Recreation Groups Join Efforts to Challenge New USFS Planning Regulations

BLUERIBBON COALITION, INC.

MEDIA RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Greg Mumm, BRC Executive Director, (208) 244-2112
Paul Turcke, (208) 331-1800

Date: August 14, 2012

Recreation Groups Join Efforts to Challenge New USFS Planning Regulations
POCATELLO, IDAHO (August 14, 2012) -- Recreation advocates yesterday joined with several other organizations in a legal challenge to new forest planning regulations promulgated by the U.S. Forest Service.

The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) and the California Association of 4Wheel Drive Clubs (Cal 4 Wheel) joined forces with the other forest product and multiple use groups in filing a lawsuit to require the Forest Service to modify its new planning rule to avoid its devastating impacts on the health of National Forests, recreational uses of the forests and communities located nearby.

The U.S. Forest Service formally adopted new National Forest Planning rules on April 9, 2012. The new regulations shift the agency away from a jobs and ecosystem approach. Instead, the planning rule would cement the National Forests into endless litigation over single species management; an approach that even the agency admits has failed repeatedly in the last three decades.

The complaint takes the Forest Service to task for elevating species viability, ecological sustainability, and ecosystem services as mandatory national forest management objectives, above the five statutorily prescribed multiple uses: outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. It also admonishes the Forest Service for requiring recreational opportunities to fit the agency's definition of "sustainable" in order to be allowed on national forest lands.

Greg Mumm, BRC's Executive Director said; "The new planning rules are actually more complex, costly, and procedurally burdensome than the regulations they replace. The agency has utterly failed to meet the guidelines of President Obama's directive calling for regulations to be cost effective, less burdensome, and more flexible. As written, this rule will tie the hands of forest managers and allow preservationists groups to bury any active management in endless litigation."

Mark Cave, President of Cal 4 Wheel expressed concern that the new regulations shift the Forest Service away from multiple use/sustained yield and impose a binding requirement for "ecological sustainability," which the agency doesn't define clearly. "The new rules are a recipe for analysis paralysis. It doesn't take any clairvoyance to predict never ending challenge from the environmental community."

Cave said, "The wood products industry tried very hard to convince the Forest Service that these new rules work against forest health and jobs, both of which are vital to rural economies. We commented at every stage in the process. These rules ignore the multiple use mandate given to the agency by Congress. Instead, they focus on single species preservation,", said Howard Hedstrom, President of Hedstrom Lumber in Grand Marais, Minnesota, and President of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition. "Going to court against the Forest Service was the last thing on our minds when we launched this coalition last year, but with the impact on jobs that will be caused by the planning rules, we had no other choice."

Parties in the lawsuit include: The Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Alaska Forestry Association, American Forest Resource Coalition, American Sheep Industry Association, California Association of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, California Forestry Association, Minnesota Forest Industries, Minnesota Timber Producers Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, and Resource Development Council for Alaska.

The Complaint can be found at http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/Dkt_1_Complaint.pdf

This is a Nation Wide precedent setting attack against the land grabbing Feds! It is backed by the Timber Industry with their deep pockets, ARMY of Attorneys and Lobbyists!!!
































36 views and no comments, REALLY???

No new informational posts in this sub-forum either? Is everyone's backyard safe . . . for now . . . or what??

The Lyin King wrote:

This is a Nation Wide precedent setting attack against the land grabbing Feds! It is backed by the Timber Industry with their deep pockets, ARMY of Attorneys and Lobbyists!!!
































36 views and no comments, REALLY???

No new informational posts in this sub-forum either? Is everyone's backyard safe . . . for now . . . or what??

No, not at all. We just lost 3500 acres of great riding land to a lumber company. Come on guys. Lets help out as much as we can!!!!

I’m truly sorry for the 3500 acres you lost to Timber Companies, we have similar larger losses around here but in our case it is a reaction to NFS and BLM land closures.

Our timber companies are as upset as we are about restrictions and lack of access, so they have closed and locked their gates.

While the powers that be closed trails on NFS and BLM public lands, more OHV moved onto open timber company land for recreation and at times, a few ahats screwed up their logging roads and many old spur roads became torn up trails. They got tired of maintaining their roads without being able to actually utilize them for harvesting, so they slammed their gates in protest!!!

I don’t know if the same shoe fits in your case but that’s the way it rolled here.

The Lyin King wrote:

I’m truly sorry for the 3500 acres you lost to Timber Companies, we have similar larger losses around here but in our case it is a reaction to NFS and BLM land closures.

Our timber companies are as upset as we are about restrictions and lack of access, so they have closed and locked their gates.

While the powers that be closed trails on NFS and BLM public lands, more OHV moved onto open timber company land for recreation and at times, a few ahats screwed up their logging roads and many old spur roads became torn up trails. They got tired of maintaining their roads without being able to actually utilize them for harvesting, so they slammed their gates in protest!!!

I don’t know if the same shoe fits in your case but that’s the way it rolled here.

No, they bought the land and closed the gates. However, I am sure it is because they have been dealing with ass hats.

Something similar sounding happened here about seven years ago.

Cash strapped and faced with a veritable patchwork of BLM lands intermixed with NFS and private lands that could not be accessed, neither policed nor maintained, most veritably land locked, a public BLM liquidation auction was held.

Those parcels adjacent to privately held lands were bought by the private owners whose land abutted them. Those that had NFS seasonal closures or no real access didn’t fare well and the large contiguous parcels already adjoining Timber Company held lands were bought by them.

The timber industry purchased lands had access roads constructed or tied to existing roads of theirs and then were promptly gated.

I believe that they acquired these parcels looking to the future when common sense finally prevails and then the gates will open once again to the public but I’m both and optimist and pessimist!!!

Sadly, Slade (Federal Side) is in the process of closing as we speak. Been on the books for about 5 years now but they finally finished up their inventory. After the cap the oil wells, there will no longer be any federal/county/forestry service roads available in the Sand Lick side. Sad. They did this to Cromers Ridge as well a few years back as well.

If you want to read the full report, follow this link. It is at the bottom of the Kentucky Krawlers forum page. We paid the $400 bucks to get access to the report.

http://www.kentuckykrawlers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5975&start=135

I'm aware of the Slade issue, sorry folks!

I could not find the 400 page document in the location referenced but can logically assume that it depicts yet another case of the DOI (USFS) adopting more new words and ways for the woods without Congressional approval . . . "Social Sustainability" replaces "MUSY".

Where I live we've gone from a nice open forest with little under growth, a mix of conifers that varied in age whose density was no more than 200 trees per acre to an unbalanced overgrown mess that is now 1100 trees per acre in less than 100 years due to poor forest management practices and environmental group pressures. They are managing our forests to death.

The ill advised management protocol they have developed is responsible for all the major fires here in the West and the marked reduction of water in our water sheds over the last 25 years.

Quote :

Federal land managers are slowly, incrementally, eliminating our access to our public lands, simply because we either choose or are required to use a motorized vehicle. Today, the U.S. Forest Service is in the process of implementing a new standard for recreational activities. They call it "social sustainability."

You may be asking, "What's that?" With the finalization of the U.S. Forest Service's new Planning Regulations, Social Sustainability is now the new standard for recreational uses on our National Forests.

But since you asked me, I'll answer the question this way: Because the term is not defined, it is nothing less than an engraved invitation to radical environmental groups that says, "please sue us if you don't like our recreation plans."

This effort is designed to rely on public opinion to bar individual forms of outdoor recreation from the National Forests. Hunting and off-road vehicles are two forms of outdoor recreation that are often targeted by so-called "environmental groups" who will be forming even longer lines at the doorstep of our federal courts to impose their personal views on land managers.

The concept of "social sustainability" is new to federal land planning regulations, but it is not new to the environmental groups.

More here . . . https://www.sharetrails.org/public-lands/leading-environmentalist-asks-ohv-users-when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife

Here you go.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/33016_FSPLT2_277733.pdf

Right now we have BRC and SFWDA joining in on the cause. Sadly, most likely a wasted effort and it will become another Tellico.

Thank you for the link. I've read more of these junk science filled NFS documents than I care to think about but will give this one a quick once over. I am sure it mirrors their typical rational.

I read much of 13 page Slade discussion at the link sent, it has also been a topic of discussion on a forum local to my neck of the woods.

I'm afraid that at this stage of the game, there is little that SFWDA or BRC can do to reverse the Slade freight train.

IMHO . . . the only hope for this area, other recreation areas and forests across the Nation managed by the USFS is the lawsuit brought by BRC that forms the topic of this thread.

Couldn't agree more!

Read the linked document, IMHO it's a case of OHV becoming the whipping boy for "the sins of our Fathers".

Were it not for the oil well mitigation issues the area may have been salvageable for motorized recreation.

However, IMHO given the decade or more it's going to take to empty and plug the wells, pull up the entire above and below ground pipe maze etc, they simply don't want folks buzzing around there getting in the way.