Proposed
Rule for Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use
c/o
Content Analysis Team
Dear
members of Forest Service OHV Analysis Team:
I grew up and live in a small town
in
Ways of life growing up and living
in Montana are quite different from those of someone brought up in a city
environment., Our everyday way of life was like the summer or winter vacation
for someone only exposed to a city
environment. Fortunately, I was
taught by my family and, throughout my education, that there are many points of
a view on how a subject can be addressed in opinion, conversation, management,
or rules to govern. My opinion regarding
the OHV designated route proposal comes from experience, education, and
objective views of what I have seen occur to land access in recent years. I believe decisions made throughout this
country in the past 10 years have severely limited access to many areas
previously open to the public by a motorized as well as non-motorized means.
I fear that one perspective of
education providing land access information only through exposure to books,
movies, and social clubs will continue to severely impair many individuals from
truly interacting with the varied environments I have had the luxury to
experience. Because of a protected and
socially developed norm of how land is managed in our National Forests through
the Forest Service and by the Bureau of Land Management, many individuals have
assumed certain forms of recreation always pose conflict, destruction and havoc
especially when contact with people involved in another form of recreation
occurs. This is a very jaded view. Our
National Forests and public lands are a very important part of our heritage and
of our future. As technology has
advanced since the 1800’s, so have the forms of economic development and
recreation that take place in all environments including the forest and public
lands. ”Off Highway Vehicle Use” is at the heart of many heated discussions
these days. OHV use does have a place in our society for economic and recreational
use.
“OHV” has come to be a very narrow definition of many and varied modes of transportation, when in fact “OHV” is a very
broad term and should be considered as such. Wheeled OHV’s and snowmobiles are
significantly different modes of transportation and what affects one mode
should not necessarily affect the other. Laws requiring all OHV’s
to be “street legal” should be looked at closely. Does this just open the door for a new realm
of lawsuits? This “street legal”
designation brings to mind many safety issues including use of a vehicle not
meant to be street legal in it’s original design. Please do not take what was originally
designed for utility, recreation and non-highway use and include it in a class
where it does not belong.
A clear definition of OHV needs to
be defined in the final proposed rule. OHV’s consist of many types of vehicles commonly assumed to
be single-track
motorcycles, ATV’s, and passenger vehicles. Most are wheeled vehicles. Adding a snowmobile definition is appropriate. I assume from the available information that
snowmobiles will be considered in a completely separate manner because of the
significantly lower impact traveling over snow has on the environment. Open snowmobile travel off trail and routes
should be allowed to snowmobiles outside of National Parks and
I believe, support and appreciate the Proposed
Rule's recognition of vehicle-oriented recreation as a legitimate use of our
National Forests. There are many snowmobiles and\or OHV’s
registered in each state in the nation which indicates there is in fact very
high public support of OHV use.
The future of our National Forests
and the economic and recreational opportunities they represent are threatened
at this time; not by responsible participants in utilizing OHV use to access
the resource, but by the extremist preferring to eliminate or severely limit
access by motorized vehicles. I
strongly encourage the Forest Service any other agency involved with this
decision process to reject pressure from anti-access forces to create a
deadline for the designation process or to create a specific "one size
fits all" blanket management prescription through this rule making process. Inappropriate and dictatorial management
tactics should not be accepted when they are based upon false beliefs of those
with a “control mentality” presenting distorted facts as reasoning. To conform the
diverse landscapes of the
Unfortunately
tunnel vision affects most anti-OHV activists.
A closed mind set does not allow for compromise or effective land
management practices to be utilized.
Methodologies of the environmental extremists do not allow the Forest
Service or Bureau of Land Management to effectively complete the agencies
duties to manage land; rather they create an embattled environment of paperwork
and red tape before an effective land management practice can be put into trial
stages. If significant land impact
occurs at a stage of restriction or expansion of access, the decision should be
revisited and possibly an alternative option be considered. We are a civilized
society and it is time that motorized and non-motorized recreationists find
common ground. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management should not be
expected to provide interpersonal conflict resolution skills for the various groups, they should be allowed to manage the land in their designated
area in cooperation with the public.
Members of the local and general public should be allowed to offer
suggestions on management techniques being considered for implementation as a
“rule” or policy with regard to
OHV use. Broad national policy guidance is necessary only to direct a guideline
for the OHV use on public land.
With an expanding human population,
it does not make sense to further restrict access. It is essential that the details of local
decision making be made the responsibility of local Forest Service land
managers who cooperatively collaborate with the public about OHV use in any
area. Decisions regarding land access
should never be left to one individual. There is plenty of land to be shared and when
done in a cooperative manner, all forms of recreationists can co-exist. More often than not, it is the
“environmentalist” type person I have found violating the land, rather than OHV
users. Personally, I get tired of
picking up the little garbage items left from clothing or supply remnants from
the hikers. I have come across fragile
areas that someone has decided they can dig up, and place in their pack- this
tree or that flower or that shrub- and take it home for a little piece of the forest
in their own apartment or backyard.
Use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), dirt bikes
and other off-road vehicles has taken place in many National Forests and on
public land for generations. In most unbiased studies, the Forest Service and
The agency's "emergency"
closure authority must be more clearly defined and limited. Some land
managers improperly avoid the public travel planning process by instituting a
patchwork of "temporary, emergency" closures that continue indefinitely
preventing access to the land as it is meant for the public. The final rule should clarify that closures
without public notice and input under 36 C.F.R.
section 212.52(b) must be verifiably documented and made publicly
available. The processes by which
monitoring and analysis occurs must clearly identify the specific impact(s) and
vehicles or uses causing those impact(s) to be addressed by the closure and
cannot remain in effect for more than six months without formal analysis. If specific impacts are identified with a specific
method of access, that one specific method should be addressed and an
alternative plan can be put in place.
