part deuce

More mapping dialogue, for those that care.

James/John

I had a kickoff meeting on the Inyo South map yesterday with Marty. He

shared your comments on the Inyo North map with me.

Thank you for your inputs on errors on the first edition of Inyo North.

Factual errors are frustrating but I can assure you that the Jawbone Map was

in its 3 edition before it was as accurate as this first cut. This is the

first map that was done with mostly electronic data, the others were all by

hand.

I must point out that this is a CTCU not a USFS map. You should make all

your general comments about look and general content of the map to Mr.

Waldheim.

It was the fifth in a series after Jawbone, Angeles, San Bernardino, and Los

Padres maps. The intention of CTCU is that all the maps are at the same

scale, have the same look, legend, etc. The intention of the maps is not to

"sell" any OHV area, but rather to try to solve the problem of lack of

compliance of OHV users in many areas. The maps show the

Open/Restricted/Closed OHV designations, what routes are available, and what

the restrictions are.

Attempting to increase compliance is a very frustrating goal. The best

example is your comment "I didn't even know the back section was there at

first". The back of the map is actually more important than the front. It is

where are the restrictions are spelled out.

Ed/Randy, perhaps we need a big bold note on the front that says something

like; "STOP, before you ride, save our open routes by knowing and following

the rules on the back". Or do it like purchased software. Fold the map in

half with color side inside and tape it closed. Near the tape add a

signature line that the user must sign stating that he has read all the

rules and agrees to comply before he is authorized to cut the tape. But then

everyone just checks the box and never reads the software agreement anyway.

On other Mammoth club comments;

Your question about legal vehicles on "Glass Mtn Traverse". I believe that

all routes are shown in the correct color indicating what vehicles are legal

on various segments. However we were very dissipated in the "yellow high

light" which may have added to your confusion. Other places have Yellow high

light over Yellow MC trails dah! On the next map we are looking for a better

color if we use it at all.

Errors on road color. This was also very frustrating. To explain; when the

map maker (Alan) entered the roads, he did them all in Green (OHV). Marty

then pointed out that he had supplied electronic data for all routes inside

the forest. Alan then went back and corrected all routes inside the forest

but that left all routes outside the forest in Green. Marty and I had to

look at every single one and correct any that should have been Light or Dark

Blue. Obviously it was easy to miss a few. As you use the map, please keep a

record of any other errors for correction on the next edition.

Not sure about your comment about "Springs" on DWP land. If there are more

that are of interest that should have been shown, let us know.

We (Ed and I) agree that users need a map of area north of Inyo forest

showing Bridgeport, Mt Patterson, Bodie, Pizona etc. What CTCU needs is a

lead to buy and sell the maps before we generate one. I don't think there is

much hope for the Bishop BLM. They have been against signing and making maps

available for years. I think the Mono county tourist committee that Jim and

I attended may be the best bet. Any pressure you can apply to them may get

something started.

About bland descriptions, again the maps are not a sales tool just

information. These maps are usually obtained by people who have already come

to the area to recreate, they already want to be there, and don't need to be

sold. We tried to not include any subjective descriptions that may net have

the same meaning to all users. We did add several degree of difficulty

"diamonds" which is slightly subjective but should always be on the

conservative side. Probably we need more of these markers, again make any of

your recommendations.

On "three unmarked single track options", it should have been; three single

track options that don't have "Loop" markers. The trails are marked as open,

just no loop markers.

On trucks on Crater Loop; there may be an error on loop at that pint. There

is a ridge where full width vehicles will leave paint on the brush but it

may not be the marked loop. I see Alan did not get the loop on the correct

routes, that could have been bad input from me. I will check it this summer.

By the way, I hope you have GPS capability and have reviewed my GPS tracks

on GPSXchange.com. It is not possible to navigate any of the unmarked

suggestions on a motorcycle at any speed without following GPS tracks.

Lookout/Crater Connector "Only open to street legal vehicles". Why not route

it off the street? I agree and have had that request into Inyo for 10 years.

Had a field trip with Inyo FS and Mono county road guy to work out solution

but could not get the horse to drink (yet)!

Hartley Loop "several single tracks sections". A little false advertising,

you are correct actually 1 single track and 2 ATV sections.

Hartley/Mammoth connector. Good catch. The map does not identify the ATV

restriction at Dead Man hill and I thought it was a MC restriction. Map and

description will agree on next edition.

