If indeed, as demographers predict, Billings grows in the next 50 years to be a city of a million people, the peace and beauty and biological richness of the Pryor Mountains will mean more to local residents than having yet another ATV track. I hope that the Forest Service will have the foresight to protect at least half of what may well become a treasured refuge in a jungle of urban sprawl.

If I want to listen to traffic, I've got many more places where I can do that, than I do places where I can remember the feeling, the sound, of silence.

As stewards of the land, you have an obligation to protect it. You have allowed the steady growth of illegal ATV roads to develop throughout the last 20 or so years. You must close these roads and work to reclaim them.

Protect our forest for the future rather than sacrificing them to motorized "wreck"-reation in the present. DROP your preferred Alternative B and it is UNbalanced and provides far too much motorized travel allowance.

I would prefer even fewer motorized vehicles than is allowed under Alternative C. Hikers don't intrude on others; motor vehicles do. It is critical to strike a balance that is least intrusive and best for the environment.

I expect equal access, which means that when I hike, I should not have to travel the same trails with--or broken down by--motorized vehicles. Please consider this request to approve a plan that clearly and explicitly lays out (and enforces) equivalent access to non-motorized travel routes.

I own and regularly ride a motorcycle so I am not opposed to some motorized access in the Pryors. But the plan you are fostering seems to be terribly out of whack with "usual" Forest Service thinking. We cyclists don't need as much as you're giving us and I am afraid that this type of legislation is creating the Pryors as the "place to go to ride an ATV or a dirt-bike". Don't do it!

Each ATV consumes a disproportionate share of a limited resource--peace and quite and a natural environment. As populations grow, there will be more demand for quiet environments. I believe that the USFS has a duty to preserve what is left of our great cultural heritage yet remaining in the Pryors. Only by greatly restricting motorized traffic do we have any chance of doing this.

I'm writing on behalf of my 7 year-old son.. … I would like for my child to experience what I have had the good fortune of knowing. Your decision will account for whether he will get to have that experience.

As a former motorized vehicle rider I would strongly urge you to keep us the heck out of as much of the Pryors as possible. All that us mechanized machine crazed drivers wanted was a place to grind our gears and tear the place up with our machines. One day our vehicle broke down and we had to walk out. We had to sit down and rest. We actually saw the rolling hills of the view in front of us for the first time. We got frustrated with the noise and the fumes we had to breath. After that experience I now have learned to value the natural resource systems on which all our lives depend.…

My family and I have enjoyed the Pryors for over 40 years and have never felt the need for more motor vehicle access. We have hiked, viewed, camped, hosted visitors, rock hunted, and much more …. The disabilities and/or age limitations placed on various members of our family have not nor should they in future require more access. As we age we realize there will come a time when we will not be able to easily enjoy all the Pryors' many wonders - that's a fact of life and one we accept. Public Lands cannot meet the needs and desires of all the people all the time. To try to do otherwise would soon result in having little left for anyone to enjoy.

I think you underestimate the importance of the decision you are making here. You say, "however, Travel Management direction would not be an irreversible or irretrievable commitment because human travel is not a consumptive use and the direction itself could be changed at any time," but the erosion, the increased destruction of cultural sites, and the introduction of noxious weeds which follow increased motorized use cannot be reversed. You will not be able to say, "Sorry, let's go back," later.

Of course there needs to be places where recreational vehicles can have access, but there also needs to be places that are quiet and remote. … I have no problem with folks using public lands, as long as their use does not violate my experience.

I believe that the motto first do no harm should apply to the beautiful area! I urge you to reconsider and choose Alternative C which still allows motorized use but limits the destruction of ORV's.

Can someone please explain why those of us in Montana who want to preserve the land as much as possible have to pander and cater to those insensitive people with motorized toys that destroy vegetation, … leave ugly scars on the landscape and create unnatural noise where animals and tranquil hikers tread? When we allow those people and their machines to ruin an environment such as the Pryor Mountains, we are allowing ignorant and foolish people to ruin all that is natural and good for everyone. … Also, why do we have to support an industry that is hell-bent of making profits at everyone's expense--the ATV industry, for example? I don't want to be patronized. I want answers.

As a visitor to the Pryor Mtns for over 25 years I am in favor of a balanced plan for use. Our leaders in the government must have the vision of 50-100 years from now - think of the wisdom of Teddy Roosevelt. The Billings area will continue to see much growth, we must have the foresight to protect and be good stewards of our public lands. Motorized travel in the Pryors is out of control and must be restricted.

I oppose any use of ATV travel and all off road vehicle travel in the Pryor Mountains. I am an active hiker in the Pryor Mountains and I am appalled at the abuse created by ATVs and off road vehicles in the past 5 years. The abuse is epidemic and without excuse. The 3 travel management plans are far too liberal in allowing motorized access to the Pryors, but if any should be put in force, it is Alternative C. It is the most balanced while still allowing too much abuse with ATV travel.

Motorized use is quickly becoming the biggest problem in our national forests. I, like many other visitors, come to the Montana's national forests to escape the noise and pollution of ATVs and other vehicles.

Please listen to the many concerned people of the Pryors Coalition who care so much about the Pryor Mountains. I heartily agree with their position. I have hiked that area for thirty years and it is a unique treasure that should be carefully protected. Fewer roads are needed, not more.

I believe that the Preferred Alternative B in the Beartooth Travel Management DEIS of the Custer National Forest is terribly out of balance. It does NOT protect the resources of the Pryors from the impacts of motorized use---noise, air pollution, disturbance of the wildlife AND those of us who prefer to get away to some peace and quiet to enjoy our natural treasures. Giving 2/3 of the area to motorized recreation is OUT of BALANCE.

I am a Montana native who grew up near the Pryor Mountains, over 60 years ago. The protection of this area is very important to me. I believe the choice of Alternative B in the Beartooth Travel Plan does not offer protection of the Pryor Mountains from the impacts of motorized recreation. People want to escape the noise and abuse of the land by motorized machines. People are more and more seeking the peace and quiet of treasured land. I am certainly one of these people.

I have observed many changes in the Pryors since I first saw the area in 1947, behind my dad, on a saddle horse. Virtually all the changes and damage there has been caused by wheeled vehicles and their occupants. This is absolutely indisputable: no other explanation exists for the erosion, rutting, …. Not too many hikers or horses leave continuous, parallel ruts and "brodie-marks", …. I favor the least access of OHVs to the Pryors…. Remember: your first official mandate is to preserve the area in its natural state. Given the existing evidence of damage by wheeled vehicles, by letting motorized vehicles in AT ALL, you being are neglectful in the extreme in allowing continuation of such damage, let alone increasing the area available for wheeled-vehicle damage . . I owned and operated a Honda motorcycle/OHV/scooter store … from 1968 until 2003…

Motorized use essentially "locks out" nonmotorized users and the Pryors need to be protected from excessive motorized use. Current and future generations deserve such protection for a national treasure like the Pryor Mountains are.

We are especially concerned with the damage to plant communities and the resulting increase in erosion and weed infestation we are seeing in the Pryor Mountains. …. To preserve this unique ecosystem the number of roads must be limited and motorized off-road use curtailed. Roads provide avenues for noxious weed infestations and soil erosion. …. Choosing the management plan that best protects these unique assets is the only responsible action. … We do not believe that the CNF present preferred alternative (Alternative B) adequately protects the plant and wildlife habitats of the Pryor Mountains. We believe that Alternative C with the modifications suggested by the Pryors Coalition will best protect the fragile ecosystem of the Pryor Mountains.

I have many hobbies; some that apply to the outdoors are shooting firearms, bow hunting, rifle hunting, day hiking, car camping, snowboarding, canoeing, backpacking, and yes, driving my ATV. I engage in the above listed activities throughout each year that I've lived in Montana, which is 1987. I am not an active member of any environmental organization. I actually just mind my own business, going into the outdoors with my family and a few trusting friends. … After reviewing the three choices available, I recommend plan "C." If the riding of ATV's isn't kept in check, it will get worse. You know it would and so do I. There are those people that "do not care" about victimizing people and there are those who do not care about the big picture when it comes to preserving wildlife ecosystems. Please enforce law and consider plan "C" for the Pryor Mountain area.

As long as both motorized and non-motorized recreation are allowed in the Pryors, there will be conflicts among users. These conflicts could be reduced, however, by basing the Travel Plan on a zoning plan. Multiple use does not mean all uses on all acres, thus we urge the FS to consider the adoption of a plan that sets aside quiet non-motorized areas from motorized areas, even mountain bike areas from horse areas should be considered.

While I do not know what percentage of the populations owns ATVs, I have to believe that it cannot be more than a few percent. So why on earth would you propose authorizing their use on about two-thirds of the resource? I assume that the decision makers are educated well intended individuals, so it totally escapes me how they could even consider allowing motorized vehicles in two-thirds of the Pryors. One can only assume that since ATVs can travel much farther than those of us who enjoying walking, that you feel obligated to set-aside for them better than one-half of the resource. How absurd! We all know that the trails they make will be there 100 years from now. Go and find one of my foot prints.

I am a Montana citizen currently working in Ethiopia for the World Health Organization … Everyday I am traveling to remote areas in Ethiopia to help people prevent polio disease. In that effort, I see how the beautiful environment of Ethiopia has been destroyed by overpopulation, overuse, and undermanagement. Ethiopia did not have a chance - they were hindered by poverty and oppressive governments in the past. We in Montana and the United States of America have the opportunity to wisely manage our resources for balanced use of all people and for future generations. Let us use that opportunity wisely.

… Keep in mind, that the more you give us to use, the more we will find some way to tear the heck out the area in pushing our machines to their limits. Believe me, with some beers in you, we used to do some pretty wild things with our various 4 wheel vehicles. So please keep us the heck out of as much of the Pryors as possible. A former 4 wheel vehicle user.

I have been a four-wheeler and appreciate the access afforded by fat tires, high clearance and low gearing. I also appreciate when the Forest Service, as agent of the US government--as an agent of the people of the United States--acts as steward of the land. Multiple-use is a wonderful attribute as long as it contributes to continued multiple use. The tendency of folks to push the limits causes the more powerful (the bigger motors, tires and gears) to assume the right to go where no vehicle has gone before, ignoring that their rights end where others' begin.

There is no excuse for condoning or legitimizing illegally created trails. The fact is most if not all areas in the Pryors are easily accessible by walking, usually within the range of a day hike. These areas need to be kept natural and off limits to all motorized vehicles to protect critical wildlife habitat and to provide the quiet solitude that I and many other users seek.

Please keep ATVs under control in the Pryors. I prefer Alternative C. … I believe that the more effort we put in to get to one of these special places in the Pryors, the more likely we are to treat these places with the awe and respect that they deserve.

ORVer recreation requires around 40 to 100 miles of trail per visitor day… and other recreationists are often seriously disturbed. Motorized recreation and quiet recreation are fundamentally mutually exclusive. A hiker requires only 6 to 10 miles of trail per day having little impact beyond immediate sight distance. … The Forest Service Recreation surveys show ORV recreationists to be a very small minority of recreation users. … policy direction, the broad public interest, and just plain reason dictate that ORV focused recreation must be limited and opportunities for quiet family recreation given precedence.