Mail this letter to bcc@fs.fed.us and save the trails in your backyard!
Dear U.S. Forest
Service:
I would like to express my
concern and objections to the recent changes that are being proposed by the
Bear Creek Watershed Assessment as it relates to the Greenback Cutthroat Trout.
For the last 5 years I have spent my
spare time hiking many of the trails that are possibly closing. Most of my
hikes and time spent in this area can be found on my blog (http://hiking-co.blogspot.com/)
that I started to document the area and other things I find of interest. I
understand that erosion from the traffic of some trails may be impacting the
Trout, but I have some arguments that I hope can be seen as valid.
I have reviewed the proposed
transport system as provided by figure 4 of the Bear Creek Watershed Analysis,
and I have a few comments that I would like to share. My biggest issue with
these changes is that all or portions of trails 622 .A, 668, 720 .A and 701 are
looking to close. These changes will severely impact the amount of looping
trails hikers will have access to. With the proposed changes, we are now
limited to one major trail (667) and one loop consisting of trail 668, 701 and
720. As a hiker, it has been great to have options that do not cover the same
ground over and over.
In addition, the remaining
open trails are all almost motorized, leaving very little trails to
non-motorized use. It seems that with the changes, the motorized users have access
to almost all the trails, while hiker-only trails are limited to portions of
sections 666 and 622. The trails that are looking to close see foot traffic as
well as motorcyclists and bicyclists. I
can see where closing these trails to motorcycles makes sense, as they can cause
major erosion, but I struggle with how the hiking community has to be impacted
as well. I often come across families who are out enjoying the beauty these
trails offer.
If trails 720.A, 668, 622.A
and the lower portion of 667 and upper portion of 666 could remain open to
non-motorized use, hikers would have more options for enjoying the beauty of
the area. In addition, hikers would not have to contend with dirt bikes on
these trails. Foot traffic causes very
little if any erosion compared to motor bikes and bicyclist. I understand
trying to be fair, but look at the amount of trails that are for motorized use
and the very limited amount of non-motorized trails. I believe that some
concessions can be made on the trails mentioned above. I encourage leaving the
trails open to foot traffic and then revisiting the issue in a few years. I am
sure we will find that hikers and trout can co-exist.
As it relates to High Drive, I would
encourage closing this road to vehicles. I often see people speeding down this
road and kicking up dust, and endangering hikers and other motorists along the
way. It is a beautiful drive, but it can be just as fun to walk, hike or bike
if people so choose. Therefore, I urge you to reconsider, or at the very least,
take into consideration how much pollution motorists make as opposed to hikers.
I and others feel it will be a real shame to see this part of our beautiful
nature area taken away.
Regards
This morning we took the brats over to the Dog Park to get some exercise and play around in the water. They were both pretty happy about it. We did a couple of laps around and on each pass Roxy would head down to the water. Mable, she's not so much a water dog, prefers the dry ground. We go over early so it wasn't to crowded.
