USFS Meetings Re: OSV Stanislaus
- Thread starter Murph
- Start date
Oct 8 Quincy meeting , 5-7 pm Fairgrounds Mineral building
Oct 14, Cromberg meeting 5-7pm Chalet View Lodge Conference Room
Oct 15 Oroville meeting 5-7pm, Feather River Ranger Office
http://www.fs.usda.g.../?project=47124
Oct 14, Cromberg meeting 5-7pm Chalet View Lodge Conference Room
Oct 15 Oroville meeting 5-7pm, Feather River Ranger Office
http://www.fs.usda.g.../?project=47124
Last edited:
TAHOE AREA RIDERS... LETS KEEP OR INTERESTS REPRESENTED
Murph... Could you take a moment to let us know "whats on the table" for these meetings... in real terms...
Thanks for keeping us up to date on these important issues!!
Murph... Could you take a moment to let us know "whats on the table" for these meetings... in real terms...
Thanks for keeping us up to date on these important issues!!
opcorn: Break it down! i'd love to help but need more info on this issue.
Extremely small turnout. So small USFS said they would have a fourth meeting (another one inQuincy). All pro snowmobiler at the meeting.
Sheriff was there and also pro snowmobiler and "suggested" USFS implement reasonable, enforceable, new rules, that don't create animosity between user groups that doesn't currently exist.
I asked why there was another 4,000 acres of planned closure? Others asked why, of all the acres of Plumas, they chose the lakes basin as a closure area-- seeing as how it is the most popular riding area.
My concern, and I asked USFS, is why there were no non-motorized advocates at the meeting if it was so important that they close more area.
I asked Dave Wood what they knew that we didn't. He didn't have a response.
Again, just like in the past, our riding areas are under attack and we need to post to the comment section before it expires OCT 29.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47124
I also suggest we take another tact with our snowmobiling community. It appears after years of inaction/ apathy that some of you need a SERIOUS kick in the *** to get involved. I mean no disrespect to those that are active I know there are a lot on here.
Even a comment as simple as, "I ride snowmobiles in the Plumas Forest and I do not support any additional OSV prohibitions." ,helps. Express your love of the sport, getting outdoors, exercise, family time, etc. Be respectful, DO NOT RANT (do that here), our adversaries are well versed in USFS policy making and use it to their advantage, our adversaries describe us as "uneducated, resource damaging rednecks" DO NOT PLAY into the stereotype by sending in foul mouthed comments that will be censored. Last year some of you may remember my Tahoe NF comments were censored after a non-motorized advocate took offense to my using his comment as an example of non scientific bias. Keep it clean, professional, respectful-- come here to rant.
If you can't be bothered to click the link and make a pro snowmobile comment to USFS---F//CK YOU. I'm not sorry if that offends some of you.
If you can't support our cause, don't ask me for tools, snow reports, or a riding buddy. I propose we publicly shame each other on here until we all comment.
Sheriff was there and also pro snowmobiler and "suggested" USFS implement reasonable, enforceable, new rules, that don't create animosity between user groups that doesn't currently exist.
I asked why there was another 4,000 acres of planned closure? Others asked why, of all the acres of Plumas, they chose the lakes basin as a closure area-- seeing as how it is the most popular riding area.
My concern, and I asked USFS, is why there were no non-motorized advocates at the meeting if it was so important that they close more area.
I asked Dave Wood what they knew that we didn't. He didn't have a response.
Again, just like in the past, our riding areas are under attack and we need to post to the comment section before it expires OCT 29.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47124
I also suggest we take another tact with our snowmobiling community. It appears after years of inaction/ apathy that some of you need a SERIOUS kick in the *** to get involved. I mean no disrespect to those that are active I know there are a lot on here.
Even a comment as simple as, "I ride snowmobiles in the Plumas Forest and I do not support any additional OSV prohibitions." ,helps. Express your love of the sport, getting outdoors, exercise, family time, etc. Be respectful, DO NOT RANT (do that here), our adversaries are well versed in USFS policy making and use it to their advantage, our adversaries describe us as "uneducated, resource damaging rednecks" DO NOT PLAY into the stereotype by sending in foul mouthed comments that will be censored. Last year some of you may remember my Tahoe NF comments were censored after a non-motorized advocate took offense to my using his comment as an example of non scientific bias. Keep it clean, professional, respectful-- come here to rant.
If you can't be bothered to click the link and make a pro snowmobile comment to USFS---F//CK YOU. I'm not sorry if that offends some of you.
If you can't support our cause, don't ask me for tools, snow reports, or a riding buddy. I propose we publicly shame each other on here until we all comment.
