Sierra Club trying to shutdown Reiter area in Washington State.

[WeppsRunner]

The Sierra Club has their eyes on the Reiter area and is calling on it's members to help close it to ORV's.

Now please. Think before you post a response and think about your wording. We all have a special place in our hearts for the Sierra Club but please keep the attacks to the minimum and discuss what can be done to keep as much of it open as possible.

So, what are you going to do?

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I certainly don't agree with everything the Sierra Club does, but my first question here is, is what they say true? If it is to any documentable degree, then 4WD users have only ourselves to blame if the problems have been known and escalating without being addressed.

Semi-annual trail cleanups that only clean up trash left by careless 4WD owners won't solve the problem. Getting a group of "concerned" 4WD owners together and attacking the Sierra Club won't do it either. You've got to figure out a way to mitigate the damage caused by your own user group to have any chance of getting a compromise land use plan adopted.

 

[paulj]

I haven't done any off-road driving in this area, but have passed by it while driving the backroad (north side of the river) between Gold Bar and Index. When I first saw ORV activity in the area I was a bit surprised, since the Forest Service keeps a pretty tight rein on this sort of thing, at least on the west side of the mountains. But this is state DNR land. I believe DNR has a formally acknowledged network of ORV trails on the inner bend of the Hood Canal (Capitol Forest), but this is a ad-hock ORV area, not a formally established and regulated one.

You can see a list of DNR recreational lands here:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/RecreationEdu...ional_opportunities_on_state_trust_lands.aspx
and here is DNR's planning on the use of this area, which they call Reiter Foothills.

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/RecreationEdu...nPlanning/Pages/amp_rec_reiter_foothills.aspx

I suspect that the stream damage issue will be the critical one determining future use - both from salmon habitat, and sedimentation standpoint. This is steep terrain in a high rainfall area on a major river (the Skykomish which feeds into the Snohomish). During last December/January's snow and rain, the Snohomish floodplain was a big lake. Anything that potentially increases sedimentation and landslide risk in this watershed is bound to receive more attention in the coming years.

The Expo Arctic Ocean Expedition drove the Lake Isabel Trail in this area about 2 years ago
http://expeditionportal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=65742&postcount=306

Here is the Forest Service's description of nearby Wild Sky Wilderness
http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=wildView&WID=704

 

[Willman]

Having lived in the area and have spent a lot of time up there.....I thought the ORV park was already put in place. I guess all the users of the area need to come together to find a better solution to clean up the place to get the ORV state blessing!

 

[chop]

So, what are you going to do?

Hope the Sierra Club has a special place in their heart for fossil fuel gluttonous overland vehicles.

 

[jnaut]

I certainly don't agree with everything the Sierra Club does, but my first question here is, is what they say true? If it is to any documentable degree, then 4WD users have only ourselves to blame if the problems have been known and escalating without being addressed.

Semi-annual trail cleanups that only clean up trash left by careless 4WD owners won't solve the problem. Getting a group of "concerned" 4WD owners together and attacking the Sierra Club won't do it either. You've got to figure out a way to mitigate the damage caused by your own user group to have any chance of getting a compromise land use plan adopted.

What about the theory that any ORV use is, by definition, damage?

 

[jnaut]

Sierra Club's view of ORV use:

ORVs widen rutted trails and recklessly forge new ones. Through compaction and erosion, they destroy the forest floor, harm water filtration, muddy the streams, and degrade watershed resources. They endanger plants and animals--rare, threatened, and healthy. Permanent and migrant birds lose nesting sites, cover, and habitat. The forest incurs great harm from the unnatural invasion of gouging, offensive noise and harmful fumes.

Human users also suffer. Like neighborhood bullies, motorized recreationists take over the playground. Solitude, peace, and quiet are shattered. Often hikers are forced off the trails. “Multiple use should not be used to defend multiple abuse,”

ORVs were banned from the Hoosier National Forest in 1989. At that time, it was the only national forest closed to ORVs. “Most states are having big problems because they let the ORVs in,” said Foote. “The Forest Service cannot adequately monitor and enforce even slight permitted access.

Now, the above quote, while taken from a campaign to keep ORV's out of Hoosier Nat'l Forest, is applicable to ANY natural place. And their wording betrays that fact. Ie, this problem isn't just a problem for Hoosier, it's a problem everywhere.

So one can reasonably conclude that the Sierra Club's position on ORV use anywhere is, well, "No."

http://indiana.sierraclub.org/Sierran/01-2/HNF.asp

I believe that ORV users can be as responsible as ever, and you'll always face opposition. So the only reasonable response is to fight on principle. If you try to convince someone that you'll super-pinkie-promise to keep the damage to a minimum, you're fighting a losing battle. Becuase the first ORV user that breaks the rules ends up ruining it for everyone. And realistically, we all know that we'll never get every ORV user to follow the rules. It's a statistical impossibility. So it must be fought on principle.

I leave you with this:

Q: Why shouldn't ORVs be allowed in some parts of the HNF?
Foote: That sounds like such a reasonable request: “We'll only do a little bit of damage.” A forest is a living, growing organism, and motorized vehicles are alien to its nature and ecological functions. This is one case for the old saying, Give ‘em an inch and they'll take a mile.

 

[jnaut]

Here's the counter-argument. Again, fight on principle:

http://www.4x4wire.com/access/columns/OHV_Use_Ashba.htm

 

[paulj]

Here's an area newspaper article about the DNR planning process for this area

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080218/NEWS01/702579463&news01ad=1

A JCTRA article about the need for volunteer work in the area:
http://jctra.org/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=141

Washington Climbers are interested, in part because there is a significant climbing wall above the town of Index. There was an article not too long ago about the need to buy up some private land to ensure continued access to this wall.
http://www.washingtonclimbers.org/Forums/showthread.php?t=250

from a motorcycle club
http://stumpjumpers.org/2008/12/17/dnr-to-install-ecology-blocks-at-reiter/

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

http://www.4x4wire.com/access/columns/OHV_Use_Ashba.htm

If you use the "counterarguments" in that piece you'll lose. The Clinton Roadless Area Rule was passed after thousands of public meetings and millions of individual comments, which were nearly two-to-one in support (including support from me and my wife). That's a fact, not an after-the-fact MSNBC poll.

The "firebreak and access" argument is also patently and laughably false, as I've pointed out here before with documentation from the U.S. Forest Service's own files.

The Blue Ribbon Coalition a conservation group? Um . . .

The fact is, if you want continued access you need to self-police. Budget cuts have emasculated any law enforcement or monitoring powers the federal land agencies once had, so we need to do it ourselves. That means landing on every single bozo you see abusing public land.

You also need to present a united and reasonable coalition to the land agencies charged with protecting that land. Just spewing bile about the Sierra Club won't do it, because a lot of their arguments are perfectly valid, like it or not. We do have a big problem with OHV users abusing public land. I see it every day, from my back yard.

The paradigms for these fights are changing, and the only way OHV users will retain access is to change the paradigms of their approach. The Sierra Club isn't the real enemy. If a considerable percentage of OHV users were not abusing public land, the Sierra Club would have no ammunition.

 

[paulj]

The subject line and intro in the original post are misleading. The SC text is asking interested members to get involved in the planning process for this area. I don't know whether the SC is a johnny-come-lately to this planning, or whether this a repeat of a notice issued last year when the planning group was organized. But the links I found make it clear that 'motorized' groups have been urging their members to be involved for at least that long.

Does anyone know more about the 10,000 acre 'official' ORV park that these groups are pushing for? Why the whole 10? why not 3,000? Admission fee to pay for development and policing? Closed during wet months of the year (as Capitol Forest is)? Accommodations for non motorized sport users, such hikers to Lake Isabel, equestrian, climbers? Restrictions to protect fish, streams and the river? Controlling illegal activities (fires, drugs, vandalism, dumping)?

