OHV’s LInked to Weather: Could This Be True?

Sometimes I think there should be a category on this blog for “things that seem too strange to be true but I don’t have time to look at the document myself.” See the italicized sentence in the quote below.
Does anyone out there in blogland have a copy of the report we can post?

PS, who forgot to tell me when the perfectly good English words “resilience” and “relevance” were replaced with “resiliency” and “relevancy” does it follow that prurience is now “pruriency”.. I just wanna know?

Here’s the story:

Specifically, Vilsack said the USFS decided to remove the report, titled “A Comprehensive Framework for Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Management,” and cease distribution of hard copies and video discs “to clarify the context for the reference to Wildlands CPR’s BMPs [best management practices] and how the Forest Service develops and uses its own national BMPs.

“The Forest Service also had concerns about some of the graphics and the relevancy of some of the information,” Vilsack wrote.

Vilsack’s letter was in response to a letter dated March 9 in which the AMA and six other organizations demanded answers concerning the anti-OHV statements and innuendo in the document as well as the inclusion of information from the Wildlands CPR, which is an anti-OHV group.

Besides the AMA, organizations signing the letter were the All-Terrain Vehicle Association, the BlueRibbon Coalition, the Colorado Off-Highway Vehicle Coalition, the Colorado Snowmobile Association, Trails Preservation Alliance, and the Utah Shared Access Alliance.

The intent of the guidebook is laudable: to help OHV trail managers develop sustainable trails and protect the environment surrounding the trails.

But Wayne Allard, a former U.S. senator and U.S. representative from Colorado who is now the AMA’s vice president for government relations, noted that “the document includes a variety of statements and innuendo that reflect an anti-OHV bias, and cites as a source for information an anti-OHV group. This type of government guide should be fact-based and neutral. It shouldn’t include inflammatory, biased language and the recommendations of a group known to oppose OHVs.”

Among other things, the 318-page guide stated: “This framework was developed to help trail managers corral the OHV management dragon. The author hopes it has provided some insight into the nature of OHV trails, and some tools to help keep the beast at bay. Happy herding and happy trails!”

The guide also claimed that OHV use causes an “increase in frequency and intensity of weather events,” and acknowledged gathering information from the Wildlands CPR.

BYO TP, plus Conundrum Management

People soaking in the Conundrum Hot Springs can also soak in the view of the beautiful valley, looking north.
Max Vadnais / The Aspen Times

When I am out of the blogging loop for awhile, and read a load of stories, there seem to be strange juxtapositions. Here are two stories, one about “not enough” use; the other about “too much” use. The common denominator seems to be “not enough money.”

I think we should be able to do better. I would call it a “third-world” approach to recreation- except that that would be a disservice to the third world.

Here’s the “not enough use” story: Forest Service to cut some services at old camp areas, here.

And one on the Conundrum Hot Springs area, currently big in the press for the dead cows, here, “Forest Service: Conundrum faces bigger woes than cows: Popularity of hot springs is affecting the beautiful valley.”

Mono Lake Tufa Preserve

On the south shore of the picturesque Mono Lake is a collection of rock formations known as tufa. For thousands of centuries, the level of Mono Lake has fluctuated, with ancient lakeshores easily visible from commercial airliners. As the lake rises, more minerals cling to the existing structures, building them larger and taller. It really seems unlikely that the water levels will be rising, in the near future, even with the waters from Rush Creek being permanently sustained. There are just a few pocket glaciers left in the Sierra Nevada but, there were some very wet years in the 80′s which pushed water levels higher. This is a Forest Service site, which requires a fee or pass. Improvements include a nice boardwalk, bathrooms, a parking area and periodic road grading.

I stayed until well after sundown, capturing some dramatic shots. There were about another 30 photographers there, as well. It is a fragile place but, I haven’t seen much damage in the 30 years since I first saw it.

http://www.facebook.com/LarryHarrellFotoware

Collaboration Example: Black Hills Travel Management with FACA Committee

If, as stated by many, collaboration is a tool of “industry”, what industry are we talking about here?
Here’s an example of how the recommendations and agency action interrelate on the draft Travel Management Plan.

