Archive for EisPiraten.com San Gabriel Mountains Discussion Forum
 

The free forums are now under new ownership, a full announcement will be made shortly

       EisPiraten.com Forum Index -> News & Conditions
David R

Obama to designate chunk of San Gabriel Mountains a national

http://www.latimes.com/local/lano...onal-monument-20141008-story.html
Teejate

Yeah...this is a pretty big deal but with SO FEW DETAILS available I'm not sure how to feel about it.

I read the proposed bill and it's a lot of "this is what won't happen." It appears that the report about what will happen isn't due for another three years.

I did see that the BLM lands will be transferred to the NPS but I couldn't find anything in regards to the Wilderness areas. Might have missed it.

Also, there is no automatic funding that comes with the designation. The bill says a lot about increasing the economic value but doesn't go in to how that will take place.

My gut is telling me that 95% of whatever ends up taking place will be focused below 3K. Here's the bill if interested.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILL...r4858ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr4858ih.pdf
Uncle Rico

Quote:
Here's the bill if interested.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILL...r4858ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr4858ih.pdf


I believe this Bill, which must be approved by Congress, represents stage 2 of the plan which is to designate the San Gabes (or a least a portion of them) as a National Recreation Area much like the Santa Monicas. The National Monument designation, which is what is apparently happening Friday, doesn't require Congressional approval, but can be effectuated by Presidential declaration. I don't know all the technical differences from a funding and other standpoint between a National Monument and a National Recreation Area, but I have to assume that the NRA designation comes with more federal dollars, at least in theory.
Pat

The recreation act was the original proposal, but it has died in congress every time time it was brought up. Since Chu couldn't get that through, she changed direction and demanded the NM designation to bypass Congress, and apparently is going to get it. When people complain about the lack of info, she points out that hearings have been going on for 3 years. But those were all for the rec area designation, not a NM. Nobody knows what is going to happen. The Park Service isn't exactly overflowing with cash and I feel is more likely to close stuff off than deal with repairs/maintenance/safety/access. Maybe I'm wrong and we'll be sent Rangers with happy faces, trail crews, funds to keep all the camps open and a sniper to deal with whoever keeps tearing down all the signs in the Baldy area.

One difference between the two designations, a NM is restricted to Federal lands while a NRA is not.
AW

They had to ram it through so we could find out whats in it  Very Happy
Granted, this wasnt done at Christmas eve at midnight.

Here is what we do know: Every single national monument has an admission charge, including walk-ins. Every single national monument restricts access(which makes sense because who wants everyone to be crawling over a historical site like an Indian village).

Judy Chu said the signing allows "we" to make Eaton canyon safer(post Eaton canyon closure)....noting 5 deaths over the years.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/environ...ntains-a-national-monument-friday
Quote:
We will put in much better safety measures in these kinds of areas, Chu said.


You'd figure once the land grab was complete they would say  how their new power will be pushed down on us....seeing as how this was so important to get done.
AW

Quote:
Congresswoman Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) says a new public/private partnership will be unveiled for the San Gabriel National Monument on Friday.


http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/10/...e-san-gabriel-mountains-as-110th/

Looks like we will get an introduction to the new boss on Friday.
Mike P

Teejate wrote:
Yeah...this is a pretty big deal but with SO FEW DETAILS available I'm not sure how to feel about it.

I read the proposed bill and it's a lot of "this is what won't happen." It appears that the report about what will happen isn't due for another three years.

I did see that the BLM lands will be transferred to the NPS but I couldn't find anything in regards to the Wilderness areas. Might have missed it.

Also, there is no automatic funding that comes with the designation. The bill says a lot about increasing the economic value but doesn't go in to how that will take place.

