Land Use Issues Discussion

[LDowney]

Heather,
Making the attempt is worth while. I do have a couple of thoughts/questions in regard to the EI report. The EI report for Rich Mountain was a blatantly skewed document. For example, it cited numerous endangered species as needing this area, but never cited any data indicating these species were located any where in the area (just potentially in the south east). Additionally, the cost data was very heavily 'cooked' to support the close options even when task descriptions in the EI report clearly indicated more work was required for implementing the closing options. With these points in mind, does the FS have a legal obligation to prepare an accurate and unbiased EI report? If we can catch them releasing a report that does not meet these obligations, can they be made accountable for their actions plus sent back to the 'drawing boards' to develop a new report & plan?

A side question on this general topic; repeated traversing of unprepared surfaces by animals or vehicles will kill the vegitation and break up the soil. The closures and very limited number of off road areas generates temendous traffic concentrations in these off road areas. Therefore, the current conservation approach is actually directly leading to increased probablibity of and conditions likely for erosion. This indicates that the current approach is flawed because it directly leads to erosion. A correcting solution would be to increase the number of off road areas such that the traffic density can be reduced to a non-risk level. Additionally if enough areas could be added, trails could be rotated through usage like crop rotation to increase the benefit of tread lightly recreation. There are analytical methods available for quantifying similar situations; specifically I have used methods for quantifying the effects of aircraft operating on un-improved fields that can generate estimates for number of passes for certain sized aircraft without damage to the field. Could similar data be generated to show that the best approach for the environment is to increase the number of off road trails/areas?

Finally, please accept my apology for posting to this page since I am not a member of the Ga Cruisers.

 

[CandyPants]

Larry brings up some good questions in his post from the Anderson Creek Thread. I thought it would be worth it to start a thread that answers some questions that people may have about what the FS can and can't do. How their processes are supposed to work, etc.

There are a lot of things going on in the land use arena these days. Anderson Creek's EA is due out soon, and Tellico is on the edge of a lawsuit. I created this thread to discuss land use issues that effect our club and our brethern in the SE.

 

[GXO]

Larry, it doesn't matter if you are GC, UC, TLCA, etc. You have been there for Tellico and the like for years with your help in clean ups, etc. That means anything you have to say should never fall on deaf ears.

The logical conclusion to your statements is that there simply should not be offroad traffic...however...that only applies to public lands. The REAL issue is what happens to that traffic when it is restricted (as you have said). It doesn't just concentrate to other public use areas...it trickles to private land, to unmanaged land, to virgin lands that do not have the resources of the forest services and the like to manage them.

My fear is that in trying to fight a "public menace" versus trying to work with those that they see as such, the people seeking public trail closure open the door to private land use for the same purpose, with none of the education, oversight, or funding to offset any impacts that may be realized.

My suggested solution is the same...maintain public lands, have fees associated, and encourage responsible usage. It is just that simple. Sweeping the problem under the rug of being non-public makes the problem worse overall for everyone.

 

[LDowney]

Dan,
You hit on a follow-up point I was going to make, but from a different perspective. Whatever data the off-road community provides to demonstrate and justify expanding the off-road trail systems, can be mis-used for the opposite position. As we know, we will not get a fair public hearing on this discussion. The news media will not accept this information because their agenda is aligned with green activists. The green activist organizations are tremendously well funded and will diligently work to crush any efforts we make. Consequently, do we surrender or do we fight despite the odds and the challenges?

I personally feel that we have only one choice and that is fight back. This will require an integrated and comprehensive plan with the entire off-road community behind it. A few of the facets of this plan that are readily visible today are
1) Document the fact that additional off road trails are necessary to protect the environment (for example, reduce erosion and soil run off for the clean water act)
2) Out line the funding plan so the off road systems are self-sufficient budgetaryly (for example, fees from mandatory tread lightly training classes, annual passes [no day passes any where], annual off-road vehicle registration)
3) Education and control of the off-road community (for example, our plan for controlling the renegades that create the most blatant forest damage and set the public stereotypes for the community)
4) Unify the other segments of the out-door community (fisherman, hunters, mountain bikers, hikers, ...) that are either under direct attack today or will be next (such the mountain bikers & hikers) with a comprehensive plan that is compatible and helpful to multiple interests
5) Sell the plan to the public and political leadership

Returning to the points about the land that Dan made; public land is owned by us all and is not the exclusive domain of the green activists. Additionally, private land has the benefit of right of ownership. The approach and agenda of the green activist community is effectively ignoring the rights of portions of our society for the advantage of others. This is not what this nation is based on and we have rights too; we just have to fight for them and create the voice to be heard when the green activists and the news media are unwilling to allow us to be heard.

This is big grand talk from a divided community that complains about even paying the existing access fees to ORVs or will by-pass paying registration fees for fund raising events within the off road community (such as GSMTR). Right now I am doubtful that we (the off road community) has the strength of will and commitment to do what is required to have a fighting chance. However, I am unfamiliar with what the community is like anymore (I go off-roading once a year at GSMTR and pay my dues to TLCA & STLCA, buy a season pass to Tellico and watch Melissa's soccer games the other weekends which essentially makes me an outsider). So what is the level of commitment?

Thanks (my apology for stepping on the soap box for so long)
Larry