Forest Service Demolishes Access to Private Property

[wolfbait]

Forest Service Demolishes Access to Private Property

https://redoubtnews.com/2016/06/forest-service-demolishes-access-private-property/

[BULLBLASTER]

No much new there. I’ve seen them decommission and destroy 20+ year old road beds that are overgrown with trees having 8-12 inch trunks. No way even a atv could have driven on them.

[Woodchuck]

  Been happening in the blues for years.

[gaddy]

In most cases it is a total waste of time and money in my opinion. I have seen a couple that were tore up so bad you couldn't walk on them. I could see maybe a  short stretch to keep vehicles off but why go on for miles ? How much would it cost for labor, fuel, equipment and support for a day, times how many days or weeks ?

[mfswallace]

Any update since this was 9months ago ??

[elkinrutdrivemenuts]

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=f5f455c2c4d14496adc46ba2a1902dd1

Great way to see what roads are open to what kind of vehicles.  The East Fork of Eagle creek is only open 1.8 miles.  The old road goes much farther back up the creek.  Its probably been closed for awhile but its common practice over here in Idaho to ride around signs or gates if you can. 

[Cylvertip]

With the way they decommission them here on the Wetside, I am sure this had nothing specifically to do with the gold prospectors association.  The supposed illegal creek crossing and go around probably was a catalyst, but that is not necessarily by the prospectors.     

I have had to use a gps to be able to follow/ stay on a reclaimed rd in the Oly Nat Forest.

[Knocker of rocks]

With the way they decommission them here on the Wetside, I am sure this had nothing specifically to do with the gold prospectors association.  The supposed illegal creek crossing and go around probably was a catalyst, but that is not necessarily by the prospectors.     

I’ve thought the decommission effort over here was way too intensive.  Then I heard a discussion on KIRO 710 NW Outdoors,  and they were strident that leaving culverts is very detrimental to salmon.  Neither of those hosts could be referred to as “greenies”,  but tearing up the roads as they do sure makes walking difficult.

[Special T]

Decommissioning roads should consist of pulling culverts and adding water bars but leaving the bed fairly usable. Making the first couple hundred yards impassable to anything but foot traffic. Who knows when your going to need them for fire fighting...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[jmscon]

Decommissioning roads should consist of pulling culverts and adding water bars but leaving the bed fairly usable. Making the first couple hundred yards impassable to anything but foot traffic. Who knows when your going to need them for fire fighting...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Skyvalhunter]

We have several of these NEPA project roads in my area. The USFS went in and pulled the culverts putting in water bars but not totally destroying the roads. Their justification for doing this was they said the culvert were plugged running down the roads an causing sedimentation to go into the streams and rivers. It supposedly also reduced their road maintenance cost which I disagreed with. During the comment period on some of the road I was interested in I put out word on hiking, hunting, etc forums to get people to write in and ask that atleast a trail was provided on the roads which they agreed with. They just want to do away with as many roads as possible and its not like they do much maintenance. The general public does a lot by cutting out logs and cleaning culverts.

[Alan K]

They could sell a single timber sale and pay for the entire forests maintenance for the year, nevermind the benefit it does for local jobs. They have been so delinquent on their routine maintenance that they can now say it'll cost too much to fix. I really do believe that a large contingent of folks inside the USFS, nevermind the environmental groups that hang over their shoulder, want to turn our public lands into wilderness areas.

[Humptulips]

They could sell a single timber sale and pay for the entire forests maintenance for the year, nevermind the benefit it does for local jobs. They have been so delinquent on their routine maintenance that they can now say it'll cost too much to fix. I really do believe that a large contingent of folks inside the USFS, nevermind the environmental groups that hang over their shoulder, want to turn our public lands into wilderness areas.

Well, not really. My friend who I sometimes work for, bid on a culvert job as in replacement of one culvert. 18" culvert on a fairly steep hillside. Year round creek but just a trickle. Justification for replacement was the culvert had a downspout and the FS decided because it was year around water it needed to be at original grade of creek. I think they upgraded to a 24" culvert. A fish would have needed climbing gear to get up this creek.
Cost $700,000
Another creek, a good sized one had a big culvert upgraded from culvert to bridge for fish migration. Trouble is there are three impassable falls below the new bridge, one visible from the road.
Cost $1,200,000
I could go on.
The reason they do this is because these fish related projects don't come out of their budget. They are separate appropriations. Maintenance comes out of their budget. Plus they can move FS personnel working on these off budget so they can keep people working they don't actually have money for in their budget.
And the timber sales, the way they run them they are lucky to break even.
I helped rebuild some roads on one timber sale. The roads were perfectly usable. In fact the logger wanted to start work before we finished but the FS would not approve the use of the roads until all new culverts were installed. Bear in mind there was no water in any of the culverts. We finally got done and the logger finished and then a month later paid a person to come in and decommission them. You could drive a dump with a pup the length of the roads before we started work. Now you can barely walk them.
All their requirements drive up the cost to the point there is no profit to be made by the FS. One guy I know bought several big thinning sales. He told me average cost was $2 per thousand. he ended up letting most of them go back because it was breaking him.
Most sales go for a lot more then that but still the FS doesn't see much of it beyond paying their associated costs. 

[fastdam]

They could sell a single timber sale and pay for the entire forests maintenance for the year, nevermind the benefit it does for local jobs. They have been so delinquent on their routine maintenance that they can now say it'll cost too much to fix. I really do believe that a large contingent of folks inside the USFS, nevermind the environmental groups that hang over their shoulder, want to turn our public lands into wilderness areas.

w

Well of course they do. It's the re-wilding project. It's Agenda 21. Read about it here
http://www.independentsentinel.com/agenda-21-a-plan-to-take-your-land-and-give-it-to-tortoises-and-pagosa-skyrockets/

[Skyvalhunter]

They could sell a single timber sale and pay for the entire forests maintenance for the year, nevermind the benefit it does for local jobs. They have been so delinquent on their routine maintenance that they can now say it'll cost too much to fix. I really do believe that a large contingent of folks inside the USFS, nevermind the environmental groups that hang over their shoulder, want to turn our public lands into wilderness areas.

Timber sales was the number one suggestion by a group I was involved in when the USFS was looking for suggestions on paying for road maintenance and keeping roads open. But they have a limited amount of personnel for setting up the Timber sales. For one timber sale in my area they had to borrow personnel from another ranger district. Then throw in the fact Cantwell and Murray keep creating and expanding Wilderness areas.