******CALL TO ACTION ******

We need your FAX, Email, phone call, or letters today to help keep motorized
use in the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire!!

After attending the White Mountain National Forest meeting Monday 11/18/02 I came away with a feeling that OUR interests are being pushed aside. The Forest Revision process has been a very long one starting with the initial out reach meetings back in 1996. At that time we made a strong impression
and got our issue of motorized access included in the revision process.
Although many of us followed the progress and kept our interests from being overlooked the real battle is starting. It was apparent last night from the reception of many of the Wilderness Society people to Conceptual Alternative #4 (see this site for more info on the

Conceptual Alternatives:
http://forum.neow.net/viewtopic.php?t=4782) which includes summer motorized recreation and the least amount of new Wilderness area something that the
AMC and Wilderness Society is pushing very hard to increase.

***Wilderness areas are places in National Forests where no mechanized recreation can take place. It also does not allow any logging nor any type of man made structure.***

So out of the Conceptual Alternatives, two do not allow motorized summer
recreation, but greatly increase the amount of wilderness areas. Conceptual Alternative #1 is the base line so this does not really count towards motorized recreation. The scary thing is the Wilderness areas increase in EVERY Alternative without any attempt to replenish the recreation and
logging activities that are being lost.

What does this mean to us?

At a time when there is an increasing demand for all recreation
opportunities Public Lands are being closed to only a select few user
groups. We are all taxpayers but we are being pushed out of the largest tract of public land east of the Mississippi!

What can we do?

Support Alternative #4, specifically support summer motorized recreational opportunities.

How can I show my support?

It is easy, send a simple email, Fax or call on the phone supporting Conceptual Alternative #4 summer motorized recreation in the White Mountain
National Forest. This should be in your own words; form letters do not get the same weight as an original correspondence. You may also want to express your concern with the increasing of amount of Wilderness Areas because once
they receive this designation; they can NEVER be changed back.

Whom do I call, email, mail or Fax?

Address all messages to Barbara Levesque
Subject: support Conceptual Alternative #4 summer motorized recreation

For Fax or mail please use the attached comment sheet or go to this website:
http://northeastonlinewheelers.org/pdf_docs/WMNF%20comments.pdf

Email: blevesque@fs.fed.us
Phone: 603-528-8743
Fax: 603-528-8783

Mail:
Forest Planner
White Mountain National Forest
719 N. Main ST
Laconia, NH 03246

Points to cover and consider when responding:

1- Support summer motorized recreational use
2- Support Alternative #4
3- Express concern over growth of Wilderness Areas
4- Co-existence of all users

Here is an example; please do not use this as a form letter. Form letters are not given much consideration by the forestry people.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE ONLY

I support summer motorized recreation in the White Mountain National Forest
and feel that all users can co-exist. At a time when there is an increasing
demand for all recreation opportunities, it appears that our Public Lands
are being closed to only a select few user groups. I am a taxpayer and feel
that my chosen form of recreation has been pushed out of the largest tract
of public land east of the Mississippi!

I am also concerned with the increasing number of Wilderness Areas in the
WMNF and would implore not to decrease timber operations and recreational
opportunities. Etc........

Now lets' overload her email and FAX with support for summer motorized
recreation!

Scott Hatch
NEA4WDC
www.nea4wd.org

http://forum.neow.net/viewtopic.php?t=4976

come awn guys, get writing - whether you live there or not, write a short to the point letter...



It's your RIGHT to be able to recreate on public lands, but it's your coice whether or not you help to keep them open to everyone!

:usa:

Btt. I'm on it, I'll see who I can get ahold of to call or write on this issue. There has to be more NH fawkers on this board than this. How are calls considered as opposed to letters? (i'm gunna call on lunch break)

basic "weight order" of effectiveness is as follows


from most effective to least effective


1. talking in person
2. making a phone call
3. handwriting a letter
4. sending a form letter and signed
5. sending an e-mail
6. sending a form letter e-mail


now all of these can be manipulated with numbers, for example one hand written can be outweighed if enough people send in form e-mails etc. The problem is that a lot of "arm chair environmentalists" have time to write letters and most enthusiests don't have time or feel they "can't" for whatever reason (can't write, can't spell, don't know much about the issue, whatever) so it hurts.... None of us are English majors (we'll some probably are ;)) so we're all in this together... just write up what you have to say just like you would say it if you were talking. then check your spelling and mail it in... just be sure to get your point across clearly.

in this particular incident (from what I've gathered in the last 7 hours I've been aware of this issue) here are the points I see that need to be covered

Points to cover and consider when responding:

1- Support summer motorized recreational use
2- Support Alternative #4
3- Express concern over growth of Wilderness Areas
4- Co-existence of all users

We need to tell them that we want to be able to responsibly use public lands and that we are environmentalists and that we care for the environment. tell the ALL users can coexist and that a sensible plan INCLUDING ALL USER GROUPS needs to be developed, I believe alternative 4 in this case....

make sure to include the words "I support Alternative 4" or something like "I'm urging you to support Alternative 4" or something along those lines at least 3 times in your letter or call...


hope this helps those that needed it...

PSD




:usa:










(doing at least something is the p

There has to be more NH fawkers on this board than this. How are calls considered as opposed to letters? (i'm gunna call on lunch break)

There's more but do they read the LU section? Better yet do they care about this? They will probably......when it's too late.

I've been to these forest planning meetings with Scott as well. The AMC/Sierra Club walks in with their full color pamphlets and forest studies all gussied up. It's pretty sick. I hope we have the cash and organization of the Greenies some day. There's no way we can compete at the present time.

Calling to me seems more ballsy. Hope 'ya don't stutter on occasion like I do!! :D

This message has gone around to a few boards, we are "holding our own" out here on the right coast.

They say, (wheover "they" are, I've yet to figure that out) that one handwritten letter is worth 100 form letters. :cool2:

Wow, this makes me sad, as I grew up in the white mountains. Some of my fondest memories are back there. You can bet that I'll be writing. :(

Thanks for your support guys. It's much appreciated.


I'm sure Scott will pop in and thank you all as well.


Everyone please consider dropping them a line. No matter how you do it, it's better than nothing.

Paul


:)

Thank you to everyone is helping us with this issue here in New England. Your emails, letters, and calls are greatly appreciated!

Scott Hatch

If anyone has sample talking points that explain the opposition to the Alternatives 1/3, or points that explain why Alternate 4 is best, then take the time to cut and paste the info into a post.

The way the USFS process works is they (a hired firm working for the USFS/USDA) are required to report on public comments and identify each separate topic and issue to include it into the issues the USFS must address. One independent topic in a single letter carries the same demand for public disclosure as a single topic listed on 100,000 glossy Sierra Club post cards. If anyone in your club has a copy of the Roadless Rule, look at the public comments for how the information is handled (how identical comments are addressed as one comment). This is not a voting process, it is a fact gathering process.

Yes, a phone call works (politically) but only if the person writes the comments down. A letter (handwritten or typed) is a permanent record in your words (not an edit of a phone call). A letter of your words, sent to the USFS on your House Represenatives office letterhead (call them and ask for help with your letter) is very effective (a second record to assure the information is not "lost"). Remember these people work for you, and take advantage of the help.

If the poor Alternatives restrict motor access to a specific spot (your "special" fishing creek, or other feature) then one comment written (by you) demands the USFS recognize the need to address maintenance of motorized access to the feature (provide access, or a publicly disclosed reason why access is to be closed, a reason that can be challenged in court or during a future Plan Amendment).

When two or more people write about the same area, then we increase the odds that the comment will not be subject to someone "losing" the comment (people are human, and sometimes lose things).

You need to think and include non-motorized information about a human presence in the area, with demands to maintain motorized access to "Historic Area," "Townsite," "Graveyard," "Battleground," or any point of interest for mining or other established feature that will be lost.

Any feature that requires mechanized efforts to prevent the potential for habitat loss (a dam, levee, erosion-prone road or rivercrossing) needs to be identified because Species & Habitat protection needs can be used to keep routes open to motorized access.

The lost access to pioneer heritage, or habitat protection needs, will help deter the proposed Wilderness Areas to remain on the list for Congress to designate them as Wilderness. Eventually some Senator (like Boxer in CA) will have the greens "ghost-author" the designation Act, where it can be stripped in committee (if the information is reviewed).

The information provided forces the USFS to enter into the public record that these areas are not excluded from "the lasting presence of mankind" required by the Wilderness Act. This forces the information YOU provide to be included in the documents that Congress must review when the area comes up for Committee recommendation and vote on designation (when you can, again, have enthusiasts write letters to the Committee members using these acknowledged facts about why the proposed Wilderness designation is flawed).

The fight to prevent closure through a proposed Wilderness designation is a long hard battle: beginning with an effort to demand the public record include all information that should exclude the area from designation. The USFS may address the public comments and still recommend that the areas be managed as "proposed Wilderness" in their approved Alternative (if we fail), meaning that they assume Wilderness Study Area status and "temporary" closure. This however does not mean that Congress cannot disqualify the areas, or that a future Forest "Plan Amendment" remove these areas from designation consideration.

The close of the Plan Revision may seem an end to the process, even if it's actually the beginning. It may seem the "fix is in" for the preferred Alternative to be approved (and may be politically) but the recommendations can be reversed later. The approved Alternative result is a "Plan" and not a rule, so all comments can be used to sway the Forest Supervisor to manage the area different from the Plan (plans do change).

Do not immediately think about negotiating with the greens or USFS for cherrystem trail agreements or other compromises to "dilute" the Wilderness proposal impacts (wait until the designation Act is solidified in Congressional Committee before volunteering to give ground).

What we need now is to fight from a position of zero additional proposed Wilderness. This means fighting (letters) for more information in the public record. Make any information you have public, so more people can write the USFS as to why the green demands are flawed. This is not a legal give and take of information, the greens probably know the facts (and are sandbagging information), so anything we disclose is good. This is not the time to sandbag facts that could help keep areas open.

Happy Trails!

At this point the Forest Service asked for direct support or criticism on a particular point in the alternatives.

What you say would be true during the public out reach portions of the Plan revision process. We are now well beyond that portion of the process, have completed the working papers which identified the "issues". Each issue identified in the working papers had separate alternatives that were discussed at the many public planning group meetings. After this process was completed the forest service then took the issues, used the current plan as a base line, and formulated 3 new alternatives forest plans.

Our Forest plan revision process was also far enough along that it fell under the older regs instead of the new "Clinton" regs.

Scott Hatch
NEA4WDC

For more information concerning the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) Revision Process check out their site:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/white/3_WM_fpr_Web/forest_plan/revision/revision.htm

The WMNF completed and released the Notice of Intent on October 2000 with the Summary of Public Comments and Executive Summary of the Comment Summary Report.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/white/3_WM_fpr_Web/forest_plan/revision/noi/final_summary.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/white/3_WM_fpr_Web/forest_plan/revision/noi/executive_summary.pdf

This is a list of the working papers that the planning groups have worked on and completed late in 2001

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/white/3_WM_fpr_Web/forest_plan/revision/working_paper_page.htm

Originally posted by ScottCJ7
At this point the Forest Service asked for direct support or critism on a particular point in the alternatives.
Scott Hatch
NEA4WDC

There are Agency Folks that want you to believe the public comments are mute at this time, as they were trained to give you this impression when they completed a tour of duty in Washington DC in the late 90's. They were educated to convince you that you can only comment on the offerings they provide (choice A/B/C/D) and limit the comments to a narrow focus. This is not true, you can comment about anything, but they only have to consider information related to the approval or rejection of the Alternatives given (all other information is recorded, with a comment that it is too late to use the info to alter any Alternative).

Whatever you comment, regardless of when it is submitted, they have to record. They can offer a statement that the information cannot be used to alter an Alternative (true, and we know that) but the info must be entered into the public record (you should read the rantings submitted by the radical edgy greens to learn how it works).

Critism can include documentation of facts that counter the recommendations of the Alternatives, and provide information that back up your request to support or oppose a particular Alternative. In this respect more information directly related to support or opposition to any Alternative must be included in the record (even if it is too late to alter the Alternative).

Place wording such as:

"I oppose approval of Alternate #1 because the XXX proposed Wilderness eliminates the motorized access that my family has enjoyed for decades to visit our ancestors who are buried on the hill located at ...."

"The XXX proposed Wilderness area (recommended in Alternative #2) should demend rejection of this Alternative, because it includes an abandoned rock quarry & road located at ... that requires semi-annual mechanized mediation (grading) to prevent sediment from entering the river. Maintenance and habitat protection efforts required due to these historic features cannot be continued if the area is managed as Wilderness."

"The Federal requirement to maintain legal motorized public access to the XXX mining claim located at ... in the XXX proposed Wilderness Area (due to this road's documented existance before FLPMA in 1976) requires me to urge you to disqualify Alternative #3 from approval."

The public comment period of the information used to develop the Alternatives is closed, but public comments of how the plan Alternative is selected allows you to register facts into the record (the USFS may tell you otherwise, but they still have to put the comments on record -- allowing future review).

Does this help?

Happy Trails!

Working on one know E-mail and will fax it too

Yes it does and thanks!

I was aware that we could continue to comment, but like I previously stated they are looking at SPECIFIC support to motorized access, something we have now BUT as the existing plan is currently written "only in designated areas". Did I happen to mention they never "designated" any areas?

Points to cover and consider when responding:

1- Support summer motorized recreational use
2- Support Alternative #4
3- Express concern over growth of Wilderness Areas
4- Co-existence of all users

The new plan for the WMNF is getting close to completion so the battle lines are forming.

I am also concerned with the increasing number of Wilderness Areas in the WMNF and would implore not to decrease timber operations and recreational opportunities.

Scott

Ummm yea. (emabarrased smiley).

OK, I admit it, I attended only like three of the meetings and I fell asleep during the one when they were discussing the alternatives to the options before they set the choices of alternatives that they were choosing on....alternatively.....;)


Anyways, I'm working on my little letter to them and I hope everyone else has a moment to send one too.

No need to be to fancy or know too much, just follow the guidelines and clearly state what you support and where you stand.


Speel checking always good. (intentional). ;)


Paul.

You NEOW guys need to seek out some help from other local recreation enthusiast groups:

Talk to the local equestrian and horseman clubs. Ask where they might have endangered trailheads in the proposed Wilderness areas? You can help each other by making sure these roads remain (and maybe even improve a few). Let them know you are not looking to get vehicles on the horse trails, but you want to help keep the roads they use to get to the trailheads and staging areas (and even to support some of the campgrounds) open.

Talk to the local rock & gem clubs, and the local Minerals Society's. Ask where they need help preserving access to the mining claims they work? Ask where the historic quarries are located? Ask them where the roads and trails they want motorized enthusiast help to keep open are located (let them know you do not need to know where the claims are, just the roads and trails that help them get near the claims)? The mining laws (and rockhounds & prospectors) are your strongest ally to keep routes open (on public and private lands) so make these folks you friends (and research how routes are granted rights through RS2477 and the FLPMA).

Get with the OHV and Dual-Sport motorcycle clubs, and the Mountain Bike clubs. Ask the same questions: "Are there any trails in these areas where we can help your club keep the access open?"

Do the same with any of the clubs and interest groups that you know visit the forest. Anyone who uses a road to access their recreation choice is a potential ally to share in the cause to keep their road open (including keeping it open to you).

If any of you have old topo maps that show roads in the proposed Wilderness Areas, a search for the status of the roads at the local County records office may lead to a position that the USFS cannot close the route to make the area eligible for Wilderness status (the County would have legal right to decide the status of the road).

While you are learing how Forest access is enjoyed by these other users, think about how you can link their existing road and trail system into a network of legal OHV (or Street Legal Only) off-road travel routes (even if seasonal).

These detailed pieces of information are needed because the USFS comments need to state where and why the existing Alternatives are flawed (where they unreasonably, and possibly illegaly, impact the various recreation user groups).

You can say you want "recreation access", and they will count your comment with the other 3500 similar subjective comments -- as an unfocused wish list.

Now, comment you "want cooperative recreation access established to the abandoned historic rock quarry located at ... through road 1N54Y (or the unclassified road show on the enclosed topo map), and it makes a objective comment that they cannot ignore (to support or oppose the Alternative choice).

Later you can have someone else comment that they "want the abandoned historic rock quarry located at ... through road 1N54Y (or the unclassified road show on the enclosed topo map) should be recommended for designation as a summer open-use OHV recreation area." This leads to an OHV Plan Amendment change opening, and exclusion of the area from a potential Wilderness Act designation.

This is why you need to get info from your friends (and enemys), about the areas impacted by the Alternatives, and make supportive or opposition comments that detail the features and desires of your club.

This is hard work, requiring a few of you to get out the Forest maps and find the areas impacted by each Alternative, so you can make objective comments. It's as difficult as staying awake in the planning meetings, but it's the only way to keep the $$$$$ greens from getting everything they have asked for (and planned for, because they received grant funds to complete this exercise for their selfish interests).

I hope this also helps?

The system is not organized to respond to subjective comments, the system responds to details and objective comments (like: "The area bounded by XXX and YYY contains potential habitat for a significant population of the Endangered Bobble-Bird and Pup-Wheat species, and we believe Alternative #2 best protects this threatened habitat suitable for keystone species recovery.") The recommendation may be based on 99% false information, but it is objective and detailed (this is what you are up against).

P.S. excuse my poor spelling (no spell check at work).

Happy Trails!

The Forestry people are asking for comments to support specific points in the Conceptual Alternatives or the Conceptual Alternatives as a whole. My goal is to get as many people as possible to make positive comments on allowing summer motorized use on this Forest.

I understand that we need specific comments, however we do not currently have ANY summer motorized access to this forest. I’m not discounting the advice you are giving, I’m always open to constructive criticism. The Conceptual Alternatives were generated from the hard work myself and others in the motorized community, timber harvesters, as well as the green groups did in the public planning groups.

The research I have done shows many roads which have been converted to “trails” cross in and out of Wilderness Areas on this forest. As we all know there is no mechanized recreation allowed in a Wilderness Area. We are currently trying to identify areas where we can establish and OHRV use “zone”, then identify possible locations for trails.

You NEOW guys need to seek out some help from other local recreation enthusiast groups:

I know there is a lot more I can learn and want to learn concerning land use and land access. The North East is a lot different than the rest of the country, specifically the west coast. We do not have millions upon millions of acres of public land. The majority of the land here in New England is owned by private landowners with small pockets of public land. Much of the public land was greatly abused at one time or another so public lands are very protected in there usage.

I have been working on land use and land access in New England since roughly '94 and I'm constantly learning more every day it seems. The issue of land use and land access has always been a grass roots effort here in New England because groups like United and Blue Ribbon have never been much help to us. So in 2000 a group of 4x4 clubs formed themselves into an Association in order to "fend for ourselves" if you will. In two short years the NorthEast Association of 4WD Clubs was formed, created strong ties with private landowners, and developed a working relationship with the state of New Hampshire. The first working relationship with a state government and full size 4x4 organization in New England.

Scott Hatch
NEA4WDC
www.nea4wd.org

Scott missed that JU thread a while back about "do the big orgs help?". I will send him the link, it is a good read. However I wish this conversation not to spiral into a debate about the East having to fend for itself. Maybe we could politely discuss that on the JU thread.

Anyways, that may not be anyones intention, I just saw the spark there when Scott made the "fend for ourselves" comment. I can assure you Scott meant no ill will to any of the big orgs out there. I can attest that Scott is the hardest working, most genuine, open and honest LU person/club president/Assoc. VP/Assoc President elect I have ever known.

Anyways, enough of the sappy crap from me!

Lets keep those comments rolling.

;)

Paul/PJNTJ/Eco-Jeeper

No ill will intended. These are just my observations and some personal feelings from the hard work I have done on land use and land access. Land use is something I am very passionate about and at times it does reflect in my postings, writings, or spoken words.

This is not intended as a slam nor a slight in any way but a little background to our roots out here. We in the New England area have asked for help from these organizations in the past and only received long winded emails. I have personally asked for help, advice, and guidance from United in the intial stages of the WMNF forest revision process back in 1998 and again in 2000 with no results or assistance. Yes I know they work hard for interests on the National Level and I do support them for that. New England has had national land use issues arise but none of these groups have EVER stepped up to help us when asked hence the "fend for ourselves" comment.

Scott Hatch

Well put Scott.