MTB victory in new Forest Service rules

[S Curtiss]

The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a victory
for off-road cyclists. There is even a small victory for motorized users as
well. The new rules do regulate all types of human interaction in National
Forest lands, but are not as vague or open to interpretation as before.

Motorized ORVs (quads, motorcycles 4X4s, etc) are designated with specific
rules allowing access to roads and/or trails determined by Local Management.
These users will be able to enjoy their sport by working with Local
enforcement for designated fire road or trail access. Of course there are
provisions in the new rules for preservation and minimum disruption of
wildlife and other users. Essentially, motorized users will continue to have
access and have more definition for acceptable usage in public lands.

Off-road cyclists (mountain bikers) have a clear victory for access as the
Forest Service has determined that bicycles are NOT ORVs. They define ORV as
a "motorized vehicle". Bicycles and horses are not motorized and do NOT fall
into the classification.

Local officials may continue to designate some areas not compatible with any
or all trail usage or access. However, the new rules clearly define ORV,
bicycle and other types of human incursion into National Forest land.

It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these groups.
Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and possibly
expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use areas. There
will always be places designated too fragile (real or imagined) for bicycle
traffic. This is acceptable and admirable to preserve more of the accessible
areas.

Perhaps now the focus can be on the real dangers facing forest areas. This
is the complete and total destruction on the premise of building and sprawl.
Urban sprawl in most cases is inexcusable as many areas within city limits
fall to ruin and people choose to expand rather than rebuild. This bickering
about bicycles on trails is a waste of time and effort. A few bicycles in
the woods is certainly preferable to having no woods at all.

Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/

"Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)

S Curtiss

 

[coco]

S Curtiss wrote:
> The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a victory
> for off-road cyclists. There is even a small victory for motorized users as
> well. The new rules do regulate all types of human interaction in National
> Forest lands, but are not as vague or open to interpretation as before.
>
> Motorized ORVs (quads, motorcycles 4X4s, etc) are designated with specific
> rules allowing access to roads and/or trails determined by Local Management.
> These users will be able to enjoy their sport by working with Local
> enforcement for designated fire road or trail access. Of course there are
> provisions in the new rules for preservation and minimum disruption of
> wildlife and other users. Essentially, motorized users will continue to have
> access and have more definition for acceptable usage in public lands.
>
> Off-road cyclists (mountain bikers) have a clear victory for access as the
> Forest Service has determined that bicycles are NOT ORVs. They define ORV as
> a "motorized vehicle". Bicycles and horses are not motorized and do NOT fall
> into the classification.
>
> Local officials may continue to designate some areas not compatible with any
> or all trail usage or access. However, the new rules clearly define ORV,
> bicycle and other types of human incursion into National Forest land.
>
> It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
> designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these groups.
> Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and possibly
> expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use areas. There
> will always be places designated too fragile (real or imagined) for bicycle
> traffic. This is acceptable and admirable to preserve more of the accessible
> areas.
>
> Perhaps now the focus can be on the real dangers facing forest areas. This
> is the complete and total destruction on the premise of building and sprawl.
> Urban sprawl in most cases is inexcusable as many areas within city limits
> fall to ruin and people choose to expand rather than rebuild. This bickering
> about bicycles on trails is a waste of time and effort. A few bicycles in
> the woods is certainly preferable to having no woods at all.
>
> Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
>

Ah yes, so much more to destroy!:

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20051105/NEWS/111050031

Environmentalists blast new policy for off-road vehicles


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get News Feeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
November 5, 2005

Comments (0) Print Email

WASHINGTON - Environmentalists and recreation groups decried a Forest
Service plan to restrict off-road vehicles, saying the new policy could
legitimize hundreds of illegal trails carved out by off-road
enthusiasts.
The Forest Service announced Wednesday that it intends to halt the
roughhewn roads and trails that proliferate in public forests due to
increased traffic by dirt bikes and other off-road vehicles.
The new policy would require all 155 national forests and 20 grasslands
to designate roads and trails that are open to motor-vehicle use. But
for the first time, heavily traveled "renegade routes" created
illegally by off-road drivers could be designated for legal use.
"Instead of a bold stride, we got a baby step," said Jason Kiely,
director of the Montana-based Natural Trails and Water Coalition. "The
practical effect is that you are going to have to take out rogue routes
created by off-roaders one at a time."
The agency said it will take up to four years to designate roads and
trails on all 193 million acres of public lands. Each forest or
grassland will publish a map of approved routes that riders can use,
with penalties specified for riding on unmarked trails.
Environmentalists and other critics said the plan did not go far enough
to ensure effective enforcement. In the past three decades, the number
of off-road vehicle users has increased sevenfold to about 36 million,
causing conflicts with other users such as hikers, horseback riders and
the growing number of homeowners who live near national forests.
"This is like throwing a bucket of water on a raging inferno. It's the
right medicine - it's just not nearly enough of it," said Jim Furnish,
a former deputy Forest Service chief who has been critical of the
agency under the Bush administration.
"It's almost an oxymoron that there is a good illegal route," he added.
Forest Service officials defended the plan, saying some of the illegal
routes have been used for so long they no longer pose a threat.
"Some of the routes have evolved over the years to the point where they
are enjoyed by the public," said Jack Troyer, a regional forester who
led the Forest Service team that developed the policy. Routes that
cause erosion and other problems will be removed, he said.
Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth said the new policy encourages
off-road enthusiasts to use the forests in an environmentally friendly
way.
"It's my belief that most users want to do the right thing," Bosworth
said.
Don Amador of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, an Idaho-based group that
advocates motorized recreation, called the new policy a good start and
said he would encourage group members to participate as the Forest
Service designates trails.
Amador called the criticism by environmentalists off-base.
"It's our feeling that when forests had an open designation,
cross-country travel was legal. We feel those (long-established) routes
are legitimate, at least for consideration" by the Forest Service, he
said.
More than 200,000 miles of forest roads are currently open to
off-highway vehicle use as well as more than 36,000 miles of trails.
> "Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
>
> S Curtiss

