Interesting....

[lisa]

   Here is a group with an idea that I believe Forestry is in favor of. From all I have heard about from Forestry and from not only my dealings with them but from reading other's this is exactly what Forestry, and current management of ONF believes.

   Public lands are not private, and should never be treated as such. Unfortunately, many Forestry managers think they "own" the lands they are managing. They don't. These lands are our lands.

As a user group that appreciates the value of wildness, Wild Wilderness opposes these efforts to commercialize our National Heritage by privatizing public lands. We are hunters, backcountry skiers, hikers, anglers, mountaineers and birdwatchers who want to enjoy nature, au naturel.

Wild Wilderness

[Wildbrain400EX]

It certainly does seem as though the Forest Service has a problem remembering that ONF and any other National Forest in this country belongs to me,you, and anyone else that pays taxes.

They are employed by "The People" all of us that have ownership in this land.

However ....Who are there boses?

They answer to the "Special Interest Group" who screams the loudest. Everyone is in one weather you are for or against ORV riding in any National Forest.

Right now it appears as though "They" are screaming louder then "WE" are.

I live in Ohio and have seen many of hundreds of miles of trails just go away because these Special Interst Groups.

I will say to Lisa and any other person who are behind keeping ONF open for ORV riding.  Keep on doing what you are doing and remember who "They" are.
 
If you are not willing to spend some time fighting for your "Special Interest" then the freedom that we now enjoy riding in this National Forest or any other National Forest will certainly go away.

[lisa]

Thank you!

[stacktester]

I'm not being sarcastic at all to Lisa. I've been reading these posts the last couple weeks and it sounds like it's getting to be more trouble than it's worth riding anywhere in Florida. I may just try and do a few DTP trips a year and forget the ONF. I love riding the trails, I'm not opposed to a trail system as long as there are plenty of miles like there is now. I hope all the hoopla can be settled and we can ride in ONF and just enjoy the damn thing like we deserve and do whatever it takes to make the higher ups happy.

[lisa]

   I hear ya stacktester, and unfortunately for those of us who can't move yet, those going elsewhere take their voice with them. Lots of folks agree with you.

   The problem is the loss of trails will follow you where ever you go. Lots of luck to you.

[stacktester]

I was thinking this. We have 2 areas known as Croom and Tate's Hell that I hardly ever hear "OH BOY" they're gonna close it down. At least not for environmental or tree hugger issues. Why can't they just dedicate the new trail system to be like one of those areas and everybody doin all the biotchin can stfu and we can all go beddy bye feeling all warm and fuzzy lol. If the trails were ever "groomed" to begin with at ONF we probably wouldn't hear 1/2 the crap we do now. I can say that I've been to ONF after a heavy rain and the trail looked like nothing ever rode on it. The forest looks way worse right now near Big Scrub because of clear cutting. It seems like it takes years for them to completely clear the land a replant seedlings. Just give us our set amount of trails like planned, groom them and shut up. If anybody gets caught riding off the trail suspend them for 1 year 1st offense and forever afterwards. How can we make sure riders are riding on the trail system only and not riding off where they please? If this was possible we could solve a lot right there. Just my .02 and I'm being too technical. I just want to ride in ONF like you would if you go to Durhamtown or Hatfield-McCoy and not hear all the bull.

[Stewards]

Stacktester - I believe tate's hell and croom are both state run, the onf is federal. Different rules different regs, the feds run it their way, and i believe they would rather have everyone out of there.

Washington has reconized that ohv's are a vitual recreation on federal lands. Therefore, the USFS is mandated by Washington to do a managed trail system on all federal forest land. If the USFS didn't have to do it, do you think they would??

Even if the trails were groomed there would still be complients. Even if 240 miles of trails were groomed, as urban sprawl gets closer to the onf, more people are going to be riding, that 240 miles of trails, won't substain the growth of people. Then what happens??

As far as clear cutting, why not put trails in the clear cut areas, and let the forest grow around your trails. According to the Federal Environmental Impact Study revised, the cutting of trees are going to be less and less.

Fines shoud be big, hit the little guy where it hurts. There should be enough forest personel to keep the bandits on the trails and not off of them. But what do you do when the trail system is poorly marked, and someone says, I got lost?? You give him a ticket and take him to court or do you be a nice guy??

There a numerous ways you could have built a trail system in the onf, but you got to remember the point, onf has to bulid a managed trail system. There are no rules on how many miles that system has to be, it could be 2 miles long. That will meet with the requirements from Washington.

[lisa]

  Exactly Stewards! 240-miles is nothing when you have 300,000 acres! That is my point and one I hope others will pick up. Stacktester, are we starting to see things eye-to-eye a little bit?