Nat Forest at risk?

[Q]

For those of us who love the outdoors, and that should be most, be aware.

http://www.arkansascanoeclub.com/mb/vie ... php?t=7111 (http://www.arkansascanoeclub.com/mb/viewtopic.php?t=7111)

It is said better there than I could repeat. While some areas may be overused, restricted rights ain't cool. Please voice your opposition.

[OldRiverRunner]

Sorry, but I can’t let this one pass unchallenged. I’d advise all of you to read through the proposed regulation REVISION (not a NEW regulation as this group, River Runners for Wilderness- or RRFW – would have you believe).

To me, it seems very, very reasonable. But the RRFW likes to gain support from those who love the outdoors by spreading inaccuracies and half-truths. They would have you believe that the normal person will lose their rights and access to the National Forest FOREVER if this REVISION goes through. Hogwash!

First of all, the National Forests are NOT National Parks. They fall under the Department of Agriculture and are for multi-use purposes, including recreation and commercial use, such as mining and logging. But the RRFW overlooks the mining and logging interests and focuses instead on stopping commercial outfitters and guide services who want to take paying customers into the forests to enjoy Nature.

But why? Because, in my opinion, the RRFW are a bunch of elitists who don’t feel that anyone without the skill or equipment or time should be allowed access to certain parts of the Nat ional Forests or National Parks. And oh, by the way, the outfitters and guide services provide this access.

I have experience with RRFW trying to severely limit or even stop commercial river running companies from access to the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon over the past 2 or 3 years. I have personally used such a commercial company for over 20 years in my 8 trips through the Grand Canyon. I can attest to their respect for and preservation of the wilderness. I also appreciate their service by opening up the wilderness experience each year to hundreds of people who otherwise would not be able to do such a trip on their own.

But the RRFW wants to limit access to wilderness areas to only a few. They claim that public lands should be for ALL. But they want to restrict the public’s access to these lands by any means except those that they approve. How hypocritical! Yes, the National Forests are at risk -- because the RRFW elitists want to keep out the growing public who want access to them. – ORR

[Q]

Good other side of the coin ORR, thanks.

I missed National parks. I saw Forest service. I will make time to reread the link, NOT the RR,s note. As I would hope anyone would read instead of acting on what someone else sez.