Proposed Action
Early development of the proposed action involved extensive consultation with many individuals and groups. Some of this work was conducted by the National Forest Advisory Board. Other efforts were conducted by the Forest Service. The following section summarizes these efforts.
National Forest Advisory Board Efforts
The Forest conducted preliminary public involvement from April 2003 to November 2007 through the work of the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB). This board was chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in 2003. In March 2005, the Board established the Travel Management Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) to develop recommendations to the larger NFAB for travel management on the Forest. It was intended that advice provided by the NFAB would be used by the Forest Service to develop a proposed action or alternatives to be considered in the EIS. Members appointed to the Subcommittee represented a wide variety of interests, including both motorized and nonmotorized recreationists.
To assist their efforts in evaluating the potential for establishing a designated OHV trail system on the Forest, the Subcommittee distributed a User Needs Questionnaire to solicit input from both OHV and non-OHV users. By December 2005, some 559 responses had been received. To supplement the information received from this effort, the Subcommittee also conducted four public meetings in South Dakota and Wyoming in which they listened to ideas, suggestions and concerns from off-highway vehicle users, outdoor recreationists, interested stakeholders and community members.
NFAB Recommendations – Based on public input solicited and received, the Subcommittee issued a report on June 8, 2006 (Blair et al. 2006). The report contained eleven core recommendations regarding design and management of a designated system of roads, trails, and areas. The report made it clear that these recommendations “are intended to be general in nature.” The eleven recommendations offered by the Travel Subcommittee to the NFAB are incorporated by reference in this analysis, and are summarized as follows:
9
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan
1. Our Setting/Niche – “The Subcommittee recognizes that motorized vehicle use including OHVs is an important part of the recreation experience on the Black Hills. The Subcommittee recommends that an OHV trail system be developed, within the context of overall motorized uses, which provides for a variety of opportunities but does not dominate or unreasonably interfere with other multiple uses on the Forest.”
2. Active or a Passive System? “The Subcommittee recommends an ‘active’ system versus a passive one. A passive system is similar to what we have today—routes and areas are designated as open or closed, and people use these routes/areas as desired. An active system is one that is specifically designed, maintained, and enforced to provide for specific uses. The Subcommittee recognizes that funding would play a large role in the size and nature of the system.” (Emphasis added.)
3. What are the economic and funding issues? “The Subcommittee recognizes that the size and nature of an OHV system will depend substantially on the funding sources available. The Subcommittee supports pursuing all possible funding options.”
4. What would be the role of the States and local communities in developing and managing an OHV trail system? “The Subcommittee recommends that OHV management on the Black Hills National Forest be a cooperative effort between the Forest Service, the States of South Dakota and Wyoming, and local counties. The Forest Service would have primary responsibility for an OHV trail system (as well as other transportation systems) on NFS lands.”
5. What should the system look like/consist of? “The group likes the concept of “Gateway Communities” or of at least connecting/tying in communities in some fashion. In general, the system should consist of a main arterial system extending throughout the Black Hills and a network of routes branching off the main system. The focus would be on multiple scale loops as opposed to dead-end spurs. Many of the routes would be shared by multiple users… The group recognizes that, for the most part, there are already an adequate number of routes on the Forest that could be developed into a system [and that] some current, non-system routes may need to be included in the system.” The Subcommittee stated that they did not envision that a large number of new routes would be developed, and that the development of new connections or “limited new routes…should be off-set by the removal of other existing routes. In the end, there should be less ‘tracks on the ground’ than currently exists.”
6. How do we address populated areas? “General consensus was that it is important to limit the amount of noise and potential conflicts adjacent to communities/ subdivisions, and that an OHV trail system should focus more on areas away from populated areas.” The Subcommittee recognized that concentrating motorized use near populated areas “can be a nuisance for some and cause conflicts” and that efforts should be made to reduce this nuisance and conflicts. The Subcommittee noted that providing motorized access from these areas while reducing conflicts could be “the most difficult aspect of the entire process.”
7. Game Retrieval – “The Subcommittee recommends that allowances be made for game retrieval as part of the motorized use designation process.” The Subcommittee recommended further that the program on the Forest should be consistent with other Federal and State agencies, notably Custer State Park, and that “No unacceptable 10
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
resource damage, as defined by the Forest Service, will occur as part of retrieval operations.”
8. Firewood Collecting – The Subcommittee recognized that many residents collect firewood on the Forest to heat their homes, and recommended “that motorized use to collect firewood:
a. Require a firewood permit.
b. Be limited to areas designated by the Forest Service which can be modified as needed.”
9. Dispersed Camping – “The Subcommittee recommends that dispersed camping using motorized vehicles off designated routes be allowed, but motorized vehicles be restricted to within 300 feet of an open, designated route using the most direct route to the camp site.”
10. Cross-Country Motorized OHV Use – “The Subcommittee recommends that cross-country motorized OHV travel be allowed only within designated areas. Exceptions to this would be for administrative and permitted uses, public safety, fire suppression, and search and rescue.” The Subcommittee offered no recommendation as to the size and nature of these designated areas.
11. Mud-Bogging – “The Subcommittee recommends that no mud-bogging be allowed on National Forest System lands,” noting the resource damage that accompanies such use.
Forest Service Efforts
The Forest Service also conducted work outside the framework of the NFAB. During this preliminary public involvement stage, Forest leadership met with Indian tribal leadership to consider the travel planning process. The Forest Service also sponsored and conducted workshops. The Forest, in cooperation with the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC) conducted an OHV Route Designation Workshop in October 2006 for agency personnel and the public. The purpose of this workshop was to acquaint agency personnel and the public with the Travel Management Rule and its implementation. In November 2006, the Forest conducted four “Travelways” workshops. The purpose of these workshops was to gather public input and ideas for developing a proposed action. Individuals attending these workshops identified routes they felt should remain open for public use on Forest lands, and suggested changes or additions to the travel system. Participants at these workshops contributed site-specific information that was used to develop the proposed action.
The Forest then convened decisionmakers and resource specialists from the Supervisor’s Office and all four Ranger Districts, to design and display a motorized travel system that would follow the NFAB recommendations and meet public desires expressed up to that time. The aim was to develop a system that a system that would also reduce or minimize potential resource damage, and be practical to implement.

Government Agencies, OHV Groups Work Together on Compliance with Rules

Sharing the trails on Tenderfoot Mountain in Summit County, Colorado.

Thanks to Bob Berwyn for this.. wonder if this approach is unique to Colorado?

2011 pilot program resulted in 10,000 contacts with riders in problem areas

By Summit Voice

SUMMIT COUNTY — Colorado officials will continue an off-highway vehicle monitoring program that has helped increase compliance with off-road rules in Colorado.

