Hunting with OHVs on Public Lands

This last weekend The General was up at tech for the Jackhammer Enduro on the Mendocino National Forest as lead for the BRC/FMF Sound Testing Program for OHVs.

*

*Photo of The General quail hunting in the Southern Sierra
*
Seeing a number of hunters staging from the popular OHV campgrounds in the Fouts Springs area, I was reminded of the need for sportsmen to remember that OHV laws also apply to their activity. Historically, some hunters don’t view themselves as “OHV users.” Rather, they think of themselves as different and that OHV laws don’t apply to them.

The challenge for OHV organizations and agencies has been to improve their outreach to the hunting community regarding the use of ATVs and UTVs on roads and trails. One such effort that includes an instructional video comes from the State of Idaho.


IDAHO’S STAY ON TRAILS HOMEPAGE
http://www.stayontrails.com/

*
HUNTING WITH ATVs VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3wnd4cXpBE

While watching the video, I had to give credit to both the law enforcement officer and the user who were trying to read a MVUM. Most of the MVUM’s I have seen are hard to decipher… even if you are familiar with the area.

Kudos to the agencies and other folks in Idaho who put this together. Lot’s of good information for the OHV and hunting community.

*

MVUM Implementation & Law Enforcement

As various Forests throughout the country produce or soon will produce MVUMs, the public will have questions about implementation and enforcement of the MVUM. The General believes the decision notice or ROD should have a narrative for how the agency intends to implement the MVUM.

I have received a number of emails from riders who want to know if the agency is going to immediately start writing tickets based on CFRs cited in the MVUM - as noted below:

Violations of 36 CFR 261.13 are subject to a fine of up to
$5,000 or imprisonment for up to 6 months or both (18 U.S.C.
3571(e)). This prohibition applies regardless of the presence
or absence of signs.


Or, will the agency coordinate a phase-in of law enforcement initially using education and outreach (instead of immediately citing users) such as land agencies did with the 2003 CA 96dBA OHV sound law or law enforcement agencies did with auto/driver cell phone ban?

I found an example of a coordinated/education effort on the Payette National Forest. In their ROD, the Forest describes how it will use a coordinated approach of education, outreach, signing, collaboration, functional maps, doing new trail projects etc. rather than immediately writing 5K tickets or sending people to prison. They will use exiting authority to cite for resource damage in the meantime.

See pages 29/30 for the ROD’s implementation narrative
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/payette/publications/trvl_mgmt/rods/rod_MCL_KSL.pdf

Regardless of what approach (hard core enforcement v. education/phase-in) the agency adopts, there should be a narrative some place in the decision document or public notice (and clearly posted on the website) so that the public and user groups know where they stand and what to expect.

# # #

"Blessed" Routes Closed in Current MVUM

In a recent blog, The General advised his followers to “hold the Forest Service accountable” particularly when it comes to travel management planning. A good
case study of a unit being unaccountable is the Smith River National Recreation Area.

*Photo: Trail that is open and blessed on the 1994 Forest Visitor Map, yet it is closed on the current MVUM

In 1990, President George Bush signed the Smith River National Recreation Area Act.
http://www.smithriveralliance.org/resources/library/SmithRiverNRAAct.pdf

As you know, the NRA just published a MVUM that was apparently based on a pre-Act
(circa 1990 Forest Visitor Map - with many OHV routes not being shown) rather than basing the MVUM on the post-Act 1994 Forest Visitor Map (that showed NRA/Act “blessed” OHV routes) as was promised to the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors.

The Forest’s current and past rationale for making such ad hoc decisions (i.e. to arbitrarily close roads and trails without project level NEPA) is based on their false belief that the 1990 Act gave the NRA “special authority” to bypass the NEPA process and just close routes as they see fit.

The crazy thing is that in the 1995 Forest Plan it references that OHV projects should be “scheduled” to implement OHV use on trails and roads. See excerpt from 1995 Forest Plan:

******************************************************************

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_027543.pdf

Page 13
Off-Highway Vehicle
(OHV) Management
Strategies
Assess areas for OHV use. Schedule projects to implement
vehicle use in some areas and restrict use in other areas.
As needed Recreation
Transportation Management
Strategy
.
Assess transportation system and use. Schedule projects to
construct, reconstruct, or decommission roads based on
anticipated needs.
1998 Engineering
****************************************************************************

Yet over the years and until BRC and local stakeholders started to complain about ad hoc closures, the NRA had been doing aggressive road decommissioning/obliteration without any (in most cases) project level NEPA to back up the work. It appears the NRA continues to use this invalid rationale to deny public access to “blessed” routes via its current MVUM.