Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

"Feds to limit forest drop-off of ATVs, snowmobiles, mountain bikes"

Thanks for posting seth, I was about to do the same.

I deal with the USFS a lot with our club operations. I'm not sure what to think of this story. The USFS just doesn't give permits to snowmobile/moto/ATV guides anymore. This is why Chris Burandt left Kremmling and went down to Buena Vista. So in one way the USFS created this conundrum. I agree that just "dropping" tourists off leaves the potential for a lot of issues (these guys are stuck every storm on the side of the road!). But the people running these companies have a right and they are making money for our areas. I think there is an issue with the movement to pinch off motorized activity. The USFS just won't issue permits for these companies.

Interesting situation, what do others think?
 
I can see why people would get pissed off about this, but they would also be pissed off even if it were just 'locals' on atvs or sleds.......they dont want motorized traffic on usfs land period.....tourists or not. .... i would go so far as to say its a lost cause for the equipment renters.. ....guided or not, they are pretty much done for it sounds like......look what happened in yellowstone
 
BS

I sent out an email today to some SAWS members about this. BS...

Here it is.

SAWS members,

What a load of you know what.

“While the bike riders generally stick to paved paths along Interstate 70, dozens of rented all-terrain vehicles and, in winter, snowmobiles, roar into once-remote woods and can reach fragile alpine tundra, terrain traditionally revered as wilderness”.

“A key factor, said Rich Doak, the recreation-policy specialist for the forest, is the growing movement for "quiet use" by limiting motorized vehicles such as ATVs.”

I am not a legal expert, but I do not see how the FS can restrict a business from dropping off sleds and ATVs at a trailhead off a highway on public land. And this is NOT wilderness.

Government at its finest – not…

Dave
Snowmobile Alliance of Western States


Feds to limit forest drop-off of ATVs, snowmobiles, mountain bikes
August 28, 2012

By Bruce Finley, The Denver Post bfinley@denverpost.com or 303-954-1700

The Denver Post
101 West Colfax Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-954-1753/1311/1331 (editor: Dan Haley)
Fax: 303-954-1502
http://www.denverpost.com and http://www.denverpost.com/contactus
To submit a Letter to the Editor: openforum@denverpost.com


Frisco, Colorado - Trying to protect Colorado forests that hundreds of thousands more people visit each year, the U.S. Forest Service is reining in the rental companies that deliver ATVs and snowmobiles at trailheads.

Forest managers say they'll also scrutinize mountain-bike-rental operations as part of a push to set "commercial capacity" limits. Two companies that drop off and pick up ATVs and snowmobiles at the Vail Pass summit parking area have received shut-down orders.

"Not all proposed commercial activities are appropriate for the location proposed, and some are not appropriate on national Forest Service lands at all," White River National Forest ranger Jan Cutts said in an e-mailed response to Denver Post queries.

Rentals of motorized and non-motorized vehicles have exploded in recent years, with mountain-bike companies supplying 2,000 or more visitors on peak days atop Vail Pass, which straddles two of Colorado's busiest tourism counties.

While the bike riders generally stick to paved paths along Interstate 70, dozens of rented all-terrain vehicles and, in winter, snowmobiles, roar into once-remote woods and can reach fragile alpine tundra, terrain traditionally revered as wilderness.

"We saw, this year, a huge increase in the frequency with which these businesses were delivering (vehicles to people)," Cutts said.

Mountain-bike operations "are not off the hook because they are nonmotorized," she said. "They are commercial businesses."

Federal land managers say they must balance commercial use with protection of public forests, which serve as watersheds and as habitat for wildlife. But this is causing conflict with people who make their living by delivering machines to increasingly savvy consumers of mountain recreation experiences.

"It's killing me," said Scott Wilson, owner of Colorado Backcountry Rentals. Wilson rents 20 sleds in the winter and 15 ATVs in the summer -- a business he established in 2004. His five-employee company offers to supply "your ride" at any season in places "where you will ride unguided through the backcountry of the Colorado Rockies."

