ATV Trails?

Copy and paste your 'comment' letters to the BLM here about closure issues.

Re: ATV Trails?

Postby dj » Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:20 pm

CLARIFICATION OF ISSUE: ATVs would be considered under the term "motorized vehicles" - which is the only designation made by the BLM in this TMP being considered; so, lumps all vehicles in this class for all OPEN trails (shown in grey within the TMP boundaries) EXCEPT the unique caveat of the BLUE trails (which I personally have not seen in other BLM TMP maps for other areas). That means that ATV can ride on all open trails, except those shown in blue.

This most likely comes from the fact that motorcyclists say they have a difficult time riding on trails used by four-wheeled vehicles due to the different positioning of the "ruts" they make. Perhaps it may also have something to do with trail width that the BLM is trying to maintain.

The point I was making in a previous statement was that if the BLM was going to single out motorcycles for "special" trails, in a way that I hadn't seen done before on other maps, then it seems to me that turn-about-was-fair-play and they should do the same for ATV type vehicles; NOT that there were no trails open to ATVs.

As two additional side-pieces of info: There is a designated "OHV" area on the map which the BLM is EXCLUDING from making any trail decisions on in this TMP. I'm taking it to mean that it is something like a "free area" where the "stay on designated trails" rule is lifted. I could be wrong, it isn't clear, BUT it is immaterial to our efforts because it isn't in the TMP.

Additionally, the only mention by the BLM of the designator "two track" trails comes from when I requested the NON-tmp connector trails from their mapping department. She sent me a large file of all the surrounding trail portions which were NOT on their original map (because they were on private land or etc.) but which connect to the trail segments which WERE in their TMP. This was for "orienteering" and "localizing" purposes only because people were complaining that they couldn't tell where the red trails were actually going and they appeared to be tiny segments. It seemed to have trails in different folders and one of them was "single-track." Again, this is NOT an issue to waste time about for the TMP because the trails in question are NOT in the TMP.
dj
Site Admin
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:41 am

Re: ATV Trails?

Postby HoserRZR » Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:56 am

I guess the next question is what is a 2 track route and were does it say ATV's are allowed on 2 track routes?
HoserRZR
Site Admin
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:08 pm

ATV Trails?

Postby HoserRZR » Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:54 am

Sent
Hi
I have been reviewing the GPS maps where are the ATV trails I dont see any?

Thanks again.

The reply
ATV's can use any of the 2 track routes.
HoserRZR
Site Admin
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: Havasu Closure Issues

Postby HoserRZR » Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:41 pm

Thats wonderful news I cant wait to see the new map, I just looked on the BLM site and did not see the new map.
HoserRZR
Site Admin
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: Havasu Closure Issues

Postby dj » Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:03 pm

You know, another late thought after re-reading what I wrote for the umpteenth time.

The US justice system teaches the populace basically to expect that there is a codifiable, logical rationale for individuals (and government) to use in making decisions which affect others; namely, that we should expect things to remain as we have precedence for unless something changes which mandates alterations. In other words, we expect that something we are doing now is “innocent until proven guilty” so-to-speak.

It should be up to any “powers” or “contest-ants” to “prove” that a trail NEEDS closing before it closes, NOT the other way around. The populace should NOT have to prove that it SHOULDN’T be closed. It’s our land, the non-elected officials should have to PROVE TO US that a trail should be closed. We SHOULD have the right to expect “grandfathering” – it’s something which has a long history in our American culture.

Regarding the disparity in thinking that wants to decrease the number of trail experiences at a time when there is an increase in usership. That just doesn’t make sense at all. IF they are so concerned about the environmental impact on an area then: 1- not even “staff” should be able to drive vehicles in there; and, 2 - they need to open up another area so that trail volume has somewhere to go equally as interesting. And some places just SHOULD be grandfathered (even if the BLM has to ‘suck it up’ and actually DO trail monitoring and policing and build protective/accessibility constructions.)
dj
Site Admin
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:41 am

Havasu Closure Issues

Postby dj » Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:46 pm

After purusing the map I made in depth - and receiving several emails from my blog post - I compiled all of them into a letter to the BLMs Havasu TMP lead, which I've listed below:

Mr. McCoy…

Thank you for responding to my email and providing the link to the more “User Friendly” maps which support all the Havasu area trail closure discussion. That is a great step forward to open discussion.

From the comments and emails I have received at Offroading Home I know that the issue is one which is “touching” many peoples sensibilities. Many (if not most) of my readers are seniors who, as you can imagine, do not endeavor in “extreme” riding, nor wander much off the beaten path; but, who prefer “destination offroading” with views, history, flora and fauna, and other things to see and do – and, I hope you agree, have earned the right to do so.

History and precedence (more than thrill) is extremely important to us who have some years under our belt and being able to see the things that we have seen and done in younger years – AS WELL AS being able to share it with our younger relatives and friends rises high on our “will make it happen” priority list. Which I suppose, as your phone machine answering message claims, you have been “experiencing a higher than normal call volume.”

After perusing the Google Earth map which you supplied, I compiled and posted a link to the map file on the blog (http://offroadinghome.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-havasu-blm-trail-closures.html) and have compiled some responses for your consideration. You may have received and responded to some already, as many said that they had written to you previously.

  • OHV use is on the rise not the decline now. Why are you not opening more trails to accommodate the increase in land users instead of closing them down which will concentrate riders and increase the impact on the land? Is there not backwards thinking on this?
  • There are more closed trails on this map than open. What is the purpose in closing off all these trails? There should be a solid reason for closing trails - what has happened that you feel there is a need to close all this land off so it can’t be used?
  • We see that there are “staff only” and “motorcycle only” trails BUT NO ATV ONLY trails. Why are there no ATV only trails?
  • Why are ALL the trails to the river closed off? This is the desert, and it’s hot! A major reason for even coming into the area is for the water features and landscape! Why would you not even leave one single access point available to the public? Even with the ubiquitous disclaimer “mitigation, monitoring, and/or maintenance."
  • Trail HN465 is one of the few “loop trails” available in an area of extreme visual interest. Why is that completely closed off? It can’t be due to “environmental concern” or why would “staff and permittees” be allowed to drive in! This should be left open – after all, you still have the seemingly ubiquitous caveat: “mitigation, monitoring, and/or maintenance."
  • What is the rationale for the closure of EVERY TRAIL EAST OF THE OHV LABLED AREA? Not even one is left open; yet, again, that is the scenic area which we have ridden in our youth, which contain the views we are seeking and which we want to ride with our children and grand-children.
  • There seem to be map errors (broken trails). Several readers have reported trail errors (such as HG610A, HN611, HN625, HN443 and HN591 – to name a few). [I also have verified that there are many trail segment hanging out in the middle, not connected to any visible access point.] It seems to me that it could possibly be due to ‘private land’ BUT – listing trails like this is DECEPTIVELY minimizing peoples conception about the impact closing a trail would have.
  • Technical Areas – I don’t know how to respond to people’s questions about “what are the technical areas” listed. What are they? And why aren’t there any trails listed in those areas (either closed or open)?
  • Confusing wording – I’ve noticed that on some trails you list the “access” option as: "Limited to non-motorized use only" while, at the same time list the “protection” option as: "Closed to motorized use" ! This seems to be saying: “we’re closing this trail no matter what!” How could this be correct? Is this a typo or is it intentional? And what does it mean and why?
If you have already responded to these issues – which are important for people to understand in order to form an ‘informed opinion’ on the Travel Management Plan – could you please forward your responses to me as well so I can provide some follow-up to the issues readers have commented on?

Again, I want to thank you for making these maps available in this format and want to assure you that almost none of my readers seem unreasonable regarding trail closures. What frustration I sense is not from closing redundant trails, or trails with no “destination/scenic” value, or even environmentally sensitive areas; BUT from what they see as arbitrary closures, those that completely prevent access or cause unnecessary detour, and those which seem to be for no other reason than to “reduce inventory.”

Perhaps a next step would be to disclose specific closure rationale on each trail. That would serve to solidify and focus discussion on SPECIFIC facts of the REAL issues for each trail and not allow/require the flailing about of either personal opinion or hidden agendas.

Thanks for your consideration
dj
Site Admin
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:41 am


Return to Copies of letters to Mr. McCoy (TMP Lead)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron