Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mooch
Big Wall climber
The Immaculate Conception
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Sep 27, 2007 - 01:07pm PT
|
To All -
I just got word that the Forest Service is on its 3rd Step process to designate and establish OHV trails throughout the Sierra National Forest area. Most of these OHV trails were created or simply used after the forest service used them as logging spurs and never blocked them off. However, several of these unmapped OHV trails, which provide access to areas like Fresno Dome, The Balls and several Shuteye Ridge climbing areas are heading to the "chopping block" and may be considered for closure. They provide access to some of the best climbing offered in the southern Sierra! The Forest Service is having a public meeting in various locations for public input. Here's the proposal for the facts and the locations/times of these meetings:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sierra/news/2007/09/ohv-rfa.shtml
|
|
JerryGarcia
Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007 - 02:25pm PT
|
So the only change is that you cant ride your ATV to the crag? Alpine starts for you.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007 - 03:05pm PT
|
The NPS cares for off-road recreation as the rangers in the valley care for climbers.
Sometimes I drink wine and sometimes I drink beer.
Sometimes I climb and sometimes I ride.
Each of these things are enjoyable in themselves but none of them work well together.
|
|
tetonhack
Social climber
jackson wy
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007 - 10:43pm PT
|
Pud- you nailed it
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
LA, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007 - 11:33pm PT
|
Actually Pud hit his thumb with the hammer.
The NPS has nothing to do with this. It is Forest Service, not National Park jurisdiction.
I would think that climbers of all folks would take the trouble to understand the most simple basics about who tells us where we can and can't go and how...
Now, about continueed access to Patterson Bluff from Between Shaver Lake and Dinkey Creek...
|
|
nick d
Trad climber
nm
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007 - 11:37pm PT
|
More woods, less roads! Right on!
Michael
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
LA, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 12:35am PT
|
Generally I completely agree with "more woods, less roads." I am above all a back country climber and do not mind a walk. However, certain "unmapped" roads serve climbers well. It is in our best interest to be sure to understand what the NFS proposals are and to try to negotiate where there is a need.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 02:27am PT
|
werd to the ksolem wisdom.
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
Placerville, California
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 09:57am PT
|
i try to abide to the rule of gasoline per necessity. raging thru the forest at high speed and decibles is not necessity. walking a distance to a backcountry crag is feasible.
i find contradiction in my personal goals by driving to the crag. i frown upon those whose recreational practices are propped up by the gas pedal, ie boating and moto-cross. but in my climbing, i always have to drive to the montanas. i aspire for a hybrid, but then i have to work so much to keep it.
i say slam the green gate on those fire roads. let the wild life get some sleep.
|
|
dmalloy
Trad climber
eastside
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 11:02am PT
|
The Sierra NF is not the only Forest that is going through, or will go through, a process like this. It was mandated in the early part of the decade that all Forests review their designated route network and establish an official, mapped network of roads within the forest. The State of CA signed a Memorandum, along with the Forest Service, that moved the process in the Forests in CA along more quickly. All of the Forests in CA are supposed to complete this process by the end of 2008, although that deadline will probably slip a little bit because there has been a lot of public involvement with many of the Forests.
I do not think there is any reason to link this process with a conspiracy to deny you access to your public lands. The San Diego climbers, with plenty of support from people elsewhere and the Access Fund, are doing a good job fighting that proposal. The route designation process has been going on for 6 years and was started under a Dept of the Interior with Republican leadership; I have been pretty heavily involved with the process here in the Inyo NF, and it seems to me that it has the potential to benefit public access, Forest health, and wildlife.
Of course, "potential" is the loaded word in that last sentence. There is also the possibility that some roads would be closed for no great reason, or that unnecessary roads with serious negative effects on habitat would be made an official part of a Forest route network.
I know a little bit about the Sierra NF process too, and my message to anyone who is paying attention would be this - public comment has been strongly considered in this process, and it is worth your time to do some research on the areas and roads that you are familiar with and make any comments that you feel are important.
