FPPC decision clears way for Inyo board to vote on Adventure Trails project

– Inyo County press release

Independence – Inyo County’s County Counsel, Marge Kemp Williams, hereby announces she received an Advice Opinion from the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) an Advice
Opinion in which Commission staff concluded the Board of Supervisors’ decisions required to be made as part of the Board’s consideration of the Adventure Trails project “will not have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on any of the supervisors’ interests.”


According to Kemp-Williams, “The FPPC’s ruling clears the way for each member of the Board of Supervisors to participate in the decision making process regarding the Adventure Trails project, if
he so chooses.”

Last month, the County rescheduled the Public Hearing for the Adventure Trails project to allow time for the FPPC to provide the County with guidance about the ability of all five members of the
Board of Supervisors to participate in the decision making process.
The Public Hearing for the Adventure Trails project is now scheduled for Thursday, January 22, 2015, at 10 a.m. in Independence at the Independence Legion Hall.

The meeting location was moved from the Board of Supervisors Chambers to the Legion Hall to accommodate what is expected to be
an overflow crowd.



, ,

37 Responses to FPPC decision clears way for Inyo board to vote on Adventure Trails project

  1. Trouble January 15, 2015 at 5:14 pm #

    From what I understand, the main opposition to this, already got their street taken off the map. All two of them!

    • The Aggressive Progressive January 16, 2015 at 12:41 pm #

      I don’t know Trouble, I think the opposition to this project has ground to stand on, considering the project is a “pilot project”, information should be made available and the County leaders should have a strong Idea of potential impacts when asked by the concerned citizens, and since it is a “pilot project”, what kind of liability does the county have if something goes wrong, we live in a time when people look for reasons to sue another, I mean especially if the county continues to promote it?
      What I don’t like is respectable people that have a valid opinion being attacked by local proponents, just for having concern! That’s not cool… Not everyone should have to think alike or be attacked just because they don’t, that makes me want to break out the boxing gloves.
      I personally feel we live in a area that should be a National Park, would people allow degradation of OUR National Park beyond what the locals already do? Its always about the money, and I’m sick of that theme!
      What would OUR Grand Kids want?

      • Charles James January 16, 2015 at 5:30 pm #

        What would our grandchildren want?

        How about a job? How about opportunity to raise a family in an area such as ours without having to work 2 or 3 jobs? How about not having to leave this area to find a decent job or have a decent life? How about the ability to start and operate a successful business in the Eastern Sierra? How about living in small communities that are not dying from progressive ideas on the environment that serve mostly environmental elitists?

        You asked the right question, but I suspect many of us with grandchildren would disagree with your conclusion. What do our grandchildren want? They want a future.

        • Ken Warner January 17, 2015 at 3:56 am #

          You are conflicted Charles. You imply that you want to preserve the beauty and environment that gives us that beauty but want a booming economy to support more people.

          Those two ideas conflict with each other. To get a booming economy, you have to bring more people to the whole East Side. Which in turn will directly contribute to the degradation of our environment.

          You want to give possibly unborn people a future — what about the present we all have to face every day?

          • Charles James January 18, 2015 at 1:38 pm #


            I am not conflicted in the least. I completely reject your premise that a “booming economy” (your words by the way, not mine) to support more people in the Eastern Sierra would “directly contribute to the degradation of our environment.” Do I want to give future generations (including those yet to be born) a future. You’re damn right I do! The question is: Why don’t you?

            We could easily see a modest increase in our county’s population (including visitors) and not suffer environmental Armageddon. Along with many others, I would like to see a vibrant, robust economy rather than the stagnant, declining economy that we have had for many years. I also think that people’s lives should matter. Does that mean that I put quality of life for people over that of the environment; that I put people first? Well, yes I do as a matter of fact. I don’t think the two goals have to be mutually exclusive of each other.

            You also asked “What about the present we all have to face every day?” Well, what of it? What’s so bad about the present that most of us, especially those of us that live here who are retired or fortunate to have good jobs– is so terrible? The human race has proven remarkably adaptable and rather than be a Cassandra predicting the worst of people or of the future, I think we will meet the challenges of the future.

          • Ken Warner January 18, 2015 at 7:18 pm #

            Charles James: I’ve been through the cycle too many times. A nice quiet place becomes over crowded and over developed and soon is no longer a nice place to live. The whole of Southern California is an object lesson. The things I saw and did before the developers brought “Prosperity” can never be duplicated.

            You are fooling yourself to think otherwise. It can happen here. I moved here to get away from what you think is a positive change for the better. It isn’t. And it’s already happening here.

            The future will not be better than the present if you allow the present to change to support more jobs and more commerce. Those things lead inevitably to overdevelopment. And LADWP is not always going to be the savior of the Owens Valley

          • Trouble January 20, 2015 at 6:39 pm #

            Ken, on this matter I think you have forgotten the fact that ,thanks to DWP owned land in the Owens Valley, we are 99% land locked. Over crowding will never happen as long as DWP owns the water rights.

          • Ken Warner January 21, 2015 at 11:05 am #

            Trouble: No I haven’t forgotten about LADWP’s land ownership. But if and when the Owens Valley starts being aggressively developed. LADWP will make a fortune selling strategically placed pieces for development. They are just waiting for the right time.

        • Charles O. Jones January 17, 2015 at 9:45 am #

          So National Parks are a progressive idea that serve mostly the environmental elitists? I would respectfully disagree. And many of the business owners and their employees who benefit from Yosemite’s 4 million annual visitors would likely disagree as well.

          According to the NPS, Yosemite brings 379 million dollars to local economies and provides over 5 thousand jobs in surrounding areas. And that all happened without the support of off road vehicles. Another study: “The Economic Impacts of Wildlands of the Eastern Sierra Nevada Region of California” indicates that the surrounding wildlands bring 2800 jobs and 700 million dollars a year to Inyo and Mono Counties

          Bottom line, there are A LOT of people out there who value the land as more than a just trail for their off road vehicle to follow. And they’re NOT all environmental elitists, they are people from all walks of life and political leanings. If we want a future for our families, that future lies in making practical decisions that protect our region’s most valuable resource – not short-sighted planning that bites the land that feeds us.

          • Charles James January 19, 2015 at 2:53 pm #

            Charles O. Jones,

            Where to begin? Let’s start with your straw-man fallacy pretending to respond to my comments. I did not say– or imply that “national parks are a progressive idea that serve mostly the environmental elitists.” You also use facts about the economic success of Yosemite National Park to make a false equivalency argument between the ATV Adventure Trails Pilot Project and YNP, which have very little in common.

            Yosemite was recognized and created 150 years ago for its spectacular geological and biological diversity. And while our area is many wonderful things to many people, and it also has diverse geological and biological diversity, it is NOT Yosemite National Park.

            The appeal to authority citing facts on the economic success of Yosemite National Park is especially interesting. You failed to mention the one thing that the areas around Yosemite and many national parks and forests actually do have in common with Adventure Trails: Yosemite, as well as many national and state parks and forests (including Inyo National Forest), have numerous, designated off-highway vehicle areas, roads and trails near and, in some cases, within their park or forest boundaries.

            You ignored the Inyo National Forest, perhaps because their website?

            “The Inyo National Forest is unique in California for the expansive network of roads and trails that can be explored with a street-legal high-clearance or green-sticker trail vehicle. Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV’s) have access to nearly 2200 miles of trails and roads leading through a million acres of non-wilderness lands. Some of these routes reach to nearly 12,000 feet in elevation and offer breathtaking views of the Sierra Nevada, the Owens Valley, and the Great Basin ranges.”

            (Sounds like a place that a LOT of people would like to live or visit… if only to ride their OHV!)

            There is a small group of environmental activists in our county who appear to continually look for ways to deprive the public of access to our public lands doing everything they can to quash even small-scale commercial development or economic proposals that might bring some actual (even if small) economic benefit to our area.

            But the “Bottom line” (borrowing your words) is that there are also “a LOT of people out there” –including Adventure Trail supporters– who are also environmentalists; apparently just not ones you wish to acknowledge. You do not speak for the majority of people or environmentalists in Inyo County anymore than I do. We represent divergent views on the economy and on what it means to be an environmentalist.

            I did not use the term “environmental elitists” lightly. I’m not some conservative right wing-nut who despises environmentalists or environmental causes. I am an independent political moderate who is also a conservationist. And I have many wonderful, intelligent friends who likely are preservationists. I value their friendship regardless of our different views on this or other issues. We all agree that we can do a much better job as stewards of our environment.

            Notably, strong differences are also found within the national environmental community between preservationists and conservationists.

            Some environmental activists seem to hold the sentiment that the reason they do not often enjoy widespread public support is the result of the public’s ignorance, indifference, lack of values or lack of intelligence. But a 2013 Canadian study tells a different story. When asked the question “Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways?” researchers found respondents had an uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.

            Among their conclusions, researchers noted that the public simply does not like environmentalists, especially activists and the public often confuses the messenger with the message. Worse, the findings showed the public will ignore an environmental message just to avoid the affiliation with environmentalists through their behavior. Regardless of whether you are a conservationist or preservationist, we can all agree: That is not a good thing!

            To borrow and paraphrase your conclusion: “The bottom line, there are a LOT of people out the there who value the land” (underlined added) and use it who are OHV /ATV owners. And many of those against the AATPP “are NOT environmental elitists.” (Note: I never said they were.) Furthermore, “they are (also) people of all walks of life and political leanings.” And finally, “IF we (also) want a future for our families, that future lies in making practical decisions that protect our region’s most valuable resource (People) – not short-sighted planning that “deprives people of work that feed us and sustain our local communities.

            Adventure Trails supporters and OHV/ATV owners have ever bit as much right as citizens to use our public lands or public roadways within reasonable constraints as any of the other special interest groups. Those other special interest groups include those that hike, fish, bird-watch, hunt, go sight-seeing, camp, climb, glide or para-sail, take photographs, or ride a mountain bike. And a number of these activities are facilitated by use of an OHV/ATV.

            We should respect everyone’s right to multi-use recreation on public land…and aggressively address the most egregious harms that may result from any special interest group’s use of it.

          • Desert Tortoise January 20, 2015 at 8:07 am #

            Yup, all those low income home owners and renters near the Exide battery plant who are arguing for more stringent emissions controls on the plant so they don’t have lead contamination on their properties are the economic elites. And likewise the community surrounding the big Exxon Mobil refinery in Torrance who argue for controls on flaring at the refinery are likewise economic elites. Or how about the low income families in the poor communities on either side of I-710 who fight to prevent even more port truck traffic passing by their homes to a rail yard in Commerce. More of those nasty economic elites trying to obstruct business? Funny how mostly poor people fighting to prevent being the dumping ground for the pollution from big corporations morph into this so called economic elite. Almost a bigger load of pollution than what is coming out of that Exxon Mobil refinery.

            I also grew up in LA and later lived for 15 years in San Diego County. Ken is right, you will never keep anything resembling what you have here today if you let the big So Cal developers and big ag loose in this region. Once your land is paved over with beige stucco and pink tile roofs and the roads “improved” nothing is ever the same again. Once you put those street lights up you won’t see the stars at night and once you have lots of people you also have sirens and traffic noise all night long.

        • The Aggressive Progressive January 21, 2015 at 10:09 am #

          Yes our grandchildren would want a future! Take a look at yourself and these inherently flawed institutionalized systems we all participate in, in this society if you want a job with “job security”, you need resource turnover (at unprecedented levels), there is no actual preservation, sustainability or conservation in this economic model, BECAUSE that is the opposite of what brings economic growth! if you follow the money you will see no money is going to preservation or conservation, no money to be made in those efforts… so don’t attack me for my ideas, attack how destructive these flawed systems are on our social and ecological environments….

          We have everything we could need here to bring social and ecological sustainability here to this paradise, but the small minded/established institutions want to keep their power and the way things are…

          Money and the dollar is not a future for our grandchildren… it’s clean water, clean air and life supporting systems we preserve is their future..

          • Ken Warner January 21, 2015 at 11:15 am #

            AG: Well said. The current economy of the East Side could be vibrant and healthy if people didn’t have to work more than one job to survive. A realistic, livable minimum wage would free people from the need to work more than one job and that alone would free more jobs. Plus the average person would have enough money to enjoy the services offered by the community and to do things other than just work.


            The wealthiest 1% will soon own more than the rest of the world’s population, according to a study by anti-poverty charity Oxfam.

            The charity’s research shows that the share of the world’s wealth owned by the richest 1% increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% last year.

            On current trends, Oxfam says it expects the wealthiest 1% to own more than 50% of the world’s wealth by 2016.

  2. Charles O. Jones January 16, 2015 at 3:50 pm #

    I give credit to the county for sending this issue off to the FPPC for an opinion. It was the right thing to do. Now, the county can do the right thing again and give consideration to ALL the impacts that will come along with this proposal, not just the economic ones.

  3. Trouble January 16, 2015 at 6:06 pm #

    Aggressive, all this law does is allow a few insured off roaders drive to our stores. All that other National Park and potential impacts stuff you bring up, I summed up above and agian as complete hog wash!

    • Wayne January 17, 2015 at 5:55 pm #

      Take a look at the photo in the EIR of what the EIR calls the “narrows on Lubken Canyon Road”. The existing right-of-way and easement are inadequate for two way traffic. It is identified as part of a combined use route and to avoid liability must be brought up to standards for a two lane public road. This would involve moving the fence and taking adequate width from the private parcels along this segment. This “taking” of private property requires due process according to the 5th Amendment and applies to takings by State and local governments according to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There are likely many such locations on the identified combined use routes (191 miles). However with no discussion at all of this issue we have no way to know and neither do the Board of Supervisors. I personally do not view the failure to resolve this issue prior to making the
      decision as “complete hog wash”.

      • Trouble January 21, 2015 at 8:39 pm #

        Wayne ,Lubken Caynon Rd. is a all paved road with no traffic problems at all. Just more hog wash in my book.

    • The Aggressive Progressive January 22, 2015 at 10:13 am #

      That’s cool man.. I just see everybody that wants this project, only to have a lil more freedom when riding, but I am coming from the perspective that we should embrace the “freedom to be responsible” for what is going on to our MotherEarth! Take a look at our daily lives, realize how money has become a hindrance to all relationships, and these “bottom feeder” efforts to bring economic capital to our area, will continue to bare no fruits… No man made law or dollar amount will bring a future for our grand kids, its preserving Mother Natures natural order of laws (ecology) that will guarantee a future for those after us.. lets try and step outside the narrow-mindedness money creates with its incentives and disincentives.
      Don’t be so scared, it’s only a idea.. the desecration money encourages, is a threat to generations after us, not the ideas to fix the problem.

  4. Nick Sprague January 17, 2015 at 1:29 pm #

    Did former 4th District Supervisor Marty Fortney recuse himself from voting on this project during his tenure? It would appear from the Disqualification standards and legal requirements set out by the Political Reform Act (excerpt below) that Supervisor Fortney had a material interest in the project. In fact, several of the proposed routes still leave from the Aberdeen Resort.

    Assets and income of public officials which may be materially affected by their official actions should be disclosed and in appropriate circumstances the officials should be disqualified from acting in order that conflicts of interest may be avoided.”
    Gov. Code section 81002(c)

    • Trouble January 17, 2015 at 11:29 pm #

      Nick, are you joking? How many vacations have you had at Aberdeen’s resort? Unbelievable!

  5. Wayne January 17, 2015 at 1:31 pm #

    One comment implies in lofty future-tense language that Adventure Trails will resolve our concerns about jobs for our grandchildren. Another comment states it will only allow a few insured off roaders to drive to stores. These are mutually exclusive in that it will take many more than a few to generate any meaningful increase in jobs.

    What is certain is the EIR does state that there will be signs warning of OHV crossings at places such as the junction of HWY395 and Lubken Rd and signs (even painted on the roads!) along all combined use routes and streets. Regardless of actual changes in OHV use even the presence of such signage will adversely affect the curb appeal and result in erosion of property values over time throughout these neighborhoods.

    • Russ Monroe January 17, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

      Wayne, please, provide any proof, or even a logical argument for: “Regardless of actual changes in OHV use even the presence of such signage will adversely affect the curb appeal and result in erosion of property values over time throughout these neighborhoods.”
      How is it possible that property values will go down with no actual change in use?
      Just to point out your ignorance Wayne: there are no curbs on the route you mentioned and only one residence. Are you really trying to make the case that the one residence will loose value with no increase in use? Maybe you should stand in the front yard as the school buses go by several times a day and tell us all how an OHV is going to make more noise than the buses, much less more air pollution.
      You are manufacturing gibberish since you obviously have no real argument.

  6. Trouble January 17, 2015 at 2:18 pm #

    Wayne, you think seeing people outside enjoying themselves freely will erode property values? I don’t see it that way at all. I think most visors will have a more friendly inviting opinion of our valley. Hell, right now were mostly known as a speed trap.

    • Desert Tortoise January 20, 2015 at 8:15 am #

      If I knew when I bought my house that the neighborhood kids would use nearby unbuilt lots as ad-hoc motocross tracks I would not have bought where I did. I love to ride motorcycles, but when I’m home I trying to relax the last thing I want to hear are dirt bikes running lap after lap two doors down from me well past dark. Likewise since I have a newborn son, and my neighbors have kids ranging from 2 to 10 we are not enthused about dirt bikes and quads tearing up and down the street. I’m not has hot tempered as my neighbor who has caught a couple of them and threatened to pound them but I share his frustration with their lack of consideration for our enjoyment of our property. I also have to wonder what kind of lousy parents let their kids operate motorized vehicles at young ages, middle school and younger, unsupervised and allow them to ride public streets on unlicensed, non street legal motorcycles and quads.

  7. BobK January 17, 2015 at 5:02 pm #

    Come on Wayne. You are really reaching now. “Signage will adversely affect the curb appeal”??? Have you been to a trail head in the last 10 yrs. No complaints about those huh?

  8. mtntri January 17, 2015 at 6:04 pm #

    The adventure trails advocates have already blighted our area with ugly sign posts and the posts with signs on them do not make a lot of sense. Also I believe they may be illegal posts due to there placement and should be capable of breaking away under impact most sign posts are 4×4. If a vehicle hits one these old railroad ties they are using it will do a lot of damage. They have not given any estimates that I can recall of the number of vehicles they need to bring to the Owens Valley from Lone Pine to Bishop be of economic benefit? It could be 200-300 vehicles or more per week on average using the trails from Bishop to Lone Pine that is a lot of dust, noise, fire hazard, and liability for the county.

  9. Eastside Bum January 18, 2015 at 2:02 am #

    Wayne, agreed. I think the pilot project is going to negatively impact those neighborhoods, who may OR may not have residents that enjoy off highway vehicles, which historically have not been allowed to travel on street legal roads. They key for the supervisors will be to find the constituents (in the affected areas), who do want this to go forward, because they think OHVs are a standard way of life, and those who oppose the project, since this is not why they bought homes in the Owens Valley! What a task.

  10. Badfinger January 18, 2015 at 10:45 am #

    The Elitists want Agenda 21 to become the Law of the Land, then all y’all can be taxed to death on the very air you breath, under the guise of Carbon Tax, the question is, What will happen to those that can’t pay ??

  11. Wayne January 19, 2015 at 12:03 pm #

    Agenda 21 strongly supports private property and the U.S. Constitution. In rural areas there are rarely adequate easements. Where easements do not exist or are inadequate to cover this type of use or encumbrance it is about actually taking property square footage from our front yards. (Where the existing road is too narrow to safely accommodate two way traffic it must be widened to comply with the AB628 mandate to not do anything unsafe, for example) this taking requires due process, the 5th Amendment says so and the 14th Amendment says it applies to takings by State and Local Goverments (substantiation: U.S. Constitution). Existing case law also establishes that the takings clause also applies to property values such as views and noise. If there is a concern about the time needed to follow due process then the Board of Supervisors should ask Conway to sponsor an extension. In the long run doing this right will be the quickest way to get it done.

  12. Charles O. Jones January 19, 2015 at 3:43 pm #

    I hope the decision makers have been paying attention to the various comments and their votes from the numerous articles posted on this topic. The court of public opinion has clearly been leaning in opposition to this proposal.

    • Trouble January 20, 2015 at 8:18 am #

      That’s pure baloney Mr. Jones. This measure would pass by overwhelming support by the locals. Where was all the opposition during all the council meetings I attended in Bishop? Only two spoke against this measure. The supervisors would be foolish to believe that.

      • Charles O. Jones January 21, 2015 at 2:55 pm #

        I came to that conclusion by reading the forum comments and their votes from the various articles on the subject posted on this website. Not everyone is going to travel up or down the valley to attend council meetings. This forum is accessible to all and typically offers a good cross section of opinions from our Eastside communities. Just because the comments and votes haven’t meshed with your personal opinion doesn’t make them “pure baloney”.

