More road closures? (1 Viewer)

[LandCruiserPhil]

More road closures??

Maybe one of the TRAL guys can clarify this...

Arizona Senate passes HB 2551

May 22, 2013



PHOENIX - The Arizona Senate on May 21 voted to pass House Bill 2551, a bill that clarifies state authority in how it will or won't enforce federal Travel Management Rules regarding off-highway vehicle use on U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands.

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Chester Crandell (R-Heber) and Rep. David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista), passed by a 19-10 vote and will next be transmitted to Gov. Brewer for her consideration. HB 2551 previously passed the Arizona House on May 14 by a 34-25 vote.

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted on March 20 to support HB 2551, but made its support contingent on adoption of amended language that would address the commission's concerns about unintended limitations on officers' ability to enforce resource damage laws or road closures for public safety purposes, such as during forest fires. Subsequent amendments addressed the commission's concerns.

The bill permits Game and Fish officers to enforce laws related to habitat damage and other duties important to the department's mission, while giving officers discretion in enforcing federal travel management rules that are lower priority or that might impede achieving wildlife management objectives.

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission has expressed long-standing concerns that the new forest Travel Management Rules exceed science-based protection of habitat, put undue constraints on reasonable public access, are inconsistent across the different forests and therefore confusing to outdoor recreationists, and impede the commission's and department's ability to meet wildlife management objectives.

 

[inkpot]

I don't think this one is about closing more trails. It's about NOT requiring the AGF officers to enforce the federally mandated Travel Management rules. The AGF officers are by far the largest group of law inforement officers in the boonies, and by inter-agency contract ( and by some laws) they are required to be responsible for enforcing motorized offhighway travel rules and laws. Most of the AGF officers that I have chatted with do NOT want it to be mandantory that they be traffic cops. Their words. It should be optional, based on their discresion, not mandantory as the current rules and policies dictate. They feel their priority should be the AGF rules. Unless there are mission and staffing changes in other agencies, like Forest, BLMl, County Sherriffs dept, the AGF officers are the vast majority of the LEOs in the field. The Mesa Ranger District of the Tonto has a grand total of ONE lone LEO!!! That's one damn busy cop!

On the other hand, AGF has been know to close a good trail occasionally. The gate on the Martinez trail is there mostly doe to them They requested that BLM close the trail for the good of the critters in the area, and they actually contracted with BLM to build/install the gate. John

 

[fumann]

I don't think this one is about closing more trails. It's about NOT requiring the AGF officers to enforce the federally mandated Travel Management rules. The AGF officers are by far the largest group of law inforement officers in the boonies, and by inter-agency contract ( and by some laws) they are required to be responsible for enforcing motorized offhighway travel rules and laws. Most of the AGF officers that I have chatted with do NOT want it to be mandantory that they be traffic cops. Their words. It should be optional, based on their discresion, not mandantory as the current rules and policies dictate. They feel their priority should be the AGF rules. Unless there are mission and staffing changes in other agencies, like Forest, BLMl, County Sherriffs dept, the AGF officers are the vast majority of the LEOs in the field. The Mesa Ranger District of the Tonto has a grand total of ONE lone LEO!!! That's one damn busy cop! .....

Good summary John!

 

[BrotherRob]

Considering AZ politiwackos persistant efforts to secede from the union, this sounds like another attempt to tell the feds to fxxx off. If anything, that would mean more trails open.

 

[Tools R Us]

The inter agency squabble level seems to be ramping up, it's not just us that are disappointed with some of the federal plans. Lots of local (state, county, city) agencies are not happy with being told by the feds how they can use "their" local lands. I would expect to see more of this in the future, could get interesting?

 

[azTony]

The struggle within sounds like it could be promising!

 

[inkpot]

If thats the case, then its good news?

Kinda!?!? While the Federal Travel Management Plans do keep a number of trails open, they also close some and declare other trails as Administrative Use Only.Those AUO trails are still there, but they are only to be used by Land Management Staff, Law Enforement, Fire Fighters, and grazing/mining permit holders. It is not leagal for hunters, fishermen, and the general public to use these trails. AzGF staff feel that it should be legal for hunters and fishermen to be able to continue traveling on many of these trails that have been open for many years. AzGF does not think their staff should be responsible for enforcing federal laws that the state does not necessarily agree with.

Public Land Access is a huge anc complicated subject. If you want to enjoy maximum access, then you should be aware of and involved in the politics. John