My gut is telling me that 95% of whatever ends up taking place will be focused below 3K. Here's the bill if interested.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILL...r4858ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr4858ih.pdf


The link is for the bill creating the San Gabriel Mountains NRA. I don't believe that applies here. Where is the bill for the SGM National Monument?
Can't find a map for the 350k+ acres that will become the NM...
Pat

Mike P wrote:

The link is for the bill creating the San Gabriel Mountains NRA. I don't believe that applies here. Where is the bill for the SGM National Monument?
Can't find a map for the 350k+ acres that will become the NM...


Presidential decree, no bill, no congress, nada.
Maps? Guess we'll get an idea tomorrow, but who knows when we'll see anything official.
HikeUp

Hey, our favorite mountain range is getting recognition and they have to pay to enter and dump their diapers in the rivers now. Yay?
Uncle Rico

Quote:
Here is what we do know: Every single national monument has an admission charge, including walk-ins.


This has not been my experience. For instance, I've been to Grand Staircase-Escalante NM and the Vermillion Cliffs NM without paying any entrance or other fee. I don't believe there is an entrance fee for the Carrizo Plains NM or the Santa Rosa/San Jacinto Mountains NM either. Have the rules changed or was I just a scofflaw?
RichardK

Entrance fee

Uncle Rico wrote:
Quote:
Here is what we do know: Every single national monument has an admission charge, including walk-ins.


This has not been my experience. For instance, I've been to Grand Staircase-Escalante NM and the Vermillion Cliffs NM without paying any entrance or other fee. I don't believe there is an entrance fee for the Carrizo Plains NM or the Santa Rosa/San Jacinto Mountains NM either. Have the rules changed or was I just a scofflaw?


We did not pay an entrance fee when we visited the Devil's Postpile NM in 2008.  We were there after Labor Day and, so, did not have to ride the shuttle.  We drove the one lane road to the parking area.
AW

I was thinking I could get into trouble for that statement hehehehe...I apologize for the error and retract it.
Uncle Rico

Yeah, no worries AW. I honestly didn't know what the deal was.

On an unrelated issue, here's some money for the new monument. Query why this money just couldn't have been raised and donated when the San Gabes were a mere national forest.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/20...riel-mountains-national-monument/
Uncle Rico

One more. Here's the incredibly detailed map of the monument.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/d...les/image/sangabrielmonument.jpeg
AW

Uncle Rico wrote:
One more. Here's the incredibly detailed map of the monument.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/d...les/image/sangabrielmonument.jpeg


I have to admit I thought that the front range would be grabbed, but its not inside the monument on that map.
Augie

My son's article for KCET's Departures in recognition of the Executive Order designating a substantial portion of the San Gabriel range as a National Monument.

http://www.kcet.org/socal/departu...cas-newest-national-monument.html
HikeUp

Odd that they excluded the SBNF portion of the east end of the range plus the Cucamonga Wilderness (I think).
Bobcat22

Like everyone else I wonder about a lot of things like if there will be fees. I was up at Baldy Thursday, maybe the last free day there apart from the adventure pass.

Hopefully the funding helps. And there are better protections for some areas. I hate seeing the garbage and graffiti when I leave the city.
Taco

Well, I hope it all works out for the better. I doubt much will change, and I hope I wont get mad over it.

Hey, planning people who are doing this: don't charge for access.

PS: Hire me for security.
Ed

The Sierra Club seems to be for the national monument designation, and their priority is always preservation in a natural state.  I do worry about a ban on dogs on trails, even leashed, which I believe we have in all national parks and all California state parks.
Slowest_Hiker

AW wrote:
Judy Chu said the signing allows "we" to make Eaton canyon safer(post Eaton canyon closure)....noting 5 deaths over the years.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/environ...ntains-a-national-monument-friday
Quote:
We will put in much better safety measures in these kinds of areas, Chu said.
.


Looks to me like Eaton isn't included, according to the map  Question
AW

Slowest_Hiker wrote:
AW wrote:
Judy Chu said the signing allows "we" to make Eaton canyon safer(post Eaton canyon closure)....noting 5 deaths over the years.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/environ...ntains-a-national-monument-friday
Quote:
We will put in much better safety measures in these kinds of areas, Chu said.
.


