View Single Post
  #8  
Old 06-22-2016, 04:21 PM
Grumpy's Avatar
Grumpy Grumpy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kennewick, WA
Posts: 612
Default

From Shane Fuller:


SooooÖ.hereís a quick take on what I learned from the meeting last night....

Before I go into all of that, let me say that the credit should go to Febus, JayW, Atkins & Ron Rutherford as well as a few others. These guys are on top of the issues already and new the questions to ask and things to address ahead of time instead of waiting until meeting time to figure it all out. This allowed everyone to really get some good information on the plan quickly. Hopefully one of them will chime in if I have any of this wrongÖ.

Basically the plan breaks down into four possible alternatives. A-D Iíll start with my preferences first and then work backwards. Keep in mind my opinions are based almost entirely on the Naches Ranger District since it is the one that Iím most familiar with.

Plan/Alternative A leaves everything the way it is now. Nothing changes. Donít get to excited though, Alternative A cannot and will not happen. Put it out of your mind. Iím always up for a fight, but sometimes you have to know when to move on.

Alternative D This plan leaves the most miles of motorized roads open to the public (more specifics later.) It lists all of the roads/trails as designated corridors. This means that dispersed camping WILL be allowed along all of these routes (camping in places other than the fee areas.) This alternative also gives us back the ATV routes on level 1 roads in the Little Naches that were implemented (and then pulled) last yearÖ.or at least until the Bird Huggers sue. One bad thing about this plan, and I havenít had time to find out if itís true, is that it offers no trail/road maintenance. When something washes out, it stays closed forever. Like I said though, I donít know if thatís true. I need to do a little more research, or if someone has the answer please chime in. If it IS true, then Iím not supporting this alternative. If it IS NOT true, then this the one that Iíll support in my comments.

Alternative B This is the alternative that the Forest Service is pushing. It is a reasonable compromise between the motorized users and the Bunny Huggers. It closes NO numbered trails, only some mileage of old spur/logging roads in the Naches District (More details on the later) From what I saw, none of which cut of access to any of our trails, at least in the Naches Ranger Dist. Like Alt D, this also gives back the ATV routes from last year until somebody sues to close them. At the moment I have two main problems with this plan (beside a few road closures.) Problem 1. There are at least two numbered trails in the Rimrock Area that arenít on the TMP maps. I need to verify the numbers when I get to a map, but itís the tail end of 615 where it forks, Southwest of Narrowneck, and heads down to towards Klickitat or toward the gate on the old Layman Highway (1070) Weíre told by Kelly Lawrence that itís just a misprint, an honest mistake. Iím inclined to believe her since theyíve always been horrible at things like this, but itís imperative that they get back on the approved map. Ron Rutherford is spearheading this and will keep us all in the loop. Problem 2. Both the Little Naches Road and Bumping Lake Rd are NOT designated corridors. This means all of those nice camping spots (that are more than a 100ft from water) in there are no longer going to be allowed. This will just force more people into the same areas. No good can come from that. More use, more damage, more garbage etcÖ We go to the mountains to get away from people, not to jamb into the same little campground as all of them.
This is the plan, in my opinion, that is most likely to get approved regardless of comments. At the moment, Iím not necessarily for OR against it. I need a little more info.

Alternative C Donít bother. Sell your toys and by yourself some hiking boots and a cope of ďA Bird Watchers Guide to the Northwest.Ē

Regardless of which plan you decide to support there are a few key points, in my opinion, that you need to address in your statement in addition to the ones Iíve already touched on.

1. ALL forest service roads must be open to ATVís
2. We need accountability on a trail maintenance plan. Ex. If a trail/road washes out, what plan & Funds are in place to repair it. Thereís some specific wording that a few people are working on regarding this that will better explain to them what we expect. Iíll let you know when I have it.
3. Your comments need to focus on facts as to why your opinions will create less resource damage, and more economy for the surrounding areas. Donít bother with what your rights are. Money talks, bull**** walks.

Iíll keep you guys posted on what I find out and end up deciding, but hopefully the rest of the guys will chime in with their opinions. Sorry this got so long winded.
__________________
Dave Walters
Tri Cities Peak Putters
Land Use Coordinator

www.peakputters.com


It's a Scout thing
Reply With Quote