PDA

View Full Version : More Meetings.... Roadless Issue Alert



Sandee McCullen
06-23-2006, 01:51 AM
MORE MEETINGS ....... MARK YOUR CALENDARS............. RED SHIRTS AGAIN...........

It seems each one gets more and more difficult and we stand to lose more access with each new issue. The ROADLESS issue was handed to Game & Fish by Gov. Napolitano some time ago to look into "public input" regarding the management of the identified Roadless areas identified by Forest Service DOA in 2001. Arizona alone stands to lose access to 1.2 MILLION acres if WE DON'T GET INVOLVED AND VOICE OUR NEEDS AND CONCERNS.
There is a huge misconception regarding "ROADLESS areas" in that it is believed ALL roads/trails within these designated areas will be closed. That is not true, although you must realize Game & Fish would like this to be as well as the environmentalists that want all OHV to disappear. Roadless simply means these areas are designated for "conservation" NOT "preservation". The only thing it means is "no NEW trails are to be made within these areas". We MUST review the maps to determine if our trails are within these areas and if so............ request they continue to be open to "responsible" OHV. No cross country travel, and hopefully no bubbas.

If we do not show in force at these meetings we automatically lose any trails within the designated Roadless Areas.


Public input sought on management of Arizona?s roadless areas
June 22, 2006

Informational open house meetings scheduled for July and August

The Arizona Game and Fish Department is seeking input from the public on how it would like to see the state?s roadless areas managed. A series of informational open houses will be held around the state in July and August, and written comment will be accepted until Aug. 31.
The input will assist Gov. Janet Napolitano and the department in developing Arizona?s petition to the USDA Forest Service requesting specific management requirements for some or all of 1.2 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in six national forests in Arizona.

?Arizona is fortunate that Governor Napolitano is committed to developing recommendations that conserve the integrity of our roadless areas, establish provisions for current public and administrative uses, and allow management actions that ensure the long-term health of the public land and resources,? says Director Duane Shroufe of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. ?The public input phase is an important part of developing these recommendations.?

The Forest Service originally issued the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in January 2001. The rule essentially prohibited new road construction and development on 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas on Forest Service lands across the country. Several states filed lawsuits over the rule, and a federal court struck it down in 2003.

The Forest Service issued a revised rule in 2005 that allows state governors to petition the Secretary of Agriculture with specific management recommendations for inventoried roadless areas in their states. The states have until November 2006 to complete the petition and submit it for review and approval.

The original Roadless Rule (and the interim directive in place until states complete their petition processes) conserves roadless values while allowing for current public access and recreational opportunities, including hiking, camping, hunting and fishing; management of habitat for more than 1,500 species of fish and wildlife, including threatened, endangered or sensitive plant and animal species; and protection of clean water from forest headwaters and streams.

The rule also allows construction of temporary roads under specified circumstances, such as to fight forest fires or to implement actions that reduce the risk of wildfire, for public safety and resource purposes. The rule doesn?t change states? or private landowners' rights to access their land. The management of any existing roads within the inventoried roadless areas will be evaluated during the transportation planning process associated with the future revision of individual forest land management plans.

At the request of Gov. Napolitano, the Arizona Game and Fish Department is conducting the public input phase of Arizona?s petition process. A series of informational open houses has been scheduled to help the public better understand roadless management issues and the state?s petition process.

?The meetings will include a presentation about roadless areas, the state petition process, and potential management options for inventoried roadless areas in the national forest closest to the local community,? says Bob Broscheid, habitat branch chief for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. ?The public will have an opportunity to view maps, ask questions and provide written comment, but no oral comment will be taken at the meetings.?

All open houses will be held from 6-9 p.m. on the following dates and will discuss the roadless areas in the national forest land listed in parentheses:

Wednesday, July 5 - Safford (Coronado/Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests), Graham County General Services Building, 921 Thatcher Blvd.

Thursday, July 6 - Tucson (Coronado National Forest), Arizona Game and Fish Department Tucson regional office, 555 N. Greasewood Road.