Now, after receiving a letter at the height of the summer season that declares him "in violation" and orders him to "immediately stop," Wilson is preparing a legal challenge.

For years, he has been consulting with federal forest and highway authorities about the legality of his operations and seeking permits.

But federal rangers, corresponding with Wilson's attorney, Lee Gelman, last week maintained their position that Colorado Backcountry Rentals' operations on Vail Pass and at the Tiger Road area in Summit County "are not authorized activities."

Federal foresters "keep using the word 'unauthorized' -- and, to that, I say, 'bull,' " said Wilson, who moved to Colorado from Texas in 2001 and serves as the linebackers coach of the Summit High football team.

"When you have thousands of people going out into forests, how do you regulate that? I get that. They are doing their job," he said. "But why not give me a permit? You can limit my user days."

Restricting rentals

The mountain-bike rentals in Summit and Eagle counties are expanding by 10 percent a year, with more than a dozen companies delivering bikes and offering shuttle transport to forest trailheads, Pioneer Sports manager Jeremy Mender said. Beyond Vail Pass descents, Pioneer offers "full-suspension mountain bikes" so that visitors can "enjoy a variety of single-track trails" around Summit County.

"If you put a cap on that, you would be putting a cap on the whole community, as far as tax revenue is concerned," Mender said.

Restricting the trailhead rentals is complicated because federal managers of the White River National Forest, which covers 3,571 square miles, already have issued 200 permits for other commercial activities ranging from skiing to guided mushroom hunting. About 154 permits have been issued to outfitters that rent equipment and provide guides who accompany visitors.

"It makes sense to me why people would be looking at rentals," said David Neely, the ranger in the forest's Eagle- Holy Cross district.

But there's a downside, Neely said, because the vehicle deliveries at trailheads "place somebody who may never have engaged in that activity on a fairly powerful machine."

Decision time

A decision will be be made this fall on forest commercial capacity for rented snowmobiles, Forest Service officials said. A decision on summer use of ATVs and mountain bikes will require more time, they said.

Forest officials told Wilson's attorney they began work this summer with a university to gather data to help determine "a summer-season commercial capacity" for areas accessible from the Vail Pass summit.

A key factor, said Rich Doak, the recreation-policy specialist for the forest, is the growing movement for "quiet use" by limiting motorized vehicles such as ATVs.

"The quiet-use issue is popping up everywhere," he said.

Doak said rental operations are likely to be limited, perhaps to only companies that send guides with their vehicles.

"We're in the process of determining what the capacity is up there," he said. "I'm not positive that we're going to do rental operations up there. It may be guided. It may be not at all."

Federal data show that the numbers of visitors in Rocky Mountain forests have reached 32 million a year. The crowds are growing by about 4 percent a year, with 8.4 percent of visitors relying on ATVs or other personal motorized vehicles, said Chris Sporl, acting director of recreation, heritage and wilderness resources at Forest Service regional headquarters in Denver.

Three national forests in Colorado rank among the nation's six busiest, Sporl said. The White River National Forest draws 9 million people a year.

Since 2005, forest managers have worked at creating sustainable designated routes for motorcycles and ATVs in forests -- trying to make sure this use is compatible with forest soils, the need to prevent erosion and other users' interests.

"One of the things we're focusing on is restoring and adapting recreation settings. We've got areas that have been loved to death," Sporl said. Future projects will restore heavily used areas "back to where they need to be, back into balance with the ecosystems."

"We're constantly dealing with changing recreation opportunities over time," he said. "We look at how to adapt."

Freedom to drive

Meanwhile, Wilson is trying to adapt. Last week, he dropped off a load of ATVs in mountains north of Breckenridge, along Tiger Road, for a family from Texas and two newlyweds, fresh from safety seminars and crowned with bright, shiny helmets.

