|
|
BWA-Speak : BWA Forums
General BWA Message and Milling Area
Elkhorn Acres Management
Posted by: acreekfreak (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2008 01:57PM
An open letter to those concerned about the management of Elkhorn Acres.
Through our numerous emails back and forth with Mark Singleton, Executive Director of American Whitewater, I feel as though our questions are being dodged…
The statement has been made, attributed to Mark Singleton, that, “AW still owns the property and has expressly stated that it wants the BWA to decide what to do there”.
True/False/Half Truth? Really… what are we talking about here?
In an attempt to get an answer as to whether or not that statement is true, we get this statement from Mark Singleton, “ALL paddlers (BWA, Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers and EAMG) need to be part of this discussion”
The latest reply by Mark Singleton to my direct question from above was, “AW owns the land and I want to see both our affiliate clubs (Vikings and BWA) better represented in how the property is managed.”
How do you guys (including Brent Austin and Barry Grimes) reconcile the claims that you want these decisions made by “ALL paddlers, (BWA, Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers and EAMG)” with the statement that “AW still owns the property and has expressly stated that it wants the BWA to decide what to do there”
How do we reconcile the actions taken at the February monthly BWA meeting, with the afore mentioned statements?
At the most recent BWA meeting, Brent Austin and Barry Grimes led the BWA into making a controversial decision about camping at Elkhorn Acres. Brent and Barry claim that the vote was unanimous, yet… several people abstained from the vote because they understood that the Elkhorn Acres Management Group was the managing body for Elkhorn Acres and did not believe that the BWA had the authority to make this type of decision.
Brent Austin and Barry Grimes excluded the Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers and many other interested parties from this controversial management decision. It is obvious, to me and to others directly involved, that this has been their intentions all along. Numerous emails on the subject (by Brent and Barry), along with their actions at the latest BWA meeting testify to this.
On the other hand…
The existing Elkhorn Acres Management group consists of representatives of the BWA, the Viking Canoe Club, the Elkhorn Paddlers and several other individuals who donated considerable money to make this purchase possible. The structure keeps any one club from dominating management decisions, such as occurred a the most recent BWA meeting.
When the Elkhorn Acres Management Group holds a meeting, it gives all interested parties plenty of advance notice. Usually a couple of months. It invites representatives from the BWA, Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers, and other members of the group who choose not to belong to any of the local paddling clubs.
I'm clear on the fact that American Whitewater owns the land. As the owner, they can name whoever they want to manage the land, name no land manager at all, fence the land off so that we can not use it or sell it, if that suits them, but...
Through our numerous emails back and forth with Mark Singleton, Executive Director of American Whitewater, I feel as though our questions are being dodged…
The statement has been made, attributed to Mark Singleton, that, “AW still owns the property and has expressly stated that it wants the BWA to decide what to do there”.
True/False/Half Truth? Really… what are we talking about here?
In an attempt to get an answer as to whether or not that statement is true, we get this statement from Mark Singleton, “ALL paddlers (BWA, Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers and EAMG) need to be part of this discussion”
The latest reply by Mark Singleton to my direct question from above was, “AW owns the land and I want to see both our affiliate clubs (Vikings and BWA) better represented in how the property is managed.”
How do you guys (including Brent Austin and Barry Grimes) reconcile the claims that you want these decisions made by “ALL paddlers, (BWA, Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers and EAMG)” with the statement that “AW still owns the property and has expressly stated that it wants the BWA to decide what to do there”
How do we reconcile the actions taken at the February monthly BWA meeting, with the afore mentioned statements?
At the most recent BWA meeting, Brent Austin and Barry Grimes led the BWA into making a controversial decision about camping at Elkhorn Acres. Brent and Barry claim that the vote was unanimous, yet… several people abstained from the vote because they understood that the Elkhorn Acres Management Group was the managing body for Elkhorn Acres and did not believe that the BWA had the authority to make this type of decision.
Brent Austin and Barry Grimes excluded the Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers and many other interested parties from this controversial management decision. It is obvious, to me and to others directly involved, that this has been their intentions all along. Numerous emails on the subject (by Brent and Barry), along with their actions at the latest BWA meeting testify to this.
On the other hand…
The existing Elkhorn Acres Management group consists of representatives of the BWA, the Viking Canoe Club, the Elkhorn Paddlers and several other individuals who donated considerable money to make this purchase possible. The structure keeps any one club from dominating management decisions, such as occurred a the most recent BWA meeting.
When the Elkhorn Acres Management Group holds a meeting, it gives all interested parties plenty of advance notice. Usually a couple of months. It invites representatives from the BWA, Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers, and other members of the group who choose not to belong to any of the local paddling clubs.
I'm clear on the fact that American Whitewater owns the land. As the owner, they can name whoever they want to manage the land, name no land manager at all, fence the land off so that we can not use it or sell it, if that suits them, but...
Re: Elkhorn Acres Management
Posted by: singleton (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2008 03:21PM
Dale,
We seem to be dragging this out through the mud. To start, lets recap:
On February 15 I got an email from Brent that BWA had voted to allow camping and order a Port-a-John for the weekend of NPFF at the Elkhorn take-out. I was also informed the vote was unanimous at the meeting. I responded and told Brent that I would differ to BWA. It seemed like an innocent request at the time.
That opened up the camping issue and since has highlighted some of the challenges surrounding Elkhorn management.
Since then I have worked on some guidelines for how all of AW's access point are managed. They are:
Draft AW River Access Guidelines
February 2008
As an overriding premise, building coalitions is an important component of how AW manages the various access locations that we own. Where there is joint planning, there is support. Involving our affiliate clubs is an excellent way to build grassroots support and credibility for river stewardship and conservation activities.
AW has a track record of success with river access points. We started managing access locations back in the early 90's. Since then:
American Whitewater owns:
• Blackwater River property in Hendricks, WV (since 1997).
• Watauga River property in Johnson Co, TN (since 1998).
• Johns Creek property in VA (since 1999)
• Elkhorn River property in KY (since 2000)
American Whitewater manages:
• Upper Yough River property Sang Run, MD for MD Department of The Environment (since 2001).
American Whitewater manages & leases:
• Sandy River property, WV from Power Company (since 1992?)
• Gauley River Masons Branch property, WV from local land owner (since 1993?)
American Whitewater funded acquisitions:
• Alberton Gorge, MT
• Rio Grande Hidalgo Falls, TX
American Whitewater found partners to acquire access:
• Arkansas River, CO (1997)
• Black River property, NY (1996)
When AW looks at an access location there are a number of attributes that we find desirable. They are:
1) The property provides valuable public access to the river, where public access does not exist.
2) The property protects unique whitewater resources, such as waterfalls or rapids.
3) The property includes important wildlife habitat or buffers wildlife habitat from development.
4) The property remains in a relatively natural, undisturbed condition.
5) The property protects wetlands, which contribute to the water quality of the river.
6) All other reasonable access solutions and alternatives have been explored.
7) Effective local management has been identified; local clubs and members should express their commitment to caring for the property.
There are a few circumstances that may prevent AW from pursuing an access location. The property may not fit within our mission or poses significant management difficulties that exceed our organization’s resources. These may include the following
1) The property does not provide public access to a waterway.
2) The property will have significant management problems exceeding our protection and management abilities.
3) The property is zoned for development that conflicts with our conservation and access easement objectives.
4) The property will be exorbitantly expensive to maintain.
5) The property title is being litigated, or is unclear.
6) The value to the overall boating community is limited.
7) Effective local management has not been identified and there is conflict within the community about how to manage the location.
When managing an access location, American Whitewater expects affiliate clubs and the local boating community to:
• Manage the property by regularly mowing the grass, and cleaning up trash.
• Maintain a simple structure for getting dressed and changing clothes.
• Maintain a suitable parking area and driveway.
• Have toilet rental in place during high season use.
Ground rules for use, this is an example of signage posted at the Upper Yough put-in:
Visitors, this is a great river –it’s easy to get excited before and after boating it; please treat this site and our neighbors with respect. The local community has played a large role in developing and maintaining this property. They deserve our thanks and appreciation for their efforts. American Whitewater’s ability to maintain this access point depends on your cooperation. Please:
Park only on American Whitewater’s property.
Do not block access to neighboring properties or vehicles.
Drive courteously.
Lock your vehicle.
Keep noise to a minimum.
Use the changing screen.
Police the area for gear and trash before you leave.
Do not leave pets unattended or unleashed.
This parking area is provided for river access during daylight hours only. Camping is prohibited.
On the Elkhorn, in addition to no camping, there currently exists a no bank fishing policy, no commercial use and a day use modification allowance for Affiliate meetings, picnics, etc...
Now, where do we go from here?
