Your Comments Wanted On Legislation by Aug 18

[Fisher Cat]

There is a pending discussion about the use of motorized transports, including ATV's, on trails. The Department of Justice is inviting anyone to comment on this issue. You do not need to be affiliated politically, environmentally, or any other way, to comment.
There is a link below you can click on that will give you the opportunity to read and then comment on this legislation. Under the banner : Comment or Submission, type in: CRT Docket No. 105. This will open the link to read the prospectus and comment.

REMEMBER the deadline is Aug 18. This is an important issue to all hikers and trailworkers.

http://www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp

 

[David Metsky]

<mod hat>
And I'll just put a pre-emptive plea to everyone to address the issue without bashing any particular group or activity. Let's be civil out there.
</mod hat>

 

[Grumpy]

Best link to what this is all about is here .

The material is provided by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy.

Be sure to read the “Background Information” provided through links on the page above. This includes The Appalachian Trail Conservancy’s “analysis” and a list of “nine questions” to which the rulemakers seek answers.

Clearly, there should be concern about the Appalachian Trail. But I think the greater immediate threat in these proposed rules is to preservation of non-mechanized foot trails under state and local jurisdiction.

Short deadline for comments at this point. But the issue is important.

G.

 

[Maddy]

I might be confused again, but it wasn't that long ago that we had a discussion regarding blazes and shelters being removed from "wilderness" areas in order to preserve the "pristine" environment. To have a small blaze on a tree marking a hiking path would surely desecrate the woods.
I cannot believe that having motorized vehicles shooting up and down hiking trails is now being considered as a possible option.
Is it that the "non-wilderness" areas of the White Mts are not regarded with the same "pristine esteem?" Obviously, they are not.
I had no clue that motorized W/C and ATV were in the same category.

 

[Fisher Cat]

I cannot believe that having motorized vehicles shooting up and down hiking trails is now being considered as a possible option.

In principle here's something to think about. The trail that the four of us adopted forms one of the borders of the Pemi Wilderness. No power tools in Federal Wilderness, that's the law, or at least what we were instructed. Technically therefore, we could use power tools for our work, as the one side is Wilderness, the other is not. We opted not to because: 1-Who wants all that unnecessary motorized equipment running when they are there for the Wilderness experience, and 2- Swinging an axe is, and shall always remain to be, one of the greatest forms of recreation possible, its really pure fun.
It would seem logical, therefore, that the same standards on motorized anything would fall into the same outline, Though I know, there would be those who differ.

 

[Grumpy]

Be very careful about applying "logic" to predict the outcome of regulation writing, which is in play here. What makes perfect nonsense to you well may make perfect sense to the regulation writers and those who will approve them.

Remember, too, the regulations being written in this case are not land use regulations, but regs to govern access standards for disabled persons under laws like the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

G.

 

[Fisher Cat]

Be very careful about applying "logic" to predict the outcome of regulation writing, which is in play here. What makes perfect nonsense to you well may make perfect sense to the regulation writers and those who will approve them. G.

Nothing could be closer to the truth than that statement!