Users of the NM Santa Fe National Forest...

[GioresTora]

You may be aware that this past Juky the SFNF finally came out with their final Travel Management plan. It closed miles of backroads, limited unorganized camping and other things all meant to restrict access. There was an appeal and that was denied in October. Today the NMOHVA (New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Alliance ) filed suit in federal district court.

Below is a copy of their letter....
Maps of the routes left open are here...
Eastside of the forest (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5377116.pdf)
Westside of the forest (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5377195.pdf)
If you are a user you may see favorite trails have disappeared off the maps. They have no gotten around to erecting the restrictive use signage yet.

The New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Alliance (NMOHVA) filed a lawsuit against the Santa Fe National Forest in federal district court on December 11th. Our lawsuit contests the Forest's Travel Management decision signed by Forest Supervisor Maria T. Garcia on June 12th and upheld by the Region 3 Appeal Deciding Officer on October 2nd. Filing a lawsuit is a major commitment of NMOHVA's time and money. The NMOHVA Board thought long and hard about this and then voted unanimously to go ahead with legal action.



"NMOHVA filed this lawsuit on the behalf of our members but it really is for everyone who uses a vehicle in the forest," said NMOHVA President Jim Tyldesley. "Most of the public has no idea that this decision closed 70% of the existing roads and trails, reduced vehicle camping nearly 95%, and virtually eliminated hunters being able to use a vehicle to retrieve game. There are going to be a lot of stunned people next spring when they find out vehicle camping is not allowed anywhere along Forest Road 376. It was the most popular camping area in the whole forest!"

[GorokHib]

I know to many this seems like beating your head against a brick wall, or http://countryplans.com/smf/Smileys/default/deadhorse.gif, but it may make a difference. If we don't complain the only other choice is to roll over and be quiet.

[Gregorymili]

The only agenda of the forest service is to keep people out of the forest.

[Haroldphor]

NMOHVA's Santa Fe National Forest Lawsuit

We apologize for the late newsletter. As all of you know by now, the first part of this month was consumed by our preparation for filing a lawsuit against the Santa Fe National Forest's Travel Management decision. All NMOHVA members and the rest of the motorized recreation community got a wonderful holiday gift: The opportunity to stop the Forest Service's reckless disregard for NEPA and the chance move them back toward managing for multiple use. With the lawsuit officially filed in federal District Court, we are moving to the "communication" and "fundraising" stage.

"Amping Up" the Communication

We have been actively working on the Travel Management Rule in the Santa Fe National Forest since early 2006. During the past seven years, one of the issues that consistently plagued us was that "the general public" didn't have a clue what was about to happen! That situation hasn't changed one bit even after the Forest Service's final decision. The agency is getting ready to implement its decision (even while we challenge it in court) and "Joe Q Public" will be shocked when he finds his favorite camping site or trail closed next spring. It won't matter one bit that they have been enjoying the same spot for the last twenty years.

The same is true for the hunters who have historically enjoyed the Santa Fe National Forest. They are going to be stunned when they find out that they can no longer retrieve their downed big game with a vehicle unless it is next to a road. And don't forget, there will be over 5000 less miles of road to use in both the hunt and the retrieval. There are going to be a lot of really surprised and angry forest users.

[hdxcyglh85]

To those who believe it is an exercise in futility to contest these things I want to post another item.

Dear BRC Member and Supporter,

Many of our members have already heard the news that, working with Shasta County, Sylvia Milligan and the folks at Recreation Outdoors Coalition (ROC) recently scored a major victory for OHV users with the addition of 100 miles added to the Travel Plan on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

A bit of background:
You may remember how outraged the OHV community was waaaay back in April of 2010 when the Shasta-Trinity National Forest announced its final Travel Management Plan.

I know... we were equally outraged at just about every National Forest Travel Plan in California (USFS Region 5)

Among the (many) problems in California was that the Regional office issued guidance that tied the hands of individual Forest Supervisors by not allowing little if any maintenance level 3 roads to be designated for OHV use.

BRC and other OHV advocacy groups maintain to this day that the Region 5 policy was a clear violation of specific directives contained in the USFS 2005 Travel Management Rule (TMR). The Rule, citing the wide range of landscapes and circumstances across each NF, specifically reserved such discretion to Forest Supervisors.

The Regional office in Vallejo thought it knew better, I guess.