Rising Sun Member Forums  

Go Back   Rising Sun Member Forums > Toyota 4x4 > Land Use

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 07-10-2007, 08:56 AM
Red_Chili's Avatar
Red_Chili Red_Chili is offline
Hard Core 4+
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Littleton CO
Posts: 8,409
Default Roadless designation and motorized use

From Kolly-for-nia, but applies nationwide. Some USFS personnel (and green groups) are misinformed about Roadless designation:
_________________________________________________
BRC CALIFORNIA LAND USE ADVISORY IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ALL OHV USERS PARTICIPATING IN THE ROUTE DESIGNATION PROCESS
PLEASE FORWARD AS NEEDED
Dear BRC Action Alert Subscribers in California,
Anti-recreation activists in California have long pushed State and Federal agencies to manage Inventoried Roadless Areas as "non-motorized." At recent meetings where BRC members and staff were in attendance, several of these activists have suggested that the 2001 Clinton Roadless Rule actually precludes all active management, such as trail maintenance, of OHV use in Roadless Areas.
We have come to expect this sort of thing from California's brand of anti-recreation extremist groups. However, BRC is much more concerned about reports of U.S. Forest Service personnel in opposition to proposed route maintenance in certain Roadless Areas. While we have not been able to verify or confirm the accuracy of these reports, we thought it important to issue a Land Use Advisory to all of our members in California and other states.
The 2001 Roadless Rule (a.k.a. Clinton Roadless Rule) DOES NOT prohibit or even discourage Off Highway Vehicle use, or prohibit the management, maintenance, mapping or marking of OHV systems in Inventoried Roadless Areas in any way whatsoever. The text of the "Clinton Roadless Rule" clearly allows for vehicle travel along classified roads and trails designated for vehicle use. 36 C.F.R. 294.11 & 12 (2001) (repealed).
Indeed, some of the very same anti-recreation groups who are pushing to close Roadless Areas to motors have actually made the correct interpretation of the Clinton Rule in legal papers they have filed, stating:
"the [2001 or Clinton] Roadless Rule, even if reinstated, would pose no threat to these groups' [specifically, Cal4WD, UFWDA, ACSA and BlueRibbon] interests in off-road vehicle recreation. The rule does not prohibit off-road motorized travel in inventoried roadless areas of the National Forest System, nor does it close a single trail used by off-road vehicle enthusiasts."
This reference was made in a brief opposing OHV groups' intervention into one of the many ongoing roadless cases. These same papers further clarify that;
"even if the [2001 or Clinton] Roadless Rule is reinstated by this [ND Cal] Court as plaintiffs request, it will not prohibit a single person's off-road vehicle use or close a single off-road vehicle trail as alleged by the Off-Road Vehicle Groups' declarants." Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
BRC has made this document (Brief in Opposition to Intervention by The Wilderness Society et al (Doc. No. 79, filed March 7, 2006) in Case No CV-05-3508 (ND Cal)) available for your use and reference: http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PL/IV_response_in_op_%203-7-06.pdf
If you are participating in Travel Management planning and any Forest Service staff, contractor, employee or representative of any State agency suggests that the Clinton Roadless rule would preclude management or designation of OHV use in Roadless Areas, please immediately contact BRC at the number below.
If you are attending any of the public meetings scheduled in the next few months, and any staff or volunteer of any anti-recreation group suggests the Clinton Roadless Rule prohibits managing OHV use in Roadless Areas, please feel free to refer them to the above-cited papers filed by the Wilderness Society and dozens of other groups in the Roadless litigation.
To learn more about the ongoing Travel Management process in California or other states, visit BRC's public lands webpage at: http://www.sharetrails.org/public_lands/. To receive updates and notices of public meetings, subscribe to BRC's Action Alert list: http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/.
Ric Foster,
Public Lands Dept. Manager
208-237-1008 ext 107

PS:
Please contact the BlueRibbon Office if you would like to receive a PDF file containing the entire copy of these papers, which include further amplification and additional citations to authority on these points and correct interpretation of the 2001 Roadless Rule.
__________________
-Bill Morgan
Heb Dduw, heb ddim; Duw a digon
Abnormally aspirated
KDěRCH
Bio Page
I'm that gun-totin', farm-raised, evangelical, pro-environment, OHV ridin'/drivin', Southern civil rights pro-labor Liberal yo' momma told you couldn't possibly exist.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-10-2007, 07:27 PM
Beater's Avatar
Beater Beater is offline
Hard Core 4+
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: denver
Posts: 2,781
Default

you know - this is one of the most miss understood articles or acts of all time.

All it basically says is - hey, you can't build new roads. Use existing ones, but don't build new.

politics are sooooo overrated


j
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.