Send your feedback to feedback@sierraaccess.com , PO Box 944, Quincy CA 95971, or fax 530-283-2027. We will not share your address but we will list your name and town, unless you specifically ask to remain anonymous. 7/28/09 The U.S. Forest Service people who are making decisions about the access of OHV's in Lassen National Forest are not supportative of OHV's. As a taxpaying American, I am angry and confused because of the biased decisions by the officials of the Lassen National Forest. As the owner and user of an OHV, I don't understand why the Forsest Service has taken this stand to virtually eliminate OHV's from using existing roads. There is not a traffic safety problem nor a maintenance problem. California Highway Patrol has already ruled that unpaved Forest Service roads are not considered highways in the Vehicle Code. The Forest Service in many other areas and states have a much different view of OHV's and have allowed access to most roads. As citizens of this great country, we are stewarts of our public lands and must see that the land is not damaged by abuses, but don't keep me off the land with my OHV! I will be writing my U.S. Congressmen with my concerns. We all have to unite against unfair actions handed down from some U.S. Forest officials. Jerry Phillips, 7336 Cedar Meadows Ln., Shingletown,CA 96088 530-474-5040 or jerryel@frontiernet.net To Lassen NF Forest Employees, It seems that information that has circulated since the meeting in Chester, Sat July 14th, has people confused. My understanding is the meeting was set up to help with route designation, and the two (2) week period left to use the comment forms. Many folks seem to think the comment forms are for commenting on the 'Emergency Closure' of three (3) trails in the High Lakes OHV area due to alleged resource damage. Please help me disseminate 'good' information regarding the meeting of the 14th. I do understand this process has been hard on forest employees as well as those of the public that have been involved from the beginning. Thanking you in advance. Sincerely Douglas Poppelreiter, Liason, CA4WDC to Lassen & Plumas National Forests 7/9/07 Is this how we are going to allow the FS to manage our lands? It is our land and we are rapidly being forced out. Currently I have a boy 14 and a girl 13. I have tried to raise them as I was raised, Riding, Hiking, Fishing, Hunting, Snowmobiling, Water skiing, Etc... I am a strong believer that if you are not shown how to have fun you will find the fun in doing drugs or robbing houses or becoming overweight sitting around playing video games. I was recently getting a ticket from a ranger for allowing my 14 year old son to ride a quad. When I told him it was a mistake to take away all forms of fun from our kids today and force us parents into making a decision between what illegal activities we will allow or kids to do, he tore up the ticket and said "I can't give you a ticket for raising your kids the same way my father raised me". Keep in mind we were not unsafe or destructive, only going for a ride with my boy. Many people have a notion that if you ride a dirt bike, Snowmobile, Hike whatever type of user of OUR land that we are abusers. Every time my kids go the forest we end up coming back with other peoples trash. Funds/tax money should be spent on abusers not users. Question, I have tried to look at the trails that they are going to allow us to use. I cannot figure it out. I am looking in the Lassen area and do not see any trails other than 10 or so different colors, stripes etc.. Can anyone shed light on what or where the OHV areas are? Please forward my concerns to all you feel care about the youth and care about creating more laws they cannot enforce. --R.H. Vacaville, CA 6/20/07 Great that some notice is being taken by some people who can maybe do some good. Might be able to toss in a few words about the Feds wanting to sell off land that doesn't belong to them...kind of like the old Brooklyn Bridge scam, isn't it? Or maybe Public Ownership became Federal Ownership in some bill passed somewhere and I didn't notice. If not, we should all get a check for our portion of the selling price and cut out the middle man completely....and we should all have to approve and sign the sale paperwork, as well. Seems like there is a legal term for selling something to someone when it doesn't belong to you...fraud comes to mind but I could be wrong. I like the idea that there is a middle ground with some say being established between the opposites of the Sierra Club types and the people who want to make the National Forests into another housing development or use up the resource without worrying about replenishing it for the future. Another thought that might bear on the subject of the people who want the National Forests to be the same as Wilderness areas and with the same use restrictions. It seems that most people who are in favor of restricting access to National Forests by powered vehicles are still capable of using muscle power in some way to get around out there. That is not the case with all of us who enjoy the forests and will, someday, not be the case with them. I loved being able to go into Wilderness Areas when younger and have no desire to change the regulations imposed on travel in those areas just because I am no longer capable of using them. I'm glad they exist and hope they continue to do so. I couldn't carry enough provisions anymore to get much of anywhere on foot considering the number of miles I could manage in a day now. I know I'll never be able to hike through Evolution Valley again and don't like that thought one bit...but I did have my chance while I was still able to do so and am very glad I took that chance. Now that I'm older and not in any condition for several miles a day hiking I have to rely on mechanical help to get around the forest if I want to get anywhere. Not to the point that I need aid in normal activities, just not up to long hikes anymore...legs and knees won't take it. If the roads in National Forest are closed down that effectively means that I cannot go out there anymore and I resent that intention very much....no matter who is behind it or for what reasons. I've heard some reasoning on the side of restricting "people" from intruding into "nature". When did humans become supernatural beings? We ARE a part of nature and any attempt to classify us as anything else is incorrect and faulty reasoning. The act of humans building a dam or a house are every bit as "natural" as a beaver building a dam or a bird building a nest....we are a part of nature. This is not to say right or wrong in any given situation...but "Natural" is not the right word to use to differentiate between the acts of humans and the acts of any other animal. If "Natural" excluding human endeavor was the state of things then the majority of us would be dead by now, wouldn't we? We are, however, supposed to be the most intelligent animals on this planet and should be aware of the results of our actions...or at least try to be as best we can. If a certain area is being damaged by wheeled traffic going through it in a way that will not be repaired by the normal workings of the forest then we should not be using wheeled vehicles in that location. I'll agree with that and have nothing against specific restrictions in specific cases ... IF the need for that restriction can be backed up by fact and not just vague references to possible damage or possible effects on unspecified animal species. I'll also have no qualms about getting the idiot running across a meadow or stream in their OHV or 4WD on video and turning them in to whatever authority has the means of making them pay for their stupidity and lack of consideration...and I ALWAYS have a camera with me when I'm out there for other reasons. Give me demonstrable fact and I'll not argue...but without those facts to back you up you can expect as much of a fight as I can muster in the name of both personal liberty and rationality in dealing with the world around me. --Rod Burkholder, Greenville 6/17/07 Please feel free to include my name and email address in any listing of proud SAC members you may choose to publish either online or in print. I only wish I were there to work with you on such important issues as forest access and recreation. I own two quads and ride the Prescott and Coconino National Forests whenever I can. Hello to anyone who remembers me from my years in Quincy, 1954-1973. It's still home! --Don Volkema I don't mind at all being associated with rational thought. You have my permission to list my name and location and whatever else seems of use. A comment comes to mind that might do some good in making the USFS understand our objections and point of view if the "We don't have the money" comes up. If they don't have the money to do the job right, then they don't have the money to do the job at all and should put what money is available towards some more productive use. I know government folks don't think that way...but the rest of us have to in our lives and jobs. They should have to in their job. Won't make them change a damn thing, I'm sure...but someone might actually get some idea of how things are in the real world and get an inkling how normal people think. --Rod Burkholder, Greenville 6/17/07 Regarding the "Form Cutoff Date Letter", big game retrieval decision: What a travesty! I wonder how many users ever extrapolated this "sustainable OHV RDP" process into an arbitrary limit on big game hunting ('don't shoot anything you can't pack out to the nearest "approved route" on your back'). And the PNF's arbitrary elimination from the maps of spurs and entries to private property routes just further exacerbates those limits. And their paragraph on wood cutting makes no sense, except for the last half of the last sentence which assures "areas in each district will be designated that will allow cross country travel for the purpose of wood cutting." We raised this question in the very first LNF meeting in Chester and were assured, although direction hadn't been received in that regard, that the areas designated for wood cutting with the permit would allow driving in off road to cut and haul out. Hard to believe that the PNF ever really believed that it could be accomplished without leaving the road. Another unintended consequence of the OHV RDP operation. On the face of it, the PNF's stand (now) on dispersed camping seems somewhat acceptable...BUT, to limit it to only those sites that can be identified and mapped by July 13th is ridiculous! How many of the campers and hunters involved in camping are meticulously following this OHV RDP process on the web or via mailings, et al? I would venture the guess that the majority don't even know it is going on or would affect their camping. In my opinion, they should just accept dispersed camping as accepted normal usage and forget the map. 