Last edited by a moderator:
bad link Murph. Could you have a look at it?
"http://www.fs.usda.g./?project=47124"
"http://www.fs.usda.g./?project=47124"
Nevermind... I fixed the links above... Google to the rescue!
Here is the link to for web comment submission.
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=47124
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=47124
H
Just left a comment.Murph thank you for your efforts and bringing this to our attention
D
Some more details about what occurred at a PNF OSV meeting can be viewed here...http://www.sierraaccess.com/index.html.
The whole OSV planning thing is bad news for sledders.
12" minimum off trail depth thing sounds krappy too...will mean early closures if its enforced...some great spring rides in the high country have thinner approaches than that. I noticed they closed Mt Rose early last year on that pretense.
definitely take time to leave a disapproving comment, I did.
Next meeting is in Quincy on Oct 27
The whole OSV planning thing is bad news for sledders.
12" minimum off trail depth thing sounds krappy too...will mean early closures if its enforced...some great spring rides in the high country have thinner approaches than that. I noticed they closed Mt Rose early last year on that pretense.
definitely take time to leave a disapproving comment, I did.
Next meeting is in Quincy on Oct 27
D
Link to a short Plumas News article about a PNF OSV meeting, gives some great insight to how the FS does business, even the Sheriff and County Super think theyre full of shizzl..
http://www.plumasnews.com/story/201...ccess-to-some-areas-of-local-forests/348.html
http://www.plumasnews.com/story/201...ccess-to-some-areas-of-local-forests/348.html
M
Comment left for the Feds.
I don't know much about the davis lake and thomson peak area outside of susanville but this in a nutshell kind of sums it up.
Seriously, how may ski tracks have you seen up in that jamison creek drainage? I do backcountry ski and that's just hard to get to without a sled.
Something to keep in mind though is that the the forest districts in CA are doing this because they have to (the planning at least, not the closures). The plumas isn't exactly the LTBMU (the lake tahoe basin management unit) that oversees the tahoe basin. They don't have a whole lot of money or staffing. They're just reacting to what they're told. And someone on skis has told them this area should be non motorized. It may be one person, it may be five. But anyone who's been into that drainage knows it's not hundreds of skiers. It just doesn't happen.
But that's why it's important to comment on the proposal. Make yourself heard because someone else who wants to close it obviously has. The forest service isn't necessarily your enemy. They're a reactive response most of the time. Unfortunately in this case, it's a forced reaction to a lawsuit.
This seems to be their plan in this whole region. There was a great video i need to find it. It basically explained how the forest service essentially and systematically shut all access points that surround large chucks of land designated for motorized vehicles. basically choking these areas off. if you look on a map you can see large areas which allow motorized vehicles but there is no physical way you can get to them because every access point has been closed to motor vehicles by closing all the small chunks of land that surround large open areas they essentially can close huge areas while still making it appear they are still leaving areas open
Sierra City turnout pretty good. Again, seemed to be all snowmobilers.
USFS Dave Wood and Daniel Lovato continue their tap dancing. Again, I asked them why there is a proposed closure at Lakes Basin when the Settlement that started all this states specifically that no new closures were "required" and that the only requirement was an environmental impact study. I read from the settlement directly when asking this question, and then asked them why they are looking to create user conflict where none exists in the lakes basin. Again, no answer.
They stated that a "group of snowmobilers" was part of the drafting process, same as a group of non motorized was part of the drafting process (the reason the lakes basin closure is on the proposed action)-- when pressed as to who this group of snowmobilers were-- no answer.
The comment period ends Nov 13. Make a comment right now. You need to make a comment before the period closes so that you have "standing" with USFS. If you do not have standing, you lose your ability to challenge approved Proposed Actions for alternatives. Make a comment.
USFS Dave Wood and Daniel Lovato continue their tap dancing. Again, I asked them why there is a proposed closure at Lakes Basin when the Settlement that started all this states specifically that no new closures were "required" and that the only requirement was an environmental impact study. I read from the settlement directly when asking this question, and then asked them why they are looking to create user conflict where none exists in the lakes basin. Again, no answer.
They stated that a "group of snowmobilers" was part of the drafting process, same as a group of non motorized was part of the drafting process (the reason the lakes basin closure is on the proposed action)-- when pressed as to who this group of snowmobilers were-- no answer.
The comment period ends Nov 13. Make a comment right now. You need to make a comment before the period closes so that you have "standing" with USFS. If you do not have standing, you lose your ability to challenge approved Proposed Actions for alternatives. Make a comment.
Similar threads
