Barry...

Your contention that you have to pay big $$$ to have a voice is a bit misleading.

If you're a member of the Elkhorn Paddlers, Viking Canoe Club or Bluegrass Wildwater Association, you already have a vote through these clubs. That will not change much, if the new structure is put in place.

The big thing that will change is that the donors who originally ponied up the big bucks with the promise that they would be the managing body, will have their votes heavily diluted.

Money was raised for this property with the promise that the managing body would consist of those who donated $500.00 or more, with a maximum of 4 votes per person(or entity). Now... there are a handful who are not happy with that deal and are attempting to nullify the original agreement(or deny that it ever existed).

If allowed to... management of this property would more naturally evolve into the hands of the these clubs.

Patience.

We have a place to park while we're on the creek.

There are a lot of issues we could be spending our time on, including working together on the property.

This fight will be divisive on many levels.

These people who purchased this property are our friends and mentors.

We should be working towards a put-in, instead of squabbling over management issues that will work themselves out in time.

In the mean time... we have a place to park while we're on the creek.

Barry,
I'll forward your post to the BWA forum where I'll address it.

Gmead



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2008 08:59PM by ezgpaddler.

Can somebody tell me when AW changed it's guidelines to allow camping? I refer to Mark Singleton's posting of the AW guidelines made on 2/28/08. I copied and pasted just the camping portion:
_______________________

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...
______________________

The guideline as it reads now gives permission to camp with approval. I'm guessing that this change has already been discussed and I have to admit that I did become disinterested for a short while and didn't and have not caught up in reading all this. I truly do not have a problem with camping there as long as AW is contacted and permission given each time though at my age I would recommend the Hampton Inn.

I just noticed the change in that particular guideline and was wondering when it took place.

Dallas

Dallas

As I explained at the BWA meeting, I was called away by an emergency that precluded me, at the last moment, from being on the call. I called Mark Singleton who told me about the content of the phone conversation. That was confirmed by Dave Stawicki and Zina Merkin at that meeting who presented on the topic the next evening. There was no surreptitious intent in calling Mark, and the purpose of my calling him was basically to apologize. I actually tried the meeting first, but, it had ended. I hope that satisfies your questions George and Joey. Clearly the two of you are unhappy with me. I am sorry you feel that way. I have never done anything to either of you.
Brent

Once again, you suggest that people who critcize your actions are upset with you personally. This is not personal, even though you seem to be trying your best to make it so. Is it out of bounds for us to criticize our officials when they are supposed to be working on our behalf?

Okay! Now this is beginning to 'sound' like a regular BWA forum!! Let's get personal, and accuse each other of making it personal. (Not me, of course. I just like to sit back, read, and laugh.)
Chris S.

Chris Schardl

Dallas,

The AW guidelines still prohibit Camping on the property according to the guidelines posted on this link. See the initial post.

From what I read on the same link the property is open to day use including fishing. The guidelines specify adult and youth activity. I didn´t see anything about a no bank fishing policy, though it may be an oversight on my part.

Gmead

Brent, I have to thank Meryl for her comment. I am not unhappy with you. If you think so then that is your own insecurity and creation. I am disappointed with the entire situation. When someone jumps to the defensive, as in your post and apologizes over themselves, that is to me a sign of guilt. Of what I ask? that is a rhetorical question. As I said, I am disappointed that this situation has become what it is. Here is my opinion. The EAMG did what was required by the guidlines set forth by AW. AW had no problem as they allowed the EAMG to persist, gave them money for projects when requested, and by default gave them legitimacy and existance because of this (regardless of if certain BWA members feel the group is legit or not). What I see is the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Even though its not the wheel squeaking its the passengers in the backseat making the noise. Now, I can hear all the crap about, well the EAMG didn't do projects they were ineffective. To this I say they were made ineffective only in the sense that rogue parties superceded the organization regognized by AW, gave them the finger and did things to teh property with hast and in the spirit of F&%$ 'Em when ain't patient and we want it now.

So, I come to this conclusion. The management wasn't broken in the eyes of the majority. We the BWA, sorry... the squeaky backseat drivers, have made this pimple a boil on the ass of AW so they would do what was wanted by those not happy with the existing group. Things have progressed with no vote from the membership of the BWA and I feel the majority standpoint has not been represented accurately. If it had, then we wouldn't be where we are which is in a mess of our own creation. So for future reference, there better damn well be votes before the clubs "views" are represented or misrepresented as in this case, or I along with many others will have to call bullshit on this whole ordeal and much of the clubs business in the future. J

Joey Calder