Montana Roadtrip. Tour of to be closed trails

[livefreerdie]

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

[evdog]

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.

[rideit]

Just submitted a concise comment. Hope it helps.

[406]

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

[yeahman]

From the Missoulian:

Daines asks agency to open up comment period on mountain bike use in WSAs

[evdog]

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!

[evdog]

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

[S_jenks]

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:

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.

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.

[S_jenks]

Thread drift, but LeeLau's earlier comment with the Nat-Geo article...

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

[LeeLau]

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

[evasive_MT]

It’s Region 1 for a reason. The rest of the US thinks of this part of the country as a sleepy backwater, but it’s very influential in the USFS. R1 produces a lot of Chiefs. I’ve never gotten the sense that MTB advocates around the country understand that.

[LeeLau]

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

[evdog]

Thanks Lee. This is a separate process from the one for the Helena Lewis and Clark National Forest?

[RootSkier]

Yes.

[406]

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.

[LeeLau]

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?

[406]

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,

[LeeLau]

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

[406]

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.

[LeeLau]

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

[406]

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

[LeeLau]

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

[406]

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

[406]

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.

[LeeLau]

I just used my signature as from email.