Hatcher Pass Public Scoping Meeting

[pura vida]

thanks for everyone that went last night. thanks to trav for posting the link to dnr's comment page. please get your friends to comments. once i write me comments i'll post it for other to use if they like.

pv

 

[DVarmit]

Here is what I submitted... I hate to say it but I doubt it will even be read but at least I did my part. I think it's pretty sad we have such a low sense of being able to have an impact on these things..

Just wanted to drop a note in support of continued full access of motorized user access to Hatchers in it's existing form.

We both know the positive economic impact that motorized users have in this area. We pay registration fees. These fees are used to groom the trails for both motorized and non-motorized users. We pay parking fees were non-motorized users do not unless they choose to park in the upper lot or Gold Mint. We both know that hundreds of non-motorized users use this area daily in the winter without contributing any money toward operations or maintenance of the area's they use. Yet, the non-motorized users are the first to request that motorized user access be restricted. Who will financially support this area if non-motorized users are forced to go elsewhere?

By far, the motorized users are represented by a higher number of individuals than non-motorized users. It seems almost unfathomable that the areas of motorized users would be restricted when this group represents more individuals and has a much higher economic impact that non-motorized users.

Based on feedback from the public hearings so far it appears that motorized users are willing to work with non-motorized users to find a common ground and work together to preserve area’s of combined use. As unfortunate as it maybe, non-motorized users are clearly not willing to work together and have specifically requested area’s be closed to motorized use. I find it quit bold that the smallest number of users that contribute the least amount of money to support operations of the park should request that other users be denied access to state public use lands. I wonder what other group of users will be next on their list.

With the improvement in snow machines we can certainly reach places that we could not reach 10 years ago. On the other side of that coin we see that non-motorized users are seeing the benefit in these new machines and are taking snow machines back into areas that they could never reach before. I continue to see more and more of these types of “dual use” users and am glad to see that they get to enjoy areas that would otherwise only be a dot on a map that they wish they could ski. Since this plan is a plan for the future we should look at the possibility that the younger non-motorized users will be taking advantage of motorized transportation to access area’s they normally would not be able to access. If you take away motorized use you very well may be taking away some great opportunities for future non-motorized users as well.

I can not speak for all motorized users but I believe a use fee accessed on non-motorized users in addition to a daily parking fee being assessed on all parking area’s in the park wound go a long way toward improvements and better communication for both motorized and non-motorized users. Trails and areas could be better marked as dual use areas with signage. Boards with area maps, boundary markers, dual use areas etc. could be erected at trail heads. This shows the effort of co-operation between the two groups. Warming huts could be erected in areas of high use and additional trails could be groomed and maintained. You could probably even host a yearly avalanche training course for both groups. I would venture to guess that assessing a use and parking fee for both groups of users would go a long way to at least improving the safety of the area’s we share. Quite honestly, I have yet to have anyone make a clear, concise and reasonable explanation of why non-motorized users do not pay user fees. If you or someone you know has one and it makes senses please do send me an email explaining the reasoning. I am sure there are a large amount of users that would be interested as well.

A common thread presented by non-motorized users seems to be safety and lack of the feeling of being safe in motorized areas. In this case I would refer to your Vision Statement:

The Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation envisions an affordable and accessible system of parks that provide diverse, safe, year-round, high-quality,
family-oriented, outdoor recreation experiences; statewide programs that enhance the enjoyment and stewardship of the state’s outdoor recreation, natural, historic and cultural resources; and a dedicated, professional staff that fully meets the needs of the public.

Your Vision Statement refers to a diverse, safe and family related experience. I would suggest that before we make a decision to exclude certain members of the public from a specific type of experience on public lands we should first look at alternatives to providing a safer and more diverse experience through information. Assessing a user fee for non-motorized users combined with the existing fees paid by motorized users would go a long way toward education and communication as long as it is managed and implemented correctly.

Unlike non-motorized users I do not want to see any group of user’s loose access to any part of state lands. I hope that you see this way as well and if there is anything I can do to help please send me an email and I will do what I can to see that I do.

 

[TEH HITMAN]

Here is what I submitted... I hate to say it but I doubt it will even be read but at least I did my part. I think it's pretty sad we have such a low sense of being able to have an impact on these things..

Just to clarify, we received your letter, and then deleted it.

The Sierra Club has funded the legal battle required to finalize an obscure land swap that President Bush signed in August 2008.
As one small part of a multi-page agreement, motorized use will be restricted south of Igloo.


Gov. Palin is behind this deal 100% and it is noted several times in her blog.

We are required to finalize the public comment period by law, but are not required to act on any of the presented comments.

It is just part of the way the system works.

It is best for everyone if the motorized users are kept segregated away from non motorized users.It is also very important to the eco-system to keep the damage from motorized use limited to a small, contained area.

Jim Creek damage by motorized use has shed motorized users in general in a bad light and the leaders of the Mat-Su Borough and USFS feel this is the only way to proceed.

Please keep this information anonomous.

 

[highlife]

Feel free to use any or all of this when you fill out the form on the DNR website.

Ok, heres the deal. I have been to both of the meetings out in the Valley. My family and I have been using the Hatchers Pass area for over 50 years. We love it there and use it year round.. I am a multi use visitor ... I ride snowmachines, hike, raft, 4-wheeler, ski, snowboard, fish and hunt as well as all of my family members who now take there children there to do the same things.

I am not for excluding anyone to access the backcountry, what ever the means of transportation, especially in the winter on snowmachines as they leave NO impact once the snow melts. A track is a track whether its from a sled, ski, snowboard or snowshoe or snowmachine. As long as there is adequate snow cover there is no evidence of ground disturbance.

I understand there have been issues with snowmobilers riding in the non-motorized areas (those folks dont represent the masses who sled) and other safety related issues on multi use trails. I recommend more posted speed limit signs on the access trails to take care of that concern for hikers/skiers and snowmobilers. I also have seen skiers block the trails on purpose so both sides need to respect each other to play incident free.

It is true the new sleds can go further into the back country then ever before. In fact, in the Lane and Bomber areas I see more sledders than skiers. I love that area and there is plenty of room for both parties to play with out excluding one group over the other. Last time I checked I have not seen the skiing community lose any ground, in fact, they are free to play where they choose. My family loves to ski and board using our snowmachines to gain access. We play harmoniously with all groups and we dont want to be excluded to areas we currently play in. Changing the existing outreaching boundaries for the few skiers who can access them on foot is not fair for the masses who can now enjoy those areas due to gains in technology.

The meetings havent really touched on what you want to change! In the future, can you cut to the chase and give us your thoughts. I personally dont think you need to change any of the boundaries.

If the issues are from the Rangers perspective (which I have heard) then we need to discuss how to utilize volunteer Rangers to help police the area. Posted speed limits on all the trails will solve machine/human interface issues. And for those who ignore the out of bounds areas we can have volunteers take down sled registration numbers and turn them in. I also want to make the comment that some of the Rangers who work the Hatchers area treat me differently depending on what I am doing in the Park. I have been treated with disrespect while snowmachining but when I strap on my skis I am greeted with an entirely different attitude. Based on those personal experiences it appears some diversity and inclusion training may be in order for some of your employees.

Bottom line, there are more sledders out there using Hatchers than the skiers. Trail maintenance and Ranger wages are funded primarily from the snowmachining community. Planning for the future should focus on ways to enjoy this area together not excluding one user over the other.

 

[DVarmit]

Just to clarify, we received your letter, and then deleted it.

The Sierra Club has funded the legal battle required to finalize an obscure land swap that President Bush signed in August 2008.
As one small part of a multi-page agreement, motorized use will be restricted south of Igloo.


Gov. Palin is behind this deal 100% and it is noted several times in her blog.

We are required to finalize the public comment period by law, but are not required to act on any of the presented comments.

It is just part of the way the system works.

It is best for everyone if the motorized users are kept segregated away from non motorized users.It is also very important to the eco-system to keep the damage from motorized use limited to a small, contained area.

Jim Creek damage by motorized use has shed motorized users in general in a bad light and the leaders of the Mat-Su Borough and USFS feel this is the only way to proceed.

Please keep this information anonomous.

I have to say that for the first time on this board you posted something interesting.. I would be interested in reading these blogs you are referring to.. Happen to have a link I could use to read these blog entries?

 

[highlife]

Again, like someone else mentioned earlier .... lets ignore that moron above.

 

[DVarmit]

Again, like someone else mentioned earlier .... lets ignore that moron above.

Apparently teh hitman must have been mistaken.. no links, nada.. hummm I guess that goes to show you once and a$$hole always and a$$hole.

Carry on..

 

[AC162AK]

So how does Tee Hee Slap Girl keep getting back on forum?

 

[DVarmit]

Good F____ing Riddance!

X10 I just wonder what took so long.. Someone should lock him up at API for a long time.. What an a$$hole..