221 



methods such as administrative designations, could be used. 



I have reviewed many Forest Timber management documents. This 

 Forest never acknowledges or plans for cumulative aesthetic 

 damage caused to Forest by its massive timber sale program. 

 When doing landscape planning it only addresses far distance 

 landscape issues. Ironically far distance landscapes are not 

 the landscapes heavily impacted by the shelterwood type of timber 

 program on the Hills. We do not have large clear cuts. It 

 never addresses mid distance landscapes or immediate visual 

 quality impacts. Visual quality along trails is not protected. 



Visually, the Forest is being turned into a tree farm or 

 industrial forest. Trees are cut in early maturity, at the 

 end of their maximum growth period. To the F.S., leaving old 

 trees standing, for another century, to develop the full 

 elegance, character and stature of a mature or old ponderosa 

 pine, is a waste of forest space. A younger tree could be using 

 that space to more efficiently generate board feet! Older 

 aged stands would lower the ASQ, of the forest that supplies 

 43-45% of the regions timber. 



This Forest and this State government does not plan for or 

 acknowledge backcountry hiking needs. Recreation management 

 is not a topic in the upcoming Forest Plan Revision. Where 

 will back country type of recreators, have left to hike and 

 camp in the future? 



According to the Forest Service, 53% of income derived (trickled 

 down) from Forest use is from "recreation and wildlife" related 

 activities. This Forest manages for forms of recreation 

 compatible with extensive commodity extraction and roads. Such 

 management selects for those recreators who like motorized 

 recreati on. 



I believe that the Black Hills recreation industry is only being 

 given half a loaf by this Forest. Persons who value back country 

 recreation experiences, will logically go elsewhere or do 

 something else with their free time. Increased management for 

 back country values can attract this different group of 

 recreators and a different sector of recreational enterprise. 



Handicaped people have more than enough roaded recreation 

 opportunity. As stated above, lots of country is immediately 

 accessed by roads. Ever go in the Hills with handicapped or 

 elderly persons? The real man made limit to handicapped persons 

 on this Forest is not wilderness created road closure, it is 

 shortage of trails and the ubiquitous barbed wire fence. 



Black Hills trails are, for the most part, concentrated in 

 a few areas. Why aren't there more trails and more funds for 

 developing trails? Why aren't back country hiking trails 

 developed, as well as trails near high use areas? Why isn't 

 the trail system spread all over the Forest, instead of being 



