Off-Roaders join ski industry: An unlikely union?

3 thoughts on “Off-Roaders join ski industry: An unlikely union?”

1. that the tens of thousands of comments from Coloradans during the Task Force process, referenced in the Blue Ribbon Coalition attack piece, supported the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule by over 90%?

   Somehow the materials all fail to mention this simple fact.

   Did you know that the CDOW’s field biologists, during the TF process, also took this position?  That 100% of Colorado’s roadless areas deserve full protection?

   Did you know, in fact, that in EVERY public comment period–on the original 2001 Rule, during the Task Force, and on the DEIS last summer–comments have overwhelmingly favored protecting these important and sensitive national public lands?

   Did you know that the proposed Colorado rule would allow oil and gas development on nearly 100,000 acres of roadless forests beyond hat would be permitted under the 2001 Rule?

   Do you have any evidence, anything at all to suggest that Sen. Udall and Rep. Salazar oppose the Gov holding a comment period–a public comment period, you know, to gather public comment–on the state’s proposed rule?

   Thus you forgot to add, to your list of folks who support a stronger roadless rule (than what the state is proposing – even now with some changes since the DRAFT EIS was published last summer.

   90% of the public that commented in any comment period you choose to examine;

   CDOW biologists;

   Hunters and anglers–including groups like Trout Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers;

   Outdoor enthusiasts and organizations such as the International Mountain Bike Assoc, American Whitewater, American Hiking Society, Access Fund.

   Notice, finally, my use of the term ‘DRAFT.’ As is the case with federal rulemakings, which this is as these are NATIONAL lands, the USFS is undergoing a NEPA process.  That is still ongoing and in fact no final EIS has been published… So, how again, is gathering public feedback during a public rulemaking so terrible….?

   Log in to Reply

   1. On one side we have:

      The vast majority of the people of Colorado and the United States whose objective is to preserve a small portion of our natural heritage for future generations.

      And on the other:

      Small groups, albeit well organized and well funded groups, that want to exploit our public natural resources for personal gain.

      Log in to Reply

   2. is not a NEPA comment period, I should clarify.  

      The state is merely gathering additional comments on its proposal prior to submitting it to the USFS.  Why this is so objectionable to the motorheads is mysterious.  

      The state is a cooperating agency and has to submit its final proposal to the feds, which will then get wrapped into that decision-making process and–presumably–be reflected somewhere in the final EIS and perhaps decision.  

      The Task Force recommendations–which reflected well carving up roadless areas based on particular interest: coalmining, oil and gas, ski industry–were not specific whereas the rule itself, of course, is.  If anything the state is relying too much on the Bush-Owens Administration era Task Force recommendations, some of which seriously undermine protection of these public lands.

      Log in to Reply