Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 141
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gapper Alley
    Posts
    37
    A lot of what Outdoor Alliance does is good stuff. The Recreation Not Red Tape bill if passed as written would create a recreation area system, kind of like the national wilderness preservation system where USFS has to look for lands suitable for this use. It would be easier to get people who want to support conservation AND recreation to have a consistent land category. Of course we already have a few similar designations, I don't know why they aren't used more.

    A big opportunity where they actually take input from the public (unlike Bitterroot) is nearby on Helena Lewis and Clark NF. There's a little over a week to comment and Alt C recognizes that mechanized and motorized uses do not necessarily degrade Wilderness character. I had USFS clarify the primitive recreation thing, they say bikes are allowed in primitive, it's just the other layers of management where primitive ROS is found that typically prohibit bikes. Now, if you read the comments __W__ members are putting in, you see they want primitive ROS taken over too. Also, many of them want Alt D which would close more than 360 miles of trail to bikes. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/hlcnf...d=fseprd574977

  2. #77
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    1,132
    Was going to submit comments on the Helena Lewis and Clark NF plan today. Went to the link above and saw the deadline has been extended to Oct 9.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    24,078
    Just submitted a concise comment. Hope it helps.
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,059
    from BBC facebook:
    https://ravallirepublic.com/news/loc...557fc7091.html

    We are trying our best to give everyone a chance to object. If you decided to make you voice heard make sure you include Name, address and phone number. The subject line should be: Bitterroot Travel Plan Objection. Email your objections to: appeals-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us

    We want to make your voice heard. Send us a note as a comment or PM or email and will include it in our objection. If you changed your plans and didn't visit the Bitterroot because these trails were closed, we want to know and they should know as well.

    It hate to include this last part, but to make our objections we need to " focus on laws, regulations or policies that they believe the agency missed in developing its decision" and that means legal help. This will cost $5000 - $8000. I know I would rather spend the money on trail building and maintenance ourselves, but we need the trails open before we can maintain them. I thought we had a donate link. I'll try and get one and running, in the meantime, SaveMontanaTrails to donate

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The 8th best place in the LBP
    Posts
    2,165

  6. #81
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    1,132
    406 and I riding lion head next couple days then some centenials and bitterroots this week with Bridger divide Friday if anyone needs something to do!

  7. #82
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    1,132
    Did Centennials yesterday. Targhee today. Not sophisiticated as Lee to post pics to forum during trip but you can see some on IG @evdog_sd

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Missoula DMV
    Posts
    328
    There have been some fantastic comments in this thread, and has certainly helped educate me a bit more on Mtn. bike land access issues. It's given me a lot to think about since I used to be more anti-mtb access growing up in the Flathead.

    Re-quoting this bit from Evdog:

    Quote Originally Posted by evdog View Post
    We [Mtn bikers] don't have enough pull because:
    - we're not a big enough or well funded group to begin with compared to our opposition
    - only a small % of riders actually ride backcountry trails
    - only a portion of those seem to want access to Wilderness
    - only a small portion of riders travel to and therefore care about some of the areas where we're losing access
    - only a small % of bikers are willing to take the time to write in comments
    Apply venn diagram to the above and there are very few riders fighting to maintain access. It would be nice to have a national org dedicated to responding to all of them but we've all seen how IMBA fights wilderness....

    Meanwhile, our opposition is well funded and effective because:
    - most of the public doesn't know that bikes are banned in Wilderness. Most people probably wouldn't care. The wildernuts certainly aren't going to point this out.
    - "protecting" areas has pretty much universal appear. Nevermind that there is seldom a specific threat that needs protecting from. They also don't point out that there are other designations that will often do an adequate job of protecting. Even a backcountry non-motorized designation will protect against development and motorized use. Not permanent, but good til the next management plan update in ~20 years.
    - they have lots of funding, paid staff, paid attorneys and plenty of environmental laws to turn to
    It's sad that the discussion has been so dominated by outside perceptions of mtn bikers, without fully understanding that their impact on public lands is arguably negligible. Bad encounters on-trail between user groups haven't helped one bit, and it's embittered many "do-gooders" to hate/exclude mtn bikers when lobby for more wilderness.