 

[JD]

S Curtiss wrote:
> Off-road cyclists (mountain bikers) have a clear victory for access as the
> Forest Service has determined that bicycles are NOT ORVs. They define ORV as
> a "motorized vehicle". Bicycles and horses are not motorized and do NOT fall
> into the classification.


A victory for the MTB set and a huge defeat for the OHV petrotoyboys
who want an alliance with the MTB set. I never understood why the
OHVers thought they could get an alliance with the MTBers when some of
their numbers constantly ignore signage and ruin singletracks with
their internal combustion wheelchairs.

JD

 

[GWood]

Wheelchairs???? Cmon, twisting those throttles is _exhausting_!

Sorry, been a slow day

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> A victory for the MTB set and a huge defeat for the OHV petrotoyboys
> who want an alliance with the MTB set. I never understood why the
> OHVers thought they could get an alliance with the MTBers when some of
> their numbers constantly ignore signage and ruin singletracks with
> their internal combustion wheelchairs.
>
> JD
>

 

[Fole Haafstra]

I can deal with MTB'ers.
I cannot deal with motorized renegades.
The reason?
NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE
Nothing destroys an escape back to nature faster than noisy, polluting
machines.



"coco" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> S Curtiss wrote:
> > The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a
victory
> > for off-road cyclists. There is even a small victory for motorized users
as
> > well. The new rules do regulate all types of human interaction in
National
> > Forest lands, but are not as vague or open to interpretation as before.
> >
> > Motorized ORVs (quads, motorcycles 4X4s, etc) are designated with
specific
> > rules allowing access to roads and/or trails determined by Local
Management.
> > These users will be able to enjoy their sport by working with Local
> > enforcement for designated fire road or trail access. Of course there
are
> > provisions in the new rules for preservation and minimum disruption of
> > wildlife and other users. Essentially, motorized users will continue to
have
> > access and have more definition for acceptable usage in public lands.
> >
> > Off-road cyclists (mountain bikers) have a clear victory for access as
the
> > Forest Service has determined that bicycles are NOT ORVs. They define
ORV as
> > a "motorized vehicle". Bicycles and horses are not motorized and do NOT
fall
> > into the classification.
> >
> > Local officials may continue to designate some areas not compatible with
any
> > or all trail usage or access. However, the new rules clearly define ORV,
> > bicycle and other types of human incursion into National Forest land.
> >
> > It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
> > designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these
groups.
> > Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and possibly
> > expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use areas.
There
> > will always be places designated too fragile (real or imagined) for
bicycle
> > traffic. This is acceptable and admirable to preserve more of the
accessible
> > areas.
> >
> > Perhaps now the focus can be on the real dangers facing forest areas.
This
> > is the complete and total destruction on the premise of building and
sprawl.
> > Urban sprawl in most cases is inexcusable as many areas within city
limits
> > fall to ruin and people choose to expand rather than rebuild. This
bickering
> > about bicycles on trails is a waste of time and effort. A few bicycles
in
> > the woods is certainly preferable to having no woods at all.
> >
> > Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
> >
>
> Ah yes, so much more to destroy!:
>
> http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20051105/NEWS/111050031
>
> Environmentalists blast new policy for off-road vehicles
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get News Feeds
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> November 5, 2005
>
> Comments (0) Print Email
>
> WASHINGTON - Environmentalists and recreation groups decried a Forest
> Service plan to restrict off-road vehicles, saying the new policy could
> legitimize hundreds of illegal trails carved out by off-road
> enthusiasts.
> The Forest Service announced Wednesday that it intends to halt the
> roughhewn roads and trails that proliferate in public forests due to
> increased traffic by dirt bikes and other off-road vehicles.
> The new policy would require all 155 national forests and 20 grasslands
> to designate roads and trails that are open to motor-vehicle use. But
> for the first time, heavily traveled "renegade routes" created
> illegally by off-road drivers could be designated for legal use.
> "Instead of a bold stride, we got a baby step," said Jason Kiely,
> director of the Montana-based Natural Trails and Water Coalition. "The
> practical effect is that you are going to have to take out rogue routes
> created by off-roaders one at a time."
> The agency said it will take up to four years to designate roads and
> trails on all 193 million acres of public lands. Each forest or
> grassland will publish a map of approved routes that riders can use,
> with penalties specified for riding on unmarked trails.
> Environmentalists and other critics said the plan did not go far enough
> to ensure effective enforcement. In the past three decades, the number
> of off-road vehicle users has increased sevenfold to about 36 million,
> causing conflicts with other users such as hikers, horseback riders and
> the growing number of homeowners who live near national forests.
> "This is like throwing a bucket of water on a raging inferno. It's the
> right medicine - it's just not nearly enough of it," said Jim Furnish,
> a former deputy Forest Service chief who has been critical of the
> agency under the Bush administration.
> "It's almost an oxymoron that there is a good illegal route," he added.
> Forest Service officials defended the plan, saying some of the illegal
> routes have been used for so long they no longer pose a threat.
> "Some of the routes have evolved over the years to the point where they
> are enjoyed by the public," said Jack Troyer, a regional forester who
> led the Forest Service team that developed the policy. Routes that
> cause erosion and other problems will be removed, he said.
> Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth said the new policy encourages
> off-road enthusiasts to use the forests in an environmentally friendly
> way.
> "It's my belief that most users want to do the right thing," Bosworth
> said.
> Don Amador of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, an Idaho-based group that
> advocates motorized recreation, called the new policy a good start and
> said he would encourage group members to participate as the Forest
> Service designates trails.
> Amador called the criticism by environmentalists off-base.
> "It's our feeling that when forests had an open designation,
> cross-country travel was legal. We feel those (long-established) routes
> are legitimate, at least for consideration" by the Forest Service, he
> said.
> More than 200,000 miles of forest roads are currently open to
> off-highway vehicle use as well as more than 36,000 miles of trails.
> > "Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
> >
> > S Curtiss
>

 

[shaunwj]

Surely this will bring Vaderman out shouting and screaming....

What fun.

Glad to see that some space is given to all...even the noise boys.
Keeps them off our tracks.

Ride Hard, Ride Fast, Ride Home

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:59:29 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a victory
..for off-road cyclists. There is even a small victory for motorized users as
..well. The new rules do regulate all types of human interaction in National
..Forest lands, but are not as vague or open to interpretation as before.
..
..Motorized ORVs (quads, motorcycles 4X4s, etc) are designated with specific
..rules allowing access to roads and/or trails determined by Local Management.
..These users will be able to enjoy their sport by working with Local
..enforcement for designated fire road or trail access. Of course there are
..provisions in the new rules for preservation and minimum disruption of
..wildlife and other users. Essentially, motorized users will continue to have
..access and have more definition for acceptable usage in public lands.
..
..Off-road cyclists (mountain bikers) have a clear victory for access as the
..Forest Service has determined that bicycles are NOT ORVs.

That's only the Forest Service. In reality, any vehicles that are designed for
off-road use, including mountain bikes, are ORVs. DUH!

They define ORV as
..a "motorized vehicle". Bicycles and horses are not motorized and do NOT fall
..into the classification.
..
..Local officials may continue to designate some areas not compatible with any
..or all trail usage or access. However, the new rules clearly define ORV,
..bicycle and other types of human incursion into National Forest land.
..
..It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
..designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these groups.
..Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and possibly
..expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use areas.

BS.

There
..will always be places designated too fragile (real or imagined) for bicycle
..traffic.

BS. Anywhere that there are wildlife (living things) is too fragile for mountain
bike use. Any animal or plant small enough to be run over by a mountain biker is
fragile.

This is acceptable and admirable to preserve more of the accessible
..areas.
..
..Perhaps now the focus can be on the real dangers facing forest areas. This
..is the complete and total destruction on the premise of building and sprawl.
..Urban sprawl in most cases is inexcusable as many areas within city limits
..fall to ruin and people choose to expand rather than rebuild. This bickering
..about bicycles on trails is a waste of time and effort. A few bicycles in
..the woods is certainly preferable to having no woods at all.
..
..Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
..
.."Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
..
..S Curtiss
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:22:53 -0500, "Fole Haafstra" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..I can deal with MTB'ers.
..I cannot deal with motorized renegades.
..The reason?
..NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE
..Nothing destroys an escape back to nature faster than noisy, polluting
..machines.

Tell that to the Blue Ribbon Coalition! They are just like mountain bikers:
impervious to information.

