Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Plan would slash off-road vehicle use in national forest
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
jinx'sboy
Member
Member


Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 927 | TRs | Pics
Location: on a great circle route
jinx'sboy
Member
PostTue Jul 05, 2016 8:08 am 
WANative wrote:
Everybody sans a couple people I think missed the "issue". As of now, you can only operate street legal vehicles on Forest Service roads.
Incorrect. As of now most FS lands are open to motorized use, and always have been. Specific roads may or may not be legally open to some types of ATVS. The recent lawsuit on the Okanogan and Wenatchee NF over the designation of which ROADS are open to ATVs, as a result of the change in State Law, is a separate issue than whet the OP posted. Here are links to the 2005 Rule that requires all NFs to complete a "travel plan". http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/ http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf THAT is what the Oka-Wen NF is completing now, as are all Forests. That was referenced in the Yakima newspaper in the original post. Here's another story from the Wen. World last month: http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2016/jun/07/forest-service-unveils-new-plan-for-motorized-uses/ One of the main outcomes of the "Travel planning process" is that after it is complete and NEPA is done, then a National Forest WILL BE closed to motorized travel except on those routes which are designated open.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostTue Jul 05, 2016 8:16 am 
From the article, In spite of a change in state law allowing road use of the ATVs, the vehicles are still only allowed on Forest Service trails, many of which have to be reached by road. The use of the word "road" is still confusing. ATV's are allowed on certain USFS trails, but not not USFS roads.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
WANative
Member
PostTue Jul 05, 2016 8:26 am 
jinx'sboy wrote:
Incorrect. As of now most FS lands are open to motorized use, and always have been. Specific roads may or may not be legally open to some types of ATVS. The recent lawsuit on the Okanogan and Wenatchee NF over the designation of which ROADS are open to ATVs, as a result of the change in State Law, is a separate issue than whet the OP posted. Here are links to the 2005 Rule that requires all NFs to complete a "travel plan". http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/ http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/final.pdf THAT is what the Oka-Wen NF is completing now, as are all Forests. That was referenced in the Yakima newspaper in the original post. Here's another story from the Wen. World last month: http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2016/jun/07/forest-service-unveils-new-plan-for-motorized-uses/ One of the main outcomes of the "Travel planning process" is that after it is complete and NEPA is done, then a National Forest WILL BE closed to motorized travel except on those routes which are designated open.
Ah. Well, whatever works.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostTue Jul 05, 2016 8:33 am 
I suggest folks read the documents provided by the USFS; at minimum, the actual discussion of the various Alternatives. See that document here. See the content titled "Alternatives Considered in Detail." No one is taking away anyone's right to motorized use on the forest. Designating a motorized trail as "Open" does not mean "no motorized use." If a trail is not designated "Open," the ATV user need only locate one that is designated "open." Cross-country motorized use is the use that is being nixed.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostTue Jul 05, 2016 8:53 am 
Kim Brown wrote:
I suggest folks read the documents provided by the USFS; at minimum, the actual discussion of the various Alternatives. See that document here. See the content titled "Alternatives Considered in Detail." No one is taking away anyone's right to motorized use on the forest. Designating a motorized trail as "Open" does not mean "no motorized use." If a trail is not designated "Open," the ATV user need only locate one that is designated "open." Cross-country motorized use is the use that is being nixed.
I suggest you read the Preferred Alternative. Scroll down through the chapter to the end. Dispersed camping areas will be limited from what is available now. Whether ATV trail availability will be decreased could be researched more. I'm reading in both the EA chapter and the newspaper article that 350 miles of roads and trails will be open, but it does not mention what the current mileage is. Note that the 350 miles is for the entire Okanogan/Wenatchee forest, not just the Naches area. I have skimmed through most of the EA chapter you linked so may have missed that specific. However, the first part of the chapter is to show that the team addressed concerns of folks who wrote in about specific items. An example: Close all roads..... and then the reason that was not considered "out of the scope of the project". The final alternative has not been determined, but it usually is the preferred alternative, or in this case B. Maybe if it rains I'll look a bit closer at the NEPA document, but I find them so damn boring to read. A humorous point on the latter: A logger was laid up with a broken leg. He found that reading his forest's Forest Plan at bedtime put him to sleep quickly.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostTue Jul 05, 2016 9:50 am 
It may be boring, but it might eliminate the incorrect knee jerk responses that add even more ignorance to the management of our public lands, "ah! ah! we're being kicked out of the forest!" Which is actually not correct. Consider reading a bit about how the land is managed and is proposed to be managed. While we still may be incorrect in how we interpret parts of these alternatives, at least reading them will add intelligence to the discussion and not a waste of time, whereas willfully ignorant discussions are a waste of time. And plus, it's kinda necessary to actually read what the USFS is asking us to read, if we want to have a hand in managing the land. up.gif I include myself in the criticism as well. For easier reading, here is the complete Draft EA. Eliminates the click, click, click to check various alts and districts.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostTue Jul 05, 2016 10:51 am 
Regarding ATV's on Forest SYSTEM roads (roads leading to trail heads, etc.) as a result of ATV's now being street legal in Washington state - Opening some National Forest System roads to WATVs was added to the proposed action to address some of the Commissioners’ concerns. So though ATV's are not considered street legal federally, they propose to allow them on some System roads, which are different from motorized trails. Roads lead to motorized trails. Again, there is no plan to run motorized users off the forest: Alternatives proposed but not considered: (page 38 of this) document, the DraftEA 8. Allow motorized vehicles on paved surfaces only. This alternative was not considered further because it is inconsistent with Forest Plan direction to provide a variety of recreation experiences. This alternative would result in only 333 miles of road being open across over 4 million acres of land, severely limiting access for recreation by closing nearly 7,590 miles of road to all motorized use . It is also outside the scope of the purpose and need to prohibit motorized vehicles off the existing open road system and motorized trail network.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Jul 05, 2016 12:55 pm 
Kim wrote:
So though ATV's are not considered street legal federally, they propose to allow them on some System roads,
... am I reading that correctly? they are proposing to allow non street-legal vehicles on NFS road systems? (i.e., "quads"?) that sounds like a recipe for disaster - too many hot-doggers driving on NFS roads.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostTue Jul 05, 2016 1:37 pm 
No. I was wrong. I forgot about the fairly recent legislation. ATV's are now street legal in Washington state and agencies can now consider allowing them. The proposed Alternative would spcifically address their allowance on System roads.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
tod701
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 144 | TRs | Pics
Location: Stanwood
tod701
Member
PostFri Jul 22, 2016 8:19 am 
The recent change to state law to allow road limited use of modified four wheeled ATV specifically excluded nonhighway roads. Since USFS roads are not funded by state fuel tax revenue they are all nonhighway roads so the change in law has zero impact. The USFS has alway had the option to allow or not allow ATV use on the roads they manage.