When looking at a "new" route (in this case, that means one that the Forest Service had not mapped in any previous route inventory process) and considering whether to designate it as part of the network or close it, Forest Service personnel balance a number of different factors. Those might include -
resource damage - the road causes a lot of erosion, degrades the health of a stream or creek, spreads invasive species or damages critical habitat for a species at risk
cultural values - a road might travel right through an important area of Native American or other cultural heritage
and the big one for us
recreational value - a road might connect two other routes to create a good loop, it might provide access to an appropriate and enjoyable camping area, it might give access to a great view, or it might allow access to a climbing area or other recreational site.
So if a road does relatively little resource damage but access a great climbing area, there is a strong chance that the road will be left open - but only if someone has taken the time to let the Forest Service know about the recreational value of the road. That is where your public comment can be important.
Unfortunately the best time for public comment was in the previous step, before the proposed maps had been released. But comments are still valuable at this point and those people who know these areas should take the time to submit those comments.
If you just want to bitch about things on Internet forums and complain about jackbooted Forest Service rangers in a few years, that is your choice.....in this case you have a chance to help guide this process, and I would hope that those who care about and are familiar with this areas would take advantage of that opportunity.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 11:44am PT
|
We are under the gun here in South Dakota too. The Black Hills NFS has proposed a plan that would turn the currently "open forest" rules to one that would allow travel on only approved FS roads. This is quite a leap and is going to restrict travel to less than half of what is permited now. They are being fought hard on this over the top turn around position but have decided an open meeting would be set for, of all places, Belle Fourche. Between the cost of gas and the logistics of distance and time restraints most people have with their jobs and such, this is a good tatic insure that the majority of people can't make the meeting. The NFS is staking claim that this is needed to head off the increasing abuse the roads are taking from 4 wheelers. While there is some abuse, it doesn't warrant their position. Trail abuse will still be allowed by the practice of running herds of cattle on FS ground and also by expensive horse trails supported, built and maintained by the FS. I think you all know what a >1000lb animal with steal hoofs can do to the forest floor when trailed thru the woods in large numbers. The FS here has routinely been shuting down large tracts of the hills for the past 20 years with an increase of the number of rangers that manage less land year after year. Less land and more people equals a higher concentration of use on whats left. Most of the roads are paid for by the money the FS makes off of logging, basicaly public funds. While I'm all in favor of keeping our forests in prime condition, the FS itself isn't. Money is the driving force behind all this, and we all know how the federal government in any form manages money. To many areas of the Black Hills will remain raped from our sleeping FS, but at least less of the public will be able to get into these areas and verify it anymore.
|
|
Aaron Johnson
climber
Bear Valley, CA
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 12:04pm PT
|
In my local woods of the Stanislaus National Forest between Lake Tahoe and Yosemite there has been a proliferation of new OHV trails to beat the deadline of road inventory date. Unfortunately our local forest rangers have turned a blind eye to fact and by default have positioned themselves as OHV advocates.
|
|
kev
climber
CA
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 12:13pm PT
|
I'm rather confused about the original post.
First off, the access to The Balls and Fresno dome is clearly not via OHV roads but instead via very established roads and in no way affected by this. There may be some OHV road to get in there but one can get to both with a tired old ford escort should one desire (at least after snow melt), and do so much faster than a random OHV route. As far as shuteye goes I think that central camp might be an OHV area but the 'real' 4x4 road to Shuteye (to the lookout) starts at a point from which you can hike to many climbs. Further the Eagles are approachable from below. So I'm rather confused how (with the possible exception of some of Shuteye such as 557 Dome, Shangra-la, etc) this could affect access. I will however admit that the hike to Sqaw Dome and the Buttes might get a little longer but the Sierra NF area is adventure climbing not TM 'car climbing.'
Secondly according to the Sierra NF info (provided in the link)
They are in stage 3 of the plan which means they would have already shut down certain OHV roads 'temporarily' and I know that is not the case to shuteye unless it was done late this summer.
Am I missing something here or was the original post way off as far as access concerns go????? This seems like a non climbing issue and instead an ATV/motocross issue to me.
kevin
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 12:27pm PT
|
National Forest Service mandates are enforced (or ignored) by local Park Service employees.
As a lifelong advocate of responsible off-road vehicle recreation I know that the truth is rarely involved in the decision making process of goverment entities such as the BLM, NPS and NFS.
That said, due to the current abundance of ignorant and irresponsible off-road vehicle recreationists, I would like to see stricter controls of Eastern Sierra off-road vehicle access.
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 02:51pm PT
|
I climb and I own a expedition vehicle. Sometimes I use that vehicle to access areas that I climb in. Most of those areas are in very, very remote desert areas that would not be accessible by foot unless you somehow arranges water drop off's. Be careful what you wish for. It has been my experience that once the govt. closes an area it is next to impossible to get it reopened. This goes for climbing, vehicles, kayaking, skiing...... The list goes on. It does not matter how green your pursuit is or what your intent is. Once it's closed it's closed. The idea of compromise seems to be a fading thing these days. It's all or nothing now.
|
|
Aaron Johnson
climber
Bear Valley, CA
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 02:52pm PT
|
thanks pud - you nailed it!
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 02:59pm PT
|
kev,
I think there is a misconception about what a OHV route or road is. Dont confuse off highway for off road. Any dirt road can be considered a OHV route. As long as it does not have pavement then it is a OHV route. It doesnt matter how rough or easy the route is or how long the route is. When people are fighting to keep OHV routes open they are not fighting to blaze through bushes, although some idiots do. They are fighting to keep already established roads open. Some roads should be closed but many should be left alone.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
LA, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 03:11pm PT
|
Batrock nailed it too. Squarely.
|
|
dmalloy
Trad climber
eastside
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 10:03pm PT
|
Batrock nailed it, eh?
"Some roads should be closed but many should be left alone."
Huh....well, I guess we can agree on that.
I guess I wonder why you are so ready to dismiss what the Sierra NF is doing and assume that they (and other Forests) are going to close a lot of roads that you think should be left alone, when you know nothing about their proposal.
So easy to just criticize and assume that The Man is out to get you; being involved and trying to help the Forest Service achieve a result that is to your liking takes some effort.
Put your civic involvement where your mouth is, guys. They are actively seeking and (at least in the Inyo) giving some real weight to public comment. And no, the Supertaco does not count as "public comment".
|
|
Batrock
Trad climber
Burbank
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007 - 11:04pm PT
|
dmalloy,
The roads I am specifically thinking of are in your backyard. I just got back from a weekend trip to Papoose Flat in the Inyos. I have been going there for years. I have seen 2 other vehicles in the area in 10 years. The area has remained unchanged in that time. I would like to see it remain open but there is a push to have it closed. There is a ton of good climbing up there and worth it if I can drive to it but just a little too far to hike in. I have taken part in road surveys in the Inyos and the Whites. I do not wish to see anymore roads closed in these areas except for small spur roads that affect riparian areas. I also have a interest in a area in So Cal that was closed for a 2 year "study" . The area had some great whitewater kayaking. The 2 year study has been going on for 12 years now and the NFS says they do not plan on reopening the area because it is cheaper to just keep it closed. If you like I can go on and on about specific roads in specific areas. I am all for conservation but there must be a compromise on both sides. If a road is getting a ton of traffic then close it for half the year or do what they have done down in Red Rock Canton State Park for the Nightmare Gulch trail, only open for 6 months of the year and of those six months it is only open the last 15 days to vehicle traffic. That is just one solution that has been successful although there are some who will only be satisfied with total closure back-country roads but they will never be satisfied.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!