Travel Management on the W-W


Richard Cockle/The Oregonian Randy James, operator of an Enterprise ATV and motorcycle shop, and ex-logger Larry Cribbs of La Grande repair a damaged sign that takes issue with a forthcoming travel management plan expected to prohibit motorized vehicles on much of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

This article from the Oregonian is full of interesting observations.. travel management is a big workload in the FS administrative appeals department right now and there may be more controversy as implementation of the travel management rule moves forward.  So  I added a new blog category for travel management.

Anyway, here are a couple of observations of interest.

Once in place, the plan will require forest users to consult a free map before setting off, Christensen said. Roads designated off-limits won’t be gated or marked, but straying onto a closed road could mean a $5,000 fine, she said.

“It is going to be a change in mindset for people to learn that when you are on the national forest these are the rules you’ve got to play by,” Christensen said.

The following two statements appear to be a bit in conflict

On the Wallowa-Whitman, fewer than 1 percent of visitors ride OHVs, said Randy Rasmussen of Corvallis, spokesman for the American Hiking Society. While their numbers are few, more control and management of them would help establish the Wallowa-Whitman as a preferred destination for hikers, equestrians, bird watchers and hunters — the ” so-called “quiet recreationists,” he said.

And

People widely use Wallowa-Whitman forest roads for sightseeing, cruising on ATVs, hunting deer, elk, chukar partridges and grouse, gathering winter firewood, huckleberrying and picking mushrooms.

Unless there are people, who, when taken together, compose less than 1% of total visitors, but those individuals widely use the forest roads? It seems confusing.

This one was of particular interest to me, as recently I attended a meeting with interest groups where one of the major topics was to make sure that NEPA did not form an obstacle to collaboration in landscape scale planning efforts. But we did not talk about consultation specifically at our meeting.

Early in the process, the Forest Service and public enjoyed “wide open and constant communication,” he said, but that’s changed with the entry of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Excluding the public isn’t unusual when federal agencies meet, said Judy Wing , a Forest Service spokeswoman in Baker City. “Consultation is not a public process,” she said.

That may be, but as with clearance of rules, I think agencies with opinions should document them and provide for public comment and discussion on their opinions. Speaking as a scientist, I think it would be a great opportunity for real- world science education if the dialogue among scientists and practitioners in the different agencies could be made public. I think it would be hard to achieve the kind of collaboration we all would prefer when there are periodic information blackouts.

4 thoughts on “Travel Management on the W-W”

  1. With so many issues polarized and litigated, I tend to think that the Agencies don’t want to “tip their hands” when they expect lawsuits from those known “serial litigators”. Above all, eco-lawyers don’t want litigation reform, and will sue to stop it. With Congress being almost half lawyers, we won’t be seeing litigation reform anytime soon.

    Regarding motorized versus non-motorized, could we see a return to “seperate but equal”? The fabled tolerance of progressives seems to be absent on this issue. I would enjoy riding an ATV in our forests if I could afford one. I also enjoy the elusive quiet of the “wilderness”. The Forest Service has already proven that it cannot police all those millions of acres that would become off-limits to motorized travel. I would expect that the “market share” for quiet sports will continue to diminish, as the motorized community grows in power and influence. It means that we’ll have to go farther to get quieter.

    Reply
  2. Foto-

    I know that one thing that makes FS folks NEPA and FACA-phobic and hesitant to engage in collaboration during the NEPA process is fear of litigation. One person at the meeting Martin and I attended suggested that lawyers’ advice (always to be careful) contributes to the the collabo-NEPA-phobia.

    My view of the psychology of the motorized travel community (based on working on a few issues) is not that they want to add more trails on public land, but they are afraid of losing access to what they already have.

    Reply
  3. There is a significant “outlaw” mentality of some of those OHV folks. However, there are also groups that do very well to police themselves. I’m always happy to see people enjoying our National Forests, while keeping disturbances to a minimum. Some feel that they can “grandfather” new trails in, if they establish illegal trails into areas that the non-motorized people cherish. You could also say the same thing about rogue mountain bikers. Some of them build elaborate “parks”, with platforms, banked turns and raised courses.

    As long as litigation remains profitable, and even lucrative, the confrontational atmosphere will continue. They want what they want, they’ll sue to get it, and they don’t care about “unintended consequences”. Eco-groups don’t want to collaborate, because they don’t want the public to know all that they oppose. Consider all that is included in “eliminating timber sales on public lands”, as that is the goal of many eco-groups who sue the Forest Service.

    Reply
  4. “Speaking as a scientist, I think it would be a great opportunity for real- world science education if the dialogue among scientists and practitioners in the different agencies could be made public. I think it would be hard to achieve the kind of collaboration we all would prefer when there are periodic information blackouts.”
    Couldn’t agree more, as one of the tenets of active adaptive mgt is the need for collaborative venues to aid mutual learning. This forms the civic science required so that we (society) can make decisions about sustainable use of resources.

    Reply

Leave a Comment