FS transportation planning - Sham

[Terry Rust]

I hate this crap!

Rant mode on:
After attending two route desination meetings in subsequent nights for two different forests, it seems pretty clear that this sham isn't even pretending to consider user needs as it was initially advertised, not that anyone should have believed the BS about building a system to 'enhance your recreational experience' as uttered by Tom Dwyer (R3 motorized rec guy, what an advocate) at last night's Carson NF meeting in Taos NM. Select comments were posted around the room, none were pro motorized, most were of the generic 'ban motors in the wilderness' ilk, specifically what they said they DIDN"T want, and yet there they were as examples, presumably the good examples... the powerpoint ended with a hummer stuck mid way up the doors in the mud where there didn't appear to be aroad, that image remained thoughout the ensuing speakers. My comments were sent to the forest supervisor in September, prior to the initial deadline, as directed, and were never disemminated to the districts (at least according to the several rangers I talked with), now, apparently, you need to personally visit each district in order to provide comments for that district! One district gosses ~$40M/year (FS number) in natural gas, they have NO recreational roads, every road in the district is built and maintained for the use of the gas industry and they are not, will not, add any recreational roads/trails nor allow the existing roads to evolve into a 4x4 route. The big concession, 'you can get about 300ft off the road, the traffic won't be to bad...' One district proposed 60 or 70 road segments be closed, zero be added. On the other forest (Santa Fe) there didn't appear to be any recognition of submitted comments nor were there much indication that the map mark ups were incorporated, the grat old broads for wilderness were allowed to drone on about their good works in mitigation and no one was allowed to point out their closure agenda. They are now openly acknowledging this as 'closed unless posed open' which I thought had been prohibited by the courts in the Stanislaws NF several years ago, but why would that influence anything. Other forests that I've offered comments too but whose meetings are to far to attend in person i can only assume are going the same, mosre wasted stamps.

Rant mode (temproarily) off
Disappointed again but not surprised, not sure if the disappointment is in myself for bothering to try and participate honestly or in the agency for perpetuating yet another fraud. I guess it's time to just save up for the fines...

[Keith Holman]

in the agency for perpetuating yet another fraud

This is where it belongs.

As was posted just last week, the effort to submit is worthwhile. See this announcement where Bluewater's ability to participate was limited by not "having standing".

Even comments that aren't treated appropriately can serve to establish standing.

[kf6zpl]

Thanks for the rant, Terry.

I understand your frustration.  I appreciate the time you are spending to be involved to keep our future options open.  Keith's comment is correct.  We have to be involved even if we know we will not like the decision.

Without that involvement, we have no standing to challenge the final decision.

For a similar issue in antohter forest, check this thread:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=567838

We will need to be aggressive in fighting for every road we want for recreation.

[Terry Rust]

you know I understand the rationale for participating, even if it's a waste of my time and money. I've now submitted yeat another round of comments following yet another set of instructions but I have little expectation that they will be considered.