ATV's in Ntl. Forests.

[GBUSA]

I am not against ATV's, but in national forests they should stay out and the forests continue to stay pack in and pack out. Next will be your hellicopter pads in the parks. I spent years out west in the forests and found the same thing one finds on the lake by your self-solitude. Express an opposition for a no-brainer. There is a place for everything, but keep the forests quiet. Web site below and email address for opposition to be expressed.

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/index.shtml
trvman@fs.fed.us

GB&GBUSA,
Jerry

[2 DOGS]

Hmmm! I guess you don't believe national forests are for everyone. I think with the millions of acres of national forest land there is room for all. Designated areas for each type of use could certainly be accomodated. Everybody wins!

[Shellback]

I personally am not a fan of ATV's, snowmobiles or jetski's, but I guess the owners do have their right to enjoy them. Probably designated trails in low impact areas would work. Now if the rule for venturing off the designated trail is immediate confiscation of the ATV and then it being sent directly to the crusher, I'll vote for it. How's that for being fair? I kinda like it!

[GBUSA]

I can already see that we are again in the area of "too many self interest groups wanting to change", with the use of mr. zoros money.

The National Forests need to stay just as they are and it is a time in history for the sake of my country to support a strong leader. Not an opportunist that has the time to video his war actions.

I truly speak as a foreign war veteran of Vietnam that we need less self interest and more boarder patrol-shut them down. When is everyone going to get it that we are at war since 911 and they will strike again-maybe your kids school.

You/WE have really got to wake up and smell the coffee. The game is real!
GB&GBUSA

[Terroreyes]

<I bet you'll vote for Kerry too>

You've got that stereotype all wrong! I'm all for it being everybody's forest(public, not corporate America), of course with minimal impact. Seeing some oil wells in the park? That might just tick me off.
[br][div align="center"][br][center][br][font color="#3300CC";font face="Roman"; size="+2"][b][br][br]Terror - [font color="red";font face="Webdings"; size="+3"]NN

[none]

This ones gonna get ugly!

ATVs aren't allowed on the national forest around here. I have talked to forest rangers and there answer was that too many of the guys rip the forest up hotdogging. This is true, I have went on big rides with groups and there is always an idiot (or several) in the group that just want to rip sh!@ up. Its still not fair to those who just want to take a nice easy enjoyable ride and enjoy the wilderness. It on the same lines as gun control. Because some idiots want to shoot other idiots with guns, this make OTHER idiots (politicians) want to take hunting rifles from honest hunters. Fact of the matter is you can ban all ATVs and guns and the people that want that to missuse them still will get guns and still will rip up the forest with there ATVs. I own an ATV and feel its my right as a tax paying american to take a ride through OUR forest anytime I wish.

[Trailerguy]

[font color=green size=3][b]I own several ATV's. The wife and I like to ride the logging trails in NWO, no harm, no foul. I certanially can't hurt what a logging truck already hasn't. But I think that if a NTl. forest was nearby, it would have to be on designated trails only. I don't beleive aggressive tires and straight thru diferentauls belong just anywhere they want to go. My .02's

[The Democrat]

"Probably designated trails in low impact areas would work."

They're called "streets," exist in cities, and come with crushers. }(

[ftw]

The #### with it what, I have to say you couldnt handle.You #### right this will get ugly, I bet this stuff will be nucked.

[The Democrat]

Speaking of videos, I cracked a rib from laughing so hard at that one with the "Mission Accomplished" sign in it ... :7

[The Democrat]

Oh, you can pretty much count on that ...

[Trailerguy]

[font color=green size=3][b]I'm not familiar how your state treats ATV's, but mine treats them the same as snowmobiles, they are registered, and you can only drive in the ditches after at least 1/2" of snow. That pretty much eliminates "streets" as an option. An ATV isn't any more annoying than a 50+ mph boat when you're trying to fish, :) .

[Steve B]

I live in Ohio where we have the Wayne National Forest. This National Forest is atv friendly. It costs $5 a day to ride the trails, which is put towards the upkeep of the trails. There is a $175 fine for riding off of the designated trails. The trails are closed from Nov 15 to April 15 so the hunters can have their share of the fun. The revenue that is generated from the atvers to the local stores and campgrounds is quite substantial, I'm sure.

So lets go ahead and ban the atvs from the forests. What's next, banning boating from public waterways? Maybe the atvers don't like seeing boats on the water as they drive lakeside to watch the sunset. Maybe they're tired of seeing the oil slicks floating around on top of the water around the many docks and marinas.

[GBUSA]

I have to say that you have something there. I see a compromise, but how much is put back into repair and how much study has been put into enviromental/wildlife impact? This can still get ugly if not really policed in super heave duty manner.

Here is why. While hunting in Cuba, NM one year (San Pedros Ntl. Parks) a guy and his son went in on an ATV. Out there in the west is the land of the original land people-indians. They shot and killed both, right off the ATV's. Nobody in that country will ever find who did it.
I am deffinately not condoning this action, just what can go on in the west (rockies). Guaranteed trouble! And I know that they will never ever let an ATV on the forest lands as the state will step in with laws.
GB&GBUSA

[The Democrat]

Common sense argues that public lands should be regulated according to local needs and conditions. What works in Wayne National Forest may not work elsewhere, and vice versa. I agree in principle with the idea of trying to accomodate everyone, including motorized users, but any given use must be directed onto compatible lands and prohibited where it damages the land.

The West, despite its vastness, is fragile. Its arid lands are easily damaged and recover slowly if at all. In some places, you can still see the wheel ruts from wagon trains of 150 years ago.

Western forests grow on hilly terrain with a thin soil layer that takes thousands of years to accumulate. In many of the western national forests, allowing ATVs on trails would cause irreversible erosion that would permanently damage the land. This erosion also may foul spawning streams, and the West cannot afford to lose any more spawning habitat for its endangered anadromous fish. Billions are being spent to save these fish, and it makes no sense to negate this expenditure, and lose these species, just to accomodate one group of recreationists. The obvious solution is to restrict these vehicles to designated lands suitable for this use.

[The Democrat]

I would rather have a wise leader than one who thinks with his crotch.