The Forest Service in the Lolo National Forest, the Superior North district located East of Missoula and near the town of Superior, is proposing several projects including vegetation and recreation management projects.
BRC supports vegetation projects that help maintain the forest to prevent wildfires that ultimately cause loss of access. However, we are concerned with the recreation management projects. There are several routes being proposed to decommission, change to non-motorized only or only allow seasonal access. There are many miles of new, nonmotorized trails being proposed but no new motorized trails. Land agencies consistently give preferential treatment to nonmotorized users. Not only will restriction of access hurt motorized users but also dispersed camping and other forms of recreation.
Below is also the proposed map for the vegetation projects:
You can read more about the specific projects on the Forest Service Planning website here.
Comments are accepted until Jan. 18th. Please use our action alert tool to stand up against the closures for motorized users. We always recommend you add in your own personal thoughts and comments to make your comment original.
As a sixth generation American proud to live in this country my Great Grandparents, parents, and I have all paid a massive amount of taxes to help insure that our Public lands are for Public use. Our family enjoys and respects our National forests and want to continue to do so for generations to come. We are all very upset that we keep losing access to more of our favorite places to camp, hike and bike every year. Please stop taking our public land away from us. We want to be able to support and donate to keeping this land available for future generations and we are opposed to the massive land grabs happening where our public land is restricted and taken away from us. When this happens we are NOT a free country and we don’t have National forests that are ours to use.
I am 73 yrs old and it is hard for me and thousands of people of age to hike or even walk for any distance. So we need to have motorized units to get around, over uneven surfaces. We still love to get out in to OUR NATIONAL FORESTS. So every time the people that are suppose to be taking care of OUR NATIONAL FOREST closes a motorize road or trail, they are DISCRIMINATING against the disabled. So I am against any road or trail closures to motorize vehicle.
We propose that 10 miles of new motorized trails be developed for every 1 new mile of non motorized trail.
And we propose that 80% of existing non motorized trails be reopened for motorized access… any less is bigotry and discrimination and only allows the selfish non motorized users to never learn to share.
As a combat Veteran I encourage you folks to make the right decisions FOR A CHANGE.
I propose that 10 miles of new motorized trails be developed for every 1 new mile of non motorized trail.
And I propose that 80% of existing non motorized trails be reopened for motorized access. Any less is direct discrimination of motorized users and only allows the selfish non motorized users to never learn to share.
As an adventure rider, look for places that are available for dispersed camping. Places that have a through passage are a plus. I live in Colorado, but this area would be a fun place to explore. I hope it stays available.
I do not support changing motorized trails to non motorized trails.
My family and I are opposed to closure of motorized trails and decommissioning of trails and access roads in the Lolo NF, as proposed by the latest USFS plan. Our forest system was created to support many uses, and all types of recreation. Ongoing closures and reductions in access negatively affect large numbers of recreation users, including campers and hunters and their access to dispersed areas. Please consider these comments in opposition to closure and reclassification of trails in the Superior North district, as well as all USFS lands.
Hi- This article on decommissioning trails was published on Sharetrails.org on 1/17/22 and comments are due by 1/18/22. This doesn’t provide much time to reply. Reading this article, I understand that the Forest Service is proposing closing trail 1718.1 to motorbikes. They state that this trail does not get much use. I motorbiked trail 1718.1 last year (Summer 2021). I cut out trees that had fallen across this trail. It is good to have trails that don’t get a lot of use to recreate on. They provide a different experience than heavily used trails or roads. This trail was not marked and the entrance was difficult to find. The Forest Service also states that, because of habitat management and grizzly bears, there be no net increase of motorized use, so in order to open a road they need to close a single track motorbike trail. These are not the same and they should not be traded. Also, trail 1718.1 basically starts out of the town of St Regis, which is covered in roads, so both this trail and the proposed road could be open without any real impacts to habitat or grizzly bears. The Forest Service has already closed a single track motorbike trail in this area. Trail 205 was open to motorbikes on the original MVUM and has since been closed. Trail 205 is just a few miles from trail 1718.1. Please stop closing single track motorbike trails. We need more recreational opportunities, not less. Thank you to
Road closures would have a bad effect on dispersed camping—loss of sites, more pressure on those remaining. Road closures also have an adverse effect on backcounty access—much longer approaches, particularly hard on older folks.
Please don’t close any motorcycle trail or roads for camping. Motorcycle sales have set all time high people need place to go otherwise they just go where ever .motorcycle rider are the biggest group to maintain muti use trails.
I cannot support your proposal to decommission several motorized routes in the forest while adding new non-motorized trails and no new motorized trails. This only puts more pressure on the remaining motorized routes. I support more access for older folks, like myself, and motorized trails do this.
Road closures are bad for fire fighters ,older folks and handicapped people also prevents camping dispersion ,If anything we need more access.
I’ve had a belly full of the FS ALWAYS wanting to close more trails to motorized uses, creating new non motorized trails and NEVER creating any new motorized trails. This has been going on for 50 years! How about at LEAST a balanced use agenda for a change? I can’t believe in 50 years that you have not erred on the side of closing too much. If you have to be doing something to justify your existence, fix that!
Trail closures are not forest management.
Forest management balances public lands enemies to alleviate the dangers.
Trails provide wildlife corridors, fire breaks, recreation, and harvesting of dead and dying forest fuels.
Please take a hard look at the cost of lost habitat from wild firesade possible by lack of forest management.
Thank you for NOT closing access to motorized recreation and motorized management by the public, ie wood cutters, mushroom hunters, campers, all family pastimes and or family small business.
In reading the proposed management plan I appreciate the effort to maintain an equal number of roads open for public use and the prioritization of roads that provide access to meaningful areas and/or have frequent usage. Many of the areas my wife and I have previously hiked to are becoming more challenging to us and an increasing amount of access is now by vehicle.
This past summer we used dispersed camp sites at four different locations accessed by vehicle. Please ensure that motorized areas have adequate dispersed sites available.
BTW every site we use is left cleaner than when we arrive 🙂
There are more people than ever before using dispersed camping and motorized recreation ,these road closers will send people to already overused areas.Please keep these roads open.
I oppose the closure of these motorized routes. With the larger amount of people in the area and motorized activities becoming more readily available these closures would only confine people to one area more often creating congestion, erosion, and illegal land use. Keeping legal trails open helps eliminate these issues. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us!
To restrict access to motorized users while increasing access to non motorized users is truly a shame. Many motorized users are not physically able to partake in the strenuous activities required to access these areas unassisted. This includes my recently retired parents who just purchased their first RV which they’ll use to travel from Pennsylvania to Montana and Colorado to visit their families every summer. Please allow them to have the chance to enjoy our public lands in the twilight of their lives as they deserve.
My family and I oppose the closure of motorized trails and decommissioning of trails and access roads in the Lolo NF, as proposed by the latest USFS plan. Our forest system was created to support many uses, and all types of recreation. Ongoing closures and reductions in access negatively affect large numbers of recreation users, including campers, atv riders and hunters and their access to dispersed areas. Please consider these comments in opposition to closure and reclassification of trails in the Superior North district, as well as all USFS lands.
I am strongly opposed to closure of any motorized trails and, or the decommissioning of trails in the Superior North district on all USFS lands, as well as any access roads in the Lolo NF, as has been proposed by this latest USFS plan. Our forest system was created to support many uses, and all types of recreation. These continual closures and reductions in access negatively affect large numbers of recreation users, including campers and hunters and their access to dispersed areas. Closing areas and roads is not managing our forests, and many of we older folks that don’t fall into the fit, granola eating, twenty-something crowd rely greatly on these roads and places of access.
This notice on decommissioning trails on USFS (public) lands, to my knowledge, was published on Sharetrails.org just yesterday,1/17/22, and any comments are due by 1/18/22. Thanks, Forest Service, for the openness and transparency; this doesn’t provide much time to reply, and seems to be a best kept secret from locals by USFS?
Please stop closing our roads, access, recreational opportunities, we need more, not less. Thank you
As a veteran who protected this country, construction owner,4H provider, search and rescue, hunting , camping etc etc I have packed bridge material on my mules for forest trail access. I am dedicated to all our forest future , as I reach my golden years I will need road access to all National forest and all camping areas, their are disabled vets that fought to save these lands and to stop or limit any use would be a great insult, maybe a one day class to permitted users is one way to educate to be a good guardian rather than remove any and I mean any existing roads trails camping areas of any means of using the forest,
I am opposed to closure of motorized trails and the decommissioning of any existing trails. Education is key. Educate ALL users on trail use. As a Native American I am well educated on the effects of having no access to land.