I think everyone should be aware that the Elkhorn group currently attempting to manage the takeout on the Elkhorn, owned by AW, are proposing a budget of nearly $6000 over this year and the next. This would include $1900 for gravel and a parking lot railing, voted on by the group that met last spring at the property to debate issues about the property. Since it is clear that we all have an interest in the property and it's management, regardless if any of you donated money like some of us did, I want to solicit anyone elses ideas about prudent fiscal management of this property. If you paddle the Elkhorn, your voice should matter as to what is being done with AW's property.
For example, the proposal at the steering committee last week for mowing sets a budget of $400 this year and $500 next year. To me, I do not see why we have to have a golf course quality at all in the property and question why it should be mowed. Environmentally, mowing results in carbon admissions and seems unnecessary. Perhaps we could get someone to mow it once for the hay in the fall. Or we could get some volunteers to mow portions that are most used, for free. Anyway, this is not just a topic for the steering committee of the elite club known as Elkhorn Acres Management Group, but should be of concern and interest to everyone in the BWA and others that paddle this river.
Quite frankly, I see little reason to have AW bear the expense of anything more than maybe $300 to $400 per year. As President of the BWA and being an original donor, I would never recommend that AW adopt this budget. Any other money we raise can be better used by AW than to frill up their property with expensive and unnecessary ambiance.
I just wanted all of you to know what is being proposed and would invite discussion on this forum, openly, so that we can best represent the voice of this club in the management of AW's property that we all get to enjoy. Don't forget that each of you has as much right to a voice in this property management as any of us original donors or club representatives. Exercise that right! I hope to hear from any and all of you, whether you agree with me or not. I will respect everyone's right to voice their opinion and their right to agree or disagree with anyone else.
Your Prez,
Brent Austin

***To me, I do not see why we have to have a golf course quality at all in the property and question why it should be mowed. Environmentally, mowing results in carbon admissions and seems unnecessary. Perhaps we could get someone to mow it once for the hay in the fall.***

I believe the methane flatulence emitted by the livestock that would be fed the hay would far exceed any carbon emissions given off by a few mowings a year.

Couldn't resist.....

No kidding though I think we should plant some nice trees and let things grow back to a more natural setting. We don't need fields to maintain there.

In Anticipation of Precipitation
WaVeY

Thanks for your comments WavesterDavester. Let's hear more. Trees and natural setting sound good to me. Others thoughts?
Brent

I suggest we take the tree planting idea a bit farther. Why not, plant indiginous flora around the property, leave a section of grasslands and reclaim the floodplain wetalands that the property was prior to civilized development. I volunteer to head up a group to install parking barriers around the parking area, and if others volunteer to help develop a planned out type of ecological environment we could mow path through the property and have a multipurpose parcel of land. The idea being to attract the natural wildlife of the region, enjoy it and have a place to enjoy.

I like the concept of restoring the area as close as possible to a natural habitat state by restoring more than just trees to the property. This should essentially minimize the maintenance need to sprucing up the road / parking / trail(s) to the creek periodically. You could make the area even more wildlife friendly by choosing trees / plants that are a potential food source to a variety of wildlife .... also providing some of the locals with additional entertainment... more to shoot at ;-) For environmental reasons, I think it should be mostly trees .... and we could let the borders be shrub like cover.... i.e. blueberry / blackberry briar patches for feasting after the run ... yumm!

One thing to consider though ... and I do not know enough about the history of the area or our neighbors there to know how much of concern this should be ... but once we take the cars out of clear sight of the road / local houses... the risk of becoming victims of theft / vandalism may increase. So, would it be better to throw in a few shade trees for parking / backside of the property but leave it open enough to the view of neighbors / road traffic that it may keep vandals at bay?

Wes

In a perfect world, allowing Elkhorn Acres to grow up into a nice small forest would be pretty cool.

In the real world, this would provide "cover" for folks with ill intent.

Keeping the area relatively clear allows our neighbors to see the
parking area, which helps keep our cars safe while we're enjoying the creek.

As for the suggestion that the Elkhorn Acres Management Group(EAMG) is trying to maintain “golf course quality” grass at Elkhorn Acres, it would be a wicked golf course indeed that only gets cut when the grass is head high. That's pretty much the mowing plan. This year has been dry. The grass has only been cut once this year. Some volunteers mow around the parking area, driveway and along the road, to help keep the property looking neat and so boaters don’t have to wade around in head high grass between mowings. This suggestion from Brent is already in place & practice, but he’s so disconnected from what’s really happening at the property, he is unaware of it.

While it would be nice to have a farmer cut the grass for the hay(this idea has been kicked around for years), there are several problems that will probably prevent this possibility(but, it‘s constantly explored and several farmers in the area have been approached about it). A willing farmer… poor quality of grass… too small a lot(probably less than 3 acres once you subtract the areas used by boaters) to make messing with it profitable… boaters driving around in the field, ruining more of what little grass there is(this is unavoidable when it gets crowded down there)… flood waters covering the field occasionally, bringing in unwanted weeds/debris(this is a problem if the farmer is looking for quality hay)…

Brent, saying anything about "AW bearing the expense" of anything is very misleading. Excluding taxes, American Whitewater hasn't paid for much of anything I know of. Local boaters & clubs have covered all the expenses, so far and will likely do so in the future. Tax exempt donations can be made to the property through AW, but it’s not anything like “AW bearing the expense” of anything.

