Recreation in Southwestern Idaho is going to be impacted by another travel management proposal called the Canyonlands West project area. Comments will be accepted until October 23, 2023. This area is 756,000 acres that holds popular areas such as, Juniper Mountain, Halogeton Flat on the western edge of the TMA, the Owyhee River, Battle Creek and Mud Flat Road. BLM recently conducted travel management for the Canyonlands East area. There is also legislation to designate more Wilderness in this area on the Oregon side of the border. If you enjoy recreating in the Owyhees, you need to be tracking and participating in these processes. By joining BlueRibbon Coalition, we will keep you informed on all developments in this area.
Alternative A is the alternative best for multiple use, local communities and continued access. All alternatives given to the current management will close a portion of motorized routes. The BLM is claiming, “there are sufficient alternate OHV trails in neighboring TMAs within Owyhee County.” The BLM is using neighboring trails as justification to close routes within the Owyhee West Travel Management area. This is a popular area that has seen an influx of use. This contradicts the BLM’s position, which states, “As motorized use in the planning area is currently low and dispersed and is not anticipated to increase significantly due to the remote nature of the area,”
The area already contains substantial acreage of desisgnated wilderness, so the impacts from the multiple-use areas are already minimized by the portions of this area that are restricted wilderness.
The first map is the current routes, Alternative B, C and then D. Clearly Alternative B restricts the most routes to users.
The Bureau of Land Management insists that use in the area is sparse to moderate. Even so, this is not reason alone to justify the closures of motorized routes or re-designations from motorized to non-motorized. This is also why if you use this area or have plans to use this area, we need your voice to be part of this process.
The BLM recognizes that ebikes have very few studies, which document their impact. The best available science regarding their use shows that, “Soil displacement measured in this study was not significantly different (statistically) from that associated with mountain bikes.” However, the states that because of this information, ebikes will not be allowed on non-motorized routes which is not consistent with the best available science.
We encourage everyone to tell the BLM to support a plan that allows for abundant recreation for all users in this area.
Why are you letting special interest groups strip our lands away from us! your job is to be a steward and a safe guard of our lands. please stop letting our lands be stripped away.
Stop the madness!!! Public land is just that it belongs to the people, not the special interests groups!! You are stealing from the American people!! Robing us of our natural resources and rights also you are discriminating against senior citizens and those with special needs. The land belongs to us
Give it Back!!
Stop trail closers! There has never been a good reason to close these remote trails when the majority of users are motorized off road users. We the off road community are better stewards than the blm has ever been. Take a page from our book and just stop the non sense.
46’s America.
The off-road committee seems to be always on the loosing side. I been using OHV trails for over 50 years. We are ask or told we are giving up a portion of our roads and trails to wilderness or whatever. Then 5 or 6 years later we have to go through the process again. NO MORE! Tired of always being on the loosing side! Thank you, Jon
Public Lands are for many uses not selected groups.
Give them an inch, and they won’t take a mile. They’ll take it all.
I urge the adoption of Alternative A which clearly addresses the multiple use responsibilities of the BLM. Plan B should not be considered, especially in this time of proliferation of OHV’s, which could lead to overcrowding of the remaining trails.
By conducting travel management again, you are saying that your previous travel management was done improperly, with the amount of money and time invested in the last travel management and with legal ruling confirming other BLM travel management decisions why are you going back on your decision now. Was the BLM any less intelligent or knowledgeable then, I believe not. If traveled, management is conducted again the BLM is going back on its word and this management as well as previous management plans are brought into question. How can we trust the BLM’s rulings if they themselves do not trust their own rulings. How can a route that was previously concluded to protect America’s natural resources now be harmful, despite similar traffic. If the users are causing a real problem, address them. For example, if weather is rutting out a trail, which gives the BLM reason to close it. A better solution is to work to remove erosion by constructing water berms or even reroute the trail. Improve the trail instead of closing it. The BLM made the right decision in 2011 thus Alternative A should be picked.
There are responsible land users that have a right to use designated PUBLIC LANDS! If it were up to these special interest groups, the whole planet would be designated a wilderness area! Sounds pretty stupid. So is the clousure of these lands that provide a income to local business establishments and recreation for families and friends.
Please use a fair evaluation in your decision making process.
Thank you.
The constant path of only offering further closures and restrictions is proof that the current policy is misfocused or misguided. At this point the best option is policy “A”.
Do not allow the closure of these beautiful areas where I have traveled as a kid and as an adult please. These are not your roads to close.