.."coco" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> S Curtiss wrote:
..> > The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a
..victory
..> > for off-road cyclists. There is even a small victory for motorized users
..as
..> > well. The new rules do regulate all types of human interaction in
..National
..> > Forest lands, but are not as vague or open to interpretation as before.
..> >
..> > Motorized ORVs (quads, motorcycles 4X4s, etc) are designated with
..specific
..> > rules allowing access to roads and/or trails determined by Local
..Management.
..> > These users will be able to enjoy their sport by working with Local
..> > enforcement for designated fire road or trail access. Of course there
..are
..> > provisions in the new rules for preservation and minimum disruption of
..> > wildlife and other users. Essentially, motorized users will continue to
..have
..> > access and have more definition for acceptable usage in public lands.
..> >
..> > Off-road cyclists (mountain bikers) have a clear victory for access as
..the
..> > Forest Service has determined that bicycles are NOT ORVs. They define
..ORV as
..> > a "motorized vehicle". Bicycles and horses are not motorized and do NOT
..fall
..> > into the classification.
..> >
..> > Local officials may continue to designate some areas not compatible with
..any
..> > or all trail usage or access. However, the new rules clearly define ORV,
..> > bicycle and other types of human incursion into National Forest land.
..> >
..> > It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
..> > designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these
..groups.
..> > Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and possibly
..> > expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use areas.
..There
..> > will always be places designated too fragile (real or imagined) for
..bicycle
..> > traffic. This is acceptable and admirable to preserve more of the
..accessible
..> > areas.
..> >
..> > Perhaps now the focus can be on the real dangers facing forest areas.
..This
..> > is the complete and total destruction on the premise of building and
..sprawl.
..> > Urban sprawl in most cases is inexcusable as many areas within city
..limits
..> > fall to ruin and people choose to expand rather than rebuild. This
..bickering
..> > about bicycles on trails is a waste of time and effort. A few bicycles
..in
..> > the woods is certainly preferable to having no woods at all.
..> >
..> > Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
..> >
..>
..> Ah yes, so much more to destroy!:
..>
..> http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20051105/NEWS/111050031
..>
..> Environmentalists blast new policy for off-road vehicles
..>
..>
..> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
..> Get News Feeds
..> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
..>
..> BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
..> November 5, 2005
..>
..> Comments (0) Print Email
..>
..> WASHINGTON - Environmentalists and recreation groups decried a Forest
..> Service plan to restrict off-road vehicles, saying the new policy could
..> legitimize hundreds of illegal trails carved out by off-road
..> enthusiasts.
..> The Forest Service announced Wednesday that it intends to halt the
..> roughhewn roads and trails that proliferate in public forests due to
..> increased traffic by dirt bikes and other off-road vehicles.
..> The new policy would require all 155 national forests and 20 grasslands
..> to designate roads and trails that are open to motor-vehicle use. But
..> for the first time, heavily traveled "renegade routes" created
..> illegally by off-road drivers could be designated for legal use.
..> "Instead of a bold stride, we got a baby step," said Jason Kiely,
..> director of the Montana-based Natural Trails and Water Coalition. "The
..> practical effect is that you are going to have to take out rogue routes
..> created by off-roaders one at a time."
..> The agency said it will take up to four years to designate roads and
..> trails on all 193 million acres of public lands. Each forest or
..> grassland will publish a map of approved routes that riders can use,
..> with penalties specified for riding on unmarked trails.
..> Environmentalists and other critics said the plan did not go far enough
..> to ensure effective enforcement. In the past three decades, the number
..> of off-road vehicle users has increased sevenfold to about 36 million,
..> causing conflicts with other users such as hikers, horseback riders and
..> the growing number of homeowners who live near national forests.
..> "This is like throwing a bucket of water on a raging inferno. It's the
..> right medicine - it's just not nearly enough of it," said Jim Furnish,
..> a former deputy Forest Service chief who has been critical of the
..> agency under the Bush administration.
..> "It's almost an oxymoron that there is a good illegal route," he added.
..> Forest Service officials defended the plan, saying some of the illegal
..> routes have been used for so long they no longer pose a threat.
..> "Some of the routes have evolved over the years to the point where they
..> are enjoyed by the public," said Jack Troyer, a regional forester who
..> led the Forest Service team that developed the policy. Routes that
..> cause erosion and other problems will be removed, he said.
..> Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth said the new policy encourages
..> off-road enthusiasts to use the forests in an environmentally friendly
..> way.
..> "It's my belief that most users want to do the right thing," Bosworth
..> said.
..> Don Amador of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, an Idaho-based group that
..> advocates motorized recreation, called the new policy a good start and
..> said he would encourage group members to participate as the Forest
..> Service designates trails.
..> Amador called the criticism by environmentalists off-base.
..> "It's our feeling that when forests had an open designation,
..> cross-country travel was legal. We feel those (long-established) routes
..> are legitimate, at least for consideration" by the Forest Service, he
..> said.
..> More than 200,000 miles of forest roads are currently open to
..> off-highway vehicle use as well as more than 36,000 miles of trails.
..> > "Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
..> >
..> > S Curtiss
..>
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:59:29 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a
> victory
> .for off-road cyclists. There is even a small victory for motorized users
> as
> .well. The new rules do regulate all types of human interaction in
> National
> .Forest lands, but are not as vague or open to interpretation as before.
> .
> .Motorized ORVs (quads, motorcycles 4X4s, etc) are designated with
> specific
> .rules allowing access to roads and/or trails determined by Local
> Management.
> .These users will be able to enjoy their sport by working with Local
> .enforcement for designated fire road or trail access. Of course there are
> .provisions in the new rules for preservation and minimum disruption of
> .wildlife and other users. Essentially, motorized users will continue to
> have
> .access and have more definition for acceptable usage in public lands.
> .
> .Off-road cyclists (mountain bikers) have a clear victory for access as
> the
> .Forest Service has determined that bicycles are NOT ORVs.
>
> That's only the Forest Service. In reality, any vehicles that are designed
> for
> off-road use, including mountain bikes, are ORVs. DUH!
>
> They define ORV as
> .a "motorized vehicle". Bicycles and horses are not motorized and do NOT
> fall
> .into the classification.
> .
> .Local officials may continue to designate some areas not compatible with
> any
> .or all trail usage or access. However, the new rules clearly define ORV,
> .bicycle and other types of human incursion into National Forest land.
> .
> .It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
> .designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these
> groups.
> .Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and possibly
> .expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use areas.
>
> BS.
No - Your time spent trying to rally against off-road cycling is BS. The
National Forest rules are done, published and available. Mountain bikes will
continue to have access to these areas. The only thing you have accomplished
is to build your ego with your resume.
>
> There
> .will always be places designated too fragile (real or imagined) for
> bicycle
> .traffic.
>
> BS. Anywhere that there are wildlife (living things) is too fragile for
> mountain
> bike use. Any animal or plant small enough to be run over by a mountain
> biker is
> fragile.
Off road cycling has been determined to be similar in impact to hiking and
is now classified as such. The Park Service accessed the studies, heard from
citizens and made the detrmination. Cyclists will continue to have access to
many (possibly more) National Forest lands. ORVs (read "motorized") have
also been given trails to utilize in several circumstances. Mountain biking
has been recognized to be an acceptable recreational activity on public
lands.
>
> This is acceptable and admirable to preserve more of the accessible
> .areas.
> .
> .Perhaps now the focus can be on the real dangers facing forest areas.
> This
> .is the complete and total destruction on the premise of building and
> sprawl.
> .Urban sprawl in most cases is inexcusable as many areas within city
> limits
> .fall to ruin and people choose to expand rather than rebuild. This
> bickering
> .about bicycles on trails is a waste of time and effort. A few bicycles in
> .the woods is certainly preferable to having no woods at all.
> .
> .Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
> .

