes me sick to my stomach.

Thanks for all the info, AW. I'm really glad to hear that the Pleasant View Ridge area is under consideration for protection. Neat country.

I'm also glad to hear that the Big Horn Mine inholding may be eventually made part of the forest.

Why would the Pleasant View area need to be designated as wilderness? It has zero roads, and no bike trails. I see none of the area under threat of development.

I guess it makes the "Tree Huggers" happy that there will never be a bike trail, or a road. I sure hope the hippies in the movement don't try to remove all the historical military aircraft wreck sites located in that area. I know of three sites that will be within the proposed wilderness area.

I don't personally know any hippies or ever seen anybody hugging a tree, but I would hug any hippies I met that help pass the new wilderness bill.

Terry Morse wrote:I don't personally know any hippies or ever seen anybody hugging a tree, but I would hug any hippies I met that help pass the new wilderness bill.

"The Mountains are the means, the man is the end; the idea is to improve the man, not to reach the top of the mountain."

MAN I LIKE THAT Every time I read that I like it more.

FIGHT ON wrote:"The Mountains are the means, the man is the end; the idea is to improve the man, not to reach the top of the mountain."

MAN I LIKE THAT Every time I read that I like it more.

I found that quote in Aaron Ralston's "Between a Rock and a Hardplace" book.

Terry Morse wrote:I don't personally know any hippies or ever seen anybody hugging a tree, but I would hug any hippies I met that help pass the new wilderness bill.

I normally don't get heated up about many issues, but this bill bothered me. In the past 15 years many of my favorite areas have been closed for recreation by the Forest Service and environmental groups.

This biggest land grab for me was the shut down of the entire Littlerock Canyon because of a toad. I didn't mind them erecting gates, it was the fact that they closed the area completely.

Prospecting for gold (even with small hand tools) has been banned in many national forests because of overzealous District Rangers.

As for the wilderness designation, Buck Mckeon literally denied access to thousands of acres of good hunting areas. The White Mountain Area wilderness designation now makes the hunting areas a 20 plus mile hike.
This sucks for those of us that spend lots of money yearly on hunting tags.



I'll get off my soapbox now.

Well....Aaron Ralston.....hehehe....climber
Anyways, I have to admit Im on the same side as Kit here, as I cant understand the 'protection' side. As I see it, with a certain logic there would never be a Baldy village, a MtWilson transmission, and those Edison lines in the BigT...I doubt there would even be a Big Tujunga canyon road....it just something I read and what gives a certain group so much say over what happens. Seems like a out of control rude world battling it out and the big picture is lost. We need more money, not an argument over the scenic value of Piru creek.

This one is going to cost millions in bureaucratic shuffling...its like we already have hundreds page documents on environmental impact of repairing culverts, do we really need another law just so we can be 'right'? Will law after law after law save us from ourselves? Or is this one just in the bag of certain groups to show 'how much' they have done for the environment? How about family safe forest? Well thats my rant...

Kit Fox wrote: As for the wilderness designation, Buck Mckeon literally denied access to thousands of acres of good hunting areas. The White Mountain Area wilderness designation now makes the hunting areas a 20 plus mile hike.
This sucks for those of us that spend lots of money yearly on hunting tags.

Who the heck is Buck McKeon?

Hunting, to my knowledge isn't typically illegal in a Wilderness area. You can't use quad runners or 4x4's, but you can carry a rifle and use your tags.

I agree that sometimes the rangers go over board and just totally close areas instead of trying to do something reasonable. Like entirely closing the historic lower Falls Creek Trail in the San Gorgonio Wilderness 'cause a private landowner didn't want to deal with a public right-of-way that had existed since 1892. It feels a little cavalier, like we hikers are irrelevant peons, when they close off entire areas for totally bogus reasons (like the current frog closure on Rattlesnake Creek near Buckhorn because of one creek crossing in a frog habitat zone.

On the other hand, I like Wilderness areas. Wilderness areas can't be opened up for off roaders, etc. Means that it'll be real wilderness. I agree that there should be some roads and amenities in a National Forest, but there should also be some areas that are set aside. Thank God that the proposed ski resort wasn't built on the North Side of San Gorgonio, my absolute #1 favorite hiking area in S Calif. On the other hand, Angeles Crest Hwy is sure nice to get around on, and I wouldn't mind if they re-opened Hwy 39. Without variety it isn't a horse race, yes?

Mckeon is the guy the authored the wilderness bill. http://mckeon.house.gov/eastern_sierra_maps.aspx

Kit Fox wrote:The White Mountain Area wilderness designation now makes the hunting areas a 20 plus mile hike.
This sucks for those of us that spend lots of money yearly on hunting tags.

This area, is a hunter allowed to use a horse or a bike to get there? If I was a hunter I would be excited that it was harder to get to areas. The easier it is to get there the more people there would be. To me the more horses and bikes and motorized transportation that is not allowed the more excited I would be. If it's easy then anybody and everybody will be there. Look at Azusa Canyon. Imagine if there was no road going up there. I've never been up the east fork next to the river past Heaton Flats but everyone I have run into that has been there has said that area is awesome. Take those roads out and that whole area becomes like that. And if 20 miles is too far for a day hike then take a few days off and enjoy the trip. I say take all the roads out.

FIGHT ON wrote:

Kit Fox wrote:The White Mountain Area wilderness designation now makes the hunting areas a 20 plus mile hike.
This sucks for those of us that spend lots of money yearly on hunting tags.

This area, is a hunter allowed to use a horse or a bike to get there? If I was a hunter I would be excited that it was harder to get to areas. The easier it is to get there the more people there would be. To me the more horses and bikes and motorized transportation that is not allowed the more excited I would be. If it's easy then anybody and everybody will be there. Look at Azusa Canyon. Imagine if there was no road going up there. I've never been up the east fork next to the river past Heaton Flats but everyone I have run into that has been there has said that area is awesome. Take those roads out and that whole area becomes like that. And if 20 miles is too far for a day hike then take a few days off and enjoy the trip. I say take all the roads out.

Especially the one to FIGHT ON's house.

Kit Fox wrote: As for the wilderness designation, Buck Mckeon literally denied access to thousands of acres of good hunting areas. The White Mountain Area wilderness designation now makes the hunting areas a 20 plus mile hike.
This sucks for those of us that spend lots of money yearly on hunting tags.

Oh, OK, I get what you're driving at. It's not that they've restricted hunting per se, but rather that they've made it extremely difficult to get to the hunting. Yeah, 20 miles is prohibitive. Most people would find 20 miles to be a tough hike, and you'd basically have to turn around and come back when you got to your destination. Hunting requires time. You'd have to have 2 to 4 days just to get into and out of the area for one day of hunting, which means you'd be doing a lot less hunting.

Horses are financially out of reach for most of us, and schelping enough gear in for an overnight hunt on a mtn. bike in steep, high altitude terrain ain't no picnic either.

I wonder if a corridor could be created? They modified the SJ wilderness so that the tram could be built, and there are other examples where they've accomodated existing roads.

Mtn Bikes are considered mechanical therefore they are banned in Wilderness areas.

>Mtn Bikes are considered mechanical therefore they are banned in Wilderness areas

There also seems to be a limitation to what the Forest Service will do to intervene to provide access in those areas as well. More to the point, it seems limiting access would be in order, such as a permit process to gauge/limit impact. I would guess that PCT bridge would never be built and hikers would have a lot less options.

Take away roads and our own wilderness is a lot less accessible. Upstream of the bridge to nowhere with no bridge built would be very taxing for the average hiker. Without the WF road, there goes the SG wilderness access...of course to be consisent the Cogswell dam would have to be dismantled. The one area completely left alone, the SD forest, even if access were allowed, would be a big undertaking to go from top to bottom.

Its sort of cool the way it is now IMO. If there was no SheepMtnwilderness, then I think the area would be closed permantently for "trail" repairs....sort of unique how the forest service can say its wilderness, travel at your own risk....but if its upper Bear Creek trail out of wildnerness, then shut it down.

So if Pleasant View were to turn wilderness, then the next landslide is your problem....and thats fine w/ me. People on the northwest of the SGs dont have a lot of options as far as wilderness. But increase wilderness and you will decrease non-wilderness options. So when you have to go grab a permit 10 miles away to dayhike at Buckhorn or who knows how many miles for Piru , just lost the right to object...because this law directs the Forest Service to protect the area as wilderness...its a sweeping legal implication that never ends.

These areas are already protected by the supposed responsibility of those who jobs it is to protect the area. I say no more of this 'gotcha' by circumventing the forest service plan with sneaky legal bill, meanwhile some other area gets screwed. The people who are in the pockets of greedy self-interested people need to be fined&fired is what I say.

Where is the Sierra Club on front range access? What a joke. The judge should be removed, this is an easy victory for hikers who have a clear legal right to get to trails. Not to mention the Rubio canyon embarrassment.

Where is the Sierra Club on BigT development? Just take over Lukens already, nothing scenic there anywho...oh yeah, they are working on Piru creek.

Where is the Sierra Club on Asuza blight? Instead of just cursing the place and being politically correct but really blaming Latinos? Of course we all know what race those off-roaders are.

Where is the Sierra Club on highway safety? Hell-bent on limiting access to the environment...the less people that go to the forest, the less global warming. Dont you know this is bigger ? This is about the whole ^%$^$ world!

Kit Fox wrote:Mtn Bikes are considered mechanical therefore they are banned in Wilderness areas.

Yes, that's true, although that regulation is often more honored in the breach than in the observance. Unlike mechanical conveyances, bikes make little noise and and attract little attention. In many areas the rangers look the other way on bikes but would be on you in a hot minute if you were riding a ATV. Not in any way that I encourage you to circumvent the law, but then again the law as enforced not the law on the books is the real law. Technically, no car may be in a crosswalk even if the person is on the opposite side of the street, but the cops won't ticket you unless you are much closer to the pedestrian.

AW wrote:I would guess that PCT bridge would never be built and hikers would have a lot less options.

That's the attitude that the I was objecting to earlier. Taking no reasonable steps to accomodate low impact access.

AW wrote:Without the WF road, there goes the SG wilderness access...of course to be consisent the Cogswell dam would have to be dismantled.

That's what I ment by my "corridors" comment. They do a lot of things when they want to to allow access. Public pressure needs to get them to do that a bit more for us ordinary citizens not just bigger interests like the PS Tram or Cogswell.[/quote]

AW wrote:So when you have to go grab a permit 10 miles away to dayhike at Buckhorn or who knows how many miles for Piru.

Again, back to my "attitude" comment. Having to go to absured lengths to get a permit should be impermissible on the part of the FS.

AW wrote:Where is the Sierra Club on front range access?

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the issue here?

AW wrote:Where is the Sierra Club on front range access?

Pardon my ignorance, but what's the issue here?[/quote]

Sorry I didnt get to this earlier...see
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/use/altadena.htm
http://www.arroyoseco.org/newsfull.php?artic=842
http://cbs2.com/local/Stoney.Hill.Hiker.2.519713.html
http://www.topix.net/city/monrovia-ca/2 ... -to-public

among others....

More misc news...first one(lengthy) pertains mightily to the whole adventure pass discussion....

"Clevland Forest marks 100 years "
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metr ... rests.html

"Besides climbers and wildlife advocates, the Forest Service must juggle demands from telecommunications companies, hunters and campers, utilities, off-road-vehicle enthusiasts, hikers, horse riders, neighbors and others. The forest offers attractions in every season, including winter snows that draw carloads of visitors to its mountains.

“We are getting pressure from all sides,” said Cleveland National Forest Supervisor Will Metz. “It's so divisive and it's so emotional.”

"Interest groups that deal with the forest's managers agree about the lack of staffing and money for forest operations, but they disagree about how forest managers are handling the shortcomings.
Some environmentalists are considering a lawsuit to challenge recent land management plans for Southern California's four national forests.

The Forest Service “provides an increasingly rare wild refuge for imperiled plants and animals in a growing sea of urban development. Yet (it) ignores these values and treats most of this land as if it were worthy only of development for urban infrastructure, noxious motor recreation and other exploitation,” said David Hogan, conservation manager in San Diego for the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit environmental group.

Some outdoors enthusiasts see the opposite problem.

“At every opportunity that I am aware of . . . it seems like it's moving toward less access instead of more,” said Jack Bransford, president of the San Diego County Wildlife Federation, which represents several hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation groups.

He said the Forest Service suffers from hiring too many academics who don't know the land and have little interest in rods and guns. "

"Hype was only fool's gold"
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_9737527

""Mt. Lowe is richer in ore deposits than either the famous Treadwell mine of Alaska, the yields of which have enthused the world; the Homestake mine of North Dakota, which has paid $100,000,000; or the once famous Comstock mine in Nevada when, in its palmy days, it paid millions to its stockholders" 8)

"Dawn Mine in the upper reaches of Millard Canyon tunneled into the mountain and produced some gold in the years when the price of gold made it profitable.

For a while, there was a Dawn Station on the Mt. Lowe railway, where ore hauled up to the railway from the mine on burros could be loaded and taken to town for refining.

Dawn Mine is now abandoned and the tunnels sealed.

Robinson concludes, "No one has ever succeeded in making a fortune by mining the south front of the San Gabriels, although many indeed have tried.""

Terry Morse wrote:I don't personally know any hippies or ever seen anybody hugging a tree, but I would hug any hippies I met that help pass the new wilderness bill.

My wife and I were hiking in Hawaii, on Maui and saw a woman, no sh!t giving a tree a HUGE hug. She hugged that thing for at least 10minutes solid. Gotta love that! We laughed about it for quite some time.

AW wrote:

AW wrote:Where is the Sierra Club on front range access?

Hikin_Jim wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but what's the issue here?

Sorry I didnt get to this earlier...see
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/use/altadena.htm
http://www.arroyoseco.org/newsfull.php?artic=842
http://cbs2.com/local/Stoney.Hill.Hiker.2.519713.html
http://www.topix.net/city/monrovia-ca/2 ... -to-public

among others....

In other words, the SC didn't jump in on any of these? Weird. I would think that they would.

I wish someone would file a suit like that with the Falls Creek Trail in the SG Wilderness... Some day maybe.

One that I am curious of is 4 star Matilija creek in Ventura county. Supposedly this one is closed now....from localhikes...

"On the way back we were met by the supposed land owner who informed us we were trespassing on his property. He was there to inform all who passed to take heed. This is the property with the nice rock wall and orchard. He says there is no easement and never has been. He owns 6 parcels in this area. The only legal hikes are those up the north fork Matilija Creek and the one up to the Murietta divide. He showed us a topo map and indicated there was absolutely no legal way you could hike up the canyon past his property"

Sounds like something will have to give here. I havent been to Matilija yet but am pretty sure he has no right to the creek itself? Should be interesting because the path has been hiked for decades now.

Since the last incident update not much in the way of news....

Grafitti responses at areas from the South Fork campground to Switzers
No car break-ins....could this be true?
Lion sighting at Clear Creek outdoor education center(Angeles Forest Hwy/Big Tujunga) on 7/2/08

The focus(besides accidents) are parking citations & BBQs. By a loose recollection, over 50 citations were handed out for BBQs. 16@ WF SG River on 7/4/08 alone. I dont even remember any grills there....no signs either(could be there though). Of course last thing the forest needs is even an accidental fire considering resources are spread really thin.

The only parking citation I thought was of interest was Chantry Flats. Apparently, someone had parked in a no parking(& towaway) zone and had their car towed. Not sure how that happened, but parking can be scarce after early hours...but yeah, if it says no parking, they will get to you.

Also, there were some cases of injury(head) at creeks..also a response to possible drowning at Stonevale picnic area(Big Tujunga).