Travel Management

The Royal Forests- Congressman McClintock on the Forest Service

by
John of England signs Magna Carta. Illustration from Cassell's History of England (1902)

Disagreement, up to and including violence, around land ownership and use is part of our Homo sapiens heritage. In one sense that is encouraging- it’s not likely that if we were better at our work of land management, all the conflict would go away. And it’s definitely cheery that we have moved away from violence.

Yesterday when I read this comment from David Beebe here

The clearer path begins by understanding the corporatization of Congress and the agencies it funds, corporatization of the media, and corporatization of civil society in general puts the best interests of the commons and the commoners at a distinct disadvantage.

It reminded me of something I had recently read- Congressman McClintock’s views of the commoners, particularly, these comments on the Royal Forests in this letter from Congressman Mclintock to Chief Tidwell.

You can find out more about Congressman McClintock’s views here.

Combined, these actions evince an ideologically driven hostility to the public’s enjoyment of the public’s land – and a clear intention to deny the public the responsible and sustainable use of that land.

Most recently, the Forest Service has placed severe restrictions on vehicle access to the Plumas National Forest, despite volumes of public protests. Supervisor Bill Connelly, Chairman of the Butte County Board of Supervisors writes that “The restriction applies to such activities as: collecting firewood, retrieving game, loading or unloading horses or other livestock, and camping.” He writes, “The National Forests are part of the local fabric. The roads within the National Forests are used by thousands of residents and visitors for transportation and recreation. These activities generate revenue for our rural communities, which are critical for their survival.”

This is not a small matter. The Forest Service now controls 193 million acres within our nation – a land area equivalent to the size of Texas.

During the despotic eras of Norman and Plantagenet England, the Crown declared one third of the land area of Southern England to be the royal forest, the exclusive preserve of the monarch, his forestry officials and his favored aristocrats. The people of Britain were forbidden access to and enjoyment of these forests under harsh penalties. This exclusionary system became so despised by the people that in 1215, five clauses of the Magna Carta were devoted to redress of grievances that are hauntingly similar to those that are now flooding my office.

Mr. Speaker, the attitude that now permeates the U.S. Forest Service from top to bottom is becoming far more reminiscent of the management of the royal forests during the autocracy of King John than of an agency that is supposed to encourage, welcome, facilitate and maximize the public’s use of the public’s land in a nation of free men and women.

After all, that was the vision for the Forest Service set forth by its legendary founder, Gifford Pinchot in 1905: “to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run.”

One Controversy at a Time, Please

by

Ahh. Echoes of Ed Abbey (he wrote One Life at a Time, Please). If Roadless is contoversial, and travel management is controversial, if we have roadless travel management do we get more than 2x the controversy? Here’s a news story on a lawsuit on a travel management plan.

It seems like Mrowka and Hawthorne disagree on some facts. Are these trails already used or not?

That’s what I find discouraging about the state of the press these days. Seems like sometimes they just quote two different opinions and leave it at that. That’s OK, except when there are fairly readily accessible facts. I’m not blaming press folks- I understand- because I have family members in the newspaper industry. But it seems like we in the public are left to our own devices if we want to delve further to find out facts.

Travel Management on the W-W

by


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.