|
Well, it seems the Denver Post may have gummed up the story and added to
the confusion that has already been generated with the new proposed US
National Forest Service rules.
A visit to the regional office and reading through the proposed changes
helped clear up my questions.
Due to the overwhelming confusion over the new rules, they have extended
the comment period through May 18th. If you want to make comments, they
must be in writing and sent to;
Jack Thomas, Chief
Forest Service, USDA
PO Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
First off, I saw no complete ban/restrictions in regards to
shooting/hunting in NF. If read too quickly, it might be mistakenly
assumed to be, but the actual text of the rules does not support that. I
am personally concerned with the wording on a few changes such as the
word possession of a firearm - you'll need to decide for yourself on that
and the others and whether you want to send in a comment or not to the
'chief'.
Also I found nothing about Bear-proof boxes required for campers in the
text either. Not sure where the Denver Post came up with that...
I have copied their brief synopsis of the rule changes presented in a
question and answer format. If you want all the gory details, you should
visit your local USNFS office and read them all for yourself. Copies of
the draft regulations can also be found at most public libraries in the
Feb 16th issue of the Federal Register.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
o Why is the FS trying to restrict public behavior in the proposed rule
at 36 CFR 261.4(b)?
The current regulations state that the following are prohibited;
"addressing any offensive, derisive, or annoying communication to
any other person who is lawfully present when such communication
has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to
whom, individually, the remark is addressed; make statements or
other actions directed toward inciting or producing imminent
lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action."
The proposed revision state that the following are prohibited;
"using language, an utterance, or gesture, or engaging in a
display or act that is 1) obscene, 2) physically threatening or
menacing, or 3) done in a manner that is likely to inflict injury
or incite an immediate breach of the peace; and with intent to
cause public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy or violence, or knowingly
or recklessly creating a risk thereof."
o Would grazing permittees be subject to the change proposed for 261.7 (a)
- Livestock?
No. The current regulation state that the following are prohibited;
"placing or allowing unauthorized livestock to enter or be in the
National Forest System or other lands under Forest Service
control."
The proposed regulation state that the following are prohibited;
"unauthorized livestock within the National Forest System or on
any other lands under Forest Service administrative control."
As in the current regulation, the prohibition would only apply to
the unauthorized livestock. Unauthorized livestock as defined in the
definitions section are only livestock not associated with a grazing
permit i.e. this change would not apply to livestock authorized by a
grazing permit.
o Would the change proposed to 261.8 - Fish and Wildlife - prohibit
hunting on National Forest?
No. This provision would allow Forest Service officials to assist in
enforcing only what is federal or state law prohibits. Hunting, "in
violation of State or Federal law", is already included in current
regulation and remains unchanged.
o What is meant by the prohibition on "disturbing" natural features?
Would this prohibit hiking and the usual recreational activities
occurring on the National Forest?
The word "disturb" appears in the current regulation, in the
definition of the term "damaging". "Disturb" was added to the
proposed rule at 36 CFR 261.9 (a)-(c) to provide a tie to the term
"damaging" in those provisions. Commenters have suggested that
"disturb" is too broad in both the definition and the proposed rules
at 36 CFR 261.9 (a)-(c).
The agency's intent is not to prohibit normal recreational activities
which take place during intermittent occupancy of the National Forest
System. The Forest Service wants to protect resources while allowing
reasonable recreational activities to continue. The Forest Service
will review this closely and consider public comment in the
preparation of the final rule.
o Current regulation prohibits removal of vertebrate fossils - Why would
the Forest Service prohibit the collection of all fossils in the
proposed rule at 36 CFR 261.9 (c)?
Deletion of the word "vertebrate" was unintentional when the proposed
rule was drafted. The Forest Service did not intend to make the
excavation or removal of invertebrate fossils (except when done for
commercial purposes without a valid permit) a violation. The Forest
Service will address this issue in the preparation of the final rule.
o Will the use of metal detectors be prohibited on the National Forest
System?
No. There is no current or proposed prohibition that would limit the
use of metal detectors, unless that activity would conflict with the
already established prohibitions relation to archaeology, historic, or
prehistoric resources.
o What about the use and possession of firearms on the National Forests?
Currently, the use and possession of firearms are regulated in two
areas of the CFRs: restriction on firearms throughout the National
Forest System (NFS), and restrictions when prohibited by an order on
a site-specific basis. Both are intended to insure public safety and
resource protection.
36 CFR 261.10 (d) is applicable throughout the NFS and would relax
current prohibitions. It would change the prohibition of shooting from
or across a road to a prohibition of shooting from a vehicle; as for
shooting game from a campsite, the proposed rule would not change from
the current regulation that already prohibits discharging firearms
within 150 yards of a campsite.
36 CFR 261.58 (m) would apply when the Chief, Regional Forester, or
Forest Supervisor would issue an order concerning the area under his or
her jurisdiction. Experience has shown that orders are only issued in
special circumstances when needed to protect resources or the public.
For example, a current regulation allows for the issuance of an order
to prohibit "hunting or fishing" (36 CFR 261.58 (v)), and has existed
for over 20 years. It is, however, rarely implemented. The current
regulation at 261.58 (m) provides that when provided by an order, the
discharge of a firearm can be prohibited. The proposed regulation would
add the word "possessing". Such a prohibition is consistent with state
laws that prohibit possession of firearms in certain circumstances such
as when needed to protect wildlife in specially designated wildlife
management units and to protect the public in high-use situations.
o Why is the Forest Service clamping down on noise and use of electronic
devices? (36 CFR 261.10 (h) and (i)).
No change is proposed to the current regulations. These provisions
appear in the proposed revision because they were re-published for
clarity (as a result of the changes proposed to that section). The
current rules prohibit noise that unreasonable disturbs others.
Historically, enforcement of this provision has been limited to
situations where Forest officers have received complaints of
unreasonable noise from others who were affected by it, such as late
night loud music in campgrounds.
o Why is the Forest Service proposing to require the public to use
seatbelts on any Forest development road or trail?
The Forest Service is concerned with public safety for those driving
on forest roads. As with all the proposed provisions, the Forest
Service is carefully considering all comments on this provision and
will decide whether to implement a rule such as the one proposed or to
adopt individual State law.
o Why is the Forest Service prohibiting possession of alcoholic beverages
and the possession of glass containers?
Possession of alcoholic beverages and the possession of glass
containers would be prohibited only when specifically provided for by
an order on a site-specific basis.
A current regulation already allows for orders to prohibit alcoholic
beverages as defined by State law. The proposed new provision would
allow for an order to prohibit alcoholic beverages as defined in the
proposed rule (to include beer and wine regardless of whether State
law considers the "alcoholic beverages").
The provision allowing for orders prohibiting possession of glass
containers is a new proposal. The intent is that orders could be
issued in situations where broken glass would cause safety hazards
for the recreating public (such as swimming areas).
o In what situations would the Forest Service prohibit the reservation of
campsites?
Proposed 36 CFR 261.14 (r) would prohibit the "staking-out" or
"saving" sites by third parties in developed recreation sites.
Proposed 36 CFR 261.58 (dd) would prohibit such activity outside
developed recreation sites when provided by an order. These
provisions are designed to preclude the denial of use of sites to
other forest users who are already at a site or location and are
ready to camp. Unless sites are port of the advanced reservation
system, they are intended to be available on a first-come,
first-served basis.
4/19/94
|