I am hoping some of you can help me out by sharing your insight into the process for requesting changes to an MVUM.
We have been going to the same Colorado GMU for 12 years, and camping in the same 1 or 2 spots every time. These spots are near the far end of a ‘camp road’ about 200 yards long; this camp road itself is not an official, numbered Forest Service road.
This year the FS has implemented their MVUM for this National Forest and erected signs at 100 yards in, stating ‘no motor vehicles past this point”. Which is in line with normal operating procedure: motor vehicle travel for the purpose of dispersed camping is allowed within 100 yards of officially designated FS roads.
Since this road extends beyond the 100 yard limit the FS has chosen to follow their stated regulation and post the last 100 yards as ‘off-limits for motor vehicles’ and thus for camping as well (for us anyway - we don’t plan to carry our wall tents and all the gear 100 yards haha).
None of us saw the newly erected posts as we drove into camp on Thursday a week ago – in fact we think they may have erected the posts on Friday. When we returned to camp Friday afternoon after a short scouting session nearby they had erected the signs and put fliers and maps under our windshield wipers. At least they didn’t request or force us to move.
Frustrating to be sure, and surprising too since no changes have been for the last 12 years. The MVUM map is dated Jan 2017 so I believe it truly is newly implemented in our area. My understanding is that all National Forests have to develop and implement MVUMs for their areas, so if yours doesn’t have one now it will in the future.
In and of themselves MVUMs are not a bad thing – they help protect the forest resources by controlling where vehicles of varying sizes can travel. Essentially they follow the rule “vehicles can only travel on officially recognized roads and trails”, rather than ‘motor vehicles can travel anywhere not specifically prohibited”. Of course it is a little more complicated than that but not by much.
As I considered all this, I came up with the following thoughts, concerns and questions:
-For the camp road in question, the first 100 yards (the legal part) traverses what amounts to a wet or damp meadow. There is a more or less permanent mud bog along the original part of the camp road. Over time some have driven around the mud bog rather than through it, and of course this has essentially widened the road from a single two track to a track that is probably 3-4 two tracks in width, through this section. In the last 12 years I have seen this widening.
-In the second 100 yards (the now illegal part) the road narrows back down to one two track, with a few small sections where some have driven near the edge of a couple other muddy sections.
-Along the 200 yards of camp road there are probably 5-6 camp sites on each side of the camp road.
-The campsites in the first 100 yards are essentially right in or the very least on the fringes of the wet area.
-The campsites in the last 100 yards are beyond the wet area and in what I would consider sustainable sites – open meadows but not wet. Over 12 years there has been virtually no additional damage or signs of use – these meadows seem to handle the use well.
Can you see where this is going?
Here is my concern: Now, with the 100 yard limit we have two choices – either crowd our camp in with the others in the wetter more delicate area in the first 100 yards and contribute to increased resource damage, or we could find and use a ‘new’ area where no-one typically camps.
It seems like the long term effect will be to increase the resource damage in the first 100 yards of the camp road. Whereas the second 100 yards was not sustaining damage anyway.
All in the name of a rule. Seems short-sighted to me.
Having said all that, if you are still with me, is it even possible to address this with the local FS decision-makers? Perhaps request exceptions for this specific road? Or maybe have this camp road added as an official numbered trail? And what is the best approach to this?
I fear that increased usage in the first 100 yards will be the natural result, and the natural result of that will be more damage and the result of that will be complete closure of the area.
We have been going to the same Colorado GMU for 12 years, and camping in the same 1 or 2 spots every time. These spots are near the far end of a ‘camp road’ about 200 yards long; this camp road itself is not an official, numbered Forest Service road.
This year the FS has implemented their MVUM for this National Forest and erected signs at 100 yards in, stating ‘no motor vehicles past this point”. Which is in line with normal operating procedure: motor vehicle travel for the purpose of dispersed camping is allowed within 100 yards of officially designated FS roads.
Since this road extends beyond the 100 yard limit the FS has chosen to follow their stated regulation and post the last 100 yards as ‘off-limits for motor vehicles’ and thus for camping as well (for us anyway - we don’t plan to carry our wall tents and all the gear 100 yards haha).
None of us saw the newly erected posts as we drove into camp on Thursday a week ago – in fact we think they may have erected the posts on Friday. When we returned to camp Friday afternoon after a short scouting session nearby they had erected the signs and put fliers and maps under our windshield wipers. At least they didn’t request or force us to move.
Frustrating to be sure, and surprising too since no changes have been for the last 12 years. The MVUM map is dated Jan 2017 so I believe it truly is newly implemented in our area. My understanding is that all National Forests have to develop and implement MVUMs for their areas, so if yours doesn’t have one now it will in the future.
In and of themselves MVUMs are not a bad thing – they help protect the forest resources by controlling where vehicles of varying sizes can travel. Essentially they follow the rule “vehicles can only travel on officially recognized roads and trails”, rather than ‘motor vehicles can travel anywhere not specifically prohibited”. Of course it is a little more complicated than that but not by much.
As I considered all this, I came up with the following thoughts, concerns and questions:
-For the camp road in question, the first 100 yards (the legal part) traverses what amounts to a wet or damp meadow. There is a more or less permanent mud bog along the original part of the camp road. Over time some have driven around the mud bog rather than through it, and of course this has essentially widened the road from a single two track to a track that is probably 3-4 two tracks in width, through this section. In the last 12 years I have seen this widening.
-In the second 100 yards (the now illegal part) the road narrows back down to one two track, with a few small sections where some have driven near the edge of a couple other muddy sections.
-Along the 200 yards of camp road there are probably 5-6 camp sites on each side of the camp road.
-The campsites in the first 100 yards are essentially right in or the very least on the fringes of the wet area.
-The campsites in the last 100 yards are beyond the wet area and in what I would consider sustainable sites – open meadows but not wet. Over 12 years there has been virtually no additional damage or signs of use – these meadows seem to handle the use well.
Can you see where this is going?
Here is my concern: Now, with the 100 yard limit we have two choices – either crowd our camp in with the others in the wetter more delicate area in the first 100 yards and contribute to increased resource damage, or we could find and use a ‘new’ area where no-one typically camps.
It seems like the long term effect will be to increase the resource damage in the first 100 yards of the camp road. Whereas the second 100 yards was not sustaining damage anyway.
All in the name of a rule. Seems short-sighted to me.
Having said all that, if you are still with me, is it even possible to address this with the local FS decision-makers? Perhaps request exceptions for this specific road? Or maybe have this camp road added as an official numbered trail? And what is the best approach to this?
I fear that increased usage in the first 100 yards will be the natural result, and the natural result of that will be more damage and the result of that will be complete closure of the area.
