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