      • Nick Sprague January 21, 2015 at 8:23 pm #

        I attended the 8/6 meeting at the City Council chambers and did not speak up at that time. Although I had submitted comments during the scoping process – and been to various meetings – I hadn’t fully reviewed the DEIR prior to the August meeting. My intent was to hear more about the status of the environmental review and the alternatives. Just because members of the audience didn’t say anything does not mean they supported this project. Besides, many people were not aware of the actual proposed routes at that time.

        Candidates for City Council came by my house during election season and I asked about Adventure Trails. They were surprised by the opposition they heard from people on Yaney and Sierra streets. Once residents near or on proposed routes heard more about it, the more negative the response – and some ride OHVs, too. Are there some die-hard supporters on the routes? Absolutely. Are there people who didn’t know the specifics of the project. Definitely.

        Initially, I had mixed feelings about the idea but thought it wouldn’t be objectionable if properly studied, designed, monitored and patrolled. After all, that is the intent and letter of AB 628. By preparing an inadequate draft environmental document and neglecting to fix the deficiencies, the County and the proponents have done themselves and the public a disservice. Dividing the community hasn’t helped, either.

  13. Charles O. Jones January 19, 2015 at 5:47 pm #

    @ Mr. James,
    Whew! – quite a mouthful there my friend. I’m not inclined to address each of your many assertions, but I think it’s fair to say that we disagree in a few areas. I’ll make a few comments but try to keep it shorter in the interest of brevity.

    First, I addressed National Parks because you had directly responded to another poster’s remark on the subject. Enough said.

    Second, I haven’t suggested that OHV’s should be disallowed from areas they currently have access to. And I don’t see others offering any extreme views with their comments. What I see are members of our communities voicing their various concerns with this proposal. I’m not sure why you feel compelled to go on such a protracted rant on environmental activists.

    Third, as I’ve said several times in the past, I’m not opposed to OHV’s outright. I am opposed to this push to bring more of them to the area due to the fact that increased usage clearly equates to increased damage to the land. Such damage is well documented and plain to see for anyone who cares to visit any of the high use areas further south.

    Lastly, you seem to imply that I do not value people simply because I express concerns for the outdoors. Quite the contrary, I see the outdoors as a tool to help support our communities. But that tool must be used with some wisdom and some foresight. If we abuse and misuse this tool, it will become less effective in the long run.

  14. Wayne January 20, 2015 at 12:39 pm #

    If the OHV use is as safe as proponents are saying why is the indemnification from liability required by the State? Project proponents can prove they really believe it is safe and also resolve a lot of that concern by putting their cards and money on the table. The Board of Supervisors could also prove they are acting in the best interests of the County, all the people of Inyo County, by both the BoS and proponents agreeing to write into the proposal that the project proponents indemnify the County, using exactly the same language from AB628.

  15. April Zrelak January 20, 2015 at 1:15 pm #

    Just to get back to basics… Access to open space is wonderful. That is why most of us are here. Environmental Deficit is a clinical diagnosis. Get some quiet time with the rocks, sand, water, vegetation, open skies and wildlife and you will be healthier. The concern for this project is the noise, dust and damage that are so common with OHV. It doesn’t have to be that way. If OHV (especially dirt bikes) were quiet enough that one could not hear them for miles away, if people drove slow enough to kick up less dust (15 – 25 mph on dirt), and if riders were conscientious enough to stay on roads and not open land, hillsides and plants, then I, for one, would not object to the project. Every day I go out in the desert. Every day I see new scars and erosion from OHVs. Most days I hear the loud engines and see the dust plumes. If DWP and BLM cannot control those few, how and who will control any additional?

    The problem is conflating “access” with driving fast, loudly and off road. Using the open desert as a race track may be fun for the driver, but is hugely disruptive to the ecosystem, landscape and other people who are recreating in the same area in a peaceful mode. No other recreation is as imposing as dirt racing. So, take your vehicle, muffle it, drive slowly and responsibly to your picnic site, fishing hole, climbing rock, hiking trail, view point, etc. Only then will this controversy end.

    • Desert Tortoise January 22, 2015 at 1:59 pm #

      Electric dirt bikes maybe? Just saying …………..


Leave a Reply

KSRW · 1280 N. Main St. Suite J · Bishop, CA 93514 · 760-873-5329
Positive Projections Web Design