MT/SD/ND BLM OHV takes affect

mtmiller

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
11,712
Location
Montana
Date: June 24, 2003
Contact: Mary Apple, 406-896-5258

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE TRAVEL DECISION TAKES EFFECT


BILLINGS – If you drive a car, truck, all-terrain vehicle, or motorcycle on Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) lands in Montana, North Dakota, or South Dakota, you can no longer drive cross-country; you must stay on roads and trails. The Notice of Availability of the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Record of Decision will be published June 27, 2003, in the Federal Register. The decision restricts motorized wheeled cross-country travel yearlong on approximately 5.8 million acres in the three states. Travel on hundreds of miles of open roads and trails will continue.

“The new OHV policy is an important step towards the long-term conservation of our
fragile soils, riparian areas, vegetation, and the wildlife species that live in these areas,” said BLM State Director Marty Ott.

Some exceptions will apply. “Cross-country travel will continue to be allowed for military needs, fire suppression, search and rescue, or law enforcement vehicles in emergencies,” Ott said. Folks can also drive cross-country to campsites within 300 feet of existing roads or trails, after locating their campsite in a non-motorized fashion. The new policy does not apply to snowmobiles nor does it affect areas designated as intensive use areas. The BLM has six of these throughout Montana.

The BLM and Forest Service completed a joint environmental impact statement on OHV
travel in early 2001. The Forest Service issued its Record of Decision at that time. Due to
different processes, BLM needed to resolve protests prior to issuing its decision. “In areas where BLM and Forest Service are intermingled, OHV users now have consistent rules,” said Ott. He added that the new policy does not change existing road and trail
regulations. “We encourage folks to check locally and obey the signs that are posted. We’ll need everyone’s help to ensure the success of this new policy,” Ott said. He suggested users contact the appropriate local BLM office for additional information regarding the new requirement and current travel information.

Each BLM office will complete a prioritized list of areas for site-specific planning within
six months. The site-specific planning could include identifying opportunities for trail
construction and/or improvement or specific areas where intensive OHV use may be appropriate or it could designate certain roads as open to travel. The BLM will involve the public in this sitespecific travel management planning.


Factors to be considered in priority setting include: opportunity to provide a variety of
OHV recreation experiences, while minimizing resource damage and conflicts; risk of, or current damage to soil, watersheds, vegetation or other natural, cultural, and historic resources; potential to spread noxious weeds,; avoidance or riparian/wetland areas; need to minimize harassment of wildlife or degradation of wildlife habitat; safety of all users; resolution of conflict between interim travel restrictions and established management plans; history of new roads and trails being created by users; impacts to T&E and sensitive species; special management areas; and opportunities to join other planning efforts.

For more information on priority setting or site-specific planning in the field offices,
contact
Eddie Bateson at the Billings Field Office, 406-896-5241;
Steve Hartmann or Rick Hotaling at the Butte Field Office, 406-533-7600;
Rick Waldrup or Tim Bozorth at the Dillon Field Office, 406-683-2337;
Brandi Hecker or Jodi Camrud at the Havre Field Station, 406-265-5891;
Chuck Otto at the Lewistown Field Office, 406-538-7461;
Rich Adams at the Malta Field Office, 406-654-5100;
John Fahlgren at the Glasgow Field Station, 406-228-3750;
David Squires or David Jaynes at the Miles City Field Office, 406-233-2810;
Brian Maiorano or Nancy Anderson at the Missoula Field Office, 406-329-3914;
Don Rufledt or Doug Burger at the North Dakota Field Office, 701-227-7700; or
William Monahan or Marian Atkins at the South Dakota Field Office, 605-892-7000.

Additional information is also available on the internet at www.mt.blm.gov.
 
That is a good thing Mt..Thanks..
Oak, I wouldn't say that is the fat ass clause, there arn't maintained campsites in most areas, and to move ones camping off the road just a bit makes every thing more enjoyable for the individuals camping and the individuals driving the road and having the campers in the way...
I have done this on many occassions, I never usually take fire into these particular campsites though and try to make a minimal impact on the area I was in...
As soon as the first rain hits in the areas I have been in, only a trained eye can even tell I was there, including where the potty spot was...
biggrin.gif
 
Wow, sanity prevails. Now if it included the other 258 million acres under the BLM's jurisdiction, we'd be getting somewhere (on foot
wink.gif
).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Folks can also drive cross-country to campsites within 300 feet of existing roads or trails, after locating their campsite in a non-motorized fashion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see they got the fat ass clause in there.

Oak
 
Some people didn't read the article slowly did they (OAK)?
Once again we are making things illegal that are already illegal.
 
That is great, I just wish UT was onboard! I know that the Salt Lake district is wanting to rewrite their travel plan (the one is use was written in 1985), but can't because of military reasons.

This is going to happen, the more people there are in or using an area the more rules there has to be in place.

Ten Bears- FWIW, cross-country travel is LEGAL on most BLM lands. Those few exceptions include Wilderness or Wilderness Study Areas. At least that is the rule for the BLM in UT.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-30-2003 09:50: Message edited by: 1_pointer ]</font>
 
Ten Bears, were you playing rip-van-winkle on yet another issue (just like the wolf issue)?

Apparently you forgot to comment on the ORV rules for the 2001 EIS. I didnt, and once again, guess who gets their way? Ahhh yes, the power of writing those silly comments. When are you going to learn?

Up until this recent change, you could ride anywhere on BLM lands, on or off road in MT, etc. This is not making another useless regulation, but rather putting regulations on ORV use, for the first time, on BLM lands in the above mentioned states.

Time to wake up!
 
cjcj,

Disabled access will be allowed per the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Under the Act, an individual with a disability will not, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the BLM. Disabled access per the Rehabilitation Act is considered at the local level on a caseby-case basis. Motorized wheelchairs, as defined in the Rehabilitation Act, are not considered OHVs and therefore are not restricted by this decision.

Here is a link to the Record of Decision

BLM OHV ROD
 
quote:

"Folks can also drive cross-country to campsites within 300 feet of existing roads or trails, after locating their campsite in a non-motorized fashion."


"I see they got the fat ass clause in there."


WOW,I think that would make Idaho the offical "FAT ASSED STATE."
Come on guy's let's hear how many of you only camp in a pay camp ground in any state.

It's time to get your Fat Ass counted. LOL
Oak,not trying to be a smart ass here ,but do you ever camp outside of a pay camp site?

Is it a total ban on all motorized travel you would like to see?
Because that was talking about all motorized travel not only ATV's.
I think this is the problem we face-------
We have state's addressing confussing regulation's,they do there best to get it under control and we still have people that aren't happy.


It leave's everyone access to our road's & trail's ,yet give's the freedom to find a site out of the main part of a road .

It sound's like a good thing to me.
 
BUZZ, sorry to see your ignorance and arogance shine through like that. Here we have had restrictions on use of BLM lands for quite some time. Please feel free to contact the Coeur d' Alene office and ask them about ORV access to the Wallace Forest, or even the use of firearms there. Hope you dont bruise yourself pounding on your chest like that.

1-P, Blm land here is not as open to abuse. There are many restrictions, and moderate enforcement.
 
Come on TB, show me in that article where they made something illegal that was already covered by a law in those states. Can you do it, or were you just blowing hard again?

Oak
 
I just got off the horn with a guy for the Coeur d' Alene office.

He was confused when I asked him about the Wallace Forest, but told me they do manage the Wallace Forest Conservation Area. He told me it was all of 750 acres, and is more of an education area. The reason for the no OHV designation is because this was a requirement of the landowner before he donated it to the BLM.

I guess what you said was true 10, but I don't see the relevance to the original post or what


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some people didn't read the article slowly did they (OAK)?
Once again we are making things illegal that are already illegal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

was all about.

I was just passing on some information that may be of interest, no need to get anyones panties in a bind.
rolleyes.gif
 
Ten Bears, I know these issues are really confusing for you, but if you read real slow and try to follow along...

We arent discussing any rule, law, regulation, or anything else about IDAHO.

You see, Ten, this article was about regulations on BLM lands in MT, ND, and SD...so theres no confusion on your end...MT means MONTANA, thats the state to the east of Idaho...ND would be NORTH DAKOTA, that state is east of MONTANA. SD that is SOUTH DAKOTA which is south of NORTH DAKOTA, thusly the name "SOUTH DAKOTA".

None of these states have anything to do with IDAHO.

If there is any further questions you have regarding which state(s) we're discussing here in SI, might I suggest you consult a third grader with a map of the United States or even a cheap globe. For your comprehension problems might I suggest reading first, taking hooked on phonics, or something of the sort.

I hope this clears things up for you.
 
BUZZ, I see, blanket statements are good when you make them, but bad when others make them.

Here read this:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
On its face, the agencies proposal appears relatively straight forward. However, hidden in the agencies language is a major loophole. Every user created off road vehicle( ORV) trail is grand fathered in. Those trails, whether identified or not, sanctioned or not, legal or illegal, are nevertheless recognized as legitimate. They remain that way until the agencies begin a site specific inventory and analysis that is expected to take up to 15 years to complete. Continued use of these tens of thousands of miles of trails (and creation of miles and miles of new trails over 15 years) will displace wildlife from their preferred habitats , shrink security habitat during hunting seasons, and threaten millions of acres with noxious weeds invasions that can ruin wildlife forage value.

In other words, every track that ORVs have created (and will create) would legitimately remain in place and can be legally used for up to 15 years. This long term use will lead agencies to consider these routes as "permanent" . In many places users have created routes up each ridge and valley bottom. Under this proposal new routes and obscure routes penetrating untracked areas are given the "OK" by the agencies; it is a proposal ripe for abuse and ORV trail expansion.

Montana ORV associations have endorsed this proposal. They naturally see it as an open door to greatly expand off road trail use over the next 15 years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.wildmontana.org/orvspubland.htm

There's a downside too.
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif


Yes, that would be the Wallace conservation district near Coeur d' Alene, Idaho.
 
My appology OAK. After reviewing BLM documents from ID, CO, NV, NM, OR, CA, AZ, & UT, I have come to realize that ND, SD, & MT are about the only ones left with large arceages, but not restricted BLM areas. Welcome to the new world order MT, ND, & SD.
 
Caribou Gear

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,167
Messages
1,949,834
Members
35,067
Latest member
CrownDitch
Back
Top