Re: Re: Level II Roads in our National Forests

["Duncan Fletcher" <dfletche@gte.net>]

There is a rather broad array of possbilities under consideration with this
proposal. One of the options for adoption reads:

"3  Prohibiting the implementation of all activities, subject to valid
existing rights, that do not contribute to maintaining or enhancing the
ecological values of roadless areas in remaining unroaded portions of
inventoried roadless areas; and"

Valid existing rights would refer to legal easements and contracts, not the
fact that you currently ride there. While I don't consider that horse
activities particulary damaging ecological values, I would be hard pressed
to argue that they enhance them. This type of language could very well
eliminate all recreational use of these areas. It should also be noted that
the Wilderness Act requires the FS to consider historical use as a factor -
that makes it more difficult to eliminate horse use (although the party size
limits prevent endurance events). But that statutory language does not exist
for the current proposal. The FS could make the rules more restrictive than
the Wilderness rules. Under the language of option 3, the FS would not have
to cite any damage by horses, but you would need to show how horses enhance
the ecology of these areas.

Now, they may not adopt option 3 listed above, but it is on the table and
open for adoption. We need to work to be sure this doesn't happen. There are
other options on the table (including no change). Eliminating new road
construction will be to our benefit, but not if it comes in the form of
option 3.


Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net


----- Original Message -----
From: Color Country <otdumas@color-country.net>
To: <roadless/wo.caet.slc@fs.fed.us>; connie B Berto <cberto@juno.com>
Cc: <aerc@foothill.net>; <bvhwla@aol.com>; <cberto@juno.com>;
<wstf@foothill.net>; <desertbred@usa.net>; <rockingb@worldnet.att.net>;
<lindac@gilroy.com>; <hikryrdg@evansville.net>; <patoliva@earthlink.net>;
<annparr@earthlink.net>; <pscribner@foothill.net>; <jscwall@aol.com>;
<petdoc6@aol.com>; <phlames@aol.com>; <beckeg@aol.com>; <archvent@aol.com>;
<ahc@horsecouncil.org>; <csha@lightspeed.net>; <htrails@earthlink.net>;
<re@well.com>; <envirohors@aol.com>; <goppert@foothill.net>;
<calippitt@earthlink.net>; <trailtales@aol.com>;
<easyrider@sierra.psnw.com>; <riosanbravo@hotmail.com>; <natrc@newmex.com>;
<wnsims@aol.com>; Color Country <otdumas@color-country.net>; 'AERC Board'
<bod@aerc.org>; ridecamp <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 7:04 AM
Subject: RC: Re: Level II Roads in our National Forests


> Connie,
> I think you really have a lot of misinformation on the Level II Roads
Policy
> and the Presidents Land Legacy Roadless Area.  These are most positive
> proposals for equestrians and especially endurance riders as it greatly
> increases the quantity and quality of opportunity for endurance riding
> within the National Forest System.  Many endurance rides have used these
> closed Level II roads for years  as part of there course including the OT.
> You road on a little of them on day 3 and 4 when you rode the OT.
> An Environmental Impact Statement is already at the heart of these
policies.
> It is called "Cumulative Impact".  It is the driver of need to manage the
> level II roads along with the overwhelming watershed degradation that has
> been brought about by the misuses of 4-wheelers.
> The "Cumulative Impact" to watersheds and wildlife habitat caused by the
> plethora of open roads prevents management actions in adjacent roadless
> areas.
> The private land owners, county commissioners and public land users in and
> about the National Forest I'm responsible for are really working together
to
> improve there watersheds and promote responsible use.  If this is not done
> then it ends up like CA with houses sliding into the ocean, great flood
> damage, and challenging culinary water shortages.
> The alternative (which some ride mangers like) is to put on road rides
where
> they can drive every inch and the riders have the joy riding a ride in
"rush
> hour" traffic.
> The closing of and stabilization of Level II roads does not mean that they
> cannot ever be used again or you cannot ride horses on them or that they
> cannot be designated as ATV trails.  It simply means that the overall
> cumulative impact to a watershed will be reduced.
> If you have any questions for further clarification I'll be glad to answer
> them because I do not think your letter represents the best interest of
> AERC, the Trails Committee or the Equestrian Community.
> I wish you had discussed this with the Trails Committee before you sent
the
> response.
> Sincerely, Crockett
>

>



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=