From the Redding newspaper this morning.
It won’t draw the national attention of this week’s scheduled House of Representatives vote to repeal the health care law.
On the upside, though, a bill introduced Friday by Rep. Wally Herger might not be doomed to failure in the politically divided Congress. And, if it passes, the bill could defuse an increasingly bitter feud between the U.S. Forest Service and Northern California off-road recreationists and county governments.
Over the past few years, in an effort to limit the damage to the landscape from unregulated off-roading on national forests, the Forest Service has been drafting maps under its Travel Management Rule to designate where motorized travel is allowed — and the rule forbids driving anywhere else. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest passed its rule this spring, drawing angry appeals from Shasta and Siskiyou counties.
Other forests have seen a similar local reaction, though environmental groups, for their part, are pushing the Forest Service to close roads and restrict motorized use.
Nobody, by this point, is arguing for lawless off-roading. At the same time, the Forest Service’s plans are unreasonably restrictive — barring the use of quads and dirt bikes on many remote backcountry roads on the argument that they are “highways.” And while it’s closed or broken up many popular recreational routes, users have been left with the vague but frankly unreliable promise that someday the agency will consider additions.
Herger’s bill would specify the commonsense point that, when it comes to off-roading, rough dirt roads through the backwoods (maintenance-level 3 roads, in Forest Service parlance) are not “highways.”
It would also require further review of the use of existing “unauthorized routes” — many of which are long-popular trails, though not officially part of the Forest Service road system, rendered illegal by the Travel Management Rule — before the travel maps would take effect.
This legislation would tweak, not scrap, the Travel Management Rule, and it would do so in a way that would heed the people who live nearest and use the forests. Not coincidentally, it would remove the largest beef that is driving many Northern California counties toward expensive litigation with the Forest Service.
It’s good to see Herger making it a priority, and we hope this sensible bill gets a fair and quick hearing in the 112th Congress.
Plumas