The Forest Service unresponsive to the growing interest and needs of the trail using public, motivated many off-road motorcyclists to organize a volunteer trail maintenance association to create a consolidated effort to maintain the many trails that were degrading and disappearing from lack of care.

We have had professional training from the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation and many hours of hands on experience at trail clearing and repair. Our volunteer activities include: clearing fallen trees from trails, installing erosion control devices, brushing out trails and repairing trail treads. Over time, we have developed a better understanding of trail maintenance than the current Forest Service personal because of this.

Now that you know a little about us, I will cut to the chase. The Panhandle National Forest, under new management and direction, is proposing to develop an access management plan for the Coeur d' Alene River District in the Panhandle National Forest. The off-road motorcycle recreationists are experiencing, what we feel, are discriminatory actions from the Coeur d' Alene River Ranger District of the Panhandle National Forest in their new travel plan. The off-highway motorcycle community is loosing the best single track trails in the District (the heart of the trail system).

The off-road motorcyclists have worked very hard to get all the single track trails passable in the district again. Now others are wanting to capitalize on our hard work and the Forest Service is feeling generous.

The trails, the new Forest Service managers are taking from us, are Independence Creek National Recreation Trail #22, the Coeur d' Alene River National Recreation Trail #20 and all connecting trails in what the Forest Service calls AREA ONE of the Cd'A River District. These trails have been maintained by off-road motorcyclists for over 40 years.

In 1984, the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation funded the reconstruction of the Independence Creek National Recreation Trail with $9,500 of ORMV funds. Up till more recently, the only way these trails were maintained were by off-road motorcyclists. The trails would have disappeared otherwise because the Forest Service was not caring for them. The engineers of this travel plan have never been on these trails that they feel others are more deserving of.

The Forest Service says that the objectives in this access management plan are to provide areas for a variety of uses commensurate with other resource objectives. These objectives are to provide habitat for elk, lynx and fish by reducing road density and motor vehicles. Also to provide a semi-primitive area for a specific class of users. What we victims of the discrimination refer to as the privileged few.

In this newly intended primitive area - it is OK to use chainsaws, motor vehicles and any other modern technology to harvest timber and repair trails. The area is only being made off-limits to motorized recreation.

It seems the reasons motorcycles are being excluded from AREA ONE are because some believe that the motorized elk hunters are beating the non motorized hunters to the game. Land managers think motorized recreationists must be restricted in AREA ONE to keep the hunters who ride motorcycles from getting to the prey before the non motorized hunters. Another reason is to cater to the privileged few that demand large areas for quiet, solitude at the expense to other recreationists.

In twenty years, the conservation biologists have not been able to help any so called threaten species by stopping what they think threatens their habitat. After twenty years, most sensible people have been able to figure out that the conservationists' assumptions and theories on threats to nature are simply opinions; and the conservationists are unwilling to admit their research is ideology driven more than scientifically threaten.

Before the grizzly bear advocates could put their beliefs in to practice as the law of the land, the grizzly bears in Montana this year decided to prove to everyone how badly flawed the conservationists biologists' dogma is regarding the grizzly bear. But it doesn't seem to matter to them. The conservationists with blinders on continue to march forward with their grizzly bear plans without skipping a beat.

Now these wildlands promoters are saying the Canadian lynx needs protecting from motorized recreationists. This statement is made with no evidence to back it. I have enclosed a copy of the letter I wrote to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service discouraging the listing of the Canadian lynx.

If changes, in AREA ONE in the Coeur d'Alene Ranger District, were truly to protect wildlife then the District would restrict researching and hunting (motorized and non motorized). Researchers and hunters are more likely to be the biggest threats to wildlife other than natural causes. Temporary restrictions for the purpose of protecting wildlife during hunting season seems reasonable for some areas, but the restriction most apply to every hunter (motorized and non motorized) without favoritism.

The decision makers think that by restricting our recreation for the desires of another provides variety of use. Our only crime for this discriminatory action is that we enjoy using motor powered technology when we recreate. We feel victimized by the government agency.

The non motorized recreationists are not restricted from anywhere. They have 100 percent access to our public lands. The motorized recreationists do not share that same privilege even though they pay fees and voluntarily care for the trails for all people to use.

We need your help! We are requesting your help to explain to the new conservation managers how their travel plan is discriminating to the off-road motorcyclists.

The Forest Service is using the ecosystem management approach based on the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem study findings in designing the access plan. The drafters of the Environmental Assess makes many unqualified claims regarding what threatens wildlife and what is needed to protect wildlife. There is absolutely no scientific proof to substantiate the insinuations made that motorized recreationists threatens nature and non motorized recreationists do not threaten nature.

Addresses and phones numbers of the decision makers: