Montana Roadtrip. Tour of to be closed trails

[rideit]

Thanks, that is a great thread. Looks like the national forest around Helena is a good 'close to' 1/2 way point. I'll start a new thread. Good luck up there with all the rest of the crap!

[406]

There is now a webform for comments on the Bitterroot travel plan objections:
https://sites.google.com/site/bitter...8J4e2Df_F2ENLU

Do before 11/19, thanks!

Over 1000 people have submitted comment via the webform letter. And I just sent out an email to 6k addresses with the link. Hopefully get a couple hundred more before the deadline.

https://memberleap.com/action.php?or...MB&laid=211085

[LeeLau]

Over 1000 people have submitted comment via the webform letter. And I just sent out an email to 6k addresses with the link. Hopefully get a couple hundred more before the deadline.

https://memberleap.com/action.php?or...MB&laid=211085

It sounds like 2000 comments will be sent with all the articles. Good job on that and sincerely hope it helps

[406]

Should be interesting how it turns out. The judge said the USFS didn't give mtb'ers a chance to comment, but does he then decide if the comments have been addressed by the USFS? Or will it be the USFS just do their typical replies to each issue raised, basically saying the travel plan fine as is.

[LeeLau]

Should be interesting how it turns out. The judge said the USFS didn't give mtb'ers a chance to comment, but does he then decide if the comments have been addressed by the USFS? Or will it be the USFS just do their typical replies to each issue raised, basically saying the travel plan fine as is.

Unfortunately the judge's ruling deferred to the USFS originally holding that the USFS did everything they had to do except consult. Perhaps this will change things? My fear is that as many anti bike will comment as pro bike.

[toast2266]

Should be interesting how it turns out. The judge said the USFS didn't give mtb'ers a chance to comment, but does he then decide if the comments have been addressed by the USFS? Or will it be the USFS just do their typical replies to each issue raised, basically saying the travel plan fine as is.

I'd have to read back through the court orders, but as I understand it, this isn't a new comment process, this is a new objection process. Which is a lot different. Objections are mostly a way for the public to point out things that the FS did in violation of laws or regulations. The standards for an objection are a lot different than standard FS comments on a project, which is why there were some issues further up thread on people's objections getting rejected for not being formatted correctly.

To put it another way, when the FS accepts comments, it's required to consider those comments in arriving at a decision. Once the decision is made, there's an objection process where people can point out legal flaws in the decision. That's where we're at.

The problem here is that 1) the FS has discretion on pretty much all issues pertaining to bikes, which makes any kind of legal challenge to their decision really difficult, and 2) there already was a legal challenge, so a successful objection would essentially need to find an argument that wasn't already raised in the lawsuit.

I don't mean to shit all over the enthusiasm for protecting these trails, and I'm definitely still submitting an objection. But I'm not holding my breath.

[jono]

Who has best documented the condition of these trails after they were closed to bikes and the volunteer hours spent reopening them? Best link(s) to provide when commenting?

I think the strongest argument against the existence of user conflicts is the clear evidence that these trails don't see enough use without bikes to even stay open, let alone have conflicts. If they are trying to close the same trails that were just closed from lack of use then any claim of user conflicts is either a gross error or an obvious lie.

[LeeLau]

Who has best documented the condition of these trails after they were closed to bikes and the volunteer hours spent reopening them? Best link(s) to provide when commenting?

I think the strongest argument against the existence of user conflicts is the clear evidence that these trails don't see enough use without bikes to even stay open, let alone have conflicts. If they are trying to close the same trails that were just closed from lack of use then any claim of user conflicts is either a gross error or an obvious lie.

The best party to know those stats themselves are the BBC - ie the Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists

[406]

Who has best documented the condition of these trails after they were closed to bikes and the volunteer hours spent reopening them? Best link(s) to provide when commenting?

I think the strongest argument against the existence of user conflicts is the clear evidence that these trails don't see enough use without bikes to even stay open, let alone have conflicts. If they are trying to close the same trails that were just closed from lack of use then any claim of user conflicts is either a gross error or an obvious lie.

https://www.facebook.com/bitterrootb...659816918237:0
Is what I linked to and printed as pdf to include.

I also created segments in strava to see if others biked the trail for the few days they were open. But obviously not every mtb'er uses strava.
https://www.strava.com/activities/16...ts/43391226546

[evdog]

Done

[jono]

https://www.facebook.com/bitterrootb...659816918237:0
Is what I linked to and printed as pdf to include.

I also created segments in strava to see if others biked the trail for the few days they were open. But obviously not every mtb'er uses strava.
https://www.strava.com/activities/16...ts/43391226546

Thanks, that's strong stuff. I'd seen that before but...wow. The pic of the antlers (and the obvious implication) is striking.

[LeeLau]

Thanks to all who submitted comments! Noted trolls Todd MacMahon and others have posted in the Singletracks article so there's that

[LeeLau]

Thanks to everyone who put in a word re Montana Bitterroots. 3100 put in input to the process

[DolphinSki]

Got a letter today from the Regional Forester stating he's going to extend the time for objection review. At the least it means they've gotten a lot more objections than anticipated. The optimist in me hopes it means they're doing a bit of reconsidering.

[jono]

I opened that letter fully expecting it to say "we've rejected your comment due to..." Still feel like the best case scenario is an Alamo, but we'll see. At least people are paying attention this time.

[DolphinSki]

I think that's the big takeaway is that mountain bikers are organizing and becoming active. I think in the past, people just haven't really known what to do personally, or organizations were somewhat isolated. I read somewhere that the Boulder-White Cloud travel plan or whatever it was only received about 170 letters from mountain bikers. Great to see people rallying together for trail access.