Roadless Initiative in Idaho- 1/2 of FS land!

Steamboat-RN said:

I could use a little clarification on one item. It talks about existing routes and trails. The general thought around here is that means marked or designated trails. Are unmarked trails subject to closure? Do they have to have a USFS designation to be valid?

Click to expand...

absolutely correct. All unmarked trails will be closed. steamboat, are you a member of thumpertalk.com? This was a big issue on there awhile back. All trails need to be submitted to the USFS and be designated/registered to not be "closed".

This subject scares the hell out of me. I bought property in idaho and moving my family there in a year. We are moving for the recreational activities. I have property in the u.p. of michigan and back up to the hiawatha national forest. We use to be able to ride all the forest service roads but know they notified residents that all roads are closed unless posted open (for orv's). You can drive a truck,car,bulldozer,skidder down the road but not an orv. This has already hurt the local businesses. I called the ranger office in regards to this and they said that this policy is national, all roads closed to orv unless posted open. They have printed maps for riders but the roads open make no sense, some towns can't legally be accessed. I would like to get involved with those working with the Panhandle National Forest. If something isn't done we WILL lose access, don't let anone tell you otherwise. No offense but I have read steamboatRN post on other threads and he/she sounds like a treehugger.

SteamboatRN, i apologize, its not you I'm thinking of, but I do disagree with you on civil disobedience. Thats how this country began. Public land is just that, public, land of many uses, not single use. I agree with crossing fences and going around gates in certain situations. If more people grew balls we could change the rules.

phatty said:

absolutely correct. All unmarked trails will be closed. steamboat, are you a member of thumpertalk.com? This was a big issue on there awhile back. All trails need to be submitted to the USFS and be designated/registered to not be "closed".

Click to expand...

Yes. Thumpin-RN. Haven't been on there for a while. Just bought a 300XCW smoker so I might have to change that.
I'll do a search there to get that point of view.
So who does the submission and registering? How do we prove that a trail was registered correctly? It would take someone a long time to do that for an area like Sand Wash in N.W. CO.

I've been called a lot of things but I doubt that I will ever be confused for a tree hugger!
I do try to see both sides. Don't have to agree with them.

flatlander dave said:

SteamboatRN, i apologize, its not you I'm thinking of, but I do disagree with you on civil disobedience. Thats how this country began. Public land is just that, public, land of many uses, not single use. I agree with crossing fences and going around gates in certain situations. If more people grew balls we could change the rules.

Click to expand...

That disobedience was about taxation and the loss of rights pertaining to personal properties. I don't think the founding fathers were talking about our rights to snowmobile.
I really hate to use one of the greenies arguments but it does have some merit.
What if my hobby was driving bulldozers and making dams? Should I be able to do that on public land? Should I be able to harvest trees from public land?
Extreme yes, but the point is valid. Where do we draw the line?
If the blatant disregard for laws was a resonable way to change laws, we would all be able to light up a joint and pop a couple of beers after riding in the wilderness. Before we drove home without wearing our seatbelts.

HOWEVER, it was mass protests that ended the Viet Nam war, ended (well sort of ended) racial discrimination, and repealed helmet laws in many states. (I personally think that was dumb)
The governments take on it is that they have been entrusted with "protecting" public land for the greater public good. Whatever THAT is.

Just a few thoughts. Don't shoot.

Steamboat-RN, I believe the phrase you need to answer your question is "responsible historical usage".

If the "public" has demonstrated responsible historical usage, you have claim and rights to continue exercising your due rightful activity, unless resource depletion or damage or usage changes significantly enough to invalidate prior usage by modification of your historical activity.

The problem arises when parties differ on what is "responsible". Also what constitutes damage. A reasonable argument can be made in many places that the act of walking off trail causes damage. In other places a bulldozer would have minimal lasting damage. The greenies love to site wildlife disturbance as damage.
Heaven forbid that we scare some rare insect or keep the gophers from copulating.