A note on this “elite club known as Elkhorn Acres Management Group”, as Brent puts it. This group consists of the people/entities who donated the cash($500 or more) to purchase the property or their chosen representatives(I, being one of the latter). Money for the property was solicited, with the understanding that this property would be managed by this group of donors. At some point, it was decided that the best entity to “hold title” to the property was American Whitewater. Some would have you believe that this was an American Whitewater project or that American Whitewater actually bought the property or that this property purchase would not be possible, if not for American Whitewater, etc. That is not the case. It’s smoke and mirrors. The people of the Elkhorn Acres Management Group raised the money & would have bought the property anyway. It was a Hell of a gift to AW & a nice feather in their cap, even if the feather was handed to them on a silver platter. A minority of the EAMG has been trying hard to disband the group, after failing to gain “control” of the group in regular elections. They are now attempting to use the BWA as a tool in a “hostile takeover” with “hostile“ being the key word here. This minority figures they stand a better chance of controlling the BWA, since they can’t control the Elkhorn Acres Management Group.

The reality is, Elkhorn Acres runs pretty smoothly. The grass gets mowed. The road remains passable(if not a little bumpy at times). The constant onslaught of trash left by boaters and nonboaters alike is hauled away by volunteers. The thistles get removed(this is a legal issue & very important to our neighbors down there). Volunteers attempt to keep the property relatively neat and trimmed. These volunteers consist of members of the EAMG and several people who are not members of EAMG. It all runs so smoothly that most users are completely unaware that any grass gets cut or that any trash collects or that any gravel gets rearranged. They do it because it needs to be done & because they appreciate the value of the property. They don’t shout about their volunteerism and/or accomplishments from the rooftops for political purposes. They just do it.


I sincerely hope that the BWA does not get caught up in the petty attempts at a power grab by a few individuals who twist the facts and constantly attack the very people who made this takeout a reality.

First, was the budget lastyear less than $4100 (6000-1900 for gravel) If so can we see the differences. Second I thought Bwa, and others subsidized thgge expenses of the takeout, not AW. Otherwise, why was the BWA asked for monies last year? J

Dale,don't get so personal. You know I love you or I would not have given you my one and only copies of whitewater videos that show us doing some cool stuff over the past 15 years or more.

It seems that we are doing just fine, then, with no money and volunteers. That kind of makes my point about the money budget being a waste of resources and not fiscally prudent. I probably am more out of touch with Elkhorn than you are, but, it does seem like it is doing just fine the few times I am there each year (Maybe 20 runs more or less). It simply doesn't need this kind of money and, the bottom line is, it is AW's property, regardless of whose views of the history of how it came to be is adopted. We really have no right to spend money on their property without their approval. Finally, the whole point of my criticism of the "elitism" is not to "power grab" except to the extent it should be managed in a populist way without reference to shares which have never been adopted by a concensus of the original donors. That is where the real power grab potential lies, in the hands of a few rather than the many. I am sorry, but I do not apologize for believing in my heart of hearts that it is the BWA that is best equipped for the long term management of AW's property. But, I am aware that some of you disagree. I respect that. I also appreciate many of your comments that go to the merits of this issue about the budget. Those comments deserve some further discussion. Again, I love you Dale, I just disagree with you about this property management. Please do not take it personal.
Peace,
Brent

More smoke and mirrors.

Your statement that the “Elkhorn… is doing just fine…” suggests that the EAMG is doing a good job. Thank you. We try.

You claim, “We really have no right to spend money on their property without their(AW‘s) approval.”

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, we do have AW’s approval, despite the best efforts by the afore mentioned minority who’ve tried to get AW to take a different stance for quite some time now. So far, AW has shown no willingness or desire to change management.

When you say, “the bottom line is, it is AW's property, regardless of…how it came to be is adopted”

That’s some cold hearted, legal, bullshit. I’m sure glad that AW doesn’t share your opinion. AW didn’t get that property in an underhanded way and I don’t expect them to screw the people who bought and paid for the property, then gave it to them in good faith.

I made suggestion in good faith, it was simply an idea to make the takeout a more environmentally friendly area and reduce any ongoing financial liability. I personally have no financial investment in the property, though I am willing to participate in it's care. I also don't give a rats butt about any personal grievances between the parties that initially purchased it and think that discussion belongs elsewhere. Further, I'm not the least bit interested in seeing any BWA service office used as some type of Bully pulpit to pursue political agendas.

What I do care about is a place to park my car and a takeout at elkhorn creek, the environmental concerns of water quality locally and beyond, access to whitewater, a positive image for the paddling community, and spending time on the water with others who also embrace this sport (whether they're noobs, or class V paddlers).

I've not been a member of this club 20 + years (only but a few) but I am a bit concerned over what seems to have become a controversial, and somewhat confrontational atmosphere of the BWA recently.

I hate to say this but the BWA forums are beginning to look like the Red River Climbing forums, individuals arguing, complaining, attacking one another and basic self centered egos defamating the value and purpose of the forums. If we as a society don't wish to air our family issues in public why do we feel free to conduct our selves in this manner when it's representative of the BWA to the entire world on the forums. Argue it out between those of you who paid for it! who's going to own it? who's going to maintain it? who's going to get access to it? And, who is going to make the decisions about the property and have final say?

If the property was purchased by individuals, donated to the AW and maintained by an independant management group, then why the hell is there a thread about it's annual budget on the BWA forum? this is not BWA business.

That said, if the management group wishes to post requests for BWA volunteers to help maintain or clen up the property please do so, I'm certain others like myself would gladly give time to the effort.