Looks to me like Eaton isn't included, according to the map Question


http://ftp.fs.fed.us/visit/san-gabriel-mountains-national-monument

According to this website, both Echo mountain and Icehouse canyon are in the monument. I didnt see any website that has the actual legal boundaries....only the proclamation is on line.

Quote:
The monument holds evidence of more than 8,000 years of human history, including more than 600 archeological sites, three of which are on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as ruins of old cabins and the Mount Lowe Railway.


Quote:
Hikers head north on the 4.4-mile Icehouse Canyon Trail past ruins of a stone cabin from the early days of the Angeles National Forest. The area is now part of the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument.


Although the website also has a photo of Williamson Rock, which is closed as far as I know. Thus the website seems very dubious.
Quote:
Mountain climbers enjoy the scenic beauty of the Williamson Rock area of the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument.
AW

The official order with boundaries
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-10-17/pdf/2014-24849.pdf

"...thence northeasterly approximately 1.2 miles to a point, point located near the EW 1164 Section Corner of Sections 8 and 17,T.2N.,R.7W.
thence northeasterly approximately 0.50 mile to a point, point located near the C 1/4 Section Corner of Section 8, T.2N., R.7W.
thence northwesterly approximately 0.50 mile to a point at 8200 ft. elevation near Gold Ridge Mine, point located near the CNNW 1/16 Section
Corner of Section 8, T.2N., R.7W.
thence northerly 330ft. along the 8200 ft. elevation contour to theW l/16 Section Corner of Sections 5 and 8, T.2N.,R.7W., boundary in common
with the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forest....."
cougarmagic

Quote:
Closer to earth, the San Dimas Experimental Forest, established in 1933 as a hydrologic laboratory, continues the study of some of our earliest and most comprehensively monitored research watersheds, providing crucial scientific insights.


In which we learned that napalm as a clear-cutting method to increase water flow to a city (so those pesky plants don't suck it all up) is maybe not the best idea.  Luckily the learning continues.
turtle

AW wrote:
The official order with boundaries
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-10-17/pdf/2014-24849.pdf

I've attempted to trace the National Monument boundary in KML and KMZ format.  I've started a separate thread where can hopefully converge on a map that is both accurate and more useful than the low resolution JPEGs typically released by the USFS.
AW

Here is a source article for Chu after the designation. Note: The interview took place before October 21....I think on Oct 16, or about one week after Obama.
http://www.alhambrasource.org/sto...-congressional-candidate-judy-chu
Quote:
What are you most proud of accomplishing during your time in Congress?

I am the proudest of the naming of the San Gabriel Mountains as a national monument on Oct. 10. This is something that will have an impact on our area for decades to come, and it will have a positive impact on the 17 million people of Los Angeles County who live within 90 minutes of driving time to the San Gabriel Mountains. Now we can finally utilize it as the beautiful resource that it is.

Will the designation impact recreation?

In a positive way. Right now there are tremendous problems up there. There is trash and graffiti, not enough signage for trails, and safety hazards. In fact, people have fallen to their deaths at Eaton Canyon because of a lack of safety signs. But now we will finally get the resources that we need. On the day of the signing, there was $4.5 million committed to the San Gabriel Mountains.

I still have my bill to make the San Gabriel Mountains and rivers a National Recreation Area. It will cover more of the San Gabriel Valley region and ensure that not only the mountains but the rivers get the resources that they need for our local residents.
HikeUp

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

fi's.
Elwood

Is it me or has WILDCAD stopped updating the ANF page since 10/20 ?

N.b. working again 10/24/14 . Tinfoil hat back in drawer.
Mike P

The map of the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument, from our friends at the USFS: San Gabriel Mountains National Monument
JerryN

bear flat

I wonder if that means the bear flat trail is going to open up sooner since the administration of the trail has now changed?
RichardK

National Monument

It is strange to me that everything east of Mt. Baldy Rd. is not in the monument.  Icehouse Canyon and associated trails are badly overused.  This area could sure benefit from more resources assuming that monument status will actually bring more resources.  Mt. Baldy road, village and the ski lifts could have been cherry stemmed out of the monument.
walker

Quote:
It is strange to me that everything east of Mt. Baldy Rd. is not in the monument.


I think the monument boundary more or less follows the San Bernardino County line. The San Bernardino County Supervisors were strongly opposed to monument designation as was the ownership of Mt. Baldy Ski Lifts. But even those who were closely involved with the monument designation like Judy Chu seem to be a bit bewildered and confused by the opaque process by which the Forest Service drafted the final boundaries. She's used safety at Eaton Canyon as one of her main press points when discussing this and the monument boundary ended up on the other side of Mt. Wilson.
Gene

I cannot help but say, If you like your access to Angeles National Forrest, you can keep your access to Angeles National Forrest.

Politicians rarely act without a political donor calling the shots.  I don't see how more people can get access and not have more trash, graffiti and pressure on limited resources.
shreddy

Gene wrote:
I cannot help but say, If you like your access to Angeles National Forrest, you can keep your access to Angeles National Forrest.

Politicians rarely act without a political donor calling the shots. I don't see how more people can get access and not have more trash, graffiti and pressure on limited resources.


... there were limited public hearings / comments too. Lack of info.

I think you hit the nail on the head.
AW

Heres a document of significance from October 10 on the area...
http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/defaul...1/san-gabriel-accomplishments.pdf

AW

https://www.nationalforests.org/a...d-Plan-Comments-FINAL-8-10-15.pdf

The first mandate/vision comes forth.....here is a snipet...
* The Forest Service should identify and comment on the potential impacts of the proposed high speed rail system on the National Monument.

* An ordered priority list of identified, needed transportation projects,with priority given to: Providing public transportation options
The system should transport visitors into the Monument from public transportation terminals, satellite parking or other locations to high use areas, and provide a method to move within the Monument to various sites without the need to use a car and accessible to the disabled. Consider a funicular system to provide access to viewpoints or trails in high use and more developed areas.

*Massive multi-lingual website
including: Identify all trails, allowed usage (hiking only, biking, equestrian, etc.), and difficulty levels to allow visitors to better plan their visit in advance. Complete a trail characterization project based on accepted trail assessment protocols to help ensure trail users can safely match their skills and abilities to appropriate trail options.

--------------

In other words, lets set a court date for the army of lawyers already being gathered....and keep the forest service up to their eyes in litigation and paperwork.  Better to spend millions on a website that no one is going to use.
HikeUp

Laughable. The war against cars continues.
AW

HikeUp wrote:
Laughable. The war against cars continues.


Ahh, let them go up in their multi-lingual public buses to the top of Hwy2&39, and MtBaldy road. It should be a fun ride down? Test out the emergency crash lane from brake failure on Highway 2? Or admire the effects of city buses on the chip seal? At least the so-called forest experts know the forest service owns and runs the roads  Rolling Eyes
Mike P

Maybe the Monument will kill the ridiculous bullet train.
AW

Another 25 page document from last year...strangely on the internet.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront...9/Item_16_USFS_SPA.pdf?1437593369

Public transport is in order...with some strange(since its not a FS highway) declaration about reconnecting Hwy39 to Hwy2.

others include 'more than just tent camping at Crystal Lake', new Hwy39 entrance work...a cafe and river terrace overlook, welcome center(didnt mention if this is the Linda Solis building or the Chu building with statue).

The agreement puts the public out of the way for whatever they decide and the FS signed that the FS must "work together" with them on FS decisions/policies. Toss in a 15% mgmt fee  of spending....$60,000 to them for a few tables put on Oaks Picnic area,etc.
Taco

I still think this whole national monument thing is a bunch of bullshit.
SGBob

Taco wrote:
I still think this whole national monument thing is a bunch of bullshit.


The original intent of those campaigning to get the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area established was to have the management of the San Gabriels taken away from the Forest Service. The Forest Service's structure, politics, and mission are directly responsible for the poor condition of the Angeles National Forest, and the monument designation has done nothing to change that. As long as the USFS is the lead agency, the state of the San Gabriels is not going to change in any significant way.
Sean

AW wrote:
Toss in a 15% mgmt fee of spending....$60,000 to them for a few tables put on Oaks Picnic area,etc.


I read the entire document. Thanks for linking to it.

However, more careful attention should be paid to the details if you plan to criticize the project. In principle I am against government land-grabbing and regulating, but, nevertheless, I realize that it is possible for people (groups) involved in government projects to do excellent work, despite the fact that the land should be owned by private individuals or groups.

Regarding these projects within the Monument, the Federal overlord is still the Forest Service, but essentially they are the checkbook and little more. The Watershed Conservation Authority, a state agency, is managing the improvement projects described in the agreement, of which only the East Fork budget is listed. The $60,000 is not a "fee." It's actually for WCA staff time to develop and plan the Oaks Picnic Project. Apparently this part of the budget needs to be "fixed" at 15% of the total budget for the project. The Oaks Picnic site, a nine month project, will include tables, BBQ grills, trash and restroom improvements, landscaping, signage, and other related crap related to government regulations.

When put in context, I'd rather have this money going toward fixing up the East Fork than supplying our Middle Eastern enemies with food and guns, though clearly there is enough in the Federal lootbag to finance both endeavors.
SGBob

15% for project planning and management is actually very low ... much more efficient than the generally accepted 18-20% in the private sector. Private contractors also usually add a 10 - 15% contingency to estimated project costs, which means that projects that finish "on budget" are actually 10-15% over budget.
Sean

SGBob wrote:
The original intent of those campaigning to get the San Gabriel Mountains National Recreation Area established was to have the management of the San Gabriels taken away from the Forest Service.


The best way to manage land is for the government to get the hell out of the way of private individuals and organizations interested in developing the land. The lack of private land holdings in the Gabes results in a lack of government interest and ability to protect the land from natural and human disasters. Emergency and disaster prevention services prioritize efforts based on saving human lives and structures. Allow more humans and structures in the wilderness, and better management and public services will naturally follow.

The problem is bigger and more fundamental than simply switching which federal agency manages the land.
SGBob

Sean wrote:
The best way to manage land is for the government to get the hell out of the way of private individuals and organizations interested in developing the land. The lack of private land holdings in the Gabes results in a lack of government interest and ability to protect the land from natural and human disasters. Emergency and disaster prevention services prioritize efforts based on saving human lives and structures. Allow more humans and structures in the wilderness, and better management and public services will naturally follow.

The problem is bigger and more fundamental than simply switching which federal agency manages the land.


Development of the San Gabriels would, by my definition, be the poorest possible outcome.
Mike P

Sean wrote:

The best way to manage land is for the government to get the hell out of the way of private individuals and organizations interested in developing the land. The lack of private land holdings in the Gabes results in a lack of government interest and ability to protect the land from natural and human disasters. Emergency and disaster prevention services prioritize efforts based on saving human lives and structures. Allow more humans and structures in the wilderness, and better management and public services will naturally follow.


Huh???
Uncle Rico

Quote:
The best way to manage land is for the government to get the hell out of the way of private individuals and organizations interested in developing the land.


Guess it depends on your end game. Private ownership of the land I think is incompatible with the way most of us on this forum like to use it.

Personally, I'm happy the land is in public ownership, warts and all.
Sean

Without private enterprises building roads, houses, and business operations throughout the mountains, we would still be chafing our hides on multi-day mule rides along old Indian trails, simply to reach the top of the front range. The way we use the wilderness today is a direct result of private development, which has opened up more and more recreational opportunities. Government hoarding of the land only stunts both developmental and recreational advancements within the forest.
AW

Sean wrote:

However, more careful attention should be paid to the details if you plan to criticize the project.


If you dont know then you'll find out. The public lost, and these land grabbers run the show.

The who/what/when/where/why is already documented on this site and available for everyone to read....but the bottom line is they 'won', and America lost. I am not trying to comment on a project that is not even open to a public process, nor will be open. The whole grab attempt came as no surprise to me, as Ive been aware of this since 2008. The success of overpowering a democratic process and the showing of true colors was surprising....but now I know it was just city politics brought to the mountains.

As far as managing, I dont get your viewpoint or theirs on it. I never will. As an adapter, I have never wanted to manage the Angeles forest and its former 1000 voices. Ive always been humbled by our mountains and inquisitive, being a visitor and not behaving like I know it all. Id hate to demand the land be managed as a politicized local resource for my recreation, vs a national resource. My travels are always about the land and ecosystems, ...not about altering the land like a corrupt city politican who gave away city land to developers and seized public land while flinging hate and offensive racial accusations. To me, a New Yorker has as much right to land as someone from Asuza, and if the NYers arent sending in comments, they have every expectation that the land is being treated on the up and up.

Saying that tyrants accomplish good things assumes only tyrants could accomplish designing the acreage of Oaks Picnic Area....or know who maintains highway 39. "The Forest Service is hearing from a lot of interest groups that this is an important issue{highway 39 closure}. It needs to be put to the top of the list, said Belinda Faustinos, chairwoman of San Gabriel Mountains Forever," ......ah...its not unlimited money and there are priorities now. Until they change their mind again.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/environ...es-national-forests-alpine-region
AW

SGBob wrote:
Private contractors also usually add a 10 - 15% contingency to estimated project costs, which means that projects that finish "on budget" are actually 10-15% over budget.


Is the WCA a construction firm and not a conservancy...that claims the appropriate knowledge to design and execute forest development?  
Granted, a couple of picnic tables are being thrown up for $500,000, not anything epic.

Must be the WCA board that reflects such an expertise?
1)Hilda Solis, Supervisor, First District
The original takeover proponent politician,
2)Mark Ridley-Thomas, Supervisor, Second District
another politician
3)Don Knabe, Supervisor, Fourth District
politician
4) Michael D. Antonovich, Supervisor, Fifth District
Since I know of this guy, I cant say anything nice....but yeah, politician.
5) Dan Arrighi
Incumbent Temple City City Councilmember, Past Mayor, and Mayor Pro Tem ...ahh, one of those cities that gave away all their land
6) Frank Colonna
politician
7) Roberto Uranga
politician who is also collecting retirement pay from Calpers for another political position.
8 ) Gail Farber
DWP...so you got one credible person with unknown involvement(probably zero). "Non-voting".
SGBob

Sean wrote:
Without private enterprises building roads, houses, and business operations throughout the mountains, we would still be chafing our hides on multi-day mule rides along old Indian trails, simply to reach the top of the front range. The way we use the wilderness today is a direct result of private development, which has opened up more and more recreational opportunities. Government hoarding of the land only stunts both developmental and recreational advancements within the forest.


We don't have to speculate about what private ownership of the San Gabriels would do. We can look to places that are actually privately owned today, like Vulcan's property at the mouth of Fish Canyon and the decades-long battle over access to the Fish Canyon Falls trail.

I think we have plenty of space that has been green-lighted for development. There's a reason nobody on this board "hikes" the streets of El Monte, and it's because we specifically want to get away from development. I find that the roads in the San Gabriels serve primarily as a means of conveying graffiti vandals and litterbugs further into the forest. I would welcome closing all of them. If you want to go see it, you'll hike it.
Sean

Permitting Vulcan's operations in Fish Canyon serves a human need far more important than the need for another poison-oak filled canyon mouth in the front range.

Besides, there are much better examples of private development in the Gabes. How about the city of Wrightwood? I love using Wrightwood as a springboard for hiking over the Blue Ridge and beyond.

Also, we have the observatory and towers on Mt. Wilson to thank for keeping the roads open up there.

And do I even need to mention Baldy Village and the ski lift?

There are other, smaller examples, Newcomb's Ranch, Little Santa Anita Canyon, the Tujunga Canyons. Basically, where civilization is allowed, there are more services and recreational opportunities.

You'll always have the deep wilderness to flee too. But many places below 7000 feet or so are perfectly habitable and could be developed for various purposes.
SGBob

Sean wrote:
Permitting Vulcan's operations in Fish Canyon serves a human need far more important than the need for another poison-oak filled canyon mouth in the front range.

Besides, there are much better examples of private development in the Gabes. How about the city of Wrightwood? I love using Wrightwood as a springboard for hiking over the Blue Ridge and beyond.

Also, we have the observatory and towers on Mt. Wilson to thank for keeping the roads open up there.

And do I even need to mention Baldy Village and the ski lift?

There are other, smaller examples, Newcomb's Ranch, Little Santa Anita Canyon, the Tujunga Canyons. Basically, where civilization is allowed, there are more services and recreational opportunities.

You'll always have the deep wilderness to flee too. But many places below 7000 feet or so are perfectly habitable and could be developed for various purposes.


Every place you mention I avoid like the plague, because I pretty much consider them as much.
Sean

SGBob wrote:
Every place you mention I avoid like the plague, because I pretty much consider them as much.


Don't you hike to Hoegee's? And I believe you've mentioned frequenting Monrovia Canyon, whose entrance is lined with houses. Shouldn't such a place be full of the plague as well?
walker

Interesting discussion. I think the disagreements here are perhaps more about word choice and terms than about substance.

I tend to agree that if people are more directly and personally engaged with the land and the environment around them, they have more at stake and participate more in the process which can lead to better outcomes in governance and management. Especially when those participating are intimately connected to or familiar with the area.

Whether or not "private development" is the mechanism through which this is achieved is another matter. Most of the positive examples mentioned here started as individual private parcels or enterprises grandfathered in from another era when such things were undertaken on a smaller scale and with a less heavy-handed approach than today. A great number of such sites have been lost. I often wonder what it would be like to travel back in time and visit some of the mountain inns or inhabited canyons back in the day.

I think what most people fear from the term "private development" currently are the "walled city" type developments like La Vina near Millard canyon or various others which may in fact have had the opposite of the desired effect. First the developer then the homeowners association antagonizes the long-standing engaged community and forest users by privatizing and fortifying access points that have been effectively treated as public easements, part of the commons, for decades.

Perhaps I misunderstand some of the language being used here, but I tend to be more suspicious of private interests behaving like "land grabbers." If anything, the forest service/government is tasked with managing all of the competing interests and uses of the land so that we all get to enjoy a bit of it. However, whether they even have the resources to actually get to that part of their mission is not clear. I think their tendency to issue blanket closure orders comes out of desperation, not some malicious or nefarious intent.  Wink
SGBob

Sean wrote:
SGBob wrote:
Every place you mention I avoid like the plague, because I pretty much consider them as much.


Don't you hike to Hoegee's? And I believe you've mentioned frequenting Monrovia Canyon, whose entrance is lined with houses. Shouldn't such a place be full of the plague as well?


The entrance to Monrovia Canyon is not lined with houses unless you mean the streets you have to drive to get there. I do not consider that a positive addition to the trip. I am trying to get away from those things when I go to the mountains, not find more of them.

Hoegee's Camp is not privately owned or operated, so I'm not sure how that's related to whether opening the San Gabriels to the development that plagues the Los Angeles basin is a good thing.
SGBob

walker wrote:
Most of the positive examples mentioned here started as individual private parcels or enterprises grandfathered in from another era when such things were undertaken on a smaller scale and with a less heavy-handed approach than today. A great number of such sites have been lost. I often wonder what it would be like to travel back in time and visit some of the mountain inns or inhabited canyons back in the day.


The problem is that back when Lowe and Eaton were around, the number of forest visitors could be counted in the thousands. Today it's in the millions. You cannot increase the utilization of the San Gabriels by a thousand-fold under the same practices and expect them to survive as we know them. Anyone who has lived long enough to watch how the market in property works knows that the drive to increase the value of the land drives the tendency to subdivide and develop. I've watched entire valleys covered by a few dozen ranches and farms be buried in suburban development, as if a giant sewer pipe from Los Angeles had opened up and spewed forth graffiti, shopping carts, dirt, and every imaginable form of human filth. Each farm and ranch succumbing to the financial incentive of subdividing and building, and then those owners further subdividing and building. The process continues until it's a cesspool of condominiums and apartments and the only remnants of the natural wonders that were there before are the streets and shopping centers featuring names like "Oaks" and "Sycamore" to reflect that which was destroyed to make way for them.
Mike P

SGBob wrote:
walker wrote:
Most of the positive examples mentioned here started as individual private parcels or enterprises grandfathered in from another era when such things were undertaken on a smaller scale and with a less heavy-handed approach than today. A great number of such sites have been lost. I often wonder what it would be like to travel back in time and visit some of the mountain inns or inhabited canyons back in the day.


The problem is that back when Lowe and Eaton were around, the number of forest visitors could be counted in the thousands. Today it's in the millions. You cannot increase the utilization of the San Gabriels by a thousand-fold under the same practices and expect them to survive as we know them. Anyone who has lived long enough to watch how the market in property works knows that the drive to increase the value of the land drives the tendency to subdivide and develop. I've watched entire valleys covered by a few dozen ranches and farms be buried in suburban development, as if a giant sewer pipe from Los Angeles had opened up and spewed forth graffiti, shopping carts, dirt, and every imaginable form of human filth. Each farm and ranch succumbing to the financial incentive of subdividing and building, and then those owners further subdividing and building. The process continues until it's a cesspool of condominiums and apartments and the only remnants of the natural wonders that were there before are the streets and shopping centers featuring names like "Oaks" and "Sycamore" to reflect that which was destroyed to make way for them.


Trying to find the "Like" button...
Sean

walker wrote:
I think what most people fear from the term "private development" currently are the "walled city" type developments like La Vina near Millard canyon or various others which may in fact have had the opposite of the desired effect.


Won't happen. Which mountain village is completely walled and gated?

Tourism in the mountains is well-established, and many residents and businesses rely on recreation-based traffic. One of the great benefits of further development will be more amenities for travelers and easier access to remote areas.

New Mountain villages won't look like the city of Vernon or downtown LA--or LA Vina or Bradbury, for that matter. They will look like the villages we already have.
Sean

Also, it's not true that during the Lowe days the forest saw few visitors. The tram alone had about 3 million riders over forty-five years. That's a conservative average of 66k a year, with probably close to 100k during peak years.

And that's just the tram. People were also driving and hiking to other popular destinations.

Sure, there is more traffic now--because of further development both in the cities and mountains.

Also, city-dwellers have not removed every sign of nature. Entire roads are lined with massive oak trees and lawns. People plant gardens, landscape parks, and keep various pets.

Cities reflect the values of its residents. You bring up some negatives, but there are far more positives to focus on.
CrazyHermit

Obama sucks my left nut.
AW

More 'subcontracting': National Fish & Wildlife Foundation
http://www.nfwf.org/angelesfire/Pages/home.aspx

More forest projects. Good to know this subcontractor is experts on forestry.
Just to busy with their expertise, so they subcontracted these projects....piling up to KJ Peterson Inc.....which is Kathy J Peterson, former ANF spokesperson. Who is associated with the organizations who led the land grab.

Id say the most interesting project is the Williamson Rock area....we'll see! It says 2 years for a decision.

       EisPiraten.com Forum Index -> News & Conditions
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
For many GPS tracks, Google Earth KMZ files and Google Maps for the San Gabriel Mountains and beyond, please visit my website: www.gpsmountaineering.com