Forest Service closing approx. 50% of our roads!

[billrquimby]

I haven't looked to closely at what roads are actually going to be closed but I know that that area currently has way too many roads and it could definitely use a lot being closed.

 

I agree with that. Unit 1 & the northern part of unit 27 are both criss-crossed with so many roads & two-tracks that are fast becoming roads that it's rediculous. If there was a map that actually showed all of them, it would look like a dang waffle. I think they need to close the 50% & start enforcing the closures that are already there. Can't tell you how many quads & jeeps I've seen go right around the dirt-mounds on closed roads & haul but up the trail.

Matt S.

 

Why is it ridiculous? We're not talking about a designated wilderness area. We have plenty of those for people who are healthy enough to use them, and the non-wilderness areas of our national forests should be managed for multiple use ... and that includes recreational driving on logging roads. Besides, it's been at least 75 years since Unit 1 and the northern part of Unit 27 could be accused of being anything like a wilderness.

 

The old excuse used for eliminating vehicular access to protect wildlife habitat doesn't fly, either. The elk in these units prove that. I spend one or two mornings each week from early May through late October exploring the logging trails in those two units. I must have driven a couple thousand miles on two-trackers there since I retired in 1999, and I haven't run over an elk, deer, bear, grouse, turkey, squirrel -- or even an endangered willow -- yet.

 

I agree driving around barricades is wrong and illegal. I just think there are enough berms accross perfectly good roads and two-trackers already.

 

Bill Quimby

[Non-Typical Solutions]

I guess when I am too old or lazy to hike it in I might have a different view and opinion, but I know it is very frustrating to hike into an area, only to find somebody busting through in a vehicle. 27, has some wilderness area in it and is about the only place you can go in that area and actually hunt without being disturbed by vehicles.

I guess the part of me that wouldn't support road closure is the part that worries about what is packaged with those closures and what is next on the agenda. They gonna say I can't take my mule in there?

Seems like there is always something next.....

[DesertBull]

After they close the roads, they will claim that it is now wonderful new Wolf/Griz/Condor/ferret/minnow habitat and then we will be further restricted in our activities.

[mattys281]

I would never want to see any kind of a law passed or land use policy change that would limit an avid hunter or other such law-abiding person from having access to the woods. That in itself is the problem, though. For every single person like that there's probably at least 5 or 10 dill-holes out cruising right around the closure barriers, tearing up meadow, & in general acting like a jack-butt. These jack-asses ruin it for the rest of us.

 

Case in point, there's a meadow I came across during the August deer hunt in 27 that's way down an old logging road. You go down so far that you eventually don't even see tire tracks anymore. No signs or dirt mounds indicating that it's closed, it just appeared to be unused. I checked that meadow out twice before elk season, never saw a sign of another person in it. About the third day of my elk hunt, I headed in there & what do I find? An 8 inch deep set of tire track driving right across the meadow & over to the closed road that was covered w/ dirt mounds on the other side.

 

I don't think they can come close to enforcing the laws they have in place with the hundreds of miles of forest roads out there now, so maybe they figure that if the close some down they'll be more efficient at managing where people are driving.

 

I don't know if closing roads is the right answer or not, but I'd love to see something happen to keep these week-end warriors in line.

 

Matt S.

[billrquimby]

Let's see if I got this right. What some of you are saying is that because a handful of idiots are ignoring road closures we need to close more roads? I'm not the only old fart who is angry about this proposal. Here's what a friend who lives in Pinetop year around wrote to the forest service:

 

"I am strongly against the proposal to close so called primitive roads. The national forests are there to offer opportunity to all of the public who own this national land. Not just those who may be able to walk that land or to have horses or mules to take them across.

 

"Your enthusiasm to preserve what may well be beyond preservation only serves to deprive those of us who are no longer able to walk those paths access to land that we have loved and enjoyed for decades.

 

"These national forests are mine as much as yours, and I insist on the right to continue to enjoy them as best I am able. At this time in my life that means with a motor vehicle.

 

"Unmanaged recreation! Is my recreation in this day and age supposed to be managed? And by whom, you and your Washington D.C. comrades. For my seventy years my recreation has been managed by me with harm to no piece of ground and to no person.

 

"Shame on you."