It seems to me that we have four groups of stakeholders in this issue; the EAMG, Vikings, BWA and Elkhorn Paddlers. Each of those groups needs a voice here. A management council comprised of those four interests would be a very encouraging development. As an overriding premise, building coalitions is an important component of how AW manages the various access locations we own. Where there is joint planning, there is support. Involving our affiliate clubs with EAMG and Elkhorn Paddlers would be an excellent way to move this forward.
Mark Singleton
We seem to be dragging this out through the mud. To start, lets recap:
On February 15 I got an email from Brent that BWA had voted to allow camping and order a Port-a-John for the weekend of NPFF at the Elkhorn take-out. I was also informed the vote was unanimous at the meeting. I responded and told Brent that I would differ to BWA. It seemed like an innocent request at the time.
That opened up the camping issue and since has highlighted some of the challenges surrounding Elkhorn management.
Since then I have worked on some guidelines for how all of AW's access point are managed. They are:
Draft AW River Access Guidelines
February 2008
As an overriding premise, building coalitions is an important component of how AW manages the various access locations that we own. Where there is joint planning, there is support. Involving our affiliate clubs is an excellent way to build grassroots support and credibility for river stewardship and conservation activities.
AW has a track record of success with river access points. We started managing access locations back in the early 90's. Since then:
American Whitewater owns:
• Blackwater River property in Hendricks, WV (since 1997).
• Watauga River property in Johnson Co, TN (since 1998).
• Johns Creek property in VA (since 1999)
• Elkhorn River property in KY (since 2000)
American Whitewater manages:
• Upper Yough River property Sang Run, MD for MD Department of The Environment (since 2001).
American Whitewater manages & leases:
• Sandy River property, WV from Power Company (since 1992?)
• Gauley River Masons Branch property, WV from local land owner (since 1993?)
American Whitewater funded acquisitions:
• Alberton Gorge, MT
• Rio Grande Hidalgo Falls, TX
American Whitewater found partners to acquire access:
• Arkansas River, CO (1997)
• Black River property, NY (1996)
When AW looks at an access location there are a number of attributes that we find desirable. They are:
1) The property provides valuable public access to the river, where public access does not exist.
2) The property protects unique whitewater resources, such as waterfalls or rapids.
3) The property includes important wildlife habitat or buffers wildlife habitat from development.
4) The property remains in a relatively natural, undisturbed condition.
5) The property protects wetlands, which contribute to the water quality of the river.
6) All other reasonable access solutions and alternatives have been explored.
7) Effective local management has been identified; local clubs and members should express their commitment to caring for the property.
There are a few circumstances that may prevent AW from pursuing an access location. The property may not fit within our mission or poses significant management difficulties that exceed our organization’s resources. These may include the following
1) The property does not provide public access to a waterway.
2) The property will have significant management problems exceeding our protection and management abilities.
3) The property is zoned for development that conflicts with our conservation and access easement objectives.
4) The property will be exorbitantly expensive to maintain.
5) The property title is being litigated, or is unclear.
6) The value to the overall boating community is limited.
7) Effective local management has not been identified and there is conflict within the community about how to manage the location.
When managing an access location, American Whitewater expects affiliate clubs and the local boating community to:
• Manage the property by regularly mowing the grass, and cleaning up trash.
• Maintain a simple structure for getting dressed and changing clothes.
• Maintain a suitable parking area and driveway.
• Have toilet rental in place during high season use.
Ground rules for use, this is an example of signage posted at the Upper Yough put-in:
Visitors, this is a great river –it’s easy to get excited before and after boating it; please treat this site and our neighbors with respect. The local community has played a large role in developing and maintaining this property. They deserve our thanks and appreciation for their efforts. American Whitewater’s ability to maintain this access point depends on your cooperation. Please:
Park only on American Whitewater’s property.
Do not block access to neighboring properties or vehicles.
Drive courteously.
Lock your vehicle.
Keep noise to a minimum.
Use the changing screen.
Police the area for gear and trash before you leave.
Do not leave pets unattended or unleashed.
This parking area is provided for river access during daylight hours only. Camping is prohibited.
On the Elkhorn, in addition to no camping, there currently exists a no bank fishing policy, no commercial use and a day use modification allowance for Affiliate meetings, picnics, etc...
Now, where do we go from here?
It seems to me that we have four groups of stakeholders in this issue; the EAMG, Vikings, BWA and Elkhorn Paddlers. Each of those groups needs a voice here. A management council comprised of those four interests would be a very encouraging development. As an overriding premise, building coalitions is an important component of how AW manages the various access locations we own. Where there is joint planning, there is support. Involving our affiliate clubs with EAMG and Elkhorn Paddlers would be an excellent way to move this forward.
Mark Singleton
Re: Elkhorn Acres Management
Posted by: jboater (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2008 04:04PM
Mark;
Please read the post that I made on EA documentation. If you read this post you will find that the EAMG is the group you are speaking of. I really believe that the main problem is that the situation has gotten so confusing. I think at this point all we need is some hard documentation on who has management control and for everyone involved to understand all the management issues. I do appreciate your post and I find some of the issues interesting, especially
1. Do not leave pets unattended or unleashed.
2. Have toilet rental in place during high season use.
I guess that the Elkhorn does not have a high season use per say due to the fact that in the summer when the elkhorn runs it generally runs out within 3 days.
Jbob
Please read the post that I made on EA documentation. If you read this post you will find that the EAMG is the group you are speaking of. I really believe that the main problem is that the situation has gotten so confusing. I think at this point all we need is some hard documentation on who has management control and for everyone involved to understand all the management issues. I do appreciate your post and I find some of the issues interesting, especially
1. Do not leave pets unattended or unleashed.
2. Have toilet rental in place during high season use.
I guess that the Elkhorn does not have a high season use per say due to the fact that in the summer when the elkhorn runs it generally runs out within 3 days.
Jbob
Re: Elkhorn Acres Management
Posted by: acreekfreak (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2008 05:13PM
OK... now we're getting somewhere...
Again... I prefer to speak plainly... I'm no politician...
That's not exactly a recap. That is new information that we've been struggling to get from you.
Still... the time line is screwed up.
February 15th is several days after the February 12th BWA meeting in which Brent and Barry claimed that AW wanted the BWA to handle things down there. I was told that, when confronted with the idea that this was not BWA business, but was actually Elkhorn Acres Management Group business, Brent claimed AW had given the BWA authority and he waved his cell phone in the air, suggesting that he would call Mark Singleton to prove it.
I believe that Brent’s claim to AW officers that the vote was unanimous is intentionally misleading. The reality is, there were a few seasoned BWAer's present who abstained from the vote because they felt that participating in the vote lent credence that this was a legitimate issue for the BWA to vote on.
Our later attempts to get clarification of some of the statements made has been like trying to run through a pond filled with molasses. We’re still not quite there.
My opinion is, that the Brent/Barry group has been in the minority within the EAMG and as such, they have attempted to destroy the EAMG in order to take control of the property. I believe they have gained office within the BWA and have misrepresented the wishes of the BWA to AW to suit their own aspirations. During the BWA election process, Brent was asked specifically about his intentions with regard to this Elkhorn Acres issue and I don‘t believe he was exactly up front and honest in his reply. Many people believe Brent and Barry’s intentions were to gain office within the BWA, to remove the EAMG as the managing body of Elkhorn Acres.
and now... here we are...
The BWA has not voted to attempt to take over management of Elkhorn Acres. There has been almost no discussion within the BWA at regularly monthly meetings in regard to this, nor on the forum. I believe Brent has misrepresented the wishes of the BWA on this topic. I have no doubt that there have been many, many private planning sessions amongst Brent/Barry supporters, but… they have not presented this as a BWA issue, to the BWA, other than the most recent attempt at “tricking” their way into management of the property.
If we’re going to accomplish something here… we need to cut the crap.
This is the first administration of the BWA who has expressed displeasure with the EAMG.
To my knowledge, the only people within the current BWA administration that have expressed dissatisfaction, also happen to be the 2 leaders of the small group within the EAMG that are dissatisfied with the EAMG.
In my opinion, to say that the BWA is at odds with the EAMG is a bit of a stretch and deserves some debate and maybe a vote. When the BWA has real discussion and maybe a vote on this issue, I’ll concede whatever the BWA decides, just like I’ve conceded to whatever the EAMG has decided in the past.
Regardless… we need to be upfront and honest about these issues.
Back to my original question.
When Brent/Barry claimed at the February 12th BWA meeting that AW wanted the BWA to handle things down there… were they being straight with the people of the BWA? On February 14th, Barry Grimes posted a statement that read, “AW still owns the property and has expressly stated that it wants the BWA to decide what to do there” This was posted on the day before Brent’s email to Mark Singleton.
What’s the straight poop here?
I know I’m putting people on the spot here… but…
Again... I prefer to speak plainly... I'm no politician...
That's not exactly a recap. That is new information that we've been struggling to get from you.
Still... the time line is screwed up.
February 15th is several days after the February 12th BWA meeting in which Brent and Barry claimed that AW wanted the BWA to handle things down there. I was told that, when confronted with the idea that this was not BWA business, but was actually Elkhorn Acres Management Group business, Brent claimed AW had given the BWA authority and he waved his cell phone in the air, suggesting that he would call Mark Singleton to prove it.
I believe that Brent’s claim to AW officers that the vote was unanimous is intentionally misleading. The reality is, there were a few seasoned BWAer's present who abstained from the vote because they felt that participating in the vote lent credence that this was a legitimate issue for the BWA to vote on.
Our later attempts to get clarification of some of the statements made has been like trying to run through a pond filled with molasses. We’re still not quite there.
My opinion is, that the Brent/Barry group has been in the minority within the EAMG and as such, they have attempted to destroy the EAMG in order to take control of the property. I believe they have gained office within the BWA and have misrepresented the wishes of the BWA to AW to suit their own aspirations. During the BWA election process, Brent was asked specifically about his intentions with regard to this Elkhorn Acres issue and I don‘t believe he was exactly up front and honest in his reply. Many people believe Brent and Barry’s intentions were to gain office within the BWA, to remove the EAMG as the managing body of Elkhorn Acres.
and now... here we are...
The BWA has not voted to attempt to take over management of Elkhorn Acres. There has been almost no discussion within the BWA at regularly monthly meetings in regard to this, nor on the forum. I believe Brent has misrepresented the wishes of the BWA on this topic. I have no doubt that there have been many, many private planning sessions amongst Brent/Barry supporters, but… they have not presented this as a BWA issue, to the BWA, other than the most recent attempt at “tricking” their way into management of the property.
If we’re going to accomplish something here… we need to cut the crap.
This is the first administration of the BWA who has expressed displeasure with the EAMG.
To my knowledge, the only people within the current BWA administration that have expressed dissatisfaction, also happen to be the 2 leaders of the small group within the EAMG that are dissatisfied with the EAMG.
In my opinion, to say that the BWA is at odds with the EAMG is a bit of a stretch and deserves some debate and maybe a vote. When the BWA has real discussion and maybe a vote on this issue, I’ll concede whatever the BWA decides, just like I’ve conceded to whatever the EAMG has decided in the past.
Regardless… we need to be upfront and honest about these issues.
Back to my original question.
When Brent/Barry claimed at the February 12th BWA meeting that AW wanted the BWA to handle things down there… were they being straight with the people of the BWA? On February 14th, Barry Grimes posted a statement that read, “AW still owns the property and has expressly stated that it wants the BWA to decide what to do there” This was posted on the day before Brent’s email to Mark Singleton.
What’s the straight poop here?
I know I’m putting people on the spot here… but…
Re: Elkhorn Acres Management
Posted by: dmargava (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2008 05:41PM
but... Yes Dale we all should speak frankly, but it would be nice if it made sence and we knew what your about. In my opinion your out there by yourself, with all your Brent and Barry crap. Your argument is what is confusing. AW was given the land with no strings attached. AW owns the land. AW has experience with a lot more controversial and sensitive locations then the Mighty Elkhorn. What is you problem other then Brent and Barry?
Mr. Margavage
Mr. Margavage
Re: Elkhorn Acres Management
Posted by: hanleyk1 (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2008 05:45PM
For the most part, I (Hanley) want to stay out of this debate. I think that there is too much finger pointing and too much "he said, she said" going on. Matters of this sort are fundamentally vague and difficult to resolve because the impetus behind them lies within a lot of individual actions made by well meaning but strong willed individuals. It is important, I think, to recognize this and not treat it as if it is a bureaucracy with strict guidelines, accurate record keeping and a fully documented timeline of events.
For the sake of sanity and productivity, I would like to make a call that everyone chiming in here try to focus on getting to a future consensus about what will happen and not focus on what has happened. To that end I offer these observations.
Whatever groups or individuals is going to be responsible for making day-to-day decisions about Elkhorn Acres must be able to meet conveniently and in such a way that public comment can be made. The varied interests in this matter are spread so far apart that it may not be practical or productive to leave management up to a group of people who have to travel to meet. Perhaps, or perhaps not, but to my mind, the key is simplicity. The simpler the process the better. We all have busy lives and the management of this parcel of land should not take up a large portion of anyone's life, in my humble opinion.
Any new rules establised for the purpose of managing the property should spell out the procedure for making exceptions to these rules or making other management decisions in a clear and indisputable manner. It is possible that more than one group/party would be able to make an executive decision to create an exception unilaterally. It may be that no exceptions to the rules will be allowed. Whatever the decision, simplicity is the key.
Above all, we should keep in mind that this area is zoned residential and that we are able to use it due to selective enforcement. Whatever decisions we make should preserve the peace with our neighbors first and foremost. It is much easier to prevent an issue from arising than it is to fix it after it exists.
Please don't anyone post back here to tell me that rules already exist or that these issues have already been addressed. I recognize that. I do not want to debate about it. I have no opinion about the current state of things. I simply hope that we can focus on creating a future concensus that will at least satisfy the interested parties sufficiently well to quell the controversy. I personally feel that the controversy itself is more destructive than the issues it is centered around and I hope that we can resolve this quickly and productively.
In summary, let me say: Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity. Focus on the future.
Hanley
For the sake of sanity and productivity, I would like to make a call that everyone chiming in here try to focus on getting to a future consensus about what will happen and not focus on what has happened. To that end I offer these observations.
Whatever groups or individuals is going to be responsible for making day-to-day decisions about Elkhorn Acres must be able to meet conveniently and in such a way that public comment can be made. The varied interests in this matter are spread so far apart that it may not be practical or productive to leave management up to a group of people who have to travel to meet. Perhaps, or perhaps not, but to my mind, the key is simplicity. The simpler the process the better. We all have busy lives and the management of this parcel of land should not take up a large portion of anyone's life, in my humble opinion.
Any new rules establised for the purpose of managing the property should spell out the procedure for making exceptions to these rules or making other management decisions in a clear and indisputable manner. It is possible that more than one group/party would be able to make an executive decision to create an exception unilaterally. It may be that no exceptions to the rules will be allowed. Whatever the decision, simplicity is the key.
Above all, we should keep in mind that this area is zoned residential and that we are able to use it due to selective enforcement. Whatever decisions we make should preserve the peace with our neighbors first and foremost. It is much easier to prevent an issue from arising than it is to fix it after it exists.
Please don't anyone post back here to tell me that rules already exist or that these issues have already been addressed. I recognize that. I do not want to debate about it. I have no opinion about the current state of things. I simply hope that we can focus on creating a future concensus that will at least satisfy the interested parties sufficiently well to quell the controversy. I personally feel that the controversy itself is more destructive than the issues it is centered around and I hope that we can resolve this quickly and productively.
In summary, let me say: Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity. Focus on the future.
Hanley
Re: Elkhorn Acres Management
Posted by: brentaustin (IP Logged)
Date: February 28, 2008 11:16PM
Well said Hanley! I could not agree more. I think we absolutely can move to consensus. This should be easy.
Brent
Brent
Re: Elkhorn Acres Management
Posted by: jboater (IP Logged)
Date: February 29, 2008 02:11PM
OK so I guess the BWA needs to decide what they want to bring to the table as there opinion of guidelines for the management of EA. It sounds like Zina is planning to get a meeting together in Frankfort for all this to go down in about a month. She is getting together the people of the EAMG and I think that in addition there will be representatives from the Vikings, BWA, and Elkhorn paddlers. So lets start things off with the following>>>
When managing an access location, American Whitewater expects affiliate clubs and the local boating community to:
• Manage the property by regularly mowing the grass, and cleaning up trash.
• Maintain a simple structure for getting dressed and changing clothes.
• Maintain a suitable parking area and driveway.
• Have toilet rental in place during high season use.
Ground rules for use, this is an example of signage posted at the Upper Yough put-in:
Visitors, this is a great river –it’s easy to get excited before and after boating it; please treat this site and our neighbors with respect. The local community has played a large role in developing and maintaining this property. They deserve our thanks and appreciation for their efforts. American Whitewater’s ability to maintain this access point depends on your cooperation. Please:
Park only on American Whitewater’s property.
Do not block access to neighboring properties or vehicles.
Drive courteously.
Lock your vehicle.
Keep noise to a minimum.
Use the changing screen.
Police the area for gear and trash before you leave.
Do not leave pets unattended or unleashed.
This parking area is provided for river access during daylight hours only. Camping is prohibited.
On the Elkhorn, in addition to no camping, there currently exists a no bank fishing policy, no commercial use and a day use modification allowance for Affiliate meetings, picnics, etc...
Sorry for cutting and pasting your post Mark, but it works, and in my opinion needs little or no changing.
Hanley
I have thought much about what you wrote. It alludes me how this could ever be simple with all the people that want a say in the situation. The closest thing that I could come up with in my mind is to give equal vote share for BWA, EP, Vikings and the remaining fourth equal share go to the 42(I believe)individuals in the EAMG. This does not sound very simple to me but it does seem fair. There needs to be a system of checks and balances where no one entity of the four has the right to do anything outside of the guidelines without consulting the other Three. PLEASE if someone has a better idea post it here. If someone thinks that these basic guidelines are wrong please say what you think should be changed.
thank you
Jbob
P.S. Your opinion means a lot Hanley. No S#$@!!!
JBob
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2008 02:29PM by jboater.
When managing an access location, American Whitewater expects affiliate clubs and the local boating community to:
• Manage the property by regularly mowing the grass, and cleaning up trash.
• Maintain a simple structure for getting dressed and changing clothes.
• Maintain a suitable parking area and driveway.
• Have toilet rental in place during high season use.
Ground rules for use, this is an example of signage posted at the Upper Yough put-in:
Visitors, this is a great river –it’s easy to get excited before and after boating it; please treat this site and our neighbors with respect. The local community has played a large role in developing and maintaining this property. They deserve our thanks and appreciation for their efforts. American Whitewater’s ability to maintain this access point depends on your cooperation. Please:
Park only on American Whitewater’s property.
Do not block access to neighboring properties or vehicles.
Drive courteously.
Lock your vehicle.
Keep noise to a minimum.
Use the changing screen.
Police the area for gear and trash before you leave.
Do not leave pets unattended or unleashed.
This parking area is provided for river access during daylight hours only. Camping is prohibited.
On the Elkhorn, in addition to no camping, there currently exists a no bank fishing policy, no commercial use and a day use modification allowance for Affiliate meetings, picnics, etc...
Sorry for cutting and pasting your post Mark, but it works, and in my opinion needs little or no changing.
Hanley
I have thought much about what you wrote. It alludes me how this could ever be simple with all the people that want a say in the situation. The closest thing that I could come up with in my mind is to give equal vote share for BWA, EP, Vikings and the remaining fourth equal share go to the 42(I believe)individuals in the EAMG. This does not sound very simple to me but it does seem fair. There needs to be a system of checks and balances where no one entity of the four has the right to do anything outside of the guidelines without consulting the other Three. PLEASE if someone has a better idea post it here. If someone thinks that these basic guidelines are wrong please say what you think should be changed.
thank you
Jbob
P.S. Your opinion means a lot Hanley. No S#$@!!!
JBob
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/29/2008 02:29PM by jboater.
Re: Elkhorn Acres Management
Posted by: pwsisk0 (IP Logged)
Date: February 29, 2008 02:19PM
Just so Dale's not hung out to dry here w/ Supers last statement, I personally have some of the same questions as him and I think others do to. Some just may not agree with all this public forum bickering and would prefer to discuss it in person in a different manner then the tone of this whole thread. This is rediculous and reminds me of the early stories I'd heard about the BWA. After many years without the divisive attitudes, I'm sad to see it return. Chaos rules? No, chaos drives people off.
The fact is...as President last spring I was included on several EAMG emails calling by a few for the BWA to "takeover". I went to the SC Mtg and brought that up.....we didn't need to vote b/c there was practically little discussion b/c everyone agreed they were puzzled by the request. As was the general meeting when I pointed out our discussion. The points made still ring true to me...
(1) we respect the people that put up the money and they're ability to manage it,
(2 )the property serves many more paddling groups then the BWA (BWA, Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers AND Bardstown Boaters...the other Ky AW Affiliate club that is very active paddling)
(3) What's wrong with how its being managed? Who's voice isn't being heard?
Regardless of the future direction, I still ask....who's voice hasn't been heard? After 7 years it looks like the original plan for this property has been successful. It was provide a takeout, be a good neighbor, and have low environmental impact. What's the problem? What do we hope to improve upon? I agree the gravel should be laid, but that has more to do with the volunteers then the actual infrastructure doesn't it?
This relative non-issue now has AW's executive director posting on our forum, not b/c of EAMG's actions but b/c of the BWA's. I'd personally rather see Mark fighting for something truly in his need then playing babysitter for us.
The fact is...as President last spring I was included on several EAMG emails calling by a few for the BWA to "takeover". I went to the SC Mtg and brought that up.....we didn't need to vote b/c there was practically little discussion b/c everyone agreed they were puzzled by the request. As was the general meeting when I pointed out our discussion. The points made still ring true to me...
(1) we respect the people that put up the money and they're ability to manage it,
(2 )the property serves many more paddling groups then the BWA (BWA, Vikings, Elkhorn Paddlers AND Bardstown Boaters...the other Ky AW Affiliate club that is very active paddling)
(3) What's wrong with how its being managed? Who's voice isn't being heard?
Regardless of the future direction, I still ask....who's voice hasn't been heard? After 7 years it looks like the original plan for this property has been successful. It was provide a takeout, be a good neighbor, and have low environmental impact. What's the problem? What do we hope to improve upon? I agree the gravel should be laid, but that has more to do with the volunteers then the actual infrastructure doesn't it?
This relative non-issue now has AW's executive director posting on our forum, not b/c of EAMG's actions but b/c of the BWA's. I'd personally rather see Mark fighting for something truly in his need then playing babysitter for us.
Re: Elkhorn Acres Management
Posted by: hanleyk1 (IP Logged)
Date: February 29, 2008 03:08PM
Answering JBob here:
I don't know what the answer is, but I can think of a few possible solutions. The key is that not every stakeholder needs to be intimately involved in every aspect of day to day decision making about the property.
NOTE: Before I continue, I don't know exactly how the EAMG works or how many members it has, so I may be reinventing the wheel to some extent. Also, I'm just tossing this off the top of my head so don't think that I'm presenting a complete and well thought out solution. Be that as it may...
Let's say you have a group of three people who are elected to hold executive decision making power over the property. They don't necessarily have to come from any particular group of shareholders, they just have to be people who are entrusted with the responsibility of making decisions. People who are close to the issue and who the majority of stakeholders trust to make good decisions. You could have an emergency override procedure so that if any group disagreed with a decision they would be able to initiate a vote by the stakeholders at large to overturn it, but that should be an "emergencies only" sort of situation.
Three people can have substantive discussions and come to consensus without always having to be in the same room together. Three people means there is never a tie vote and there is always an authority to defer to.
Trying to have a representative from each group of stakeholders is inclusive and has it's merits, but may also be limiting and counterproductive, largely because of the geographic differences in these groups. If this was a paid position that would be one thing, but most of the folks that would be representing the various stakeholders are already heavily involved in volunteering for their own local group. How many meetings can you go to a month?
The key here would be that these persons act independently. They have the authority to make decisions and may make requests of the stakeholder organizations, ("Please donate money or time toward xxx") but would not be required to report back to them for approval.
That's one thought.
Hanley
PS: Thanks for the compliment JBob. I respect your opinion too.
I don't know what the answer is, but I can think of a few possible solutions. The key is that not every stakeholder needs to be intimately involved in every aspect of day to day decision making about the property.
NOTE: Before I continue, I don't know exactly how the EAMG works or how many members it has, so I may be reinventing the wheel to some extent. Also, I'm just tossing this off the top of my head so don't think that I'm presenting a complete and well thought out solution. Be that as it may...
Let's say you have a group of three people who are elected to hold executive decision making power over the property. They don't necessarily have to come from any particular group of shareholders, they just have to be people who are entrusted with the responsibility of making decisions. People who are close to the issue and who the majority of stakeholders trust to make good decisions. You could have an emergency override procedure so that if any group disagreed with a decision they would be able to initiate a vote by the stakeholders at large to overturn it, but that should be an "emergencies only" sort of situation.
Three people can have substantive discussions and come to consensus without always having to be in the same room together. Three people means there is never a tie vote and there is always an authority to defer to.
Trying to have a representative from each group of stakeholders is inclusive and has it's merits, but may also be limiting and counterproductive, largely because of the geographic differences in these groups. If this was a paid position that would be one thing, but most of the folks that would be representing the various stakeholders are already heavily involved in volunteering for their own local group. How many meetings can you go to a month?
The key here would be that these persons act independently. They have the authority to make decisions and may make requests of the stakeholder organizations, ("Please donate money or time toward xxx") but would not be required to report back to them for approval.
That's one thought.
Hanley
PS: Thanks for the compliment JBob. I respect your opinion too.
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.
RSS for this Forum