Montana Roadtrip. Tour of to be closed trails

[406]

When I was skimming the executive summery, I thought it said B would allow mechanized to continue in RWA. Much like the option Helena travel plan had.

Glad C is also looking like an ok option. If there is an option to get back access to the Gallatin Crest, that would be awesome and very surprising.

[panchosdad]

One thing, and a big one, that I missed from reading the Executive Summary the first go round is that Alt. B is the proposed course of action. I'd expect the Wilderness groups are going to be pissed.

[toast2266]

One thing, and a big one, that I missed from reading the Executive Summary the first go round is that Alt. B is the proposed course of action. I'd expect the Wilderness groups are going to be pissed.

It'll be somewhat important for bike / recreation advocates to say that alternative B isn't good enough. If the Wilderness advocates are pissed, the Forest Service needs some political cover if Alternative B is going to be the middle ground. If the recreation community is happy with B and the Wildernuts aren't, that might lead to the conclusion that the FS missed the mark on their proposed action, and the final Plan might drift more towards Alt. D.

[livefreerdie]

LFD, thanks for that. Are you getting the closures from the map or are they listed elsewhere?

Re the maps, it looks like I need to look at both the "Designated Area" maps (p85 and 86 for Alt B/C) and the "Recreation Opportunity Spectrum - Summer" maps to understand the implications for mountain biking. Interesting that the Lionhead RWA is more contiguous in B, but the Recreation Opportunity Map calls the RWA out as Semi-primitive Non Motorized. In C the RWA looks to leave out the Sheep/Watkins corridor, but the RWA is classified Primitive. I take it Semi-Primitive would allow biking, but Primitive would not?

Interesting also that the Gallatin Crest is SemiPrimitive in B, Primitive in C. That seems a potential big win.

I am going from the draft revised forest plan, DEIS appendices and personal knowledge of the GFP agreement for trail closure and mileage. Lionhead with corridors leaves Coffin Lake spur in unavailable RWA, the other trails should be bikeable. There is also a tiny but present danger that corridors are removed if Congress designates it Wilderness. Backcountry area is a good management for the area. Just continuing to allow bikes in RWA would be best. That topic is important and it seems we may be fighting for primitive ROS areas along with it. ROS is a "lower layer" of management if you will. Most designated Wilderness areas are Primitive ROS. Bikes are not allowed because they are mechanized, not because they aren't allowed in Primitive. Research Natural Areas are often Primitve, but bikes can and have be allowed. WSA is a higher layer. If they decide that the WSA is to be managed for semiprimitive motorized (obv would not do) that would be the layer used to guide management if the WSA were released.

This plan appears to be using ROS to target specific activities: Draft Revised Forest Plan pg98-99 are of interest, I'll have more on that soon hopefully.

[panchosdad]

Any updates there SWMBA? What's the deadline for the next round of comments?

Thanks.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I got some letter some Bitterroot NF that I think said they are in a holding pattern and the default bike bans remain in place. I could be wrong, though, because I don't speak bureaucratese.

[stuckathuntermtn]

I just got another form letter. I'm not entirely sure why I'm getting them, but there's probably some law about how anyone who submits something to the government shall be replied to by mail. The irony of the great savior of the environment, the Forest Service, sending out all that paper is so thick that I need a towel to mop it up.
Anyway, I guess there was some meeting early this month, and in a 4 page point by point response, it basically says "fuck you, we can do what we want." I wonder how they plan on enforcing no bikes on miles and miles of ridgeline.
Also, does this include the Great Burn area around Hoodoo, or is that Lolo NF?
They always use some bullshit about "wilderness character". It's a myth. Read 1491, for starters. Nevermind that since the collapse of the civilization that may have been caretakers of the area, it's been mined, clear cut, irrigated, dammed, etc. A few decades later, maybe the roads that they put all that shit in with are barely discernible, but it's still been changed from how it "was". Not only is "how it was" completely debatable, but that also changed over time. Do we reintroduce sabertooth tigers and dire wolves because that's how it was after the last Glacial Maximum? Do we "restore glacial lake Missoula" like the bumper sticker says?
I don't get why riding a bicycle in the woods in America is such a contentious issue. Is it like that in any other countries?