Mammoth Loop "one short but very steep pumice section". Possibly over

conservative but it looked to me like FWDs without lockers were not getting

up it.

Bottom line, every one of the loops and all of the connectors have legal

conflicts with Travel Management. There were also several existing single

track trails that were overlooked by Travel Management. Now that Travel

Management is done and the map is out, it is time to put pressure on the

forest to start a update/correction process. I hope the Mammoth MC Club will

have a strong presence at the future stakeholder meetings we have with the

forest.

Another big issue is that Inyo does not groom any routes. Because the

Lookout Loop is marked and is so accessible to OHVers from Mammoth, it has

become so whooped out it looks like Jawbone before Ed started maintaining

those routes. We really need a maintenance grant for the Mammoth area. Any

pressure you could put on the forest would be appreciated.

Again, thanks for your input and keep reviewing the map until next printing.

Jerry

Hi Jerry, glad you could time some time to look at our concerns. In the end it's just a map, we wanted to make it better. The general feeling was that if our club takes the time to point out errors, make suggestions, etc, the CTUC would be on board for the implementation. Most of the mistakes we pointed out were already pointed out early in the drafting process.

We realize the CTUC map isn't a USFS map. The eastern sierra isn't all about the USFS, we are overlaid with private property, Los Angeles DWP land, BLM land, and a few others too.

I realize from your comments that the map isn't designed to sell, but to further OHV compliance. We take a different approach as the sale of "recreation" is a huge component of our economy. As a club we don't mind to show the rest of the country that we have it good up here -- the Town of Mammoth Lakes is undergoing a visioning process now with the target result naming Mammoth the best alpine recreation community in the United States. Will we ever get there as far as motorized recreation is concerned? Step by step. Also, the club realizes that compliance isn't something easily attained just by a map (or signature lines) or vaguely drafted rules -- rather it comes through stewardship, vested interests, and ticket books for the hard-headed.

Regarding club comments:

Glass Mtn traverse - the map states "The law specifies that the main SMTS trail is open to all Green Sticker vehicles". Now as the Glass Mtn traverse is shown as a "main trail" (all dashes, not dot/dashes) is it open as stated? It appears your route goes over all classes of roads (including paved and Class II) but yet by law is open to green stickers. Our concern is that there is conflicting information for map users.

Springs on DWP land - our original draft submitted had them located. To us its really not a big deal at all, the local USFS can't talk about them to visitors for whatever reason and that attitude has carried forward to this map. Like I mentioned before, other commercial maps locate them all. Maybe they can go on the next revision.

North of Mono Lake - the area north of Mono Lake is still INF up to Lundy Peak, sure it would have shown another adjacent forest similar to the Pizona inset (Toiyabe takes up the majority of the space). What troubles us is that we were looking at Mono north all along and then the final map comes out and Pizona is showcased. We'll have to disagree on this one, Mono Lake north would have been much more use to everyone rather than the end choice. The map scale could have been shrunk on the inset to show Mono north, saving the need to find someone to print and distribute another separate map.

Crater Loop - again we'll disagree, this trail is able to be navigated by using the carsonite signage. We used to do this before gps came along and still do. But maybe you aren't talking about this loop - it is a bone of contention that we do have two signed loops and none of that info came across in the map, at the very minimum it should have been noted. Even the Crater loop ridge you specify is a jeep trail at best, remember the time my wife and I came across you dragging tree branches and logs into it to make things a little more interesting?

Hartley Loop - had one section of singletrack, but if quads ride down it is it still singletrack? The entrance to the singletrack are stumps located about 3 feet across. (signed for quads) UTV's can almost get through that section (they try and get stuck), it looks tight, but it's no longer single track. Our club may repossess it, as the topography would make it easy to reclaim.

Bottom line: we do see the various conflicts everywhere with the travel plan. The biggest is the notion that the USFS was out in force and did the NEPA process on every road. If so, they would have noted all the errors on the maps and missing singletrack. Our stance is that it did not happen, we didn't see anyone out there. It's one thing to make maps, another to get out and match up the routes with what is printed.

Grooming: we do not support the grooming that has been going on. Trails are groomed in anticipation for the snowmobile season creating a loose dusty mess, berms, shredding two track and vegetation. Fine roads and trails have been ruined with grooming. If the idea was only to take care of high traffic whooped out areas around staging areas then lets talk.

Pressure and presence: it's all part of our club charter. We remain involved, sometimes it isn't pleasant - our interests are strong and not muddled with grant funding, political correctness, or subservience to the revolving door of land managers.

Moving on, we would hope that the CTUC desires to get on board with MammothMC, help sell our area, and make substantial revisions to the next printing. Thanks for your time and consideration, John. (MammothMC treasurer)

Message from presidente:

Jerry,

Thanks for writing us in regards to our concerns with the first edition of the CTUC (Inyo North) map. I’ll get right down to the point, because it seems as if there is still a bit of confusion (or maybe I’m the one who’s confused…who knows).

All in all, the CTUC map is just a (recreational users) map, and any organization is free to print & distribute anything they wish. That being said, the many factual errors that are found in this edition aren’t what is most frustrating here… What’s frustrating is that the Mammoth Motorcycle Club was involved in supplying the CTUC peeps with all the factual corrections, trail ideas, and “unexaggerated” descriptions they needed. Our Club spent quite a bit of time meeting with Marty, talking about what trails we would like to see included, what points of interest we’d like to see included, what possible pictures, etc. We were proud to be involved with the making of a “pro” OHV map that represented our area…And Marty seemed happy to receive this information.

So what happened? All of the information, trail ideas, and advice was almost completely (if not totally) omitted… Marty was as confused as we were. He said he gave you everything. This is what was frustrating. If you’re interested, We have all the original (written) content on our website, HERE

Also, I’m not sure where you’re getting the whole “selling the area” thing… It wasn’t our idea to exaggerate, and tell users that there is single-track when there isn’t. Wouldn’t that be considered “selling” the area? I don’t get it.

Map comments:

There seems to be a little confusion about what is actually found on the Heartly loop. The description on the map says “..Several singletrack sections.” In “reality,” there is ZERO singletrack on this loop. Not one, not several, not any (that’s “legal..HA). Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the USFS has already played a part in ruining any previously existing ST by sticking pylons in the ground with 52” width limit signs on them (2 years ago?). “The quads/UTVs have widened every piece of existing singletrack on the heartly loop.” Maybe we can add that description in on the next version?

Trucks on Crater Loop? Yes, it’s easy. I’ve done it… without leaving paint on the bushes. A lot of things have changed out there on the Crater loop… the roads are wide now, and trucks can easily make it. I even saw a DWP truck on the narrow section once. The loop is open to everything (4x4 recommended).

Yes, I have checked out gpsxchange.com, and I like it! But, if you’re looking for Mammoth specific gps tracks (prepared by local riders), you should really visit the gps downloads section of the mammothmc.com website HERE. 99.9% of the tracks are free to everyone. Each track provides a rating (easy, intermediate, and advanced), a accurate description, and a nice embedded overlay of the track that can be viewed and manipulated on Google earth. Some tracks even have links to ride reports (with lots of pictures) and comments from users. Best of all, there’s no need to join or become a member. Our Library is growing, so be sure to check often for exciting new tracks! Donations are appreciated. Check it out! .

“Another big issue is that Inyo does not groom any routes. Because the

Lookout Loop is marked and is so accessible to OHVers from Mammoth, it has

become so whooped out it looks like Jawbone before Ed started maintaining

those routes. We really need a maintenance grant for the Mammoth area. Any

pressure you could put on the forest would be appreciated.”

WHOA NELLY! Let’s not get too carried away here Jerry! The lookout loop is a short beginner trail, and is not whooped out beyond belief. Where are you getting this information from?

Many feel that your (and ED’s) thoughts on “trail maintenance” to be a little controversial. Mammoth Motorcycle Club does not support the introduction of grading equipment on our trails! You might not like “whoops,” but some people do... Heavy grading equipment makes thing WORSE. Grading a pumice trail causes terrible plumes of the worst kind of dust you can imagine.. and huge nasty berms too! The eastern Sierra can do without more unhealthy dust. Some riders actually consider whooped out trails it to be part of the fun, and challenge, and… exercise (no joke)! Shouldn’t we take their riding experience into consideration too? If you’re so interested in smooth graded roads, then get a Harley - I hear the highways are pretty flat.

The eastern Sierra isn’t Jawbone, and fences and graders aren’t welcome. Luckily for us, we have forest supervisors who seem to agree with my stance. I've already brought this subject up in several meetings.

Anyways, I hope you can make it up to a meeting so we can have further discussions (face to face) on this subject!

Our next meeting will be on Thursday, May 26^th, @ 6:30 at the Outlaw Saloon (next to John’s Pizza Works). Hope you and Ed can make it, they’ve got great wings!