Wilson sent them on their way with some trepidation. Summit County officials who oversee some land in the area have notified Wilson that they share federal land managers' concerns about unauthorized commercial ATV- and snowmobile-rental operations.

The Texans told Wilson they had previously rented ATVs for unguided riding near Durango and loved it.

The appeal, 52-year-old Jon Jobe said, "is to have freedom to drive around and see things you want to see when you want to see it."

As these smiling visitors rolled out on their vehicles, Wilson turned to his ringing cellphone. It was a sheriff's deputy calling. Private-property owners nearby had complained about Wilson's drop-offs and staging on that road. "You gotta leave," the deputy said.

Stone-faced, Wilson gulped.

"This could be it."

Copyright 2012, The Denver Post.

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_21413830
 
Time to buy our own land to ride on - wait, we already own it.

With that being said, I find myself leaning towards people needing to own their equipment.

People being allowed to rent sleds without proper equipment or training makes us all look bad.

Snowmobiles and avalanches are serious bizness and dummies should not be allowed to just rent a sled and take off on their own like this imo. I personally don't think their should be any sled rentals in Colorado without proof of training and equipment.

Atv's to me are a little different, but you still run the risk of people wrecking them, getting hurt, and making that scene look like idiots.

I feel the strongest about sled rentals for the safety factor. It's on another level than Atv's..... Can one get a giant raft dropped off for them and cruise down a river un guided? I doubt it. I see no major difference, rivers kill, avalanches kill.

Stop all of the unguided rentals imo.
 
People being allowed to rent sleds without proper equipment or training makes us all look bad.

That is really a falsehood though. I can see why people "think" that, but I don't think that is true at all.

People should be able to access public land, tourists or not.

What this is however is yet another underhanded move by the super-rich green freaks to buy public land for themselves, the common man be damned.
 
I see where you're coming from with everyone has a right to be there, really I do.

I'm a bit defensive because of the society we live in today.

If dumb dumb who gets his rental sled delivered and sets off a slide that kills himself and others, maybe even some snowshoers, what's the media going to say?

They're going to say that some guy with no training or equipment was on a snowmobile and killed himself and innocent by standers. He had no training, etc.

Imo what's going to stick out is "snowmobile" "killed innocent" etc.

That's just my opinion, and I'm not saying just eliminate sleds from being rented and rode freely, I'm saying eliminate all unguided free roaming type of activities.

With guides there will be less accidents.

However, I fear some sort of back lash if something like this was put into affect. It's a tough one, and my mind set is to preserve the rights of the people who wants to do things responsibly. You can't stop dummy from buying a new sled and going and killing people without training, but atleast stopping the randoms from doing it is a start.
 
Last edited:
I see where you're coming from with everyone has a right to be there, really I do.

I'm a bit defensive because of the society we live in today.

If dumb dumb who gets his rental sled delivered and sets off a slide that kills himself and others, maybe even some snowshoers, what's the media going to say?

They're going to say that some guy with no training or equipment was on a snowmobile and killed himself and innocent by standers. He had no training, etc.

Imo what's going to stick out is "snowmobile" "killed innocent" etc.

That's just my opinion, and I'm not saying just eliminate sleds from being rented and rode freely, I'm saying eliminate all unguided free roaming type of activities.

With guides there will be less accidents.

However, I fear some sort of back lash if something like this was put into affect. It's a tough one, and my mind set is to preserve the rights of the people who wants to do things responsibly. You can't stop dummy from buying a new sled and going and killing people without training, but atleast stopping the randoms from doing it is a start.

There are plenty of folks who own sleds, expensive gear, turbos, etc that I would wager would be more likley to set off a slide than a tourist. Tourist is gonna look at that hill and go "no way".

We should be encouraging people to ride, not discouraging them. I'm not claiming you should have no training like a lot of us avid sled folk do, but common sense goes a long way. Its sad to say, but there are plenty of "avid sledders" who lack this as well.

The media is going to say whatever it can to get a headline and is decidedly anti-OHV access especially if the paper is located in Summit county.

Its public land, tourists have just as much right to be there as I do whether they own or rent a sled, doesn't matter.

By that logic we shouldn't allow swimmers on public beaches unless they grew up in ocean states as well.
 
Good points. I know of a local guide service that provides a quick training on the sled then sends them into the forest because they have no guide to operate. They give the tourists Spots and tell them to call in if they have troubles. People have complained to me that they are stuck on the side of the road clueless how to get a big heavy 4stroke sled out. If the USFS would give some permits and limit the number of people, then this wouldn't happen.

But I too wonder about the legality of this. I don't know if the USFS can stop sleds/ATV's from being dropped off. They could sit at entrance and say no way, but they have to have a good reason. What's the difference between that and someone renting a sled in Denver and driving it to VP? Just the numbers and access.
 
People have complained to me that they are stuck on the side of the road clueless how to get a big heavy 4stroke sled out.

I sled a lot and I dont even know how to unstick a 4 stroke without 4 guys and a chinook.

If the USFS would give some permits and limit the number of people, then this wouldn't happen.

It would, because the new riders would still get the 4 strokes stuck and it would totally screw EVERYONE out of access to an area just like has been done in Yellowstone. If the USFS did that they would have to apply that to EVERYONE, not just the people who rented sleds. Which is exactly what the greenies want. Remember how that 720 number in yellowstone is now like 180 and next year it'll be 0? Yeah we don't want that.

But I too wonder about the legality of this. I don't know if the USFS can stop sleds/ATV's from being dropped off. They could sit at entrance and say no way, but they have to have a good reason. What's the difference between that and someone renting a sled in Denver and driving it to VP? Just the numbers and access.

Again, we absolutely positively don't want the USFS to start quotas for how many people can ride. That is a sure-fire way to have access taken away completely, and would in fact expedite the process.
 
It would, because the new riders would still get the 4 strokes stuck and it would totally screw EVERYONE out of access to an area just like has been done in Yellowstone. If the USFS did that they would have to apply that to EVERYONE, not just the people who rented sleds. Which is exactly what the greenies want. Remember how that 720 number in yellowstone is now like 180 and next year it'll be 0? Yeah we don't want that.

My point is that with a permit guides can accompany the group they rented the sled to. Then they are responsible for where they go and what they do. With a permit, the USFS could limit the number of people. VP is growing with rental sleds each year because they are not permitted and they simply drop the sleds at the rest stop. Bottom line is if this action isn't fought (or at least complained about) then the next step might be to limit privately owned sleds and ATV's.
 
Stop all of the unguided rentals imo.

Totally disagree with your ignorance.

Take a group of guys who traveled to Colorado for a week long trip. All brought their own sleds and are good, smart, safe riders. On the first day, one of the sleds breaks down beyond quick repair. With unguided sled rentals, that guy is able to rent a sled for the rest of the trip and still enjoy his vacation. Without unguided rentals, he either is done for the trip or the entire group has to ride with a guide.

Or, how about that same group of guys comes out with their wives. The wives want to ride for only one of the days. Are these guys suppose to buy their wives sleds to ride just for one day? No, they rent sleds for one day.

And don't say, "Don't come to Colorado then", because tourists spend A LOT of money in Colorado and keep its economy going.
 
Totally disagree with your ignorance.

Take a group of guys who traveled to Colorado for a week long trip. All brought their own sleds and are good, smart, safe riders. On the first day, one of the sleds breaks down beyond quick repair. With unguided sled rentals, that guy is able to rent a sled for the rest of the trip and still enjoy his vacation. Without unguided rentals, he either is done for the trip or the entire group has to ride with a guide.

Or, how about that same group of guys comes out with their wives. The wives want to ride for only one of the days. Are these guys suppose to buy their wives sleds to ride just for one day? No, they rent sleds for one day.

And don't say, "Don't come to Colorado then", because tourists spend A LOT of money in Colorado and keep its economy going.


Hey don't start calling people names.

If you go out to glamis on an ATV trip, and break down, can you get a rental quad, delivered, and just be sent on your marry old way?

If you go on a rafting trip, and happen to shred your raft, can you get one delivered to you, and be sent on your way?

Get what I'm saying?

Not everyone is going to agree with me, and that's fine, but there's zero need to call someone ignorant just because you have a different view than them.
 
Hey don't start calling people names.

If you go out to glamis on an ATV trip, and break down, can you get a rental quad, delivered, and just be sent on your marry old way?

If you go on a rafting trip, and happen to shred your raft, can you get one delivered to you, and be sent on your way?

Get what I'm saying?

Not everyone is going to agree with me, and that's fine, but there's zero need to call someone ignorant just because you have a different view than them.

I wasn't call you names per se. You comment was simply ignorant. It was ignorant to those who don't have the convenience of living in or near the mountains and can just go home when a problem occurs.

I'm just saying...there are times when good, safe riders will NEED a rental.
 
The ignorance is thinking that more regulation is needed. We have already been regulated out of millions of prime snowmobile terrain. Fawk more regulation. It is ruining every aspect of our country.
 
The ignorance is thinking that more regulation is needed. We have already been regulated out of millions of prime snowmobile terrain. Fawk more regulation. It is ruining every aspect of our country.

I agree 100% for the every day guy. But guys trying to make a living with their sled business doesn't stand a chance w/o a USFS permit. Either way I think they are getting screwed.
 
With that being said, I find myself leaning towards people needing to own their equipment.

People being allowed to rent sleds without proper equipment or training makes us all look bad.

Snowmobiles and avalanches are serious bizness and dummies should not be allowed to just rent a sled and take off on their own like this imo. I personally don't think their should be any sled rentals in Colorado without proof of training and equipment.

Atv's to me are a little different, but you still run the risk of people wrecking them, getting hurt, and making that scene look like idiots.

I feel the strongest about sled rentals for the safety factor. It's on another level than Atv's..... Can one get a giant raft dropped off for them and cruise down a river un guided? I doubt it. I see no major difference, rivers kill, avalanches kill.

Stop all of the unguided rentals imo.

I have to completely disagree......because of the possible precedent that would be set. Don't protect people from themselves. If they do stupid chit and hurt themselves....too bad........people do stupid chit all the time AND hurt others in the process. This doesn't make me look bad....it makes humans look stupid.

To "dumb it down" a bit.......Motorcycle helmet law (Helmets not required) this is a good thing!

Granted I don't have the answers, I just want far less gov't today and everyday. They can butt out and bite me!
 
Maybe I'm being a bit misunderstood because this is coming out in text and things get left out.

First off, I'm not talking about our land being taken away, that is total bs.

So you guys think it's perfectly ok for someone to have a sled delivered to them on the hill with no training or equipment? What happens when they kill someone or themselves? I don't see that doing much positive for sleds in Colorado.... You can't stop the dummys who own, etc, from mucking things up but there can be control over who gets to freely rent extreme equipment without any experience or equipment.

And you can't just say no to some people and yes to others, that's why my thought is ban all unguided rentals like this. On that note, I think sleds are horribly mistreated and misunderstood and we are not given the same luxury as other sports and having an across the board acceptance or denial of use.

You have to have rules somewhere and from a safety stand point, the only way I see it being fair for all is unguided extreme sports to be banned.

I would love it if we were allowed to ride wherever we wanted, but you will have renters or dummys who will mess it up for the rest of it.

So where I'm going with this is trying to regulate things to in a fashion that will benefit the people who are into this sport for more then a quick orgasm.

Hopefully that's a little bit clearer on my stand point, flame away if you guys want. But I'm not the one to be getting mad at.
 
Premium Features



Back
Top