Form letter to copy paste sign and email:
Dear USDA Forest Service,
I'd like to comment on the July 7, 2004 USDA Forest Service Draft Policy on
Off-Highway Vehicle Use in National Forests and Grasslands (release no
FS-0418;
http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2004/releases/07/off-highway-vehicle.shtml<http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2004/releases/07/off-highway-vehicle.shtml> ). I
have a number of observations and comments:
1. It seems like we were just debating this issue a few years ago. At that
time, the public was overwhelmingly clear that we did not accept a "closed
unless open" policy in our national forests and grasslands. These lands
should be open for our enjoyment and this should not be debated.
2. The USDA Forest Service's job is to manage our forests and grasslands.
The current policy of having individual and inconsistent plans for each of
the 155 national forests and 21 grassland areas is not good management. So
I urge the Forest Service to develop consistent guidelines that apply to all
forests and grasslands. This is part of your job. However, creation of
such guidelines is a distinct issue from closing all the land unless you
declare it open. Indeed, adopting such an approach is not management at all
- it's an declaration that you are not willing to do your job. Management
is difficult; taking the easy way out does not work.
3. Having a "closed unless open" policy would limit individual use of the
forest too much. It is too radical of a change. The default action is to
close everything up and then the Forest Service would have to use it's
limited resources to figure out what areas should be open. That is a
difficult prospect. Instead, the USFS should keep the forests open for the
public. They should focus their efforts on those areas that need their
attention. These areas are easier to identify; it will take less USFS
effort. This is basic risk management and every business does it.
4. The definition of a "road", "trail" and "area" is ambiguous. Is an old
railroad grade a road, a trail or an area? Would it be open or closed?
Because I fear the USFS will take the easy way out, vast parts of the forest
will be declared areas and by definition, and these areas will be closed.
This will deny the public from some of the best OHV trails.
5. The USDA Forest Service definition of OHV in the draft policy is very
narrow. This is incorrect. The average Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) is an
OHV by today's standards. The sevenfold rise in visitors is partially due
to the large increase in SUVs being sold. The closes unless open policy
affects everyone - not just those listed in your draft policy.
6. I'm pleased to see that the USFS is trying to engage motorized sports
enthusiasts. We definitely want to contribute. Many of us support groups
like The Blue Ribbon Coalition and Tread Lightly! and we ask that you
strongly listen to their discussions on these topics.
7. The USDA FS admits that most of the users of the land are responsible.
Instead of closing all the lands for these users, the USDA FS should focus
their efforts on the "bad apples" and more overall education. In Oregon,
the State Forestry Department has done an excellent job working side-by-side
with OHV users in the Tillamook State Forest. A system of trails, annual
trail maintenance and clean-up activities, patrolling and enforcement and
vehicle licensing are all required. It's a system that meets the balance
required.
I strongly urge the USDA Forest Service to back away from the "closed
unless open" policy. This policy does not "enhance recreational
opportunities" at all.
Thank you for considering my comments.
