I would like to respond to Chris Fredrickson letter to the editor in the August 15, 2017 Sun Advocate.
He, as being an avid sportsman and enjoying the outdoors, should understand the meaning of access to all public land by all and stated that at the very beginning of his letter, “our Forest Service Lands are lands of multiple use not just for one group of people”. Problem with the Nuck Woodward closure is that it afforded two distinct groups of people access, hoof and foot, and excluded access to the only other group that used it also, motorized vehicles. In which of these three categories do you place the elderly and handicapped?
I quote “it would not be good for there to be a road in every canyon”. Motorized vehicle owners where not asking for a new road, nor a road in every canyon, we just wanted the road that was there and has been for years left alone and kept open. As far as impact on wildlife habitat and other resources I think both would benefit far more from the road being closed all year with exception of hunting season.
Would you be ok with that? I think not nor would a lot of other recreational users. So why should motorized vehicles users be shut out, especially during the hunting season? You thought access was pretty equal as far as time goes. It wasn’t the matter of having equal time by all, it was the closure of a road used by many for years, period. You had to be at least somewhat suppositious of the time frame the Forest Service chose to make the closure.
Your opinion that the temporary closure was a compromise by the Forest Service to allow access by different individuals at different times of the year.
Let me give you some figures to think over. Forest Service is always stating how many miles of motorized roads and trails there are and they’re just trying to make it a more equal balance for the hoof and foot users. Ever wonder why they have no such figures for the hoof and foot users? Not only do hoof and foot users have access to all those motorized roads and trails but they have access to everything else the motorized vehicles do not. Other words they have 100% access to the Manti LaSal NF except for where physical barriers prevent it.
I have a map put out by Manti LaSal NF that shows there are 1093 miles of motorized roads and 212 miles of motorized trails. 1,093+212=1,305 total miles. I won’t differentiate between the two, motorized to me is motorized.
All the roads, not trails, I’ve traveled on, ranges anywhere to just barely wide enough to travel to 20 feet. I’m going to give whomever the benefit of the doubt, I’m sure I will receive some rebuttal on this, and say that all are motorized roads and trails are 50 foot wide.
There is 7,909.09090 acres taken up by the motorized roads and trails.
If you go to the web site https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/mantilasal/about-forest, right after the first word it states there are 1,413,111 acers in the Manti La Sal National Forest. 7,909.09090 acres is .005596% of the Manti La Sal National Forest total acreage being used by motorized vehicles.
Now I will ask as many others have, how is this equal and where is the balance?
Doug Carter
Price, Utah
[dfads params='groups=4969&limit=1&orderby=random']
[dfads params='groups=1745&limit=1&orderby=random']