Attention..tellico..attention..update

[Georgia Mike]

Originally Posted by funkskunk

I hope that our side mentioned the many years of service and trail work that was volunteered to maintain the trails. I agree I won't be surprised if it doesn't go our way, but I pray it will.

That issue wasn't discussed today. At all. That's not to say that the judge isn't aware of it, it just wasn't brought up today in the courtroom.

[y2knole]

thanks for the first hand reports from those of you who were able to make time to be there to observe and report.

Wish the initial impressions were more reassuring favorable...

[Southbound]

Got a little more time tonight so below are more details:

1. The first point discussed was that our side made the claim that the FS intended to close Tellico all along and just went through the process. It didn't appear that we did a good job citing concrete examples of this.
2. Our side made the claim that the FS used data from a study of "bugs" in the stream to close Tellico but that data wasn't available to the general public. It is true that the study wasn't available, but it was only referenced sparingly and only in the responses to public questions, not in the body of the EA. Again, the judge didn't appear to buy it.
3. Our side challenged the "10 intensity factors" brought up by the FS in the EA - that the analysis was "pretty thin." Again, the point was made but we didn't appear to have a lot of supporting data.
4. The only time the FS/TU appeared to be challenged by the judge had to do with the turbidity analysis of the Tellico river - when they went out after a rainstorm and took water samples out of the river and compared them to other streams. This point I think we made some ground on - that the FS didn't really have a baseline for comparison for these numbers. They simply tested the Tellico river after a rainstorm at Stateline campground and then compared it to other streams in wilderness areas.

I'm sure there were other things that I missed - but overall no smoking guns in our favor. The judge said he hoped to have a decision within 30 days.

[kb8ymf]

While I read some of the first hand comments from those that were there, the single biggest factor that has not been considered is this isn't TV Court Room drama! Matlock type antics would not have benefited us in any way in this case. What goes on in court rooms for real isn't what you see on TV.

Previous to the hearing, the judge was supplied with briefs outline each sides case. It's up to the judge to review all those facts before rendering his ruling. Hence the 30 days he told both sides. The hearing was held so that the judge had a chance to ask specific questions he may have had after he reviewed the documents supplied by each side.

Whether we win or lose, the point is that we, ALL OF US, as a recreational interest need to start to stand up to those groups and causes which exist solely to limit or eliminate our existance. To do that requires ALL of us to belong to and join ANY group that you feel supports your viewpoint at all levels of government. Whether it's UFWDA, BRC, at the national level, or your state association for local state issues. You need to belong to BOTH. Tellico wasn't the first and it certainly won't be the last.

The point to take from this is that we all don't like what's going on but less than 5-10% of us have ever done anything about it. I'm taking a swag at those numbers but with nearly 1/4 of a million members on Pirate alone I truly wonder how important saving public recreational lands are to everyone when you compare that number to the membership numbers of the National groups fighting for you. Sierra Club doesn't have those problems.
It's time to step up or the future our our recreation is all but extinct.

Jim - kb8ymf
President - UFWDA

[Bigcountry]

I read the posts and was not there but how do you make a case with no actual facts. If the FS had multiple surveys and our side had no actual data to present the opposite how is that helping us, its like stating your opinion on the matter.
If the lawyer was not an expert with 30years experience in testing water ways, silt, bugs, fish etc then stating your opinion really means zilt. How is not having actual test results to counter helping or having multiple experts provide a case study of the water system and environmental impact.
This all costs money I know, so tell us how much and go to every large off road event to ask for donations, you will surely get a thousand at each one. This fall has plenty of events but SWFDA needs to show up and ask for it.

Maybe just my 2 cents, I know this process takes a long time but it seems we are not winning this battle. I agree most are not willing to do anything, I have wrote letters, donated money many times, volunteered etc.

People gotta realize its not just about Tellico, they are coming after private lands everywhere too. We need to wake up before we do not have anywhere to ride.