'In and out' to the camp via the existing road/trail should be allowed unless an on-the-ground analysis identifies a serious real problem. This thing is supposed to foresee usage for generations. Why should it be limited to what exists now and can be "identified" by "July 13"? --Signed, "Many decade Forest user/steward" I have sent this to the leadership of the Madhatters 4x4 club so that adequate response can be made. This club has been PRO-Active since this thing raised its ugly head. We have attended meetings from Portola, Ca to Fresno Ca, we have written our elected officials, we have met with and exchanged info with other organizations that have the same concern. --VL Hutchings I am just a private citizen who did some homework. And I still have lots more to do. I have been working on the Trail Designation Project in Sequoia NF for almost a year now and I have learned a few things about how this works. Look very carefully at the notes on the Eldorado NF OHV Website and you will get a reasonably clear picture of how the Travel Management Plan gets implemented. If you are going to play this game you have to know the rules, preferably better than the USFS. I have talked extensively with the NOHVCC people who have been very helpful. I took the time to read reams of documents. Forest Plans are tough going. I bought a book on NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), which is a subject all unto itself. People devote their entire careers to understanding NEPA. Fortunately there is an incredible amount of info available on the net. If you look at the information put out related to Eldorado it will save you time. They communicated very effectively with the public on that Forest. The Trail Plan in ELF is also subject to the requirements of the Sierra Nevada Plan Amendment, just like most of the region 5 forests. When you go to the public workshops, have a trail plan for the overall system in mind. Sketch it out on maps. It doesn't have to be pretty but if you have clearly described loops that are named and drawn on maps it will help you justify keeping trails open. Just saying that you like a route won't cut it. You need concrete facts, like a certain trail reaches a particular destination, or gives a particularly unique experience, or is essential to the system as an arterial route, etc. No one person in your group will know all the trails, so you have to team up to develop your system map. You must learn everything you can about the NEPA process. It is a fair process when used as intended. You must be prepared to respond to the Notice of Intent within 30 days, that comes when they enter Step 4. You must give substantive comments or they will be rejected. Substantive comments are within the scope of the proposed action, specific to the proposed action, have direct relationship to the proposed action and include supporting reasons why the comments should be considered. They will then have scoping meetings to explain what they plan to do, and they will record comments made at these meetings for consideration as to what they will include in the alternatives, but they will not usually accept written comments at that time. They will then come out with alternatives, none of which you will like. You can comment on them when they release the Draft Environmental Impact Study. You have 45 days to comment. They must respond to all written comments in the Final EIS (Environmental Impact Statement). That doesn't mean they have to make any changes. They will then come out with a decision document called the Record of Decision when they say what they will actually do. If you have followed the process correctly you may appeal the decision, but you must show how they have violated law, regulation, or policy. If your appeal goes forward it will be decided by the next line officer up the command chain, usually the Regional Forester. Your reading assignment: 1. The Final Rule,Travel Management Plan, November, 2005, as published in the Federal Register 2. Your Forest Plan - request a copy, they should send it at no charge 3. The Sierra Nevada Plan Amendment and Supplement - on the net at it's own website.Google it. Concentrate on the sections on OHV use, but you also need to get familiar with "standards and guidelines" related to trails. It doesn't hurt to get familiar with the Forest Service Handbook and Forest Service Manual applicable sections. It's great if you have USFS people helping you, believe it or not it is their job to help you! This is supposed to be a public process that is completely transparent. Don't let them tell you otherwise. --Signed, "501968" Thank you for being here, or there where you are welcomed and needed by those of us that don't know what is going on across the USFS boundaries. --Pat Henderson Redding CA 5/26/07 We've just returned from a 12-day trip and caught up with two issues of the local paper; more specifically—the letters to the editor regarding access. Can it be that the worries of our kind of users are well-founded? I realized for the first time that our dispersed camping site, 5 mi south of Antelope Lake might be in jeopardy. It is probably 1/3 mi off a paved forest road on a nearly