Comments by Kurt

Page 1 of 1

Posted on March 21 at 7:23 a.m.

The LPNF is 48.3% designated Wilderness, 27.6% semi primitive non-motorized (de facto wilderness) 18% is semi primitive motorized. That makes 75.9% of the LPNF that is closed to vehicles for any purpose (except for the special class of USFS workers) Hikers use vehicles to get to their start point and drive or hike through what few areas are open to all the others and then get mad because they had to bewith them. Go hike way back into the Dick Smith or the Sespe for days it's wonderful and stop trying to take for your enjoyment what few roads routes are open to the rest of us.
Thank you Gallegly this bill is the way it should be. Want more Wilderness designations you must give more access. who knows you may want to drive on it one day to get near a hiking trail.

On Making the Los Padres Even More Wild

Posted on March 20 at 6 p.m.

Research for yourself the truth the bill DOES NOT OPEN an equal amount of acres to OHV use The two areas in the bill are already managed marked trail only systems it just makes boundarys for this type of use, no new trials will be in these two areas except a half mile entrance to Ballinger Cyn. The LPNF now has 48.6% of its land as Wilderness, 27.6% classed as semi primitive non-motorized (de facto Wilderness) 18% semi primitive motorized (also classed as Backcountry) so 75.9% is closed to multiple use types such as the old the very young fourwheelers and yes OHV. Is it too much to ask that when we make more Wilderness that we create more access in the 18% of the forest where multiple use is allowed, come on lets be honest.

On The Gallegly bill, which increases Los Padres protected wilderness, AND increases off-road motorized areas:

Posted on March 18 at 1:59 p.m.

Whose definition of "backcountry" shall we use. Here are some facts, the LPNF has land management classifications which include
Wilderness 48.3 %,
Semi Primitive Motorized 18.6% (also classed as "backcountry")
Semi Primitve Non Motorized 27.6% (de facto wilderness)

The area it appears you are all refering to is shown on the ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) Map as semi primitive motorized so for those who wish to recreate without being bothered by other citizens who choose to recreate in another way, why do you not go to the 75.9% of the LPNF where you have it all your own way???

Mr. Gallegly thank you for making us all work together. More Wilderness designations should be tied to more access for the multiple use groups.

That is not just OHV it is the old the too young, the handicapped, rockhounds,fourwheelers, on and on.

I ask you all and Forest Watch why is this not the fair and honest way to deal with more additions to the 75.9% of the LPNF where you already have what you want for your personal recreational needs????

On More Wilderness and Off-Roading?

Posted on March 16 at 1:16 p.m.

I as an avid extreme hike have hiked all of Death Valley from Eureka Dunes to Dumont Dunes and 90 per cent of the way I heard vehicles and near the campgrounds and resorts I encountered trash from other hikers and even piles of feces and tp. It is very disconcerting to read the comments above that state all multiple uses (OHV, fourwheel driving, old peope and too young to hike, rockhounds, day birdwatcher, hunters etc.) should not be allowed access to our public lands because some guy just drove himself there and after he gets out of his car he should never have to hear someother person accessing our lands. And then acts as if there are not bad apples in the hiking communities. Shall we close out all hikers from Death Valley because some day hiker crapped without a hole and left his granola bar wrapper and plastic water bottle where he ate? Should all vehicles be barred from where I hiked in Death Valley so I did not have to hear them?

I also fourwheel, ride a dual sport, very quiet, and a mountain bike. It appears my ethical and moral standards are not as high as some in that I will do these higher impact forms of recreation, but I try as best I can to have as little impact as possible clean up where I can and respect others whose path I cross.

I think this bill is the most responsible way to deal with the above diverse opinions in that you want more Wilderness then the multiple-use community (thats a lot more than just OHV users) should receive more access to some of the many, closed over the decades, useable roads. This wilderness addition for that access.

Good job Gallegly, make us all work together.

On Protecting Los Padres Wilderness — and Dirt Bikes?

Posted on March 15 at 3:09 p.m.

As an avid extreme hiker (Piru Cr from Fishbowls to 126 for one trip and Death Valley without trails) I do not have the same high moral and ethical values as some in that I also like four wheel drive routes and ride a dual sport off road motorcycle as well as a mountain bike. Variety is the spice of life. But I do have an impact, but so do those who decry the sound of a vehicle when they are hiking. How did they get to the trailhead. That dirt road is alright when they are on it but not the one someone else drives on? The comments attributed to Mr. Boring about the two areas "they are already almost entirely open to off roading" is not the full truth they are areas that have a managed on marked trails only system. What is legal now will be the same if the bill passes or does not. I as an multiple use enthusiast would never advocate for unrestricted motorized use of all public lands, will the advocates of more and more Wilderness designations allow the rest of us an opportunity to recreate responsibly. Just read the comments and see for yourself the answer to that question. I am saddened that "politics" dictates how we manage our public lands for ALL Americans, just be aware that the tables can be and may well be turned on people who wish to dictate that our lands be manged for just their particular recreational desire.

On More Wilderness and Off-Roading?

Page 1 of 1

event calendar sponsored by: