Wasted space?

Maybe not, if even ONE reader comments on the US Forest Service plan to close National Forests to ATV's.

Maybe you responded to the USA Weekend "poll," "Should ATV's Be Banned From National Parks?"

Actually, ATV's are ALREADY banned from National Parks; further, if the poll results show 100 % of respondents vote, "No," what would change?

NOTHING! USA Weekend doesn't make or implement Federal policy.

By contrast, hundreds of miles of legal ATV trails exist in Nation FORESTS, for now. I say, "for now," because the Clinton Administration's appointed Chief of the Forest Service, someone who DOES make and implement Federal policy, wants to close millions of acres of public land to all use, INCLUDING ATVing.

However, in its wisdom, Congress requires the Chief of the Forest Service to seek Public Comment on his plan before he puts it into effect. Public? That's you and me.

The Chief of the Forest Service must, by law:

1. Accept your comments.

2. Retain and provide your comments to Congressional Staff or any interested citizen, for reading and copying.

The time period for public comments has been extended to May 17, 2000.

If you want to make a difference, E-mail a polite note to the Forest Service by pointing and clicking on the hypelink (colored text) below:

Comment On Forest Service Road Plan

Tell the Chief, US Forest Service,you oppose closure of public lands to responsible ATV access.

In less time than it takes to post on the Forum, you can participate in a process with the force of law.

Maybe we'll lose our access anyway; maybe you can make a difference. At least, you tried, instead of sitting around as a spectator as another right and privilege is eroded. Then, this space will not have been wasted.

Sitting at your keyboard, right now, please send that E-mail.

An AMA mailing is copied below.

Tree Farmer

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

SITUATION

The U.S. Forest Service is proposing to rewrite its Road Management and
Transportation System Policy that has elements that will have significant
and potentially devastating effects on continued OHV use of public lands.

On March 3, 2000 the US Forest Service published a proposed rule revising
regulations concerning the development, use, maintenance, and management of
the national forest transportation system.

After a number of organizations requested an extension of the public
comment period the agency has determined that the public initially had
difficulty obtaining a copy of the proposed rule and accompanying
documents. So the agency has concluded that a limited extension will not
impede adoption of the final rule. Therefore, the agency is extending the
comment period for 15 calendar days.

DATES

Comments must be received in writing by May 17, 2000.

WHAT TO DO

Read the AMA's Comments at http://www.AMADirectlink.com then create your
own, polite, clear and concise comments. Then send them, before the May
17, 2000 deadline, to the address below.

ADDRESSES

Send written comments to:

USDA, CAET
Attention: Roads
PO Box 221090
Salt Lake City, UT 84122

Send comments electronically to roads/wo_caet-slc@fs.fed.us

All comments received, including names and addresses when provided, are
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying at
Forest Service, 201 14th Street SW, Washington, DC 20250.

 

Sent note today. Others should also.

 

i sent a note to the url you posted and it came back. maybe they really don't wanna hear.

 

Please try again; the original posting had a disrupting period at the end of the URL; the current one seems to work. See if the hyperlink "takes."

Tree Farmer

 

bingo, worked this time

 

Done...I did my part.

 

tree farmer,

great topic. but a point of clarification: if i don't miss my guess, the USFS's proposed rule change for road management within national forests does not, in and of itself, ban orv use anywhere. it is simply a proposal to re-visit the road assessment techniques used by the usfs when determining which roads (read: orv trails) should be reconstructed or closed. variables include land damage and the usfs's ability to maintain the roads in question. note that these assessmnts will be carried out by local forest management. so, what are the things we have to watch out for?

1. the fact that the usfs is attempting to re-define it's mission to focus on land preservation rather than managing use. this can easily translate into the usfs determining the criteria for "preserving" land and EVENTUALLY banning orv use.

2. the fact that the usfs will close the roads/trails it is not funded to "maintain to proper safety levels". the criteria for "maintenance" and "safety levels" again is left to the discretion of the usfs. i don't need much of a "maintained" trail to ride on, do you? and as far as safety goes, does that mean steep hills and rough trails are not safe enough for me to ride on? who knows.

3. the decision to de-commission "unnecessary" roads. who makes that determination? it doesn't say.


so, it's important for us to see efforts like this in an accurate light so that we can act on it. the proposal does not BAN orv use or CLOSE any land to orvs. but, unchecked it lays the foundation to do so.

you can bet when the local forest management recommedations are made for the usfs areas in michigan, i will be a part of it. and, as you point out above, this is an extremely important issue and we owe it to ourselves to become involved.

good post topic.....keep it up. if the riding areas begin to dry up, i guess we won't need "modifications" and "where to ride" forums will we?

jim

 

You, fakie99, are clearly hep!

The Holocaust didn't start with gas ovens; instead, with seemingly trivial restrictions, such as, "Certain Persons cannot check out library books between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on Sunday mornings."

Similarly, the total ban of ATV's from National Forests and other public lands begins with "Road Management Plans."

Those who express their concern regarding the plan on the table have done what they can for now. Who knows what a Gore administration will bring; Al Gore has publicly stated he wants to ban ultimately the internal combustion engine. What better place to start than with engines in recreational use, such as ATV's?

Again, for those who haven't, point and click on the hyperlink above and tell the Chief of the US Forest Service if you want to maintain ATV access to National Forests.

Tree Farmer

 

and, might i suggest going it one step further. add to any correspondence with the usfs our desire -- as the public -- to be part of decisions such as closing "un-needed" roads or restricting access. within the usfs's proposal, it states: "different types of recreation use are affected in different ways -- some positive and some negative." that's about the extent of thier analysis of how important the recreational aspect is to all of us. that CLEARLY tells me they are not hearing from enough of us atver's.

so....fight the good fight, tree farmer. keep pointing people our way!

 

I, too have made my feelings known just now as one who lives within the boundaries of the Coconino Nat Forest.
I might add also that Mike Dombeck, the Nat Forest Chief has made public comments indicating that he is not particularly fond of OHV-ers. With that in mind, keeping your comments polite and respectful would be in all our best interests.