Direct link, send intelligent comments and spread the word. http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FS_FRDOC_0001-1883
FS COMMENT LINK ON PROPOSED MANAGEMENT
- Thread starter LaharDar
- Start date
Just so everyone knows, here is the link so you can understand what your writing about.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FS-2014-0004-0001
Does anyone have a form letter we can copy/paste to send in?
Considering they're asking for our input, i havent seen much traffic about this topic or us "banding" together to motivate everyone to provide comments.
Seems like they're lobbing this up in the air for us to voice our opinion. seeing as how we complain about our lands being taken away all the time, this might help us keep some of them.
what i'm leery about is the ranger districts discretion for drawing the map and limiting us even more on where we can/could ride and even what times of the year....i know most of us will scout riding areas as soon as we see white tops of the mountain. the way i read it, the ranger district could simply say no riding untill dec 1st, or jan 1st, and have a restricted riding area worse than the wilderness boundaries we are always dodging.
am i reading this correctly? any lawyer friends want to chime in?
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FS-2014-0004-0001
Does anyone have a form letter we can copy/paste to send in?
Considering they're asking for our input, i havent seen much traffic about this topic or us "banding" together to motivate everyone to provide comments.
Seems like they're lobbing this up in the air for us to voice our opinion. seeing as how we complain about our lands being taken away all the time, this might help us keep some of them.
what i'm leery about is the ranger districts discretion for drawing the map and limiting us even more on where we can/could ride and even what times of the year....i know most of us will scout riding areas as soon as we see white tops of the mountain. the way i read it, the ranger district could simply say no riding untill dec 1st, or jan 1st, and have a restricted riding area worse than the wilderness boundaries we are always dodging.
am i reading this correctly? any lawyer friends want to chime in?
no one seems to care, but thanks for the updated link. COMMENT NOW button in upper right of page...
I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that nobody cares (yet)! I can't speak for anyone else, but I've not been checking the board as often lately, now that my mind has started shifting to other things. I have not read all of the "Proposed Rule" document yet, but did notice a few things I thought were noteworthy.
Under "Background and Need For The Rule" it is stated:
"While both motor vehicle use and OSV <SUP>(1) </SUP>use are increasing in the National Forests and Grasslands, so are many other types of recreational activities. From 1982 to 2009, the number of people in the United States participating in viewing or photographing birds increased 304.2 percent, the number of people participating in day hiking increased 228.2 percent, the number of people participating in backpacking increased 167 percent, the number of people participating in fishing increased 36 percent, and the number of people participating in hunting increased 34 percent (id. at 135-36). Providing for the long-term sustainable use of NFS lands and resources is essential to maintaining the quality of the recreation experience in the national forests and grasslands."
It makes me question how many of these "other types of recreational activities" that have increased so much in the past 27 years would actually conflict with over-snow-vehicle use. It would be nice if the polls that were used to obtain these numbers (just a guess...I'm not sure how else they would get that kind of information) also questioned the time of year they participate in such activities. I guess maybe I've just not yet seen anyone out viewing or photographing birds while I'm sledding.
My understanding is that this proposal is addressing motor vehicle use on National Forest lands, whether it be wheeled vehicles or 'over snow vehicles.' Technically, a snowmobile could be considered a motor vehicle, but the very fact that they travel upon a substance that disappears every summer (leaving virtually no trace behind) makes grouping them into this proposal a complicated mess, in my opinion. What's right for one type of vehicle is obviously not right for all, though I don't think I need to remind anyone here of that.
As someone mentioned in the "Poaching Season" thread a while back, hikers, backpackers, and various other visitors do far more lasting damage to both wilderness and non-wilderness areas by straying from designated trails, illegal campfires, litter, etc. I'm not sure that it would serve much purpose in bringing up this subject when addressing or commenting on the proposed rule, but I would think it could certainly bring to light a few differences between the effects of 'over snow vehicles' vs. other types of recreation on National Forest lands. Not just differences between over snow vehicles and non-motorized use either. Even wheeled vehicles such as dirtbikes, 4x4 rigs, etc. are typically operating on some type of existing road or trail, many of which are rarely if ever also used by hikers, backpackers, birdwatchers, etc. Of course, I guess I could see this happening, if their Subaru gets stuck or might get scratched, they may park and continue on foot. Anyway, I feel like I'm starting to ramble now, so I'll try to wrap this up...just bear with me for a few more minutes!
One thing that I intend to do this summer, is hike out to some of the places I enjoy sledding at during the winter and put up a few simple shelves/platforms on trees. Just a board that will sit up against the trunk of the tree, with another base/floor board attached to it and one on the side. It won't be nailed or screwed to the tree (wouldn't want to piss off any tree huggers!) but will be held on with a fabric strap of some kind.
My intent with this is to have a simple platform to place a camera on and take a picture of the beautiful, pristine mountain terrain during the summer. And again, from the exact same location and angle, during the winter. Obviously the summer pics will likely look very nice and show nature at it's finest (well almost...I think winter shows nature at it's finest!). The winter pics will show the same terrain, with the snow tracked out, torn up, well-ridden, etc. And there may be a few pics taken to show the untouched snow as well, but my main goal with this project is to have photographic proof that 'over snow vehicle' use has a much lower 'lasting impact' on any terrain, in comparison to other uses. I'm not sure how helpful this would actually be in trying to convince others that we should be allowed to continue using existing areas (or even opening up more usage in currently closed areas), but I'd like to think that 'seeing is believing' and that many people in a position to create or amend regulations may have a skewed or uninformed view on the ACTUAL impact of our sport vs. the perceived impacts.
In closing, I'm not sure if anything I've said here will be of use to anyone, but maybe it will help get a little bit of a discussion started, so we can at least have some of our concerns (and opinions) on this issue heard by those that need to hear it the most.
Under "Background and Need For The Rule" it is stated:
"While both motor vehicle use and OSV <SUP>(1) </SUP>use are increasing in the National Forests and Grasslands, so are many other types of recreational activities. From 1982 to 2009, the number of people in the United States participating in viewing or photographing birds increased 304.2 percent, the number of people participating in day hiking increased 228.2 percent, the number of people participating in backpacking increased 167 percent, the number of people participating in fishing increased 36 percent, and the number of people participating in hunting increased 34 percent (id. at 135-36). Providing for the long-term sustainable use of NFS lands and resources is essential to maintaining the quality of the recreation experience in the national forests and grasslands."
It makes me question how many of these "other types of recreational activities" that have increased so much in the past 27 years would actually conflict with over-snow-vehicle use. It would be nice if the polls that were used to obtain these numbers (just a guess...I'm not sure how else they would get that kind of information) also questioned the time of year they participate in such activities. I guess maybe I've just not yet seen anyone out viewing or photographing birds while I'm sledding.
My understanding is that this proposal is addressing motor vehicle use on National Forest lands, whether it be wheeled vehicles or 'over snow vehicles.' Technically, a snowmobile could be considered a motor vehicle, but the very fact that they travel upon a substance that disappears every summer (leaving virtually no trace behind) makes grouping them into this proposal a complicated mess, in my opinion. What's right for one type of vehicle is obviously not right for all, though I don't think I need to remind anyone here of that.
As someone mentioned in the "Poaching Season" thread a while back, hikers, backpackers, and various other visitors do far more lasting damage to both wilderness and non-wilderness areas by straying from designated trails, illegal campfires, litter, etc. I'm not sure that it would serve much purpose in bringing up this subject when addressing or commenting on the proposed rule, but I would think it could certainly bring to light a few differences between the effects of 'over snow vehicles' vs. other types of recreation on National Forest lands. Not just differences between over snow vehicles and non-motorized use either. Even wheeled vehicles such as dirtbikes, 4x4 rigs, etc. are typically operating on some type of existing road or trail, many of which are rarely if ever also used by hikers, backpackers, birdwatchers, etc. Of course, I guess I could see this happening, if their Subaru gets stuck or might get scratched, they may park and continue on foot. Anyway, I feel like I'm starting to ramble now, so I'll try to wrap this up...just bear with me for a few more minutes!
One thing that I intend to do this summer, is hike out to some of the places I enjoy sledding at during the winter and put up a few simple shelves/platforms on trees. Just a board that will sit up against the trunk of the tree, with another base/floor board attached to it and one on the side. It won't be nailed or screwed to the tree (wouldn't want to piss off any tree huggers!) but will be held on with a fabric strap of some kind.
My intent with this is to have a simple platform to place a camera on and take a picture of the beautiful, pristine mountain terrain during the summer. And again, from the exact same location and angle, during the winter. Obviously the summer pics will likely look very nice and show nature at it's finest (well almost...I think winter shows nature at it's finest!). The winter pics will show the same terrain, with the snow tracked out, torn up, well-ridden, etc. And there may be a few pics taken to show the untouched snow as well, but my main goal with this project is to have photographic proof that 'over snow vehicle' use has a much lower 'lasting impact' on any terrain, in comparison to other uses. I'm not sure how helpful this would actually be in trying to convince others that we should be allowed to continue using existing areas (or even opening up more usage in currently closed areas), but I'd like to think that 'seeing is believing' and that many people in a position to create or amend regulations may have a skewed or uninformed view on the ACTUAL impact of our sport vs. the perceived impacts.
In closing, I'm not sure if anything I've said here will be of use to anyone, but maybe it will help get a little bit of a discussion started, so we can at least have some of our concerns (and opinions) on this issue heard by those that need to hear it the most.
It's about keeping sleds on the road stupid!
Surprised that folks in general are so ignorant of this issue. This is about sled exemption from travel management plan. Winter Wildlands Alliance only wants sleds on the roads at best. WWA sued the feds because sleds are (were) exempt from travel plan. Court sided with WWA and forced Feds to implement winter travel plan for sleds. Previously over the snow travel exempt since not same impact as bike or vehicle, not any more. Now the feds must come up with plan to deal with over the snow vehicles. So pull you head out and go to http://winterwildlands.org/ to learn what the anti sled folks want!
Surprised that folks in general are so ignorant of this issue. This is about sled exemption from travel management plan. Winter Wildlands Alliance only wants sleds on the roads at best. WWA sued the feds because sleds are (were) exempt from travel plan. Court sided with WWA and forced Feds to implement winter travel plan for sleds. Previously over the snow travel exempt since not same impact as bike or vehicle, not any more. Now the feds must come up with plan to deal with over the snow vehicles. So pull you head out and go to http://winterwildlands.org/ to learn what the anti sled folks want!
N
n16ht5
Well-known member
contact Shelley Pursell for more information at spursell@winterwildlands.org or 208.336-4203 ext. 3
feel free to send all your love
feel free to send all your love
Start blowing up your facebook, and also posting to the local snowmobile club FB pages.
although snowmobile related companies typically push their product or video's on their FB page, it might help if they can spread the word. One video posted to 509's FB page reaches 1000's by the end of the day.
Not everyone reads snowest, but most everyone on the internet has FB.
although snowmobile related companies typically push their product or video's on their FB page, it might help if they can spread the word. One video posted to 509's FB page reaches 1000's by the end of the day.
Not everyone reads snowest, but most everyone on the internet has FB.
D
Deep Powder Guy
Banned
It's an election year folks and every time there's a presidential election the greenies come up with some kind of BS to stir the pot. Bottom line I have yet to see any scientific evidence from the greenies that snowmobiles cause any harm to land or wildlife.
DPG
DPG
Similar threads
