WEGC Members and Interested Parties-WARNING!

[Spaniard]

I am passing this along as second hand knowledge so please be aware.

Today up at the West End Gun Club, a US Forest Service Ranger ordered the Rangemaster and 20 WEGC Members to leave the property immediately. They were also told that beginning tomorrow; January 23, 2011 until further notice if anyone is caught crossing the creek regardless of reason, the US Forest Service would begin to issue citations for Tresspassing the creek up to $1000.00 per citation from what I understand.

I believe this comes due to the recent rescue they just had upstream and the hazards for crossing for the time being. That combined with the fact that the State of California is in a dire financial condition, preventing these rescues that cost allot of money is best. I am sure the primary driver for this notice is safety.

Pass it along, you don't want that citation.

I believe this coming week, WEGC Board Members will be in contact with the Forest Service to find out more and we will pass it along.

Mark

[kermit315]

Is it federal land, or Gun Club land?

[Spaniard]

Is it federal land, or Gun Club land?

Hi Mr. Kermit,
Well that's the problem. The land to get to the clubs land is Forest Service Land/Rightaway I guess. I know it does not belong to the club. The creek runs through the Forest Land and I think the Forest Service doesn't want to risk anyone losing their lives in case they get stuck with the water that is running right now. Normally it's dry, but that power storm last month did a number up there and allot of water is still running.

That's what I think, but they issued a warning not to cross otherwise they will issue a citation if you do.

What can you do?

[kermit315]

That sucks if there is no easement for you to be able to get to the club. Admittedly, I dont know that area, but maybe there is a way to build a bridge into that area to avert this in the future.

[LKN4WAR]

Simple solution for broke ***** CA, post a sign saying you enter at own risk! If it's vehicle parallel to stream issue I'd be of the opinion that full flash floods, mud slides, and boulders washing down do a lot more damage than a truck tire. Just about power, like no shooting in the summer.

[Hateca]

Has nothing to do with getting stuck and needing a rescue. Has to do with people driving up and down stream in the river bed. You are only allowed to cross at designated locations and driving in the riverbed parallel to what once was the road is not allowed. They consider rocks, boulders, and water natural truck tires they don't.

[Ronin2]

Has nothing to do with getting stuck and needing a rescue. Has to do with people driving up and down stream in the river bed. You are only allowed to cross at designated locations and driving in the riverbed parallel to what once was the road is not allowed. They consider rocks, boulders, and water natural truck tires they don't.

It has to do with both.. the rescue issue and from the position of the US Forrest Service, they do not want vehicles off road on land not approved for it... ie.. the creek bed.


Since the WEGC's Board of Directors decision to conduct a proper land survey is one of the ongoing complaints that the plaintiff's in the current WEGC lawsuit bing up as an example of poor management by the board I will offer this comment here;

This is why it was SO IMPORTANT that the club conduct the land survey it did to determine its the true boundaries of the club land. Mr. Lipson would prefer that the club "continue to fly under the radar" rather than know what was the club land and Forrest Service land and adjust club operations accordingly. Apparently Mr. Lipson has not heard that old adage, ignorance of the law is no excuse. In the case of illegally using and damaging US Forrest land, I can assure you that would be the case.

The US Dept. of Forestry (USDF) rangers were going to fine anyone caught in THEIR creek bed $1000. Can you imagine the criminal and civil consequences of being irresponsible and getting CAUGHT "flying under the radar"???


With all the anti-gun politicians, anti gun Government bureaucrats and anti gun activists, WEGC has to "cross every t" and "dot every i" so no one ever has legal grounds to shut the club down!

FYI..We did negotiate an easement for the road across the front 40 acres (before the club gate and to Lytle creek wash) for its members. We have the right to use and maintain that road but only the roadway. The surrounding land was given to a nature preserve and I believe it is administered by the USDF. Any rights of access we have across Lytle creek wash are subject to the Forest Service oversight/management.

[Hateca]

No it doesn’t. In this case the issues is driving off the road into the creek bed, simple, cut and dry, coming straight from the mouth of the forestry service.

Having access to the road has always been allowed that's just the nature of an easement, access must be granted. A survey wasn't needed for that.

As for the survey, I'm very aware of the survey or should I say flawed survey. It seems that the survey was improperly done and the county told the survey company it was improper and would need to be fixed. To fix it the survey company wanted more money from the club. Not sure why that should be, the company does it wrong and want the club to pay more to fix their screw up.

The survey also found that a large portion of the club that is now being utilized, and has been for many years, is now known for a fact to be sitting on forest service property. They at any time can demand we get off.

The survey was a giant waste of money for something that wasn't even done properly. Now they want to spend $7000 on a "study" to see what the club can do to stop flood damage to the range and road. Another waste of money to know something that the club won't be able to do anything about.

It's called flood damage. The water comes from forest service property, short of building a wall around the club there is nothing the club can do to keep the water from washing out the road or coming onto club property. The club is next to a natural creek and river.

The money would be better spent renting the equipment to fix the road and damage; in fact it would have cost less.

The spin this crap gets is just simply amazing.

[IEShooter]

Survey

I don't know anything about how the survey was conducted, nor anything about civil engineering or how to fix the road.

What I do know is that I was present at one of the monthly meetings over a year ago when the issue of the survey was discussed.

As I remember it, the explanation given was that the club sort of inherited the current layout where long range shooters shoot "over the head" of the other ranges, which is why they must be closed off.

The goal was to attempt a re-design of the club layout to eliminate this and simply put, to leverage club property in the most efficient manner possible.

Step one of this was to determine exactly what was and wasn't club property. Kind of makes no sense to design anything, let alone spend precious club dollars making modifications without knowing if the area being improved is club property.

Can you imagine the hue and cry had they just went ahead and re-designed the layout, moved earth and spent money only to be later told by the FS to undo everything?

I didn't follow the survey efforts much after that, so I don't know what transpired, but again, what I described above I heard with my own ears.

Made perfect sense at the time and still makes sense, at least to me.

[Ronin2]

Here we go again... more gun club urban legend....

As for the survey, I'm very aware of the survey or should I say flawed survey. It seems that the survey was improperly done and the county told the survey company it was improper and would need to be fixed. To fix it the survey company wanted more money from the club. Not sure why that should be, the company does it wrong and want the club to pay more to fix their screw up.

1) Who are you sir that you are "very aware of the survey?

2) Please tell us WHO/WHAT AGENCY said the survey was flawed so other members who are concerned can verify your "facts".

The survey also found that a large portion of the club that is now being utilized, and has been for many years, is now known for a fact to be sitting on forest service property. They at any time can demand we get off..

3) The Forest Service has always been able to do that and now we know about the errors and are making "good faith" efforts to correct it. That is not only the RIGHT thing to do legally but morally as well. ( It is WRONG to use someone else's land without their permission)

4 DESPITE MR. LIPSONS CONTENTION THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO REMAIN IGNORENT OF THE FACTS AND "keep flying under the radar", it would have been legally and morally wrong for the club to expand and build or rebuild on Forest service land. If the Board had expanded and built and continued to illegally use Forest Service land and the club was then caught and held accountable civilly and criminally, the very same people *****ing about the cost of the survey would be demanding the board member's "head on a stick". They would be in here ranting about a survey not having been done.

5) It would be a breach of fiduciary if the board knowingly spent club money to improve property that it did not own or have the permission to use.

The survey was a giant waste of money for something that wasn't even done properly. Now they want to spend $7000 on a "study" to see what the club can do to stop flood damage to the range and road. Another waste of money to know something that the club won't be able to do anything about...

6) Again, who are you sir and what are your qualifications in hydro and soils engineering to make such a statement? Maybe YOU should be the one the club hires for its professional opinions.

7) If the club hired you professionally, I am sure you would want to be compensated for your time and effort to study the problem just like any other qualified professional engineering firm... hence the $7000 which , according to the retired engineer leading this for the club, is a very good price. Given your apparent professional education and knowledge of such things, maybe you should have volunteered your services to the club. Maybe you know of a qualified firm with a lower bid for the work?

It's called flood damage. The water comes from forest service property, short of building a wall around the club there is nothing the club can do to keep the water from washing out the road or coming onto club property. The club is next to a natural creek and river...

8) Again, see comments above and tell us what your professional and educational qualifications are to make such a definitive claim?

The money would be better spent renting the equipment to fix the road and damage; in fact it would have cost less...

9) Clearly the Board has decided its in the clubs interest to see if there is a way to mitigate some or most of the water damage to permanently make future repairs easier, faster and cheaper. No one has claimed that the water damages can be completely mitigated.

10) I read the authors suggestion of just doing the same thing we have always done without applying engineering science to the problem (which has never been done because of people like the poster and the lack of funds) and I am reminded of the following quote;

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...Albert Einstein

The spin this crap gets is just simply amazing.

11) After reading all your posts I find your last comment here to be a case of "the pot calling the kettle black"...LOL

12) I would like to know Sir, how you can make all these claims without offering things that common sense would require for the uninformed reader to give weight to your accusations and conclusions. PLEASE, give us YOUR NAME, YOUR PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS, THE COUNTY AGENCY YOU CALIM REJECTED THE SURVEY and on WHAT BASIS so we can verify your assertions and claims and take you seriously!!!!