Fighting area closures in Montana

[Eliminator351]

Remember to join SAWS!!!!!

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20081210/NEWS01/812100311
Wilderness Association backs U.S. Forest Service in lawsuit
By KARL PUCKETT • Tribune Staff Writer • December 10, 2008

The Montana Wilderness Association has come out in defense of the U.S. Forest Service in a travel plan lawsuit brought by motorized user groups.
On Tuesday, the MWA, which works to promote and protect wilderness in the state, filed to intervene in a lawsuit on the side of the Forest Service and its new travel management plan for the Little Belt, Castle and northern Crazy mountains.
In September, a coalition of recreational groups filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging the Lewis and Clark National Forest's travel plan, saying there were too many trail closures.
The travel rules, which guide where motorized users can go, were finalized in October.
"This plan that came out still provides plenty of opportunities for motor vehicle use," said MWA spokesman Mark Good of Great Falls.
About 1 million acres in the three island mountain ranges are affected by the plan. A national rule adopted in 2005 required forests to reduce damage caused by motor vehicles and to designate roads for motorized use.
"We aren't happy about everything in the new plan, but it is a reasonable effort to reach a compromise among conflicting user groups," MWA member Norm Newhall said.
The final travel plan states that 75 percent of the Little Belt, Castle and the northern half of the Crazy mountains remain open to motorized use in the summer. The Forest Service previously said motorized use took place in about 88 percent of those areas.
The drop is more pronounced in the winter, when snowmobilers will have access to 46 percent of the acreage, as opposed to the 95 percent that's open now, according to the Forest Service.
MWA says the winter travel plan is similar to an agreement between MWA and the Great Falls Cross Country Club that was negotiated with area snowmobile groups. That deal preserved groomed snowmobile trails and play areas while expanding the Silver Crest ski area and designating areas for quiet backcountry skiing and snowshoeing, Good said.
Good noted that one of the snowmobile groups involved in that deal is a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Forest Service.
Reach Tribune Staff Writer Karl Puckett at 791-1471, 800-438-6600 or kpuckett@greatfallstribune.com.

 

[kinney31]

Dude this makes me want to puke. Snowmobiles aren't doing damage pine beetles are kick the pine beetles out not snowmobiles! Oh and kill a couple wolves while your at it. Unreal what enviropukes want to do.

 

[Wade]

You notice that when they say compromise, that means we loose. Never them.

Nice that you'll have trails, and some "play areas" left. Won't be long before they'll be back for the rest.

 

[2XM3]

sucks.....we need to start re-opening old trails.

 

[CleElum Sledhead]

Pretty disgusting alright.

But man do we have so many more articles similar to this that we have not shared with our members or posted on SW. Too much info for most of them, but it goes on, and on, and ....

 

[kraftymike]

Seems like the new enviro tactics are to sneak in the back door. Lately they have been attacking these less known, and frequented areas where they are sure to run into less resistance like White Sulfer, East Glacier…..

I sat through one of these forest service meetings and listened to some fat chick who certainly did not get out much to use these closed lands, tell us that they were closing the areas around Bridger Bowl because it was prime lynx habitat. One old rancher/snowmobiler stood up and said “I have been living in the Bridgers for over 30 years and have never seen a lynx. How many are there?” Chubby replied “Well, none right now, but if they decide to move in they have a prime habitat.” Even more ironically was that right before the sledders got the boot, Bridger Bowl which already cuts top to bottom of the range was given permission to expand.

There is certainly no reasoning with these people.

 

[kinney31]

ttt this sucks

 

[m_beeson]

yeh, they don't mind charging us property tax sales tax, and registration fees, but we are a forgotten part of the economy when they think of state revenue and economic stimulus. instead they want to keep us out so that some tree hugger can go out on his cross country skis once a decade and hear nothing but the jets flying overhead.

They did that in the Tony Grove area of Utah too. I am not familiar with the area, and I know that if you are in the wrong area they will take you to the electric chair then to the firing squad, so I havent been too quick to get up there. I understand that the area that they left open is "all high avalanche danger", and they cut out the intermediate area, so you can't take anybody with you that is not an expert snowmobiler, but the cross country pukes can go in there undisturbed.

how much did they put into the economy for the purchase of their equipment. How much property tax, registration and lisencing, and sales tax did they put into the economy, and how much of their fees go to the cause of keeping those trails groomed. It doesn't make sense.

When was the last time that a snowmobiler in the rockeys hurt watershed. I got news for these enviropricks, there is no watershed in the rockeys. the land is too rockey. as soon as the snow melts to a point that it stops flowing to the creeks, it goes straight down. It does not continue to run at an even flow to a designated area. watershed takes place in florida, and louisiana. We have aquafers.