Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Important Issue......even though it's not in our area, it's in the Sierra Nevada up north, with great riding.....we can't afford to lose this.........

Louis Purdy writes to us:

Hello friends of the great outdoors.

I just received and email from Del Albright as many of you have.

This is another attempt to grab an enormous amount of land for Wilderness in our own back yards. This biased attempt is called the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest Plan Revision and must be stopped at all cost.

Pass this on to all your Ranch, RV and sightseeing friends.

A copy of my opinion to the land grabbers is below. If you believe as I do, Please fill out your own comments to the Forest Service Plan Committee and click send to Forest Plan Teem

Dels email with the link is also enclosed below.

My opinion....

Too much forest is already inaccessible and "Wilderness" areas without groomed roads are the most vulnerable to forest fires. Lack of accessible roads has made firefighting much more dangerous and unsuccessful resulting in massive wildlife and timber loss. Enough is enough. We have enough Wilderness. The mindset of the wilderness advocates is severely flawed and needs to be argued extensively. I live nearby the Toyabe Wilderness and witnessed first hand the fire destruction and comments by the firefighters noting the lack of access to areas that could have been saved if more equipment could have reached many areas but roads were blocked off. Creating another 1.35 MILLION ACRES as Wilderness may as well be called a controlled burning zones where nobody benefits and wildlife dies.

When it come to the discussion of "Demand for Wilderness" We must not overlook this, According to the National Visitor Use Monitoring Study for this forest, which was conducted in the year 2000, only 1.1 percent of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest visitors spent time recreating in the current wilderness areas in this forest. So where is the need (“demand”)? Clearly there is no need for an additional 1.35 million acres of wilderness in this forest for the 1.1% of forest visitors that currently recreate in the existing wilderness areas in this forest.

Most RVers are law abiding citizens who stay on the trails. Our local 4-Wheeler Club takes good care of the trails and teaches our youth to tread lightly, pick up trash, even if not theirs and wash vehicles of possible weed seeds prior to heading out on adventures. We also provide a great service to firefighters by grooming trails. Closing roads at-will has been a the practice in some places where the Forest Service had no authority to do so. These areas must not stay closed and should be identified. We must have more time to accurately map these roads and trails and re-establish them as off road trails, roads and fire access routes. Another concern is that there are numerous historic sites and roads in already declared "wilderness" and Wilderness study areas. These Historic sites are and will be forever inaccessible except by a few who can backpack for several days. This means only a few people are able to hike to these sites and most of them are not historic minded but the RVers in general are.

Wilderness designation originally was intended for areas that Humans never tread on or traveled through. These proposed areas are full of historic sites, road, trails and scenic wonder.

For these reasons and more not mentioned, We hereby reject the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest Plan Revision and believe it to be a biased attempt to close an enormous amount of forest and heritage to nearly all the public.

Respectfully Submitted,

Louis J. Purdy

Round Mountain, NV

Please feel free to send your comments & voice your opinion to:

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Forest Plan Revision Team

1200 Franklin Way

Sparks, NV 89431

Michael Hampton, Forest Planner

Voice: 775-355-5314

Email: r4_h-t_comments@fs.fed.us

----- Original Message -----

From Dave Hurwitz, Snowmobiler and concerned motorized recreationist about the Humbolt-Toyaibe National Forest:

Below is a letter I just wrote to the Pahrump Valley Editor in regards to Forest Service employee Tom Baker's comments at the recent public meeting discussing the Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Plan Revision. My guess is that they won't print it since I live in Washington State, but it still made me feel better writing it.

I strongly encourage you folks to participate in this forest plan revision. I am including some information below to help you do so.

Dave Hurwitz

Snowmobile Alliance of Western States

____________________________________________________

Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest Plan Revision Home page:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/htnf/projects/fore...lan/index.shtml

Timeline for the Humboldt Toiyabe Forest Plan Revision

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/htnf/projects/fore.../timeline.shtml

Comprehensive Evaluation Report Summary 6/06

1 st round Public Open Houses 8-11/05

2nd and 3rd round Public Open Houses Spring and Fall 2006

Proposal of Revised Forest Plan to Public 3/07

Formal Comment Period Close 7/07

Pre-Decisional Public Review & Objection (RF) 8/07

Environmental Management System Completion 7/07

Plan Approval by Forest Supervisor 10/07

To get on the mailing list for this forest plan select the link below and fill in the required information.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/htnf/projects/fore...n/contact.shtml

_____________________________________________________

Pahrump Valley Times Editor,

Regarding your article titled “1.35 million acres is potential wilderness” that was published in your paper last Friday June 16th, 2006, I find it very disturbing to hear the biased remarks regarding motorized recreation that were spouted by Tom Baker, legislative liaison for the U.S. Forest Service.

“Cut new paths”, “jeeps come tearing through”, and “off-road vehicles go trampling”. Do these remarks sound like they should be coming from a supposedly unbiased neutral government employee that works for the Humboldt Toiyabe Forest Service who has been hired to manage this forest for multiple-use activities, of which one of those popular activities is motorized recreation? Does he also not realize that not only is motorized recreation a popular and legitimate form of recreation on OUR public lands, but that also numerous handicapped and senior citizens use motorized or mechanical transport as their only means to enjoy THEIR tax paid for public lands?

Mr. Baker also states that "If you look at the acreage that we said is capable of being wilderness, those areas have been closed to vehicle use for a number of years anyway ... They have been considered roadless areas for some time”.

There is no law or forest service policy that requires roadless areas or Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWA’s) to be closed to motorized recreation and treated as de-facto wilderness. Why have they been previously closed? Roadless areas are open for all forms of multiple-use activities in most national forests, as well as many other management classifications in this and other national forests. As for the RWA’s, Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1923.03 describes how these areas should be managed. This policy states that, “Any potential wilderness area recommended for wilderness or wilderness study is not available for any use or activity that may reduce the area’s wilderness potential. Activities currently permitted may continue, pending designation, if the activities do not compromise wilderness values of the potential wilderness area.” Obviously continuing existing use in RWA’s does not “reduce” the wilderness potential, if these areas could be recommended for wilderness in the first place in areas where motorized use is currently allowed.

“There has to be the demand for wilderness area out there". I can agree with this statement. FSH 1909.12 requires the forest service “meet the tests of capability, availability, and need” when determining new areas for wilderness recommendation. Section 7.23 further states “Determine the need for an area to be designated as wilderness through an analysis of the degree to which it contributes to the local and national distribution of wilderness. There should be clear evidence of current or future public need for additional designated wilderness in the general area under consideration”.

According to the National Visitor Use Monitoring Study for this forest, which was conducted in the year 2000, only 1.1 percent of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest visitors spent time recreating in the current wilderness areas in this forest. So where is the need (“demand”)? Clearly there is no need for an additional 1.35 million acres of wilderness in this forest for the 1.1% of forest visitors that currently recreate in the existing wilderness areas in this forest.

I strongly encourage the motorized public to participate in this Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Plan Revision that will determine how OUR public lands will be managed for the future, or they may just find a gate across their favorite trail when this plan is completed in October 2007.

Dave Hurwitz

Chairman - Snowmobile Alliance of Western States

http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2006/06/...ews/forest.html

1.35 million acres is potential wilderness

By MARK WAITE

PVT

After several years of research, a list of 1.35 million acres of land in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest capable of being designated as wilderness was presented to the public during an open house at the Tonopah Convention Center June 7.

The list includes 376,220 acres in the Tonopah Ranger District, including areas around Arc Dome, Table Mountain, and the Toiyabe Range in Nye County.

Restricting off-road vehicle users seem to be a major target of the revised plans. The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest includes national forest areas throughout Nevada from Jarbidge to Las Vegas and Reno to Elko.

Tom Baker, legislative liaison for the U.S. Forest Service, said it was the first revision of the plan for the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest since 1989.

The need for wilderness is determined partly by public input, like the open house in Tonopah.

"If you look at the acreage that we said is capable of being wilderness, those areas have been closed to vehicle use for a number of years anyway ... They have been considered roadless areas for some time," Baker said.

Baker said he was often asked why wilderness areas are needed. He said it's a quality of life issue. A lot of people would like their children or grandchildren to see Nevada the way it was.

Baker emphasized that wilderness areas aren't off limits to everybody. They are open for hiking, horseback riding and camping. But people would not be able to drive all-terrain vehicles and cut new paths through them, Baker said.

"The difference is, between the BLM and the Forest Service, BLM will identify an area that becomes wilderness study area; then they will manage that area as wilderness. When we say an area is capable of being wilderness it continues to be managed as national forest until Congress acts on that," Baker said. For an area to be a wilderness area, he said, "Those areas have to be pretty much as the good Lord made them. There has to be the demand for wilderness area out there."

Baker outlined some of the points that were made during the open house.

"When we were down in Tonopah, one of the things that came out was the roads that were not on the map," he said. "We asked people to get us that information. We're going back and reevaluating, did we miss anything? If there's concurrence and everybody said this does meet the criteria for wilderness, that information goes to Congress, and it's up to Congress to act. It's not our call to establish wilderness areas," Baker said.

Baker said many people are concerned about increases in vehicle use in undeveloped areas.

"Hunters, fishermen don't particularly like to have 35 jeeps come tearing through their hunting area," he said. "Ranchers, some of them who feel it may be an inconvenience, would rather have the land stay the way it is than have off-road vehicles go trampling across their grazing allotments."

Baker said some ranchers in Ely were supportive of the wilderness designations. The study identified 174 permittees on 261 grazing allotments across the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, of which about 85 percent have active 10-year grazing permits.

Forest fires and the proximity of people to National Forest lands, have also changed a great deal since the 1987 plan, the study notes.

U.S. Forest Service planners say maps of vegetation show sagebrush has been reduced due to grazing, climate change and fire suppression, which has allowed strands of pinyon-juniper trees and cheat grass to spread. Aspen and cottonwood tress are declining across the West, which provide habitat for wildlife and plants. The plan looks to restore river habitat and maintain or restore old growth forest. The plan would also address treatment of noxious weeds.

The priority areas on the list in the Tonopah Ranger District include: Georges Canyon, 97,713 acres; Table Mountain East, 83,623 acres; Secret Basin south of the Arc Dome Wilderness Area, 61,040 acres; Mt. Ardivey, 36,960 acres, an area west of Peavine Canyon in the Toiyabe Range; Alta north, west and east, 34,207 acres; Rock Canyon, 26,083 acres; Four Mile Canyon, 22,578 acres; Spanish Peak, 9,962 acres and Table Mountain West Valley Basin, 4,044 acres. In addition 100,397 acres in the entire Toiyabe Range is part of a separate list for inclusion in the Austin Ranger District.

For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com

Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information