Click Here to see the entire Appeal document which we delivered to the USFS Regional office on July 24, 2008.   Click Here to see the accompanying photographs.

One of the four objectives stated by Custer National Forest for the Travel Plan was to “provide for a variety of motorized and non-motorized opportunities.” Instead the Forest has chosen a plan that makes most of the Pryors a motorized playground with very limited opportunities for traditional quiet experiences.

Nearly two thirds of the Pryors will be motorized with 124 miles of designated motor vehicle routes on the USFS land. Those of us who simply want to enjoy the unique landscape and peaceful surroundings, without machines, got less than 2 miles of designated routes in Custer NF’s plan.

The Pryors Coalition recognizes that both motorized and quiet users want to enjoy the Pryors. That is why from the start the Pryors Coalition offered a reasonable 50/50 split for this special landscape, but Custer NF chose to ignore our proposal.

As our appeal explains CNF failed to meet three of the four stated purposes of the Travel Plan. There are also problems in the Beartooth part of the Travel Plan. The most important issue is CNF’s reversal from their earlier “preferred alternative.” They have now chosen to allow motorcycles on the Meyers Creek and Lodgepole trails. Horse riders and motorcycles do not mix safely on narrow trails. Important natural resources are also seriously threatened by this decision.

Unfortunately our appeal of the Travel Plan Decision has been denied.

Custer National Forest Fails the Pryors

Final Travel Plan Decision

One of Custer National Forest’s primary stated objectives of the Travel Plan for the Pryor Mountains was to “provide for a variety of motorized and non-motorized opportunities.” (emphasis added) The Forest has now finalized and released the regulations concerning where motor vehicles can, and cannot, be used. They provide 124 miles of motorized routes crisscrossing the 75,000 acres of USFS land in the Pryors. But they provide only one designated non-motorized route just over one mile long.

Anyone wanting to hike in the Pryors must choose between hiking on a road with the commotion of ATVs or bushwhacking cross country in the fragments between the too abundant roads. Often this requires a long 4WD drive into the Pryors for a short hike. People who are unfamiliar with the Pryors and want to hike on a quiet trail are out of luck.

Our request that some of the eight routes up Big Pryor Mountain be reserved for non-motorized use allowing separation of motorized and non-motorized activities was rejected by the Forest. Apparently the “need” to provide abundant loop and figure-eight opportunities for ATVs trumped the need for quiet non-motorized hiking opportunities.

All our efforts to convince Custer NF to first protect the natural resources and then design a balanced plan to share the land among various users were dismissed. Our formal appeal of Custer’s decision to the Regional Forester in Missoula was also denied. Not surprisingly the Forest Service decided that the Forest Service had done a good job. Our only remaining recourse is in the courts if we determine that litigation is possible. Grounds for such litigation are limited to procedural issues and technical violations of regulations. Bad land management is not always illegal.