Greg Mumm Greg lives in South Dakota and his interests include 4-Wheeling, fly-fishing, and camping. |
|
The Open Gate
July/August 2010
By Greg Mumm
As many of you know by now, the BlueRibbon Coalition, Southern Four Wheel Drive Association and United Four Wheel Drive Associations filed a legal action against the Forest Service decision to close the trail system in Tellico in May of this year. To many, I know it may have seemed like a long time in coming—I know, I certainly received my share of impatient emails. As many would have and did suggest, it isn’t an option to just file a legal action “willy-nilly” and hope to prevail. Additionally, it is always prudent to avoid turning things over to the legal system whenever possible.
The fact is that while we were all committed to take whatever steps were appropriate to work toward meaningful solutions in Tellico, there was a defined process that needed to be followed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
So we followed the legitimate NEPA process and faithfully exhausted all the potential administrative options for generating workable solutions. In the end, however, at Tellico, we were faced with little option short of filing suit to preserve reasonable alternatives involving the trail system there. The entire premise behind the closure—that water quality in the Tellico River is harmed by the trail system—simply is not true. The science does not support the conclusion.
Thus, here we are in the courtroom now. Truth be told, the Forest Service actually forced our hand at some level on the legal action. In late April, while we were still researching and evaluating the options, the Forest Service posted a solicitation for contractors to decommission the bulk of the existing roads and trails in the system.
Think about that for a minute, specifically from the viewpoint of the enthusiast and from the perspective of the local dependent communities and businesses.
First of all, where in the world do you come up with millions of dollars to obliterate a system, leaving nothing in its place to offset the loss in revenue to the local communities, when you cannot come up with substantially less revenue to properly manage for OHV activity? Where is the logic in that? Especially in light of the fact that management options (legitimate fixes to all issues were identified) that leave the system in place would provide sustainable environmental solutions; have a self-sustaining fee program and a robust volunteer support program; and continue to contribute the 4.9 million dollars in revenue to help keep the local economy vibrant.
And think about this: where in the world is the analysis of the effects of the hugely ground-disturbing activities of obliterating the trail system on the Tellico River? Where are the studies of possible impacts to other forms of recreation that use these roads?
For my part, I struggle with understanding the logic and justice to this solution. Please help us draw a line in the sand by donating to the Rescue Tellico legal effort at www.sharetrails.org/rescue-tellico. Win or lose, sometimes you just have to take things to the next level to do what is right.
