Eastern Washington USFS forest plan revisions link
06-08-2004, 12:55 PM
#1
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington Wa. USA
Posts: 1,386
Eastern Washington USFS forest plan revisions link
If it matters to anyone in this state, there are possible changes in the works for the Colville, Okanogan, and Wenatchee National forests on the East side of the state- if the west side lefties get thier way we will have major changes regarding all motorized access to ESTABLISHED road systems. Please contact the USFS through the link provided and give them your comments- if you don't want the[:'(] "left coast" 
Links to USFS,Colville,Okanogan, Wenatchee NF(through Snowest)to dictate what we can and CAN'T do on our own public lands!![:'(]
[:'(]
OOPS! It didn't get me there! But it does get you to snowest.... so go to navigation to "Land Use" and click on the post created by Cle Elum Sledhead pertaining to this subject.
I'm sorry but I must have not gotten the WHOLE thread ID correct!![:@]
I'm sure you will find it !!!!
Links to USFS,Colville,Okanogan, Wenatchee NF(through Snowest)to dictate what we can and CAN'T do on our own public lands!![:'(][:'(]OOPS! It didn't get me there! But it does get you to snowest.... so go to navigation to "Land Use" and click on the post created by Cle Elum Sledhead pertaining to this subject.
I'm sorry but I must have not gotten the WHOLE thread ID correct!!
[:@]I'm sure you will find it !!!!
06-10-2004, 01:21 AM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington Wa. USA
Posts: 1,386
RE: Eastern Washington USFS forest plan revisions link
On another front.....................home | subscribe | forums | galleries | magazine | travel guide | sled garage | links
June 7, 2004
Group Wants Ban On Forest Road Closures
Associated Press
KALISPELL - Montanans for Multiple Use has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to ban the U.S. Forest Service from implementing road and trail closures.
The group said its requested preliminary injunction is necessary because of an approaching fire season that will expose the public to a substantial health and safety risk.
It also said the Forest Service continues to implement a "continuous stream" of forest plan amendments across the country aimed at closing forest roads and trails.
"The elimination of roads and other actions in the amendments have culminated in increased fire hazards, increased probability of catastrophic fires, increased firefighting costs, increased risk and probability of damage to natural resources, loss of critical timber industry jobs and infrastructure, and loss of private property and human lives," MMU president Fred Hodgeboom said.
In a lawsuit filed last year against the Flathead National Forest, the same group and 13 other plaintiffs contended that forest plan amendments approved in recent years are unlawful because they implement significant management policies that should be addressed through complete forest plan revisions.
Current forest plans were adopted in the mid-1980s. By law, they should have been revised several years ago, Hodgeboom said, but most national forests are only beginning lengthy revision processes.
Snowmobile News
06-18-2004, 10:33 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington Wa. USA
Posts: 1,386
RE: Eastern Washington USFS forest plan revisions link
I see we've got 41 hits......... has anyone sent any input to them?? I hope so!Being I'm a snowmobiler, 4 wheeler, and occasional ATV rider....... I have to gloat over the US House of representatives decision to ALLOW sleds in Yellowstone this week.
Scrieber Meadows route Mt. Baker Wa. about 7000-7500 feet
06-19-2004, 01:01 AM
#4
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Auburn WA.
Posts: 1,396
RE: Eastern Washington USFS forest plan revisions link
Cool it's nice to see we are making some head way against the common senseless. I don't follow up on it like I should, but what we need are some more conservative style Judges and not these "Activist" in a black robe[:'(]
I agree for probably90% of what should be an open forrest, but I do like that they close some roads, I mean if the Government could ever use common sense and close off some of the "far back roads" not the main lines leading into an area but some of the small spurs and such, it sure is nice to be able to hunt an area without Jim Bob rolling up a deer trail in his rusty Chev[:@]
But for the most part I agree, let's use it, we aren't tearing up the envrionment bad enough that Mother Nature can't fix it. We get to egotisitcal as a race when we start thinking we can change what Mother Nature wants to do. Not that I'm advocating tear it up either, but I think you know what I mean....I do
I agree for probably90% of what should be an open forrest, but I do like that they close some roads, I mean if the Government could ever use common sense and close off some of the "far back roads" not the main lines leading into an area but some of the small spurs and such, it sure is nice to be able to hunt an area without Jim Bob rolling up a deer trail in his rusty Chev[:@]
But for the most part I agree, let's use it, we aren't tearing up the envrionment bad enough that Mother Nature can't fix it. We get to egotisitcal as a race when we start thinking we can change what Mother Nature wants to do. Not that I'm advocating tear it up either, but I think you know what I mean....I do
] I would like to see what your website says. I also enjoy the outdoors & do not want our forests closed.
07-08-2004, 09:16 PM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington Wa. USA
Posts: 1,386
RE: Eastern Washington USFS forest plan revisions link
I'm working on the link. Try www. snowest.com go to land use forum. It gets you an error message but if you click on the navigation bar and click "land use-you will get there!
07-15-2004, 10:02 AM
#9
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Twisp Washington USA
Posts: 220
RE: Eastern Washington USFS forest plan revisions link
Hey summit daWg, thanks for the email. Don't worry I'm not going anywhere if anything I will be alittle more informend when it comes to dealing with the issue that I was trying to defend. That person can say what they may, but the truth is as you have seen here in Washington, there are the few that like to impose their beliefs on the many.
As a person who truely injoys the outdoors I have no problem with the way a person does it as long as it is legal. I don't feel we need a change in the pol. that the forest service is proposing. These changes out here are dictaited by a strong evio. movent for them to gain control on all lands and water, ( the evio groups or as I like to call them Greenies).
As I have seen there are those on some of these post, (who's name I don't have to mention) feel that everyone should believe what they believe and if you don't then you are lazy and not a true outdoorsman. They have to puff up their chest and swing from a vine to prove to themselves that they are better. Oh well if that makes them feel better so be it. Like I always say, "Do it if it makes you happy".
One thing I have noticed is if you don't resond to them, then all they can do is talk to themselves.
Trust me I'm here and I will be watching and resonding when I can or want to,some people have short memories about what they say in the past. Nice thing about the writen word is it can be brought back and showed to them.
Oh by the way, summit, I've read your past posts and you seem like a ok kinda a sportsmen. You're welcome around my camp anytime.
As a person who truely injoys the outdoors I have no problem with the way a person does it as long as it is legal. I don't feel we need a change in the pol. that the forest service is proposing. These changes out here are dictaited by a strong evio. movent for them to gain control on all lands and water, ( the evio groups or as I like to call them Greenies).
As I have seen there are those on some of these post, (who's name I don't have to mention) feel that everyone should believe what they believe and if you don't then you are lazy and not a true outdoorsman. They have to puff up their chest and swing from a vine to prove to themselves that they are better. Oh well if that makes them feel better so be it. Like I always say, "Do it if it makes you happy".
One thing I have noticed is if you don't resond to them, then all they can do is talk to themselves.
Trust me I'm here and I will be watching and resonding when I can or want to,some people have short memories about what they say in the past. Nice thing about the writen word is it can be brought back and showed to them.
Oh by the way, summit, I've read your past posts and you seem like a ok kinda a sportsmen. You're welcome around my camp anytime.
07-15-2004, 09:56 PM
#10
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington Wa. USA
Posts: 1,386
RE: Eastern Washington USFS forest plan revisions link
Here I go again..
view all ads
home | subscribe | forums | galleries | magazine | travel guide | sled garage | links
July 12, 2004
Pat Barclay: We Shouldn't Lock Up Public Lands Just To Benefit A Few
Pat Barclay
(ED—This editorial by Pat Barclay appeared in the Idaho Statesman July 8, 2004.)
Three times in three weeks, The Statesman printed articles about the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), manufacturers of outdoor equipment, supporting the Clinton Roadless Rule.
This association [OIA] wants to declare these areas off limits to anyone except people who purchase their products—hiking boots, camping gear, etc.
Modifications proposed by the Bush administration might "negatively impact our citizens' 'outdoor experience' and ultimately our industry's financial health," the Outdoor Industry Association said.
For perspective: Idaho [already] has more than 4 million acres of existing wilderness.
If you lined them up, they would be two-thirds of the length of a football field wide—and stretch 6.4 times around the earth.
In addition, Idaho has more than twice that number of acres in "roadless" areas.
So if you set out to hike through all these "roadless" acres, you would have to walk around the world 13 times.
The Clinton proposal was controversial for two reasons: the definition of "roads" and the lack of adequate information under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Clinton-era Forest Service defined a road as something on which you could run a two-wheel drive sedan.
Those who have traveled the backcountry of Idaho know that many of these roads are used by four-wheel drive vehicles and ATVs.
These roads access favorite spots to hunt, fish and watch wildlife for people of all ages—and abilities.
Under NEPA, the agency is required to hold hearings to get input before framing a set of alternatives.
At the scoping meetings, people were asked to make substantive comments—on an alternative that was already decided.
However, the agency did not provide detailed maps of the areas.
It was difficult to provide substantive comment when given a map that showed blobs with no detail.
The Payette Forest provided a more detailed map, which showed some roads.
Other existing roads were not shown or were marked as trails.
The original proposal aimed to protect "roadless" areas from road construction and reconstruction, commercial and non-commercial logging, mining and off-road motorized recreation vehicles.
How can you have road reconstruction in an area with no roads?
The original proposal also banned the use of ATVs and snowmobiles.
The OIA now supports the use of ATVs in these areas.
The Forest Service has declared unmanaged motorized recreation as a major threat to national forests.
The chief told forests to force motorized users to stick to roads and trails.
So for ATVs to operate in these roadless areas, roads or trails would need to be built or existing roads and trails would need to be used.
Once again we have "roadless" areas with roads.
There are several lawsuits pending over some of these issues.
We sympathize with people's love of our forests.
Recreation on public land is a big part of our quality of life.
Must we lock people out because they do not have the time or physical conditioning to hike the lands?
During the ... debate over Idaho wilderness [in the 1980s], studies showed that only 6 percent of the people who used the national forests in Idaho actually entered wilderness areas.
The OIA seems to make the assumption that everyone who buys its members' products intends to use them in roadless areas.
That's hard to believe, since Nike and Adidas manufacture jogging and walking shoes and hiking boots.
And not every fishing pole is purchased by someone who is planning a wilderness trip.
Having time to pursue recreation is part of our culture because people earn enough to provide the basics and have some left to purchase the products of OIA members.
It's interesting to note, however, that many outdoor companies have moved their manufacturing overseas.
Now they want to manage 9.2 million acres of national forest lands to benefit some of their customers.
Does the $18 billion spent on their products include just the sales of backpacking supplies or does it include running, walking and aerobic shoes? Perhaps a focus on facts and balance would provide better management of public lands than litigation—and locking land away from some people—in favor of others.
Pat Barclay is the executive director of the Idaho Council on Industry and the Environment (ICIE), a 501(c)3 non-profit group that focuses on facts and science on environmental issues.
For more information contact The Idaho Council on Industry and the Environment (208) 336-8508 or http://www.icie.org/
Snowmobile News
........
view all ads
home | subscribe | forums | galleries | magazine | travel guide | sled garage | links
July 12, 2004
Pat Barclay: We Shouldn't Lock Up Public Lands Just To Benefit A Few
Pat Barclay
(ED—This editorial by Pat Barclay appeared in the Idaho Statesman July 8, 2004.)
Three times in three weeks, The Statesman printed articles about the Outdoor Industry Association (OIA), manufacturers of outdoor equipment, supporting the Clinton Roadless Rule.
This association [OIA] wants to declare these areas off limits to anyone except people who purchase their products—hiking boots, camping gear, etc.
Modifications proposed by the Bush administration might "negatively impact our citizens' 'outdoor experience' and ultimately our industry's financial health," the Outdoor Industry Association said.
For perspective: Idaho [already] has more than 4 million acres of existing wilderness.
If you lined them up, they would be two-thirds of the length of a football field wide—and stretch 6.4 times around the earth.
In addition, Idaho has more than twice that number of acres in "roadless" areas.
So if you set out to hike through all these "roadless" acres, you would have to walk around the world 13 times.
The Clinton proposal was controversial for two reasons: the definition of "roads" and the lack of adequate information under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The Clinton-era Forest Service defined a road as something on which you could run a two-wheel drive sedan.
Those who have traveled the backcountry of Idaho know that many of these roads are used by four-wheel drive vehicles and ATVs.
These roads access favorite spots to hunt, fish and watch wildlife for people of all ages—and abilities.
Under NEPA, the agency is required to hold hearings to get input before framing a set of alternatives.
At the scoping meetings, people were asked to make substantive comments—on an alternative that was already decided.
However, the agency did not provide detailed maps of the areas.
It was difficult to provide substantive comment when given a map that showed blobs with no detail.
The Payette Forest provided a more detailed map, which showed some roads.
Other existing roads were not shown or were marked as trails.
The original proposal aimed to protect "roadless" areas from road construction and reconstruction, commercial and non-commercial logging, mining and off-road motorized recreation vehicles.
How can you have road reconstruction in an area with no roads?
The original proposal also banned the use of ATVs and snowmobiles.
The OIA now supports the use of ATVs in these areas.
The Forest Service has declared unmanaged motorized recreation as a major threat to national forests.
The chief told forests to force motorized users to stick to roads and trails.
So for ATVs to operate in these roadless areas, roads or trails would need to be built or existing roads and trails would need to be used.
Once again we have "roadless" areas with roads.
There are several lawsuits pending over some of these issues.
We sympathize with people's love of our forests.
Recreation on public land is a big part of our quality of life.
Must we lock people out because they do not have the time or physical conditioning to hike the lands?
During the ... debate over Idaho wilderness [in the 1980s], studies showed that only 6 percent of the people who used the national forests in Idaho actually entered wilderness areas.
The OIA seems to make the assumption that everyone who buys its members' products intends to use them in roadless areas.
That's hard to believe, since Nike and Adidas manufacture jogging and walking shoes and hiking boots.
And not every fishing pole is purchased by someone who is planning a wilderness trip.
Having time to pursue recreation is part of our culture because people earn enough to provide the basics and have some left to purchase the products of OIA members.
It's interesting to note, however, that many outdoor companies have moved their manufacturing overseas.
Now they want to manage 9.2 million acres of national forest lands to benefit some of their customers.
Does the $18 billion spent on their products include just the sales of backpacking supplies or does it include running, walking and aerobic shoes? Perhaps a focus on facts and balance would provide better management of public lands than litigation—and locking land away from some people—in favor of others.
Pat Barclay is the executive director of the Idaho Council on Industry and the Environment (ICIE), a 501(c)3 non-profit group that focuses on facts and science on environmental issues.
For more information contact The Idaho Council on Industry and the Environment (208) 336-8508 or http://www.icie.org/
Snowmobile News
........