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

Anything new on this Brian? Did you go to any of the meetings and if so what went on? Thanks. B

These people need to be absolutely innodated with letters and with people at the meetings to oppose this.
I'm sure that you already did, but to be on the safe side, I lobbed a link to this over to SAWS.

I'm now writing my letter as soon as post this up.
Please follow in like manor.

OK.

Here is the letter that I just wrote and sent to IDcomments@fsroadless.org
Poach it if you like, write a better one if you don't, but please write the letter and send it in.

To whom it may concern:

Please do not support the 07 Roadless Initiative for Idaho.
This initiative, as it stands will make 9.3 million acres of our public lands in Idaho alone non-motorized only.
That's 9.3 MILLION acres and approximately 50% of our forest service lands, also, it will effect even more as these lands are covering access points to some of the areas that would be "left open" and effectively close those areas down too.

As Idahoans, we recreate with our families on snowmobiles and ATV's with our families in these very lands in question.
This is one of the largest reasons that we live here, to enjoy these freedoms and to enjoy our public lands in this manor.
We want to be able to share these experiences with our families for generations to come.

By making these areas non-motorized, you are very effectively shutting down 3 major industries that help keep Idaho's economy alive.

It will totally kill the motorcycle, snowmobile, and ATV businesses and put literally thousands of tax paying Idahoans out of work, my self included as I own a snowmobile parts shop in Idaho. This is how I am able to support my family and also how I am able to pay my taxes that pay you.

It will destroy our tourist industry as thousands and thousands of people come to Idaho and spend their hard earned money to recreate in our public lands with their snowmobiles, motorcycles, and ATV's.

And third, it will cut our logging areas to .01% (that's 1, 100th of 1 percent) and totally kill the logging industry and also make it to where we can not even take care of these forest lands. These forest lands in question will, in fact, DIE.

To summarize, this 07 Roadless initiative will destroy our fragile Idaho economy, put thousands of Idahoans out of work, and kill our forests.
Please do not support this initiative.

Thank you for your time.

Darin Williams
Gravity Worx Racing
xxxx S. xxxx xxx (home address blocked out because SW is a public forum)
Boise, ID 83705
208-559-1689
www.gravityworxracing.com


EDIT:
I also put up a link to this in General as the land use area doesn't get so much traffic.
I'll put it up on snowmobile fanatics as well. They have just over 20K members and are getting a larger and ever growing Western member population over there too.


EDIT EDIT:
Here is the link to that:
http://www.snowmobilefanatics.com/forum/topic/83763/display.aspx

Here is a more generic, non-resident letter you can send.

To whom it may concern:

Please do not support the 07 Roadless Initiative for Idaho.

This initiative, as it stands, will make 9.3 million acres of public lands in Idaho NON-MOTORIZED ONLY.

That's 9.3 MILLION acres and approximately 50% of forest service lands. These lands are covering access points to some of the areas that would be "left open" and effectively close those areas down too.

As an avid snowmobiler, I recreate with my family on snowmobiles in these very lands in question. The only reason that I travel to Idaho is to enjoy these freedoms and to enjoy Idaho's public lands in this manor. I want to be able to share these experiences with my family for generations to come.

By making these areas non-motorized, you are very effectively shutting down3 major industries that help keep Idaho's economy alive: 1) It will totally kill the motorcycle, snowmobile, and ATV businesses and put literally thousands of tax paying Idahoans out of work. 2) It will destroy the tourist industry as thousands and thousands of people go to Idaho and spend their hard earned money to recreate in public lands with their snowmobiles, motorcycles, and ATV's. 3) It will cut the logging areas to .01%, and totally kill the logging industry and also make it to where industry cannot even take care of these forest lands properly. These forest lands in question will die.

To summarize, this 07 Roadless initiative will destroy the fragile Idaho economy, put thousands of Idahoans out of work, and kill the forests.

Please do not support this initiative.

Thank you for your time.

Tyler Soltvedt
** *** ***
Karlstad, MN 56732
218-***-****
www.xcriders.com

Do you know about this BRC alert on this from last July?
Though it says California, this alert was reissued nationwide.

+++++++
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_ 3-7-06.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
PSlease 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.

Yha, the Forest Service's main web page is here.

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/idaho.shtml

Hit the DEIS maps and scare the hell out of yourself.

Wildlands: is wilderness, defacto. 1.4 Million
Primitive: the wording is vague, but I'm sure motorized is not allowed,
think bicycle. 1.6 Million
Backcountry: we get some access 5.2 Million
General: shouldn't effect us.

That doesn't mean we get half, we would probably get half of half.
The documents are extremely vague. Some areas it says travel planning defines OHV use, some areas it talks about all the things that won't be allowed. Basically, this sucks.

The documents all refer to snowmobiling as "dispersed recreation" and claim that there will be no measurable change. But, it runs counter to what the rest of the documents says about areas being closed. Basically, BS.

I believe that this is the same proposed closure that Jim Rische was pushing through on the news about 2 weeks ago.
The map he showed will shut down Pilot's and that whole riding area, the riding areas around Brundage and West Mountain, Cat Creek would be done as would the Stanley area.
Basically every where we ride in southern Idaho, he wants to shut off.
The maps showed quite a bit more area north of these, but I'm not familliar with the riding areas up there enough to know what would be hit.

To quote Jim Rische:
"This won't be good for Idaho, It will be great for Idaho"

What an F...ing tool.
He needs to go away too.

Thanks for explaining these things and keeping us all posted.

How is closing it all off going to benefit anyone??? If you think about it it's a big slap in the face to the FOREST SERVICE,, basically these people are saying you, the Forest Service, are not capable of managing these lands for recreation and renewable resource harvesting, therefore since you, the Forest Service, cannot properly do your job, we'll take over and just shut it off..... No more revenue from recreation, fewer jobs, it's ok if a few local people and buisinesses go down the crapper,,, How can they call this action great, is it really for the greater good, or just to push their cult ideals on to the rest of us??????? Closing the doors is not the answer,,, Maybe the Forest Service needs to hire more intelligent people to prove they can manage this land, then maybe they wouldn't just say, " you're right, we'll just close it off, besides, we were'nt doing a very good job anyways..."

just my 2 cents....

Did a little social engineering. One of the people on the committee swears that travel regulations are still controlled by the local Forest Service Travel plan. This supposedly does not effect access rules. But, we already hear from the Payette NF, that they want areas closed because the people of Idaho want roadless areas. I also read that there has been a lot of criticisms of who was getting to write the final language of the rules. The greenies seem to be doing a lot of the "wording".

Talked to Rep. Bill Sali. He is under the impression that this will not effect recreational access. He supports the Roadless Initiative, unless it limits access. He supports more access. He has no information that suggests we will lose anything. So, if someone has proof, we need to get this info to him now. He has a local representative, guys name is Vince. Contact him and tell him, if you know anything more.

Basically, like was said earlier, this thing is so vague, it could literally mean anything.

Wade said:

like was said earlier, this thing is so vague, it could literally mean anything.

Click to expand...

That is a huge part of the problem.
With the wording being so vague, the greenies can pay their people to "interpit" it to say whatever they want.

Since Bill Sali supports recreational access, lets try to use that to our benefit.

I'm thinking we all send letters to Bill asking him to put in wording that specifically keeps our shared use recreational access open including motorized recreation in particular.

What do you guys think?
And how would we word that?

You might also send that to the Governor. This whole mess got started in that office.

This is just a draft copy, I came across: Basically, everyone is saying we won't be effected, but the vague language is already leading to interpretations by Forest Managers, and the ink isn't even dry. We need to fall in line, and let our representatives know that we agree with the ISSA's concerns. Write a letter all you Idaho peeps.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDAHO STATE SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION (ISSA)

Dear Team Leader:

I am writing on behalf of the Idaho State Snowmobile Association (ISSA) in response to the proposed rule (36 CFR Part 294) published in the Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 4 on Monday, January 7, 2008. This rule concerns management of roadless areas within National Forests in the State of Idaho. The comment period ends April 7, 2008 and these comments are submitted in a timely manner.

ISSA is a statewide organization representing approximately 4,000 people, including 41 clubs, individuals and many businesses from throughout Idaho. All of our members highly value the opportunity to ride snowmobiles on our national forests. They particularly enjoy riding Idaho’s beautiful roadless areas and have responsibly done so for as long as our sport has existed with little or no impact upon the lands where they ride.

We have little disagreement with the proposed regulations and appreciate the efforts of Idaho’s governors involved in this process to once and for all settle the roadless issues in our great state. We have one serious point of concern from the viewpoint of our sport and that relates more to what the rule doesn’t say rather than its proposed content.

We know with certainty from our discussions with the Governor and his staff that the rule is not intended to affect in any way the traditional recreational motorized uses of roadless areas within the state within all of the theme areas. The DEIS clearly states, “Neither the 2001 Roadless Rule nor the Idaho Roadless Rule provides direction on where and when OHV use would be permissible in roadless areas, therefore, there would be no effect on current OHV use in Idaho Roadless Areas” p. 234

However, DEIS Summary does state that the Idaho Roadless Rule provides guidance for Forest Service line officers where they have discretionary authority to influence whether or how an activity may occur. (p.9) This guidance for recreation should be stated in the DEIS and rule as it was in the Idaho Petition.

The Idaho Petition stated for Wildlands Recreation, “preserves currently existing routes and class of vehicle, further limitations subject to NF travel planning.” and for Primitive, “a variety of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities exist. Campsites may be visible at popular destinations and major trail heads or junctions. Recreation sites accommodate moderate use. Restricted to snowmobiles and motorized vehicles less than 50 inches, change in class of vehicle and designation of new routes is permissible subject to NF travel planning.”

We cannot find this guidance present in the FEIS or the Proposed Rule. This silence and apparent lack of consistency with the Petition is already causing confusion.

Red flags have already been waved during discussions with Forest Supervisors and their staffs that they interpret language in the descriptions of Wildland Recreation and Primitive designations differently. At a meeting with one supervisor and his lead ranger in travel planning we were told that, while motorized recreation isn’t mentioned in the rule, “there is a strong match between Wild Land Recreation (designation) and non-motorized use.” It became very clear that the descriptions of management themes 1: Wild Land Recreation and possibly even 3: Primitive would be leveraged to exclude all forms of motorized recreation from those areas.

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum’s (ROS) descriptions of “Primitive” experiences point managers away from motorized recreation, regardless of the type or season of use. In the description of Wild Land Recreation we find terms such as: "natural conditions and processes"---, "outstanding opportunities for solitude and challenge"---. These are all terms associated with designated wilderness where all motorized and mechanized activities are prohibited. For the Primitive theme we find "relatively undisturbed by human activity", not as strong as the Wild Land Recreation language, but still a potential tool to exclude us from important traditional riding areas.

We don't find any language to help us retain some level of access until we get to the Backcountry Restoration theme with its "variety of recreation opportunities”, except for a passing reference to motorized recreation being a part of dispersed recreation ROS classes (not to be confused with themes). The absence of language addressing recreation in the previous designations may indicate to some that they aren't intended to provide a variety of experiences.

We request that the language present in the Idaho Petition be carried forward to the FEIS to give clarifying direction to land managers as they exercise their discretionary authority.

Of course we are already struggling to retain some reasonable level of access to our most valued riding areas, but this rule promises to make our situation worse yet unless it is modified to include language clarifying its position in respect to motorized recreation.

We recommend that it include language specifying that motorized and mechanized recreation activities which do not compromise the values that qualify Wild Land Recreation lands for possible future designation as wilderness, such as snowmobiling and mountain biking, are appropriate and will be allowed to continue, such use to be addressed in forest travel plans. Motorized recreation on Primitive lands is appropriate and will be addressed in the forest travel plans.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

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?