Re: Adopting Saddle Lake Trail?

[KNUCKLEHEAD]

You guys are refering to this spot then I am guessing? If so, how much further does this trail go right now. THis was as far as i went last weekend. There were quite a bit of tracks down through the trees going around it when we were there.

Where the jeep is going he is on the trail. But if you go over ten feet or so to the right you are off the trail.

You can see the logs and rocks that have been moved out of the way on the right side.

[boogoos]

This sounds good if Saddle Lake Trail can be adopted. There are few loops that Forest Service will want you to jump thru, but very do able. A club or group "4x4 Trailfinders" would the have best chance. They should belong to the Calif Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs for even a better chance. There is a lot history Ken or I would be happy to share. I shouldn't speak for Ken, but I am sure with his years of interest with the High Lakes, especially Pipe Jam it should be OK?.....norm

[78-FJ40]

Seems like another option would be to establish a dedicated bypass instead of taking the "if you can't make it, you don't belong there" stance. I'm all for keeping trails open and protecting the outdoors (I'm a member of the NorCal Crawlers), but whatever you come up with as a barricade, someone will defeat. Logs cemented in the ground can be chainsawed, boulders can be moved, etc. How much damage does the annual blocking and clearing of those logs next to the slab cause? How many of the major obstacles on the Rubicon or Fordyce have bypasses? Just to get to the slab requires a decently set up vehicle (thus, keeping many people from even reaching the slab), but is it right to require that you have a vehicle capable of overcoming the slab to view the beauty of Saddle Lake? Neither the yellow Jeep or the Jeep Rubicon made it up the slab that day. They are both very well built rigs, but they were lacking the wheelbase that day for the climb. Does that mean that they can't see the lake unless they buy a longer wheelbase rig?

After the rebuild of my FJ40, I now have a rig that can eat the dreaded PipeJam trail alive, but I probably would not have made it up the slab that day either. Again, I guess I'm not worthy of seeing Saddle Lake.

Just my .02 cents.

[boogoos]

'78-FJ40,  I agree it was a big(negative) mistake when that Route was made over that Rock Pile. And it should be berouted so people don't risk breaking something just to go fishing or camping at Saddle Lake. By adopting that trail would be a solution. Blocking by passes wouldn't be required if a better route can be worked out with the Forest Service......norm

[tomass15]

I agree with 78Fj and boogoo on the bypass.  I have seen the bypass in question and it is warn in enough to look like a road.  Having a viable bypass can help reduce errosion from to many failed attempts at an obstacle.  They use them on other trails.  I also agree a trail that is tough, can reduce traffic.

[Scooterloo]

No disrespect to fellow wheelers but I have to disagree about the bypass idea.
Trails like the Rubicon have bypasses because ill equipped rigs/drivers tear up the trails
and illegally create "easier" routes.  There seems to be a  new breed of wheelers who rely
on their vehicle capabilities only and don't use common sense.  If you have a problem on an
obstacle (and are not holding up the line of traffic) get out and stack rocks, use a spotter,
and then turn to the winch to pass the obstacle.  Take a look at what chicomecha and Pantheus do
with their mildly built rigs, I don't think there is a trail in the high lakes that a mild rig with a
winch cannot handle with some patience and brains.  I personally modify my rig to get me there
without winching/stacking (because I hate both) but not everyone can or wants to, however, if
you feel you have to modify the route to get somewhere, I believe that is wrong, there is always
the option to hike in to Saddle, it is maybe 5 minutes from the big climb.


Hey Pantheus, what is your take on this.  I believe making an official bypass would have
to be approved by the FS.  Have you heard anything from them?

[Pantheus]

Hey Pantheus, what is your take on this.  I believe making an official bypass would have
to be approved by the FS.  Have you heard anything from them?

Well, I have strong opinions ...  and since you've asked you'll "get" to hear them.

I believe the trail where it is located is the problem, and that the trail could and SHOULD have been located elsewhere.  It had to be moved, because it was doing more resource damage where it used to be,  but those who re-routed it did the entire 4 wheeling community as well as the Forest Service a huge DISservice, by making the trail go over the ONLY rock pile in the area.

In those days when it went there it was very possible to drive nearly anything over the rocks...  but with 15 or so years of people trying to get over, and the erosion caused by weather, have reduced it to nothing but a large granite waterfall.

I believe the trail should AGAIN be re-routed, and the waterfall closed.  The F.S. HATES multiple routes to go anywhere.  I doubt they would go for a "legal" route around,  in addition to the waterfall, but I am more than willing to pursue the issue.  That being one of several I intend to move up the food chain to get resolved in better ways than is happening right now.

And yes, any action on our part, NOW, that they've set an "Emergency Forest Order" will need high approval,  and I'm going to go for it.  But be aware that this is but one,  and to ME not the one of the highest priority, at this time.  But up in the top 4 for sure.

Have I heard anything?  No, but I'm wondering of my contact may be on vacation as he hasn't returned my calls.  If Monday comes and no reply  then I'll move up the chain.

I definitely intend to attend the July 14 meeting and attempt to negotiate some better stances on several issues.

Ken

[Scooterloo]

Who is responsible for recreating these "new" routes any way? The FS was present when they cut in the trail to bypass the Lotts lake cabins, down a steep hill, into a meadow, with a creek crossing, all in an area that sees spring snow a month after the original trail was open?  Where is the thinking there? On a side note, this route is now blocked off, what gives? Some people put in some long hours on that trail.

I am not at all against rerouting the trail, which has already been done once, but wouldn't that cause even more "resource damage"?

Whatever it takes to keep that trail open is fine with me as Saddle is one of my favorite lakes!!

[Pantheus]

Who is responsible for recreating these "new" routes any way? The FS was present when they cut in the trail to bypass the Lotts lake cabins, down a steep hill, into a meadow, with a creek crossing, all in an area that sees spring snow a month after the original trail was open?  Where is the thinking there? On a side note, this route is now blocked off, what gives? Some people put in some long hours on that trail.

Well, here's some history about THAT particular "re-route"

The F.S. manages the land under where that trail (re-route) was "built", and in their thinking they were placating the Lott Lake cabin owners, who are / were  not thrilled with ALL that happens by ALL going through their land. By moving the trail from private to public "seemed" at the time to solve several issues...   but,   then  after the re-route was ready to be open,  the Lott Lake owners again decided they'd rather have us where we have always been,  than to be right on the edge of THEIR meadow,  and the possible damage that "could / would" have happened.

So the re-route was closed, cabin owners put up new signs and we wheel on, as usual.  Yes, a lot of time, energy, manpower, and effort (and yes, Green-Sticky money) went into that fiasco...   but I fear it won't be the last.

I am not at all against rerouting the trail, which has already been done once, but wouldn't that cause even more "resource damage"?

Whatever it takes to keep that trail open is fine with me as Saddle is one of my favorite lakes!!

I wish I could answer that Darryl,  as some "resource damage" is acceptable to prevent a larger abuse, as in sometimes it may even be done to lay down a live tree to be the only way to create things like bridges, and blocks..

Frankly, I fear, that there may be a died-in-wool Greenie providing "facts" to Land Managers who believe and sign Forest Orders.  (Ask me privately if I think this may be a F.S. hired contractor attempting to make a name for himself.)   

Ken

[KNUCKLEHEAD]

These guys are just totally pissing me off. Who the hell do they think they are? Just because they can't get their big ass vehicles up there that gives them the right to make a bypass? What inconsiderate jerks!


So I guess now we are all allowed to play wherever we want like the rock garden at the stair steps?  Bitchin'. If I see anyone off trail I will take pictures of their vehicle and report them.

You know if you can't get your vehicle up there that means YOU DON'T BELONG!!!!! You don't just go making your own trails. You don't see me tryin' to take my F-250 up there. They're ruining the beauty up there and I'm not gonna just sit there and watch.

[78-FJ40]

These guys are just totally pissing me off. Who the hell do they think they are? Just because they can't get their big ass vehicles up there that gives them the right to make a bypass? What inconsiderate jerks!


So I guess now we are all allowed to play wherever we want like the rock garden at the stair steps?  Bitchin'. If I see anyone off trail I will take pictures of their vehicle and report them.

You know if you can't get your vehicle up there that means YOU DON'T BELONG!!!!! You don't just go making your own trails. You don't see me tryin' to take my F-250 up there. They're ruining the beauty up there and I'm not gonna just sit there and watch.