Monday, July 10 - Phoenix (all National Forests), Arizona State Fairgrounds Wildlife Building, 19th Avenue and McDowell Road.

Tuesday, July 11 - Mesa (Tonto National Forest), Arizona Game and Fish Department Mesa regional office, 7200 E. University Drive.

Wednesday, July 12 - Payson (Tonto/Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests), Payson Inn Conference Room, 801 N. Beeline Highway.

Thursday, July 13 - Globe (Tonto National Forest), Gila County Fairgrounds, 3 miles north of Globe on Highway 60.

Tuesday, July 18 - Kingman (Prescott National Forest), Arizona Game and Fish Department Kingman regional office, 5325 N. Stockton Hill Road.

Thursday, July 20 - Prescott (Prescott National Forest), Yavapai County Board of Supervisors Office, 1015 Fair St.

Tuesday, July 25 - Springerville-Eagar (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests), Eagar Town Council Chambers, 174 S. Main St.

Wednesday, July 26 - Pinetop (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests), Arizona Game and Fish Department Pinetop regional office; 2878 E. White Mountain Blvd.

Tuesday, Aug. 8 - Flagstaff (Coconino/Kaibab National Forests), Radisson Woodlands Hotel, 1175 W. Route 66.

Wednesday, Aug. 9 - Fredonia (Kaibab National Forest), Fredonia Courthouse Building, 110 N. Main St.

Written comment can be submitted by e-mail to roadless@azgfd.gov, or by U.S. mail to Arizona Game and Fish Department, Attn: Roadless Petition Comment, 2221 W. Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023. All comments must be received by Aug. 31 to ensure adequate consideration prior to developing Arizona?s petition.

Additional information on roadless areas is located on the Arizona Game and Fish Department Web site at www.azgfd.gov/roadless or the USDA Forest Service?s Web site at www.roadless.fs.fed.us.

jeepsonly
06-23-2006, 07:46 AM
Wow, a busy year for anti-OHV.

I know it's easy for me to say this from 2,000 miles away but it sounds like there should be some coordination involved in getting OHV people to these meetings. I mean I can envision a scenario where OHV doesn't show up to the Springerville-Eager and Fredonia meetings. I know it's a pain and time consuming but there should be a signup list or something so that all meetings are covered. Rent a car and carpool if needed. I'd be happy to chip in a few bucks for gas. But we can't let trails be closed because none of us showed up.

Will someone step up to coordinate this please?

Sandee McCullen
06-23-2006, 07:59 AM
Wow, a busy year for anti-OHV.

I know it's easy for me to say this from 2,000 miles away but it sounds like there should be some coordination involved in getting OHV people to these meetings. I mean I can envision a scenario where OHV doesn't show up to the Springerville-Eager and Fredonia meetings. I know it's a pain and time consuming but there should be a signup list or something so that all meetings are covered. Rent a car and carpool if needed. I'd be happy to chip in a few bucks for gas. But we can't let trails be closed because none of us showed up.

Will someone step up to coordinate this please?

You're absolutely right Bill............. please note however that the Phoenix meeting on July 10 will cover all forests so we do have that help.

I will be attending the July 10 meeting as I'm out of town all of the other dates other than the last 3. Hopefully our people will not sit back expecting "the other guy" to attend. I certainly do not recognize or know what everyone does in their respective areas.............. Remember............ if all trails in these identified areas are not spoken for they are gone. We may lose them anyway if we don't stand tall against the environmentalists!!!!!

PLEASE HELP................. YOUR voice DOES COUNT!!!

FrenchChili
06-23-2006, 11:06 AM
July 10, should be there, would hate to miss that

T.C.'S TOY
07-10-2006, 04:31 PM
I will try to have as many as possible at the Payson meeting and hope that Brad Jones will speak for us all.....Thom (T.C.'S TOY):)

Sandee McCullen
07-10-2006, 04:59 PM
I will try to have as many as possible at the Payson meeting and hope that Brad Jones will speak for us all.....Thom (T.C.'S TOY):)

Attached are some "speaking notes" for your help. Hopefully you ALL speak.......... don't let Brad do all the speaking for you as individuals. He is very negative towards agencies and they don't like him much. He is supportive of OHV and keeping roads open but he isn't much for reaching a middle line to enable all recreationists to share what's available. We must ALL join in. Good luck. I'll post what comes from tonights meeting and tomorrow involving the first "Tonto" forest meeting.

COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS TO ARIZONA GAME & FISH RE ROADLESS ISSUE.

* My family and I regularly visit "Roadless" areas throughout the state of Arizona. We enjoy various recreational uses, including Off-Highway Vehicle use on the roads and trails within these lands.
* Each Roadless area should be managed under the provisions contained in each Forest Plan. Each and every Roadless area is unique with its own varied resources and uses. The forest planning process is the best way to take into consideration the unique values of each Roadless area.
* Each Forest Plan provides sufficient legal mandated protection for the Roadless parts of the forest. Thus, no new rulemaking is needed in Arizona to protect the undeveloped character of these areas. Roadless areas are already protected by forest plans reached through the agency's public planning process.
* It is important that the AZG&F identify the recreational infrastructure in each Inventoried Roadless Area before making any recommendation to the Governor. Such inventory includes, but is not limited to; roads, trails, trailheads, winter trail grooming, toilets, yurts, interpretative sites and even water developments. In addition, temporary and other infrastructure is equally important for proper forest management and also should be considered.
* It should be noted that Arizona's OHV community has, through various fees and gasoline tax funds, contributed to the maintenance of many of the recreational sites and infrastructure in many Roadless areas.
* It is important to point out that a "Roadless Area" was never meant to be a "stand-alone" management designation. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA's) are, in fact, the first step in the Wilderness inventory and review process that is mandated by agency regulations each time a National Forest revises its Forest Plan. Their boundaries are determined solely on the presence or absence of major, maintained roads. No consideration to geologic boundaries, management considerations, low grade roads and recreational trails, or other resource uses are made when a National Forest determines Roadless area boundaries.
Thus, these areas are not logical management boundaries. Nor has the public been given the opportunity to review or comment on them being managed as a "stand-alone" management designation.
* I support the protection of undeveloped character of Arizona's Roadless areas under the provisions of the Forest Planning process which allows for management of recreational uses such as Off-Highway Vehicle and mountain bike use but not with the exclusion of OHV where it already exists.
ALSO:
Question regarding “WHY OHV were not included in the past years discussions and meetings”? Hunters, Sierra Club, & Wilderness folks were consulted. They are already announcing “THEY, along with G&F” were not going to allow boundries changed nor were they allowing OHV use within the roadless existing boundries. The AZ Republic today printed an article expressing this view.

If they declare OHV and/or trails are fragmenting habitat ask for documented data reflecting this.

If OHV is affecting wildlife, again ask for documented proof.

T.C.'S TOY
07-10-2006, 06:18 PM
Understand, thanks for the heads up Sandy......Thom

Hackle
07-10-2006, 09:25 PM
Thom we need your help as you know the upper Tonto better then we do. One Roadless area seems to be in the same area as Skull Crusher. We need information to fight this. All the areas involved are in the Forest areas if you know an area that on the maps they used are in Blue we need to know about it ASAP. Game and Fish is supposed to have maps on the web site soon.
Jim F.

T.C.'S TOY
07-11-2006, 08:15 AM
Thom we need your help as you know the upper Tonto better then we do. One Roadless area seems to be in the same area as Skull Crusher. We need information to fight this. All the areas involved are in the Forest areas if you know an area that on the maps they used are in Blue we need to know about it ASAP. Game and Fish is supposed to have maps on the web site soon.
Jim F.

Hello Jim, In This area there is a trail that runs in and out of lower Skull Crusher and is adopted by the Rim Country 4 Wheelers and the run is called the Green valley run FR 893 and Fr 656,I do have knowledge from Rim Country that it is slated for closure in the near future,now one thing i do not understand if places like Mud Springs adopted by the Mesa 4 wheelers and this one up here adopted by Rim Country how can they be closed if adopted and maintaned.I also understand from Rim Country that the adopted 1602 witch runs along side of Payutte Draw is slated for closure at this same time.I hope this is helpful info......Thom

Sandee McCullen
07-11-2006, 10:25 AM
Hello Jim, In This area there is a trail that runs in and out of lower Skull Crusher and is adopted by the Rim Country 4 Wheelers and the run is called the Green valley run FR 893 and Fr 656,I do have knowledge from Rim Country that it is slated for closure in the near future,now one thing i do not understand if places like Mud Springs adopted by the Mesa 4 wheelers and this one up here adopted by Rim Country how can they be closed if adopted and maintaned.I also understand from Rim Country that the adopted 1602 witch runs along side of Payutte Draw is slated for closure at this same time.I hope this is helpful info......Thom

Just a bit of information.......... NOTHING is up for "closure" at this time. The Payutte Draw issue was supposed to have been settled some time ago re "proposed closure". Tonto FS is NOT proposing closure but we certainly MUST make note of both the regular road as well as the trail in the wash. Both need to be on the "INVENTORY"........ that is OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Re trails being "adopted" guaranteeing permanent access is simply not true. Again......... WE MUST identify everything and then make special note of adoptions but there is never any guarantee.

Trails such as Skull Crusher or the numerous trails in the surrounding area must be GPS'd and presented to the District Ranger for evaluation/designation. If we simply give GPS coordinances and then sit back and do nothing we will still probably lose most. We have to be active (as do the enviros) and stay involved throughout the process. Felipe (Tonto Rec Planner) told me last night that they plan on public meetings to start in late Sept. or early Oct for Tonto Forest Planning and Transportation Rule........ we're going to be BUSY for the next 3-4 years! This isn't going to get easier any time soon. Hopefully everyone will hang in there.

Symon623
07-11-2006, 11:27 AM
Thanks for the updates Sandee,
Has anyone addressed them on fire issues? Like if there is a fire? will new roads be built to fight the fire? Or "thinning" seams to be the latest major combattent to how fast fires spread? Are they going to build new roads for the "thinning" process'? I know that these are extreme conditions but the roads will come if the place is on fire? I would like to see the new roads and trails, I'd even help build, maintain, and then thin the forest they gain access to?

Sandee McCullen
07-11-2006, 12:35 PM
Thanks for the updates Sandee,
Has anyone addressed them on fire issues? Like if there is a fire? will new roads be built to fight the fire? Or "thinning" seams to be the latest major combattent to how fast fires spread? Are they going to build new roads for the "thinning" process'? I know that these are extreme conditions but the roads will come if the place is on fire? I would like to see the new roads and trails, I'd even help build, maintain, and then thin the forest they gain access to?

Most of the Roadless issue is built around "forest health" and how to keep it thinned and/or access to. The actual Roadless Rule does not eliminate roads from within but it stresses "no new roads". Your questions re "building new roads for fire control" is an ongoing question.......... ASK it and make comment on allowing new roads to be constructed if needed". Something that came to my thoughts last night on the way home was the Roadless Rule identifies ROADS and no NEW ROADS but we're forgetting FS designate roads AND trails. I'm not sure the Roadless Rule is specific to trails. I'm trying to digest the actual Roadless Rule vs roads/trails. More as I figure it out.

The maps available last night sucked! I've asked for detailed maps of just the identified Roadless Areas........ I know there are more roads/trails within some of the Roadless boundries then the maps reflected. Although this may be due to the Road vs Trail thing.????

YGOHOME
07-11-2006, 02:00 PM
I'm new to all this land use meeting business, etc. This would be my first attendance. And so I'm not knowlegable with the issues or even simple terms such as Roadless vs trails etc... but I have a red shirt :) is it still worth me coming even if I can give no input? I plan to attend the 6-9pm meeting in Mesa today but if I'm just sitting like a bump on a log and my just being there isn't going to help or make a difference then I have a bbq grilled steak waiting for me at home.

