Range of Light National Monument
|
If the Sierra National Forest becomes The Range of Light National Monument side by side ohv's will not be permitted on forest roads, can anyone point out to me a negative consequence of the new monument that would outweigh ridding the forest of side by sides and possibly the morons who so often pilot them? |
|
Given the park service trend towards reservations and lotteries and limitations: good luck with access. I'm certain there is a plan, most likely benefitting the Ahwahnee crowd much more than the Camp 4 club. |
|
Bb Ccwrote: This is exactly the kind of factless speculation that I hear every day as a resident of the foothills (usually coming out of the mouth or the keyboard of an OHV enthusiast). Do you have any objections to the monument based on facts? It is for sure a fact that unplated vehicles will no longer be allowed to operate in the forest and that side by sides can't be plated. I hate side by sides and if you've ridden a bicycle or even driven up central camp road on a summer weekend you probably hate them too. |
|
Bb Ccwrote: I don't know whether Bb Cc is an OHV enthusiast or not, but I am not. He speaks the truth. Rather politely, I will add. The Forest Service fits this profile as well. |
|
Eric Craigwrote: Any facts or just more speculation? |
|
Jim Malonewrote: You are funny as hell. Where you been for the last half century? What's your real agenda here? |
|
I've been living on the edge of SNF for the past 40 years. I was trying to start a discussion based on facts. |
|
Jim, Monument status would shut down auto access to rock climbing, would it not? |
|
Fact: It won't be "the forest" it will be a "national monument". This will substantially change most access and use rules. It will also be one of the largest california land grabs since the Ahwahnechee met the Mariposa Brigands. Go ahead. |
|
Bb Ccwrote: How will it change the access and rules by going from forest to monument status? It still remains federal land, so how is it a "land grab"? Genuinely curious. |
|
FrankPSwrote: I am no expert in federal bureaucracy, I do see and experience some differences between parks, monuments, special geologic zones, forest service lands, BLM lands, Reservations, Reservation trust lands, National Marine Sanctuary. I believe they all have somewhat distinct sets of rules and definitions. |
|
Hi all, I live in Oakhurst and going to the meeting on this proposal I have leaned that this proposal is lead by one person with a non profit organization for the proposed of the monument and this person never goes to any of the town meeting to hear opposition against the monument proposal. This proposal if passed would effect, landlords, ranchers, wood cutting, mining, hunting, fishing, off roading, and yes access roads to places like Shuteye! Yes the side by side people are out of control the past year and a half on roads like, 6s42 (central camp rd) and road 632 (Skyranch) rd and I am not psyched on them as well!!! But off roaders hunters are the biggest user group in this SNF and they should have the right to recreate in our lands as well. I see it coming like what happened on buttermilk rd , law enforcement will put up a 25 mile and hour sign and have a cop with radar giving out tickets, in my opinion the monument proposal will never past, the person behind it has been working on it for years and would cost way too much money to take effect, happy climbing Mike A. |
|
Thanks Mike, I appreciate you and your take. |
|
Jim Malonewrote: Honestly I have no knowledge of this monument proposal. I am very aware of the actual evolution of management of federal lands throughout the western US over the past half century. I have witnessed it first hand. As a backpacker, back country skier, rock climber, alpinist/mountaineer, fisherman, 4wd ( a completely stock jeep Cherokee on unimproved roads) tourist camper, a professional mountain guide, a professional packer, and as a cowboy. Access and use issues are both simple and complex. Like you, I am not a fan of the OHV crowd. But guess what, THEY OWN THE LAND SAME AS YOU AND ME. And until very recently, I never had anything but cordial interactions in the backcountry with dirt bikers and ATVers. It seems our society is changing more rapidly every year, and not for the better. Just a couple of"facts". Over the past 50 years: access has been reduced, sometimes to a mere fraction of previous use levels; fees have increased, not just modest increases in fees already in place, but the addition of MANY new fees ; and all kinds of new regulations. And I really don't want to get started on Yosemite. My guess is, based on ASSUMPTIONS, you are ok with these kinds of facts? I don't know the answers to these issues. Do you? I am listening. |
|
|
|
The biggest change that would affect climbers is reduced access to crags in the form of road closures, increased fees and need for reservations, and generally speaking more rules and bureaucracy between you and the crags. And for those who enjoy mountain biking in the National Forest, well that will be likely banned as well. And dispersed camping will likely go away. |
|
Well, depending on how the hypothetical enabling legislation is written, OHVs, hunting, ranching, or other uses could be left in place. Some NPS sites have them, although it isn’t the norm. And day-to-day management of the Monument could, and probably would, be tasked to an agency already managing the land. So things might not really change all that much if there was a re-designation (although the person promoting the monument seems to have a vendetta against the USFS). While I personally think that all recreational engines and just-for-fun carbon fuel burning should be taxed like any social vice (and in my own Luddite utopia every dune buggy, wake boat, and snow mobile would be banned and then scrapped for good measure), I also want to see a broad coalition of people excited for more land to be preserved for public access and ecological function. Something like this, which isn’t adding to protected acres and doesn’t seem locally popular, feels like a semantic shell game that risks making more enemies than allies for future conservation. It’s not clear to me what the point really even is. The people proposing this should go find more land to preserve and protect public access to, not waste time renaming existing tracts. |
|
Here is proposed legislation from the 117th Congress (2021-2022). That will give you some idea of what might happen. As for vehicles: (6) ROADS.—Roads are defined as roads available only to street legal vehicles. Now in most states ORV, UTVs etc are not street legal. However, in some states such as Utard they are. However, they are still prohibited in lands managed by the NPS. However, there are two issues 1) ORV, UTV, snow machines are an existing use 2) the management may be USFS rather than the NPS. As for climbing: (6) The Range of Light ecosystems, forests, and watersheds provide a wild and rugged landscape enjoyed by hikers, bicyclists, birders, picnickers, sight seers, fishermen, campers, rock climbers, boaters, equestrians, and other recreationists. It is specifically noted which is good. |
|
Eric Craigwrote: Your opening line explains a lot . You know nothing about the proposal yet your firmly against it, you also know nothing about me but assume I love regulations and suggest I am “not fond of the ohv crowd”. Although I am not a professional mountain guide, packer and cowboy like you I have participated in the other activities on your list. Fact is I own and ride an unplated dirt bike on public and private land. I also dislike rec.gov as much as I hate side by sides piloted by irresponsible operators. I don’t feel like every user group should be able to do whatever they want on public lands. And I’m ok with a 25 mph speed limit on the buttermilks road. |
|
Jim Malonewrote: You are still a funny guy. In fact ,really something else. Yeah, I in a very intentional way pointed out that I was making an assumption, so there would be no mistake about it. You sure missed the point. Good bye Mr. Malone. |
|
Cherokee Nuneswrote: What does this even mean? The Needles are within the somewhat newly created Giant Sequoia National Monument and it hasn’t affected access. |