Well, first off, I'm assuming that the "These guys are just totally pissing me off..." comment is referring to the people that have been using the illegal bypass, not those of us that have stated that such a bypass would be a good idea.

Second, you made my point for establishing a dedicated bypass around the slab. Why? Because, as you stated, some people that can't make it up the slab will drive around it regardless of whether a bypass exists or not. Those are the people that will drive around or destroy any barricade that might be built to prevent driving around the slab, thus causing even more damage to the area. If a bypass was established though, then the users of the illegal bypass and anyone else with a rig that can make it to the slab, but can't make it up the slab, can still drive to Saddle Lake without causing any damage to the area.

We both want the same thing, the area protected, but I'm simply facing the fact that there are people out there that will use/make/find a bypass regardless of the legality or adverse affect on the area. 

[KNUCKLEHEAD]

Yes the people that made the bypass and those that use it are the ones that are pissing me off. We don't need bypass if we use common sense and turn in those that are going off trail.

Then you will get people saying we need a bypass for morris lake because they cant take there stocker down there.  What will be the end of trails is makeing bypass and letting others us them.   Eevey time I am up there I put the logs back and stack rocks just so evey one will no it is not a trail. If we do need a bypass then lets do it right by closeing the bypass and start with the paper work to open one up in till then we should all do what it takes to keep it closed.

I do under stand the short wheel base thing to I have been up that thing in a flat fender and a cj5 with no winching.  Last year I saw a samurai go up it with only a rear locker and 33". I think scooterloo hit the nail on the head with driveing skills being second to what you think your  junck should do.

I bet we will see the same thing on pipejam with long wheel base rigs cutting down trees and makeing bypass just because they don't whant to den't there junck.  We need to police our selves and keep our trails open for our kids.  Just ranting because the trail closers are getting closer.

[Buneduggy]

Hey Pan, that meeting on the 14th is it local and open to the public?  Would it look good or show positive interest if some of us got together and went to this meeting?  I am new to the trail closure "fight" but would like to help if possible. Maybe others would get together and show their support? Just some thoughts.  Thanks for all that your doing to keep our local trails open. 

[Pantheus]

Hey Pan, that meeting on the 14th is it local and open to the public?  Would it look good or show positive interest if some of us got together and went to this meeting?  I am new to the trail closure "fight" but would like to help if possible. Maybe others would get together and show their support? Just some thoughts.  Thanks for all that your doing to keep our local trails open. 

Ken,  Here is the link to the two meetings:

http://www.pantheus.com/tf/index.php/topic,90.0.html   titled:

Lassen National Forest Action Alert

The two workshops will be held at the following locations:

Saturday, July 14, 2007 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM
Chester Memorial Hall
corner of Gay and Bridge Streets
Chester, CA

Saturday, July 21, 2007  9:00 AM to 4:30 PM
Burney Lions Hall
37006 Main Street
Burney, CA

For additional information contact Allen Nosler, OHV Route Designation Coordinator, at (530) 252-6637 or by email to anosler@fs.fed.usor Elizabeth Norton, Public Services Officer, at (530) 252-6645 or by email to enorton@fs.fed.us.

It is wide open to the public, while not being very local.  Here is what they are attempting to accomplish:
--
A "discussion draft" of the proposed transportation system has been developed based on public feedback and other evaluation criteria. The public is invited to review the "discussion draft" and assess whether the proposed routes provide a sustainable OHV system.

The "discussion draft" includes loops and access to fishing areas or favorite dispersed camp sites with as many linking roads as possible. Route evaluation criteria for Step 4 (the environmental analysis of the proposed system) will also be presented.
--
But obviously they have not met MY needs or goals, and input from the public to what will undoubtedly be a scripted "presentation", should be heard.   Any and all who know what they want,  and feel they can present it to them, is VERY welcome.

I'm not encouraging a mass rally or protest, or anywhere close to a demonstration,   but if anyone has something to say, in very specific terms,  hell, 'ya get there!

Ken

[Buneduggy]

Thanks for the link Pantheus.  I will try and put some ideas together. In no way did I mean for some sort of protest or rally but I figure the more people we get together on this the better chance we may have to put something together that could suit everyones needs.

I can understand both points brought up in this forum about the Saddle lake trail. If we can work together we have a much better chance at saving the limited land we do have. Thanks again.