View Single Post
  #3  
Old 01-02-2010, 07:28 PM
Grumpy's Avatar
Grumpy Grumpy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kennewick, WA
Posts: 469
Default

Following is news articles I have on the Peak Putters site:


Group challenges planned eastern Oregon ATV area
By Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian
December 24, 2009, 2:29PM


The U.S. Forest Service plans to designate the Sled Springs OHV Trail System in 38,283 acres of federal forest north of Enterprise.

But the Hells Canyon Preservation Council contends the plan will damage summer elk range in the Sled Springs area, and that increased OHV use will displace the herd.

“The Hells Canyon Preservation Council certainly isn’t the only entity concerned about the negative effects this project poses to local wildlife,” says council attorney Jennifer Schwartz. “In addition to (the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife), a broad coalition of sportsmen and the Nez Perce Tribe have also raised wildlife-related concerns.

The plan designates a 144-mile trail system for ATVs and other off-road vehicles, but it also closes 91 miles of roads to use of any kind, reducing the total miles of roads and motorized pathways in the area from 218 to 140 miles while eliminating unregulated cross-country travel, the Forest Service said.

The decision strikes "a reasonable balance among competing interest groups, individuals, and governments while conserving the lands and resources that I am responsible for managing on the Wallowa Valley Ranger District," said District Ranger Kenneth Gebhardt.

The decision comes in the context of a larger effort by the Wallowa-Whitman and other national forests to decide where off-highway vehicles should be allowed and where they should not be.

The Wallowa-Whitman has more miles of roads -- about 9,000 -- than the Oregon Department of Transportation maintains.

-- Matthew Preusch



Comments (13 total) RSSPost a commentOldest comments are shown first. Show newest comments first
Posted by cornwall
December 24, 2009, 4:11PM
You can't even put a shovel in the ground in this state anymore.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by kedsokedso
December 24, 2009, 7:18PM
If you cannot travel in the wilderness by leg power, keep out!

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by jory
December 24, 2009, 8:52PM
That guy standing in the ruts looks like a real Goober.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by gadfly52
December 24, 2009, 11:59PM
I can't imagine this one will stand up in court. Why do these wingnuts think the public lands are theirs to destroy?

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by puffy999
December 25, 2009, 12:51AM
I'm not someone who will support every environmental cause out there, and I'm an avid hunter, fisherman, and supporter of sportsman's rights. However, these redneck fools who destroy property (public AND private) with their ATVs and trucks with mudders deserve some severe street justice.

Don't give them more land to ruin. Let them drink themselves stupid at home, and destroy their own yard.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by mdvaden
December 25, 2009, 1:29AM
Looks like one conflict that I'll be glad to see other people iron the wrinkles out of.

I've been down near the redwoods by Orick, CA, quite a few times the past few years. And the folks in that area are very fond of their elk too. In their case it draws in a lot of people to enjoy the herds. Most surrounding land there is already protected.

M. D. Vaden Portland Landscape and Trees

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by typicallibrl
December 25, 2009, 6:14AM
California has much stronger environmental protection laws and regulation than Oregon does.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by jwh2008
December 25, 2009, 7:05AM
I dont want to upset you metro fools but I was in the area and saw this area and most all of the vechiles, with trailers ect and numerous ATVs had metro area license plate holders on them. Dont know but that would make me think the, eastern Oregon is metros playground, crowd have no idea about real land protection measures. Most locals would not tear up the land like this as they live there and are far better at land protection than the mindless metro crowd that believes it is ok for them to destroy the land but not anyone else.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by jwh2008
December 25, 2009, 7:08AM
Here is the major difference between Metro and rural people. Most metro people have no real commonsense when it comes to use of the land and most rural people take better care of it than the so called enviros with commonsense practices.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by typicallibrl
December 25, 2009, 8:06AM
California has much stronger environmental protection laws and regulation than Oregon does.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by watchdawg666
December 25, 2009, 8:41AM
kedso: You might sing want to sing a different tune. My active lifestyle caught up with me as I neared 50 and developed osteoarthritis. Should that limit my ability to go out and see things and have fun, I think not.

ATVs have allowed me to wander deep into places I could never hike now. And the interesting thing is, the places I've gone (other than the trail, which sometimes means ruts develop due to weather conditions) are generally free from garbage and vandalism.

Acre for acre there's VERY little public land where off-road use is legal - I have to drive at least two hours to ride - and I live in Eastern Oregon.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by econoline
December 25, 2009, 10:19AM
kedsokedso- First off these are roads so it is obviously not a wilderness area, secondly if by leg power you mean to include bicycles you might note that once again bicycle access has been reduced, as 1/3 of these areas are now off limits to bicycles, as well as hikers in addition to the ATV crowd. It doesn't make much sense to try to force more conflict between users who are traveling at such widely varying speeds... Let's not remove options for non-motorized use on alternative trails!

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by Nell Langford
December 25, 2009, 10:40AM
Please see our documentary series at safebeachanddunes.org, "What We Need to Know About Oceano Beach and Dunes". We, too, are engaged in a battle to protect the environment and public health from the ravages of off roading.





OregonLive.com
_________________


************************************************** ********


Suit tests planned off-road park

By Kathleen Ellyn
Wallowa County Chieftain

The Hells Canyon Preservation Council is taking legal action to block an off-highway-vehicle trail system at Sled Springs in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

The planned project would establish a 144-mile OHV trail system within the U.S. Forest Service's nearly 40,000-acre Sled Springs Wildlife Management Unit.

In a news release announcing its lawsuit last week, the council identified the area as "crucial wildlife habitat" and "the highest quality elk summer range." The council pointed to Forest Service reports that found that motorized vehicles were a threat to maintaining productive elk herds and that elk calf births had declined in the Sled Springs area in recent years.

Recent research done by the Forest Service stops short of blaming declining birth rates on motorized traffic alone, citing a six-year study from 1999 through 2006 that showed a pregnancy rate of 92 percent in Sled Springs, though only 18 percent of cows were seen with calves in the spring. It has been suggested that given the ability of cows to conceive, the loss of calves might be due to predators.

HCPC also criticized the proposed trails based on information that they would pass through three known Northern Goshawk nest stands and possible corridors for travel that could be used by wide-ranging gray wolves and wolverine. The Forest Service does not argue these points.

Jennifer Schwartz, HCPC staff attorney, said the ability of Sled Springs to continue functioning as an important wildlife habitat "has already been impaired by past and present commercial logging and livestock grazing - establishing a large OHV play area on top of all that adds insult to injury."

HCPC argued that OHV systems result in more, not less, off-road trespass in unauthorized areas. ". . . results indicate that OHV users did not confine themselves to designated trails," Schwartz said. "Take, for instance, the Winom-Frazer OHV Complex Near Ukiah. ODFW found that 27 unauthorized trail segments totaling over 14 miles had originated from just one of the designated trails it surveyed."

Judy Wing, spokeswoman for the Forest Service, expressed disappointment about the suit, pointing out that HCPC did not participate in an appeal process to try to work toward a compromise.

The Forest Service has been looking for a site for an OHV system since 1997 and working with the environmental groups, governments, other agencies, tribes, ATV groups and the public on the Sled Springs site since 2003.

"This project has been ongoing for a long time," she said.

The basic problem, she said, is that the Forest Service has the responsibility of balancing multiple uses of forestland, and HCPC and others have a single focus. The result is that the Forest Service ends up making a decision that represents the best balance of key issues brought forward by each group - it looks for a compromise.

"We felt the decision represented a good balance between environmental conditions and resource needs, including public use," she said.

The man responsible for the compromise decision, Wallowa Valley District Ranger Ken Gebhardt, said the Forest Service pursued the Sled Springs project because it was one of few areas under consideration that had support from at least one of the special interest groups.

"We are disappointed to see the complaint by HCPC," he said. "During the scoping process we worked through and discussed all of the various issues - everyone was treated the same."

The Wallowa Valley Trail Riders Association also appealed Gebhardt's compromise solution on the grounds that the proposed season was too limited, but sat down with Gebhardt in the appeal process.

"We worked with them in the appeal resolution process and HCPC didn't take part in that process," Gebhardt said.

Key points from Gebhardt's proposal:

• Closure of 91 miles of existing roads to all uses.

• Conversion of 54 miles of existing roads to OHV use only.

• Preservation of two popular roads listed as closed but in use for both full-size and off-highway vehicles.

• Agreement to work with Nez Perce Fisheries Tribe and others to limit access within the area to dry-condition seasons.

• Creation and maintenance of four elk security areas.

• A promise of cooperation of the USFS with Wallowa Valley Trail Riders Association and other partners in a restoration of 25 miles of user-created OHV trails.

• A plan for an annual monitoring report addressing various issues including weed treatments, big-game conflicts and range permittee issues.

• Building of three bridges where the trail passes over McAllister and Mud creeks.
_________________
__________________
Dave Walters
Tri Cities Peak Putters
Land Use Coordinator

www.peakputters.com


It's a Scout thing
Reply With Quote