[evasive_MT]

I got some letter some Bitterroot NF that I think said they are in a holding pattern and the default bike bans remain in place. I could be wrong, though, because I don't speak bureaucratese.

Since he asked SWMBA, I think he was interested in updated takes on the C-GNF forest plan revision.

[livefreerdie]

I'll cover both real quick. As I read the Bitterroot objection response it mostly backs up the idea that "social characteristics" of wilderness means they can do whatever they want with nonconforming uses. There is still a chance they would accept some of the middle ground proposals. This just applies to the Sapphire and BlueJoint WSAs.

Custer Gallatin NF. I am working on a website that puts all of the info in one place for commenting to USFS. It should be available in a week or so. The comment period runs through June 6th. Main points we are focusing on:
-Support Gallatin Forest Partnership agreement. Alt C map for those portions of the forest
-Support continued bicycle access to Lionhead. The best way to manage this is Backcountry Area as seen in alt E .
-Manage RWA to allow bicycles. If they can be shown to degrade character, use adaptive management steps rather than a blanket ban
-Maintain bicycle access to Line Creek Plateau

It's important to give a reason why you want these things, be it a personal story, value, logic. Can't just say you want it

[panchosdad]

I'll cover both real quick. As I read the Bitterroot objection response it mostly backs up the idea that "social characteristics" of wilderness means they can do whatever they want with nonconforming uses. There is still a chance they would accept some of the middle ground proposals. This just applies to the Sapphire and BlueJoint WSAs.

Custer Gallatin NF. I am working on a website that puts all of the info in one place for commenting to USFS. It should be available in a week or so. The comment period runs through June 6th. Main points we are focusing on:
-Support Gallatin Forest Partnership agreement. Alt C map for those portions of the forest
-Support continued bicycle access to Lionhead. The best way to manage this is Backcountry Area as seen in alt E .
-Manage RWA to allow bicycles. If they can be shown to degrade character, use adaptive management steps rather than a blanket ban
-Maintain bicycle access to Line Creek Plateau

It's important to give a reason why you want these things, be it a personal story, value, logic. Can't just say you want it

Great, thanks for the reply. I'll take a look at the website when it's live and hit you up with questions then.

[livefreerdie]

This link will probably break soon, but here is the draft website. It will have a catchy URL and polish next week.
https://mel8633.wixsite.com/forest-planning

The main points are the same as the above comment, the website goes for the simpler comments in hopes of getting a higher volume of personal responses. I think this forum would be a good place to discuss more of the details. Here are a couple of interest to this thread:

3.5.8 Plan Components–Line Creek Plateau Research Natural Area
AB-SUIT-RNA-03 Mountain biking is only suitable on system trails.

This goes for all alternatives except for D. I like to thing this puts the odds in our favor of keeping that ride.

CDT. This is the best access to Lionhead.
04 The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail is suitable for mountain biking.
Alternative D: The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail is not suitable for mountain biking where
the trail is within recommend wilderness area. Making Lionhead a Backcountry Area that allows mechanized use is so much simpler management. I would hope it is also less likely to change or be open to interpretation or lawsuits like RWA.

Once again, we maintain access in 4 of the 5 alternatives, need to make sure this area is not made into RWA as alt D would have it.

The ROS issue that arose in Helena is here in Custer Gallatin also but a bit simpler. Most of the categories here seem consistent with other management (such as no bikes in primitive, but primitive ROS is only drawn in designated Wilderness or designated areas where we are not allowed). There is new-ish direction about how to interpret NFMA 2012 which says they should have suitability requirements within ROS. The concern is that boundaries are drawn one way, then the meaning of that land type changes. See treatment of nonconforming uses in RWA, WSA. So we need to make sure the language is crystal clear to include us or not to exclude us.

I do think the wording is confusing and could be improved. On a positive note, fat bikes were mentioned for the first time in this plan revision. One issue that could affect access is grooming in SemiPrimitive NonMotorized Winter. This would make some existing nordic ski or fatbike trails fall into a weird spot. Motorized recreation is not allowed in a couple of these areas as drawn, but they are groomed (of course with motorized groomers, which is not really a recreational use). Maybe saying "generally not groomed" leaves room for a few exceptions.

06 Semi-primitive nonmotorized settings (winter) provide backcountry and Nordic skiing, snowboarding, and snowshoeing opportunities. Trails are generally un-groomed and not marked for winter travel. Some areas that have enough compaction may see fat tire bike use.

[lifelinksplit]

No link but Bozeman Chronicle had a pretty good letter to the editor today about anti-bike...

[livefreerdie]

They've been busy with the anti bike LTEs. A couple from mountain bikers have been sent to Chronicle.

Check out this website and please comment! This link should stay put: https://www.mtbcgnf.org/
The important points are under "submit a comment", or click through the pages to get more background.

[jono]

Any of the many lawyers on this thread get a copy of the letter from William Avey that Stuck mentioned above? I'm curious to hear comments on it as I'm considering what to say re: CGNF.

Specifically, it seemed to me that the effort to justify political actions in the name of "social impacts" (AKA closing trails to reduce the constituency of backcountry mountain bikers, as previously stated in Region 1) is essentially the heart of the USFS's entire position. The responses to Issues 9-12 rely on an implied argument that Wilderness Character is itself a social construct so that environmental impact can be ignored because "conflict of use" is a matter of conflicting tastes, allowing the USFS to justify attempting to control that "social impact" on the editorial pages and in polling booths, not just on public lands.

As in Issue 9, Quoting the FEIS: "The nature of conflict of use as it relates to this type of travel planning effort is about forest users and their personal values and the fact that personal values shape preferences, for which activities are appropriate and desirable on public lands, not actual, physical confrontation between users in the field." So conflict of use becomes an open-ended social impact for which the USFS assumes responsibility to manage, including the political discussion in which they would otherwise have no right to interfere. I would love to see some suggestions on how to address this state of affairs when commenting (or funding legal action, as the case may be).

Maybe my search skills suck, but I'm not seeing this letter anywhere on the web, anybody else know if it's posted digitally?

Beyond commenting, if anyone lives near Hamilton, MT and is interested in taking on a potentially impactful role shoot me a PM.

[panchosdad]

Any of the many lawyers on this thread get a copy of the letter from William Avey that Stuck mentioned above? I'm curious to hear comments on it as I'm considering what to say re: CGNF.

Specifically, it seemed to me that the effort to justify political actions in the name of "social impacts" (AKA closing trails to reduce the constituency of backcountry mountain bikers, as previously stated in Region 1) is essentially the heart of the USFS's entire position. The responses to Issues 9-12 rely on an implied argument that Wilderness Character is itself a social construct so that environmental impact can be ignored because "conflict of use" is a matter of conflicting tastes, allowing the USFS to justify attempting to control that "social impact" on the editorial pages and in polling booths, not just on public lands.

As in Issue 9, Quoting the FEIS: "The nature of conflict of use as it relates to this type of travel planning effort is about forest users and their personal values and the fact that personal values shape preferences, for which activities are appropriate and desirable on public lands, not actual, physical confrontation between users in the field." So conflict of use becomes an open-ended social impact for which the USFS assumes responsibility to manage, including the political discussion in which they would otherwise have no right to interfere. I would love to see some suggestions on how to address this state of affairs when commenting (or funding legal action, as the case may be).

Maybe my search skills suck, but I'm not seeing this letter anywhere on the web, anybody else know if it's posted digitally?

Beyond commenting, if anyone lives near Hamilton, MT and is interested in taking on a potentially impactful role shoot me a PM.

Are you asking about the March 22 letter? I have a copy, if you pm me your email I'll scan it and send it to you.

[jono]

Sorry I wasn't very clear there: I got a copy, too, I was just curious if it was available in a sharable, cut/paste etc format. That's a good point, though--I'll try scanning to pdf. Thanks!

[stuckathuntermtn]

The letter just basically says "fuck you and the bike you rode in on, we can do what we want. Love, the Forest Service!"

[livefreerdie]

The letter I think you are looking for and the MTB proposal are on the sidebar here:
https://ravallirepublic.com/news/loc...8bd8876a0.html

Stuckathunter pretty well sums up the response considering the specific arguments that were all lumped together. There is still a chance the new forest super will reopen some of it. Not a lawyer, but from what I gather the term "social characteristics" can now be defined as "anything we want". If you want to get super technical, its probably somewhere in the NFMA 2012 and directives pile:
https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index.htm - fixed, thanks

[jono]

Thanks! That is the one. Looks like your second link isn't working.

[kidwoo]

God I hate IMBA, and the shit heads that fund them.

http://www.conservationalliance.com/...latin-gateway/

[LeeLau]

God I hate IMBA, and the shit heads that fund them.

http://www.conservationalliance.com/...latin-gateway/

IMBA got a grant to advocate for Gallatin Crest Wilderness? Or because they advocated for that to be Wilderness?

[kidwoo]

IMBA got a grant to advocate for Gallatin Crest Wilderness? Or because they advocated for that to be Wilderness?

Yes (both). Ongoing bullshit. That's what imba does: Gives up shit tons of land in negotiations to wilderness advocates so that they appear the reasonable ones™, while only really advocating for more kiddie flow trails close to town. The worst part about it is then land managers thing they're getting the 'voice of the mountainbikers'. They're partners with winter wildlands via the outdoor alliance bullshit btw.

And please, it's not closing down existing or potential mountainbike zones........it's 'protecting'. There's money to be had when you call yourself a conservation organization. So now imba is a conservation organization. When all conservation means is kicking more people out of public lands and then telling donors in far away cities you're 'protecting' something. IMBA sucks so much monumental penis. That's what you get when you constantly hire directors who were spandex dirt roadies. Mountainbiking to them is little on the adventure and high on the strava laps. So it doesn't really matter where it happens as long as you get your target heart rate.

[hick]

God I hate IMBA, and the shit heads that fund them.

http://www.conservationalliance.com/...latin-gateway/

IMBA hates bikes. The other groups that are enjoying fucking bikes in MT are the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and Winter Wildlands Alliance. The Backcountry Hunters and Anglers just sued the FS over a new trail that was almost ready to go out for bid in the Crazy Mountains. Said trail would make for a fantastic bike loop and restore a lot of access. Unbelievable, I really don’t understand their logic on this one, or anything for that matter.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[stuckathuntermtn]

I guess the IMBA has suffered the same fate as many organizations: they now only exist to sustain themselves.
Also, fuck them.

[lifelinksplit]

IMBA hates bikes. The other groups that are enjoying fucking bikes in MT are the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and Winter Wildlands Alliance. The Backcountry Hunters and Anglers just sued the FS over a new trail that was almost ready to go out for bid in the Crazy Mountains. Said trail would make for a fantastic bike loop and restore a lot of access. Unbelievable, I really don’t understand their logic on this one, or anything for that matter.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Jesus. Really?! I dont claim any knowledge but the crazies have been quite the situation between the checkerboard, land managers getting "re-assigned, etc. But hey I did learn from the tgrz and some chick with Jeremy Jones that nobody in montana skis there and hardly even knows what the crazies are...

And yeah fuck imba.