ATV Torture Forums banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

· The Boss
4,037 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
</p><p class="center"><span class="articlesheading">BRC NATION-WIDE ACTION ALERT PRIORITY LEVEL: 

								"DE-FACTO WILDERNESS" POLICY.</span></p>

A few years ago, a small select group of 
								employees in the U.S. Forest Service in 
								Missoula, Montana developed an unlawful, 
								de-facto Wilderness policy designed to close 1.3 
								million acres to all mountain bike, snowmobile 
								and OHV use.</p>

1.3 million acres of de-facto Wilderness 
								established in the dead of the night, with a 
								stroke of a pen, and without any public 

Idaho's Clearwater National Forest is the 
								first individual Forest in Region 1 (in northern 
								Idaho and Montana) that has attempted 
								site-specific implementation of the de-facto 
								Wilderness policy. But it won't be the last. 

								We need your help. Please read the Action Alert 
								below and take action today!</p>

<span class="bold">SITUATION:</span>

								The comment period deadline on the draft winter 
								and summer Travel Plan for the Clearwater 
								National Forest is set for February 29, 2008. 
								This is the first time a National Forest in 
								Region 1 has attempted site-specific 
								implementation of their new (and unlawful) 
								de-facto Wilderness policy. <span class="bold">

<span class="bold">WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT:

								What De-Facto Wilderness Means to You:</span></p>
								<p class="style1">Clearwater NF RWA: 200,000 acres

								Number of acres of snowmobiling 
								closed= 200,000 acres

								Miles of single track motorcycle trails closed 
								= 140 miles

								Miles of mountain bike trails closed 
								= UNKNOWN</p>
								<p class="style1">Beaverhead-Deerlodge RWA: 
								174,000 acres 

								Gallatin NF RWA: 
								180,000 acres 

								Lewis & Clark RWA: 
								56,000 acres 

								Lolo NF RWA:216,000 

								Kooteni NF RWA: 
								117,000 acres

								Idaho Panhandle NF RWA: 
								138,000 acres 

								Helena NF RWA: 
								34,000 acres 

								Flathead NF RWA: 
								93,000 acres 

								Custer NF RWA: 
								19.000 acres

								Bitterroot NF RWA: 
								76,000 acres</p>
								<p class="style1"><span class="bold">TOTAL CLOSED = 1,303,000 ACRES</span></p>

Warning: Information above is estimated. 
								Actual acreage figures are likely to increase 
								when new Forest Plans become final.</p>

<span class="bold">WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:</span>

								Send a simple email comment to the Clearwater.

								Here is a link to Clearwater's Travel Plan 

								The email address is:
								[email="[email protected]"]
								[email][email protected][/email][/email]</p>

<span class="bold">IMPORTANT:</span> Put "Comments on Clearwater 
								National Forest Travel Plan" in the subject line 
								and be certain to include your name and address 
								at the end of the comments. A return email 
								address is NOT sufficient! (FS often discards 
								"anonymous" email comments.) Copy the text below 
								and paste into your email.</p>

Lois Foster, Travel Plan Interdisciplinary Team 

								Lochsa Ranger District, Kamiah Ranger Station

								Rt. 2 Box 191

								Kamiah, ID 83536</p>

I would like to make the following comments on 
								the Clearwater National Forest Travel Plan. The 
								comment is made using the "issues in the form of 
								questions" format. Please consider these 
								questions in the Alternative development and 
								please also include a full discussion of each 
								question in the EIS. I also request the EIS 
								include a discussion and brief analysis of 
								previous Congressional Wilderness designations 
								so the public may understand how the existence 
								of motorized uses actually impacts Congress's 
								ability to designate Wilderness. I also request 
								that the Clearwater provide a true range of 
								management Alternatives, including one "action" 
								alternative that, at the very minimum, does not 
								reduce the current motorized and mountain bike 

Question 1) In Montana Wilderness Assoc. v. U.S. 
								Forest Service, the U.S. District Court of 
								Montana found that Congress required the Forest 
								Service to strike--and maintain--a balance 
								between wilderness character and motorized use 
								in WSAs established by that Act. Given that 
								Congress envisioned motorized uses in Wilderness 
								Study Areas they established, what is the Forest 
								Service's rationale for excluding motorized uses 
								in Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWAs)?</p>

Question 2) If the existence of motorized uses 
								does not preclude an area from being designated 
								as an RWA, then what is the Forest Service's 
								rationale for eliminating motorized uses in 

Question 3) What level of motorized or mountain 
								bike use would disqualify an area from being a 

Question 4) In the Eastern Wilderness Act, 
								Congress designated areas Wilderness that 
								contained motorized uses, structures, maintained 
								roads and even sections of paved roads. Has the 
								Forest Service studied the level of motorized 
								uses that actually precludes Congress from 
								designating an area as Wilderness?</p>


								YOUR ADDRESS</p>
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.