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission last week approved $300,000 in funding to extend the pilot program launched last year.

In 2011, teams of law enforcement officers from Colorado State Parks, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management contacted 10,000 individual riders in problem areas identified by environmental and quiet recreation groups, according to state trails program manager Tom Morrissey.

Morrissey said less than 5 percent of those contacts resulted in warnings or citations — the majority for failure to comply with OHV registration requirements.

Rangers spent about 90 percent of their time on or around designated OHV routes. Morrissey said they saw little evidence of off-trail damage but did report a significant need for increased trail maintenance and better signage to identify designated routes.

Commissioner Jim Pribyl said the program had a successful first year.

“We appreciate how the OHV community worked with us to create a program that increased education and compliance with both state and federal OHV regulations,” said Pribyl. “The project has clearly shown that law-enforcement visibility deters illegal off-trail riding and increases compliance.”

Commissioners unanimously voted to fund the program for 2012, suggesting rangers focus on new compliance check areas and use of remote sensing equipment like trail monitors and game cameras to monitor illegal or user-created trails. Several commissioners also suggested that the trail program tap the local knowledge possessed by district wildlife managers to identify problem areas with a need for monitoring and enforcement.

Morrissey also briefed the commission on the progress of this year’s recreational trail grant process. Fifty-seven motorized project applications totaling $6.8 million were submitted by the December 2011 deadline. About $4 million in funding is available for motorized OHV trail grants in 2012. Applications for non-motorized trail projects totaled $4.3 million, with about $1.6 million available to award. Commissioners will vote on grant awards at the April 12 commission meeting in Pueblo.

Colorado’s OHV Trails Program is funded through the sale of OHV registrations and use permits. Over 160,000 OHVs were registered or permitted for use in Colorado during the 2010-2011 registration years. Revenue generated by the annual $25.25 user permit are used to support the statewide OHV program, the OHV registration program and the OHV trail grant program, including OHV law enforcement.

Fee Simple: Why We Should Pay to Hike, Boat, Fish, Camp and Just Plain Visit Our National Forests

From Char Miller here:

John McKinney means well, and his sentiments scan nicely: “I don’t think a nature hike is a forest product and that hikers are forest consumers. We’re out there for something that you can’t put a price on.”

That’s what he told the Los Angeles Times following the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in February that the Forest Service had overstepped its bounds when charging for access to the national forests in the American west. According to the court, the agency’s Adventure Pass system, which sold one-day passes for $5 (and an annual one for $30), violated provisions of the 2004 Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA). That legal finding cheered McKinney no end, but he’ll discover that we’ll pay a steep price for the court’s elimination of user fees.

The author of such standards as Southern California: A Day Hiker’s Guide, John McKinney’s Wild LA, and The Hiker’s Way: Hike Smart. Live Well. Go Green, McKinney knows how to navigate in the woods, revel in the joys of a dusty tramp, and find bliss in exertion.
He is incorrect, however, about his aesthetic claims for the non-economic character of a high-country ramble. Wrong too is his implication that spending a day trekking through the Angeles or the Los Padres national forests, or camping out in the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area of the San Bernardino National Forest, is an apolitical, non-consumptive act.

Let me address the second point first.

These rough-and-ready terrain are the creature of politics. Each of the four national forests of Southern California – including the Cleveland, located north and east of San Diego – was established shortly after the passage of the passage of 1891 Forest Reserve Act. This legislative initiative gave presidents the power to establish reserves on federally owned public land in the west. Yet as a matter of course no forest was ever the result of a top-down directive from the chief executive. Instead, local conservationists, civic leaders, business interests, and an array of citizens demanded from the bottom up that these public lands secure increased federal presence and regulation that in time a national forest would bring.

In this region, that protection had much more to do with the maintenance of watersheds, as timber cutting was not nearly as important as it was in the well-wooded Sierra, Cascade, or Mendocino ranges. Without downstream interests articulating the essential contribution of clean and plentiful water for community development, then, these national forests would not exist. And the recreational opportunities these mountainous landscapes offer today are a direct result of those earlier advocates’ social convictions and political maneuvers.

Think about that enduring gift the next time you lace up, stretch out, and head into the Sheep Mountain Wilderness Area. When you do, recall as well that this landscape exists within another political context: all public lands that bear the wilderness designation, exist because of the1964 Wilderness Act; its passage took nearly thirty years of wrangling in and out of Congress, and the most passionate and persistent lobbying emanated from the Wilderness Society, founded in 1935.
Benton MacKaye | Photo: Appalachian Trail Conservancy/Wikipedia/Creative Commons License
“All we desire to save from invasion,” asserted the society’s founders Robert Sterling Yard, Benton MacKaye, and Robert Marshall, “is that extremely minor fraction of outdoor America which yet remains free from mechanical sights and sounds and smell.” Their words have had special meaning in car-crazed Los Angeles.

Paying for that silence, or as much quiet as is possible in this hyper-industrialized world, is part of the civic obligation built into the 1905 creation of the national-forest system. From the start, Congress demanded that the forests (and thus their users) operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, and the optimistic first Chief of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, promised to fulfill that charge.

His was a tough promise to fulfill. While fees for grazing, later timber harvests, and later still recreation may have bolstered the agency’s efforts to research and regulate resource use; protect critical watersheds and endangered species; and enhance recreational infrastructure, they never have fully balanced the budget.

Nor could they: the rates have been kept artificially low to stimulate economic development, so that until the 1980s the deficits were offset through additional public spending. Caring for the Land and Serving the People – the Forest Service’s longstanding motto and commitment – always has cost money.

These expenses spiked in the late 1980s as timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest were scaled back rapidly in response to the Spotted Owl controversy; to protect the endangered bird’s habitat, clear-cutting of old-growth forests, which once generated considerable income for the Forest Service, was largely shut down. By the mid-1990s, the agency faced declining budgets, and began laying off staff and reducing services.

In hopes of stabilizing these budgetary shortfalls, in 1996 Congress authorized the establishment of a recreational fee pilot project, in which hikers, boaters, campers, and other visitors to the forests would pay a minimal amount to access specific services (a boating ramp, say, a picnic area). The funding collected on an individual forest would remain there, enhancing its ability to rebuild trails, staff visitor centers, or insure a steady supply of the all-important toilet paper at trailhead bathrooms.
A waterfall in the Cleveland National Forest | Photo: Chazz Layne/Flickr/Creative Commons License
Despite these and other assorted benefits, user fees kicked off a heated debate. Hiking guru John McKinney was among those who refused to buy an Adventure Pass, a protest and pushback that in 2004 led Congress to rewrite the conditions of the fee-demo program through the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. It prohibits the Forest Service (as well as the Bureau of Land Management) from charging for these site-specific activities:

• General access to national forests and grasslands and Bureau of Land Management areas; • Horseback riding, walking through, driving through, or boating through areas where no facilities or services are used; • Access to overlooks or scenic pullouts; • Undesignated parking areas where no facilities are provided for • Picnicking along roads or trails; and • In addition individuals under 16 will not be charged an entrance or standard amenity fee.

These provisions would become the basis for a lawsuit filed against Arizona’s Coronado National Forest for levying fees on day hiking from and picnicking along Catalina Highway as it rises up the flanks of Mount Lemmon near Tucson. A lower court dismissed the original suit that alleged the Forest Service was in violation of REA. But in February, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that earlier decision and supported the plaintiffs’ claims, concluding:

REA unambiguously prohibits the Forest Service from charging fees…for recreational visitors who park a car, then camp at undeveloped sites, picnic along roads or trailsides, or hike through the area without using the facilities and services.

While McKinney and other opponents of the Adventure Pass celebrated this legal win, yodeling for unfettered access to all public lands, their victory will prove Pyrrhic.

Because federal land-management agencies such as the Forest Service do not have substantial-enough budgets to cover their real costs. Because the 9th Circuit’s decision has stripped forests raise badly needed dollars to clean up such trash-littered, high-impact areas as Lytle Creek in the San Bernardino National Forest and the San Gabriel River Ranger District of the Angeles. And because the American people persist in their stubborn refusal to pay taxes without curbing their insatiable demand for “free” governmental services, these great scenic assets and essential recreational spaces have and will continue to collapse under the weight of our inaction.

Until we can legislate more robust and consistent financial support for the agencies that steward our public lands, no one – not even hikers – should get a free pass.

Char Miller is the Director and W.M. Keck Professor of Environmental Analysis at Pomona College, author of “Public Lands, Public Debates: A Century of Controversy” (Oregon State University Press), and editor of “Cities and Nature in the American West.” He comments every week on environmental issues. Read more of his columns here

Note from Sharon: There are other photos in the web version of this story, I just reposted one.

So what do you think; develop better legislation for rec fees, have free will offerings to a non-profit, start a lobbying group for rec funds or ????.

LA Times Editorial on Recreation Fees

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this one.

National forest fees work
The U.S. Forest Service should work to change the law regarding fees in national forests to reflect the realities of modern recreational use.

Here’s the link.

March 1, 2012
Does a hiker go to the bathroom in the woods? It might matter, under a recent federal court ruling.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled correctly last month that parking fees were being wrongly levied in many areas of America’s national forests. A 2004 law is quite specific that it is impermissible to charge fees for parking or for “general use” of the forests. But while the court’s ruling was perfectly in line with the law, the real problem is with the law itself. Under its provisions, if you use the bathroom while hiking in the forest, you can be charged, but not if you use nature itself as the bathroom. Picnicking on the ground has to be free under the law, but eating at a picnic table could, at least theoretically, cost you, as could using a trash can.
The way the law was drafted, it’s all about whether forest visitors are using “developed” facilities. But as the examples above show, that’s a ludicrous distinction that is impossible to enforce, out of line with the procedures at most wilderness parks and ultimately harmful to the forests and their visitors.
Most national and state parks and many regional parks charge an entry fee for vehicles whether they’re headed to the trail or the interpretive center, understanding full well that hikers’ and bikers’ activities come with costs even if they don’t use the “developed” facilities. Most hikers require trail markers to guide them on their way. The heavily used trails themselves must be maintained. Anyone might need emergency rescue or medical help from rangers. And for that matter, why shouldn’t a parking lot be considered a developed facility?
One argument against fees is that they keep poor people from enjoying the forests. But at $30 a year, a forest Adventure Pass is one of the best bargains in Southern California. It’s less than a fourth the price of an annual pass to state parks and is good for unlimited day use of four forests — the Angeles, Cleveland, San Bernardino and Los Padres. A single-day pass to the forests costs $5 for a carload of visitors, less than half the price of most movie tickets for a single person. The gasoline to drive to the forest would generally cost more.
Most of the money is used in the local forests where it is collected. In 2006 alone, the fees paid for, among many items, adding 74 new portable bathrooms, refurbishing 123 picnic areas and removing 8,752 cubic yards of trash in the Southern California forests. But as a result of the law and the recent court ruling, the U.S. Forest Service is now planning to drop fees in many areas of the forests. Instead, the law should be changed to reflect the realities of modern recreational use.

