crystal fire station a bust

[ruffryder]

chief,

What do you think is the reasoning the FS has for doing all of this? What is their motive? What (if anything) are they worried about?

 

[chief 8101]

I think that they have a couple of different motives:

1 - They have a long standing beef going with some of the residents in that area, including one of our volunteers and once it gets to the harassment point with certain of this USFS ranger districts employees it is pretty tough to get past that. (my personal opinion only)

2 - They are concerned that future land developers will be able to take a section of land that is not accessible year around and build a fire station and now the lots would be accessible and their value would sky rocket. (again, just my personal opinion)

Part of what is just unbelieveable is that with all of their "safety studies" and other excuses they have been toying with "winter logging" activities going on in this area for years and this would have log trucks driving down the roads all winter long (they would not log on the weekends) and obviously include plowing of the 5400 and other roads in the area....but since that would make money for the USFS they seem to be OK with that proposal.

 

[Bagger]

I think that they have a couple of different motives:

1 - They have a long standing beef going with some of the residents in that area, including one of our volunteers and once it gets to the harassment point with federal employees it is pretty tough to get past that. (my personal opinion only)

Ok Chief, if you read back through this thread, I have treated you with respect, dignity and have made a direct point to not insult you or try and cast a twist to any of my questions, I have simply tried to figure out what is really going on here and have tried to give you a format to present your side. I am a Federal Employee, and you just kicked some serious dirt in my face. My face and the faces of alot of other good men and women that I know personally that are good people. I am going to step back from this and let you respond to this comment before going back to our other comment sheet and asking some more questions and posting some more observations after reading your replies.

2 - They are concerned that future land developers will be able to take a section of land that is not accessible year around and build a fire station and now the lots would be accessible and their value would sky rocket. (again, just my personal opinion)

Part of what is just unbelieveable is that with all of their "safety studies" and other excuses they have been toying with "winter logging" activities going on in this area for years and this would have log trucks driving down the roads all winter long (they would not log on the weekends) and obviously include plowing of the 5400 and other roads in the area....but since that would make money for the USFS they seem to be OK with that proposal.

.....

 

[chief 8101]

Bagger,

I have corrected the post and used more appropriate wording. I did use much too broad of a generalization in that statement and for that I apologize.

 

[Bagger]

Originally Posted by chief 8101

I don't know who it was that you heard "admit" to transferring patients to a different ambulance for transport etc but it was not the fire chief. I am the fire chief for that area and unfortunately there is not enough time and room here to explain all the reasons for why things are done a certain way when it comes to EMS transports etc. It boils down to a tiered response system with BLS first responders and ALS transport medic units that come out of cle elum.

Chief, is it not true that an ambulance transfer will take place? I was also there in court. I heard ya'll talking before the hearing, I spoke to you and had hoped to ask you a couple of questions about this issue because I didn't know much about it, but you were distracted and busy I guess because you didn't respond to my hello and hand. I listened very carefully throughout the hearing. The FD's lawyer referenced you as the SME that could speak to the transfer, so if I misspoke to that, ok, but maybe you would care to answer to it now. Because your lawyer admitted it, FS's lawyer beleagered it, States Lawyer brought it up, even Judge Suko brought it up during the FD's redirect. The answer to all those was that YES, people would be transfered to a different ambulance for transport. It is an very central point to this argument. I would make the point that this is a good place to explain why ya'll do things the way you do. Many of the folks affected by your intended actions are on here . . . . There must be a way you can condense the info and help us understand.

All of upper kittitas county works on a tiered response system for EMS calls. The ALS paramedic units operate out of Kittitas County Hospital District 2 and are stationed and based out of Cle Elum. When you call 911 in Kittitas County the call is answered by Kittcom in Ellensburg. They then dispatch the appropriate agencies to the call. For example, if a car wreck occures at MP 61 on I 90, KCFD 8 and KCHD 2 are both dispatched. Depending on the nature of the injuries, KCFD 8 personnel will get on scene and stabilize the patient, package them for transport, and have ready to go into the medic unit upon arrival or put in our aid unit and meet them somewhere between cle elum and the accident scene. We are a strictly volunteer agency and as such we are not licensed to transport and don't have paramedics or drugs etc available. We are a BLS service. If there are more patients than the medic unit can handle, we will and have transported patients to the hospital directly. The medic unit also does not have any four wheel drive vehicles so if the roads are bad we will often transport the patient to a location that the medic unit can access without four wheel drive. This is the same system used throughout upper kittitas county for all fire departments.

So the answer, which you don't seem to want to put into writing is YES. With the noted exceptions of when the system is overloaded, or when the roads are so bad the regular transport units are unable to travel. It would seem to me that those very times would be when the system would need your units the most. However, as a trained first responder and a decent human being unless the injury required impbilization, I would transport them myself before I waited for a volunteer to come home and answer the call, or the system to clear, or the weather to break. Can you tell me the response time from station 81 to the CS area? For example, if none of the volunteers who live at CS were home, or the station did not have access, how long would it take for a volunteer to respond from 81?[/COLOR]
As for why the winter rescue equipment is not stored at Stn 83 instead of 82...if we store it at Stn 83 and Stn 83 is not accessible in the winter...what do we do for the calls where we need the equipment for responses out of the Kachess sno park, gold creek sno park, cabin creek sno park, price creek sno parks, or to access the homes in our district that are not accessible with a wheeled vehicle in winter time? We have a responsibility to our residents and taxpayers to have the equipment that they pay for available to respond to calls for them as well, not just people in the crystal springs sno park area.

So, with the equipment at 82, every time it's needed, volunteers have to drive to 82, hook up to the trailer and haul it to where it's needed. Correct? Would it not make sense to store it at 83 where it can be instantly used by volunteers there? As for using it other places, could your trailer not be kept in the snow park and the sleds run onto it by the same volunteers and then hauled to where they are needed?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I can't see where that reaction time would be one bit longer than the current system. I would also speculate that a small secure fenced in area could be set aside for the trailer's secure storage. I would be curious to know how many people use the various snow parks and compare the response time from each location. I would also think that information could be valuable to you if it proved your point.
Also, those agencies have a responsibility to the people that pay for the winter care of the snowpark, snowmobiliers.

If the winter rescue equipment was stored at Stn 83, then none of the volunteers could access it that respond from other areas of the district. With it being stored at Stn 82, it is easily accessible to all the members of the district and can be taken to where it is needed. If it was stored at Stn 83, it could potentially be faster response to calls in the Crystal Springs area IF the volunteers that live by that station were home to respond, if they were not it would actually make the response times slower and would make the response times slower to every call outside of the crystal springs area. Also, it should ne noted that even though there are 5 sno parks located within KCFD 8, KCFD 8 does not receive a single penny from state parks or the USFS for fire or rescue services provided to those areas. Our budget is entirely made up of grants that we write, dontations, and property taxes from property owners within KCFD 8 of which State Parks and USFS do not pay into. Winter rescue equipment responses are split with approximately 50% being the crystal springs area and the other 50% spread out among the other areas.

So if the snow equipment was located at station 83 it would decrease the response time in 50% of the area's calls that required snow equipment. Providing the CS volunteers were there to repond. But it wouldn't make it impossible to reach by responders from a differant area, but I could see where it would make it drastically slower to respond to other area's.
What exactlly do your snow response vehicles have for requirements? Type of sled, outfitted with what equipment, etc. That would be great information to have please.
There was no land available for the fire dept to use for building the station except for where the station was built. The land is all either federal or state land, ask the snoqualmie pass fire dept how many years it took to get USFS land to build a station on. If we were to build a fire station on the state parks leased land we would have to do it to the new "critical infastructure" standards that the state and county are now requiring for the fire depts. No longer can you get away with a simple garage, they have to meet all the same requirements as full time paid dept buildings do and based on what KCFD 7 has spend on their recent stations it would be 1-1.5 million dollars to build a new station out there.

I also listened closely to this point, because I didn't understand the high estimated cost of a new building. I have no difficulty understanding how it could be regulated into a cost that high now, however when you did build the current building (I won't call it a garage, as I've never seen it) it was stated in court, and the FD's lawyer did not refute the point. that it was built with the consideration and understanding that it would not be accessible in winter. Is this true? If it isn't true, why was this point not argued in court? If it is true, what condition has changed that now makes it imperative to operate this station (is that a correct term? I don't wish to offend) during a time period that the FD initially agreed not to operate it during?

Good question and this is where the USFS likes to play on the misunderstanding that they llike to portray on this point. When the station was first constructed, we could not afford to heat or insulate the building and we could not afford EMS equipment etc to place into the building so it basically acted as a storage facility and housed wildland equipment etc. Also, at the time the building was constructed, the closure order for FS RD 5400 specifically exempted "fire fighting forces and emergency providers in performance of their duties". This to us meant that we were exempt from the closure order and when we needed to use FS RD 5400 in the winter we would be able to do so. Even the ranger at the time agreed with that interpretation, but said "you will need to plow when you receive a call and then respond to it". This didn't make any sense to us and was the basis for the first lawsuit with the USFS on this issue. They then changed the closure order and removed that portion from it, it is now the only closure order in the United States that we can find that no longer has that exemption in it. USFS pulled state parks into the lawsuit and we had an agreement with them to lease some property at the entrance to the sno park to move the station onto and until we could afford to move the station they would provide a "back road" to access our current station. We were all prepared to sign this agreemend between state parks, fire dept, and private property owners that the road would go through and then the USFS bullied state parks into not signing the agreement for the back road at the last minute, once again putting us in a position with no winter access.

So again, the answer that you don't want to say is YES. I understand that the use of the building has changed from a storage facility into a response station (again, is that the right term?). I also understand that the road use plan has changed as well.
So you changed how you use the building, in effect making it NEEDFUL to access in winter.
And Forest Service changed thier rule on access in winter making it impossible for you to access it.
Was there not an agreement in writting? I guess not. (?) Would you buy a sled from me if I didn't provide you a receipt or bill of sale?
To use your words, (applied to the FS by you) and to show you how it looks from my viewpoint (shared by alot of sledders) it seems like you built a storage building on donated land with the understanding of NO or VERY LIMITED access in winter and are now pulling sledders into the mix and bulying Forest Service into granting you access.
Unfortunately the USFS has done a very good job of blackmailing state parks and spinning a bunch of lies that people seem to have bought into on this subject. If the USFS had not lied and backed out of their agreements and promises to the residents and fire dept in this area, none of this would have happened. We have been trying to negotiate in good faith with the USFS for years on this issue and they keep stringing us along and lying and forced us to take court action. None of us wanted to go to court on this issue and fight this battle, but we had no choice. We have given the USFS 5 different alternatives on how to solve this problem and they keep coming up with BS reasons that none of them will work.

I would again raise my above point/question about agreeing in the beginning to operate #83 only when access was possible. I certainly understand first hand how difficult the FS is to deal with and how frustrating it is to accomplish things with ANY entity that is that large. I do however have a real problem with someone telling me that they are doing me harm in the name of the safety of the public. Really? I would echo Judge Suko's question about statistics to show how many times #83 would be used during the time it is now, by agreement, closed due to lack of access. Can you help us with that data? Again, seems like good info for you to have and would help people understand that think the FD's reasoning for tearing up a lane up the groomed trail is BS.

Again, we have given 5 different options on how to solve this problem, some of the solutions involve reusing the side road that the USFS tore out and others involve sending different user groups out of different exits of the sno park onto the trails. State parks has been willing to look at each of these ideas and even supported some of them, but each one gets shut down by the USFS. As for the data on how many calls stn 83 would respond to while closed etc, any of those numbers will be rough approximations as it is impossible to guarantee how many calls for service will come in etc, but we run approximately 100 calls per year...if the station is closed from Dec 1 until April 1, that is five months or approximately 40 calls. Since we are a volunteer dept we cannot guarantee a response from each station for each call, but I would safely say that we are looking at least 20-30 calls that don't get responded to by stn 83 because of the station closure. Part of the real problem is that we are an entirely volunteer department and we are located in an area that is mostly second homes and we have very few full time residents. Two of our full time residents that are EMT's both live next to Stn 83, that is why it is so valuable of a station for us to have in service.

