Results 176 to 196 of 196
Thread: Banned in the USA
-
07-15-2016, 01:35 PM #176
Keep thinking about it. How many instant WA activists are created if this bill passes? And how do they feel about giving up those lands? Don't bother with Lee and Hatch; start with Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren and Maria Cantwell.
Last edited by jono; 07-15-2016 at 02:07 PM.
-
07-15-2016, 01:53 PM #177
If the bill passes and local land managers immediately close (by regulation) all trails in their domain to mountain biking, we still win. Because the blanket ban is gone.
If all Wilderness trails were somehow opened to mt. biking tomorrow, such a tiny fraction of people who mt. bike would ride them anyway. Rugged adventure rides where hike-a-bike is typical just doesn't appeal to most mt. bikers, in my experience.
I personally wouldn't want to see any Wilderness trail improved for mountain biking other than clearing downed trees.
-
07-15-2016, 01:55 PM #178
I don't really understand your question, but I think I get what you're driving at. NEPA doesn't mandate or require closure, opening, protecting the environment, etc. It is not a law that requires that you protect the environment. NEPA only requires that the environmental impacts of a discretionary decision be studied. Here, under this bill, the discretionary decision would be taking action to identify permissible uses, including whether MTB is allowed on particular trails or not. Identifying permissible uses is a discretionary decision (it requires the agency to use its discretion -- ie., think about it) -- therefore, NEPA applies.
On the contrary, the agency could do nothing and NEPA would not apply. If the agency does nothing, the trails all open.
Does that make sense?
With respect to NP rangers (and other agencies as well), they can take such actions if the impacts on the environment are not significant or another exemption applies (forest fire, etc.).Last edited by meter-man; 07-15-2016 at 01:57 PM. Reason: Clarification
-
07-15-2016, 02:04 PM #179
I think we're talking about this from opposite perspectives: closure can happen with virtually no effort because you can think about it, find a reason for closure, and you're done. The reason NEPA etc is usually so lengthy is that doing something new requires that you look at everything to verify that no unacceptable impact exists. Here it would be the opposite: closure can be warranted at the first issue discovered.
But you're also saying that a NP ranger can close a trail when no significant environmental impact exists, is that right? Without NEPA? How do they make that determination? (Maybe I'm just confused by your last paragraph.)
-
07-15-2016, 02:37 PM #180
Closure is generally more protective of the environment (of course, there are many exceptions), but that probably explains why closure is easier to do than opening.
Agreed on your NEPA statement. That's why I think that most land managers will default to avoiding NEPA - it costs too much, takes too long, and there's an uncertain outcome. So, in the areas where the local land manager chooses to do nothing (thereby avoiding NEPA), all trails would be open without NEPA review
Where do you see that closure can be "warranted" if there is an unacceptable impact? I don't see anything in this law that would authorize that, much less require it.
Sorry, my explanation was incomplete. I don't think an NP Ranger (or do you mean a USFS "District Ranger" - the head USFS official for that NF?) can close trails (or trail systems) willy-nilly. They can take limited actions to protect the environment, particularly if those actions are temporary. Remember, NEPA only applies where there is significant adverse impact on the environment. Generally speaking, the courts afford agencies with lots of discretion to close things, especially where actions are temporary and where such closure is designed to protect the environment. I'd have to research whether they can close individual trails without any public review.
ETA: This bill will certainly be revised, so it will be interesting to see how it changes.
-
07-15-2016, 03:01 PM #181
The FS around here was going to allow street legal WATVs on roads already open to motorized use but apparently it needs NEPA
http://methowvalleynews.com/2015/10/...2%80%89-again/“I have a responsibility to not be intimidated and bullied by low life losers who abuse what little power is granted to them as ski patrollers.”
-
07-15-2016, 03:36 PM #182
The local official's ability to close trails is stated on page 4 (paragraphs and sections are misformatted on my phone, sorry about that): "In making a determination pursuant to this section, a local official may carry out such activities and promulgate such regulations as the local official determines to be appropriate to reduce, eliminate or prevent environmental impacts or undue conflicts..." The list of ways they might do that starts with restricting the number of people on a permitted route. Further, on page 5 it is stipulated that nothing requires the official to either open or maintain open any route. I'm taking that to mean they can close one (or restrict the users to zero), and they can do it whenever they want, without regard to the two year initial time limit.
Ultimately this is the basic law that should exist. The intent of the legislature in passing the WA was never to simply create blocks of acreage where bikes aren't allowed and that is not and should not be a motivator when determining additions to Wilderness. The question of how much time should be allowed for local land managers to decide whether bikes (or horses or mules, for that matter, although that doesn't appear to be part of this) are appropriate on individual routes is a short term problem. I'd be fine with lengthening it to five years in the case of trails that cannot be readily shown to have been open to bikes at some point since 1974, but for trails like the ones in the Boulder-White Clouds and all over Idaho and Montana's RWA's there is no reason to delay and every reason to expect FS Region 1 to delay until hell freezes over if they're allowed.
-
07-15-2016, 05:36 PM #183
I see that list of actions that the local official can carry out, but closing the trail is not on that list. Reducing numbers and other actions are, but closure isn't. That makes sense - allowing the official to close a trail outright runs counter to the purpose of the bill - which is to open trails. But, your argument that a local official could simply close a trail using the determination you noted is a good one too. If the bill becomes law, some land manager is sure to do exactly that, and it will be litigated.
The second item on page 5 is more of a legislative move - it provides the official with discretion - and discretion means that NEPA can apply if, as noted above, the official takes a discretionary action. If the law was a mandatory duty ("thou shalt open the trails!!!"), then NEPA would not apply, and no environmental review under NEPA would ever be necessary. So, this is also a gesture to wilderness advocates that this isn't a "thou shalt open" bill, and it affords the local official with the opportunity to designate some trails as open and some as closed. It's a good provision. (But, I don't read it to read mean that the local official can close a trail whenever he/she wants to.)
Good points in your last paragraph.
-
07-18-2016, 01:47 PM #184
One example which might be requested, probably of Democratic members of the commitee and/or STC themselves before they get this introduced in the House could go something like this (text significantly shortened and re-purposed from Public Law 92-400, the SNRA Act, but just an example):
The land manager shall administer the Wilderness Area in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations applicable to the federal lands in such manner that the disposal of natural resources such as timber, grazing, and mineral resources will not substantially impair the scenic, natural, historic, pastoral, wildlife, and other values, contributing to and available for public recreation and enjoyment and maintaining the Wilderness character of the land.
-
07-18-2016, 02:16 PM #185
On the issue of NEPA, it'd be pretty easy to decide to keep the trails closed to bikes without conducting a full environmental review. They'd call it a a categorical exclusion, which still falls within the NEPA process, but it's cheap and quick. They can do a CE for any decision that doesn't involve significant environmental impacts, and it seems fairly self evident that closing the trail to bikes (and thus maintaining the status quo) would fall within that definition. CE's get issued for all kinds of decisions all the time - that's why NEPA doesn't (usually) come in to play for basic trail maintenance, issuing permits for minor events, etc.
TLDR: the trails aren't going to default to open just because the local district doesn't want to pay for a full EIS.
-
07-19-2016, 10:32 AM #186
-
07-19-2016, 10:55 AM #187
-
07-19-2016, 11:01 AM #188www.dpsskis.com
www.point6.com
formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
Fukt: a very small amount of snow.
-
07-19-2016, 02:12 PM #189
-
07-19-2016, 07:51 PM #190
-
07-22-2016, 11:43 AM #191
You're prob right about the CE. That's a good point.
If the bill becomes law, the decision to open, close, or open only certain trails will be done differently in each district.
So, the big question is... will it pass? Does the bill have any support? I'm sure lots of Western Republicans will like it!
-
07-22-2016, 10:39 PM #192
I fully expect most western Republicans to ignore it completely. Unless it gets to the floor, in which case we probably get their votes. I guess my theory that they should fix the mining nonsense at the same time might scare them off, though.
-
07-23-2016, 01:17 PM #193
-
07-23-2016, 03:18 PM #194
-
07-23-2016, 04:36 PM #195
Write congress first, then complain. Thank the Republicans for having the courage to take on the hypocrites at Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society and all the pro-central planners on the left.
And thank the Democrats for broadening support for Wilderness in the spirit of Frank Church and his stand for inclusive use and defense of wild places.
Lisa Murkowski
Chairman, Alaska
Republican Committee Members
John Barrasso Wyoming
Jim Risch Idaho
Mike Lee Utah
Jeff Flake Arizona
Bill Cassidy Louisiana
Cory Gardner Colorado
Steve Daines Montana
Rob Portman Ohio
John Hoeven North Dakota
Lamar Alexander Tennessee
Shelley Moore Capito West Virginia
Democrats:
Maria Cantwell, Washington
Ron Wyden Oregon
Bernard Sanders Vermont
Debbie Stabenow Michigan
Al Franken Minnesota
Joe Manchin III West Virginia
Martin Heinrich New Mexico
Mazie K. Hirono Hawaii
Angus King Maine
Elizabeth Warren Massachusetts
-
07-28-2016, 03:01 PM #196I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
Bookmarks