[McCracken]

Originally Posted by Bigcountry

I read the posts and was not there but how do you make a case with no actual facts. If the FS had multiple surveys and our side had no actual data to present the opposite how is that helping us, its like stating your opinion on the matter.
If the lawyer was not an expert with 30years experience in testing water ways, silt, bugs, fish etc then stating your opinion really means zilt. How is not having actual test results to counter helping or having multiple experts provide a case study of the water system and environmental impact.
This all costs money I know, so tell us how much and go to every large off road event to ask for donations, you will surely get a thousand at each one. This fall has plenty of events but SWFDA needs to show up and ask for it.

Maybe just my 2 cents, I know this process takes a long time but it seems we are not winning this battle. I agree most are not willing to do anything, I have wrote letters, donated money many times, volunteered etc.

People gotta realize its not just about Tellico, they are coming after private lands everywhere too. We need to wake up before we do not have anywhere to ride.

I'm not speaking on behalf of Southern so here goes.

They do have data. They hired a consultant to go out and perform testing/sampling. They put together a report referred to as the Caliber report. This gave a break down of the area by trail. Like it was stated before the judge may know about it but I wasn't there to hear if they spoke to it.

Southern has 2 main events each year. The Dixie Run (formerly at Tellico) and Trailfest (typically in May). Both of these are their main fundraisers. Admission plus raffle tickets seem to be the main source byond donations. They will accept any money you offer them. However, their stance has always been that because parks are a profitable entity that they cannot get mixed up with them because they are a non-profit organization. I've always felt this was horseshit but whatever.

Like a hundred posts before I believe Southern completely dropped the ball on this one. From communication to the way they handled their lawyers. I deal with litigation on almost a daily basis and have so for the past 5 years. I work with lawyers on everything from private projects to 3rd party lawsuits and there's a certain way to handle things of this nature. From what I've read and heard this wasn't the best way to do this. I keep hoping one day that things will change in how that organization is run but I;m not holding my breath. There's too much pride, good ole boy politics and stubborness for anything to really get done.

[scottal]

^ what mccraken said x2. plus tellico already had 2 strikes against it... being 1- its national forest an being 2- sfwda didnt want any help with anything while it was still open. Tellico is gone an its time to move on to protect what we still have now. The epa is getting worse an worse bout cracking down. that is the reason so many of our pirvate parks are closing down now. Do i hate the fact its gone... YES absolutly! I pretty much grew up there in a buggy and thats where I learned to ride a dirtbike an yes large amounts of history is nothing but that now. but its time to move on

[SayBye]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Jim, without the history, which dates back to the late 19th century and culminates in the '60s through present day, you have no idea what went on here.

It starts and ends with Bemis Lumber Company, an NFS Ranger from the '60s named Thrash who took advantage of his standing and insider information, corrupt politicians and State tax revenue interests.

All of these players sculpted the current land closures by taking full advantage of and assistance from attack dogs funded by real-estate magnates like Richard C. Blum (CBRE), The Wilderness Society, and Trout Unlimited, with buy-in from the influx of wealthy snow birds fleeing Florida to buy cheap mountain view and river front properties.

Well said.

[Ho Shorts]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Jim, without the history, which dates back to the late 19th century and culminates in the '60s through present day, you have no idea what went on here.

It starts and ends with Bemis Lumber Company, an NFS Ranger from the '60s named Thrash who took advantage of his standing and insider information, corrupt politicians and State tax revenue interests.

All of these players sculpted the current land closures by taking full advantage of and assistance from attack dogs funded by real-estate magnates like Richard C. Blum (CBRE), The Wilderness Society, and Trout Unlimited, with buy-in from the influx of wealthy snow birds fleeing Florida to buy cheap mountain view and river front properties.

Your user name and this statement make me

Not saying it isn't a true statement as it is to a point, but it's still far from being an excuse for the lack of action on Southern's part.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Ho Shorts

Your user name and this statement make me

Not saying it isn't a true statement as it is to a point, but it's still far from being an excuse for the lack of action on Southern's part.

Here, giggle on down . . .



History of Bemis Lumber in NC (AKA BEMIS HARDWOOD LUMBER CO.)

GRAHAM COUNTY

1893 - The town of Robbinsville was duly incorporated in 1893 with N.M.E. Slaughter as the first mayor.
1926 - purchase of the Graham County Railway by Bemis Lumber Company
1928 – Robbinsville boasted of a complete electric light system, which was operated by the Bemis Lumber Company Plant.
1955 - The Robbinsville-Tellico road has been partially completed and is presently the subject of much controversy between those seeking its completion and the wilderness lovers who oppose it.


NC Transportation Museum - Rail Equipment -- Steam Locomotives
1925 - The 1925 was used by the Graham County RR to haul logs out of the Snowbird Mountains to the Bemis Lumber Company mill in Robbinsville, NC. The logging portion closed in 1948, but the railroad continued to carry general freight between Robbinsville and Topton, NC, where an interchange was made with the Southern Railway.

LOGGING DAYS LOGGING WAYS

Many small logging companies and some larger ones have closed down over the years including Bemis Lumber Company which operated in Milltown.

Craft Revival

http://wcudigitalcollection.cdmhost..../id/6091/rec/9

1928 - An article from the January 24, 1928 issue of "The Ruralite" (Sylva, N.C.) entitled “Bemis Firm to Top Lumber Belt” indicated that the Bemis Lumber Company, under its subsidiary operation of the Graham County Railway, planned an extension of its rail line in order to develop its timber resources in Graham County, North Carolina.


Inventory of the Bemis Lumber Company Records, 1927-1941 | Finding Aids | Rubenstein Library

1926 - Bemis was originally incorporated in the State of Delaware on April 16, 1926 and succeeded by the Bemis Hardwood Lumber Company, a North Carolina Corporation, incorporated January 1, 1937. In 1924 H. C. Bemis purchased the lands owned in Graham County by the Buffalo Realty Company, Carolina Railway and Lumber Company, and George R. Cottrelle, Trustee. In the same year the Champion Paper and Fiber Company, the Gennett Lumber Company, and H. C. Bemis purchased the lands of the Whiting Manufacturing Company. The Gennett Lumber Company took the Santeetlah Watershed and then sold it to the U.S. Forest Service in 1935. Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest was a part of this land. Champion Paper purchased the West Buffalo watershed in fee and H. C. Bemis bought the Big Snowbird area. Then Champion and Bemis traded so that Champion owned all the hemlock and Bemis all the hardwoods on both Big Snowbird and West Buffalo Watersheds. In 1926 Bemis started construction of a band mill in Robbinsville, and the first log was sawn in August 1927. A large part of the machinery and equipment for the mill were shipped from the band mill that Bemis had been operating since 1905 at Bemis, West Virginia. The first officers of the Bemis Lumber Company operating this modern steam band mill were: H. C. Bemis, President; L. C. Bemis, Vice President and General Manager; L. A. Dindinger, Secretary and Treasurer; L. W. Wilson, Assistant Secretary and Treasurer; E. R. Frederick, Mill Superintendent; R. H. Montony, Woods Superintendent; R. J. Humes, Yard Superintendent; and Alfred V. Anderson, Superintendent of Woods Railroad Construction. On the death of H. C. Bemis and L. C. Bemis in 1935, John Bemis Veach Sr. was elected President and L. W. Wilson, Vice President and General Manager. Wilson served in that position for thirty years. During the last several years of his administration he served as president of the company. In March of 1967 the original band mill was completely destroyed by fire and was replaced by a modern band mill, all-electric except for the steam shot-gun feed. This new mill started in operation January 1968 and because of its many modern and efficient features and machines, hardwood lumbermen from all over the East visited it continuously. The company also operated a rail line for shipping its products, and one of its Shay locomotives is still preserved at the N.C. Museum of Tranportation.
(Taken from Graham County history website, written by John B. Veach, Jr.)

FindACase™ | BEMIS HARDWOOD LUMBER CO. v. UNITED STATES
January 19, 1954

BEMIS HARDWOOD LUMBER CO.
v.
UNITED STATES
The evidence shows that more than 50% of the stock of the corporation was owned by Mary V. Wise, Virginia Alice Veach, and John B. Veach, all related as brother and sisters.

scott creek

1973 - This is tract 62 of the Little Snowbird Section of the vast land holdings of the Bemis Lumber Co., when in 1973 sold over 17000 acres at public auction.

Inventory of the John Bemis Veach and John Bemis Veach, Jr. Papers, 1926 - 1991

Title: John Bemis Veach and John Bemis Veach, Jr. Papers, 1926 - 1991

Creator: Veach, John Bemis, 1899-1995
John Bemis Veach, Jr., b. 1927

John Bemis ("Jack") Veach

John Bemis ("Jack") Veach was born December 12, 1899 in Oil City, Pennsylvania. Upon graduating from Yale University in 1923, he joined his father, George J. Veach, in a retail furniture and home furnishings business in Oil City. In 1935, he was elected president of Bemis Hardwood Lumber Company of Robbinsville, North Carolina, a company founded by his grandfather in the 1850s. Jack served as president of this company until 1960, when he began a twelve-year stint as the company's chairman of the board. Jack Veach held numerous other positions in the hardwood lumber industry throughout his long and industrious career, including president and chief executive officer (1946-1984) of Veach-May-Wilson, Inc., in Alcoa, Tennessee; director (1946-1956) of the National Hardwood Lumber Association; president (1948-1949) of Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers, Inc.; president (1951-1952) of National Lumber Manufacturers Association (National Forest Products Association); president (1958-1960) of American Forestry Association; president (1960-1962) of American Forest Institute; and president (1966-1968) of North Carolina Forestry Association. Veach was a founder of the Hardwood Corporation of America in 1945 and was a member of the Economic Council of the Forest Products Industry during the 1960s and 1970s. He also served the forest products industry in a number of governmental capacities. From 1942 to 1949 Jack was in charge of procuring hardwood lumber for the U.S. Navy, and in the 1970s and 1980s he represented the industry in North Carolina by serving as a member of the N. C. Forest Advisory Council and as a member of the governing board of the N. C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. Additionally, he was active in civic associations in his home town of Asheville, North Carolina. John ("Jack") Veach died June 15, 1995.

John Bemis Veach, Jr.

Jack's son, John Bemis Veach, Jr., was born July 21, 1927 and graduated from Yale University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1949. In 1952, John (Jr.) began working for Bemis Hardwood Lumber Company in Robbinsville, North Carolina, and he served as its president from 1965 to 1973. In 1965 he became executive vice president (and later was president) of Veach-May-Wilson, Inc., in Alcoa, Tennessee, a company associated with Bemis Hardwood Lumber Company. In addition to working for Bemis and its associated companies, John served as president of Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers, Inc., and National Hardwood Lumber Association. He also held numerous leadership positions with other forest products industry associations during his career, including National Forest Products Association.

More at URL above.


RootsWeb: BEMIS-L --Bemis Names other than Surname-- (mostly complete family tree)

John Bemis Veach Jr. of Black Mountain died Monday, Oct. 17, 2005

Son: Tucker Bemis Veach, Owner: “Falls and Veach” Law Practice in Asheville, NC. (John B 'Tucker' Veach III) 20 Cedar Cliff Road Asheville, NC, US 28803 Telephone: +1 (828) 277-6001

Tucker Veach of Falls & Veach - Asheville, NC 28803

AKA - The Veach Family Limited Partnership

AKA - The Veach Family Revocable Management Trust
50 Wingspread
Black Mountain, NC. 28711

Standard & Poor’s 500 Index - Ticker: BMS Company: Bemis Co Inc S&P 500 Annual Meeting Calendar, Week of April 26 - May 21 - Bloomberg

NYSE - Ticker: BMS Company: Bemis Co Inc http://www.nyse.com/NYSEIssues.xls



Mark E. Ray is a former VP for the National Forest Products Association whose President was John Bemis Veach, Jr. (son of John Bemis “Jack” Veach). In 1952, John Jr. began working for Bemis Hardwood Lumber Company in Robbinsville, North Carolina, and he served as its president from 1965 to 1973. In 1973 during his tenure as President, John Bemis Veach, Jr. sold 17,000 acres of the Bemis Lumber Co. holdings including the Little Snowbird Section at public auction.

Mark E. Ray

Other current National Forest Products Association relationships:
American Forest Resource Alliance - lobbying arm

National Forest Products Association relationships:
Mark E. Rey – VP

National Forest Products Association relationship map - Muckety

Mark E. Ray is now a Lobbyist for Trout Unlimited
Trout Unlimited relationship map - Muckety

Google


Graham County Property Records
Google

2004 North Shore Road EIS Graham County
1. INTRODUCTION for North Shore Road Environmental Impact Statement - 2004

1967 National Tails System Congressional Testimony . . . http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...9q63YOifodwxAQ

National Trails Systems Testimony by John B. Veach
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...gVPcOPwdaaWnQQ


BEMIS HARDWOOD LUMBER CO.
Robbinsville, N. C, March U, 1967.

Hon. ROY A. TAYLOR, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR ROY : I appreciate your telephoning me Friday about H.R. 4865 to advise me that March 17, 1967, was the deadline for receiving information on the bill from interested parties. I was finally able to get a copy of the bill yesterday, so I have not had a great deal of time to think about it. I am greatly disturbed that a bill as important as this Trails Bill and one affecting our own property in Graham County should come up so quickly and be rushed through so hurriedly that none of us are given a proper opportunity to testify before the Committee and state exactly how we think it would affect us. I note from the map attached to the bill that many of my friends all over the country are bound to be affected. I criticized our National Forest Products office, in Washington, for not alerting all of the affected members all over the country and they stated that they only knew about the hearings three or four days prior. It does not seem to me that the Committee has given enough time for the filing of statements—using my ease as a typical example. I hope that in future bills you will do everything you possibly can to give us a reasonable amount of time to present our case.

Our interest, of course, is in that portion of the Appalachian Trail that runs through Graham County, North Carolina. The Bemis Hardwood Lumber Company owns timber land under active tree farm management in Graham County and operates a sawmill in Robbinsville, where it employs some 130 people. In order to manage our lands for perpetual growth of timber, it is necessary for us to look to the national forests under the management of the U.S. Forest Service for a substantial portion of our annual cut of timber.

Attached is a map which shows the approximate location of our operations as they relate to the Appalachian Trail. The area specifically lies between Stecoah Gap and Cheoah Bald. This portion of the Trail actually borders approximately one-half mile of our land and along or through three different watersheds totaling from between 12,000 and 15,000 acres of land and between 30 to 40 million feet of saw timber with an annual growth of approximately 1.7 million board feet. At stake in this proposal is approximately 18% of the allowable cut upon which we depend each year to operate our sawmill.

The best estimate that we can get from our associates and friends in Robbinsville is that the absolute maximum number of persons hiking along this portion of the Appalachian Trail each year would be 500. These are not Sunday afternoon hikers but could be classified as serious hikers. We believe that it is important to these hikers that the Appalachian Trail be maintained pretty much as it is and pretty much where it is. Therefore, we certainly have no objections to giving the Trail a national scenic trail label and having it properly marked and maintained. However, as we read H.R. 4865, whoever drafted it seeks to do a great deal more than this. I intend no offense by this for I assume that the bill was written in the Department of Interior.

Section 2(b) requires the Secretary of Interior to select the rights of way for the Appalachian Trail, "of sufficient width and so located to provide the maximum retention of natural conditions, scenic and historical features * * *." In so doing, lie is required to seek the advice and assistance of the states, local governments, private organizations, landowners, land users concerned and the NATIONWIDE TRAILS SYSTEM Advisory Council. However, he is not bound by such advice. The matter is left entirely to his judgment. Even the establishment of an Advisory Council is not required. The proposal merely says that he may establish an Advisory Council for each Trail. In this connection, we note that the Advisory Council does not include a member or members from among landowners or land users concerned. The proposal also leaves entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of Interior whether or not he will utilize condemnation proceedings along the Appalachian Trail.

Frankly, it concerns us greatly when one man in government who is not answerable to the electorate is given this kind of authority or power. We are doubly concerned because of the known attitudes of the current Secretary of Interior as they relate to "scenic values." There is nothing in the proposal to prevent the present Secretary of Interior from ordering all multiple use management on our land ceased which lies within the view of 'the Appalachian Trail. If such a decision were made on a clear day, the vista could extend for many miles.

We believe that our employees and others dependent for their livelihood on sustained yield management of the national forests in Graham County deserve more protection of their job security and the future of their families' economic well being than is provided in this measure. We believe it needs a great deal more discussion. Before such broad powers are given to any man in government it seems to me that he ought to be called upon to spell out what he wants to do with those powers and that should be set forth in the law as the standard to which he will adhere. We think that multiple use of the forests are entirely com-patible with the full enjoyment and use of the Appalachian Trail. We certainly don't think that it is necessary for anyone to operate a logging activity so as to despoil the magnificence of the Trail itself or the land through which it passes. However, we do believe that the current policies and practices of the U.S. Forest Service in managing its land for multiple use along the Appalachian Trail are sound.

We are not legislative draftsmen but we do believe that Section 2(d) should be amended in such a way as to protect present multiple use practices on land adjacent to the Appalachian Trail. We also think that Section 2(f) should be amended to require the establishment of the Advisory Council and that the membership of the Council should include one or more members appointed from landowners and land users concerned. We also believe that Section 2(i) should positively require the approval of Congress of specific lands or interests in lands to be acquired by the Secretary of Interior along the Appalachian Trail as is presently required for national parks.

Roy, I have limited my comments on the bill to what I see as its impact upon Robbinsville and Graham County, North Carolina. Undoubtedly, there are other landowners whose problems with this proposal in their specific circumstances would be different. I urge you for the protection of a good many of our citizens that you insist that language go into the bill that will limit the broad authority given to the Secretary of Interior. Because I cannot be in Washington on a day to day basis to work with you and your staff on this proposal, I am asking the staff of our association in Washington, National Forest Products Association, to work closely with your staff and to keep me fully informed as to the changes made in this proposal. I believe that you can work out some language that will protect the Appalachian Trail for all times, for all users and at the same time avoid the harsh effects of the proposal as it now reads.

With kindest regards, Sincerely yours,
JOHN B. VEACH, Chairman of the Board

************************************************** ***********************************

[Ho Shorts]

Again, I never said it wasn't a true statement.

Thanks for the history lesson though

I suppose you are one of the few Southern nut swingers that still say "nothing else could have been done, blah blah blah" huh?

That is fine, everyone has thier opinions as do I but it's hard, REAAAALLLLY hard for me to believe they did all they could behind all the smoke and mirrors and closed door sessions. I didn't see any real work start until it was entirely too late to make a difference.

Derek

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Ho Shorts

Again, I never said it wasn't a true statement.

Thanks for the history lesson though

I suppose you are one of the few Southern nut swingers that still say "nothing else could have been done, blah blah blah" huh?

That is fine, everyone has thier as do I but it's hard, REAAAALLLLY hard for me to believe they did all they could behind all the smoke and mirrors and closed door sessions. I didn't see any real work start until it was entirely too late to make a difference.

Derek

Man, you're a speed reader!

No nut swinging here . . . just the facts Derek.

[74_Chevota]

This is still hard for the me wrap my head around. Alot of the "facts" are hard to understand in that letter as it is written so one sided. Sounds almost like a sob story for Bemis loosing the land they rightfully owned because the app. trail happend to be close to the property. Very very interesting.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by 74_Chevota

This is still hard for the me wrap my head around. Alot of the "facts" are hard to understand in that letter as it is written so one sided. Sounds almost like a sob story for Bemis loosing the land they rightfully owned because the app. trail happend to be close to the property. Very very interesting.

It isn't a "letter", it's countless hours worth of compiled research that as presented was not meant to paint the “complete picture”. Instead, it represents one small slice of a large complex puzzle.

I have much more but did not include it as I doubted anyone would bother to go through what little I did lay out.



P.S. While the flag I served our great Nation’s Military under for six years during the early 70s fly’s proudly out front in the breeze and I anxiously wait to see whether they’ll get the Federated Auto Parts 400 off due to the rain delay, I’ll leave folks with this.

All public land use decisions are political decisions, driven by many evil forces!!!

Let “Southern” explain this simple fact further . . . for now!

[Ghost]

Any word on the judges decision yet?

[YellowjeepCj]

Not yet

[CLRracer]

http://blogs2.citizen-times.com/outd...t-brook-trout/

Judge ruled in favor of the FS.

Duane

[LYIN' KING]

SOUTHERN FOUR WHEEL DRIVE ASSOCIATION
UNITED FOUR WHEEL DRIVE ASSOCIATIONS
BLUERIBBON COALITION, INC.

MEDIA RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

Paul Turcke 208-331-1807
Greg Mumm 208-244-2112
Roger Theurer 931-841-0672
David Borum 865-310-3270

LEGAL EFFORTS TO SAVE TELLICO FALL SHORT

ASHEVILLE, NC (September 21, 2012) -- The United States effectively walked away from its substantial investment in a sizable portion of the Nantahala National Forest as a result of a recent ruling in the U.S. Western District of North Carolina rejecting four-wheel drive enthusiast efforts to re-open some portion of the Upper Tellico OHV System. The ruling, issued on September 19, came in a lawsuit filed by Southern Four Wheel Drive Association, United Four Wheel Drive Associations, and BlueRibbon Coalition. The suit contended the U.S. Forest Service overlooked required procedures and otherwise acted illegally in closing the 39 miles of trail in the System to motorized access.

The Court ruled against the enthusiast organizations, the Court ultimately concluded "he decision of the Forest Service was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and it was in accordance with the law. Having conducted 'a searching and careful, but ultimately narrow and highly deferential inquiry,' the Court concludes that the Forest Service followed the proper procedures and that there is a rational basis for its decision." The System represented the remnants of a network of former logging roads and skid trails purchased by the United States in 1980 and officially opened as a "high challenge" area in 1986.

"We are obviously disappointed by this result, but knew that we faced long odds in this case" said Roger Theurer, Past President of Southern Four Wheel Drive Association. "We realize the agency has broad discretion, but are incredibly frustrated that they exercised that discretion to walk away from rather than find an effective management solution for the System. It should concern more than just four-wheelers when the federal agency would rather run for cover in the courts than craft a solution on the ground," Theurer observed.

The System was located in a remote and difficult to access portion of the Forest which historically received little attention other than from the four-wheel drive community, who came to attach iconic significance to the Tellico System. As part of the closure decision, a Forest Service contractor has obliterated the former trails and left a maze of boulders and fallen trees in their place, making the former routes inaccessible to all but the most determined hiker.

"We released an update to our enthusiasts during this case called 'Tellico - Alamo' which today seems sadly prescient" stated Greg Mumm, BlueRibbon Executive Director. "Within and beyond our land managing agencies exist strong opponents to meaningful human access and recreation, and we would be wise to learn from Tellico and heed their next project," Mumm concluded.

[TSEJEEPERS]

We pretty much knew what was going it happen.
I do thank those who have fought a losing battle.
The Forest Service did not want us there. It was pretty obvious the first time I went to Tellico. The only ones working on the trails were those who were not being paid.
I am just glad that I was able to run Tellico before it was closed.
Yea I am pissed!

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by CLRracer

http://blogs2.citizen-times.com/outd...t-brook-trout/

Judge ruled in favor of the FS.

Duane

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
~Adolf Hitler~

[kentuckytwostep]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

LEGAL EFFORTS TO SAVE TELLICO FALL SHORT

.
[/thread]

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by kentuckytwostep

.
[/thread]

Huh???