Tod
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
tod701
Member
Member


Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 144 | TRs | Pics
Location: Stanwood
tod701
Member
PostSat Jul 23, 2016 6:44 am 
jinx'sboy wrote:
As of now most FS lands are open to motorized use
The big picture is quite different. According to Washington State Trails Coalition findings from a few years ago, motorized use is prohibited on between 84 - 89 percent of the overall trail mileage in Washington State.

Tod
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSat Jul 23, 2016 7:16 am 
Ski wrote:
Kim wrote:
So though ATV's are not considered street legal federally, they propose to allow them on some System roads,
... am I reading that correctly? they are proposing to allow non street-legal vehicles on NFS road systems? (i.e., "quads"?) that sounds like a recipe for disaster - too many hot-doggers driving on NFS roads.
Okanogan County tried. They did not do a proper study so it is not allowed now. Another county commissioner goof. I think they may try again and go through all of the hoops this time. Where I lived in Wisconsin during my exile, ATVs and snowmobiles were allowed on designated streets in towns. If you didn't like it, you didn't live on one of those routes. They were also allowed on certain township (another layer of govt. smaller than county) roads, and FS roads and trails. It was not the end of the world and folks seemed to get along nicely. There were a couple of deaths each year, usually alcohol involved, when they slammed into a tree or rolled. Likewise, there were cross country ski designated areas, which were very well taken care of. The one that I went to even had a "chalet" available with two big wood stoves inside to warm up by.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSat Jul 23, 2016 10:02 am 
^ yeah, well... people drive their snowmobiles into downtown Riggins, Idaho, too. but this side of the hill ain't Riggins or Wisconsin. common sense would dictate that different rules might be appropriate.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 11272 | TRs | Pics
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostSat Jul 23, 2016 3:29 pm 
Ski wrote:
^ yeah, well... people drive their snowmobiles into downtown Riggins, Idaho, too. but this side of the hill ain't Riggins or Wisconsin. common sense would dictate that different rules might be appropriate.
Why? Population density? Weather? Conconully is a snowmobile town. That's the only Warshington town I can think of that is.

What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostSun Jul 24, 2016 2:01 pm 
^ I have absolutely no idea, tw. All I can tell you is that I found a red line on a map that went from Boise up toward Pullman, Washington and followed it one day in a rental car. Left Boise with a full tank of fuel. By the time I got up to the snow line the fuel gauge on the dashboard told me I was past the point of being able to turn around, so I kept going, which took me right into beautiful downtown Riggins. Snowmobiles, big jacked-up 4x4's, and home-made skimobile contraptions (one built out of a small camp trailer like yours) were all up and down the main drag - and silly me driving a damn Taurus up through that crap. It was an interesting, if not worrying, experience. Not nearly as scary as the trip to Kalispell in a new Grand Am from Enterprise where I found the "shortcut" up over the mountains that turned into a one-lane dirt 4x4 trail, but I did get a lot of "high fives" from the guys up there with the 6-inch lift kits and 30-inch tires! up.gif

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Plan would slash off-road vehicle use in national forest
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum