ttora4runner
Expedition Leader
Just passing this along: http://www.sharetrails.org/alerts/2...lition+(BlueRibbon+Coalition+News+and+Alerts)
COLORADO-BLM Seeks Comments on Grand Junction Draft RMP/EIS
- Thread starter ttora4runner
- Start date
GaryMc
Explorer
Perhaps you should read the plan before you ignorantly spout off. The GJ plan has been written by good folks who have put an absurd amount of work into it. Also the GJ office has the most progressive trail building program in the Interior Dept.. They actively design, build OHV and mountain bike trails on a regular basis, mostly with private funding as their budget has been shredded.
NMC_EXP
Explorer
Well excuse the hell out of me.
These recently closed roads & trails and areas of BLM and FS ground redesignated as "wilderness study areas" and closed to traffic must not be in the Grand Junction district.
Why are there policy differences between the various F.S. & BLM districts? Seems unlikely since they all report up the same chain of command. GJ must be a rogue agency
Federal policy is to close public ground to wheeled traffic via the Wilderness Reinventory process:
***
WILD LANDS SECRETARIAL ORDER 3310
Secretary of Interior Salazar is circumventing the settlement agreement by issuing Secretarial Order 3310 in
December 2010 that requires BLM to protect lands with wilderness characteristics and establishes a new class of
lands to be managed for preservation: "Wild Lands," a land designation not subject to Congressional approval.
In addition to the 191 designated Wilderness Areas covering 7.7 million acres and the remaining 545 WSA's covering
nearly 12.7 million acres in the Western States and Alaska, BLM must now assess how many of the 220 million acres
of unclassified, multiple‐use lands should be set aside from multiple‐use via a Wild Lands classification. These
reviews could be accomplished as part of the plan revision process or in a project proposal analysis required for all
project approvals. Such reviews would apply to ALL uses of public lands, including oil and gas leasing and exploration
projects, grazing permits, recreation permits, etc.
While BLM must develop new wilderness policy guidance, DOI has already drafted a new 6300‐1‐Wilderness
Inventory Manual requiring BLM to maintain a current inventory of wilderness resources. Inventories will be
updated when:
• Wilderness characteristics are raised as an issue during scoping for land use planning or project level analysis;
• An RMP, RMP revision or amendment is being initiated;
• New lands with wilderness characteristics are identified by the public
• Lands appear to have wilderness characteristics and a proposed project may impair their character
• New lands are acquired. *
It is happening.
Regards
Jim
GaryMc
Explorer
Firstly, the BLM and FS report to two very different chains of command. The FS is under the Dept. of Agriculture and the BLM is under the Dept. of The Interiorm same as the NPS.
Next, the last designated Wilderness within the GJ field office had one road closed and it dead ended into the edge of a cliff, approx. two-miles of that road was lost and it was generally impassable to 95% of vehicle traffic.
Yes, new lands are being assessed for Wilderness and WSA designation. (note that is is possible to have open roads within WSA's and Moab is only one example of where this has been done). Wilderness with a big W is a rarity. You have far more areas to drive and ride on than you have wilderness areas. You always will. Period.
I'm only going to speak to the GJ field office as I know it intimately; That crew has built and maintained far more OHV trails than they have closed within the last ten years. Each BLM office has a large amount of independence to do it's own thing (despite what the Sect. of Interior wants). This generally is led by the Field Office Manager. If you have a neutral or pro-OHV manager then, in all likelihood more trails will be built or kept from being closed. If your manager has a pro-wilderness stance you can bet you are going to lose roads and trails.
Speaking to roads and trails being closed for species protection: I have no problem with that. If the proper scientific studies show that closing a few areas to OHV traffic will help a species survive I am all for it. If your recreational OHV activities are more important than a species survival I would be interested to hear about them....
NMC_EXP
Explorer
Firstly, the BLM and FS report to two very different chains of command. The FS is under the Dept. of Agriculture and the BLM is under the Dept. of The Interiorm same as the NPS.
And the Secretaries of Interior and Ag both get paychecks drawn on the US Treasury. They have the same boss.
Wilderness with a big W is a rarity. You have far more areas to drive and ride on than you have wilderness areas. You always will. Period.
Always will? Speculative - just as my assertion that the trend is to close more areas to vehicular traffic. This based on the number of areas now off limits to vehicular traffic as compared to ca 1975. My observations inform me the trend towards closure is real.
Each BLM office has a large amount of independence to do it's own thing (despite what the Sect. of Interior wants). This generally is led by the Field Office Manager. If you have a neutral or pro-OHV manager then, in all likelihood more trails will be built or kept from being closed. If your manager has a pro-wilderness stance you can bet you are going to lose roads and trails.
Assuming that is accurate, I am surprised.
Speaking to roads and trails being closed for species protection: I have no problem with that. If the proper scientific studies show that closing a few areas to OHV traffic will help a species survive I am all for it. If your recreational OHV activities are more important than a species survival I would be interested to hear about them....
I have a degree in Biology and intended to go into wildlife mgmt. back in the 70's when "ecology" was all the rage (think Paul Erlich).
Species preservation - absolutely. You hit the operative phrase with: "If the proper scientific studies show that closing a few areas to OHV traffic will help a species survive..."
There are cases of: (a) no science, (b) bad science and (c) fabrication of data, being used to justify Wilderness, WSA's and Wildlands. Think lynx hair being imported from state 'A' and presented as being collected in state 'B' to justify "protection" of an area. It happens.
I mentioned the Boreal Toad. A critter that has closed at least two areas I've seen. This toad lives in the beaver dam marshes in flat bottomed valleys. The roads, trails and tracks do not go through the bogs. Being amphibians, I suspect the toads stick close to the water. I see no problem here.
Regards
Jim
And the Secretaries of Interior and Ag both get paychecks drawn on the US Treasury. They have the same boss.
Wilderness with a big W is a rarity. You have far more areas to drive and ride on than you have wilderness areas. You always will. Period.
Always will? Speculative - just as my assertion that the trend is to close more areas to vehicular traffic. This based on the number of areas now off limits to vehicular traffic as compared to ca 1975. My observations inform me the trend towards closure is real.
Each BLM office has a large amount of independence to do it's own thing (despite what the Sect. of Interior wants). This generally is led by the Field Office Manager. If you have a neutral or pro-OHV manager then, in all likelihood more trails will be built or kept from being closed. If your manager has a pro-wilderness stance you can bet you are going to lose roads and trails.
Assuming that is accurate, I am surprised.
Speaking to roads and trails being closed for species protection: I have no problem with that. If the proper scientific studies show that closing a few areas to OHV traffic will help a species survive I am all for it. If your recreational OHV activities are more important than a species survival I would be interested to hear about them....
I have a degree in Biology and intended to go into wildlife mgmt. back in the 70's when "ecology" was all the rage (think Paul Erlich).
Species preservation - absolutely. You hit the operative phrase with: "If the proper scientific studies show that closing a few areas to OHV traffic will help a species survive..."
There are cases of: (a) no science, (b) bad science and (c) fabrication of data, being used to justify Wilderness, WSA's and Wildlands. Think lynx hair being imported from state 'A' and presented as being collected in state 'B' to justify "protection" of an area. It happens.
I mentioned the Boreal Toad. A critter that has closed at least two areas I've seen. This toad lives in the beaver dam marshes in flat bottomed valleys. The roads, trails and tracks do not go through the bogs. Being amphibians, I suspect the toads stick close to the water. I see no problem here.
Regards
Jim
jonharis
...................
Bumping this thread. The RMP comment period has been extended to June 14th due to the efforts of a few great individuals in the motorized community.
Well written and well researched comments are the way to get things changed. The plan is indeed huge and many good people indeed worked on it spending literally millions of dollars doing it. It is not a perfect document however and has some serious flaws and some items of great concern to motorized users. Comment soon, comment often.
http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/gjfo/rmp/rmp.html
Gary, good to see that you are on here. You just came up in a conversation yesterday! Cheers!
