Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
Thanks for the heads up. A lot of really good trails are threatened with this.

Bean Creek #1391.1
Iron Peak #1399
Stafford Creek #1359
Standup Creek #1369
Beverly Creek
Cooper River #1311
Pete Lake #1323
Ravens Roost #951
Quartz Creek Loop #952
Fifes Ridge #954
Basalt Ridge #1515
Basalt Pass #1530
Garland Peak #1408 (up to wilderness boundary)
Rock Creek #1509
Rock Creek Tie #1538
Kettle Crest #13N North and #13S South
Taylor Ridge #74
Timber Ridge #17
Midnight Ridge #41
Old Stage #75 and #1
Barnaby Butte #70 and #7
Wapaloosie #15
Edd's Mountain #3
Hoodoo Canyon #17
Marcus #8
Profanity #32
Stickpin #71
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,729 Posts
Notice that most all these trails are non-motorized trails. Are all on land that is not under threat of being harvested for resources.

Please take note that the boundaries that the Forest Service came up with avoided motorized areas as well as avoided areas that are speculative for resource extraction.

This RWA would hit the recreation of mt. biking in a really negative way. It will hurt the economy of small towns as many XC riders will not be satisfied traveling so far to ride a trail that is rutted and dusty in the summer months.

Just looking at the Kettle Crest alone there is over 100 miles of non-motorized singletrack open to mt. bike access. This does not exist anywhere else in the state.

Writing a letter could not only help save these trails, but could also provide better opportunity in the future for ALL types of riding.

Yes if you write a personal letter, the Forest Service will put it in the stack that get's considered. And better solutions can get worked out.

This is really super important.
 

·
i'm schralping yer thread
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
Well said, Skookum. We have made a lot of inroads for biking over the last couple of years, and it's easy to become complacent. Even if you don't ride all of these trails and feel like it doesn't affect you, there is a long-term impact of silently standing by and allowing these kinds of closures to happen. Just think about how long it has taken to begin repairing the damage that the Issaquah Alps Club did to our sport 20 years ago.

Writing a letter doesn't take long and will make a difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,729 Posts
For those who don't know this effects Borneo's big Dnalrag ride. Dnalrag spelled backwards is what? It's number 1408.

And the 3 drainages ride...

Non motorized trails are like gold for a reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,746 Posts
Hehehe. I'll claim no ownership. Gearz, the crazy Russian, and 'mando were there way before me.
But, yeah, all these trails noted are really fun and it would be a shame to lose them "just because" they are non-motorized. Realistically, ONLY mountain bikes will be excluded since the horses still get to chow up wilderness trails. And, we all know hikers don't do any damage so they keep access to everything... :madman:

So, another one for making a difference in WA for our sport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
This worries me. Being active in the dire struggle to keep RWA's open for biking in Montana, I have been on the leading edge of this issue here.

What you are experiencing now in Washington is the deliberate advancement of the Region One philosophy. This philosophy is simply the logic of "If we are going to identify areas as Recommended Wilderness, then we are going to manage them as Wilderness". In reality the practice is more complex. Gail Kimball stated that the philosophy would not go nationwide. Now her successor, Tom Tidwell, must be advocating for the advancement of Defacto Wilderness. OR, The Region 6 Supervisor is pushing for this philosophy. They call it a philosophy because the the Forest Service manual doesn't support this level of closing. A philosophy is not subject to review. The intent is this; they intend to remove all non-conforming uses from these areas so as to not give congressional sponsors pause when considering Wilderness Bill support. They intend to not consider the voices of bicyclists. That is exactly what has happened in Montana.

All this being said I will send in a letter of support for continued access to these areas and trails. The form letter from Evergreen is well and good, but individually crafted letters will carry more weight.

One last question, how can they move forward with Forest Planning when the National Forest Planning Rule is not yet completed?
 

·
I should be out riding
Joined
·
1,866 Posts
Just sent one each for Colville and the Okanogan-Wenatchee, and anybody that cares about these trails should definitely do so. On Colville, mentioning the economic impact potential of mountain biking is a good point (think Oakridge or Downieville).

If anyone wants another template to look at, PM me and I can send you what I sent. Per Glenn, editing to personalize is very important though in order to get the USFS to consider the comments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
I have scanned the Proposed Action for language that singles out mountain bikes for prohibition from Recommended Wilderness (which they are calling Preliminary Administrative Recommended Wilderness). I have found nothing which states that use of bikes is to be prohibited, as in Region One. Has anyone found differently?

It seems to me that bicycle access may be safe for the time being, but that we must advocate strongly to identify the important trail corridors that bicyclists use and enjoy. Also important to note is a list of the towns which benefit from bicycle tourism and have the potential to have increased benefits in the future as long as access remains open. We must note the ongoing cooperation between bicyclists and National Forest trail managers regarding trail maintenance on the important trail corridors. Also note that final solutions for land designations exist that may fit the land and social situation better than Wilderness, such as continued administrative management, National Protection Area, National Scenic Area, Research Natural Area, and even the unofficial designation of "Wilderness B" (wilderness with bikes).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
The decision to manage Recommended Wilderness as Wilderness (meaning to close to all uses which would be non-conforming in Designated Wilderness ... and that includes us) is an administrative one. The Proposed Action says that wouldnt be their intent but the Forest Service is hearing a lot of comments asking them to manage as Wilderness, mostly because of concerns over snowmobile use.

Even if the final Forest Plan included language specifically allowing our use in Recommended Wilderness, and that isnt likely, the Region can change that policy with nothing more than an amendment to the FP.

More to the point, we'll be having to battle against efforts to designate as Wilderness and waiting for the axe to fall.

Act now to let the Forest Service know how important these areas are to you! The response has been great but even more is needed to influence the outcome.

Thanks
Glenn - Evergreen
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top