>The FS definitely gets public input on any trail closures, major
>modifications, and new trails.
This is off the original topic but I will respond because I think it is important
Basically, I think that you think the outreach process works because you like the current management direction and I think it doesn't work because I don't
A few examples:
* The FS has officially made the Mt Isolation Spur a bushwhack and removed the sign for it although it is heavily traveled and has been in guidebooks for 50 years
* Although Wilderness direction is that trails will be more lightly blazed, I don't think there is great public support for actually removing blazes when there is such a backlog of useful trail work
* I am told that when the first Wilderness was approved in the Wonalancet
area, the then-leaders of the WODC were traditionalists who wanted the
shelters to remain and were told by the Forest Service they could stay as
long as they were incrementally maintained and never in need of major
maintenance. While the present leadership of the WODC apparently supports
the shelter removal, I'll bet there are a lot of people out there who feel they were lied to on this issue.
>But the issue here is NOT the closure of a trail. It's the management
>of a route that is not an official trail, and as such, doesn't really
>rise to the level of an official comment process.
In a similar situation, the FS often discovers "unmapped" roads as part of a timber sale analysis and as part of the proposal suggests either that they be classified or that they be restored to nature. (See Mill Brook sale for examples.) This is what should have been done for the Owls Head path in my opinion.
> However, I would
>certainly expect the FS to tell anyone the reasons for a "no
>maintenance" decision, and hear any other views on the matter. If you
>have a problem with any of these decisions, don't hesitate to talk to
>the district ranger.
After I wrote to Senator Gregg, I was invited to discuss Owls Head with 2 FS officials with the ground rules that I could bring one or two others but it would not be a public meeting, and they would not provide any written documentation for their decision as the reason was secret. I felt that Gene Daniell was a more appropriate representative of the hiking community and he agreed to go instead perhaps with Steve Smith, but in the great transfer this role was foisted upon Eric Savage. I don't know if he ever met with them (perhaps sworn to secrecy?) but in any case the FS has never provided any explanation that could be posted on VFTT for instance. I don't consider this appropriate outreach from the FS.
Since the FS staffers rotate every couple of years, I have pretty much
decided to wait for these Dick Cheney clones to move on. With luck their
successors will come from someplace like Vermont which has a totally different Wilderness management policy, and it will be you not me who is tearing his hair