> ."Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
> .
> .S Curtiss
> .
>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:22:53 -0500, "Fole Haafstra"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .I can deal with MTB'ers.
> .I cannot deal with motorized renegades.
> .The reason?
> .NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE
> .Nothing destroys an escape back to nature faster than noisy, polluting
> .machines.
>
> Tell that to the Blue Ribbon Coalition! They are just like mountain
> bikers:
> impervious to information.
It is your own fault, Vandemn. And others like you. You focused on the total
removal of every activity you found distasteful and used misleading
information and extremism in the attempt. You completely disregarded the
options of economy, common sense and compromise.
Have you ever stopped to think that a preserved section of multi-use trails
can act as a buffer between human civilization and "pure habitat"? It could
slow or even halt sprawl as these trail areas become something to keep
rather than be bought and sold for new construction.
It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation only to
complain about bikes on your trails.
>

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:10:29 -0500, "S Curtiss"
<[email protected]> said in <x2ddf.12692$4l5.1052@dukeread05>:

>Off road cycling has been determined to be similar in impact to hiking and
>is now classified as such. The Park Service accessed the studies, heard from
>citizens and made the detrmination. Cyclists will continue to have access to
>many (possibly more) National Forest lands. ORVs (read "motorized") have
>also been given trails to utilize in several circumstances. Mountain biking
>has been recognized to be an acceptable recreational activity on public
>lands.

And I'm sure we owe a vote of thanks to Vandeman for bringing into
disrepute the small group opposed to mountain biking. Three cheers
for the lonely dumbass pointless thin-skinned paranoid
trolling evasive lazy lying hypocritical habitat-destroying
crapflooding bigot who led to all anti-mountain-biking activists being
tarred with the same brush!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[SMS]

S Curtiss wrote:
> The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a victory
> for off-road cyclists. There is even a small victory for motorized users as
> well. The new rules do regulate all types of human interaction in National
> Forest lands, but are not as vague or open to interpretation as before.

Well it's good to see mountain bikers getting more access, but not if it
means more access for motorized vehicles. Nothing worse than snowmobiles
and ATVs. The noise is not what most people go to the forest for.

 

[SMS]

S Curtiss wrote:

> It is your own fault, Vandemn. And others like you. You focused on the total
> removal of every activity you found distasteful and used misleading
> information and extremism in the attempt. You completely disregarded the
> options of economy, common sense and compromise.
> Have you ever stopped to think that a preserved section of multi-use trails
> can act as a buffer between human civilization and "pure habitat"? It could
> slow or even halt sprawl as these trail areas become something to keep
> rather than be bought and sold for new construction.
> It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation only to
> complain about bikes on your trails.

Very well stated. Often, groups that you would think to be opposed to
each other on most issues, come together in odd ways. I.e., both the NRA
(at least the part of the NRA concerned about hunting) and the Sierra
Club want to preserve habitat from development, and they can put aside
their other political issues to accomplish this.

OTOH, the Sierra Club is too in bed with developers of high rise
buildings, mistakenly believing that if we just build high density
condos in every town, that the developers will be uninterested in
development of existing wilderness and farmland.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:44:17 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:22:53 -0500, "Fole Haafstra"
..> <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .I can deal with MTB'ers.
..> .I cannot deal with motorized renegades.
..> .The reason?
..> .NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE
..> .Nothing destroys an escape back to nature faster than noisy, polluting
..> .machines.
..>
..> Tell that to the Blue Ribbon Coalition! They are just like mountain
..> bikers:
..> impervious to information.
..It is your own fault, Vandemn. And others like you. You focused on the total
..removal of every activity you found distasteful and used misleading
..information and extremism in the attempt. You completely disregarded the
..options of economy, common sense and compromise.
..Have you ever stopped to think that a preserved section of multi-use trails
..can act as a buffer between human civilization and "pure habitat"? It could
..slow or even halt sprawl as these trail areas become something to keep
..rather than be bought and sold for new construction.

BS. "I wanna ride my bike there!" is not a convincing reason to stop
development. Protection of wildlife IS. DUH!

..It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation only to
..complain about bikes on your trails.
..>
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:10:29 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:59:29 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:
..>
..> .The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a
..> victory
..> .for off-road cyclists. There is even a small victory for motorized users
..> as
..> .well. The new rules do regulate all types of human interaction in
..> National
..> .Forest lands, but are not as vague or open to interpretation as before.
..> .
..> .Motorized ORVs (quads, motorcycles 4X4s, etc) are designated with
..> specific
..> .rules allowing access to roads and/or trails determined by Local
..> Management.
..> .These users will be able to enjoy their sport by working with Local
..> .enforcement for designated fire road or trail access. Of course there are
..> .provisions in the new rules for preservation and minimum disruption of
..> .wildlife and other users. Essentially, motorized users will continue to
..> have
..> .access and have more definition for acceptable usage in public lands.
..> .
..> .Off-road cyclists (mountain bikers) have a clear victory for access as
..> the
..> .Forest Service has determined that bicycles are NOT ORVs.
..>
..> That's only the Forest Service. In reality, any vehicles that are designed
..> for
..> off-road use, including mountain bikes, are ORVs. DUH!
..>
..> They define ORV as
..> .a "motorized vehicle". Bicycles and horses are not motorized and do NOT
..> fall
..> .into the classification.
..> .
..> .Local officials may continue to designate some areas not compatible with
..> any
..> .or all trail usage or access. However, the new rules clearly define ORV,
..> .bicycle and other types of human incursion into National Forest land.
..> .
..> .It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
..> .designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these
..> groups.
..> .Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and possibly
..> .expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use areas.
..>
..> BS.
..No - Your time spent trying to rally against off-road cycling is BS. The
..National Forest rules are done, published and available. Mountain bikes will
..continue to have access to these areas. The only thing you have accomplished
..is to build your ego with your resume.
..>
..> There
..> .will always be places designated too fragile (real or imagined) for
..> bicycle
..> .traffic.
..>
..> BS. Anywhere that there are wildlife (living things) is too fragile for
..> mountain
..> bike use. Any animal or plant small enough to be run over by a mountain
..> biker is
..> fragile.
..Off road cycling has been determined to be similar in impact to hiking

BS. That so-called "research" was all refuted in
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

and
..is now classified as such. The Park Service accessed the studies,

BS. The Park Service has nothing to do with National Forests. DUH!

heard from
..citizens and made the detrmination. Cyclists will continue to have access to
..many (possibly more) National Forest lands. ORVs (read "motorized") have
..also been given trails to utilize in several circumstances. Mountain biking
..has been recognized to be an acceptable recreational activity on public
..lands.
..>
..> This is acceptable and admirable to preserve more of the accessible
..> .areas.
..> .
..> .Perhaps now the focus can be on the real dangers facing forest areas.
..> This
..> .is the complete and total destruction on the premise of building and
..> sprawl.
..> .Urban sprawl in most cases is inexcusable as many areas within city
..> limits
..> .fall to ruin and people choose to expand rather than rebuild. This
..> bickering
..> .about bicycles on trails is a waste of time and effort. A few bicycles in
..> .the woods is certainly preferable to having no woods at all.
..> .
..> .Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
..> .
..
..> ."Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
..> .
..> .S Curtiss
..> .
..>
..> ===
..> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
..> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
..> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
..>
..> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:44:17 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:22:53 -0500, "Fole Haafstra"
> .> <[email protected]>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .I can deal with MTB'ers.
> .> .I cannot deal with motorized renegades.
> .> .The reason?
> .> .NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE
> .> .Nothing destroys an escape back to nature faster than noisy, polluting
> .> .machines.
> .>
> .> Tell that to the Blue Ribbon Coalition! They are just like mountain
> .> bikers:
> .> impervious to information.
> .It is your own fault, Vandemn. And others like you. You focused on the
> total
> .removal of every activity you found distasteful and used misleading
> .information and extremism in the attempt. You completely disregarded the
> .options of economy, common sense and compromise.
> .Have you ever stopped to think that a preserved section of multi-use
> trails
> .can act as a buffer between human civilization and "pure habitat"? It
> could
> .slow or even halt sprawl as these trail areas become something to keep
> .rather than be bought and sold for new construction.
>
> BS. "I wanna ride my bike there!" is not a convincing reason to stop
> development. Protection of wildlife IS. DUH!
Again - all you can focus on is the bikes. See below. You REFUSE to accept
preservation unless it is on your terms. Allowing access to people, however
they may choose, builds a broad public respect and support for preserving
more space. The more space that is preserved - the more space there is to be
utilized by wildlife. Your whining about bikes does nothing except help to
seperate groups that should be cooperating for the larger preservation of
these areas.
>
> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation only to
> .complain about bikes on your trails.
> .>
> .
>
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[S Curtiss]

