06GrnRubi
07-23-2007, 02:57 PM
I just received an email that sent me to this site. http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/apache_sitgreaves
Here is what it says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect the Apache-Sitgreaves From Off-Road Vehicle Abuse
Key Wildlife Areas At Risk in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest
The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest boasts amazing scenery, pristine fish and wildlife habitat, and more miles of river and streams — 450! — than any other Southwestern forest. The Mount Baldy, Escudilla, and Bear Wallow Wildernesses and the Blue Range Primitive Area make the Apache one of America's premier backcountry forests, also noted for its trout streams and high-elevation lakes and meadows. The Mogollon Rim and incredible biodiversity, vistas and habitat ensure the Sitgreaves is one of the crown jewels of Arizona's public lands.
The Apache-Sitgreaves deserves the utmost protection. With more than 8,100 miles of roads already in place on the forest, it's shocking, not to mention illegal, that the Forest Service would even consider opening more of the forest to off-road vehicle use — protected and pristine areas like the Blue River, the Blue Range Primitive Area, and the Escudilla Wilderness.
To preserve the wild character and habitat of the forest, it's essential that the Forest Service decrease the acreage open to off-road vehicles and not add roads or trails to the system. Roads already overwhelm the wildlife, vegetation, soil and water, and road maintenance puts a severe drain on the forest's budget. Take action now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the bottom of the page, is a way to send an email to Supervisor Elaine Zieroth and Travel Management Team Leader Jim Copeland of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.
Here is what they want their readers (supporters) to say:
I am opposed to opening more of the Apache-Sitgreaves to off-road access, and support the closure of routes that cause ecological damage and user conflicts. So I'm concerned with 1) the recommendations currently included on maps posted on the forest's Travel Management Planning website, and 2) the extent of dispersed camping areas the forest may designate for cross-country travel.
I recognize that the maps display public comments received to date. But many of the recommended open routes run contrary to the intent of the Travel Management Rule; some are also contrary to law. Posting specific illegal routes will confuse the public.
In light of the need to designate a minimum system to protect resources and decrease budget demands, I was surprised to see the Forest Service is considering additions to the system - plus proposals to keep all existing roads "open", add wildcat roads and open closed roads. These are troubling plans, particularly the ATV trail along Blue River and road into the Escudilla Wilderness.
The Blue River route would cause damage in key riparian areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, loach minnow critical habitat, and the Blue Range Primitive Area. The road in the Escudilla Wilderness cannot be allowed under the rule and is clearly illegal and contrary to the Wilderness Act.
I understand the maps reflect input from various sources and not necessarily the forest's proposed action. But there are already 8,100 miles of roads on the forest. As a local user of undisturbed areas, I feel strongly that closures are needed, not more roads.
I avoid areas used by off-road vehicles, which kick up dust clouds, fill whole drainages with noise, harm habitat, and pollute water. Non-motorized areas like the Escudilla Wilderness and Blue Range Primitive are sources of clean water and great recreation: hiking, camping, hunting, horse-riding. They're a refuge for people as well as vanishing wildlife; their tranquility is crucial to this role.
On the dispersed camping issue, I recognize camping opportunities add to the character of national forests. But the practice of allowing excessive cross-country travel to such sites is harmful, and the extent of sites you're considering alarms me. The area at Hart Canyon (near Dutch John) is about 1,200 acres overlapping with important habitat for Mexican spotted owls and Northern goshawks. This is an key core/corridor area linking wildlife quiet areas (Turkey Ridge and Bear Canyon) with Willow Creek and East Clear Creek. It should not be subject to off-road use.
Please, restrict the designation of dispersed camping areas to protect remaining wildlands in the forest. Instead, designate terminal routes or spurs that provide access to camping or allow camping adjacent to designated routes.
Allowing motorized vehicles in the forest's wildlands will hurt the great majority of users, who value it for its unique character rather than its motorized-sport utility, to placate a small minority. I urge you to release a Proposed Action that 1) does not include additions to the system, 2) closes routes that are degrading the land and 3) strictly limits the designation of areas for dispersed camping. The forest should prioritize protection over the call for ORV access.
We need to tell them the EXACT opposite. Let's get our letter writing going and make sure our voices are heard.
Thanks,
Here is what it says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protect the Apache-Sitgreaves From Off-Road Vehicle Abuse
Key Wildlife Areas At Risk in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest
The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest boasts amazing scenery, pristine fish and wildlife habitat, and more miles of river and streams — 450! — than any other Southwestern forest. The Mount Baldy, Escudilla, and Bear Wallow Wildernesses and the Blue Range Primitive Area make the Apache one of America's premier backcountry forests, also noted for its trout streams and high-elevation lakes and meadows. The Mogollon Rim and incredible biodiversity, vistas and habitat ensure the Sitgreaves is one of the crown jewels of Arizona's public lands.
The Apache-Sitgreaves deserves the utmost protection. With more than 8,100 miles of roads already in place on the forest, it's shocking, not to mention illegal, that the Forest Service would even consider opening more of the forest to off-road vehicle use — protected and pristine areas like the Blue River, the Blue Range Primitive Area, and the Escudilla Wilderness.
To preserve the wild character and habitat of the forest, it's essential that the Forest Service decrease the acreage open to off-road vehicles and not add roads or trails to the system. Roads already overwhelm the wildlife, vegetation, soil and water, and road maintenance puts a severe drain on the forest's budget. Take action now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the bottom of the page, is a way to send an email to Supervisor Elaine Zieroth and Travel Management Team Leader Jim Copeland of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.
Here is what they want their readers (supporters) to say:
I am opposed to opening more of the Apache-Sitgreaves to off-road access, and support the closure of routes that cause ecological damage and user conflicts. So I'm concerned with 1) the recommendations currently included on maps posted on the forest's Travel Management Planning website, and 2) the extent of dispersed camping areas the forest may designate for cross-country travel.
I recognize that the maps display public comments received to date. But many of the recommended open routes run contrary to the intent of the Travel Management Rule; some are also contrary to law. Posting specific illegal routes will confuse the public.
In light of the need to designate a minimum system to protect resources and decrease budget demands, I was surprised to see the Forest Service is considering additions to the system - plus proposals to keep all existing roads "open", add wildcat roads and open closed roads. These are troubling plans, particularly the ATV trail along Blue River and road into the Escudilla Wilderness.
The Blue River route would cause damage in key riparian areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, loach minnow critical habitat, and the Blue Range Primitive Area. The road in the Escudilla Wilderness cannot be allowed under the rule and is clearly illegal and contrary to the Wilderness Act.
I understand the maps reflect input from various sources and not necessarily the forest's proposed action. But there are already 8,100 miles of roads on the forest. As a local user of undisturbed areas, I feel strongly that closures are needed, not more roads.
I avoid areas used by off-road vehicles, which kick up dust clouds, fill whole drainages with noise, harm habitat, and pollute water. Non-motorized areas like the Escudilla Wilderness and Blue Range Primitive are sources of clean water and great recreation: hiking, camping, hunting, horse-riding. They're a refuge for people as well as vanishing wildlife; their tranquility is crucial to this role.
On the dispersed camping issue, I recognize camping opportunities add to the character of national forests. But the practice of allowing excessive cross-country travel to such sites is harmful, and the extent of sites you're considering alarms me. The area at Hart Canyon (near Dutch John) is about 1,200 acres overlapping with important habitat for Mexican spotted owls and Northern goshawks. This is an key core/corridor area linking wildlife quiet areas (Turkey Ridge and Bear Canyon) with Willow Creek and East Clear Creek. It should not be subject to off-road use.
Please, restrict the designation of dispersed camping areas to protect remaining wildlands in the forest. Instead, designate terminal routes or spurs that provide access to camping or allow camping adjacent to designated routes.
Allowing motorized vehicles in the forest's wildlands will hurt the great majority of users, who value it for its unique character rather than its motorized-sport utility, to placate a small minority. I urge you to release a Proposed Action that 1) does not include additions to the system, 2) closes routes that are degrading the land and 3) strictly limits the designation of areas for dispersed camping. The forest should prioritize protection over the call for ORV access.
We need to tell them the EXACT opposite. Let's get our letter writing going and make sure our voices are heard.
Thanks,