The Forests across the nation are going through what is called the Travel Management Rule
The Travel Management Rule requires that forests designate a system of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. The rule also gives forests the option of designating motorized access to dispersed campsites and to retrieve downed big game. Once designated and published on a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), motorized travel off the designated system will be prohibited.
One ouf our closest forests (Santa Fe) is taking the option to designate motorized access to dispersed campsites. They have released their proposed action and one of my favorite camp spots was omitted. I submitted a written comment during the scoping period and attended their public meetings. There they encouraged the public to meet with them in the field. I am doing just that in 2 days. I will let you know the outcome.
Anyway, I encourage you to get involved in this process where you camp on national forest land to ensure that oppertunities continue for boondocking on our public lands.
02 Granite Ridge 3100 SS
------------------------
04 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Highly Modified
00 Ford Explorer XLT 4DR
94 Ford Ranger SC 4x4 Modified
roughranger wrote: Anyway, I encourage you to get involved in this process where you camp on national forest land to ensure that oppertunities continue for boondocking on our public lands.
How ver true! The public lands are, in fact, ours. How quick we are to complain, but how slow we are to become involved in decision making processes.
Good luck with your meeting.
I can remember here in Mi back in the 60's we could go to one side of the National Park and "pick" our way through to the other side. Back then it was in an old flat fender Willys and it was rare to see some one else even in the distance.
I realize that now because of abuse and over use they have "designated" trails and routes that you have to stay on based on what type of vehical you are in. There are a lot of nice little lakes and other sites scattered through out the park that we can no longer access except on foot and some are just to far a walk for a week end outing.
I wish we would have know we could have had some input into this.
Also call your local NF(s) and get on their SOPA mailing list. SOPA is Scheduled of Proposed Actions. It is a listing and description of all projects that are scheduled to begin the planning process in the next quarter -- everything from timber sales to campground renovation to major road rebuilding and policy changes. If a proposal does not interest you can ignore it, but if it will affect you, it will explain how to get on the mailing list and be involved in that particular project.
You can bet the anti-RVing special interest groups are on the SOPA mailing list and are very involved in public scoping.
As a former Forest Service planner I can personally verify a handful of local private citizens with local input carry more weight in the final decision than the large organizations with professional staff (we called them the 'usual appellants' because they tend to knee-jerk litigate everything the FS proposes).
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Log off and go camping!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
"....by class of vehicle" is an excellent control criteria.
I'd sure like to see NFS/BLM roads with particularly beautiful scenery that are designated as "RV ONLY". I think quads are cute, I've owned a tricked out Jeep, I've owned an offroad motorcycle, and currently own a rugged 4X4 offroad PU .... HOWEVER my reasons for being out in the middle of nowhere in my RV are usually different from those for my being out in the middle of nowhere in those "other vehicles".
IMHO, RV owners need their own remote quiet retreats on public lands where the others are not allowed.
IMHO, RV owners need their own remote quiet retreats on public lands where the others are not allowed.
I don't agree, that's what has us in the mess we're in now. Select groups of users wanting their own desires to the exclusion of others is not the way to do it. Case in point is Johnson Valley in California. Multi-use groups are rallying under the same flag to keep the land open to all, which I believe to be one of the first times this has happened. Only my humble opinion.
TinBenders
Formula Toy #006
2007 Can-Am 500 MAX XT
2009 Eclipse Attitude F37 AKS, it's still not white!!
08 F350, $X$, CC, dually.
I wish that the mess we're in now resulted in some RV'ers ONLY boondocking spots ... and I wish that I knew where they were. I don't mean toyhauler RV's would be allowed, either.
IMHO, after paying taxes for decades it seems like that at least seniors with permits should have some quiet, cheap, boondock, NFS/BLM spots for just them .... my younger "ripping up the countryside with noisey toys" years notwithstanding.
I think locking up the wilderness is a crime. Talk about catering to a "select group". Only those young enough, healthy enough that have no infirmities or disabilities are allowed "inside".
05 Dodge Ram 3500 SLT SC DRW 4X4 CTD G56 373's CAI,Edge Juice/Attitude,Jake,Rancho9000x,Torklift tie downs,Superhitch,Stable Loads
04 S&S Avalanche 9' with slide 26th Marines RVN 69-70 Semper Fi M-14 was the only Woodstock I saw in 1969.
~DJ~ wrote: I think locking up the wilderness is a crime. Talk about catering to a "select group". Only those young enough, healthy enough that have no infirmities or disabilities are allowed "inside".
Most RVers support wilderness designation where appropriate. I oppose the radical sects of the environmental industry attempts to get every acre of land possible declared wilderness. We need to be selective. Wilderness areas are the crown jewels of our public lands. Let's not cheapen the collection by adding cheap plastic trinkets.
BTW -- the Blue Ribbon Coalition was one of the organizations that first approached the Forest Service in support of the travel management rule. The BRC saw the unrestricted unregulated proliferation of OHVs as a threat to the land and responsible OHV use.
Offline