> .
> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .news:[email protected]...
> .> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:59:29 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> .>
> .> .The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a
> .> victory for off-road cyclists.
<clipped .> .
> .> .Off-road cyclists (mountain bikers) have a clear victory for access as
> .> the Forest Service has determined that bicycles are NOT ORVs.
> .>
> .> That's only the Forest Service. In reality, any vehicles that are
> designed
> .> for
> .> off-road use, including mountain bikes, are ORVs. DUH!
Despite what you believe - the Forest Service rules now apply. DUH!
> .>
> .> They define ORV as a "motorized vehicle". Bicycles and horses are not
> motorized and do NOT fall into the classification.
> .> .
> .> .Local officials may continue to designate some areas not compatible
> with
> .> any or all trail usage or access. However, the new rules clearly define
> ORV,
> .> .bicycle and other types of human incursion into National Forest land.
> .> .
> .> .It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
> .> .designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these
> .> groups.
> .> .Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and possibly
> .> .expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use areas.
> .>
> .> BS.
> .No - Your time spent trying to rally against off-road cycling is BS. The
> .National Forest rules are done, published and available. Mountain bikes
> will
> .continue to have access to these areas. The only thing you have
> accomplished
> .is to build your ego with your resume.
> .>
> .> There
> .> .will always be places designated too fragile (real or imagined) for
> .> bicycle
> .> .traffic.
> .>
> .> BS. Anywhere that there are wildlife (living things) is too fragile for
> .> mountain
> .> bike use. Any animal or plant small enough to be run over by a mountain
> .> biker is
> .> fragile.
> .Off road cycling has been determined to be similar in impact to hiking...
>
> BS. That so-called "research" was all refuted in
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
Again you point at your website with YOUR opinions. Fortunately, the people
who decide the rules had access to real information. When will you stop
pointing at your site as the definitive answer on the subject? If it were,
the new National Forest rules would reflect it. They don't - and you aren't.
>
> and is now classified as such. The Park Service accessed the studies,
>
> BS. The Park Service has nothing to do with National Forests. DUH!
Fine - The NFS had the studies and made the rules. And with those rules, we
can present further discussion in access for the purpose of off-road cycling
on public lands.
>
> heard from
> .citizens and made the detrmination. Cyclists will continue to have access
> to
> .many (possibly more) National Forest lands. ORVs (read "motorized") have
> .also been given trails to utilize in several circumstances. Mountain
> biking
> .has been recognized to be an acceptable recreational activity on public
> .lands.
> .> This bickering about bicycles on trails is a waste of time and effort.
> A few bicycles in the woods is certainly preferable to having no woods at
> all.
> .> .
> .> .Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
> .> .
> .
> .> ."Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
> .> .
> .> .S Curtiss
> .> .
> .>

 

[S Curtiss]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>S Curtiss wrote:
>> The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a
>> victory for off-road cyclists. There is even a small victory for
>> motorized users as well. The new rules do regulate all types of human
>> interaction in National Forest lands, but are not as vague or open to
>> interpretation as before.
>
> Well it's good to see mountain bikers getting more access, but not if it
> means more access for motorized vehicles. Nothing worse than snowmobiles
> and ATVs. The noise is not what most people go to the forest for.
Actually - the rules restrict motorized access to suitable areas, roads
and/or trails determined by local authorities with the guidelines presented
in these new rules. If anything, motorized access will be scaled back. While
some of these users find that unwarrented, most of the organized groups and
clubs find it beneficial to have guidelines for their use.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:20:09 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:59:29 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .The new rules for management in National Forests are out and show a
..> .> victory for off-road cyclists.
..<clipped .> .
..> .> .Off-road cyclists (mountain bikers) have a clear victory for access as
..> .> the Forest Service has determined that bicycles are NOT ORVs.
..> .>
..> .> That's only the Forest Service. In reality, any vehicles that are
..> designed
..> .> for
..> .> off-road use, including mountain bikes, are ORVs. DUH!
..Despite what you believe - the Forest Service rules now apply. DUH!
..> .>
..> .> They define ORV as a "motorized vehicle". Bicycles and horses are not
..> motorized and do NOT fall into the classification.
..> .> .
..> .> .Local officials may continue to designate some areas not compatible
..> with
..> .> any or all trail usage or access. However, the new rules clearly define
..> ORV,
..> .> .bicycle and other types of human incursion into National Forest land.
..> .> .
..> .> .It comes down to Local authorities, Local user groups, and Local
..> .> .designations for trails and fire roads and the cooperation of these
..> .> groups.
..> .> .Off-road cyclists will continue to have access to trails and possibly
..> .> .expanded access as the new rules allow broader use of multi-use areas.
..> .>
..> .> BS.
..> .No - Your time spent trying to rally against off-road cycling is BS. The
..> .National Forest rules are done, published and available. Mountain bikes
..> will
..> .continue to have access to these areas. The only thing you have
..> accomplished
..> .is to build your ego with your resume.
..> .>
..> .> There
..> .> .will always be places designated too fragile (real or imagined) for
..> .> bicycle
..> .> .traffic.
..> .>
..> .> BS. Anywhere that there are wildlife (living things) is too fragile for
..> .> mountain
..> .> bike use. Any animal or plant small enough to be run over by a mountain
..> .> biker is
..> .> fragile.
..> .Off road cycling has been determined to be similar in impact to hiking...
..>
..> BS. That so-called "research" was all refuted in
..> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.
..Again you point at your website with YOUR opinions. Fortunately, the people
..who decide the rules had access to real information. When will you stop
..pointing at your site as the definitive answer on the subject? If it were,
..the new National Forest rules would reflect it. They don't - and you aren't.

There is no more definitive information on this issue. The fact is that the
Forest Service did what they wanted to, not what is right. That's not new for
them, of course.

..> and is now classified as such. The Park Service accessed the studies,
..>
..> BS. The Park Service has nothing to do with National Forests. DUH!
..Fine - The NFS had the studies and made the rules. And with those rules, we
..can present further discussion in access for the purpose of off-road cycling
..on public lands.
..>
..> heard from
..> .citizens and made the detrmination. Cyclists will continue to have access
..> to
..> .many (possibly more) National Forest lands. ORVs (read "motorized") have
..> .also been given trails to utilize in several circumstances. Mountain
..> biking
..> .has been recognized to be an acceptable recreational activity on public
..> .lands.
..> .> This bickering about bicycles on trails is a waste of time and effort.
..> A few bicycles in the woods is certainly preferable to having no woods at
..> all.
..> .> .
..> .> .Reference: USDA Forest Service website: http://www.fs.fed.us/
..> .> .
..> .
..> .> ."Final rule, as sent to Federal Register" (PDF file)
..> .> .
..> .> .S Curtiss
..> .> .
..> .>
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:07:38 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]> wrote:

..
.."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..news:[email protected]...
..> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:44:17 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email protected]>
..> wrote:
..>
..> .
..> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
..> .news:[email protected]...
..> .> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:22:53 -0500, "Fole Haafstra"
..> .> <[email protected]>
..> .> wrote:
..> .>
..> .> .I can deal with MTB'ers.
..> .> .I cannot deal with motorized renegades.
..> .> .The reason?
..> .> .NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE
..> .> .Nothing destroys an escape back to nature faster than noisy, polluting
..> .> .machines.
..> .>
..> .> Tell that to the Blue Ribbon Coalition! They are just like mountain
..> .> bikers:
..> .> impervious to information.
..> .It is your own fault, Vandemn. And others like you. You focused on the
..> total
..> .removal of every activity you found distasteful and used misleading
..> .information and extremism in the attempt. You completely disregarded the
..> .options of economy, common sense and compromise.
..> .Have you ever stopped to think that a preserved section of multi-use
..> trails
..> .can act as a buffer between human civilization and "pure habitat"? It
..> could
..> .slow or even halt sprawl as these trail areas become something to keep
..> .rather than be bought and sold for new construction.
..>
..> BS. "I wanna ride my bike there!" is not a convincing reason to stop
..> development. Protection of wildlife IS. DUH!
..Again - all you can focus on is the bikes. See below. You REFUSE to accept
..preservation unless it is on your terms.

Mountain biking preserves NOTHING. It has NEVER preserved anything, and never
will.

Allowing access to people, however
..they may choose,

MOuntain bikers already have access, liar.

builds a broad public respect and support for preserving
..more space. The more space that is preserved - the more space there is to be
..utilized by wildlife. Your whining about bikes does nothing except help to
..seperate groups that should be cooperating for the larger preservation of
..these areas.

So everyone should just bend over for mountain bikers? You guys are SICK.

..> .It is pitiful how you blow off the big picture of preservation only to
..> .complain about bikes on your trails.
..> .>
..> .
..>
..> ===
..> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
..> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
..> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
..>
..> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
..

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande