View Full Version : Deadline Today, 4/11 - San Juan travel management

04-11-2008, 11:31 AM
It is important to get your comments in!


Dear BRC Action Alert Subscriber,
The San Juan National Forest and San Juan District Office of the Bureau of Land Management has released a combined Draft Land Management Plan for public review and comment. The Draft Plan and other information is available for review on the web at: http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestPlan (http://www.sharetrails.org/alertlist/redirect.cfm?ID=3162&MID=976&LID=41).
A majority of this area is already set aside for the exclusive use of non-motorized recreationists. It contains vast areas already closed to motorized uses and a lot of area is already off limits to mountain bikes. These areas contain a lot of world-class exclusive hiking and cross-country skiing opportunities. It also includes the Lizard Head Wilderness area, the South San Juan Wilderness area and the Weminuche Wilderness area -- totaling nearly one half million acres.
Incredibly, the Forest Service and BLM want to further limit motorized and mountain bike uses!
The comment deadline is tomorrow April 11, 2008. This is your last chance to comment on the Draft Plan. Please take just a minute to send comments. We've made it insanely easy for you via a simple three step action item below.
As always, if you have any questions or need any help, please call.
Brian Hawthorne 208-237-1008 ext 102
Ric Foster 208-237-1008 ext 107
BlueRibbon Coalition Public Lands Department
PS: BRC wants to send a note of gratitude to our Colorado partners. In particular, the Colorado Snowmobile Association (CSA)(http://www.coloradosledcity.com/ (http://www.sharetrails.org/alertlist/redirect.cfm?ID=3163&MID=976&LID=41)), the San Juan Trail Riders (SJTR) (http://www.sanjuantrailriders.org/ (http://www.sharetrails.org/alertlist/redirect.cfm?ID=3164&MID=976&LID=41)) and the Western Slope 4-Wheelers (WS4W) (http://www.ws4w.com/ (http://www.sharetrails.org/alertlist/redirect.cfm?ID=3165&MID=976&LID=41)). All of these groups have been very involved in the process and have earned your membership.
Action Item: Submit Comments
Step 1:
Click on the following link http://ocs.fortlewis.edu/forestPlan/comments_07/comments.asp (http://www.sharetrails.org/alertlist/redirect.cfm?ID=3166&MID=976&LID=41), read over the introduction and click "Next."
Step 2:
Fill out the contact information and click the "Submit & Continue" button at the bottom of the form.
Step 3:
Read over the instructions, then copy and paste your comments into the box at the bottom of the page and then click the "Submit & Continue" button (see Suggested Comments below).
I object to the way the proposal tilts the management "balance" toward the more extreme preservationist philosophy. Most of the planning area is already set aside for non-motorized recreation. There is no need for further restrictions on motorized and mountain bike uses. Clearly, Alternative A does the best job of balancing the need to provide for recreational uses and to protect the environment.
Despite many comments asking for an alternative that, at the minimum, sustain the current motorized and mountain bike uses, all of the Alternatives developed by the agencies include drastic reductions. The agencies need to develop a true range of alternatives. This is a very serious problem in this planning process. I request that the agencies include at least one alternative that does not limit motorized and mountain bike use.
There is no rational connection between the facts on the ground and the proposed action. In other words, there is no valid reason to restrict motorized and mountain bike recreation as proposed by the agencies.
Your plan says that segregation of users is being asked for by the non-motorized community. But non-motorized users are not fully utilizing all of the existing areas that are now set aside for their exclusive use. Thus, comments received by the agencies may well be a "tactic" to achieve the objectives of several Wilderness advocacy groups, rather than a true indication of recreational conflict.
The agencies' own analysis indicates that motorized recreation is growing in popularity. Motorized use is a legitimate use of public lands and is now required to be managed by being limited to designated roads, trails and areas. Yet the agencies are proposing significant closures. The agencies have responded to the increase in motorized uses by proposing drastic reductions in that use. This is not logical.
'Separating uses' is a poor 'last resort' option since it is extremely polarizing and nearly always leads to long-term ill-will and decreased support for the agency in general. The San Juan Public Lands Center should be extremely cautious about enthusiastically embracing segregation - it wasn't good for this country in regards to race and certainly is not good public policy for land management

04-11-2008, 11:38 AM
I modified the comments to fit my wording, and left out some of the more incendiary language. I emphasized that closures result in increased environmental impact on remaining open areas, and that segregation of use is unreasonable where nonmotorized users are not fully utilizing the areas they already have - while OHV use is becoming more popular, yet more highly restricted to smaller areas.

04-11-2008, 12:27 PM

04-11-2008, 12:36 PM

04-11-2008, 12:58 PM
I'm in

04-11-2008, 03:33 PM

04-11-2008, 03:52 PM