Well, I take my hat off to your volunteers because if we use your numbers they had more response days last year than I had sledding days. If I see them out somewhere I will (as I always do for notable people) buy their dinner or at least a drink. If we look at a different set of numbers 1333.33 people use CS for every call responded to. That's taking your high number of 30. 1333 people loose access to the main artiery out of the snowpark for every call you make.
In a recent interaction that I had with FS, NOT 1 person could be adversly effected by the action that we were trying to initiate and this action benifitted over 300 people, and put a bunch of lease money into the FS pocket. It was requested by local law, residents and yes, even the local FD. But I had to jump through my you know what backwards to please the FS before it was approved.
It took time and money and working with ALL people to get a solution that worked for everybody.

I have a couple questions about the EMT property, but will ask those later.Guess what, we are now back to where we started with putting the road back in that the USFS tore out a few years ago to start this whole battle. This is the road that they agreed to us using as a solution for winter access and then the next year said "well it wasn't in writing so it doesn't matter if there are 20 witnesses to what we said" and then tore the road out two days before we had a meeting set up with them to discuss the issue.

This statement really makes it important to KNOW if ya'll agreed to operate the station (?) with the understanding of no access in winter. It speaks to your credibility, and to the validity of written and non written statements. But in the absence to that information, did you build the (torn out) road or did FS? Was all FS protocol followed? For example, before a shovel full of dirt can be turned over an archeologist must clear the work site area, listing of all material used and impact studies must be completed, statements of conformity to building standards must be met etc. Did that happen? If it didn't I can assure you that FS will not proceed and I can understand them tearing it out.

The road that the USFS tore out had existed for many years, and was constructed long before the fire dept was involved. The road was 95% on private land and only had about 150 feet of it that crossed a small corner of USFS property. USFS approved us improving the road and using it and agreed to that being a long term solution, then in the fall of the next year they changed their mind and tore the road out before we could meet with them (tore it out the end of the week when we had a meeting with them on Monday) and then told us that since it was not in writing their agreement with us didn't count, even with all the witnesses that were there when the agreement was made. The USFS likes to use their red tape and regulations like a weapon at their convenience, they had no problem with a person using a D6 cat up there this year to improve an old skid road without all the studies being done, but tore out an old improved skid road that they had agreed to us using?

I believe I woul have had signed statements from those 20 people in the Federal Court to hand to Judge Suko. That would have carried some water, can you tell me if those statements have been collected and if so, why they were not used? Also, if FS only owned 150 of the road and the rest was on private property, what was the property owners response to the road being removed? (if you know)

I would be more than happy to set up a time to meet with anyone interested at Crystal Springs and show you how and why we operate the fire district the way we do and show you what the different options for a solution have been that we have offerred etc.

We have spent a lot of money and resources to have proper training and equipment available to help out the winter recreation community, and all of us are winter recreationalists....probably none more than me. I have snowmobiled in this area since I was 6 years old and am very involved in snowmobiling and the snowmobile industry....

I can assure you that no one is higher on my list of AWESOME people than a volunteer. Be it Military, Law, Fireman, Police ANYONE that sets aside their time to make my life safer and better deserves all of our admiration. I am also glad that you are an outdoor recreationist and I applaud you for being involved with snowmobiling and the industry, however, as long as you are talking about taking actions that the vast majority of people involved oppose, you are not 'one of us'.

Again, before people jump on the bandwagon of criticizing the fire dept, please take the time to meet with me and see first hand what and why we do things the way we do and have the facts and experience available to make an informed decision on the issues.

So, it seems to me that here's a summation of how we got here. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
1.) FD was given/loaned/leased land for a storage facility and granted access by FS in the event of responding to an emergency. Apperantly the only thing on paper about this arraingement was the inclusion of access in the RD 5400 closer document. (?)
1/A.) This land was provided by EMT's who are volunteers at the station and also have a lawsuit with FS over the same access issue, but in reguards to their private dwelling next to the station.
2.) FD improved the storage facility into a response station. (At which time FS removed the permission for FD access, even when responding.
3.) FS removed he secondary road, that FD was using to access the station. (Question, was anyone else using that road for access to the area of the station?)
4.) FD takes FS to court to force FS to allow FD access.
5.) FD continues to work the the betterment of the public.
6.) FS (or just one of it's employees) gets into a "beef" with the FD and ignores all the FD's good suggestions out of spite and cost the tax payers how much now??
6/A). Is the FS (or just one of it's employees) really in a beef with the FD, or with the local EMT/Volunteer/land donor, or both ?

I again applaud you for offering to meet with anyone at the site and help present your side, I think that's a great thing for you to do and I admire you for being willing to do it. Have you gone to any snowmobiling clubs and talked to them already? Did I miss your booth at the WSSA show where you could have reached out to a huge section of the snowmobiling community? Have you mailed out any flyers with information about what you feel needs to be done and contacted the people that will be affected by the legal actions you propose, before you walked into court?
It would seem to me, that you have a legal obligation to the FD (which in effect means the people you serve in district 8, correct?) but you state that you are 'one of us', and I would think that would lead you to work with us, instead of grouping us into the pie with FS and State whom you have called "blackmailers" and "liars". And you most certainly did lump us all together when you walked into that court room.

If that wasn't your intention, then you have the floor to make it right. If you didn't give it any thought, shame on you for that.
I assure you, please believe me when I tell you that I assure you, that I completely understand how difficult it is dealing with the FS, but in my eyes, you are so frustrated with them, that you have run over us.
That is why you see the reaction you do on here.
That is why you should have approached us before you threw us under the bus.
I have never used CS snow park.
I don't know any more about you than what you have shared on here (Thank you) but I took a half day off work and passed up dinner with my Wife to come hear for myself what your point was because you had never offered it to me before taking legal action that will, yes it WILL, impact ALLOT of sledders.

One more thing (thank you for reading this far) as a Fireman, I'm pretty sure you enjoy respect from most people. Yeah, I know there's always someone not happy somewhere, you took to long, you didn't save my house, the ambulance took too long the ride was bumpy, BUT, all in all, people would go out of their way to help you if they saw you having trouble beside the road, they throw money in your boot at an intersection and they want their kids picture taken with you and your truck. As you stated you are a member of the snowmobiling community, so you should know that we don't enjoy that public admiration. We fight for every foot of riding area, every snow park and every grooming dollar and we get lied to and cheated by nearly every government agency there is. People are lining up to shut us out of areas that we have ridden in and used for our whole lives. We are over sensitive and suspect of anyone on that list that takes a shot at us. And a shot is a shot, real, or perceived.

Your stance in court without talking to this community first added you to that list.


I can understand your frustration over feeling blindsided by this issue, but we have made several attempts to educate the snowmobile community about this issue. There are even tons of old posts on snowest relating to this issue over the past years where I tried to put out info on what was happening over the years. (not sure if they can be accessed from the new forums or not)

We have held public hearings with winter user groups, USFS and State Parks up at Snoqualmie Pass over the issue, have attended WSSA meetings and gave presentations, have sent copies of our paperwork and proposed solutions to the WSSA representative for our area and the WSSA president. We used to have the area rep for WSSA attend all of our fire commissioner meetings to keep updated on the issue and what we were doing to try and solve the problem, etc. We really have made a lot of attempts to keep the snowmobile community appraised as to what was going on and the reasons why. That is why it is frustrating to see all the misconceptions being spread about and us villified. I really believe that if the snowmobile community were to know all the facts of what has transpired and the different solutions that we have offerred to the USFS to solve this issue then the snowmobile community as a whole would be supportive of what we are trying to accomplish. We do NOT want to shut down the sno park or negatively impact the winter recreationalists in that area, we just want to be able to provide emergency services to those that need them in a timely manner and to the best of our ability.

So it seems to me that your stance is that the FD has done nothing wrong, FS is somehow now vetted against you in a battle and you are the David to their Goliath.
And if the Snowmobilers get squashed in the middle? 'Cause whether or not you wish that, it's coming if this continues. Then what will you tell us? "Sorry guys, we were just trying to force the people that own the land, to let us run off the people paying for the land so that we could put in a response station that apperantly not many people support". That will make us feel better.


I understand that you are trying to provide a service . . . but I have to wonder why there? NO, FS and State don't own all the land in your district, I've looked at the plots at county. (not acurate, I had the plots looked at by a recognized authority)
Also, about your not receiving moneys from FS or State for work done in the snow area's, true enough. Most of your homes are seconds, true enough. But that also means that you don't HAVE to provide a service to the area's your not receiving money from. (you are a volunteer organization) and it also means that most of the area's you are responsible for are vacant more than occupied.
I happen to have a lease on FS property. (but not in your district) Even though I pay taxes (for ground I lease!) (oh, and a State tax on the value of the Federal lease!) I still have to pay an additional 1$ per 1K$ value of the holding for "Fire Protection". This doesn't include EMT/ambulance service. Nice.

I think that they have a couple of different motives:

1 - They have a long standing beef going with some of the residents in that area, including one of our volunteers and once it gets to the harassment point with certain of this USFS ranger districts employees it is pretty tough to get past that. (my personal opinion only)

I have heard rumors that that is the real root of this whole issue. Access to the limited access area in winter . . . even to the point of the land being offered for the station to allow the owner access. Can you speak to what you have heard/know about that side of things?[/


2 - They are concerned that future land developers will be able to take a section of land that is not accessible year around and build a fire station and now the lots would be accessible and their value would sky rocket. (again, just my personal opinion)

This seems 'unbelieveable to me as that would cause the local taxbase to "Skyrocket" also which would put more money in everyones pocket, even the FD . . . . HEY ![/

Part of what is just unbelieveable is that with all of their "safety studies" and other excuses they have been toying with "winter logging" activities going on in this area for years and this would have log trucks driving down the roads all winter long (they would not log on the weekends) and obviously include plowing of the 5400 and other roads in the area....but since that would make money for the USFS they seem to be OK with that proposal.

I'm surprised to see someone with your training and given passion for the FD (not to mention someone that is trying to FORCE us to accomodate an Emergency response station!) mocking a safety study and equating it to an excuse.
I would make the suggestion that you may want to take a look at how they manage that (logging road closures) in other areas (such as the Ahtanum). There are small differances due to the mix of private and government owned property, but the roads are managed for all uses. It is after all, a forest. If you don't log forest for future survivability they don't maintain good health. It would also seem like they could just log in summer, but there are issues (I guess) that make it a needful to do some in winter also.

I look forward to your response (no pun intended!) to this on going conversation. I also want you to know I appreciate you presenting your (FD's) side of things.

Bagger
[/

 

[ruffryder]

you guys need to work on your quoting skills... this is getting past the point of comprehension...

 

[chief 8101]

I agree with Ruffryder...the quoted ongoing dialogue is getting too drawn out and hard to follow. I really think the best way for Bagger to understand things is to come up to the area and spend some time walking through all the operations and options first hand.

I think that will make things make more understandable than an ongoing never ending exchange on here. I understand that some people will never change their mind on this issue, I just wanted to show that it is not as "black and white" as some people would have thought.

The offer is open to anyone that is interested to contact me and set up a time to meet up at Crystal Springs and get a full and open tour of the fire dept operations, stations, issues, proposed solutions, etc.

 

[ruffryder]

I agree with Ruffryder...the quoted ongoing dialogue is getting too drawn out and hard to follow. I really think the best way for Bagger to understand things is to come up to the area and spend some time walking through all the operations and options first hand.

No, the information is good. It is just that you two have gone away from using the quoting functions on the forum, to using different colors, and then continued to use different colors to represent responses to responses.

The information and the discussion here is great. It is just that you two haven't been doing a good job of using the quote function and only quoting the last thing stated....

Take a look here..
http://learn-bbcode.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-quote-messages-of-other-posters.html

and try it out. I helps greatly to figure things out... Yes it takes some time, but it is time that will allow your point to get across more clearly..

Tonight's homework assignment is for chief and bagger to work on fixing their posts so the rest of us can read it. This is a group project. Bagger and Chief make nice to get this done.

lmao!!

 

[XtremeSpeedShop]

If you step back its like looking at the American flag, red, white and blue

All joking aside I hope we can use this problem to help bring people together and make a positive change in the current set up at the snopark. I have customers from all different sides of this story who are good people, would hate to see us get divided anymore. We need to work together and work on saving our land and setting a good example to the public.

 

[Bagger]

Extreame: If you step back its like looking at the American flag, red, white and blue

Bagger: And the Flag is one of my favorite sights!!


Extreame: All joking aside I hope we can use this problem to help bring people together and make a positive change in the current set up at the snopark.

Bagger: Me too. Without name calling or accusations or anger. Just dialog and concern.


Extreame: I have customers from all different sides of this story who are good people, would hate to see us get divided anymore. We need to work together and work on saving our land and setting a good example to the public.

Bagger: I agree. We need to look out for all interest here. Not just a few forcing their will and the rest getting the bill.

Have ya'll heard that old saw about how when you point your finger at someone else to tell 'em they are wrong, there's three pointed back at you?
Seems like I've been hearing alot of pointing. . . .
Well, I also believe that when you force your will on others, you do more damage than the good you set out to accomplish can offset. That whole thing about the means justifying the end is crap here.
I can see where the locals don't figure the people using the snow park matter as much as the community because they live there and the folks in the snow park will leave.
I can see the Fire Dept reacting to their perceived responsibility to the community and travelers.
I can see the Forest Service/State Parks folks being tired of people pushing the rules and lines further and further.
And, I can see the Sledders being fed up with constantly getting the brown smelly end of the stick every time somebody feels like swinging it.
And it doesn't matter if the stick is about noise, or speed or Wilderness or access, in the end it's who has the best lawyer, or most bucks in a lobby group or the most powerful friends.
It seems like it's hardly ever Who's Right.


Chief, a walk around with you would be pleasant and I really will try to do that, but I don't need to do it to believe what I do. You keep fighting for what you believe in because we should all be true to ourselves. I'd be honored to by you a beer someday for running toward danger, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this issue.
I know what I think now after this exchange, I understand how mixed up and confused it's gotten, when to me, it's actually pretty simple. Heck read back through this and I've been blamed for actions taken by the landowners and FD! (I think some alcohol was involved in that though . . . .)
Hopefully some folks got a look at a better way of dealing with an issue than throwing crap back and forth like a cage of monkeys.
Ruffy, I'll brush up on my forum usage, be ready for a test!

Bag

 

[Davenjw]

Reading through this has led me to a few conclusions:


1. nothing is EVER easy when dealing with the USFS.

2. They built that fire station in a terrible spot.... but personally I think there was leverage behind that. people want better access to the "no winter access" land? why not build a fire station farther up the hill, heck, I'll even donate the land! then were sure to get a plowed road....

3. I see 3 solutions:


A. give up and accept that you will not get winter access to that fire station.

B. build a groomable winter trail for snowmobilers that bypasses the main road to be plowed. it doesn't even have to be a real road, a groomable path for winter use only would work fine. it has to be wide enough though.

C. move the fire station. it can be done, get some land just below the current snopark, pour a new foundation, and move the building. you may find the snowmobile advocates may even help you out with this... but then these ideas don't really help those people who donated their land for a fire station, does it?

its funny how a person with there pocket book in a situation can effect the process

 

[ruffryder]

I think that they have a couple of different motives:
1 - They have a long standing beef going with some of the residents in that area, including one of our volunteers and once it gets to the harassment point with certain of this USFS ranger districts employees it is pretty tough to get past that. (my personal opinion only)

I have heard rumors that that is the real root of this whole issue. Access to the limited access area in winter . . . even to the point of the land being offered for the station to allow the owner access. Can you speak to what you have heard/know about that side of things?

2 - They are concerned that future land developers will be able to take a section of land that is not accessible year around and build a fire station and now the lots would be accessible and their value would sky rocket. (again, just my personal opinion)

This seems 'unbelieveable to me as that would cause the local taxbase to "Skyrocket" also which would put more money in everyones pocket, even the FD . . . . HEY

This is where we left off it seems. Interesting different perspective.

 

[Bagger]

This is where we left off it seems. Interesting different perspective.

Exactly Ruff. I know folks tend to polorize around these things and only see, want their side's point/agenda to prevail.

I would love to get the land owners to come on here and disscuss this as the Chief has. Good on him for it. He has to know it's not popular with the sledders and could make things tough for him.

Bag

 

[ruffryder]

2. They built that fire station in a terrible spot.... but personally I think there was leverage behind that. people want better access to the "no winter access" land? why not build a fire station farther up the hill, heck, I'll even donate the land! then were sure to get a plowed road....

hmm... that is something similar to what Bagger was saying? Is this argument just looking for some rich person to blame the situation on?

Anyone know the plot details of the land? I would think the county records would show who owned the land previously.

 

[Bagger]

hmm... that is something similar to what Bagger was saying? Is this argument just looking for some rich person to blame the situation on?

Anyone know the plot details of the land? I would think the county records would show who owned the land previously.

Ruff, you need to get to know me better. . . I don't make rash statements or go looking for a place to appoint blame.

The property donated to the FD was owned by the same gentleman that was busted for plowing the road last year. Same gentleman that is also sueing for the snowpark injuction. The same gentleman that wants access to his property in winter.

I don't believe the statement "looking for some rich person to blame the situation on" puts the proper focus on how we got here. In fact I believe it paints it backwards.

This isn't about sledders trying to keep someone off his property, which is the meaning that I would read into your wording.

My Opinion:

It's about someone who bough property who first took possession of their property with the understanding that there was no winter access, and now they are trying to force the people that they need an easement from to grant that easement so they have winter access.
They have tried and tried and (again my opinion) even donated the ground for the FD to have a plowed access road to their property.
FS is a pain to deal with but when you try for a year to force them into an action that isn't legal they are bound to get even harder to deal with.

Look at the resistance to the FD from nearly everyone on here, really think it's the FD?
No, it's because yet one more person (or cause, or organization) is trying to kick us off of or restrict our use of another piece of ground.
It's perfectly understandable to me that people get tired of others "asking for forgiveness instead of permission".

I think it's a shame that the FD is in bed with this land owner, cause they are as hard as they try to separate themselves. Who doesn't like the FD? Well, except 321 . . .
I can't difinitively state that the land was given to the FD as a means to gain access, but if you go back and research this whole thing, it sure looks that way to me.

If you go back and read through my confusing post above, I have checked the county records and there is/was other available property.

I also found posts on here from 07 where Chief was explaining the FD's side. It was already scheduled for court by that time, but he was correct, he tried to get the word out.

Peronally, if I was FS and State, I would carve out a piece of the land I owned and GIVE it to the FD for a station. (sounds like state tried that . . .)

I sincely hope that this gets resolved in a fair manner. I would like to see everyone happy, but I would also hate to see some individual get what they wanted by forcing and bullying people around.

I have tried to keep an open mind through all this research I've done, and I always believe in being curtious. I would welcome anyone that can show me difinitive proof that I'm wrong here.

Bag

 

[chief 8101]

Bag,

Thanks for the posts above....things are never cut and dry and it definitely changes how a persons views an issue depending on which side they are standing on. Just a couple of corrections to what you have stated above....

The land was not donated by the same person that filed suit against state parks and got a ticket for plowing last year. That person was Mr. Beasley (sp?) The land that the station was built on had been previously owned by Rhett McCormick, one of our fire dept volunteers.

Mr. Beasley has never been a member or part of our fire dept.

 

[ruffryder]

The land was not donated by the same person that filed suit against state parks and got a ticket for plowing last year. That person was Mr. Beasley (sp?) The land that the station was built on had been previously owned by Rhett McCormick, one of our fire dept volunteers.

Does Rhett McCormick own any other land near or around the fire station?

 

[Bagger]

Bag,

Thanks for the posts above....things are never cut and dry and it definitely changes how a persons views an issue depending on which side they are standing on. Just a couple of corrections to what you have stated above....

The land was not donated by the same person that filed suit against state parks and got a ticket for plowing last year. That person was Mr. Beasley (sp?) The land that the station was built on had been previously owned by Rhett McCormick, one of our fire dept volunteers.

Mr. Beasley has never been a member or part of our fire dept.

I stand corrected and appreciate the info. I hate being wrong . . .

Good question Ruff . . . . Chief??

Bag

 

[CleElum Sledhead]

Not the Chief, but here you go.

http://kittitaswa.taxsifter.com/taxsifter/t-assessor.asp?pid=22086

 

[Davenjw]

thats what this entire deal is about? your trying to force a snowmobile road to be plowed for a tiny 2 bay shop?


I figured we were talking a real substation with a decent office area, something that people would actually inhabit waiting for calls.