Soldier Pass trail at immediate risk of public closure - help needed

[TreeKiller]

THIS FROM NENA BARLOW


==================================================
**URGENT!*** Please pass around: Soldier Pass Trail in Sedona may be closed to public!! PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL or letter by this Friday 4/29! Email: JRowe@fs.fed.us
Mail: Julie Rowe
Red Rock Ranger District
P.O. Box 20429 , Sedona, AZ, 86341

Re: Soldiers Pass Motorized Use #38555

The Red Rock Ranger District of the Coconino National Forest is reviewing management options for this busy trail. Let me cut through the bull and tell you the real deal: the local homeowners hate the ATV noise through their neighborhood and on the trail. Since the traffic on the trail is exceeding the USFS management levels, the USFS is inclined to do something. Read the short explanation here: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558...T3_3020929.pdf

I am writing in favor of Alternative C: Implement a free permit system to allow a limited number of 4x4's per day on the trail, similar to Elephant Hill and Bulldog Canyon permit systems.
I am NOT in favor of Alternative B: close the trail to all motorized traffic except Red Rock Jeep Tours, a commercial tour company.
The reason I favor option C: public land is for public benefit. If a limited number of 4x4's are to be allowed, it should not be for the sole benefit of commercial industry.

It is critical that letters in support of the USFS Alternative C are sent, as the city of Sedona has submitted their support of Alternative B: close it to all but Red Rock Jeep Tours. Personally, I would rather see it closed completely than have any commercial operator have exclusive use of public lands.

The USFS is accepting comments for the rest of this week only. Please state clearly which option you prefer, and why.

Below is my full letter. Feel free to cut, paste, and modify with your own comments. If you enjoy the Soldier Pass trail, or you just hate seeing the public shut out of yet ANOTHER 4x4 trail, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take 10 minutes to send in your comment.

Thank you!

From: (include your name, email, address and phone number for validation--anonymous or no contact info comments get trashed!)
To: Julie Rowe
Re: Soldier Pass Motorized Use #38555
Date: 25 April 2016

I am writing regarding the proposed changes in Soldier Pass Motorized Use. I am in support of Alternative C: Outfitter/Guide and Public Use by Permit.

While it is reasonable that limitations should be imposed, I would hate to see this beautiful and historic little trail closed altogether--it has been a Jeep trail since Jeeps came back from WWII. I enjoy this close and short trail for a quick escape to the edge of the wilderness, with its unique geological and biological wonders.

It is my assertion that limiting vehicle traffic is a reasonable management step at this point in time. However, limiting public access in favor of commercial access is NOT reasonable. Therefore, Alternative C presents the most balanced solution, with plenty of functioning precedent in other areas in support of a free permit access system.

I believe that closing it to all public motorized access is an excessive attempt at a solution to the noise problems of ATV and UTV traffic. If the city of Sedona doesn't like ATV noise, they should ban ATV's from the streets, as Telluride has. Closing it to all private motorized recreationists while allowing a commercial tour company to use it exclusively violates the USFS mandate and Amendment 12: "We will not regard the area as a potential theme park for commercial exploitation at the expense of nature. We will not sell the day to profit the hour.” It is my assertion that if Alternative C is deemed inviable, I believe it is more consistent with the mandates and wishes of the Sedona community to close the trail to all motorized use, instead of allowing the motorized recreation to continue there strictly for the benefit of one commercial interest.

Further, I am willing to participate physically, materially and financially in any efforts required to implement a permit system for this trail.

Sincerely,

Nena Barlow
==================================================


Scott

[LO PHAT]

.

EDIT: Please read posts 12 and beyond before sending your comments!



.

[tmgarmon]

Same from here too Scott!
I'm definitely sending the same type of letter!

Update!!! Just sent it. Echoed Nena's thoughts and added a few of my own!

[Estrada]

Thanks for posting Scott. I was going to get this up today but you beat me to it.

[jhart]

I like alternative A. Leave it alone!

Someone built there house near a road (this is a road even though we call it a trail) and now they want to restrict how much traffic can drive on that road because they don't like the noise.

I'm so sick of a few whiners getting what they want because something bothers them. This is public land for the public to use for recreational purposes.

Why is it that the USFS can propose to close a trail even after there is a travel management plan in place, but they never propose to open a trail that is already closed according to the current TMP?

Those residents had their opportunity for input when the TMP was being created.

My $.02.

No offense intended to anyone here. I'm just sick of compromising away our access to public lands.

[ob1jeeper]

Done & mailed...

[TreeKiller]

I like alternative A. Leave it alone!

Someone built there house near a road (this is a road even though we call it a trail) and now they want to restrict how much traffic can drive on that road because they don't like the noise.

I'm so sick of a few whiners getting what they want because something bothers them. This is public land for the public to use for recreational purposes.

Why is it that the USFS can propose to close a trail even after there is a travel management plan in place, but they never propose to open a trail that is already closed according to the current TMP?

Those residents had their opportunity for input when the TMP was being created.

My $.02.

No offense intended to anyone here. I'm just sick of compromising away our access to public lands.

No offense taken.

My understanding is that option A has been eliminated from consideration. It's not on the table. Whether we agree or not, one of the two options mentioned is what's going to happen. Soon. It's either C ) keep it open to everyone on a limited basis or B ) close it to the public completely while letting one single commercial vendor continue to have access. IMHO neither is ideal but option B is complete and utter Bull****.

Scott

[chazur]

Done.

[greyst]

Shared and done

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[jhart]

No offense taken.

My understanding is that option A has been eliminated from consideration. It's not on the table. Whether we agree or not, one of the two options mentioned is what's going to happen. Soon. It's either C ) keep it open to everyone on a limited basis or B ) close it to the public completely while letting one single commercial vendor continue to have access. IMHO neither is ideal but option B is complete and utter Bull****.

Scott

If those are the only two options available, I agree.

[97TJSport]

done

[jeepdude775]

There are never only 2 options. Just the 2 options offered to the peasants. I am sick of this crap. Government over reach and special interest groups. Same old ****. That trail was there way longer than the rich peoples Sedona dream houses.

If its the quad noise thats the problem, how about address that?

[LO PHAT]

No offense taken.

My understanding is that option A has been eliminated from consideration. It's not on the table. Whether we agree or not, one of the two options mentioned is what's going to happen. Soon. It's either C ) keep it open to everyone on a limited basis or B ) close it to the public completely while letting one single commercial vendor continue to have access. IMHO neither is ideal but option B is complete and utter Bull****.

Scott

Where did you see or hear that option A has been eliminated from consideration? The comment period is (supposed to be) open for 30 days from March 31, 2016.

I have to say that after studying the four options in detail, I am not thrilled with option C only providing 12 permits per day for public use while not also placing severe restrictions on commercial use. If the Forest Service plans originally called for up to 15 encounters per day (defined as the number of times one sees another person or party recreating in the area), option C would be excessively restrictive of public use (but could leave commercial use in the area opportunity to grow).

Read more details HERE.

It is entirely possible that, of the options presented, A and D are the only two that make any actual sense.

[IOwnCalculus]

I like alternative A. Leave it alone!

Someone built there house near a road (this is a road even though we call it a trail) and now they want to restrict how much traffic can drive on that road because they don't like the noise.

I'm so sick of a few whiners getting what they want because something bothers them. This is public land for the public to use for recreational purposes.

Why is it that the USFS can propose to close a trail even after there is a travel management plan in place, but they never propose to open a trail that is already closed according to the current TMP?

Those residents had their opportunity for input when the TMP was being created.

My $.02.

No offense intended to anyone here. I'm just sick of compromising away our access to public lands.

It looks like this has been bubbling since at least 2012 (highlights mine):



Reading the more detailed analysis on it I'd agree that alternative A has pretty much no chance. The FS views the current usage level of the trail as far higher than it is intended to support, and they've already eliminated other options (such as reclassifying / redefining the expected usage) that would be materially similar to alternative A. So the best choice we're left with is alternative C, a permit system that at least still allows personal OHV access.

[IOwnCalculus]

Where did you see or hear that option A has been eliminated from consideration? The comment period is (supposed to be) open for 30 days from March 31, 2016.

I have to say that after studying the four options in detail, I am not thrilled with option C only providing 12 permits per day for public use while not also placing severe restrictions on commercial use. If the Forest Service plans originally called for up to 15 encounters per day (defined as the number of times one sees another person or party recreating in the area), option C would be excessively restrictive of public use (but could leave commercial use in the area opportunity to grow).

They don't call "A" as eliminated, but reading that these two options were eliminated makes me think that A has no real chance: