Concerns and Interests

1. What part of the Situation Map is particularly important to you? What issues are involved?

• Access
• Environment
• Input to rangers on seasonal closures to bear, caribou, lynx, mainly concerning winter recreation.
• Snowmobile (pro), trail access (lack of), sno-parks
• ORV access, single track, keeping single track and adding more loops, stopping any closures.
• Access to public lands that have been closed, or are to be closed in the future.
• Although all the issues deserve consideration, many are highly exaggerated while others are basically concealed. However, ACCESS to public lands is my primary concern.
• Motorized use, wildlife habitat, economy, non-motorized use, wildlife habitat, fire risk, ecological systems.
• Protection of wildlife, particularly T&E species.
• Minimize conflicts between motorized and non-motorized use.
• Concentration of motorized users.
• Landowners
• Access
• Protection of wildlife, particularly T&E.
• Conflict of user needs/wants, hence creating dispersed recreation amongst motorized and non-motorized.
• Our process fits into the guidelines, standards, regulations set forth in any B.O., Forest plan, NEPA, NFMA, Executive orders.
• Hunting, fishing, ATV, horse access.
• The economy for the people in the county (all).
• Access—closure of land areas (fire danger), of ORV users, with forest approved spark arrestors! However, campers etc can have stoves running in the woods, for example.
• Access—single track and 4x4 quads
• Excluding ORV access to not include special places like lakes and historic sites.
• Losing access
• Access closures for snowmobiles in big game winter feeding grounds. Snowmobile trails help big game in deep snows. We have more large animals in snowmobile areas than in so called winter feeding grounds and less winter kill in snowmobile areas. (Proven in Seeley Lake MT)
• Access and use. Snowmobiles, hunting, fishing, general use.
• Snowmobiling, ORV, fishing, hunting, economy, tourism.
• Snowmobiling, ORV use (wheelers, 4x4s, motorcycles) hiking, hunting
• Closing off areas of our use, limiting our access.
• Trail closures because trails cannot keep cleared trailheads for these trails
• Focus on recreational travel.
• Keep access open for single track use.
• ORV funds keep ORV systems open
• Leave single track system alone
• Don’t change anything, maintain trails, don’t take them away.
• ORV use, single track
• Separate use between quads and motorcycles.
• Snowmobiles (trails, roads), more sno-parks to be used also for 4-wheelers.
• The situation map is not the current problem. Losing access to all areas is our problem. It continues to increase.
• Access
• Use of the land
• Access to all open forest roads, jeep, 4x4, etc. All roads should be open (not needed to be maintained)
• Access to jeep drivers along with single track vehicles.
• Respect among all users toward each other.
• Access for motorized activities
• Maintaining the single track uses
• Creating alternative areas for other non-compatible uses
• T&E recovery
• Healthy economy
• Needs of non-motorized and motorized users are met.
• LPO and Batey Bould ORV trails. The issues I am concerned about are the preservation of current single track trails.
• 4x4 use
• Enforcement and education
• User conflict
• Recreation access
• Communication within the agency or multi-agency
• Local knowledge and common sense—what is important is common sense in communication.
• Single track trails and more of them and maintenance
• More campsites with access to these trails (more access for all groups.)
• Single track ORV use
• Campsites—used and ORV (family user friendly)
• Seasonal use—snowmobile, cross country trails, ORV
• Hiking trails
• Active management
• The while situation map is important
• Continued access for all motorized use is my only concern.
• The forest may not know what is necessary to encourage OHV use. They have not adequately encouraged the use and they have excused problems.
• Funding is not adequate as it is currently distributed.
• OHV use on the forest is impacting other uses and users
• There are some areas where OHV use is causing damage to other resources.
• Existing…of OHV use by the Forest allows unmanaged cross country travel and this effects recreation experiences and resources
• The forest has not applied accepted OHV planning techniques
• The main issue: is this an ORV system? Was this paid for with ORV funds and still maintained by ORV funds? If so leave it to ORV use. There was no trail system in 1980. We motorized users have never complained about horsemen, bikers, hikers, backpackers, huckleberry pickers using these trails (the only true American trail (open to all) closed to none. Leave this system as it is let greenies build their own trails with picks and shovels on land they have closed.
• Non-motorized trail use: hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers.
• Maintaining separate trails
• Seasonal snowmobile use
• Hiking, equestrians, mountain biking
• Horse use
• Building new trailheads

2. What are your specific concerns and interest about these issues? Why are these issues important to you?
• We need the environment to last
• We need the access for economy, recreation, etc
• Why bear closure occur during hibernation periods for bears
• As member of area snowmobile club, would like to see better access/facilities to enhance the sport for family use.
• Safety is issue also—due to snowmobile riders having to cross a busy roadway
• I don’t want to lose any trails. I don’t want to have any permanent closures of areas.
• Public lands being closed on false scientific data
• Increased reduction of the lands and limiting access only increases and enhances the claims of impact while opening up the "Access" promotes reduced impact on a grander scale.
• Closer and shrinking areas of use
• If motorized use increases the adverse affect increases to the five situation issues (wildlife habitat, economy, non-motorized use, fire risk, ecological systems)
• Economy affected by "You’re not local!"
• Motorized recreation can adversely impact the survival and viability of numerous species
• The former interferes with the latter to a much greater extent than the reverse
• Erosion
• More roads/less roads
• Noise—spreads campers out, disturbing wildlife
• Limit opening more roads
• Riders through private property
• Noise
• Erosion
• Signage
• Regulation
• Violating closed areas, wilderness areas
• NRA, violating closed roads by motorized users
• Enforcement
• Education
• Illegal access into restricted areas or special areas
• Noise pollution displacing certain wildlife during critical winter months
• Creating dispersed recreation
• Because the agencies are responsible to meet these laws, rules, etc and if not followed then open to scrutiny and challenges
• Access to the land we the public are losing—why? Not all of us are 20 years old and legs like a goat.
• Closure of these areas permanently to ORV users for any reason that is agenda-driven!
• ORV access provides family access to lakes and public lands far more than non-motorized use. Important—family bonding and sharing, even with those not in peak hiking condition.
• Prejudice against motorized vehicles’ usage
• Losing access
• Visit and tour in this area because of the recreational usage
• Road are closed that have been open for more than 60 years.
• Losing access for recreation
• Losing areas under the pretense of threatened species, ie lynx. We are threatened constantly with land closures because of this! There have been no lynx population recorded to this date in this area and the biologists have gone as far as planting hair samples. How can we trust the biologists?
• It concerns me that we lost or will have lost access to areas. Areas that have no endangered species are considered, once this is on your list you will not remove it even though it starts with no endangerment.
• Not being able to get into these areas and seeing the scenery and being able to see wildlife and other natural beauties.
• I don’t wish to lose any more trails
• Being able to keep single track use available for future generations to use.
• Working to generate areas for ATV use separate from single track
• Because motorcycles suffer great danger when forced to ride on the same trails as quads or 4-wheel drives
• This situation map has already been established as one of the first snowmobile systems in the state. Can also be used for 4-wheelers and has been used for hunting, camping, berry picking, and all forest recreation known to man without any harm to the environment.
• All the areas in Pend Oreille and Stevens counties that I used since childhood is slowly being closed off
• Access (trailheads)
• Access
• Being able to enter and use the national forest
• Open access to forest in all areas
• Forest fire fighting access
• If any road needs closed—just gate it don’t destroy it—costs too much, harder on land when need again for any reason we need to communicate to users who yields to whom when meeting on trails. You should not have to take to the ditch because I have the right of way. You move to your right, I move to my right.
• Motorized activity keeps losing more areas while the number of users increase
• With the growing number of quad and 4x4 users the dirtbikes get squeezed out on their own trail systems that were historically built for bikes. Trails should be designated for use depending on the type of trail—singletrack, dualtrack, road and not moto/non-moto.
• Scarcity vs. abundance issues
• I believe all interests should be represented on public lands. ORV monies have been used to build our trails and it is important that we retain 100% access to current facilities.
• No quality 4x4 trails in this area
• Stereotype of OHV users cause by small percentage of users not following rules. Many illegal uses by people not familiar with rules.
• Different users have different (often conflicting) interests.
• The shutting down of forest to some recreation vehicles
• Communication—it seems that one agency doesn’t always know what the other one is doing or will be doing for future use.
• Concerned that we are losing more land to use but population is increasing and needing more land.
• Closures
• Upgrades
• Extra fees for parking
• Involvement—volunteer activity for maintaining use
• Management
• Social conflicts increase intolerance and conflict
• Access for multi-use trails (non-motorized) not loss of access.
• Endangered species and the impact they have on access. Is the science associated with ESA good science? Can humans and these species co-exist?
• Non-motorized use areas
4. What other pars and issues of the Pend Oreille Valley recreation travel management situation should be considered?
• Compromise
• If areas open for mech use are limited, more travel to further destinations will cause more impact to infrastructure (ie highways, secondary roads).
• Alternative routes for ATV, horseback,a dn 4-wheel drive.
• All things that affect the taxpayer’s use of public lands.
• Use what is already available now
• Maintain cross country ski trails, ORV, single track roads already existing for use.
• Illegal motorized access to restricted areas has no effective enforcement to deter the illegal and damaging use. Broader access seems unnecessary.
• Inconsistent management: management system improvements because agency does not know what is open, closed, restricted, etc.
• Noise pollution effects on wildlife.
• Private lands and how this could and should be.
• Multiple use/group sharing should be strategy.
• Freedom for the American citizen who really owns the national forest! I feel the FS is attempting to set a precedence with these meeting sand hiding their agendas.
• You’re management should not restrict use, but provide more areas—spread people out for less impact in specific areas.
• That we the people have access to ALL areas that is for public use.
• There needs to be enforcement of the rules made—for safety issues.
• Bridges
• Trail maintenance
• Loop systems
• Maintaining single track trails systems
• Connecting trails to make 30 to 80 mile loops possible.
• Legal places for 4-wheelers, quads, something to be ridden they are licensed, insured to the point you have to have proof of insurance to ride them. Gas is bought for them and none of the profits are used for trails as it is used for snowmobiles.
• Lynx and caribou habitat
• Access/trailheads
• Access
• Camping areas
• Horse, jeep, hikers, bikers—close access to trails.
• Garbage. You pack it in, you pack it out.
• Habitat, local economy impacts, reason why the LPO an dBB trails were built needs to be considered.
• Legal framework policies—county, state, and federal guidance
• Public education regarding the importance of preserving our areas. I also think that 100% of other user groups should be able to recreate on public lands where they have in the past.
• Endangered Species Act
• Multiple use
• Easy access to current and accurate information (maps, rules)
• Education and enforcement
• Multiple use
• Population
• Better management and enforcement
• Grants/money available
• NEPA and other agency involvement to pursue strategy then project
• Other strategies for public access—loss of access.
• More trails for ATVs, convert the old road to trails rather than closing them. More single track trails at Batey Bould.
• Use of existing roads—convert to trails (single track) instead of destroying them
• More trails, easier trails for beginners
• Parking fee issues
• Non-motorized trails should be separate from motorized. The non-motorized issues are noise, trail destruction, habitat destruction
• A well managed ORV use area




1. What people or views must be considered when designing improvements related to this issue or area?
• Everyone’s.
• Motorized recreation first!!
• Local residents
• County road maintenance (snowplows)
• Noise
• The users of the public lands
• Snowmobile use
• The motorized users are the key people involved. Their view should be considered.
• Legal requirements
• Biological data
• Those views of individuals who either continue with the increasing difficult task of finding…on the forest, as well as those who have given up.
• Motor users
• Non-motor users
• Wildlife
• Motorized users
• Land owners
• Education, respect, and compassion for TES
• Affecting recreational users other than motorized users. There needs to be acknowledgement that distance between non-motorized and motorized is the key to the degree of conflict. Example: Hiker needs to be farther away to gain solitude from motorized noise versus a motorized user trying to get away from a non-motorized user.
• Everyone, but please do NOT forget that this strategy must incorporate the ecological needs of wildlife, soils, water quality, flora.
• All views must be considered
• Use the roads we have for 4x4 four-wheelers
• Keep the trails for horses and walkers
• Sharing, inclusiveness, reducing peak conflicts, but not to extreme demands
• This land is ours as American citizens. I want to use it in a wise manner. I feel the prejudice against motorized access is unwarranted and tends to be negative. We enjoy the beautiful land and use our machines as a way to see it. Not destroy or harm it in any way.
• Forest Service need to spend more time managing the forest and less time trying to control the people that pay their salary.
• Equal freedom from all users. Land should not be closed or designated wilderness because lynx or other threatened species (not native to our area) are introduced to our area. Public land cannot be closed in this fashion.
• You are paid by us, you work for us. We will not let it happen. The area you are speaking of has no bad effects if more areas are made and opened up.
• All views should be considered. Local economy should not be excluded from any decision.
• Areas should not be closed because of a transplanted animal, to our use. Example: lynx or caribou.
• All users need to be educated about each others needs and problems. All user groups can work together.
• Keeping user groups (single track, ATV, 4-wheel drive) in their own special groups
• Leave single track alone, 20 years of single track don’t change a thing!
• The safety of all users and all their individual uses
• Effects on the economy
• Private land owners
• The people that live here and want to use our woods for all types of recreation
• The users (all)
• Private land owners
• All
• All land related agencies
• Older people need not be shoved aside for the younger more able-bodied types. I like to walk with my dog. Are dogs allowed?
• Local landowners and businesses and the users the trail was historically built for.
• How they feel
• What they need
• What is their specific request
• Environmentalists—need to accept the needs of others and be considerate of other citizens
• USFS—provide diverse opportunities to all user groups. Avoid making our forests roadless!!! The rest of us deserve an opportunity, not all of us just wish to hike.
• 4x4 users, other OHV users, non motorized users, environmentalists
• All users
• All
• Disabled
• Varied users of access
• Landowners
• Environment impact
• ORVs because all other users are considered more important
• All users
• All
• The communities represented by the user groups and recent IAC surveys regarding this very issue.
• All agencies to participate
• All user groups and landowners

Other:

This sheet needs improvement. It doesn’t get down to the issues. The map is far too complicated to understand. This sheet would read better and help people to focus their concerns if it asked questions like: "What would you do specifically to improve the situation? Can you think of any negative effects to it? Can you think of a compromise or an area where you would be willing to give?" We know what’s important to us. We know our concerns. We need to focus on first, getting our issues heard, and second, where are we willing to give?