UFWDA Community Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2014, 02:01:40 am

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
ATTENTION: Delegates, Lifetime and Ambassador Members if you can not see or access "Delegate Level Private Forums (including Lifetime Members)" please send an e-mail to forums@ufwda.org requesting access.
14,046 Posts in 3,252 Topics by 972 Members
Latest Member: Hiltz
* Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
UFWDA Community Forum  |  Access (Land Use, RTF, Advocacy, etc)  |  General Land Advocacy  |  Topic: FS transportation planning - Sham « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: FS transportation planning - Sham  (Read 843 times)
Terry Rust
Southwest Four Wheel Drive Association
ghost

Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« on: March 30, 2007, 01:32:48 pm »

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...
Logged
Keith Holman
Middle Atlantic Four Wheel Drive Association
ghost

Offline Offline

Posts: 171


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2007, 08:40:33 pm »

Quote
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.
Logged

What are you supposed to do when you see an "endangered" animal eating an "endangered" plant?
--------
Middle Atlantic Four Wheel Drive Association
kf6zpl
Guest
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2007, 10:26:11 pm »

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.

Logged
Terry Rust
Southwest Four Wheel Drive Association
ghost

Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2007, 05:28:14 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
UFWDA Community Forum  |  Access (Land Use, RTF, Advocacy, etc)  |  General Land Advocacy  |  Topic: FS transportation planning - Sham « previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!