Hatchers Pass Management Plan meeting!!!! Need Sledders to come to meeting!!!

[pura vida]

it was very nice to see a large motorized user group turnout. i got the feeling that is not who DNR and the forest service was expecting to see, at least not in those numbers. if there were any, "sledders are bad, and all motorized users should be kept out!" granola crunching fa.. i mean sexually challenged individuals there they kept very quite, the entire time!

on a serious note, one of the largest red flags i saw/heard was DNR and the forest service really pushing for us to highlight the areas where there have been "conflicts" between users. (for our group, this was mainly the archangel trail) i was hesitant to say because the only "solution" i have ever seen the forest service or DNR come up with to conflicts is limiting or excluding motorized use from conflicted area. just an fwiw, so we know the games they will try to play. also history shows that anytime these management plans are revised DNR ALWAYS!! tries to close more areas to motorized users. they WILL try to do this with hatchers, i would bet a lot of money on it.

in our group, i did make/highlight areas i thought should be open to sledders or that we should at least have access too. across the creek from the lower parking lot was one, read lakes was other, along with government hill. now will these be opened, probably not but by putting it out there it can not hurt. plus it give a little negotiation room to just keep areas closed that are already closed (regardless to how assign it may be) keep in mind rationality and common sense rarely come into play in these situations. emotions rule the day.

something else of note that i noticed was according to the maps that were at the meeting the area from the upper parking lot to summit lake was labeled as closed to motorized use. as we know that is not the current situation. but, not sure who else noticed, they (the DNR dude) when questioned did say something about a particular area being open in the 86 plan but listed as closed in the 89 revision. and that it was up to interpretation to if this area was open or closed. i believe the area mentioned above was the area in question. if so, how typical that on the maps at the meeting it is shown to be a closed area. i think this is something that really needs to be payed attention too. hopefully i looked at something wrong or misinterpreted but we need to keep a close eye on this so they don't try to pull one of there typical moves. "oh no, this was always a closed area, we are just enforcing it now. it was just our gracious nature we allowed you to use this before, bla, bla, bla." also, just wait till the non-motorized users see the map with it marked as it is and they will be jumping up and down screaming how their rights are being violated due to sledders using an area that was always intended to be closed.

btw, although it was pretty much standing room only we still could have packed in more bodies... (i'm speaking to a few specific individuals that i could have been there, you know who you are! and no i don't apologize for the twinge of guilt you now feel, or at least should!)

ok this is getting way too long. i'm talking too much, gee i never too that...

pv

 

[theultrarider]

Not long winded at all Pura! It takes people like you and Prayn to help keep everyone informed and to fight the battles as they come up. Thank you for taking the time to do so. Guys, they numbers really do matter. If/when they have more meetings, make sure to flood the room!!! It makes a difference. Atleast it did with the feds when they were redoing Lost Lake/Turny and the rest of the Penninsula. They said we had something like 10 times the turn out here on the Kenai of motorized users than they did with the meetings held in Anchorage. I guess nobody in Anchorage rides sleds at Lost lake, Turny, Placer....??? Mute point now, The point is, the Anchorage meetings were held before the ones down here. They were ready to start leaning the way of the non-motorized crowd until they ran into the crowds that showed up in Soldotna, Moose Pass and Seward! I you care about riding, Care enough to protect your right to do so. Rant over. Thanks to all who were there and bring more bodies to the next one!

 

[highlife]

Ok ... heres the deal. I just returned from the non-motorized meeting out in the Valley. We MUST organize as a group if we want to play in the areas we play in now. If we dont, things are going to change and they will not be in our favor. We need to reach out to people in the parking lot, our children, the internet family ... etc.

To sum up, the DNR has realized (not the skiers) that modern day sleds can now go into areas that we were unable to reach previously. I have been all over Hatchers, into the far reaching extreme areas that are legal to do so currently. If we dont voice our opinion those areas WILL be CLOSED. Our user group needs to overwhelm DNR. Go online and answer this survey to begin with ... http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/mgtplans/hatcher_2009/index.htm
Make your wife, girlfriend, son, daughter, team mate, work mate, dog .. fill one out as as sledder.
The overall theme from the non motorized folks is to close down sleds in the winter and four wheelers in the summer. What really needs to happen is to play in harmony with each other. Please dont ride in the currently closed areas, dont pinn it when you pass skiers on the trail (they are fearful of there lives and rightly so from the behavior I have witnessed personally) slow way down as you pass them, that means slow down at every blind corner as well. In the meeting they asked what kind of negative encounters they have had with motorized vehicles ... there were many and it was shocking and embarrasing to me. We need to clean up our act, we need to promote respect within our group or we will loose our current open areas here and else where.

One of our points we must ALL make to the DNR officials is simple this .. Yes, our modern sleds can now go deep into the park like never before but that is not a bad thing. When I go to those places, there are virtually NO ski tracks and if there are ANY they are few and far between. The sledders are the majority in the far reaching areas ... why penalize the sledders for the few skiers. If anything, I propose, we must PLAY TOGETHER. Dont cross set X-country tracks, slow down when you encounter other skiers. Maybe alternate days similiar to Eklutna ... just dont eliminate motorized use.

Start with going to the web site and filling out the questionnaire and then having all your friends fill it out as well. On the site they will list when subsequent meetings will be held and make the time in your life to actually GO to the MEETING.

We can do it ... lets get CRAZY involved. I want my son and his children to be able to play and what we do today will set the stage for the future. If there was a time to be political ... its NOW fellow sledders. If you want to ride at Hatchers like you do now ... get off your butt!!! Seriously.

 

[theultrarider]

Very well said highlife and I couldn't agree more. The fact that the modern sleds can go more places, and more dependably, should work out in our favor if we are willing to conceed a little. I for one am very much so in favor of corridors in some of the areas that we ride. The modern sled lets us run many many miles back up into a valley to reach our true modern playgrounds. These areas are far enough into the backcountry that it is improbable for a skier to even get back in there on an overnighter, let alone a day trip. I am not in favor of this everywhere of course, but this is a good fit in many areas where the skiers can have alot of terrian close to the trailheads if our morons will leave it alone on their way into the backcountry. You have hit the nail on the head. The two groups need to learn to respect each other. Alot do on both side of the fence. There are extremeists on both sides. Alittle common courtesy goes a very long way to keeping our areas open and having some respect from the skiers. Got to get involved guys. And do so with clam level heads.

 

[Prayn4snow]

I also went to the meeting tonight and was not surprised at the Non-motorized turnout. I must say driving into the parking lot I have never seen so many Obama bumper stickers on Subaru's
Seriously, they were for the most part a very organized, educated and Dedicated group! (about 50/50 Male-Female) There were some multi use people there too, and we talked about compromises and what conflicts they have had. Most of the conflicts have to do with Archangel, and the Ranger confirmed that they have some of the most complaints there. The common problem is Archangel is small (compared to the rest of HP) area that skiers, cross country, skijorers, hikers and snowshoers like to go because it is close to the parking lots. Leading to Archangel is a narrow groomed trail that is multi use and many of them are scared to death because "many" of the snowmobiles fly past them (very fast) and they sometimes must jump out of the way. They note that "some" of these sleds are obnoxiously loud and smell the worst. So the FS, DNR and DMLW have to revise the current plan because it is almost 2 1/2" thick and hard to understand and even conflicts itself. While they are revising it they are going to take all of these things "into consideration". They know there are going to be some changes already, like no more grazing of farm animals.
It was also noted that bird watchers complained about the damage ATV's are doing to the "prime" nesting areas on Baldy. They said ATV's have been riding through there the last couple years off the trail and destroying this habitat. I asked them if it was marked as such and they said no. Note: this guy was also a hunter and a bird hunter. Also, some of the skiers there know of Snowest and Dootalk....
I also noted again that the large upper and lower parking lot are "Day use" and you must pay $5 which is fine by me. However I disagree with the fact that most of the skiers park in the small pull outs and along the road and don't have to pay for their use of the park. I said to be fair, we should put up an "Iron Ranger" at the entrance of the park like they have all over many other parks in the state. The Iron Ranger is just like the ones in the parking lots, you would just pay as you go into the park rather than just the parking lots. This way all the skiers, snowboarders etc get a chance to pay also. Plus they don't pay a registration fee to help groom the trails that they use. By the way, Thank you Dave Hendrickson for grooming the trails there every week! Even if I don't use them...

