Date: December 31, 2007 9:40:12 AM MST

To: Sandoval Signpost newspaper <email@sandovalsignpost.com> www.sandovalsignpost.com

Re: Letter to the editor about recent Ty Belknap article

Ty,

Thanks for your reply. Sorry for the belated response. I've been out for the holidays a little and when in, I've been covering the front desk and unable to respond to my e-mails.

Unfortunately, I didn't read your first article for which "A ride on the dark side" was meant to provide balance. Yet, I did see some misleading information that I think is important to clarify. Thanks for allowing me to indulge myself here:

- You begin the article by describing the conflict between 'treehuggers' and 'motorheads' as an ugly battle without compromise. The truth is that the large majority of participants agree that it is about time to manage motorized travel on the Santa Fe National Forest. Everyone from the Blue Ribbon Coalition to the Sierra Club agree emphatically on this. Though disagreement does exist it seems to be mostly in the form of posturing for media attention.

- In the second column of the article you state, "We didn't tear up the land or disturb any hikers..." I think this portrays the idea that the use of motorcycles or other off-road vehicles on National Forest Lands really have no or little impact. Your statement doesn't consider the potential impacts of motor vehicle traffic to wildlife habitat (especially during the breeding season) or consider the potential impact of noise to hikers and recreationists that you don't see. For example, the FR 144 route you drove on is just above San Antonio canyon, which is a popular hiking route to the San Antonio hot springs. Though you would never see any of these hikers while riding on FR 144, those hiking in the canyon would have no doubt heard you. Lastly, though you did not 'tear up the land' on your ride, the facts are that motorized traffic on roads and trails do result in increased soil instability and erosion. Especially from cumulative use of trails that are rarely maintained and designed without professional guidance (though the trail adjacent from FR 144 is in pretty good shape because of the flat terrain and stable soil type).

- Also a little further in the article you state, " As dirt bikers are restricted from parts of the forest, trails that they made and maintain will probably disappear, denying acces to hikers and mountain bikers." This is something we hear regularly from members of Black Feather, but I'd have to disagree. I do think those trails rarely used by mountain bikers and hikers will slowly disappear, but I think the more popular trails will not.

First of all, the Forest Service has been working with increased vigor over the past several years to improve, clear, and re-open several old hiking trails that have fallen into disprepair, such as the Bland-Frijoles Trail, the East Fork Trail, the Peralta Canyon Trail, and the Capulin Trail.

Secondly, bikers and hikers are perfectly capable of working by themselves or with the Forest Service to clear trails that were previously cleared by dirt bikers. A good example is the case of cross country skiers who have banded together and regularly work independently and with the Forest Service to mark, clear, and maintain trails for cross-country skiing.

- The next sentence, "Overuse of limited areas once they are designated for motorized use could lead to even more environmental degradation," also includes several false assumptions.

The primary assumption here is that motorized use causes little environmental impact because of its dispersed nature. This is in fact not true. Most environmental damage comes from roads and trails that were incorrectly designed and receive little or no maintainance. The result is trails in unsustainable and sensitive locations that cause impacts to wildlife and recreation conflicts, and/or dump sediment into nearby waterways. In fact, since most dirt bike trails were built by dirt bike users without knowledge in trail engineering and maintainance primarily involves removing trees that have fallen across the trail, most environmental degradation comes from these unauthorized trails.

Implementation of the travel management rule will result in an overall decrease in environmental degradation by removing trails that occur in inappropriate and sensitive areas and focusing maintainance efforts on those trails that are being regularly used by motorized vehicles.

Sure there will be more use on designated trails, but these trails will also receive more maintainance.

- The following statement. "The draft of the Travel Management Plan also calls for drastic restrictions on dispersed camping," is also false.

Travel management doesn't restrict dispersed camping. People will still be able to camp wherever they like, just as before. The only difference would be in how they access these areas. The Travel Management Plan will result in some popular dispersed camping areas to be accessible by foot travel instead of car camping.

- Your next few statements that the new regulations would decrease recreation demands and thus deteriorate government support of public lands seems in conlfict with the facts.

Other National Forests and public lands that have moved toward a managed travel system have shown increases in use by the public instead of decreases. Though it is not clear whether the increased recreation demand is driven by population increases or management changes, the facts clearly do not show a decrease in recreational demand due to more active management of motorized vehicles. This is probably because designation of a travel system results in fewer recreational conflicts, safer roads and trails, and a more ecologically sustainable system. Furthermore, there is also no evidence that implementing a travel management plan will result in decreased funding or government support. In fact, the implementation of this rule has resulted in increased attention to the matter of Off-Highway Vehicle management resulting in additional monies available for public lands management through state grant programs, Congressional appropriations, and industry-supported grant programs.

I hope some of this information is useful. I don't want to discourage you from writing articles about the ongoing Travel Management planning effort as I think it is very important to get information on this subject out to the public. I do, however, think it is essential that published articles on this subject include accurate information as most conflict arises as a result of misinformation.

Lastly, I'd like to offer my services as an information resource to you should you need any additional information about the Travel

Management planning effort or about motorized vehicle use on the Jemez. Thank you for your time and consideration with this matter.

Sincerely,

-mike

Mike Dechter

<mdechter@fs.fed.us>

Santa Fe National Forest

Cuba/Jemez Ranger District NEPA Coordinator

575-829-3535