FS to build mountbike park near Wenatchee

[NOCK NOCK]

More land being taken away from the hunting population...

I urge folks to contact the OWNF 509-664-9200 and tell them this is not acceptable.

Below is a letter I am sending them,

Once again the Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest Service is blatantly mismanaging our forest lands. The FS is tasked with managing our forests for “The greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.” (Gifford Pinchot, 1st Chief of the USFS)
Sadly they do not operate by this long standing motto; instead they cater to private groups like Chelan Douglas Land Trust & Evergreen Mountain bike Association.
The FS is planning on building a “mountain bike mecca” on 6000+ acres in the Number Two Canyon area.  “The FS is interested in responding to demand of more trail opportunities in the lower Wenatchee Valley”, this proposal was developed with input from several groups.

Here is where it gets interesting, The FS plans on improving 10 miles of trails built by mountain bikers. These trails are known as “User built trails”, and were illegally built. By adopting these trails into the system, the FS is rewarding the mountain bike user group, when they should be citing them with infractions.

The ATV user group has many more participants and for years have approached the FS with the request that ATV’s be allowed to operate on FS roads. The answer was always, “Get ATV’s street legalized and we will allow them on the FS roads.”
HB1632 accomplished this, but the FS still says NO.  If an ATV is caught on the road or making a “user built trail” they will be ticketed.

The FS needs to manage our lands consistently and equally for all user groups, not just the young and healthy who ride bicycles. Please contact the OWNF and voice your displeasure on their management of OUR forests. To comment on the #2 Canyon project:  https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=44838
   

[358NM]

Great letter.
Points out the blatant hypocrisy of the FS.
I will comment also.

[JDHasty]

FS response will be something like:  Some animals are more equal than others.  Bicycles are afforded special status. 

[NOCK NOCK]

I cant help but feel they are kind of setting a precedents.  The FS repeatedly states that user built trails are illegal, and damage the resources, then they reward this user group by adopting those trails into legal FS approved trails.

Sooooo, if a person was to go drive their (insert one of the following here) Truck, SxS, ATV, Motorbike, Car,  off road and make their own trail. How can they justify ticketing for this? 

I am going to call the OWNF and ask,

"Hey, since the FS only lets ATV's have access to a very small percentage of the forest, and I feel that I need more roads to ride on, I went ahead and created several miles of trails in the OWNF by repeatedly running down the flora and fauna, Can you guys make that a legal road for my use group to ride on now??"

[pope]

You probably aren't aware and/or don't give a hoot, but a rock climb was established on Mt. Garfield, which is in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. This rock climb was installed illegally, because numerous expansion bolts were drilled with power drills by the guys who erected the "climb". Not only were the climbers who installed all of the bolts not cited, there was no requirement to remove the bolts and erase the climb. Talk about illegal trail building, and this was in a wilderness area. The behavior of these "climbers" and the lack of action by the Forest Service is one of the reasons I got out of rock climbing.

[Special T]

You probably aren't aware and/or don't give a hoot, but a rock climb was established on Mt. Garfield, which is in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. This rock climb was installed illegally, because numerous expansion bolts were drilled with power drills by the guys who erected the "climb". Not only were the climbers who installed all of the bolts not cited, there was no requirement to remove the bolts and erase the climb. Talk about illegal trail building, and this was in a wilderness area. The behavior of these "climbers" and the lack of action by the Forest Service is one of the reasons I got out of rock climbing.

That is an interesting example because there are lots of "Outlaw" routes that have been bolted some time creating  a fight from withing the climbing community itself.

 Not a lot of soil being disturbed rock climbing but I have to say this crosses precedent and if they go ahead with it it should open up a lot more accessible for all forms or riding.

[Special T]

Is this in the squilchuck state Park area? Kinda hard to tell on Google maps

[jrebel]

Is this in the squilchuck state Park area? Kinda hard to tell on Google maps

No, it is further to the north at the top of #2 canyon.  There is a gated road and mountain bike trails that already exist.....they were built by people that mountain bike illegally.  They run from Horse Lake Mountain all the way down.  I have been hiking up there to almost be ran over by mountain bikers multiple times.  It is funny to me how a certain user group can dig, rake, cut trees, build ramps, bridges, ect. etc. etc....but other user groups cannot even drive the forest service roads that already exist.    

[NOCK NOCK]

  Thanks JR 

[Knocker of rocks]

You probably aren't aware and/or don't give a hoot, but a rock climb was established on Mt. Garfield, which is in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. This rock climb was installed illegally, because numerous expansion bolts were drilled with power drills by the guys who erected the "climb". Not only were the climbers who installed all of the bolts not cited, there was no requirement to remove the bolts and erase the climb. Talk about illegal trail building, and this was in a wilderness area.

I was an outspoken critic of that route, and have also done it.  The bizarre things about all of it was at the end, the issue the USFS was concerned with wasn't the roto-hammered route but the user built trail.  I guess there wasn't proof that the route was roto hammered, but the trail is evident of itself.

That is an interesting example because there are lots of "Outlaw" routes that have been bolted some time creating  a fight from withing the climbing community itself.

Not a very good explanation or characterization of the issue.

[pope]

I was an outspoken critic of that route, and have also done it.  The bizarre things about all of it was at the end, the issue the USFS was concerned with wasn't the roto-hammered route but the user built trail.  I guess there wasn't proof that the route was roto hammered, but the trail is evident of itself.

They should have been concerned. Rules were clearly broken, unless anybody believes they drilled all of those holes with a hand drill. The Forest Service sent a message: we don't always enforce our rules. In the current episode, the Forest Service seems to reward and encourage the establishment of illegal trails by the mountain bike crowd.

[Special T]

You probably aren't aware and/or don't give a hoot, but a rock climb was established on Mt. Garfield, which is in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. This rock climb was installed illegally, because numerous expansion bolts were drilled with power drills by the guys who erected the "climb". Not only were the climbers who installed all of the bolts not cited, there was no requirement to remove the bolts and erase the climb. Talk about illegal trail building, and this was in a wilderness area.

I was an outspoken critic of that route, and have also done it.  The bizarre things about all of it was at the end, the issue the USFS was concerned with wasn't the roto-hammered route but the user built trail.  I guess there wasn't proof that the route was roto hammered, but the trail is evident of itself.

That is an interesting example because there are lots of "Outlaw" routes that have been bolted some time creating  a fight from withing the climbing community itself.

Not a very good explanation or characterization of the issue.

Sorry I didn't make it very clear. Your example of a bolted route in the wilderness isn't unique. There are others. It is another example of selective enforcement.

[Knocker of rocks]

Sorry I didn't make it very clear. Your example of a bolted route in the wilderness isn't unique. There are others. It is another example of selective enforcement.

Bolted routes, bolting and other fixed anchors are allowed in the NP system  and inside Wilderness.  There was an issue with bolt removal on Forbidden Peak in 2014 (or so), but while the NPS has never acknowledged that they lacked the legal capacity to do so, they have not attempted to replicate the act.

[Special T]

I was under the impression that is why Trad guys like you smashed the clips flat? Or so I was led to belive... I was under the impression you had to get approval to  bolt routes.

[Knocker of rocks]

I was under the impression that is why Trad guys like you smashed the clips flat? Or so I was led to belive... I was under the impression you had to get approval to  bolt routes.

Nope, no permission required anywhere that I know except maybe Peshastin Pinnacle State Park (WA) and Eldorado State Park (CO), and the morass of NCNP and Kelly Bush going off the reservation.

There are hundreds (thousands) of trad routes with bolts.  What sport climbing is is rappel placed bolts done with no thought to natural cracks.  There are "trad" routes on the slabs at Spada Lake, Darrington, Squamish and the great Glacier Point Apron in Yosemite where the bolts are placed by hand starting from the bottom of the route and placed from natural perches

[NOCK NOCK]

I was an outspoken critic of that route, and have also done it.  The bizarre things about all of it was at the end, the issue the USFS was concerned with wasn't the roto-hammered route but the user built trail.  I guess there wasn't proof that the route was roto hammered, but the trail is evident of itself.

They should have been concerned. Rules were clearly broken, unless anybody believes they drilled all of those holes with a hand drill. The Forest Service sent a message: we don't always enforce our rules. In the current episode, the Forest Service seems to reward and encourage the establishment of illegal trails by the mountain bike crowd.

Most definitely agree   

[timberfaller]

hey People,  it high time to be calling Dan Newhouse office and other Reps.  PLUS calling OWUSFS "Recreation" heads!!  IF NOT the Ranger's!!

Getting response like, "I didn't know this was going on"    Me thinks something stinks in the wind!!! 

Talking about it here on HW,  you're just preaching to the choir!  The "choir" needs to be on their phones!!

[Buzz2401]

I see no issue besides they are sort of rewarding bikers for making trails.  I think they should be able to have designated areas to ride then fine the crap out of them if they aren't on approved trails.  The trails are no different the a ski area.  Are those opposed to Mt biking opposed of ski areas also

[NOCK NOCK]

Sort of rewarding If I make an illegal trail with my Quad will they designate that 6000 acre area as an ORV area? NOT

FWIW I have killed multiple deer within this Mtn. bike area....Hunting will no longer be allowed there. They may be coming to your area next Buzz2401. 

[Buzz2401]

Well it does suck if you lose your hunting area but they should be allowed to have a space to do it.  I don't feel it should be closed for hunting though.  Put a sign at trailhead requiring blaze orange and notifying bikers that it is hunting season.

[timberfaller]

"Are those opposed to Mt biking opposed of ski areas also" quote from buzz.

I'll give buzz the benefit for living in Tacoma  Mt. bike trails are a whole lot different then ski area's.

question for buzz, Do you know what the ATV users have been dealing with this last decade?? hint: OW Travel Plan

The brain child of a lot of eco-freaks manipulating the USFS,  employee's of the USFS being eco-freaks!!

But then REWARDING "illegal" activity's is a hallmark of Liberal's!

[Buzz2401]

I just read through the plan and I don't see anywhere where it states hunting would be closed.  It says the trail system would be multi use.  But I could be mistaken.

[Buzz2401]

Yes I have been riding atv's on National Forest land for the last 15 years.  There is always backlash from others for new forms of user groups and someone always feels they are getting the shaft.   We have designated ORV and ATV trails where I hunt and I just feel it is unfair to say one user group doesn't have a right to use OUR National forest lans.

[CAMPMEAT]

If you're disabled, get a ticket, you have more rights than a bunch bicyclists. File a complaint against the USFS. I did that against the National Park System this year because they asked me for I.D. even with my Disabled Card from them. I told them I don't need to show I.D. to go into a National Park that I own and pay the wages of ALL employees.

[Buzz2401]

Doesn't sound like they are using FS funds to do this project but I'm sure the studies were on our dime and I am frustrated with their lack of maintainence on existing roads.  They need to start doing more logging so that they will have more money.

[CAMPMEAT]

Doesn't sound like they are using FS funds to do this project but I'm sure the studies were on our dime and I am frustrated with their lack of maintainence on existing roads.  They need to start doing more logging so that they will have more money.

They need to log to control everything about OUR National Forests. They need to privatize the control of our forests, so it will be done correctly.

[Buzz2401]

ya can't say I agree with that last thing I would like to see is privatization of FS lands

[timberfaller]

"Yes I have been riding atv's on National Forest land for the last 15 years."

Well, come to the Methow and ride around,  look out for ole Dave though!!

USFS is always out of funds, unless its to dis-mantle roads and trails and buy new rigs covered with camera's! 

[CAMPMEAT]

"Yes I have been riding atv's on National Forest land for the last 15 years."

Well, come to the Methow and ride around,  look out for ole Dave though!!

USFS is always out of funds, unless its to dis-mantle roads and trails and buy new rigs covered with camera's! 

 

[NOCK NOCK]

Yes I have been riding atv's on National Forest land for the last 15 years.  There is always backlash from others for new forms of user groups and someone always feels they are getting the shaft.   We have designated ORV and ATV trails where I hunt and I just feel it is unfair to say one user group doesn't have a right to use OUR National forest lans.

Agreed, It is supposed to be OUR forest lands, ALL user groups should be allowed to access all areas except designated wilderness. Wilderness areas have been identified and motorized use restricted so as to provide a somewhat pristine area for those who want to use the forest for solitude and quiet. ie: Mtn. Bikers, Hikers, Birders, Huggers, Greenies, etc.  The problem lies within the fact that these user groups are not willing to share THEIR forest.
Currently it is managed as THEIR forest, not as Gifford Pinchot intended..."For the greatest good, for the greatest amount of people"

[Dick in the Dirt]

Congressman Newhouse is very interested in what the F/S is doing. He really needs to hear from us about the games the F/S are playing.
Please call 509 452 3243, it only takes a few minutes. We must be heard in order to count.

[CAMPMEAT]

Is this in the squilchuck state Park area? Kinda hard to tell on Google maps

No, it is further to the north at the top of #2 canyon.  There is a gated road and mountain bike trails that already exist.....they were built by people that mountain bike illegally.  They run from Horse Lake Mountain all the way down.  I have been hiking up there to almost be ran over by mountain bikers multiple times.  It is funny to me how a certain user group can dig, rake, cut trees, build ramps, bridges, ect. etc. etc....but other user groups cannot even drive the forest service roads that already exist.   

More damage than ATVs do ?