Public comments sought.

[Ol' Smokey]

A good rainy day project to subtitute for chrome
polishing.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

The U.S.D.A. Forest Service has available a
Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan
and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST in Southern Illinois.

This is your chance to have your thoughts known
on how the Forest should be managed. The U.S.
Forest Service is required to consider the public's
views in reaching a final decision on the Multile-Use
management of the Forest for the next 10 years.

The Forest cannot be all things to all interest groups. There
will be trade-offs between different recreational uses and
management methods.

Don't let your interests be traded away. Your comments
must be received within 90 days of when the announcement
was listed in the Federal Register. Their are some who seemingly
prefer that those with opposing views not respond with comments.

You can view the documents at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/shawnee/ :sheesh: :sheesh:

[sstodvictory]

Page 44

FW23.6(S):
ATV and unlicensed OHM-use is prohibited forest wide except for adminstrative use, access by emergency vehicles, or use authorized by permit or contract.

What does "use authorized by permit" mean? Their plan doesn't include any trail construction or maintanance except for equestrian/hiking.

I've noticed that some US National forest sites that maintain OHV trails conspicuously bury the information about those trails deep in their web site with no indexing of the information, even though equestrian/hiking/bicycle trails get linked to from their Home Page. It seems like a rather spiteful mindset by those who are managing those resources.

Steve

[Ol' Smokey]

:)
Steve,
In response to your specific question...ATV use currently is permitted on the Forest for the disabled who have acquired an accessibility permit. (DEIS) p. III-274. Additional information on the permit is shown on page III-273 and 274.

In studing the documents, there seems to be a conflict or an error between what is written in the narrative discussion of Alternative 2 on p II-3 of the (DEIS) and what is shown in Table 3.50. Estimated Forest Visits for the year 2015 by Alternatives. of the same document. The Preferred Alternative shows a value of 44,501 visits, the same as alternatives 1 and 4.??? That is a little difficult if none are permitted in Alt.2.

During the past 20 years some special interest groups, whom I will not name, have had a strong negative influence on the Forest. The Forest from all field data collected shows a marked setback in what it is cabable of producing under Multiple-Use management. The natural ecosystems succession processes do not stop for Legal Appeals and Court Orders. I fear as a Forester it will take twice as long and costs twice as much to fully recover.

Also sad to say, I don't see these interest groups stepping forward to accept the responsibility for this setback.

The requirement on the Forest Service by NEPA to obtain public comments is a great thing... except seldom do all interest groups respond. This results in a bias solution which is more likely than not to go against the laws of nature.

These opinions are my own after a career of working with special interest groups on the Western, Lakestates and Midwest National Forests.

I know,this is more than you really wanted to know, so I'll get get back to reviewing the documents for my response to the Shawnee National Forest.

Keep the handlebars pointed towards the sky!

Ol' Smokey :sheesh:

[sstodvictory]

There have been recent instances where restrictions on public land use don't even require public comment at all. Clinton was able to close huge tracts of land, mostly the higher elevations of Western Parks, by designating them Wilderness Areas under executive decree during his administration. It used to be possible to traverse those areas on forest roads or jeep trails maintained by locals. Now in many instances you have to drive 100s of extra miles to travel from one side of a range to the other.

Steve