Help Wanted!: FS Recreation Funding

Hwy. 2 sunset facing south in the Angeles National Forest.

What I like about this post is that it acknowledges that there’s a problem if the FS can’t charge fees and doesn’t get funding from Congress.

Our ire at the Forest Service has nothing to do with whether or not the government agency is properly funded. For decades now, in fact, it has been severely underfunded. We don’t object to creative ways to get it more money to protect our wildlands. In fact, we would wager that many if not most avid hikers, backpackers, car campers, fishers, hunters and other forest users would be more than glad to pitch in with their charitable donations to keep their mountain, desert and other wild lands clean and safe – perhaps to a nonprofit organization specifically set up for that purpose.
Put a donation booth at every trail head with a smiling volunteer and watch the money roll in – voluntarily.

I think the FS already has many donation booths at trailheads.. does anyone know of studies or data ata on how much money people donate?

The idea of a not for profit is interesting.. what are people thinking the not-for-profit would do that the FS couldn’t do..keep the funds for local improvements? General mistrust of the FS? I’m hoping people can point NCFP readers to what is known about this topic. Everyplace I know recreation is important and faces shortfalls; don’t we communally need to work on some solutions?

Or could the partners like the REI or the OIA (discussed under “roadless” in a previous post) to donate 5% of all of certain kinds of outdoor equipment to go to a recreation not-for-profit to benefit FS recreation? it seems like we have a) creative and brilliant minds around who recreate on the national forests and 2) lots of people using the forests, including 3) corporate entities and their associations; somehow that seems like it ought to translate into enough money to take care of our recreation sites.

Does anyone know of ideas that have been successful or that might be worth trying?

Here’s the whole piece:

Our View: Good riddance, Adventure Pass
Posted: 02/18/2012 06:15:20 AM PST

http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinions/ci_19994719

WE’VE known it all along, and have been saying so since 1998. But sometimes it takes literally making a federal case out of an injustice in order to make common sense into law.
Speaking for a unanimous panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling this month in favor of four hikers who objected to paying a fee to visit an Arizona forest, Judge Robert Gettleman wrote: “Everyone is entitled to enter national forests without paying a cent.”
Of course we are. These federal lands are paid for by our tax dollars. (For that matter, we welcome into them foreign hiking and sightseeing buffs who don’t pay American taxes at all. Good PR for America’s great outdoors.) The absurdly concocted Adventure Passes all but a few protesting conscientious objectors have been forced to pay these past 14 years are nothing more than a case of double taxation that never should have been cooked up in the first place.
Technically, if you even pulled your vehicle over to the side of the road on Highway 2 through our Angeles National Forest and took a stroll to a lookout point, you had to fork over $5 for the privilege – or $30 for an annual “pass.”
We already have that right. It’s not something you can extort money from us to do. This ruling clearly marks the end of the Adventure Pass once and for all.
Even so, the curmudgeonly local Forest Service isn’t ready to, as it were, buy in.
“I don’t have anything officially on that at this time,” said Sherry Rollman, spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service in Arcadia.
“It happened in another state and we haven’t assessed it yet.”
What planet is the USFS living on? This isn’t a state matter. It’s not the California Forest Service. Its workers are federal employees, and this ruling was made by a federal judge. We’re one big country, and a happier one for the ruling that we have a right to walk on our own land without being nickled and dimed in order to do so.
Our ire at the Forest Service has nothing to do with whether or not the government agency is properly funded. For decades now, in fact, it has been severely underfunded. We don’t object to creative ways to get it more money to protect our wildlands. In fact, we would wager that many if not most avid hikers, backpackers, car campers, fishers, hunters and other forest users would be more than glad to pitch in with their charitable donations to keep their mountain, desert and other wild lands clean and safe – perhaps to a nonprofit organization specifically set up for that purpose.
Put a donation booth at every trail head with a smiling volunteer and watch the money roll in – voluntarily.
The 9th Circuit ruling hedges a bit. Those who go to a place in the forest with “a majority of the nine amenities” offered in developed areas such as picnic tables, permanent toilets, garbage cans and running water, may be charged, the court said.
We’re not sure about that logic, and not sure how such uses can be quantified. But we’ll take the present ruling and run with it – and perambulate, cycle, swim and more through the lands that are owned by us all together.

Recreation – Sheepdog Safety

Akbash, a livestock protection dog used in the San Juan National Forest, has caused a stir among some trail users near Molas Pass. Here, Akbash belonging to Shane Nicolas herd sheep in the summer of 2010 in the Uncompahgre National Forest near Lake City.

In the interests of safety, I am posting this. I don’t know if this is the only part of the country where this is an issue. From the Durango Herald.

A simple solution to sheepdog encounters?
Education campaign planned to reduce high-country conflicts

Officials are betting that unnerving encounters with dogs guarding sheep in the high country could be reduced or eliminated through a public-education program to occur before flocks head for the hills in July.

Problem dogs in backcountry?

The plan emerged from a meeting this week involving the La Plata County Living With Wildlife Advisory Board and representatives of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, the agencies that oversee livestock grazing on public land.

“I was impressed with the presentation of the agencies as well as the heartfelt and knowledgeable response of our board members,” Maureen Keilty, chairwoman of the wildlife board, said Wednesday. “I think we have a good focus and that our plan can be a model for public education.”

Among the elements of the informational plan:

A booth at the Durango Farmers Market where volunteers would explain the history of livestock grazing, the inherent nature and training of sheepdogs, and suggested trail etiquette on the part of hikers and mountain bikers.

A public forum at which stakeholders would give their point of view. The composition of the panel isn’t set but could include a rancher, a Forest Service or BLM representative, an advocate for wildlife and someone to speak for the trail-using public.

Informational signs at trailheads alerting visitors that dog-guarded sheep are grazing in the area. The signs were posted for the first time in 2011.

Maps at visitor centers, chambers of commerce and on BLM and Forest Service websites showing current locations of sheep, which are moved from one location to another.

Matt Janowiak, the Columbine District ranger for the Forest Service; Tom Rice, field manager at the BLM Tres Rios office in Dolores; and Ann Bond, Forest Service public information specialist in Durango, were at the meeting Tuesday.

Several run-ins with sheepdogs along the Colorado Trail around Silverton last summer prompted letters to newspapers recounting scary experiences, personal or retold, with guard dogs.

Several breeds of Turkish dogs, bred for centuries to protect sheep, are used by the six holders of sheep-grazing permits in the San Juan National Forest. The Akbash was the breed involved in the incidents.

Sheepdogs, including the Akbash, bond with their band by nature and don’t turn tail in the face of a threat. No one was bitten last summer.

Janowiak and Elena Cuevas, a member of the wildlife advisory board, who are familiar with the Akbash, said the breed isn’t vicious by nature. But sheepdogs have to be socialized as pups. Familiarity with people, other breeds of canines, farm animals and ranch equipment train them to distinguish a friend from a foe when guarding their flock.

Janowiak related how a rancher from Montrose who grazes sheep around Silverton removed and eventually put down an aggressive sheepdog. Since then, he’s used socialized dogs, and there’s been no problems, Janowiak said.

The BLM and Forest Service provide grazing allotments at several locations near Silverton, including Highland Mary Lakes, Whitehead Gulch, Velocity Basin and Grouse Gulch.

It was brought out at the Tuesday meeting that people who take dogs on federal land must have the pet under voice control or on a leash although there is no leash law.

The expanses where sheep graze in the national forest have no trails for motorized vehicles. But there are Forest Service or county roads that sheep cross from time to time.

Controlling predators with sheepdogs will resolve at least two issues of contention, Keilty said.

Dogs provide a nonlethal method to protect livestock in contrast to the U.S. Department of Agriculture APHIS Wildlife Service, which uses hunters to kill predators, Keilty said. Relying on dogs puts responsibility on ranchers, involves no taxpayer money and should find favor with animal lovers, she said.

APHIS stands for Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

The USDA service is expensive, costing county, state and federal funds, Keilty said. Ranchers also may be reimbursed for their losses.

The sheepdog solution also beats trapping and relocating predators, which rarely works, Keilty said.

Sunday Op-ed and Editorial Roundup from the Interior West

In today’s Sunday papers, The Denver Post and the Missoulian had three op-eds and an editorial of relevance to our usual topics. Ski Area Water Rights, 21st century conservation, private lands conservation and Tester’s bill. I lumped them together below and one separate in a separate post (restoration op-ed in the Missoulian), just to reduce my work here. Please feel free to comment on any or all of them.

One thing I thought was interesting was that in the Jon Christenson piece (third below), conservation easements protect the land from development by allowing the lands to be working for grazing, agriculture or timber. On federal lands, though, we were discussing if roadless is not adequately “protected” and only wilderness is really “protected” (albeit not from air pollution or climate change).

The recession presented land trusts with some great opportunities in recent years, as development stalled, and prime lands were available at distress-sale prices. But most of the growth has come through conservation easements, which are becoming ever more popular because they allow land trusts to protect land at an even lower price. “You pay 40 to 50 percent of the fee value of the land without any management costs,” explains Nita Vail, executive director of the rancher-led California Rangeland Trust. That’s because the landowners continue to own and manage their lands for grazing, agriculture, or timber.

These “working landscapes” — ranches, farms and timberlands — are now a priority for the majority of land trusts nationwide, according to the Land Trust Alliance survey.

Editorial- Denver Post #1

Editorial: The right to enjoy the land vs. ski resorts’ water rights
As water becomes increasingly scarce, it is important to bring clarity to the issue of who controls this resource at ski areas.
Posted: 01/15/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By The Denver Post

The intensifying battle between the ski industry and the U.S. Forest Service over water rights is far more complicated and nuanced than it might seem at first glance.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing that the matter has landed in federal court so a judge can parse through the issues and apply the law fairly.

At the end of the day, we hope the rights of citizens to enjoy recreational opportunities on federal land are appropriately balanced against the financial interests of ski resorts.

We’ve heard a lot about ski industry contentions that new rules by the government amount to a “taking” of water rights they spent millions to acquire. The industry makes a compelling case.

Yet it’s important to keep in mind the government’s argument. The Forest Service says it is proposing regulations that clarify a 2004 change to ski permit conditions made during the Bush administration.

The government’s position is that water rights associated with ski areas should remain with the government even if the ownership of a resort or its business plans change.

An important point of disagreement between the ski areas and the government is this: Federal authorities contend the water rights at issue involve water that originates on federal land and didn’t have to be bought by the resorts. This rule doesn’t, they say, have anything to do with private rights bought by resorts.

That is to say, water from federal land that is permitted for use in snowmaking ought to remain with the property even if a ski resort were to be sold.

The National Ski Areas Association sees the water rights issue in a different light — one they construe as an effort to confiscate private property.

In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court, the industry group says the government is seeking control over water rights that ski areas obtain “from private lands or lands miles away from the ski area.”

These are vastly different interpretations of the proposed permit language that need to be resolved.

The federal courts are well-equipped to pull apart the complexities of water law and rule-making procedure. However, a better outcome would be a settlement.

We hope the parties can agree on a resolution of their differences over ski permit language without a protracted and costly legal battle.

Homes and businesses have sprouted up around ski runs built on federal land and people have come to expect access to these areas for alpine recreation. Those towns could be decimated by a decision that could allow water to be siphoned off for other uses.

As water becomes increasingly scarce, it is important to bring clarity to the issue of who controls this valuable resource at ski areas.

It would be a travesty if the future of the recreation that has so come to define Colorado were undercut by an unjust policy.

In my opinion, this lays out some of the basic principles and echoes my frequently stated “is litigation the best path?” question.

These two are about 21st century conservation (creativity needed!) on public and private lands:
Op-ed Denver Post #2

Guest Commentary: Conservation for today, and tomorrow
Posted: 01/15/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By Tim Sullivan

The start of a new year is a natural time to turn our thoughts to the future. However, for the conservation organizations, local governments and state agencies protecting Colorado’s most special natural resources, thinking about tomorrow is already ingrained in everything we do. Every project we undertake must not only have a tangible result today, but provide benefits to Coloradans far into the future.

This past year, we continued to find a balance between meeting people’s immediate needs and ensuring nature continues to benefit us all in the long run. The state of the economy, increasing population, demands for water and energy, and a changing climate will be among the many complicated factors we need to consider as we look ahead. To solve these issues, innovation will be crucial.

One example of conservation work paying benefits long into the future is the restoration of unhealthy forests. There is no short-term fix, but it’s a problem we must address or future generations will face more severe fires, insect and disease outbreaks, and threats to our homes and water supplies that we simply cannot afford. This summer will mark a decade since the massive Hayman Fire. When it comes to preventing the next mega-fire, an ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure. Colorado hosts a number of promising collaborative efforts between citizens, conservation groups, local governments and the U.S. Forest Service. These efforts help set priorities and resolve potential conflicts, allowing critical forest restoration work to proceed today, with benefits to be realized for years to come.

While Colorado is best known for our forests and mountains, the grasslands covering the eastern part of the state are a remarkable piece of our heritage. This rolling prairie landscape is home to many longtime ranching families, provides food for our urban populations, and sustains globally significant wildlife.

A mix of economic realities can make it difficult for land to be shared or handed down to sons and daughters who want to carry on the tradition. This year, a remarkable partnership helped address this issue while permanently protecting vital grassland habitat.

When a large ranch east of Colorado Springs went on the market, several families holding adjacent property expressed interest. However, the cost made it impossible for just one family to purchase. Using conservation easements and monies from the lottery-funded Great Outdoors Colorado, an innovative financial model was born where the land was purchased and split between four families. The result was a win-win for wildlife and the local ranching community.

While it may seem natural for ranchers to pass on their conservation ethic to the next generation, children living in urban areas often have limited opportunities to connect to the natural world. Creating connections between youth, wherever they live, and the natural world is essential to the future of our state.

Environmental education, volunteer opportunities and youth internships with conservation organizations will serve as the catalyst to engage a future cadre of environmental leaders.

We still face many challenges to ensure our children, and theirs after them, will experience the same wonders we enjoy — the iconic places, amazing wildlife and abundant resources of Colorado. I believe we are up to the challenge and together can create a future where the lands and waters on which all life depends are protected.

Tim Sullivan is state director of The Nature Conservancy in Colorado.

This one’s also from High Country News
Op-ed Denver Post #3

opinion
Recession is aiding the conservation of Western lands
Posted: 01/15/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By Jon Christensen
High Country News

The Great Recession, it turns out, may have been good for one thing in the West: private land conservation. From the tiny Orient Land Trust in Colorado’s San Luis Valley, which has nearly doubled its holdings to 2,260 acres, to the 138,041 acres of ranchland protected by the California Rangeland Trust over the last five years, statewide and local land trusts in the West have done better than ever recently, even as many environmental advocacy groups continue to trim budgets and federal funding for conservation falters.

The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which agencies rely on to acquire valuable private lands, suffered a 38 percent cut and protected just over 500,000 acres over the last five years. During the same period, private nonprofit land trusts protected 20 times as much undeveloped land — 10 million acres nationwide, according to data in a new census of 1,700 land trusts in the national Land Trust Alliance.

Land trusts also grew in other ways, including a 19 percent increase in paid employees and contractors, a 36 percent increase in operating budgets, a 70 percent increase in volunteer numbers, and a near tripling of long-term endowments.

Land trusts protect land by either buying it outright or paying for a conservation easement, which restricts or removes the landowner’s right to develop open land. Landowners can also donate property and easements and then receive a break on their income taxes from the federal government and some state governments. The latest gains bring the total area protected by the nation’s land trusts to 47 million acres — more than twice the area covered by all of the national parks in the lower 48 states.

In fact, private land conservation is now shaping the future of much of the West as decisively as development. Land that is protected by conservation easements or bought by land trusts is legally required to be protected in perpetuity. And in recent years, local land trusts have been “saving more land than is lost to development,” says Rand Wentworth, president of the Washington, D.C.- based Land Trust Alliance. That pattern was apparent in the alliance’s last census five years ago, when new conservation barely edged out new development nationwide and in the West. It became much more dramatic during the recession, as new housing construction crashed and conservation efforts in most states continued to grow.

This trend is particularly strong in the Western states, where statewide and local land trusts conserved 2.6 million acres between 2005 and 2010, 30 percent more than they did from 2000 to 2005. These trends put California, Colorado and Montana among the top five states nationwide in total private land conserved. Arizona, Nevada and Wyoming made large gains compared to the previous period. And in Colorado, Montana and Wyoming, so much more rural land is now being conserved than is being developed that it seems that much of their open land will likely remain undeveloped.

The recession presented land trusts with some great opportunities in recent years, as development stalled, and prime lands were available at distress-sale prices. But most of the growth has come through conservation easements, which are becoming ever more popular because they allow land trusts to protect land at an even lower price. “You pay 40 to 50 percent of the fee value of the land without any management costs,” explains Nita Vail, executive director of the rancher-led California Rangeland Trust. That’s because the landowners continue to own and manage their lands for grazing, agriculture, or timber.

These “working landscapes” — ranches, farms and timberlands — are now a priority for the majority of land trusts nationwide, according to the Land Trust Alliance survey.

Whether the blazing growth of private conservation in the West will continue unabated is unclear, though. The recession may yet have lagging effects. Like her colleagues around the country, Vail worries about the loss of generous tax incentives for conservation easement donations, which are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts to renew them.

Jon Christensen is executive director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford University and wrote this for High Country News (hcn.org, where a longer version can be found). Also contributing were Jenny Rempel and Judee Burr, researchers at the center.

Finally this editorial from the Missoulian on the Tester bill.

Editorial Missoulian #4

Middle ground on forest bill

Posted: Sunday, January 15, 2012 8:00 am

It’s the beginning of a big election year, and the national spotlight is already shining on one of Montana’s U.S. Senate seats. Will Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester be ousted by Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg? We’ll find out in November.

In the meantime, many Montanans are justifiably concerned that the next 10 months will be hopelessly politicized, with two of the state’s three congressional delegates tied up in campaign-caused gridlock.

In meetings with the Missoulian editorial board earlier this month, both Rehberg and Tester provided assurances that they will not allow that to happen. Both candidates pledged to remain focused on their jobs in Congress. And both declared that no amount of campaign politics would prevent them from working together to do what’s right for Montana.

In fact, during his meeting with the Missoulian, Rehberg mapped out a road to compromise with Tester on one of their biggest sticking points: the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.

Tester first introduced the act in July 2009 at the urging of a diverse coalition of timber interests and environmental groups, and has made several running attempts to push the bill forward in Congress. The bill, which links aspects of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership, the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Project and the Three Rivers Challenge, is aimed at both designating new wilderness in Montana and setting logging mandates for the U.S. Forest Service.

Both Tester, a first-term senator, and Rehberg, a four-term congressman, have held multiple public meetings in communities across Montana to gather opinions on the proposal.

Those meetings resulted in several ideas that could be – and should be – used to improve the bill, Rehberg explained. One of them, he said, is the phase-in proposal he first began advocating for nearly a year ago. That measure would require that a treatment threshold for a set number of forest acres – say, 10 percent of the total outlined in the bill – be achieved before new wilderness and recreation areas could be designated.

Requiring logging or thinning triggers to be met before releasing new wilderness would help ensure that the bill actually does what it is aimed at doing – creating jobs, Rehberg said. As it stands, “there’s no such thing as a mandate for jobs in that bill,” he told the Missoulian.

While Tester has not been receptive to the phase-in suggestion – his spokesman has said previously that it would have no chance of gaining congressional approval – Rehberg invited Tester to take a second look at including the phase-in, and offered that he could “work with (Tester’s) bill if he can get something through the Senate and I can have this phase-in.”

Jobs are certainly a top priority in the nation and in Montana right now. Western Montana’s economy could use the boost this act would provide. While eastern Montana has been buoyed by the ongoing oil boom, western Montana has watched one mill after another shutter – including two in Missoula that once employed hundreds of workers.

We hold no illusions that incorporating a phase-in plan will resolve every one of Rehberg’s concerns with the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. But it’s a place to start – a hand reached across the aisle at a time when Montanans desperately need our elected officials to pass legislation that provides real economic progress.

From the beginning, the proposals that ultimately became the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act were marked by compromise. They brought people with very different and often opposing interests to the same table to reach an agreement on what’s best for all.

It would be wonderful, and a wonderful reflection on Montana, if our junior senator and sole congressman were able to bring this same spirit of cooperation to Congress.

EDITORIAL BOARD: Publisher Jim McGowan, Editor Sherry Devlin, Opinion Editor Tyler Christensen