Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
UnderlyVerbose

More Than HALF of Coconino National Forest roads to close on May 1

Recommended Posts

yeah, it's a raw deal, but it's been a long time coming. each national forest has been updating their use policies for a while now and have had public review meetings. the real problem is that the OHV community can't seem to organize a strong showing at these meetings. of course there are other issues with how they do the proposals and reviews that seem to make sure they come out the way they want too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always a few that ruin it for the rest of us. George:cool::mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So sad :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll have to look at the map to see if this is the case or not, but often times the trails they close are redundant trails that go to the same spot. In some areas the number of trails that go to the same spot is so severe as to resemble a spider web. The article says that they assessed the trail system and eliminated those that weren't really trails, such as going across a meadow, redundant trails, etc. I'm all for that because a 'spider web' of trails really does ruin the environment, plus it makes it extremely difficult to navigate when you're trying to find a certain trail.

 

What I don't like about what I read here is the way they're going to go about enforcement. They're not installing any closed signs since 'people would just take them down and throw them aside if they really wanted to get through' (really?). They're going to expect everyone to become informed and stay only on designated trails. Enforcement officers will be giving warnings and handing out maps, but they may also give citations when they deem appropriate. So it's on us, the responsible forest users, to obtain copies of their map. So I'm adding that to my to-do list. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We'll have to look at the map to see if this is the case or not, but often times the trails they close are redundant trails that go to the same spot. In some areas the number of trails that go to the same spot is so severe as to resemble a spider web. The article says that they assessed the trail system and eliminated those that weren't really trails, such as going across a meadow, redundant trails, etc. I'm all for that because a 'spider web' of trails really does ruin the environment, plus it makes it extremely difficult to navigate when you're trying to find a certain trail.

 

What I don't like about what I read here is the way they're going to go about enforcement. They're not installing any closed signs since 'people would just take them down and throw them aside if they really wanted to get through' (really?). They're going to expect everyone to become informed and stay only on designated trails. Enforcement officers will be giving warnings and handing out maps, but they may also give citations when they deem appropriate. So it's on us, the responsible forest users, to obtain copies of their map. So I'm adding that to my to-do list. :rolleyes:

That makes a lot of sense, and they do claim that they're closing mostly "redundant" trails, but I can't believe that 50% of the forest roads up here lead to the same place. We're talking hundreds of miles here. My biggest concern, really, is that there will be the same number of people crammed into half the area, which means more accidents, more damage to THOSE trails, and who knows what else.

 

Like George said, we're all gonna pay for the way a small population behaves, and the worst part of that, is that those people will continue to do the exact same thing...

 

I managed to dig up the proposed maps in case anyone is interested.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/coconino/landmanagement/projects/?cid=stelprdb5356224

 

Sorry to go on such a rant, this just really got under my skin for some reason... Thank you everyone for all the input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the National Forests are doing this. The Prescott based their MVUM plan on a 1989 Road map. I don't think there was a lot of planning done there.

 

While I strongly disagree with those who forge new roads in the NF (or anywhere - which puts me at odds with a lot of fourwheelers), I also have a problem with the Forest Service slowly moving the forests towards roadless enclaves.

 

Their ultimate goal seems to be to close a lot of minor roads, leaving those remaining open to eventual decay. Whereupon they will finally became non navigable regardless of how modified the vehicle.

 

I think the real motive behind this may be a lack of funding. Up until the 1980's (don't get me started on a political rant about that era), the FS had crews that maintained trails AND roads. Those crews are all gone now. The Prescott has about 1800 miles of roads and they routinely maintain about 300 of those. Where are the 300? Most access FS approved campgrounds.

 

The Prescott has one grader and one dozer for their whole domain. Get that? Maricopa County has more road equipment than that! I haven't seen a serious effort by FS personnel to even sign their roads and trails in years!

 

As for enforcement, the last I heard, the Prescott had one LEO (law enforcement officer). ONE! Imagine sending one person on any kind of call to a remote area. If I were him, I sure as heck wouldn't go!

 

Eventually I think FS users will be forced to camp in approved sites only, meaning you might end up sited next to Mr. Urbanite with his Winnebago, sixteen crying kids and a herd of barking dogs. Nice.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the powers that be would like to see one main well groomed road through each forest, where the average passenger car can travel it and not get lost or stuck, and they can take pictures (without being allowed to stop even) - and that's it. all other uses of the forest, regardless of how responsible the user is, are secretly deemed "not worthy".

 

i re-read the article and beyond just the closures, the new limits on dispersed camping are also upsetting to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was one of the many reasons we bailed out of Minnesota. MN had changed there policy to "Closed unless posted open" and for some reason a lot of trails that were suppose to be open never got posted. MN4WDA was told they "must have overlooked those trails". its easier fro them to keep more trails closed then what is actually closed and lays ALL responsibility on us.:mad:

 

Ive seen this and Ive seen the aftermath and it aint pretty.:mad:

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...