Ok, here's the last of many letters I have written in defense of your right to ride and it was dated 5/14/2009.
Dear Black Hills National Forest Planners,
My family and friends are avid OHV enthusiasts and though we reside in California my family visits relatives in South Dakota often. During our visits we like to get out in nature spending time together there on the many scenic trails. We generally travel to our chosen destination via a four wheel drive vehicle as it allows us to get away from paved roads and into areas we could not otherwise reach. Upon arrival at our final destination we spend our time camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, and traveling the trails in the vicinity with our Jeep and other OHVs taking in the beautiful scenery that our public lands afford us.
We strongly oppose the proposed alternatives D and E. As forest visitors who depend on motorized vehicles for access and recreation, these two alternatives are completely unacceptable.
It appears as though existing routes we OHV users helped identify for addition to the travel system are not being given consideration for inclusion since some of them have been determined to be parallel or duplicate routes. Many duplicate routes serve a purpose to help reduce congestion on the remaining trails. When duplicate routes have a different character such as an ATV trail and single track, please consider keeping both routes open.
We OHV users support more trail mileage in the Hell Canyon Ranger District. OHV users prefer the trail experience to the road experience and with very few trails designated in the Southern Hills, the plan is too dependent on mixed-use roads for OHV opportunity. This is not very family oriented because, even managed as mixed-use, you still need a valid operator license to travel on the road; this minimizes youth opportunities.
Also, there are minimal meaningful connections of the trail system to gateway communities such as Deadwood-Lead, Sturgis, Hill City, and even Spearfish. For a successful trail system, both community and enthusiast need to have access to the community services such as fuel, food and lodging.
The off-highway vehicle community generally supports the "travel limited to designated roads, trails and areas" paradigm. The OHV community also supports thorough environmental review and analysis in route designation process, as well as ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the OHV infrastructure. Indeed, we have taxed ourselves via OHV registration stickers in order to provide funds to the agency so it may accomplish these tasks.
What the OHV community does not support is being presented with a "range" of management alternatives where many or all of the alternatives represent a significant reduction in OHV opportunity. The intent of the Travel Management Rule is "revising regulations regarding travel management on National Forest System and BLM lands to clarify policy related to motor vehicle use, including the use of off-highway vehicles." It is not intended to be a means to eliminate or even drastically reduce motorized recreation on National Forests and BLM lands.
In closing, of the Alternatives presented we strongly encourage the agency to adopt Alternative C.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bob XXXX
[the rest of my personal info went here]
Please understand that I practice what I preach but work OHV issues and not on-highway issues.
How many of you bothered to write letters to the Forest Planners in your own State???