flat cow mgt. "track," no bare soils, and we've never built a fire or fire ring there in all the years we've used it (since 1990). It's just a place to park our trailer and hang out. What in the heck will woodcutters do? Just now I went to the SAC website and read the R-5 USFS article on route designation and I am very concerned. In no example was dispersed camping permitted or encouraged in excess of 50' of existing forest roads. Yet there seems to be no effort on their part to identify particular areas where supposed damage has occurred, justifying closure. Instead, they seem to seek to slip in a blanket policy prohibiting everyone, regardless of past practice, good habits, or sensitive stewardship of our land from driving a motor vehicle on national forest land. This is as over-simplistic as catching one fifth grader (or new military recruit) who is chewing gum —and then making the whole class (or platoon) do push-ups. It would seem that adult citizens should expect to receive all protection from the nation's laws and land management policies, unless THEY, SPECIFICALLY screwed up and then had to pay for their mistake in citations, fines, or jail-time. We don't close the state highways to all cars and trucks around here, just because five people were stopped for speeding last week! So, let's stop treating all the general public as criminals, but catch and punish those who are culpable. There does seem to be some language in the R-5 document that fleetingly suggests that a NEPA process will necessitate some kind of evidence to justify changes in the status quo—or the "baseline road system" as the FS describes it. But their "sessions" seem to have taken the same tack as those over the last 30 years which engaged the public in "open discussion." That is, they set up a process that bleeds off the advocate-public's adverse response in little bites, puts the meetings in public view through media, continues its internal paper machinations, and reserves the argument toward late dissenters that "everyone else has had their look at this process," so you've lost your option to contribute to the discussion. I go back to my previous thoughts to you on this matter. Absent a specific set of objective studies to document gross damage to those roads, trails, or dispersed camping sites (outside the 50' limit), no NEPA process can accurately assess the values gained, maintained, or lost to users, the public, the land, or its wildlife. Global restrictions are the easiest to impose. Selective policy changes are the most difficult. But, I don't believe the agency can argue that temporary signage would be ineffective in reducing over-use or abuse in certain areas. It is their responsibility to catch the thief, not lock everyone out to prevent the opportunity for theft. In a pinch, resource professionals, fire crews, or active fire suppression activities would all be allowed to ignore any increased restrictions. And primary fire suppression and its cat-lines and assorted activities must be factored in when you wish to look at disturbance or potential damage from general public access or OHV use. --Bill Martin Quincy 5/18/07 I have lived in Plumas County for about 63 years. I hunt, fish and get my own wood. The National Forest needs to be accessible to all for recreation as well as wood needs. DON'T CLOSE ANY OF THE FOREST. Keep the roads open for our use and fire protection. --P.M. A walk in the woods "with permit only". For the actions of the .01% who may find ways to abuse our forests, our government is attempting to punish (put in shackles/handcuffs) the 99.99% of the American people who do not. The people (the 99.9%) who use the National Forests are environmentally conscious and do not destroy the land or it's resources. Just why then, should our government think they would have the right to monitor and control our every move? Our heritage to 'discover' is part of the roots of our society. (Somebody should have stopped the wagons from coming west would be my guess!) Our 'rights' and heritage are being stripped away from us 'one step at a time' by wrong motives. Fact: a person can walk in the woods and with a small shovel (or stick), make a simple diversion of water that could eventually become a 'rut' or a 'Grand Canyon'. Someone is going to have a hard time convincing this individual that by limiting/stopping wheeled traffic you have eliminated the source of problems. The solution: Effectively deal with the .01% who prefer to destroy things. Do not punish the rest of our society! (an example might be: is a town closed down because "druggies" move in...I don't think so...we know what is necessary and it isn't cutting off the privileges of the 99.9%) With the current insidious movement in progress, it is rather obvious, it eventually will be a walk in the woods "with permit only" or you will be there illegally. The USFS 'plan' is that absurd, unconsitiutional, and discriminatory! --Ed Brownlee, Quincy I am a disabled person and I am seeking some assistance from within SAC. I have paralysis in both of my legs and can only get around by using a walker or by using a wheelchair, which is not functional or practical in the Forest. If the proposed OHV rules are adopted I as well as many others in Plumas County will be restricted to using only certain Forest Roads. I do own a quad and I am currently riding it on the roads and to locations where I can enjoy the scenery, picnics, fish, relax and other pursuits. And I do this without creating resource damage. In doing some research, I have found out that the Plumas National Forest may be violating a Federal Law and Discriminating against those of us who are disabled. If the proposed OHV Plan with the proposed restriction is in fact put into law, we, the Disabled, will not be able utilize all of the features of the National Forest as able bodied people can. Now the Plumas is placing me into a “Separate Class of Individuals”. This prohibits me from participating in activities and uses of the National Forest that in the past I have enjoyed. This I believe is Discrimination. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states “The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by Federal agencies”… Section 504 of the Act, it states “no qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that…is conducted by any Executive agency...” The US Forest Service is in the Department of Agriculture which is an agency within the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. I have written letters to the OHV Plan Leader in the Regional Office in Vallejo, California and to the Plumas OHV Plan Team Leader, but I have not received a response from either party. I am wondering if there are others of there in SAC who are experiencing the same situation that I am. Is there someone who might have a suggestion on how I should proceed from this point? Please respond if you have ideas. --Rex Fisher - Quincy, CA rfisher@digitalpath.net "As a life long sportsman and hunter who has hunted in most of the states in the United States, Mexico, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a few other smaller countries; I find your proposal to only allow retrieval of game to 50' from a designated travel route totally unacceptable. It is the responsibility of a hunter to retrieve game and the meat quickly to avoid spoilage of that meat. Unless there is a specific reason that a motorized vehicle should not be allowed in a specific area such as an area that the vehicle would do extreme long lasting damage to the vegetation then there should be absolutely no restrictions to the use of an off road vehicle in the retrieval of game. In fact it would violate several laws both federal and State to do so. One that come quickly to mind is the federal age discrimination act. It is a discrimination against older people who would be physically unable to carry an animal for a long distance to these designated trails, unless there were a designated travel route. It also would violate the sex discrimination act for the same reason that it discriminates against older people. The failure to retrieve game in a timely manner would violate State laws of unlawful waste of wild game. This would make the federal government an accomplice in breaking a State law, which is a violation of federal law. It is also very short sited and foolish to require the dispersed camp sites to be within 50' of a designated travel route. Having hunted throughout the world I have never seen a restriction put on where a private citizen could put their hunting camp. By restricting it to 50' from the designated travel routes would cause much more harm to the vegetation from over use by numerous people than allowing camps to be established throughout the entire area rather than right beside travel corridors. Whoever came up with this idea must not want a large population of the forest users to be able use the National Forests lands, which would be in total contradiction of the federal Multiple Use Act. Please rewrite and change these proposals to be more user friendly to a large majority of society that you would be excluding from using our national lands." --Pete Ellsworth, President Back Country Houndsmen Culdesac, ID "The Plumas NF cut all routes under 0.5 mile long out of their route designation process...Why would they do this? There are large amount of OHV routes under .5 miles long that are great for OHV users. This is absurd. I have been working on the route designation process for the past two summers and not one person has came up to me and asked for my input..... people are just making assumptions about trails which are now being deleted off the map. The FS needs to slow down and think about what they are doing. I am ashamed. --D.P. "My suggestion is that since the USFS is responsible to provide FIVE renewable resources to the public under the 1960 Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (among them wildlife), they should simply place fences within one car length of each road in the system, and herd all the game inside that fence during hunting seasons, releasing the survivors out through seasonal gates to graze on the territory we can only walk on for the remainder of the non-hunting season. It would seem that if a lawsuit by Sierra Access was contemplated, it should be a simple matter to illustrate that this massive change in the status quo of public access and previous use by OHVs can only be accomplished when specific and consistent harm to the resource can be demonstrated by this government agency. Since it is fairly certain such studies and damage has not been isolated, then a court should stay the USFS's actions until this work is accomplished. If proposed timber sales and QLG projects with LOTS of planning and review can be legally challenged, so can this agency's unilateral action. " --B.M. "My opinion is that it is just some more government control. It seems that is all our government wants now days. I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to go retrieve game. If that goes into affect there will be many great camping spots that are around 200 to 300 yards off of the main road." --R. (Re: SAC's email message to members asking for feedback on the USFS proposed restriction of only being able to travel 50' off a main road to camp or retrieve game:) I think a distance of one mile is more than reasonable for both situations. Further, if possible. --D&C S. "We (as a large multi-generation Plumas County family) hunt, camp, gather fire wood and sight see through out OUR forests. It is ridiculous to think the people are going to camp right next to, or even within 50 feet of a road so their camps can be covered with dust. We also don't " road hunt " so our deer aren't killed within sight of a road but generally between roads. There is a lot of old skid trails running into the areas that we can get our ATV's on to retrieve the animals, and we will continue to do so." --J.B. "This process would also apply to woodcutting. A lot of times people drive down these little dead end roads and cut wood. I think the public should be allowed to travel 2500' on all routes under .5 miles long, whether it be dispersed camping, big game retrieval, or woodcutting." --J.B. Although it shouldn't happen the fact is that a wounded animal can travel hundreds yards before it goes down. I personally have helped track a blood trail over 100 yds in rough and unfriendly terrain, so putting a limit on off trail/road travel defeats the hunter from pursuing and reaping his quarry as well as fish and game requirements. Not all hunters are young and able to carry their catch up steep terrrain/cliffs and/or hundreds of yards to their vehicle, some even have disabilities that prevent them from moving great distances. It seems that the Forest Service is promoting hunting from vehicles and that is unlawful, to the best of my knowledge. Prospecting requires investigating terrain that might produce ore and or gems, that terrain may take a couple of days to reach on foot and I'm sure the State would like to receive revenue from the prospector as he processes his find especially when it requires the building of roads in order to get the heavy equipment in and the ore out. Does the limiting of travel in the forest also apply to the lumber industry as it tries to find or develop new cutting areas? I know all too well that there are those who create problems due to selfishness, disregard for laws and others such.ie, littering, taking of game illegally, etc. but they are in the minority. The forests belong to the people and although the forest service monitors and watches over the areas and they receive pay from the Government, which is "We the People," they seem to forget that they work for us. They are trying to keep us from our pursuit of happiness which is our Constitutional right." --S&G G. "1) The FS has provided NO significant evidence that there is ANY significant "resource damage" being done in this area from past Camping and Hunting policies, 2) They have shown no actual significant problems with off road/trail operations that I have seen or heard, 3) There seem to be people in R5 who make and hand down unjustifiable directions, e.g., the "no approved trail intersecting a county road", "50' max. off road", 4) The hunting season is short, ground conditions are generally firm, I would say the whole thing should be handled like the Lassen NF alleges the firewood cutting will be handled, i.e., a map. And camping and big game retrieval would allowed anywhere within the boundaries of the mapped area. They can exclude areas where there are clearly identifiable, and public reviewable, reasons. None of the bogus, invented to suit the anti-access mentality, stuff they have rolled out to justify exclusion of our existing and mapped OHV roads and trails. If it really has to be tied to distance from approved routes, and obviously I don't see why, I'd say no less than 5 miles should be a target. But as I stated above, I really don't think the designated routes have anything significant to do with camping or game retrieval. " --J.C. "With this new rule you won't be able to camp except on the blacktop turnouts on the Antelope road, Bicknell Flat Camp, just below the Hungry Creek road, Babcock Crossing, and at the cattle guard. Camp 14 and Camp 13 are out as you have to drive off the road. Where do those DUMB PEOPLE THINK YOU ARE GOING TO CAMP?" --Loren Kingdon, Indian Valley "Since I have very little time to even look at the travel routes or what you have recommended I will submit my plan on needed access roads. There is need for a minimum of one access road into each and every drainage in the entire area. That includes any and all creeks and rivers. Without these access roads the ability to manage wildlife and or habitat is severely limited. --Pete Ellsworth, President Back Country Houndsmen Culdesac, ID |
SAC Member Feedback
SIERRA ACCESS COALITION
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
This website is sponsored by:
123 Crescent St., Quincy CA 95971 - (530) 283-2136 - dupontpowertool.com