The diverse types of vehicles should be considered individually across
the spectrum of seasons and conditions unique to an area. Factors such as weather and activity common
in the area are worthy of consideration.
Emergency rescue services often need OHV’s of
one type or another to complete rescue activities. Emergency service access by OHV should not be
eliminated at all and if anything, consideration to access even areas closed at
this time in the event of an emergency should occur. It may save someone’s life.
The majority of Off-road vehicle
users and recreationist take pride in being responsible in their actions when
driving off of a highway or 20-30 foot wide dirt road. Narrower trails and routes which have been in
existence for generations include those that lead to historic settlements,
perhaps an old wagon or jeep trail which has continued to be used to access
scenic vistas to be enjoyed by all and are often found away from more congested
trails. OHV users know that if our
children are to experience areas only accessible by OHV use, they must respect
the area they access. The Forest Service reports that more than 273,000 miles
of roads and other routes are open to various off-road vehicles. In very few
forests, ATVs and dirt bikes have access across open acreage. This is quite rare and is more likely to
occur on private ground. Because of the
many and varied access opportunities that do exist, the OHV users are not
placing concentrated populations on limited areas. The more areas that remain accessible, the
better off the environment will be. A
greater concentration in a smaller designated area defeats the purpose of
“protecting the environment”. Access
should not be limited or require “reservations” as in many wilderness
areas.
There are those who believe
that OHV use dominate the landscape at the expense of almost any other
activity. This is not true. Many OHV users do access areas beyond what
some prefer to hike through but most OHV users also participate in hunting,
fishing, and enjoying the natural forest environment. There are many areas where you will not find
a vehicle of any type. There are many
places where families can go for a quiet walk in the woods or a picnic, where
hunters, fishermen, hikers, mountain bike riders and horseback riders can and
do enjoy the forest or public lands, often in the company of other
recreationists in the same area. With
the population of people who are now able to get out and enjoy the outdoors, it
is only likely to expect an encounter with others who may be participating in a
different activity. No group, motorized
or non-motorized, should be able to dictate that someone else does not have the
right to access areas because of their personal preferences. The land belongs to the citizens of the
A need also exists for
flexibility in the trail and road inventory and planning process. The
rule should be modified, however, to require the agency to acknowledge and
fully act upon its responsibility to complete an inventory of all existing
roads and trails. I agree that the public should be allowed to provide
early input into this process; specifically including identification of
legitimate but uninventoried routes, which may otherwise go unnoticed or
unrecorded. I strongly oppose any national or local deadline or timetable for
inventories. This is a very involved process and those that are aware of and
have knowledge of location of such routes should be given ample opportunity to
investigate whether or not the routes have been included or are within the
inventory to date. The final rule should continue to acknowledge and further
clarify the importance of user contributions to a flexible and broad-ranging
inventory and scoping process before reaching the conclusion on any formal
route designation. The rule should not
be designated as final and provision for modification should be in place. Review of the rule and the impact it creates
on the economy should be scheduled at certain intervals. Allowances to expand access should be written
into the rule. Anyone acting in the
actual decision making process should in no way be a past, present or future
recipient of any type of monetary or material exchange by an entity strongly
influencing a decision either restricting, allowing or expanding access.
As off-road vehicle use
continues to provide economic support for land management, the Forest Service
will have a continued budget to manage the many uses of national public
lands. Those opposed to OHV use do
little to financially support the services provided by the land management
entities entrusted with the responsibility to effectively manage our
lands. OHV users not only invest in
equipment but also financially support OHV projects through the OHV
registration process in each state. Adequate budget, staffing, and priority to
achieve critical on-the-ground goals must accompany the OHV rule. Fees and taxes paid by OHV registrants are
used in part for land management. If
budget and staffing elements do not exist, no action or rule should be
implemented.
I am concerned about the agency's
commitment to effectively implement an OHV rule just for the sake of
implementing “a rule”. The processes by
which this end is met must take into consideration the numbers of OHV users in
this country. The economic impact must
be considered along with how restrictive measures will prevent citizens from
accessing land that is meant for use by the public. Seasonal
decisions and guidelines will go into the development of the OHV rule, I hope
with thoughtful consideration for continued use, at least to the extent that it
now exists for motorized and non-motorized modes of travel and recreation.
There are many areas of
consideration to be taken under advisement for the OHV rule development
including expansion of access rather than retaining current limits or imposing further
limitations. Please take into
consideration the diverse population of this country, the economic impact of
the decision and how the many and varied forms of economic development and
recreation will be impacted by the OHV rule.
I ask that
the agency make sure the final rule clarifies that segments of any road may be
designated for use by non-street legal vehicles where appropriate to avoid
blanket prohibitions of non-street legal OHV use on roads such as Level 3
roads. Off trail travel should be allowed
for snowmobiles as the facts show very low environmental impact on lands
accessed by snowmobile travel. I also
ask that the final rule clarifies any trail may be designated for use by street
legal vehicles where appropriate to avoid blanket restrictions and or
prohibitions of street legal OHVs, particularly 4x4s and SUVs, on all
trails. Emergency OHV access should be
allowed and in life and death situations, areas where possible off trail and
road access does not exist an emergency allowance should be authorized
especially if a person’s life is at stake.
Sincerely,
J. Stewart