OHV Issues in Utah...Need Our Support

KTM_rad

Well-Known Member
We all need to support each other all over the country, so if you have time, please help out our neighbors in Utah......

Dear Friends,
Utah's Uinta National Forest has submitted their proposal for a new Forest Plan. Some of you have already heard the news that new plan has proposed closing the entire Tibble Fork Trail System. Many OHV users are justly outraged at the idea. Sadly, the truth of the situation is so very much worse than you might imagine. The details of this closure are so outrageous and unfair that, if allowed to stand, it may send relations between Forest managers and OHV users back into the Stone Age.

Please, take a minute to read the sordid details. If this story doesn't motivate you to take action, I don't know what will.

A long story made very short…
A couple of years ago, the Tibble Fork Trail System was in terrible shape. Years of deadfall, lack of signage, no maintenance and the complete lack of any usable maps made it nearly unusable. But a motivated group of users, in cooperation with the local Forest managers, became interested in leveraging the monies available from the Utah State OHV Program to improve the trails. These are monies that you and I put into a fund via our OHV registration fees and a small portion of the gas tax we pay when we fill up our machines.

The Utah State OHV Program sank nearly $100,000.00 (THAT'S OUR MONEY FOLKS) into Tibble Fork, and adjacent trails. Trails were cleared of deadfall, marked and mapped. Trailheads were built. Unauthorized trails were closed and a fairly substantial portion of the monies went into increased law enforcement.

OHV enthusiasts paid our property tax, paid our registration fees and paid our gas taxes.
Then we put hundreds of hours of volunteer hours into the system...

What did we get for our efforts?




Well friends, if we remain silent, we will have paid for a nice trail system for the exclusive use of everyone but us!

Now, don't get me wrong. Non motorized recreationists need trails too. In fact, USA-ALL believes that there is a clear need for the development of more trail systems, both motorized and non motorized. And speaking personally, I don't mind a bit if anyone else uses any trail system that OHV users help to maintain. They are completely welcome on any of the trails we use.

But lets get something perfectly clear…
OHV enthusiasts have stepped up to the plate and worked hard to meet the challenges posed to our sport. Manufacturers are making cleaner and quieter machines. Our trails systems are better maintained and better designed. Soil, wildlife and watershed issues are being met. Regulations and restrictions, including closures, are often enforced using our own registration monies.

And we have been treated shabbily for our efforts.

This proposal is one very large SLAP IN THE FACE to OHV users.
It must not stand!

USA-ALL needs you to take action TODAY! If the OHV public expresses enough outrage, we can save Tibble Fork and land managers all over the State will think twice about this kind of unfair closure scheme.

HERE IS WHAT TO DO:

OHV users must submit comments regarding the Uinta National Forest Plan revision by September 4, 2001.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN PUT THIS OFF! SO… DO IT TODAY!!

Send your written comments to Peter W. Karp, Uinta National Forest, P.O. Box 1428, Provo, UT 84603 OR address your comments via e-mail to Peter W. Karp C/O Uinta NF Planning Team and send them to this e-mail address: abauer01@fs.fed.us

Here are some comment suggestions.

ISSUE:
The Tibble Fork Trail System should remain open. It is the right thing to do.
COMMENT SUGGESTION:
The Tibble Fork Trail System must remain open. It provides a quality recreational experience close to the Wasatch Front. OHV users have invested time and money to maintain the trails there. The “Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized” classification is inappropriate. Suggest they change the proposal to a “Semi-Primitive Motorized” classification.

ISSUE:
Most people know that “Roadless” doesn't even mean roadless. It most certainly does not mean “non-motorized.” The new Uinta Forest Plan sets the stage for defining “roadless” as “non-motorized.” The Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Initiative) must not go beyond the intent of no new road building or reconstruction.
COMMENT SUGGESTION:
Tell the planning team that “Roadless” does not mean “non-motorized”. Remind them that the Roadless Initiative (Roadless Area Conservation Rule) does not mandate the closure of OHV trail systems. Tell them this management scheme for the Tibble Fork area is completely inappropriate and you object strongly to the “Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized” classification for this area.

ISSUE:
Alternatives C, E and F are all a very “extreme” approach to public land management. They violate reasonable principles of multiple use and make absolutely no sense scientifically or practically speaking. All of these alternatives would significantly reduce all recreational access, especially OHV use.
COMMENT SUGGESTION:
Tell the Planning Team that you do not support alternatives C, E or F. Make sure they know that you strongly oppose any of these alternatives and these alternatives will affect your access to important recreational resources.

ISSUE:
None of the alternatives addresses the need for the long-term commitment toward educating the public on how to properly use public lands. Instead, all alternatives are devoting their emphasis to closures, enforcement and distorted protectionist measures that are impractical and unfair.
COMMENT SUGGESTION:
Suggest the planning team re-evaluate their focus on closures and distorted “protectionist” measures. Education, proactive management and flexibility should be emphasized.



Randy
CORVA Field Rep - So. Cal.
(California Off Road Vehicle Association)
AMA Member
 
Top