 

He then made this comment on an email to me:

 

"Unfortunately it is the trend in our country and in Arizona. Our so called national forest rangers, game and fish folks, USF&W folks, national monumenters, park servicers, have all gradually tended to the preservationist attitude. Screw the folks who own the land, screw the folks in whose trust we hold this land, screw the folks who have every right to use this land, we are gonna protect them from it.

 

"'We hold these truths to be self evident, that whatever the Sierra Club, the Defenders of Wildlife or the Sky Island Alliance, wants, shall be the way of the land. We shall do their bidding for the common good of the common folks who don't know didly squat about what their needs or wants are. And so, to prevent them from ruining what is theirs we shall lock them out.

 

"'We will follow the 11th commandment brougnt down from the mountain by Moses on his feet who propclaimed, "that was a heck of a climb up and down that dang hill (sorry Lord) and I think I knocked a rock or two out of place, good thing I didn't take the Caddy up there. So be it heretofore known, no man shall be allowed to enter this land and all future lands. Might run over a pineapple cactus or two on the way up or down.'

 

"And nothing we do or say will do any good. And our represtentatives in Congress, those bold and noble folks who we elect to squabble amongst themselves rather than do the nations business are too busy doing just that....muckraking each other with no time to spare to see what the folks who elected them want or need."

[crazy4COUES]

I would never want to see any kind of a law passed or land use policy change that would limit an avid hunter or other such law-abiding person from having access to the woods. That in itself is the problem, though. For every single person like that there's probably at least 5 or 10 dill-holes out cruising right around the closure barriers, tearing up meadow, & in general acting like a jack-butt. These jack-asses ruin it for the rest of us.

 

Case in point, there's a meadow I came across during the August deer hunt in 27 that's way down an old logging road. You go down so far that you eventually don't even see tire tracks anymore. No signs or dirt mounds indicating that it's closed, it just appeared to be unused. I checked that meadow out twice before elk season, never saw a sign of another person in it. About the third day of my elk hunt, I headed in there & what do I find? An 8 inch deep set of tire track driving right across the meadow & over to the closed road that was covered w/ dirt mounds on the other side.

 

I don't think they can come close to enforcing the laws they have in place with the hundreds of miles of forest roads out there now, so maybe they figure that if the close some down they'll be more efficient at managing where people are driving.

 

I don't know if closing roads is the right answer or not, but I'd love to see something happen to keep these week-end warriors in line.

 

Matt S.

 

Lets face it "SHOT GUNNING" the crowd has never gotten any of us anywhere. They obviously couldn't enforce the current minimal closures, so why hope they can handle more? If they hired more people to enforce things, those jacka$$in dill-holes that we all do not appreciate would stay at the home and leave our mountains alone. Simple because there would be consiquences for thier actions.

 

Just a side note: THOSE ROADS WILL NOT BE MADE UN-PASSIBLE! The USFS will utilize them to do routine activities, fight fires etc. So they will have maintenance done on them and will be driven on. It just wont be me or you driving on them! THAT IS B.S.

[billrquimby]

"guess when I am too old or lazy to hike it in I might have a different view and opinion"

 

 

Please do not equate age or health with laziness.

 

Most people have not walked, hiked and ridden horses and mules as far and into as many rugged places on six continents as I have.

 

If the close-all-the-two-tracks people have their way, only maintained (bladed) roads marked on maps and given numbers will be open for public use when everyone now under 50 reaches their so-called golden years. I hope I'm gone by then. Graded and graveled roads hold no interest for me.

 

In the meantime, I don't intend to stay home just because my backcountry travel is limited to motor vehicles.

 

Bill Quimby

 

Incidentally, there are designated roadless areas in Unit 1 where people can hike or ride a horse or a mule and not see a vehicle. Two of them are called Mount Baldy and Teapot Dome.

[missedagain]

Most people that support this are really going to be kicking themselves and remembering the good ol days of road hunters when you have to make a reservation one year in advance and pay 20$ a night to camp in the only place allowed, designated stacked on top of eachother campgrounds

 

Don't forget your red rock pass, and your green tree pass, and your I was a sucker pass!

[Non-Typical Solutions]

Would never have equated "old, health or laziness" in your case Bill, and have found in the past that the only hunters, people or otherwise that have rubbed my bald head wrong have been those who were too lazy to show any respect for what we have, especially here in the white mountain area. People too lazy to clean up their camp after they are done. People too lazy to walk across the meadow so they drive across it. People too lazy close the gate that they just opened. People who leave the crappy diaper along the side of the highway. None of which has anything to do with age or health.

My point was simply that my perspective is different because I have, as of yet, not reached any of those points in my life and probably can't see past my own nose to know any better.

As I stated previously, I don't like the idea of what might be packaged with the road closure.

 

I remember back in the late 70's, we would pack back into the Gila Wilderness with our mules, there were holding corrals at the head of the trail, Gila Cliff Dwellings, we would always take some alfalfa hay with us to feed just before we left, pack a little pellet feed in with us but mostly rely on grass to keep our mules up during the week.

 

We went in one time, signs posted all over that fines would be handed out for any use of foreign feed such as alfalfa, rye, wheat, oats. This was due to the "fact" that new "grasses" were being introduced to the area by the feeds that were being brought in by "horse and mule" parties.

 

I think there is a happy medium, unfortunately it always seems that they keep inching up on us taking more and more away and that is the scary part.

[DesertBull]

If it were about conserving and preserving, they would just enforce the laws already on the books regarding off road driving, littering, etc, but it's not really about that. It is about keeping you and I off of their land. The Springerville district is getting hit first and hardest because of one thing...the wolf.

 

Just like there are underlying political reasons for Congressman Grivalda's (sp?) proposal for a new wilderness area along the border. It's not about preserving the area, it's about keeping the border patrol out and preventing a wall/fence from being erected.

[Non-Typical Solutions]

I would agree on the wolf thing, which again is something that was put into place and now has strings attached. Just read the signs along the side of the road,

Mexican wolves are protected by the Endangered Species Act under a special rule which allows people to scare away or harass wolves in an "opportunistic and non-injurous" manner. This means you cannot seek out, pursue, or attract wolves, nor can you phyiscally injure a wolf in any way. However, you can scare a wolf away by making loud noises or by throwing rocks in the animal's direction.

I always stop long enough to read the sign for a chuckle, but you are very right about it being part of the underlying wolf protection.

Seems to fit the border idea as well........

[billrquimby]

"I think there is a happy medium, unfortunately it always seems that they keep inching up on us taking more and more away and that is the scary part."

 

Unfortunately a "happy medium" on an access issue is no different than compromising on a firearms ownership issue. In both cases we lose something, while the government only gains. The bureaucrats view a "happy medium" as a victory, giving them the confidence to come back later with another proposal to take something away from us.

 

Road closures on national forest lands began in the 1980s, with something the bureaucrats called "RARE" -- Roadless Area Review and Evaluation -- followed a couple of years later by RARE 2 with public hearings all over the West. The stated purpose was to decide once and for all which areas on the various forests needed to be protected, and then create roadless areas by closing existing trails. Existing roads outside the protected areas were to remain open "in perpetuity."

 

The two programs fell short of creating designated wilderness areas, but in many cases that was the next step.

 

If you are pissed about crowded hunting conditions in Southern Arizona, you can blame these programs for eliminating the old mining trails that used to distribute hunters across the Coronado National Forest. If all the old two-track roads and Jeep trails we used to use were still open, we wouldn't have people racing each other to prime parking spots today.

 

Bill Quimby

[HUNTMUP]

If it were about conserving and preserving, they would just enforce the laws already on the books regarding off road driving, littering, etc, but it's not really about that. It is about keeping you and I off of their land. The Springerville district is getting hit first and hardest because of one thing...the wolf.

 

Just like there are underlying political reasons for Congressman Grivalda's (sp?) proposal for a new wilderness area along the border. It's not about preserving the area, it's about keeping the border patrol out and preventing a wall/fence from being erected.

 

I am sure glad someone else was thinking that as well... That was the first thing that came to my mind about the border wilderness proposal..

[Diamondbackaz]

Bottom line, every time they close a road, they just look for more until they are all closed. The Forest Service is no longer a service to the people. Nowadays most FS people work in the office intead of the field where the real work is.

[bowsniper]

We can all thank the yahoo quad riders who can't seem to stay on established roads for this. It would be easy to blame the tree huggers for this, but I'm convinced that the real reason behind this is the out of control quads tearing up the forest. The quad nuts will be easier to control with more roads closed. A perfect example of a few wrecking it for everyone.

 

Mark