Well written and well researched comments are the way to get things changed. The plan is indeed huge and many good people indeed worked on it spending literally millions of dollars doing it. It is not a perfect document however and has some serious flaws and some items of great concern to motorized users. Comment soon, comment often.
http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/gjfo/rmp/rmp.html
Gary, good to see that you are on here. You just came up in a conversation yesterday! Cheers!
NMC_EXP
Explorer
Jonathan
You may be aware of this organization, the "Colorado Wilderness Network" (CWN) and the "Colorado's Canyon Country Wilderness Proposal" (CCCWP). If not, here is a link to the website which defines the magnitude of the threat:
http://www.canyoncountrywilderness.org/background.htm
This outfit is quite ambitious. CWN's objective is to redesignate 7.6 million acres in CO as Wilderness in addition to the existing 3.2 million acres of CO Wilderness.....a 237% increase.
This is one of the organizations you are up against. They have been involved in getting two spots in my backyard classified as "Wilderness Study Areas" (Grape Creek and Beaver Creek).
CWN's definition of "Wilderness" is:
"Wilderness is a place where vehicles are not allowed, where no permanent camps or structures can be made, where wildlife and its habitat are kept in as pristine a condition as possible."
As I recall the 1964 legislation defined wilderness as an area which had never been developed (including roads). The current crop of eco warriors has engaged in mission creep. No matter how much prior development there is, it can still be classified as "Wilderness" - just close the roads and ban vehicular traffic.
Regards
Jim
You may be aware of this organization, the "Colorado Wilderness Network" (CWN) and the "Colorado's Canyon Country Wilderness Proposal" (CCCWP). If not, here is a link to the website which defines the magnitude of the threat:
http://www.canyoncountrywilderness.org/background.htm
This outfit is quite ambitious. CWN's objective is to redesignate 7.6 million acres in CO as Wilderness in addition to the existing 3.2 million acres of CO Wilderness.....a 237% increase.
This is one of the organizations you are up against. They have been involved in getting two spots in my backyard classified as "Wilderness Study Areas" (Grape Creek and Beaver Creek).
CWN's definition of "Wilderness" is:
"Wilderness is a place where vehicles are not allowed, where no permanent camps or structures can be made, where wildlife and its habitat are kept in as pristine a condition as possible."
As I recall the 1964 legislation defined wilderness as an area which had never been developed (including roads). The current crop of eco warriors has engaged in mission creep. No matter how much prior development there is, it can still be classified as "Wilderness" - just close the roads and ban vehicular traffic.
Regards
Jim
roverrocks
Expedition Leader
You sir are the enemy. [inflamatory personal attack removed ] "The GJ office has the most progressive trail building program in the Interior Dept": Who cares about a few miles of "trail building". The whole corrupt plan is about closing off hundreds and hundreds of miles of existing trails. The prime word is EXISTING, EXISTING, EXISTING,EXISTING trails!!!!!!!!!!!!! NMC_EXP is totally correct when he says "Poised to ban vehicles from more public land, I reckon".
Last edited by a moderator:
May I warn against personal attacks of any kind which are a violation of our terms of use.
You may have a differing opinion than a fellow member here, but please maintain a diplomatic decorum in your debate.
Thanks
D
You may have a differing opinion than a fellow member here, but please maintain a diplomatic decorum in your debate.
Thanks
D
The objections to these "surveys" and "coalitions" is that those of us living in Western Colorado have watched what has happened in Utah, lots of trail closures and reduced access for motorized hobbies and all that land that now has fewer users.
One of the more popular places here in western Colorado is the area north of Clifton and GJ. If you follow the links espoused as balanced and thoughtful in the posts on this thread you will end up looking at this area called 'Zone L Future'. There is no mistake that these maps look like my math homework from middle school, only one of their solutions leaves things unchanged, the remaining 3 of 4 have massive trail closures heavily marked in red.
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...dat/zone_L_alternatives_area_designations.pdf
My math improved later in life and my statistics, so here your go: 75% of the Zone L proposals are for closing 60% or more of existing trails. In english, the majority of the proposals favor closing a majority of the trails.
The other nineteen 'Zone _ Future' maps all tell a similar tale, more closures.
I am all in favor of a balanced approach to Our Lands. I use the wilderness and see a need for it, while my backpacking days are getting fewer and fewer, I still do a lot of hut trips and ski in the adjoining wilderness areas. A big part of the problem is laziness. People expect to drive their car to a parking lot, walking a 1/4 mile to a remarkable wonder and having it all to themselves. You want remote, then hike from Snowmass to Marble, you want a zoo with a view, go to the Maroon Bells. You want wonder and solitude, you are going to have to earn it.
There is more than enough wilderness land here in Colorado, the problem is the majority of people are not fit enough to enjoy it and complain its to tough.
Our objections to the "comments" solicited by the BLM is that they do not listen to those of us impacted, only to the large non-profit groups with lawyers and lobbyists. They have an agenda and they are after us, no Catch-22 about it. But they don't live here, and they are not going to go for a hike in the barren desert of Zone L, which is under a flight path for the Grand Junction Airport and borders I-70 its entire length, they just want it closed and declared Wilderness.
Cheers, Chris
One of the more popular places here in western Colorado is the area north of Clifton and GJ. If you follow the links espoused as balanced and thoughtful in the posts on this thread you will end up looking at this area called 'Zone L Future'. There is no mistake that these maps look like my math homework from middle school, only one of their solutions leaves things unchanged, the remaining 3 of 4 have massive trail closures heavily marked in red.
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...dat/zone_L_alternatives_area_designations.pdf
My math improved later in life and my statistics, so here your go: 75% of the Zone L proposals are for closing 60% or more of existing trails. In english, the majority of the proposals favor closing a majority of the trails.
The other nineteen 'Zone _ Future' maps all tell a similar tale, more closures.
I am all in favor of a balanced approach to Our Lands. I use the wilderness and see a need for it, while my backpacking days are getting fewer and fewer, I still do a lot of hut trips and ski in the adjoining wilderness areas. A big part of the problem is laziness. People expect to drive their car to a parking lot, walking a 1/4 mile to a remarkable wonder and having it all to themselves. You want remote, then hike from Snowmass to Marble, you want a zoo with a view, go to the Maroon Bells. You want wonder and solitude, you are going to have to earn it.
There is more than enough wilderness land here in Colorado, the problem is the majority of people are not fit enough to enjoy it and complain its to tough.
Our objections to the "comments" solicited by the BLM is that they do not listen to those of us impacted, only to the large non-profit groups with lawyers and lobbyists. They have an agenda and they are after us, no Catch-22 about it. But they don't live here, and they are not going to go for a hike in the barren desert of Zone L, which is under a flight path for the Grand Junction Airport and borders I-70 its entire length, they just want it closed and declared Wilderness.
Cheers, Chris
Last edited:
roverrocks
Expedition Leader
:wings:
:victory: You are an individual who gets what's going on. I applaud you.
C5dad
Observer
Chris has it right!
Many Federal offices use the EIS to sanction the public based on a lack of response to mega documents. Really? Who wants to spend hours to find the proposed alternatives on page 427 (or whatever) since most folks are looking at the executive summary and the conclusions without hitting the minutia. This is MO for the feds in too many areas. Moreover, if they don't like a comment, they just dismiss it whether facts are provided or not (and yes, I have dealt with this on too many occasions!)
It is up to us to watch what they (the Govt) is proposing. They are taking away our rights to our lands, plain and simple. Just look at the proposals, and you cannot deny this. And it is happening all over. Especially with short rule making timelines proposed as of late.
Many Federal offices use the EIS to sanction the public based on a lack of response to mega documents. Really? Who wants to spend hours to find the proposed alternatives on page 427 (or whatever) since most folks are looking at the executive summary and the conclusions without hitting the minutia. This is MO for the feds in too many areas. Moreover, if they don't like a comment, they just dismiss it whether facts are provided or not (and yes, I have dealt with this on too many occasions!)
It is up to us to watch what they (the Govt) is proposing. They are taking away our rights to our lands, plain and simple. Just look at the proposals, and you cannot deny this. And it is happening all over. Especially with short rule making timelines proposed as of late.