 

[highlife]

Were you they guy in camo that came in slightly late?

 

[DVarmit]

I said to be fair, we should put up an "Iron Ranger" at the entrance of the park like they have all over many other parks in the state. The Iron Ranger is just like the ones in the parking lots, you would just pay as you go into the park rather than just the parking lots. This way all the skiers, snowboarders etc get a chance to pay also.

What kind of reaction did you get from this suggestion? I would think the park would go for that in a heartbeat.

 

[Remmy]

I was planning but lost track of time and didn't make it. Sorry PV got caught up on a Rhino ride and noticed the time to far from home. I'm grateful for everyone who was there.

 

[pura vida]

thanks to those who went to the second meeting. i found out about it shortly before it happened but was already committed to something else. thanks pray for adjusting your schedule and going to the meeting.

i agree sledders tend to be their own worst enemy when they don't slow down going by skiers or don't take into consideration other users. but i have also had skiers refuse to move out of the way when i came up behind them where the trail narrowed down. they sat in the middle of the tail ignoring our group and refusing to step off to the side, even though they were taking a break. i've also have skiers stick and swing poles at me as i road by. so it goes both ways which needs to be highlighted. there are a-holes on both side of the issue and do not represent the majority of group. then there are the guys that cover their ears and glare at you even when you slow down, crawl by them, and wave with stock cans and exhausts. so it is pretty clear how those individuals feel. really, if they hate it that much then they better got to the top of the pass where sledders are not allowed! it is called a multi-use trail!

sorry, venting. these examples and arguments need to be presented clearly and without anger. we need a large amount of sledders to show up and just represent motorized users. it would even be a good idea to meet a day or two before the official meeting (this could even be at a bar...) in order to slightly organize and plan how to present our arguments. i hate meetings and this kind of crap myself but it may help streamline and focus our arguments. i believe the next meeting is tomorrow? 3/31. not sure on this.


pv

 

[pura vida]

so the link to the survey does not seem to be working, at least not for me. fyi.

edit: i think it is the dnr site as i can't get on it at all.

 

[theultrarider]

thanks to those who went to the second meeting. i found out about it shortly before it happened but was already committed to something else. thanks pray for adjusting your schedule and going to the meeting.

i agree sledders tend to be their own worst enemy when they don't slow down going by skiers or don't take into consideration other users. but i have also had skiers refuse to move out of the way when i came up behind them where the trail narrowed down. they sat in the middle of the tail ignoring our group and refusing to step off to the side, even though they were taking a break. i've also have skiers stick and swing poles at me as i road by. so it goes both ways which needs to be highlighted. there are a-holes on both side of the issue and do not represent the majority of group. then there are the guys that cover their ears and glare at you even when you slow down, crawl by them, and wave with stock cans and exhausts. so it is pretty clear how those individuals feel. really, if they hate it that much then they better got to the top of the pass where sledders are not allowed! it is called a multi-use trail!

sorry, venting. these examples and arguments need to be presented clearly and without anger. we need a large amount of sledders to show up and just represent motorized users. it would even be a good idea to meet a day or two before the official meeting (this could even be at a bar...) in order to slightly organize and plan how to present our arguments. i hate meetings and this kind of crap myself but it may help streamline and focus our arguments. i believe the next meeting is tomorrow? 3/31. not sure on this.


pv

Once again, very well said pura and thank you for steeping up and addressing this issue. Nobody likes going to thesse meetings. Ihate them as well. But if you care about our sport, our your kids ability to do them smae as they grow up, YOU MUST ATTEND THESE THINGS. Pura makes a good point about being well spoken and organized. I am down in Soldotna and obviously can not attend these meetings. but please, gather your your buddies and pla to be there if any way possible. I can not say it enough, numbers do really matter. Especially numbers in person, not just flooding their inbox on the computer.Flooding a room makes a far bigger lasting impression. Thanks again pura for making the time and care enough to put forth the effort that you are.
theultrarider

 

[pura vida]

thanks ultra but actually i'm just selfish.

i like riding hatcher. it's right behind my house! that and i am tired of getting riding areas closed. as i said before the only solution i have ever seen dnr come up with to a conflict is to close it to motorized users. hey, i have a grand idea, lets close archangel to cc skiers. hey, if you look at the numbers there are FAR more sledders that use the area than skiers. not to mention who brings more money into the park. can you imagine the outcry... if nothing else suggesting that would possibly point out their hypocrisy.

pv

 

[Puff_N_AK]

Who is planning on attending the Anchorage meeting tonight?

 

[highlife]

Jarvis, Philana C (DNR) [philana.jarvis@alaska.gov]

The email address above is the person responsible for updating the DNR website to make available to all of us the survey link. She has told me as of today that they are still trying to make it active ... GO TO MY ABOVE THREAD AND CLICK ON THE LINK TO TAKE THE SURVEY.

Actually, just go here ... http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/planning/mgtplans/hatcher_2009/index.htm

If its not up if a day or two, lets email Philana.

 

[kev_alaska]

Hatcher Pass Meeting

I went last night to the Anchorage meeting. I will gather my notes and get some thoughts down on paper today. Not as many people as I would have liked to have seen, but a good forceful group. Several of us attending last night have the more of a history with the different management plans than the people working on it.

A couple questions for the group as a whole. 1) Is the area north of the management area above Reed Lakes used much? How and when?
2) Do you have any historical use of the Government Peak Unit? How and When?

I am asking in regards to what I see as some possible conflict areas that were on the edge of the radar last night. If you would send me some information via PM or e-mail, that will keep you out of the public eye. thanks.

Kevin Hite
kehite@gci.net

 

[pura vida]

i don't mind being in the public eye. so, as you know access to reed lakes is off limits to sledders so the area north of there is not ridden much but can and has been access many times. you can go around the back side over dog sled if you know how and have the gas. honestly i have never done it, but i'm sure there have been a few out of bound trips to access the area by going through reed lakes. this is assuming you are not talking about staying in the archangel valley and heading to and past lane hunt. as i'm sure you know that area is heavily used weekly.

yes i have rode the government peak area before it was closed, or at least before the forest service pushed their no snowmachine signs right up to the trail/road over the top. rode it for years. there are also property owners that have accessed hatcher pass through the government peak area. there is a trail that goes over the top from a road past the yellow store. don't know much detail b/c i've never been on the trail before. there was a local at the first valley meeting that had some strong opinions about keeping the trail open. i'm sure he will be at the next meetings. i don't remember his name.

remmy, i actually wasn't specifically thinking of you, but as long as it made you feel guilty... j/k

oh, and thanks for going since i didn't. (ok i admit it, i went riding. epic!)

pv

 

[highlife]

YES, the area above Reed Lakes is used ... I dont think much has anything to do with it!! I have seen this game before and if we play by the rules ... we loose out on sledding area.

I have ridden there on numerous occasions and yes, it takes, extra fuel and a good mountain sled and technical riding ability but the bottom line is this ... everytime I have been there, I see more sled tracks than ski tracks. I mention that only to point out that we dont want to exclude either group. Previously it has been "a ski area" due to the bomber hut and such but it takes a skier two days to access the place and only the most hard core fittest skiers get back there. That area is going to be OUR ace in the whole to play in, we need to fight to keep that open to motorized vehicle use.

 

[kev_alaska]

Hatcher Pass Management Plan

Most of the issues last night seemed to center around nothing more than "the old plan is 20 years old, and it is time to rework it". There were no non-motorized people there, so the topic of conflicts was minimal. Two things in the public notice that concerns me as a participant were:

1) the statement that the revised plan may include additional areas of state land to reflect new use patterns. What new use patterns are they refering to and how did they collect and document the new use patterns?

2) the Note that states is is likely that changes to state regulations governing the Generally Allowed uses on state land will likely be necessary. What changes are they anticipating and what unintended consequences are possible with the changes? The Generally Allowed Uses of State Land is pretty good as it stands. I am skeptical that any changes will benefit us.

As far as conflict goes, the only item that I noted (from my group, I hope the others chime in) is the funneling of snowmobilers into the avalanche chute just prior to going over the pass to Summit Lake. With the Skyscraper on the norther side of the corridor trail, is sketchy for much of the season insofar as avalance danger is concerned. With Hatcher creek the southern boundry of the corridor, a good alternative may be tough to propose.

The Government Peak unit is where the Borough is likely to locate the ski resort. It has traditionally been closed to snowmobilers. A very nebulous idea was discussed that involved opening part of the Government Peak unit to riding in exchange for closing some of the alpine area north of the Reed Lakes unit. This alpine area is currently not in the management unit at all. That was the reason I asked about traditional use of the area east of dogsled and north of Reed lake. I know some riders are dropping over dogsled pass and then heading north towards the Kashwitna drainage. This is again, just outside of the current management area and is subject to the Generally Allowable use of state land.....

In pursuing our long stated goal of no net loss, would it be worthwhile to look at a swap in this area? Would more people use the Government Peak Unit than use the alpine area mentioned above? We would insist on a continued use of the area north and east of dogsled pass for travel towards Kashwitna. Does anyone use the eastern section of that area around Penny Royal glacier or the areas north of Mint glacier?

The issue of skier tags that reflect the registration fees we all are required to obtain did not come up. Non-motorized contributions to the park system will certainly remain on the table. Use of state property costs us registration fees, the same should apply to non-motorized users.

Don't mistake these notes for advocation of any change in current use. I just want to gather as much information as possible so we can be fully informed at the next round of meetings. It was proposed that a motorized/non-motorized group meet in the next round to see where we have conflicted goals.....the DNR reps were very adamant that without a compelling public safey issue, the bar for closing any areas was extremely high and was not likely. If we figure out where the non-motorized groups are coming from, it should give us a better idea of what to address in advance of a draft proposal from the SOA.

Kevin

 

[pura vida]

thanks kevin for the oversight. sounds like it was pretty much the same as the first meeting in the valley. since there were no non-motorized users at the meeting my guess is there will be another anchorage meeting? next week? we should find out and have someone go just to see what is said. i can make a pretty good guess that the majority of skiers will argue to close archangel. it needs to be pointed out regularly that motorized users never try to limit who can use an area. it is the skiers that can't seem to share. and really if they can't share then it really should come down to numbers. users and money. if they can't share then the entire area above the upper parking lot has some great cc ski trails and no motors.

as kevin pointed out any change usually means bad things for sledders. look closely at the map the have at the meetings, it could be inturpreted that even the route over summit lake it closed to motorized users. i don't think this is going to be a real issue but something to keep an eye on. (unless i looked at it wrong, if so yell at me) we just really need to stay vigilant and aggressive in our approach. (do not read that this means yelling or name calling at the meetings)

keep the updates coming. thanks again.

pv

 

[theultrarider]

Good work guys! you certainly are going at this with the right attitude and right approach. Now the rest of us, find the time to make the meetings! I can't stress that enough, and make sure to keep it civil.