Custer Gallatin NF plan- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14

    Custer Gallatin NF plan

    Custer Gallatin National Forest is in the midst of a plan revision. The comment period closes June 6th. This plan affects bike access and land management for decades. Please check out SWMMBA's analysis of the situation and how you can help:
    https://www.mtbcgnf.org/

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14
    Here's what happens if mountain bikers don't write in:
    Loss of access to hundreds of miles of trails, over 400 if alternative D is implemented. All of the most infamous HOHAs (https://www.facebook.com/HikingOnly/) are jumping on the alternative D drum circle... er bandwagon. If you like to access public land by bicycle, it's time to do a littler homework!

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    550
    Dump the GFP! Support Alternative D!

    The Wilderness Society “straddlers” are championing a proposal that would feature mountain biking, motorized uses, and perhaps even logging under the guise of forest health in the most critical and biologically important drainages of the Gallatin Range.

    The May 10th essay talks about including all the stakeholders but ignores the voiceless stakeholders–the wildlife from grizzlies to bighorn to Wolverine to elk that rely on wildlands for their habitat.

    Wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is increasingly under stress from human encroachment. Recreation is not conservation. Supporting a proposal that allows the best wildlife habitat like the BHP to be a playground for mountain bikers and other recreational “stakeholders” is a crime.

    There are plenty of places to ride a bike, but there are few places where grizzly bears, bighorn sheep, elk, and other wildlife can roam. Can’t we at least give them a little bit of room to roam?
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05...omisers/print/

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14
    There you go. If you feel that mountain biking on existing trails is a crime, tell the Forest why. If you feel that mountain biking is NOT a crime, tell them why. A paragraph or so explaining your stance isn't that hard right?

  5. #5
    Location: 10 ft from Hell Moderator
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,190
    Tungsten doesn't even live in the U.S., he's just trolling as usual.
    "These things are very fancy commuter bikes or really bad dirt bikes, but they are not mountain bikes." - J. Mac

  6. #6
    K&K
    Reputation: ki5ka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    864
    I'm going to violate my own Troll Strategy and post a reply to this. I was really taken aback, visiting the Facebook page that aoliver links above. That there is an audience for posts that encourage and applaud people stringing barbed wire across trails is shocking. People actually gave thumbs up and hearts to posts that encourage behavior that is intended to do someone physical harm.

    The Thrill Biker post, which was reposted here by Tungsten is applauded on that site as a great accomplishment. I infer that Tungsten is a part of this group and after visiting the page, I better understand the futility of attempting to engage in a conversation with such a person.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by ki5ka View Post
    I infer that Tungsten is a part of this group and after visiting the page, .
    No, yank, Tungsten is not part of group. Tungsten did not even know of group until one of Tungstens fellow thrill bikers at the NSMB forums said he'd stumbled across the CP article when visiting the "Hateful Hiker" FB group he belonged to.

    Btw Tungsten hates his Transition and have ordered a brand spanking new

    Custer Gallatin NF plan-nicolai-saturn-14-trail-bike_modern-lightweight-aluminum-7020-alloy-130mm-138mm-travel-trail-all.jpg

    to replace it.

    I'm sure Tungsten will be "thrilled" riding it. In appropriate setting, of course.

    ta ta, suckers....

  8. #8
    mtb'er
    Reputation: Empty_Beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,995
    Dear tungsten,

    I would like to invite you to have sex with yourself.

    Love,

    Normal people

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,957
    So, let me ask you Tungsten, why aren't you lobbying to ban mountain bikes on trails in your home country of Canada? Is the habitat in the US more pristine or something?
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tungsten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by Curveball View Post
    So, let me ask you Tungsten, why aren't you lobbying to ban mountain bikes on trails in your home country of Canada?
    Tungsten is, where appropriate.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Curveball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,957
    Quote Originally Posted by tungsten View Post
    Tungsten is, where appropriate.
    How is that going?
    Riding Washington State singletrack since 1986

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,681
    Quote Originally Posted by aoliver View Post
    Here's what happens if mountain bikers don't write in:
    Loss of access to hundreds of miles of trails, over 400 if alternative D is implemented.
    Where are you finding the various alternatives? What's "Alternative D"?
    Is this the source document? https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/custe...d=fseprd601607

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14
    I would begin at the page you have linked. The executive summary goes over the alternatives. The maps found lower on the page can also be helpful. An even shorter summary is this:
    Alternative A - No action. Just updates necessary parts of the plan, no other changes
    Alternative B - Reflects a plan they created earlier in the process, not much change
    Alternative C - Middle ground between Recommended Wilderness and recreational use
    Alternative D - Maximum amount of Recommended Wilderness which passed inventory
    Alternative E - Emphasizes recreation, including motorized, existing Recommended Wilderness goes away

    If you like bits and pieces of different plans, that is certainly an option to tell the forest and one they will likely use in the final plan. Or just tell the forest what you want in plain terms, they know the alternatives well.

Similar Threads

  1. Custer Gallatin Forest Planning Briefings
    By fleboz in forum Trail Building and Advocacy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2016, 10:44 AM
  2. Gallatin Community Collaborative Meeting
    By fleboz in forum Idaho, Montana, Wyoming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-04-2016, 10:42 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-02-2016, 07:45 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-02-2016, 07:40 AM
  5. Lock 4 Gallatin, TN?
    By Eric Hoefer in forum Southeast/Midsouth - GA, TN, AL, FL, MS, LA, AR
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2011, 07:04 AM

Members who have read this thread: 44

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.