Vivian Creek Gate Issues

[arocknoid]

Ellen, I sent you the link to check the employee status with the FS, with other comments and communication.

(e.g. "...I'm both a volunteer and an employee.")

Also of interest, from p. 19 of the FS Volunteer Coordinator's Desk Guide:

"Badges and Patches

Volunteers cannot wear the Forest Service badge, but can wear a volunteer badge in its place. Volunteer badges are available from Western Heritage Co. P.O. Box 445, Encampment, WY 82325.

When volunteers wear the regular uniform, the large Forest Service patch is still worn on the left sleeve and the small patch on the cap (FSH 6509.11k, sec. 48.26f). The volunteer patch may be worn on the right sleeve of the uniform shirt, centered on the sleeve, 2 inches below the shoulder seam (uniform components can be ordered with the volunteer patch in place or the patch can be ordered separately through a unit purchase).

Supervisors may want to consider where the volunteer is assigned when determining whether to use the volunteer patch. Some volunteers feel very strongly that they do not want to wear the volunteer patch, especially in situations where they work alone and are perceived as an authority figure. They believe it lessens their effectiveness with the public. Some unit managers have chosen not to mandate use of the volunteer patch in these situations.
{emphasis added}
Name Tags

Volunteer name tags can consist of the standard Forest Service nameplate with the volunteer's name engraved on it or plastic volunteer name tags with the name printed on or attached to the name tags. Name tags are optional with the volunteer uniform. A standard nameplate is required when the regular uniform is worn. For details about what can be on a nameplate, see FSH 6509.11k, sec. 48.7, exhibit 03."

Hikin' Jim also had Qs re: screening and training, some of which are detailed here:

http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/ ... 14/toc.htm

The FSH/ Forest Service Handbook and FSM/ Forest Service Manual are also available, although many of the websites (incl hotlinked within FS etc) are currently offline per OpenDNS.

The duties, responsibilities, and authority of volunteers of all three types are defined and established. Their valuable contributions overall are very much appreciated, but the access restrictions at Viv Creek trailhead may have developed into an imbroglio unanticipated by the decision maker(s). Responsiveness to the public, and public input, are part of the Mission Statement and guiding principles for the FS. Vamos a ver.

kind regards,
Arocknoid

[zippetydude]

Hi Ellen. Sorry to hear of such an irritating encounter - it can take away from the otherwise purely positive, mentally healing time of hiking in the wilderness. I once had a ranger ask to see my permit when I was on SF still a mile from the boundary. He asked nicely so I let him see it, but I did mention that I did not have to comply. He agreed. By way of explanation, he said he only asked because I had stopped to say hi and had told him I was going to the peak. He was a decent guy and I didn't mind complying at all since he was both polite and even friendly, as 99.9% of rangers tend to be.

When Alex accosted you, it would have served him right if you had told him to follow you to the wilderness if he really wanted to see your permit. He would have had zero recourse, which would have really made him mad! If I run into him and he is still wearing his grumpy panties, I'll do just that and let you know how it goes. Maybe someone will catch some interesting video that will help him to be relieved of his present position. In any case, if Alex is going to act like a turd he should expect to be treated like crap!

I do think it's important to differentiate between his poor behavior and the rule itself. Even if he enforced the rule with the utmost professionalism and was as friendly and helpful as most rangers are, the rule is still wrong and needs to be changed back to open access. I agree that a camera system might be in order, as that would let the forest service fine the people doing the damage enough to pay for the clean up, repairs, and the camera as well. I don't like the 1 can spoil it for the other 99 thought. I do like the thought of accountability.

z

[Florian]

We have a wilderness. A wilderness in southern California. Imagine that. Whatever it takes. We have wilderness.
When one is in the wilderness, one gains a sense of freedom like nowhere else. In reality the opposite is true. To remain as such, it takes regulations.

Well said. Avoiding any comments on the current topic but we only have what wilderness is left because of regulations.

-Florian

[Ellen]

Howdy All

Apparently, I am now persona non grata on the San Gorgonio board.

The administrator of the San Gorgonio forum has locked the thread and will be reviewing/censoring new posts. I am sorry if this affects anyone on this board.

Miles of smiles,
Ellen

[Screerider]

The administrator of the San Gorgonio forum has locked the thread and will be reviewing/censoring new posts.

You mean the "regime"? Can't say that I righteously blame him.
No worries, nothing much over there anyway besides bad weather reports.

[Ed]

Thanks to Ellen for her efforts. Shame on SGVA for shutting down discussion on their website.

I am generally in favor of regulations, and have some sympathy for public employees. That said, I think the NFS regards hikers as little more than a nuisance. We are not a significant source of revenue, and we are not a well-organized pressure group like the bikers. They spend their budget on fire control, security, and roadside users. The trails we largely inherited from CCC work in the 1930's. The creation of the wilderness areas we owe more to the Sierra Club than any other group. The wilderness permit system is unbelievably archaic, labor- and paper-intensive, and user-unfriendly. It could be replaced with a national website (though this is perhaps not the best time to propose a new federal website, I doubt that it would be expensive to create, certainly much cheaper to operate, and would provide them with digital records). I am deeply grateful to the volunteers for the trail maintenance, but think they have adopted NFS attitudes. When I asked the Mill Creek RS why they would not use email for wilderness permits, their answer was that they were simply volunteers, the NFS makes up the rules. A very dismissive answer, I thought.

[Screerider]

They do have a website for car camping. Now I have to plan 6 months in advance for what was once spur of the moment.
It is not the job of the forest service to provide us with our entertainment.
The SGWA site is not part of the forest service.
Their chosen role of the SGWA BB is to provide trail information only.
Life goes on.

[KathyW]

Thanks to Ellen for her efforts. Shame on SGVA for shutting down discussion on their website.

I am generally in favor of regulations, and have some sympathy for public employees. That said, I think the NFS regards hikers as little more than a nuisance. We are not a significant source of revenue, and we are not a well-organized pressure group like the bikers. They spend their budget on fire control, security, and roadside users. The trails we largely inherited from CCC work in the 1930's. The creation of the wilderness areas we owe more to the Sierra Club than any other group. The wilderness permit system is unbelievably archaic, labor- and paper-intensive, and user-unfriendly. It could be replaced with a national website (though this is perhaps not the best time to propose a new federal website, I doubt that it would be expensive to create, certainly much cheaper to operate, and would provide them with digital records). I am deeply grateful to the volunteers for the trail maintenance, but think they have adopted NFS attitudes. When I asked the Mill Creek RS why they would not use email for wilderness permits, their answer was that they were simply volunteers, the NFS makes up the rules. A very dismissive answer, I thought.

Not all members of the SGWA are volunteers. There are paid members including the Executive Director who seems to be monitoring the message board lately.

[KathyW]

Also, Funding for the SGWA (notice that it is not called SGVA):

"With major funding from The US Forest Service and the Adventure Pass Program."

Source: http://www.sgwa.org/4victor/2012/SGWA_S ... letter.pdf

So, it is pretty hard to imagine that efforts to allow the continued collection of the Adventure Pass do not play a role in what the SGWA does. What helps the SBNF collect fees, helps the SGWA.

The SGWA is very tied into the SBNF; so the "I'm just a volunteer" statement is a weak one.

I used to give my paltry $20 or $25 each year to the SGWA (just a drop in the bucket compared to what they get from their major sources of funding), but when they supported those improvements at the Vivian Creek Trailhead, including the Kiosk and gate, I decided it wasn't an organization I wanted to donate to anymore.

[lilbitmo]

Also, Funding for the SGWA (notice that it is not called SGVA):

"With major funding from The US Forest Service and the Adventure Pass Program."

Source: http://www.sgwa.org/4victor/2012/SGWA_S ... letter.pdf

So, it is pretty hard to imagine that efforts to allow the continued collection of the Adventure Pass do not play a role in what the SGWA does. What helps the SBNF collect fees, helps the SGWA.

The SGWA is very tied into the SBNF; so the "I'm just a volunteer" statement is a very weak one.

Agreed Kathy
And even if they did not get that funding, those involved with volunteering or with the discussion board have "special access" that you and I do not have. Therefore, they are given unlimited access and keys to the gates, they can come and go as they please. Who wouldn't want to shut down access to the general public when it gives me a more serene wilderness experience, I've got it, you don't, too bad. And shutting down Ellen's discussion is their way to force us to take our grievances directly to the forest service which is their right. But for them to play innocent and side with the forest service because of that unlimited access is in a manner of speaking shameful and downright dishonest. No need to be name calling as they have suggested on the SGWA Discussion Board,(which I have not, all I've done is to question motives) but if it walks like a duck, has feathers, quacks like a duck and get's special privileges from the duck pond owners - it might just be a duck.

Don't get me wrong, I think volunteers do an amazing job, I stop and thank all of them when I pass them doing work on the trail or see them in the parking lots coming and going. It amazes me how dedicated they are to preserving the integrity of the trails and wilderness but when they play back room politics my respect for them starts going down the drain quickly.

When they started acting as "enforcement officers" above and beyond the scope of volunteering, then I start feeling like they are being used by the agency in an improper manner. I've hike with a volunteer over in the Humber Park area who used to stop and ask for permits also, but his manner was apologetic not aggressive and demanding, he told me he was there to help educate not alienate, he would say "it's suggested that you have one" not that you are have to have one. He felt that the approach should be one where if it were the other way around how he wanted to be treated.He would take notes so that the rangers in Idyllwild could figure out how many people went without permits, not "how to limit" the number of people on the trail. He said the number one thing was "safety" not "they don't belong here" because they don't have a permit.

Why does Mill Creek, it's rangers and the whole environment over there make those trying to enter our national forest feel like we are not entirely welcome? I just don't get that. The picnic area at Vivian has taken a beating over the years, they did a great job of cleaning it up, some are suggesting (on that board and face book) that we become volunteers before we voice our opinion (I for one have served my country for four years, so until they've had guns pointed in their face they should think before they speak about "serving" for the good of the people). Yes we should protect what has been done in the improvements but as has been suggested it should not be done at the cost of "access" to the parking area for hikers.

Please enlighten me but it seems to me that typical vandalism happens after hours, not many vandals get up at the crack of dawn race down to the trail head and start doing damage. It would seem to me that it's those people that go out at night to party or hang out after parks are closed and do it under the cover of darkness and it's not the hikers. But I'm sure some have done stupid things they are human after all.

There's only one way into and out of Forest Falls so catching a car leaving that area is a whole lot easier then most other places, a camera as it has been suggested would go a long ways to stopping any vandalism.

It surely would be nice to see them take this issue more seriously, quit pretending that it doesn't matter, have the folks who operate the discussion board be completely forthcoming, those that feel we are attacking them realize that "we had a parking area open to us" that has been taken away from us for what others did, not for anything we did and jump in with both feet like they do for volunteering to help us at least get a compromise to this issue. "A right of ours has been removed" how would they feel if any of their rights were removed? We have a right to use that parking area, we paid for it with tax dollars, we pay them to help maintain it with Adventure Pass fees, what we didn't pay for was for them to say we can only use it when they say we can, that we did not pay for.

Give us back our access - educate, don't alienate