    It's been said already, but the whole Bear Ears debacle in UT didn't help either. When such groups see an example of wilderness reduction, it only entrenches their views and results in doubling-down.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    Mountain-bikers oppose Wilderness and so therefore they must be crushed. Now Mountain-bikers oppose the holy trinity of WSA, RWA and IRA so must be crushed.
    And this seems to be the crux of the issue right now in MT.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Missoula DMV
    Posts
    328
    Thread drift, but LeeLau's earlier comment with the Nat-Geo article...

    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    I thought this was useful in showing how the Wilderness movement thinks and how they mythologize their own purity while demonizing any and every other activity that doesn't fit their own vision https://www.nationalgeographic.com/a...-conservation/
    ...sent me down the rabbit hole with the story of the 1968 kayak poach in Yellowstone NP's Black canyon.

    Found a 2013 paper from the UM that's a long-but-good read on water access issues. Has some relevance to the public land access issues being discussed in this thread:

    https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1478&context=etd

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,776
    Quote Originally Posted by S_jenks View Post

    And this seems to be the crux of the issue right now in MT.
    Re my quote above. That seems to be issue for governance of Region 1 of the US Forest Service. Their default position is regulate public use of public land as anti-bike. My concern is that their anti-bike stance (whether it's by laziness, ignorance or simply being bludgeoned by Wilderness advocate lawsuits is immaterial) is contagious and will spread to other US Forest Service regions

    But yes - Region 1 of the US Forest Service is big! And it's a good chunk of Montana,

    https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE...rdb5108619.gif

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    228
    Itís Region 1 for a reason. The rest of the US thinks of this part of the country as a sleepy backwater, but itís very influential in the USFS. R1 produces a lot of Chiefs. Iíve never gotten the sense that MTB advocates around the country understand that.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,776
    https://ravallirepublic.com/news/loc...home-top-story

    I'll write a sample email on how to respond to this in a bit. Forest Service was previously limiting the people who could comment to only those who commented before. Now new comments will be accepted but only in a very particular form

  13. #88
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    san diego
    Posts
    1,132
    Thanks Lee. This is a separate process from the one for the Helena Lewis and Clark National Forest?

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Hugh's Mom's House
    Posts
    11,481
    Yes.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,059
    wtf, I got this yesterday:

    I received your objection to the Bitterroot Travel Plan concerning mountain biking within the
    Sapphire and Blue Joint Wilderness Study Areas.
    I have determined that your objection does not meet all of the requirements of 36 CFR 218.8( d).
    As such, in accordance with 36 CFR 218.1 0(a)(5), I must set aside and not review your
    objection. However, I will forward your objection to the Forest Supervisor for consideration in
    making the final decision.
    Consideration of objections is strictly limited to the closure of the Sapphire and Blue Joint
    Wilderness Study Areas to mountain biking; no other issues will be considered during this
    objection period. Please refer to pages 24 and 25 of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the
    decision maker's rationale for the closures of the WSAs to mechanized transport.
    A new 45 day objection period is being initiated, so you still have an opportunity to submit an
    objection that meets the requirements of the 36 CFR 218 regulations. The draft Record of
    Decision (ROD), Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and other supporting
    documentation related to the Bitterroot Travel plan are available for review at
    https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=2 l l 83. Please refer to 36 CFR 2 l 8.8(d) for direction
    on filing an objection.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,776
    Evdog. Yup its different.

    Forest Service was previously limiting the people who could comment to only those who commented before. Now new comments will be accepted but only in a very particular form

    406. Why the rejection?

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,059
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    406. Why the rejection?
    I'm not sure...I had thought I commented on the draft plan ~10 years ago, but not positive. Maybe format wasn't correct? Below is what I sent.
    date: Sep 7, 2018, 11:47 AM
    subject:Bitterroot Travel Plan Objection

    Hello,

    I am writing to object to the mountain bike ban within the Wilderness
    Study Areas within the Bitterroot Nation Forest.

    In July I visited to ride Railroad Cr & Weasel Cr. trails in the
    Sapphire WSA. Mountain bike volunteers a few days prior to my ride
    had just cut out hundreds of downed trees on these trails. In the ~2
    years these trails were only open to hikers and equestrians, the
    trails had not been maintained and were on the way to vanishing.
    Letting nature decommission these trails represents a loss of an
    federal asset of monetary value. USFS webpage say that the range of
    cost per mile have been from $2,500 to $12,000 per mile for new trail
    construction and maintenance at a range of $2,500 to $6,000 per mile.
    The Travel plan fails to account for the loss of federal asset and
    does not comply with Executive Orders providing guidelines on Federal
    Real Property Asset Management, given that there is a clear desire and
    demand for mountain bike recreation on these trails.

    I was going to visit the Bitterroot Valley second week of September to
    ride Razorback Ridge trails (Blue Joint WSA) and Southern 313 area
    trails (Sapphire WSA), but now planning to just visit West Yellowstone
    & Bozeman area trails. The Travel Plan fails to account for the loss
    of tourism income to local businesses in the Bitterroot Valley. As
    the forest moves from a resource extraction focus that provided many
    jobs in the valley to recreation focus, trails that are remote and
    challenging will need to be available in the area to attract mountain
    bike tourism. Examples of regions that are following this model
    include Moab and Crested Butte.

    History has shown that Congress will designate Wilderness for areas
    actively used by mountain bikers, such at the White Clouds in Idaho.
    Proving that mountain bike activity does not decrease the Wilderness
    value of an area. Therefor, the Travel Plan is mistaken in banning
    mountain biking in WSA as an attempt to preserve Wilderness character.

    thank you,

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,776
    Busted this out really quick. 406 i think i figured out why your objection was shelved.

    Please QA this for me as I could use more eyes

    http://www.leelau.net/sharonandlee/s...ember-18-2018/

    Pinkbike rejected my Helena trails blog submission so looks like trail advocacy isn't their priority anymore. I'll try to get it run on Singletracks.com which is more advocacy friendly

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,059
    first sentence: Livingston Montana should be Hamilton, Montana

    Your first bullet point in the sample letter, there was mtb on these trails prior to 1977?

    Thanks! Looks good.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,776
    Quote Originally Posted by 406 View Post
    first sentence: Livingston Montana should be Hamilton, Montana

    Your first bullet point in the sample letter, there was mtb on these trails prior to 1977?

    Thanks! Looks good.
    dammit - thanks for the catch.

    Yah there were submissions by some locals that there were bikes on the trails way back in the day. Not many then but even now - there aren't many

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,059
    Oh, cool. Don't forget to include the email address. And is the USFS requiring an electronic signature?
    more details:
    https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/ww...T3_4437647.pdf

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,776
    Quote Originally Posted by 406 View Post
    Oh, cool. Don't forget to include the email address. And is the USFS requiring an electronic signature?
    more details:
    https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/ww...T3_4437647.pdf
    I don't believe electronic sig is required.

    Form response you should get if they accept your response attached -http://www.leelau.net/2018/montana2018/Bitterroot%20NF%20comments-1.pdf

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,059
    An idea to maybe make it easier for people is to use google docs. Inserted a drawing at the bottom and can free form the signature.
    People would need to update name and address.
    Edit drawing box to make a signiture
    Export as pdf and attach to email. Email to USFS.

    Example:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Paper St. Soap Co.
    Posts
    2,059
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeLau View Post
    I don't believe electronic sig is required.

    Form response you should get if they accept your response attached -http://www.leelau.net/2018/montana2018/Bitterroot%20NF%20comments-1.pdf
    Good news, can ignore my last post.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Vancouver/Whistler
    Posts
    10,776
    I just used my signature as from email.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •