Wildfires and YOU

Scott Sinclair looking N. from the Smith River

NRA into S. OR in 2003 after the Biscuit Fire

Michelle Malkin’s excellent article on wildfires and the band-aid approach this administration (and others for that matter) have taken to address (or not address) fuel management (we used to call it logging) struck some very raw nerves with me today.

Malkin’s Article on Wildfires

http://www.news-press.com/article/20120621/OPINION/306210026/How-Obama-bureaucrats-fueled-western-wildfires

While extremely hot wildfires destroy human life, property, and our natural resources, they also impact public recreational use of federal lands.  I have seen wildfires destroy destination recreation areas … which are then closed to the public until they are reconstructed.   I wrote a 2003 article on the Biscuit Fire that impacted NW CA and S. OR.  which included a lot of areas that were “closed” to motorized access in order to “protect” them.  Some protection!

2003 Article on the Biscuit Fire

http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine/article/biscuit-fire-team-stealth-access-amp-big-lie

It seems right now that everything is upside down.   Growing up in Northern California in the 60s/70s, there were busy timber towns that employed a lot of people with well-paying jobs (I know because I worked in one of them).  Now those communities are ghost towns which are surrounded by federal timber land where the trees (and wildlife) are just waiting for the next wildfire to burn them.

I hope that I live long enough to see some common sense brought back into the environmental equation.   Resource management should be more than just installing a gate with a closed sign on it.

Thanks for your interest!

HQ UPDATE - OHVers Testify at March 14 OHMVR Commission Meeting

The Recreation HQ wants to thank all members of the OHV family for attending the special OHMVR Commission meeting yesterday in Sacramento. HQ believes the commission admirably fulfilled its duty to represent OHV recreation by taking public testimony from a wide array of interests.


This was the best attended commission meeting in the last 3 years and it showed the high level of concern by the OHV community regarding the $10 million dollar “shift” out of the OHV Trust Fund to the General Fund and the potential loan of $21 million dollars from the OHV Reserve Fund.

HQ noted four reoccurring themes in most of the public testimony and commission comments.

1 – Stealing money from the OHV Trust Fund violates the public trust
2 – Stealing money from the OHV Trust Fund is a double tax
3 – Stealing money from the OHV Trust Fund is illegal
4 – Stealing money from the OHV Trust Fund violates the legislative intent of SB742

After an hour or two of public testimony the commission voted to send a letter to the Governor and legislature regarding their opposition to taking the money which violates the public “trust” in the Trust Fund. They are also going to send a letter seeking to resolve the fungible issue based on what many feel is an illegitimate decision made by the Legislative Analyst’s Office in 2009.

After taking a short break, the commission reconvened and took additional public comment on non-agenda issues. BRC’s Don Amador updated the commission on some recent developments regarding Clear Creek. Those updates and issues included the congressional hearing last week where the BLM Director was asked about the closure of Clear Creek, the commission and public should receive an update or status report on the OHMVR Division’s Asbestos Study, and the FEIS is on the brink of being published in the Federal Register.

HQ believes the commission is considering a meeting in the Hollister area in the next 3-4 weeks to review the Clear Creek issue. That is a good thing.

Thanks to all for taking time off work to attend this meeting. Your commitment to the program made a lasting impression on state park staff, the OHV commission, and me.

Signs - An Important Management Tool

The Recreation HQ believes that respect for our natural resources should actually start with the agency. When visiting various Forests, The General looks for “signs” that an agency has made a commitment to managing the unit.
*

PHOTO: A "sign" this unit cares about the resource

*

HQ believes that signing is a critical management tool that is often missing on many units. Signs are an important way the agency communicates to the public. Signs that inform the general public can either convey the agency’s commitment to managing recreational activities or they (by their absence) convey a lack of caring.

As we continue on the somewhat arduous (and controversial at times) travel planning journey, HQ believes that the agency must commit to managing the resource and communicate that decision to the general public via an effective signing program.

As always, thanks to riders for your support and to those in the agency who work hard to convey their commitment to the management of our public lands via an effective signing program.

Feedback and comments are welcome from riders and agency folks who follow this blog.

ROV Online Course - Get Educated About Side by Sides

The Recreation HQ spends a lot of time alerting riders to various land-use issues as they relate to OHV recreation. Recently, HQ came across an online educational program designed to promote responsible ROV recreation.
*

PHOTOs: Upper Left - E-Course Test Certificate, Upper Right - ROVs/ATVs on Kipu Ranch Tour

*
Link to News Release with Online Course
http://www.rohva.org/PressRoom.aspx

Trail and vehicle education is important at HQ. The Quiet Warrior took this test today and feels it offers the ROV/UTV newbie some valuable "rules of the trail" to help keep users safe. Even experienced ROVers will benefit from taking the course. TG and his wife are big fans of ROVs and while on vacation on Kauai took an ROV/ATV tour of the Kipu Ranch.

Kipu Ranch ROV/ATV Tours
http://www.kiputours.com/

HQ believes ROVs are a great way for families to enjoy the great outdoors and getting boned up on the right way do use these vehicles makes a lot of sense. The Quiet Warrior suggests this course will be of benefit to the recreational users as well as agency and law enforcement staff who are new to ROV use.

Update on Subpart A - Focus Group Meets for R5 Program

Yesterday, The General (on behalf of BRC) participated in a Region 5 focus group hosted by the Center for Collaborative Policy. The meeting was related to the September rollout of the Forest Service’s Subpart A Travel Analysis Process (TAP).

The following groups (a lot of heavy hitters) were invited to attend the meeting in Sacramento. Here is the list; American Hiking Society, Backcountry Horsemen Association, Blue Ribbon Coalition, California State Parks OHV Division, California State Water Resources Control Board, California Association of 4-Wheel Drive Clubs, California Equestrian Trails and Lands Coalition, California Off-Road Vehicle Association, California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, International Mountain Bike Association, National Forest Recreation Association, Pacific Crest Trail Association, Recreation Outdoors Coalition, Regional Council of Rural Counties, The Wilderness Society, Trout Unlimited, and the Wildlands CPR/ Natural Trails & Water Coalition.

Six Steps of TAP
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/cibola/travel-management/tm_magdalena/tap/appendix_i/appendix_i_summary.pdf

The FS said the main focus of TAP in Region 5 is to analyze level 1 and 2 roads. Remember that level 2 roads are the roughly graded roads that are open to green sticker vehicles. TAP will also look at level 3-5 roads and some trails although the agency spokesman said that system trails are not part of this process.

HQ has several initial concerns with this process. First, TAP (a non-NEPA process) is replacing the Roads Analysis Process (a NEPA process). Although the agency said TAP is not a decision document, it will in fact be used to influence or drive subsequent site-specific (road ripping/decommissioning, road closures, trail closures) and programmatic (Forest Plans) NEPA processes.

Historically, anti-OHV groups advocate for NEPA to be used on all planning efforts (with a special focus for OHV) because it allows them to gum up any trail project with appeals, lawsuits, and objections. However, when The General and CAL4WD articulated our concerns about TAP not being a NEPA process… the hard-core green groups sat in stone cold silence with Cheshire cat grins on their faces. That silence spoke volumes.

Secondly, the past history of Region 5 creating special and unique access restrictions (i.e. 3 mile limit on mixed-use roads, little or no designation of unauthorized routes, etc.) because of threats of lawsuits or the actual filing a lawsuits could mean that the game is rigged where the greens bury the agency with an avalanche of “environmental concerns” thereby creating controversy… thus closures. Many of us witnessed that paradigm in Subpart B of TMR in Region 5 and it could rear its ugly head in TAP.

Third, R5 has set a hard deadline of January 2012 for completion by all Forests in CA. HQ has concerns about arbitrary deadlines that preclude a quality product such as was evidenced in Subpart B.

The “trust factor” was also brought up for discussion by the spokesperson for Rural Counties.

The representative from the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance made the point that the historic use of the Forest (hunter camps, fishing access, OHV use, equestrian trails, etc.) is already well known by the Forest since much of that use has been going on for decades. And, the fact that the public is using the Forest should be a key foundation in TAP.

HQ believes that historic and current use should be just as important if not more so than the soon to be released data dump by enviro groups citing pending environmental disasters if most of the roads used by OHVs are not closed.

Be assured, HQ will continue to give input into TAP and will review it when rolled out in September. Will TAP be simply a continuation of a process that disenfranchises the public and local governments or will it be a new start? That question will have to be answered by Region 5.

Thanks for your service and thanks to the pro-access groups for being there!

PS – It was disappointing and embarrassing to see IMBA carrying the water for the anti-OHV groups at this meeting.