FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Don Amador
Phone: 925.625.6287
Date: January 17, 2000
Email:brdon_a@sharetrails.org
Website:www.sharetrails.org

POCATELLO, ID -- President Clinton’s roadless directive that could potential close between 60-80 million acres of national forest lands to the general public is drawing fire from a growing number of diverse recreation interests.

A careful review of the Forest Service’s Notice of Intent lists four alternatives for the directive. Three of the proposed alternatives would most likely result in the functional ban of all motorized access to lands currently open for vehicular travel.

According to Robert Rasor, vice president of the American Motorcyclist’s Association, “It’s incredibly frustrating to reach this deadline without even knowing the total amount of land affected, much less where that land is located and what it’s currently being used for.”

“This is ‘Wilderness Lite,’ Rasor says, “It’s all the restrictions of Wilderness without the legislative debate.”

Even user groups who use motor homes or recreational vehicles are weighing in on the roadless issue.

Bill Estes, a spokesman for MotorHome Magazine, said, “While dirt roadS on Forest Service lands may be of secondary interest to motorhomers, the question is whether making 50 million acres permanently off-limits for motorized travel -- and doing so by departmental edict rather than congressional action -- is in the public interest.”

“Recreation demand continues to increase dramatically, and it seems appropriate, with 35 million acres of public [forest] lands already designated as w[W]ilderness, that our government should focus its efforts on finding new, creative ways to expand access rather than trying to lock more of us out,” Estes concludes.

Don Amador, western regional representative for the Blue Ribbon Coalition, said “My hope is that the Clinton administration will realize that launching proposals that will close vast segments of this country’s forest lands to the general public is not in the best interest of this nation.”

“Clinton’s directive will illegitimize many of our existing recreational roads, trails, and campgrounds. This proposal is unfair to the millions of families who recreate in a responsible fashion on our forested lands,” Amador concludes.