Tellico UPDATE 7-2012

#2
Man what I'd give to get back up in the Murphy/Hanging Dog area! I'm thinking about going to State line campground before it gets cold to just camp.
 
#4
Folks, I have some additional information.

The hearing will be held at 2 PM in Courtroom 50 Main Street, Bryson City, NC 28713 before Judge Martin Reidinger. You can view the calendar here http://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/Calendar/Court.aspx. This is your money at work (your tax dollars supporting the FS and your after tax goodwill contributions to SFWDA, BRC, UFWDA). It is a public process. You are welcome to attend and encouraged to attend. It is fine to wear identifying attire that you are a supporter of off road driving (i.e club logos). Remember, you must be respectful of the Court and the process. You will not be allowed to speak during the proceedings. Just your presence in the court room will be enough. It will give you an opportunity to see our system at work. It is very important that we do not do anything that will reflect badly on our sport. I think it will be a testament to our resolve and perseverance to have as many of us as can participate to be there in person.

It appears the Judge has set aside the entire afternoon for the case. This means he may allow each side an hour to present. The FS and intervenors most likely will share the time allocated. SFWDA will present first, the FS and intervenors will present second, then most likely SFWDA will have a few minutes for rebuttal. Remember only the respective lawyers will present.

Please be reminded that it is very unlikely that a decision will be rendered on August 23rd. You will most likely be disappointed if you attend expecting to hear a decision. The decision will usually take 30 to 90 days. It may be in our best interest that the Judge take his time to consider everything in the case. Also, remember that any decision can be appealed by the opposing side.

Please re-post this information on other 4x4 boards and forums to help spread the word.

I look forward to seeing you on the 23rd in Bryson City, NC.

Thank you for your support.

Flint Holbrook
SFWDA Director Land Use and Conservation.

P.S. We also recommend that we all spend a few extra minutes on our knees praying for our legal team, the judge and a favorable outcome for our sport.
 
Last edited:
#5
im off work that day. If anybody is down to go we can take the burb up there. Maybe check out the remnants of tellico while we are there as well. And deano id be down to go camp at state line as well before it gets cold. Hike back to some of the old hot spots.
 
#6
also what is a best case scenario for this? Could there be new trails opened in that area, or maybe trails allocated for somewhere else?
 
#7
If the Judge decides in our favor what do we win?

This is a good question and one not easily answered. the Judge can do almost anything he wants in this situation. The most likely outcome would be a second "hearing" , if you will, to decide the remedy. Obviously, we are asking for the OHV system to be reopened. However, due to the FS actions to obliterate the trails this option does not exist (some believe this was the motive so an immediate reopening order could not be issued). Hence, there must be some design, construction etc. to reopen the OHV system. Also, money must be made available to do this (FS spent nearly $3MM to Obliterate the trails) and since we are dealing with Federal property procurement procedures must be followed as well as environmental permits, rules etc. You get the picture why a second hearing may be required.

I am looking at it as if the 8000 acre OHV area is a blank sheet of paper and if we win, the remedy is the FS pay for SFWDA to design and construct a sustainable trail system on the property. Also, in many cases the plaintiff can ask for their expenses and cost of going to court to correct a wrong.
 
#9
im off work that day. If anybody is down to go we can take the burb up there. Maybe check out the remnants of tellico while we are there as well. And deano id be down to go camp at state line as well before it gets cold. Hike back to some of the old hot spots.
I'd be down to ride.
 
#10
im off work that day. If anybody is down to go we can take the burb up there. Maybe check out the remnants of tellico while we are there as well. And deano id be down to go camp at state line as well before it gets cold. Hike back to some of the old hot spots.
let me know if you do this, I may join you.
 
#18
I was there today - I will be extremely surprised if anything comes out of it that is in our favor. I was very disappointed in what was presented on our behalf. I am not a lawyer but we either do not have a good case or our case was not represented well. I am interested if others post up to see what they thought.
 
#19
^ ditto

I noticed that the FS laywer read his closing comments and our guy just came from the heart. Which might have worked if our case would have been stronger. Alot of our side was based on FS wording in their documentation. I feel like the judge was straight up about his inquiry into the case. Hopefully he can see that the closure was unnecessary even if it would have cost millions to rescue it. I came late so I didn't catch the beginning of the hearing, I hope that our side mentioned the many years of service and trail work that was volunteered to maintain the trails. I agree I won't be surprised if it doesn't go our way, but I pray it will.
I was there and unfortunately I'll have to agree with the above posts. As for the rest of my opinion, I'll keep that to myself and just suffice to say that I appreciate everything that UFWDA, SFWDA, and the BRC do for our sport.
quoted from pirate
 
#20
Got a little more time tonight so below are more details:

1. The first point discussed was that our side made the claim that the FS intended to close Tellico all along and just went through the process. It didn't appear that we did a good job citing concrete examples of this.
2. Our side made the claim that the FS used data from a study of "bugs" in the stream to close Tellico but that data wasn't available to the general public. It is true that the study wasn't available, but it was only referenced sparingly and only in the responses to public questions, not in the body of the EA. Again, the judge didn't appear to buy it.
3. Our side challenged the "10 intensity factors" brought up by the FS in the EA - that the analysis was "pretty thin." Again, the point was made but we didn't appear to have a lot of supporting data.
4. The only time the FS/TU appeared to be challenged by the judge had to do with the turbidity analysis of the Tellico river - when they went out after a rainstorm and took water samples out of the river and compared them to other streams. This point I think we made some ground on - that the FS didn't really have a baseline for comparison for these numbers. They simply tested the Tellico river after a rainstorm at Stateline campground and then compared it to other streams in wilderness areas.

I'm sure there were other things that I missed - but overall no smoking guns in our favor. The judge said he hoped to have a decision within 30 days.
 
Top