BTW: She works for a group within the USNF that Al Gore developed. It's called "Teams" and they work as a team for various National Forests, so the individual Forests don't have to pay or staff specialists. The Forest hires them out for various issues, then they move on to the next problem. This "Teams" approach has reduced the size and waste within the USFS.[/QUOTE]

Runrider,
Finally something within administration that makes sense. It must have slipped through the cracks without being noticed.........I believe a "teams" individual is currently reviewing the comments being provided on the Wallowa Whitman Access Travel Management process. It seems the USFS has now decided it needs to only admit those comments it deems "substantive".

 

I will ask her to check into the substantive matter. She knows the person(s) doing the work in WW. If I can find anything out that may benefit ATV / Trail use I'll let you know.

 

That is information that could be of use to the public.......it seems the USFS is being very quiet about providing anything but the most generic of information, vague at best. Yet when requesting input the suggestion for comment is for "scientific and/or site specific" comments including maps and coordinates........rather stiff requests of individuals that are neither scientists or cartographers.............
Any help would certainly be of benefit...............Tass

 

I think the "site specific" is the easier way to go for most people, Tass. Most modern GPS units will have area or screen where you can pull up the coordinates and either save the spot on your GPS or let you write it down. So, easiest method for talking about areas you like to ride would be to go on a ride with a GPS, stop at the spots in question and take the coordinates. I believe the USGS maps have the latitude and longitude lines on the sides of the maps so you can find the spot pretty well. USGS Maps Booklet is the place to go for them.

 

MooseHenden, you are correct as far as GPS and a few other tools that are available. The problem becomes one of time and scale. 2.5 million acres, parts of 5 counties and 3 states.
The proposed closures are forest wide, Since the RARE I days I and others have provide continuing input as to roads and trails and areas we wanted left open for various uses. We now face this closure effort. 2.5 million acres and we lack the ability or direction to put up a timber sale........2.5 million acres and we are curtailing grazing alotments, 2.5 million acres and we are eliminating access.......2.5 million acres and the USFS wants us to map it for them. Our government wants to create a nice little zoo, with a few nice little trails and a few nice little roads so we can all line up and follow the leader down the nice little paths so all can be monitored and controlled. That just won't work for me. I realize the position I take is based on my own tastes and temperment but that does not mean it is wrong, just out of step. My wife is Indian, her family is Walla Walla, Umatilla, and Cayuse and have lived here for centuries.......she feels she has lost enough also.......
Time and scale MooseHenden........Government knows that while trying to earn a living and live a life we have not the resources to protect what we have.........Tass

 

Tass, Regardless of the situation (easy for me to say living in Maine), you are talking about US controlled (US Congress controlled) land. USFS determines timber allotments, USFS determines roads and trails unless overridden directly by Congress. Individual states and people who live adjacent (my family in Vermont on Bromley mountain) have basically zero say. It's Federal land, they manage it and control it at will. Period. I hate to put it this way, but you have very little say in the matter and it doesn't change from administration to administration. USFS generally gains land, it does not shrink. You can speak your voice, but it's never going to be "returned" to the states. Even if it was returned to the states, the general regulations would not likely change much.

Not true. The people that make the decisions are regular people from all political backgrounds. Wholesale use if over. I used to shoot clay and hunt and ride my dirt bike in Tahoe National Forest. Gate is locked now....fires, drugs, parties, illegal wood harvesting, garbage dumpiing, etc.....it all adds up. Do I like it....no. Are timber harvest dramatically cut back in Green Mountain National Forest to the point of stupidity.....yes. It's a management nightmare for the people dealing with all these issues and the pressures applied from state representivites, Washington and local USFS opinions. There is no great controlling force. Each Forest is different with different players working under similar conditions. Ultimately it's not a simple situation of "big government control". No single group, aside from say a Senator gets much individual attention. It's a matter of critical mass, law suits in many cases by various environmental groups from out of state. The law prevails and huge sums of the USFS budget goes to lawyers defending proposed timeber harvests. You're talking about Foresters here in many cases, they want to cut wood.....Deer and bird hunters want the clear cuts for diversity, snowmobilers and ATV riders want the logging trails to ride. It's a difficult deal these days with gridlock prevailing. A family in upstate NY I know harvests nearly as much hardwood on their private land than the whole of Green Mountain National in 2007. How can that be?

 

Good point on the "scale" issue Tass. I keep forgetting the vastness of the areas you are talking about. We think we have a huge trail system up here in New England if we can squeeze 50 miles out. It would still be difficult to do what you described. Funride, while I agree it is a federal issue, run by the USFS, the USFS people understand political leanings and influences. Though, not run by Congress, they are controlled by Congress as Congress writes their checks.

 

Funride, take a look at the original Bosworth comment on National Forest issues.......One of the 4 greatest issues is UNMANAGED RECREATION. Forgive the capitals.....they are for emphasis only..........Why does "managed recreation" sound like a contradiction in terms? if that is not a department of agriculture scream for control I don't know what it is......Take a look at Bosworths background.....check out his deep association with Stephano..........lock it up and lock you out............I have contacted numerous Senators and Representatives...........no luck and no listen........Senators say they only address important things........not forest issues or public lands.......Representatives say they can do nothing without the help of the Senate......Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
State or Oregon folks in Salem say Federal Management of public lands is up to Congress...I guess that is the answer, You, Me, Moosehendon have no say and neither does anyone else.......

 

Right. I didn't make the point very clearly, but if Congress wants to override them at any point, they can. Local USFS could spend $500,000 and hundreds of man hours on a WW-like project for Wilderness designation, then get comments from everybody, eventually chose their local option, then Congress could say...Nah, we like this other option you've done no research on; but thanks for all that hard work. Local foresters have basically zero recourse once the decision is handed down.

 

Tass, Recreation in general is not paramount on the scale, compared to timber harvest, water quality, species protection, ecosystem stability etc. They certainly spend a lot of time and money on rec issues, however. Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 covers recreation for the first time and stated all of the five main uses were equal in importance. Not sure that holds totally true today.

My feeling is you have to manage recreation in some fashion. Can't have people running wild all over the forest, cutting, burning, dumping. I like to hunt and fish and want some protection from ATVs and motorcycles sometimes. They can't be everywhere IMO. I want to fish in hard to get to waters whenever possible. Is that elite in some circles....I guess so.

I don't think it's "control". Nothing has changed since Obama has taken over the Whitehouse. Same people, same principles. The USFS is an old-boys network, and changes VERY slowly, regardless of who's in office.

Yep. It's difficult. Congress and the Senate get together rarely to discuss "forest" issues. Not sexy enough for them I guess. You said "public lands"....which is not a totally accurate description. These are public lands, but you have no particular ownership over the guy next door. People tend to think they're individually entitled to something.