Thanks,

Ben

My1stJeep
07-11-2006, 02:35 PM
Ben,

It is always worth going. The people running the meetings notice the number of red vs green shirts, it has an impact on them when they see the shirts and know they have people there interested in OHV. If not they can just close it, cause who cares.

Second no time like the present to attend and learn. It was just weeks ago FrenchChilli started attending, in no time at all he has done a great job getting up to speed and through his discussions last night with someone who was very green he made an impact on her and gave her a different side of the OHV community. It takes changing peoples minds one at a time.

You will be surprised after attending a few, listening to the issues, the comments and land management responses how quickly you will pick up on the stuff and want to get involved, it is currently the places right in our back yards that we like to wheel that are under attack. These are the places that take us less than an hour to get to and wheel, some as quick as 15 minutes. If we lose these and have to drive over 1.5-2 hours just to wheel every time, I suspect we will lose some time to wheel. No more will you be able to get to the trail, wheel and get home in half a day, thus with families and all wheeling trips will be limited.

So in a word Ben, yes it will make a difference.

YGOHOME
07-11-2006, 02:50 PM
okay, I'm in.

Symon623
07-11-2006, 03:11 PM
I prefer wheelin on a "trail" but everyones idea of a "trail" is different. In Washington the "trails" were like our quad trails are here. Tight and twisty with lots of elevation change. They were also in designated OHV areas on national forest land.
One of my favorite areas had 200 miles of "trails" and over 3000 feet of elevation change in the OHV area. Don't recall the actual acreage? There was also about 100 miles of "roads" in the same area. This area was also above 3000 feet so it only saw "wheeled" use from the end of may through October at the latest. Most all of the OHV areas were in the mountains so snow would restrict year long use. The getting popular Naches trail closed the 2nd weekend of November (Right after Elk season) and didn't re-open until April 1 or the first weekend in April, of course this schedule was adjustable depending on snow/mud conditions.
The "roads" that were not paved? Were well groomed cos loggin trucks had to traverse them. So you could drive a car on them if not covered with snow.
Here it seems any 2 track is a "road" and "trails" are single track or non motorized access?
Every "trail" I hike I look at as to whether I could drive it in my Jeep. I wouldn't unless given permission but I sure as hell want to....:D
To your arguement Sandee....."Trails" and "Roads" need to be defined. I'd gladly give up a few "roads" if I could put in a few "trails"

CaptainMorgan
07-16-2006, 05:12 PM
You guys don't seem to understand the motives behind BLM. It isnt a gov't or treehugger conspiracy against you guys. It is a reality that our hobby does not help nature and if no people were in these areas it would be better for the environment. I am a Forester here at NAU and I have been with it long enough to understand these issues from both sides. I have pertitions the closing of trails after finding dead animals in tire track, oil and grease spilled all along the trail, watershed problems in riparian areas...the list goes on. BUT a Jeep club like this kept it open, I was pissed. I am sorry guys but I disargree that all places should be hept open for us. Yes, I love to 4-wheel, but I understand that nature is sometimes more important than our selfish desires. I wheel on open lands, but if a place is overused or set aside for "conservation" then I have to accept that and deal with it. Also the goal of the BLM and FS is not to get OHV's out of the forests, it is to balacne the forests needs with the needs of the public. Its a long drawn out explaination that ends with the idea that we are managing our lands for current and future use. That means if something is out of balance we have to do something to fix it. We as forestors cannot let places be destroyed. It is something you all should understand and respect more. I am sure some of you will disargee with me completely, that is fine. I do not respect anyones opinion that doesnt understand overuse and conservation so it wont bother me at all. Sorry guys, I am in the buisness you all are fighting and I respect your determination, and I must say as individuals I am sure you are responsible, respectful wheelers. It is just that some places get ruined by a "few bad eggs" or simply overuse. Overuse is a big problem for the trails closest to Phx, they are the most accesable and therfore used the most. It is a problem all of you are facing that and drunken morons ruinding for you. I would advise you to show how you guys are actively helping the environment in the area, sometimes that isnt enough if the trail is too overused but sometimeas it makes all the difference. Oraganize huge trash collection trips, take a bunch of pickup trucks and fill em all up with trash adn trow it away at the dump once a month adn you can keep almost anything open.

CaptainMorgan
07-16-2006, 05:15 PM
I agree that defining trails and roads is really important to you guys, I would hate to see you lose any trails or places that are not uverused or abused. I am not a Nazi, I would even fight for that. It seems like there is a little hostility towards BLM, I thought you might want to understand more about why this happens. I would be curious to attend a meeting just to see what everyone has to say. I might show up in green though;). Seriously if you feel something is wrong, it is your American responsibility to fight it. Good job on that guys. I mean it.

AZXJ
07-17-2006, 01:21 AM
Captian,

I believe you should spend a little time researching what this group of folks has done for the OHV community in the past 8 years.. I respect your opinion and input. I also agree with you on the over usage of trails near the valley.
The major problem that closures create is over use of other trails. when one area is closed off, where do you think everyone is going to go??

The FS, BLM, and State Trust do not have a balanced plan. We are trying to help them balance the plan out..

Sedona Jeep School
07-17-2006, 08:54 AM
FYI, in Forest Service-speak, a "Road" is where motorized vehicles may drive, and a "Trail" is strictly non-motorized, generally a hiking trail. What we call trails, i.e. Broken Arrow, are actually designated USFS ROADS (BA is FR 179F).

Excellent point, Dave. The problem is, as you know, as the number of trails have decreased, sheer numbers of users have increased too. What we need to represent is that the teamwork of responsible usage on our part and proper management on both ours and their part can mitigate the impact of larger numbers. As a group, OHV is smarter and more responsible than we were 20 years ago, BUT it is still that small percentage that ruins it for everyone. We need to show up to represent the majority of OHV that is smart and responsible, not let them continue to think of us as faceless irresponsible morons.

I plan to attend the Flagstaff, Aug. 8 meeting. If anyone can attend more that one of these meetings it is good, because I have noticed that the later meetings tend to be more thorough and better-prepared, due to feedback from earlier meetings.

azrubyman
07-17-2006, 09:33 AM
Captain,
Any perception you may have that this group is hostile towards your beloved BLM and NFS usually stems from the one-sided, eco-nutz policies that those agencies attempt to enact over and over and over. To insinuate that AZVJC members know less about what's going on out there than the office grubs and "Forester" degrees with Jesus slippers such as yourself, shows your true ignorance of who we are and what we do for the community. We are after all the people who actually use the back roads and off road trails of this country and in most cases clean up those same trails.
You call yourself a forester, huh? Are you....studied as an arborist, have you worked a chain saw 80 feet up? How about a D9? No? Maybe your "foresting" expertise is smoke jumping, truck driver, water tank building?
My perception is that your title of "Forester" was bestowed upon you by yourself and your Sierra Club buddies over a Latte at Starbucks or more than likely by the fair and open minded professors at NAU. I assume NAU, only because of your failure to grasp basic writing, spelling and punctuation skills.
So sit with the greenies, eat with the greenies and when you come to the locked gate and are denied access…..thank the greenies.
Ken

My1stJeep
07-17-2006, 11:18 AM
It isnt a gov't or treehugger conspiracy against you guys.

Huh? You made me laugh pretty hard when I read that sentence. While I agree that OHV use may not always be the best for the environment, and that some areas need to be set aside, for instance I would never want to see the Grand Canyon opened to wheeling. I think it would be bad.

However stating that there is no tree hugger conspiracy, that is just down right wrong information. Let's see how many of these make sense:

Greenies fight to close the sand dunes, stating that 2/3 are covered by the highest consentration of the Milk Vetch Weed. As the fight goes on so that they can now close the 1/3 that was left open by the courts, they reclassify the weed and make it a plant, due to the negative conetation the title weed gives it. Then the wheelers offer to the courts to pay a court appointed agency to perform the study. Findings, that the 2/3 has always had the lowest concentration of the MV, the 1/3 had the highest and that the pattern over the last decade has not altered the plants existance whether the areas were closed or not. Judge over turned the rulilng, opened the 2/3 and closed the 1/3. It was proven during the court case that they lied and manufactured their evidence.

Greenies sue to remove beaver dams, (no this has nothing to do with the humorous letter running around the net). Land managment does not have the money to fight it. With no long term study, and the courts buying into the misinformation, they forced the land management to remove the dams. This dried up the ponds/small lakes, thus killing off a species of fish and many of the eagles that called this area home.

President of the state Sierra Club (not Arizona) organizes an clean up at a camp area. Promotes it, goes out to get everything prepared. Day of event, 50 Jeepers (article called them Jeepers, but it included all OHV users) show up
and not one person from her Seirra club. President writes letter asking, just who is being a steward of the land and really cares about the environment? She also resigns.

So you are correct, there are a few bad apples that do not follow the rules, but there are also some on the green side that are just as bad and will stop at nothing to get there way, even if they don't look at the long term affects, and their agenda is simple, close it all off.

There has to be a balance, some lands set aside for nature, some for minimal impact and some for OHV use. Problem is for too many years it has just been closure, with no real OHV use taken into account. So now we are fighting closures and winning a few, and you think it is wrong? Not sure how that adds up. I am sorry that the animal was run over, however we don't close our highways and animals cross them and get run over all the time. Is it possible it was an accident or is there some proof this person chased them down and ran over them on purpose? As for the spill, shame on them for not cleaning it up, but education is going to help out more than closure. See if they don't care now, what makes you think a fence and sign are going to stop them? Ever see a fence cut and track going through? That is the same irresponsible guy who dropped the oil and did not care. He is now illegally running through it. Getting to these guys and educating them is the only true way to make a difference.

Yes, I still agree, some places may be better off closed, but education should be more a focus than closure if you want to make a difference.

Sedona Jeep School
07-18-2006, 07:23 AM
You guys don't seem to understand the motives behind BLM. It isnt a gov't or treehugger conspiracy against you guys.
I know way too much about the forest service to think they have taken our best environmental interests to heart. On a local level, I know many good rangers, who truly want to strike a balance, and understand the ecological intricacies of our region, but their hands are tied by the voluminous bureaucracy that is the USDA Forest Service. You forget the $ element. If you have millions of dollars, you can build a road wherever you want. If you cut off Red Rock Pass dollars and tour company money for two weeks, the FS is gnashing their teeth to get the forest back open as soon as the first drop of rain hits. Good? Bad?


It is a reality that our hobby does not help nature and if no people were in these areas it would be better for the environment. I am a Forester here at NAU and I have been with it long enough to understand these issues from both sides.
Just driving any motorized vehicle is a detriment to the environment, regardless of where you do it. So, what are your personal rules about that?

And, what exactly, are the "two sides"? At the very least, there are three "sides": recreationalists who want access, environmentalists who want to limit human interference, developers who want the land to build more insta-houses...we haven't even touched on the government entities involved...FS, F&G, BLM...

My point is there is far more involved in land management than the superficially incorrect "us against them".

FrenchChili
07-18-2006, 10:05 AM
I'd rather see wheeling trails kept open than new houses built over them :D

I don't think our sport is near as damaging as the builders Cap. Morgan;).

Miles of trails 6-8ft wide vs over 275square miles of new planing ...mmmm which one should be dealt with really? Polution will be worse if spread out instead of building upwards...And think of all those poor rabbits getting kicked out of their homes

My1stJeep
07-18-2006, 11:49 AM
Almost forgot, if the FS and the tree huggers are not conspiring against us, what do you call a deliberate planting of animal hair in an area to try and get it closed to motorized use and classified as a habitat for an endangered species?

Stu Olson
07-18-2006, 09:20 PM
Almost forgot, if the FS and the tree huggers are not conspiring against us, what do you call a deliberate planting of animal hair in an area to try and get it closed to motorized use and classified as a habitat for an endangered species?
Oh- Oh-Oh.....ME...ME...ME! I know the answer!!!!!!

People that do that (and those that fund and support them) are called anti-recreationists. They tell people they are environmentalists....but only an idiot would actually believe that line of BS. ;)

Anti-recreationists will do what ever it takes, legal or illegal, to get their agenda pushed through.

Captain Morgan....please be careful about what you assume about myself and my friends. I for one have more respect for this land than most people I know. Until you have spent time working with me at Table Mesa or the White Tanks or the Coves, filling dumpsters with other people's trash, please be careful about what you say about myself and my friends. ;) And contrary to your belief, filling a bunch of pickup trucks and dumpsters is NOT enough to keep just about anything open....it is far from it....but I will agree that it is a good start in the right direction.

Allen
07-18-2006, 11:00 PM
-Captain Morgan

I too was once working in the forest (with the USFS@ Angeles National Forest, San Gabrial Canyon OHV Park), so I guess you could call me a ex-forester??? Well I know how serious the people here are about their off road activities. This is one of the few places you can find people to "clean up" a trail! There is always some sort of cleanup trip in the plans. Do a search on these forums and see! (I see 20 pages of topics that contain the word cleanup) The people around here are the most responsable wheelers I've ever met. To say that they are not informed on offroading issues is a factless statment, as there is more info here on these boards than any other source I've ever seen. People here have gotten a lot of people who would not be paying attention to "start" paying attention. And what we see is "greenies" who LIE to get court rulings. OHV trails, camp sites, and forests that will soon be closed so that some mining company can TEAR the mountain down, and BLM and FORESTERS who have no problem closing trails because it's easyer than investigating the facts, or there is big mining company $$$ involved!

Some of the trails being closed nationwide have been used as OHV trails since the first Jeeps headed off road. Some of them were mining roads before that! Some of them brought settlers to California before that! And in these 100 or so years has any permanent damage been done that compares to say "building homes in the canyons" or "strip mining" or a hunderd other incursions into the wilderness of this land. NO! I know for a fact that if we clean up after ourselves Mother Nature needs only a good rain to wipe the tire tracks from the trail. Should the trails stay? YES! They are part of the wilderness. Should the guy who wants to walk thru the forest have the right to tell us we cannot drive thru? NO! We share the forest with him, why should he not share it with us?

Should areas be closed? YES! There are some places that should be kept quiet while Mother Nature repairs places man has damaged, but it should be realistic! Closing a dune that has been a sand dune for 500 years so it can repair is a load of bull cooked up by the man who either wants to do somthing else to the land, or lives on the road to the dune and wants to close down the dune because of traffic on his street!

You should take a more serious look at WHAT your job is! You are there to protect and manage "the peoples forests" so that "the people...ALL the people" can enjoy them. "Greenies" think closing the forest will let it florish, therefore it must be good. Realists think that when you close the forest "we the people" are going to be very unhappy, and you will end up being a security guard at the fence where the sign says:


"CLOSED"


I have never had the time to attend these "meetings" but hearing from guys like you that think "we" are the problem, "we" dont know what we're talking about, "we dont do anything to protect the OHV trails... makes me think I better get me a red shirt and start showing up! I will fight if I have to!

Allen

Sedona Jeep School
07-19-2006, 07:22 AM
Oh- Oh-Oh.....ME...ME...ME! I know the answer!!!!!!

People that do that (and those that fund and support them) are called anti-recreationists. They tell people they are environmentalists....but only an idiot would actually believe that line of BS. ;) ...
:D :D :D YES!! That is it, Stu! I hate to use the word "environmentalist" because most of the "recreationalists" I know are more "environmentalists" than the psychos who plant data, salt roads with nails, and block trails on blind corners. Finally, I have the accurate term: "anti-recreationalists"!

Thank you and well said, as usual. :)