|
|
|
|
wholehog
Jun 3, 2005, 6:39 PM
Post #1 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 12
|
Access to two of Arkansas’ best climbing areas, the De Soto Boulders and Herrod’s Creek sport crag, may be closed due to an ill-conceived Ozark National Forest proposal. This plan, misleadingly titled the Indian Creek Dispersed Recreation Area, will terminate virtually all outdoor recreation within a popular 17,000-acre area of the Mulberry Valley while simultaneously opening the area to unlimited commercial logging. Many outdoor enthusiasts who regularly use the area are appalled and feel the plan is nothing more than a hypocritical, thinly-veiled logging scheme. Although the public will lose access to all roads within the area, including those to popular climbing sites, commercial logging companies will be allowed to use the roads – and build new ones – for the sake of timber extraction.
If you wish to protest the Indian Creek proposal please email the Ozark National Forest Planning Team at:
r8.ozark.planning@fs.fed.us
Comments must include your name and mailing address to be accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
bernard
Jun 3, 2005, 7:36 PM
Post #2 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2003
Posts: 68
|
Looks like they want to implement some wholesale logging due to current and expected high mortality of mature species due to recent drought and insect predation.....but is it right to exclude the public so the logging companies can get at those trees?
i can't see in the document where overuse or soil/water impact due to recreation is a problem.......
What other justification is there in the document for disallowing public use?
|
|
|
|
|
wholehog
Jun 4, 2005, 5:24 PM
Post #3 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 12
|
By terminating public access, timber harvesting can take place without public scrutiny. This plan is exclusively designed to benefit the timber machine; all the “forest health” propaganda is part of a very effective smoke screen. The area has some of the best commercial-grade timber in the region and the Forest Service is essentially creating a “wilderness area” (from a public use standpoint) without any restrictions applying to themselves. They are manipulating a RARE II study on the area (it did not qualify for wilderness designation in the early 1980s) to create a unique, self-serving situation that’s unprecedented on Arkansas’ public lands. It’s time to make some noise!
|
|
|
|
|
couloir
Jun 10, 2005, 5:36 PM
Post #4 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2001
Posts: 304
|
It's seems the Ozark National Forest could be closed to public use(or at least 17000 acres). This is to allow logging to enter the area. Check out Rock and Ice front page for more details.
http://www.rockandice.com/index1.html
|
|
|
|
|
phaedrus
Jun 10, 2005, 7:42 PM
Post #5 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 3046
|
phaedrus moved this thread from General to Access Issues & Closures.
|
|
|
|
|
muslmutt
Jun 11, 2005, 1:35 PM
Post #6 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2004
Posts: 103
|
This is happening along the Mulberry river. River access points that have been there for as long as I can remember are being gated and locked. Roads used by many people for many recreational purposes including to access climbing areas (well to reduce the hike anyway) are also being closed. Unless you are a logger. You can still use these areas for recreation, but no motorized vehicles. So if your intent is to cut down the forest for profit you may use what ever you want, chainsaws, trucks, skidders etc... If you intent is recreation it's going to be primitive. Shouldn't the loggers be required to use hand saws and mules? By the way some of these roads have been there since the 1800s.
|
|
|
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
Jun 11, 2005, 2:21 PM
Post #7 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2002
Posts: 440
|
To send a comment to the Ozark National Forest Planning Team email 8.ozark.planning@fs.fed.us. Be sure to leave a name and address to be included on the list.
|
|
|
|
|
tetons
Jun 11, 2005, 3:27 PM
Post #8 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 7, 2004
Posts: 81
|
Have you talked with the Access Fund, and better yet, are you a member? Either way, they can help and also would be very interested to know about this development. Don't let 'em get away with it -- shout to your congresspeople even if you think it's a waste of time. Kick up a storm -- keep at it. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
arkietop
Jun 12, 2005, 2:46 PM
Post #9 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Posts: 3
|
Just a little -- no very -- misleading -- In a complete revision of management policy for the Ozark and St. Francis National Forests the USGS has designated Indian Creek - a tributary of the Mulberry River as an “area dispersed recreational use“. These means no developed campgrounds, limited facilities and no use of off-road motorized trails. As this area is very popular with off-road vehicles -- in fact the Mulberry watershed has some of the “largest off-road courses” in the country and “gatherings and races” are frequently scheduled and bring thousands of off road enthusiasts to the area every year. Obviously these land-use changes don’t sit well with a lot of folks.
The new Land and Resource Management Plan will NOT terminate virtually all outdoor recreation within a popular 17,000-acre area of the Mulberry Valley. Rather it will simply limit access to the this area and will greatly restrict off-road motorized use. Moreover new Land and Resource Management Plan will NOT open the area to unlimited commercial logging. All timber extraction is under very strict regulations and is designed to meet or exceed “Scenic Integrity Objectives”, remove invasive plants, lessen the impact of the red oak borer, and improve habitat. Moreover the public will be allowed full access to all timber extraction operations to assure full compliance -- and once selective cutting is complete these operations and their roas will be permanently closed. I know of no declared restrictions to any particular climbing wall and were there to be so they will be very temporal, very local and solely to assure recreational safety.
|
|
|
|
|
arkietop
Jun 12, 2005, 2:55 PM
Post #10 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Posts: 3
|
Misleading!
1. Complete public scrutiny is encouraged and certainly is not prohibited.
2. Access to the area is being severely curtailed due to excessive and damaging off-road use -- the Mulberry watershed is one of the popular areas in the Ozarks among off-roaders. Climbers are in no way being restricted albeit yes access may be more distant.
3. Nothing unprecedented going on here -- the USFS has designated other areas of the Ozarks as roadless or as wilderness areas following RARE studies. Their goal is to attempt to restrict unfetthered access to as many remaining wilderness sites as possible.
4. We can debate the merits of "forest health" ad infinitum but all resource extraction is being done under very well defined regulations and once they complete their selective cutting they'll move out, gate the accesses and let the woodlands reclaim and reestablish a "healthy forest".
By all means make some noise -- but don't be a patsy for off-road vehicle users -- they can fight their own battles -- and hopefully lose!
|
|
|
|
|
mccooljc
Jun 12, 2005, 4:31 PM
Post #11 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 25
|
Having grown up in Arkansas, I think I can say that loggers aren't the big bad wolves most tree-hugging hippies try to make them out to be. Timber is an important part of the economy in Arkansas, and is typically harvested very responsibly. If it isn't harvested in a responsible, renewable manner, then you run out of stuff to harvest and you go out of business, so there is certainly incentive to be judicious with the logging. That's why you see a lot of block-cutting like what was across the road from my old house. You harvest within a specific block, then move on to another area while that block regrows. And just like pruning plants in the garden, it might not look so good at first, but that new growth will grow back pretty fast and exceed the old growth. The fast growth rate of new trees in Arkansas is something I took for granted until I moved out to the desert; in a few years, you'll hardly be able to tell anything had been harvested. Besides, harvested areas usually have great hunting and motorcycle trails. Logging, at least in Arkansas, is old news.
|
|
|
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
Jun 12, 2005, 4:46 PM
Post #12 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2002
Posts: 440
|
In reply to: Misleading! 1. Complete public scrutiny is encouraged and certainly is not prohibited. 2. Access to the area is being severely curtailed due to excessive and damaging off-road use -- the Mulberry watershed is one of the popular areas in the Ozarks among off-roaders. Climbers are in no way being restricted albeit yes access may be more distant. 3. Nothing unprecedented going on here -- the USFS has designated other areas of the Ozarks as roadless or as wilderness areas following RARE studies. Their goal is to attempt to restrict unfetthered access to as many remaining wilderness sites as possible. 4. We can debate the merits of "forest health" ad infinitum but all resource extraction is being done under very well defined regulations and once they complete their selective cutting they'll move out, gate the accesses and let the woodlands reclaim and reestablish a "healthy forest". By all means make some noise -- but don't be a patsy for off-road vehicle users -- they can fight their own battles -- and hopefully lose!
Sounds great kid; let's keep those motorized vehicles out. Send the loggers in on foot, with handtools. If this actully is about the health of the forest, and not about creating a profit for some logging organizations it would be not only feasible but a PR coup as well.
BTW, you wouldn't happen to, uh, work for the feds would you?
|
|
|
|
|
arkietop
Jun 12, 2005, 4:56 PM
Post #13 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Posts: 3
|
"Send the loggers in on foot, with handtools. If this actully is about the health of the forest, and not about creating a profit for some logging organizations it would be not only feasible but a PR coup as well."
I like your logic there -- probably not practical, but certainly sound reasoning. And share Mr. Cool's sentiments -- nothing new here -- they cut -- we complain -- trees grow back -- and the cycle starts all over again. Arkansas is just one big tree farm -- and I'll take trees over an industrial chemical plant anyday.
And no I don't work for the feds -- not going to say never -- but I tend to fight them tooth nail and claw in nearly all endeavors...
|
|
|
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
Jun 12, 2005, 9:20 PM
Post #14 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2002
Posts: 440
|
In reply to: "Send the loggers in on foot, with handtools. If this actully is about the health of the forest, and not about creating a profit for some logging organizations it would be not only feasible but a PR coup as well." I like your logic there -- probably not practical, but certainly sound reasoning. And share Mr. Cool's sentiments -- nothing new here -- they cut -- we complain -- trees grow back -- and the cycle starts all over again. Arkansas is just one big tree farm -- and I'll take trees over an industrial chemical plant anyday. And no I don't work for the feds -- not going to say never -- but I tend to fight them tooth nail and claw in nearly all endeavors...
Yeah, you gotta point there. Sustainable timber agriculture is an inevitable part of our culture; it's certainly hypocritical to complain about logging when you live in house made of wood, and wipe yer bum with paper made from pine trees. I just wish we could figure out how to minimize the impact where we do log. Private cuts in NW Arkansas are nearly as bad as the chicken industry...
But in all seriousness, when I hear the Forest Service start talking about cutting to "preserve the health of the forests", my bullshit meter starts beeping.
|
|
|
|
|
wholehog
Jun 13, 2005, 3:42 AM
Post #15 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 12
|
Although the plan does not directly illegalize "climbing" in the area, it does close the existing GRAVEL roads (formerly county roads) accessing both climbing areas. This will halt climbing at these popular areas simply because folks are not going to be willing to hike miles and miles (roundtrip) to go bouldering or cragging at De Soto or Herrod's. How do you think climbing at Horseshoe Canyon, Mt. Magazine, or Lincoln Lake would be affected if all access roads were suddenly closed (for no good reason) and a 6-8 mile round-trip hike was suddenly required? Legal or not, people would just go elsewhere.
Now let's look at some of the other stuff. This plan claims to promote non-motorized activities such as mountain biking and horseback riding. What does the Forest Service expect these folks to ride on? The extensive network of existing historic roads throughout this area, many predating the Forest Service's existence by more than 50 years, are presently maintained solely by responsible motorized users. A huge percentage of these folks are senior citizens who have been recreating on these roads for a lifetime. They pick up trash and keep the roads clear of fallen timber, thus making a feasible riding experience for all (bicyclists do not carry tools or saws). The Forest Service makes no mention of plans or funding to maintain these trails for the non-motorized folks. Without motorized users these roads will quickly become useless to all. Thousands upon thousands of responsible users, motorized or otherwise, will no longer recreate in this area or keep a watchful eye on logging activities.
By the way, hikers stay on the Ozark Highlands Trail. The trail falls within a corridor of visual protection created by the Forest Service (in other words, visually sheltered from the logging activities). Hikers do not see even 10% of what the road users see. They are not a good monitor for logging activities.
A far better approach would be to charge the motorized users a $30-$50 annual fee. This would generate millions of much-needed USFS dollars that could be pumped back in to the Mulberry Valley for recreation purposes (it might also alleviate some of the financial pressure behind all the -- ahem --"forest health" logging plans). A portion of the funds can be used for law enforcement to ensure the roads are not being abused.
I am a climber, mountain biker, adventure racer and trail runner (many of the routes and boulder problems in this area are mine). I do not own or regularly use an ATV or motorcycle. I do VERY regularly enjoy non-motorized recreation in this area. Although I have yet to be upset or disturbed by a single motorized user in the Indian Creek area (I have seen many responsible users and I appreciate them keeping the trails rideable for me!!), I have certainly been sickened by commercial logging sites.
Click on this link to see what I’m talking about. Be sure to study the “before” photos of the motorized trails – I’d say the loggers win the environmental destruction contest hands down!
http://community.webshots.com/album/348030737XtcKEJ/0
As it is currently written, the Indian Creek Dispersed Recreation plan is very poor.
|
|
|
|
|
mccooljc
Jun 13, 2005, 4:15 AM
Post #16 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 25
|
In reply to: A far better approach would be to charge the motorized users a $30-$50 annual fee. This would generate millions of much-needed USFS dollars that could be pumped back in to the Mulberry Valley for recreation purposes I am a climber, mountain biker, adventure racer and trail runner (many of the routes and boulder problems in this area are mine). I do not own or regularly use an ATV or motorcycle. I do VERY regularly enjoy non-motorized recreation in this area. Although I have yet to be upset or disturbed by a single motorized user in the Indian Creek area (I have seen many responsible users and I appreciate them keeping the trails rideable for me!!), I have certainly been sickened by commercial logging sites. Click on this link to see what I’m talking about. Be sure to study the “before” photos of the motorized trails – I’d say the loggers win the environmental destruction contest hands down! http://community.webshots.com/album/348030737XtcKEJ/0 As it is currently written, the Indian Creek Dispersed Recreation plan is very poor.
Hmm, I always find it interesting how people always want to charge other people for their activities, but are horrified at the prospect of paying anything themselves. It's so easy to say, "Charge them! They'll pay for all of us." If I were an ATV rider, that'd fire me up enough to say "let's charge all the trail runners, bikers, and climbers $50/year." Sometimes I think outdoors enthusiasts, and especially some climbers, have the most selfish, one-sided perspectives on the planet.
Oh yeah, when has the government ever collected fees and used them wisely? Any usage fees charged to anyone would just go to fund more red tape. We all know that.
As far as the pictures of logging, you reference... yeah, that's logging. Big freaking deal. I don't know how you thought they moved large quantities of big trees out of a forest, but they don't miracle them out, they use big machinery. But guess what? It grows back. Not immediately, but a few years isn't really that long a time span in terms of trees. Besides, as 'arkietop' pointed out earlier, would you rather have a tree farm or a industrial plant? I'd take the clear-cutting that grows back after a while.
|
|
|
|
|
wholehog
Jun 13, 2005, 4:45 AM
Post #17 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 12
|
We DO pay fees to the USFS to play in the Mulberry Valley -- at several river access points. I will be the first to fork up $50-$150 a year for my forest activities as long as the USFS manages the forest for recreation and not timber extraction. Nobody is talking about building a chemical factory. What we’re discussing is the role commercial logging should have in the Mulberry Valley -- one of Arkansas' most important destinations for a wide variety of outdoor enthusiasts. We're also taking a serious look at how the Indian Creek proposal, regardless of what it claims, may negatively affect many types of recreation, not just motorized users. Those photos show road-building activities that are PERMANENT and unnecessary (gravel does not go away). The USFS is laying the groundwork for lots of future logging in this watershed – all in the name of “Forest Health”. Dare we question if this is simply propaganda? I say let people recreate, let the forest heal itself, and get your lumber and toilet paper somewhere else!
|
|
|
|
|
mccooljc
Jun 13, 2005, 5:02 AM
Post #18 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 25
|
In reply to: I say let people recreate, let the forest heal itself, and get your lumber and toilet paper somewhere else!
This was one of my main points! It's always "somewhere else"! It's always "not in my backyard". Hey guess what? If you want your toilet paper and wood siding and everything else our society uses that is made from wood, then you're just going to have to suck it up and admit that it will be in your backyard. States like AR, WA, OR, and most of the South are tree-producing states. Face it - you're where it's at. I moved from AR 5 years ago to a state (NV) where 2 or more trees within 5 miles of each other is considered a forest! The nation's lumber supply certainly isn't coming from here! But that's ok, maybe we can just go down to South America and chop down some rain forest. I hear mahogany makes for great toilet paper, and best of all, it doesn't interfere with your recreational outings.
Also, just because you can afford $150 per year to go walkiing in the woods doesn't mean everybody can. But then that's not your problem either.
|
|
|
|
|
wholehog
Jun 13, 2005, 5:13 AM
Post #19 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 12
|
Do you not feel that there are special places that should be set aside, protected from logging? What qualifications would a place need in order to qualify for such protection? By the way, I make less than $10,000 a year.
|
|
|
|
|
mccooljc
Jun 13, 2005, 5:56 AM
Post #20 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2003
Posts: 25
|
In reply to: Do you not feel that there are special places that should be set aside, protected from logging? What qualifications would a place need in order to qualify for such protection? By the way, I make less than $10,000 a year.
Yes, I would agree with that. However, I don't really see logging as a destruction of a natural resource because the vast majority of the area affected can be regrown. Sure, there will be more or less permanent access roads created, but what percentage of the harvested area is prepared road surface? The area where I grew up had clear cut areas literally across the road from my house, and probably 95% or more of the cut area was regrowable. Compare that to the open-pit mines here in Nevada. I also try to look at things from a resource management perspective. Even though I'm an engineer in the steel business, I still think of wood as a renewable resource that can go through several stages of recycling. As such, it would be foolish not to use such a resource for certain applications. With that in mind, certain places produce an abundance of fast-growing trees (pine trees, in particular), and these places will naturally be material sources. I love walking through the forests, especially after living in the desert, but we still have to balance our desire for aesthetics with our material needs. Now if someone comes up with a way to make structural lumber out of recycled trash, then I'll agree that we should have less logging. Until then, we have to use what we have available.
That desire to maintain some of the beauty of the forest is why you have more block-cutting and less clear-cutting. There was a time when loggers would've just worked their way across 10 or 15 thousand acres of forest and left nothing. I think our resource management methods have progressed since then.
My main complaint in all of this is when I see everybody start jumping on a bandwagon to stop this or stop that because it interferes with our hobby, without trying to see both sides of the argument.
As far as spending $150 on a $10,000 income - we all spend our money as we see fit. If it means that much to you, go for it. Personally, I've never been at a loss for free places to go climb, hike, ride, or kayak, so I would probably just move if any of my places started charging. To each his own.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jun 16, 2005, 2:02 AM
Post #21 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Welcome to my world. Here in the Black Hills the Forest Service has been systematically shutting down large tracks of land, camping areas, pullover fishing sites, etc for the last 20 years. Many of the people that grew up here and used these areas will never see them again. I still hike back into many of these areas and have seen 1st hand the mess left behind from logging, I'm not against sensible logging, but many of these areas are a fire danger. Just out of sight, thanks to road closures, there's branches and jack pines laid over each other till its 2 feet deep in tinder dry fuel. A year later they'll have a "prescribed burn" which inevitably gets out of control. Some areas are closed to protect a stream, they say, yet u walk in there and a couple hundred head of cattle are wallowing in the stream keeping cool. I've cornered a few of the Forest Service managers and face to face debunked all their phony reasons for doing what they do, in the end its always the same answer i finally get out of them; to many people partying down there. Wish they were stewardesses to "our forest" instead of "their forest".
|
|
|
|
|
bsignorelli
Jun 22, 2005, 3:40 AM
Post #22 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 415
|
In reply to: How do you think climbing at Horseshoe Canyon, Mt. Magazine, or Lincoln Lake would be affected if all access roads were suddenly closed (for no good reason) and a 6-8 mile round-trip hike was suddenly required?
You mean, like, no more gym rats or pad people? (c:
Climbers hike in to climbing areas all the time. If it's a four mile hike in then you better get started a little earlier. Or hike in and camp for a night or two.
Frankly, I wish Mt Mag had a longer hike....kinda sick that you can (practically) rap off the balcony of the new lodge and land in the climbing area.
Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
ww
Jun 23, 2005, 5:11 PM
Post #23 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 8
|
I think if you read the proposed plan and follow the discussions on the various bulletin boards you'll discover the forest service plan is flawed on several levels, not only the access to the climbing areas mentioned. But to focus on these road closures.... It is important to note that these are well established GRAVEL roads, easily travelled by passenger cars, putting up a gate will not make them go away or make them any more scenic for hiking. All a gate accomplishes is keeping the majority of recreational users from gaining easy access, thereby allowing the forest service to log under less public scrutiny. The forest service rationalized the road closings due to lack of funding for road maintenance (I believe this, because they never maintained these roads), but at the same time, a mile away the forest service is BUILDING A NEW GRAVEL ROAD to aid in timber extraction. So they are building a new road at the same time they are closing two roads because they can't afford to maintain them.....does that make sense? Point is, IMHO the forest service is ignoring a prominent and important resource: RECREATION, in favor of an established but controversial resource: TIMBER. What I think we need to consider, in making Recreation in the National Forests a priority in the minds of the Forest Service, is ways to unite the RECREATIONAL USERS (be they OHV's, hunters, climbers, hikers, canoeists or other responsible users). I like to hike long stretches without crossing a road as much as anybody, but that is not the reality here, and this revision will not make that happen. As for becoming a lobbyist for the OHV user....I just don't know. My first reaction to OHV's is to severly limit them in the forest. But when I stop and think about it, I can honestly say that, except for one instance in a NF campground, I have never been bothered by an OHV in the NF, and have often encountered OHV's helping to clean up trash and maintain mountain biking trails. Seems like most of them like the same things about the woods that I do, just want to get there a different way.
|
|
|
|
|
madflash
Jun 25, 2005, 4:46 PM
Post #24 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 77
|
[quote="bsignorelli"]In reply to: How do you think climbing at Horseshoe Canyon, Mt. Magazine, or Lincoln Lake would be affected if all access roads were suddenly closed (for no good reason) and a 6-8 mile round-trip hike was suddenly required?
You mean, like, no more gym rats or pad people? (c:
Climbers hike in to climbing areas all the time. If it's a four mile hike in then you better get started a little earlier. Or hike in and camp for a night or two.
Darn straight. It would be such a shame if anyone in these parts ever had to walk more then a couple of hundred yards to go climbing. I mean we're climbers right? Not hikers. I didn't even know I had feet untill yesterday. I don't know about you guys but I really don't want to have to do anything remotely resembling work. Walking a couple of MILES in...well that's just rediculous. Sounds too much like commitment to me. Can you imagine it hiking for miles into your favorite spot and not seeing a single car. No pad rats running around talking about the latest sharma problem. No grid bolting. We would all actually have to grow balls and climb something with grit. That would be unacceptable. Also, whoever thinks that De Soto and Harrod's are two of the best climbing areas in arkansas is freakin deluded.
|
|
|
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
Jun 25, 2005, 6:18 PM
Post #25 of 28
(11260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2002
Posts: 440
|
In reply to: Darn straight. It would be such a shame if anyone in these parts ever had to walk more then a couple of hundred yards to go climbing. I mean we're climbers right? Not hikers. I didn't even know I had feet untill yesterday. I don't know about you guys but I really don't want to have to do anything remotely resembling work. Walking a couple of MILES in...well that's just rediculous. Sounds too much like commitment to me. Can you imagine it hiking for miles into your favorite spot and not seeing a single car. No pad rats running around talking about the latest sharma problem. No grid bolting. We would all actually have to grow balls and climb something with grit. That would be unacceptable. Also, whoever thinks that De Soto and Harrod's are two of the best climbing areas in arkansas is freakin deluded.
You're missing the point. On the surface this sounds great; reduce impact, return the woods to their wild state, etc. But here's the catch; the roads will be closed to climbers wishing to drive in and do a bit of bouldering, but not to the skidders and log trucks.
In my opinion, a few climber's cars (and even a buttload of hunters on ATV's) will have slightly less impact than this;
http://image12.webshots.com/...8046872xOQHsF_ph.jpg
Or this;
http://image48.webshots.com/...8037051TYaLTk_ph.jpg
Or this;
http://image32.webshots.com/...8048785TlOKCk_ph.jpg
Maybe I'm just crazy here, but I'd prefer to keep things the way they are now.
"Selective cutting to preserve the health of the forest" my ass.
BTW, the public comment period ends Monday, June 27. If you think that this plan is a good idea, that's fine; speak your mind. If you think the goddamn feds are trying to sneak in the backdoor and hand the logging industry some of your land, send in your comments (not like it'll help, but you might sleep better).
address;
r8.ozark.planning@fs.fed.us
Regards,
KA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