Some groups appear to be supportive of barriers that limit access to stream beds and sensitive areas. Groups have also had annual cleanup parties.

 

[Ruffin' It]

I have to second Johnathan's view point. If OHVs are screwing up an area, then it is the OHVers that are to blame for it being closed. Yes, there will always be people and groups opposed to motorized vehicles on the trail. But there are groups opposed to just about everything in this world. If these groups aren't given enough ammo to have sound arguments against us, they simply remain a nucance.

When we (generic we, I know pretty much everyone on this board knows better), drive up a stream to dump an old washing machine in it and unload $150 worth of shot gun shells into it, it is going to make everyone look bad. When 4 wheelers trash a trail by spinning wheels for minutes on end trying to make it up something they should just back down, it is only going to give factual support to groups that don't like things with engines.

We enjoy a past time that most people don't understand. Since people generally don't care about what they don't understand, they are not going to be motivated to protect it. The only way we can preserve off-highway travel in the long term is to minimize arguements against it and, therefore, opposition to it. It is not the Rangers responsibility to stop the irresponsible users from ruining it for all of us, it is ours.

Only when we start giving more than we take are thoughts and feelings outside of our community going to change.


-exit soapbox left-

 

[paulj]

Here's a slide show of the area north and east of Reiter, including the town of Index, the North Fork of the Skykomish River, and area now included in the Wild Sky Wilderness.

http://wildsky.org/fram?url_id=6

I can't information about the wildsky.org website, though it appears to have been developed while the wilderness designation was still under consideration. From what I can tell, the ORV area is centered around an abandoned quarry close to the Skykomish River, on DNR (and possibly private) land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Sky_Wilderness

 

[seriousactualist]

The subject line and intro in the original post are misleading. The SC text is asking interested members to get involved in the planning process for this area. I don't know whether the SC is a johnny-come-lately to this planning, or whether this a repeat of a notice issued last year when the planning group was organized. But the links I found make it clear that 'motorized' groups have been urging their members to be involved for at least that long.

Does anyone know more about the 10,000 acre 'official' ORV park that these groups are pushing for? Why the whole 10? why not 3,000? Admission fee to pay for development and policing? Closed during wet months of the year (as Capitol Forest is)? Accommodations for non motorized sport users, such hikers to Lake Isabel, equestrian, climbers? Restrictions to protect fish, streams and the river? Controlling illegal activities (fires, drugs, vandalism, dumping)?

Some groups appear to be supportive of barriers that limit access to stream beds and sensitive areas. Groups have also had annual cleanup parties.

The current Reiter ORV trail system covers only a proper part of the Reiter Foothills area to the south. I don't know of any responsible group advocating turning the entire area into a designated ORV park.

As you write, many wheeling groups -- including the Reiter Trail Watch and the Pacific Northwest 4-Wheel Drive Association -- run annual or biannual cleanup events at Reiter and work closely on work projects with the DNR. This has gone on for years and years.

But I agree that the trail system is threatened by over- as well as misuse, and that there's a real need for a sensible recreation plan that provides for the continued and sustainable use of all while protecting delicate natural resources. Here as elsewhere, we need to walk our talk about treading lightly, wheeling responsibly and engaging in sustainable practices so that others can enjoy the benefits we have had the privilege to enjoy.

-- Paul

 

[toyrunner95]

I deal with the DNR for Elby and Rieter. The problem is being taken care of. It isn't actually designated an ORV park but the DNR has already decided that it will be. The streams aren't significant salmon spawning grounds nor are they close enough to actually have salmon in them. they are more like creeks.

Furthermore the state is required to designate areas as recreational use. Washington is actully under its limit which is why they are considering Rieter for an ORV park.

The sierra club isn't going to win. And if they do, it will be a battle, not the war.