Read this thread and ACT on it...or continue to surrender your sledding rights

[Deep Powder Guy]

Writing letters is always good as a show of support....An even better approach would be to begin a petition sign by all snowmobilers.

When Yellowstone was being threatened there were many meeting at communities surrounding the park. In JH a strategy we had was to arrive at the meeting 30 minutes early and take up all the seats not allowing any of the enviro idiots a place to sit. It was a great strategy seeing all the enviro idiots standing in the hallway during the meeting.

DPG

 

[Mort2112]

Serious question for you... What makes you think your "voice was heard"? Did you get a written response from the decision makers? Or did your comments just fall on deaf ears?

I don't think it's totally deaf ears, no. I do think these are loosely examined and reviewed by some staffer to quantify the yea's and nay's, and while it may not reach the top levels, it's better than nothing at all for me.

 

[OuraySledder]

When they close an area you ride, will it be "good enough" then? At what point do you guys start taking action beyond writing letters?

It is a pretty impossible battle. There is a proposed Wilderness expansion that I can see from my living room right in town. The utter lies and feel good BS these folks spread garners them support from groups that have no idea what is really going on with the closures. We are easy targets as evil polluters of the pristine lands. Not true, but it works.

I also organized a huge turnout of sledders for several supposedly important public meetings with the USFS and BLM. In the end they betrayed us, like they are wont to do and organized a meeting between two reps from the state club then filled the rest of the hall with skiers, against the agreement, but they proceeded.

I am telling you, unless you dedicate your life to the cause, and find 10-20 million others, you are well behind the competition.

 

[montanasledhead]

the only way were being asked to WRITE THESE LETTERS is because of the hard work that BRC , ISSA , MSA , MSSA, Backcountry Sled Patriots, SledWarriors, etc,,,,,have done.
These people have spent thousands of dollars driving to the meetings working at the collaborative level and YES they have and are making head way.
They are there in the face of the Forest circus being heard. Now their asking for our help in what they have started for us , do your part.

this isn't the way things were addressed just a few years ago.

SEND A LETTER

 

[Deep Powder Guy]

This is a political move fostered and funded by the Sierra Club. And regardless of right or wrong the deep pockets of the Sierra Club will continue to fund the battle to eliminate snowmobiling on lands technically owned by the tax payers of the United

DPG

 

[montanasledhead]

To: Snowmobilers
From: ISSA-Public Lands
Date: July 17, 2014

RE: Comments on Proposed Rule (F.R. 2014-14273) Use by Over-Snow Vehicles (Travel Management Rule)

Now is the time to comment and comment we must. As you recall, the Winter Wildlands Alliance won a lawsuit against the Forest Service concerning the treatment of OSVs in the 2005 OHV Rule. In the original rule, winter travel planning was optional for OSV use. The Forest Service must now do winter travel planning and this is the first step in creating the process that will be used. THIS WILL IMPACT US SO PLEASE SEND IN COMMENTS. The deadline is AUGUST 4!



Comments can be sent electronically to http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FS-2014-0004-0001
Or you can mail in your comments to

U.S. Forest Service
ATTN: Joseph Adamson
Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources Staff
1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 1125
Washington, D.C. 20250-1125

One or the other not both


Opening paragraph--Share as much or as little as you want:
• Provide personal information; where you ride—do you primarily ride in National Forests? Do you primarily ride off-trail? How important the sport is to you and your family, how often you ride--any information that will clearly identify you as a person who has a valid interest in this document.
• You might also want to share with them your experiences on how user groups interact. Have you witnessed ‘conflict’? How in your experience does the non-motorized community interact with snowmobilers. (The reason for including this is because many non-motorized groups are not happy with this proposal and will be claiming it needs to be changed for many reasons including to deal with all the ‘conflict’)
• Is snowmobiling currently being managed where you ride? Are there areas that are open and others that are closed? Is there a winter OSV map available?


Comments on Proposed Rule you might want to include-pick and choose. Please feel free to rewrite using your own words:

• Generally the proposal is well written and demonstrates an understanding of snowmobiling and how it is currently being managed.
• Allowing local managers the ability to determine whether an area should be open for over-snow vehicle use, unless posted as closed, appropriately recognizes the necessary flexibility land management requires, particularly during the winter months where motorized use is unlikely to cause resource damage.
• I (we) support the grandfather clause permitting local districts to retain existing over-snow vehicle use management decisions. Most, if not all areas and districts, have already made over-snow vehicle use land management decisions and those existing decisions should not have to be re-visited until required to by NEPA.
• The definition of a snowmobile needs to be expanded to allow for modified vehicles to be used on the trail system if permitted by state law. Please add ‘wheels’ to the definition of a snowmobile in the rule
• The rule requires that there be an over-snow vehicle use map, however, the map must have sufficient detail in order to be useful. The rule should define more clearly what should be included on the maps.
• ‘Snowmobilers using their own equipment when involved in search and rescue, should be added to section 212.81 that lists categories of over-snow vehicle uses that may travel anywhere over-snow within the forest.
• Adequate snowfall should be determined by each district and never by dates because one never knows when the snow will come.
• Although this proposed rule only deals with motorized over snow use, the Forest Service has an obligation to minimize the impacts of all winter recreation uses.



Conclusion:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for considering my (our) comments

Sincerely,

Name
Address
City, State, Zip

 

[montanasledhead]

Tuesday, July --, 2014


U.S. Forest Service
ATTN: Joseph Adamson
Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources Staff
1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 1125
Washington, D.C. 20250-1125
Via U.S. Mail


RE: Comments on Proposed Rule (F.R. 2014-14273)
Use by Over-Snow Vehicles (Travel Management Rule)


Dear Mr. Adamson:

The following comments are submitted on behalf of Idaho State Snowmobile Association (ISSA). Please accept this letter as the official comments on behalf of ISSA relative to the Use by Over-Snow Vehicles (Travel Management Rule) proposed rule of the USFS published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014. Generally, the ISSA finds the proposed rule acceptable, but has a few suggestions for consideration.

The ISSA is an Idaho nonprofit association representing Idaho snowmobilers. The Idaho State Snowmobile Association is a statewide organization representing over 40 clubs, individuals and many businesses from throughout the state. Our members ride regularly on every National Forest in Idaho, therefore, we have a keen interest in any action affecting our sport on all forests.

ISSA promotes a collaborative framework for recreation enthusiasts and environmental interests to work together in cooperation with land managers, legislators, and the public to ensure a positive future for responsible winter recreation access for everyone, now and into the future. The federally-managed forest lands located in Idaho are widely known to have some of the very best snowmobile opportunities in the United States, and they are enjoyed not only by local residents, but by visitors from all across the country and Canada. The road, trails and areas within the Idaho forests are a tremendous recreation asset, as well as an increasingly significant economic asset for local communities. Accordingly, preserving responsible access to the federally-managed forest lands is an extremely high priority for the ISSA.

Our Comments:

Generally, the ISSA finds the proposed rule well-crafted. The ISSA supports providing local discretion as to whether over-snow vehicle use should be generally prohibited or generally allowed within an area. Allowing local land managers the ability to determine whether an area should be open for over-snow vehicle use, unless posted as closed, appropriately recognizes the necessary flexibility land management requires, particularly during the winter months where motorized use is unlikely to cause resource damage. The ISSA also supports the grandfather clause permitting local districts to retain existing over-snow vehicle use management decisions. Most if not all areas and districts have already made over-snow vehicle use land management decisions and those existing decisions should not have to be re-visited. The proposed rule allows the same, and that is wise policy.

Section 212.1 - Definitions

One item not addressed by the proposed rule is the definition of an over-snow vehicle. Current rule defines an over-snow vehicle as “a motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that runs on a track and/or ski or skis, while used over snow.” The ISSA is concerned that this definition is too narrow and believes the proposed rule should address the definition. Modern improvements to motorized vehicles permit vehicles not necessarily “designed” for over-snow use to be modified for over-snow use. Examples include motorcycles modified to be equipped with a rear track and a front ski, or ATVs and UTVs modified to be equipped with tracks. Additionally, most ATVs can appropriately operate on a groomed snowmobile trail during the over-snow season. Many states, including Idaho, permit ATVs and modified motor vehicles to operate on groomed snowmobile trails, even within USFS areas. See IDAHO CODE § 67-7112. As such, the ISSA suggests consideration be given to amending the definition of an over-snow vehicle as follows –

A self-propelled motor vehicle that is capable of traveling over snow or ice that either (a) runs on a track, ski, wheels, or runner; or (b) is under two-thousand (2,000) pounds unladen gross weight.

Additionally, the proposed rule requires designation of over-snow vehicle use to be indicated on an over-snow vehicle use map. The ISSA is familiar with motorized vehicle use maps already published under the existing rule. The MVUM’s are very generic in character and provide a user with very little guidance or orientation. The maps typically only indicate larger settlements and the road/trail network. Roads and trails are referenced by number. It is not uncommon for the road or trail to not be marked in the field because signs decay over time or are otherwise altered or removed. It is important that maps provide sufficient detail in depiction of not only roads, trails and areas, but also in depiction of landmarks, drainages and other physical features that will enable the users the ability to orient themselves when interpreting the map. As such, the proposed rule should define the necessary clarity required in the maps, or other USFS policy should be amended accordingly. This will eliminate much confusion by the using public.

Section 212.81 – Over-Snow Vehicle Use

This section provides that some categories of over-snow vehicle use are exempt from designation decision and may travel anywhere over-snow within the forest. Examples include administrative USFS use, military use, law enforcement use and emergency response use. With regard to emergency use, the exemption extends to “fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle” use for “emergency purposes”. Many ISSA members are active in search and rescue organizations, and they often travel over-snow within USFS lands for purposes of training and actual search and rescue operations. While doing so, they use their own over-snow vehicles, not ones supplied by any civil authority. The exemption should be clarified to ensure private over-snow vehicles used in conjunction with a search and rescue operation, including training, are exempt.

Concluding Remarks:

The proposed rule is generally well drafted. Addition should be made to address the definition of an over-snow vehicle to ensure the definition recognized modern use and what states are allowing. Additionally, clarification is needed to ensure the use maps can be understood by users, and to ensure search and rescue activities are exempt from restrictions and prohibitions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We trust that the above will be well-received and fully considered.

Sincerely,

Idaho State Snowmobile Association
Sandra Mitchell, Public Lands Director

 

[Scott]

Just got this email from Stan Spencer:

Here are some talking points to consider when sending your comments re: over the snow vehicle use proposed rule.
1) Generally the proposal is well written and demonstrates an understanding of snowmobiling.
2)Allowing local managers to determine over the snow use makes common sense as not all areas have the same characteristics and can't be managed by a "one size fits all" mandate
3) The grandfather clause permitting local districts to retain existing over the snow management decisions is the right solution.
4) Over the snow maps need more clarity than the current ones. They should include contour mapping and GPS coordinates. On site boundary markers would be very helpful where natural boundaries are not evident.
5) Adequate snowfall needs to be determined annually on a local basis instead of a preset date basis.

As mentioned previously you can comment electronically *as well as reading the rule, at the following website:
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...-by-over-snow-vehicles-travel-management-rule
You can comment as an individual or as a designated representative of a group. (not both)

The Winter Wildlands Alliance,Montana Backcountry Alliance, and Montana Wilderness Association recently held a joint meeting that included free beer and Brats plus a hat for anyone who submitted a comment on the spot. Their message (I read the email) is: " this is an opportunity to bring 'structure' to the backcountry by getting the rule modified to support only human powered recreation". I would hope everyone reading this is engaged enough to not need to be bribed to comment!!. Regardless, they and a lot of other environmental groups, are doing everything in their power to change the proposed rule in order to eliminate off trail riding and snowmobiling in general.

We need to step up to the plate and comment by supporting the rule to keep off trail riding open and managed locally. In order to reach as many people as possible please forward this to other groups, *businesses, and individuals and ask them to forward it. The rule is Nationwide so it applies to all snowmobile off trail riding. If you stay silent you really run the risk to be kept to trails,or less, in the future. Take 15 minutes to keep Washington DC, ergo environmentalists, from managing our off trail riding.
THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS IS AUG. 4 2014.

I'll submitt a separate talking points email for the proposed action on the Great Burn in a day or so.

Stan Spencer.

 

[OuraySledder]

the only way were being asked to WRITE THESE LETTERS is because of the hard work that BRC , ISSA , MSA , MSSA, Backcountry Sled Patriots, SledWarriors, etc,,,,,have done.
These people have spent thousands of dollars driving to the meetings working at the collaborative level and YES they have and are making head way.
They are there in the face of the Forest circus being heard. Now their asking for our help in what they have started for us , do your part.

this isn't the way things were addressed just a few years ago.

SEND A LETTER

Sorry, been there, done that. I do not believe for one second that we are making headway. Show me the lands that have been re-opened after a closure. Show me the wilderness lands re-opened after a closure.

Slowing the rate of closures is NOT making headway and, I don't think that is happeneing either.

Write all the letters you want, the thread title is completely misleading.

I for one would like to see them TRY and police us, and keep us on trails. That is when the REAL battle begins. This is the greenies trying to do it the easy way, by legislating us out of existence. I think we make them all work for it.

Do you think any one of them wants to be the guy in deep in the woods trying to enforce this kind of BS on a group of sledders? Let them try.

Meanwhile, keep writing those letters... Hasn't worked for the the last three decades but, I am SURE you guys have it dialed now.

 

[Deep Powder Guy]

Here's a fact folks....The greenies ride snowmobiles they just don't want anyone else riding snowmobiles.

DPG

 

[Deep Powder Guy]

Here's some other facts ....Why doesn't the Sierra Club go after the NORBA crowd ? Mountain bikers leave there tire print on the land from coast to coast and imo cause far move harm to the land than snowmobilers who ride on the snowpack.

Whats the difference ?

DPG

 

[OuraySledder]

Here's some other facts ....Why doesn't the Sierra Club go after the NORBA crowd ? Mountain bikers leave there tire print on the land from coast to coast and imo cause far move harm to the land than snowmobilers who ride on the snowpack.

Whats the difference ?

DPG

Because they do not have an engine. The bike crowd is sometimes in and sometimes out. Here where I live they were having trouble drumming up support for a wilderness expansion until they included the bikes. That got the rest of the hippie community on board.

Fact is, mechanical devices used to be the standard for wilderness, that would exclude skiers with mechanical bindings, bicycles etc. Today they manipulate it to help drum up support to push the adgenda of no motorized vehicles in the forest at all.

 

[montanasledhead]

all you negative folks I get it you don't care anymore, you tried , etc ,

if you would read what's out there and see what is going on you might have a different view.

This is not about reopening closed areas and that's it.

this is about taking the control of the forest back to the state level.
If you read the info we have been supplying you would see they CLOSED much of the Great Burn to PEDAL BIKES, as well as snowmobiles, yet there are a few trails that were REOPENED to MOTORCYCLES!!!!

Please read what were doing and get educated before telling us were all idiots.
Up Lolo Pass we did save two large chucks of land that the greenies wanted for their use we fought it and its still open to the sledders.
Mount Jefferson was slated to be fully closed last year ,,, did you notice it didn't get shut down!
The time you all take to tell us were wasting OUR time fighting for YOU ,,, you could have written a letter and helped US...

 

[Deep Powder Guy]

First I would like to say thank you to all those on the front line fighting for snowmobilers and there right to ride.

It would be nice however if the forest service would direct the issues at the local, state and county level which are directly effected by closures (maybe it is) much like was done years ago when Yellowstone came under attack. Rather than working through a forest service administrator in Washington DC who quit frankly could care less about snowmobiling out west and the letters of concern snowmobilers have over possible land closures. Washington DC is a mess on every level.

IMO the fight needs to be conducted at the FS offices located directly next to each effected closure area and public hearing as well need to be conducted at the local level (hopefully they are )...I firmly believe had it not been for local meeting in and around communities surrounding Yellowstone the park would be closed snowmobiling and towns surrounding the parks would be boarded up during winter months.

Washington DC and the Sierra Club are in bed together mainly due to the large sums of money the Sierra Club pours into Washington DC. Again it would be beneficial to the snowmobile communities if the fight could be on the local level and not 2000 miles away in hostile territory.

I would like see Washington DC to come to effected areas and face the snowmobilers and communities face to face rather than sitting in there insulated office in DC.

DPG

 

[Scott]

More from Stan...
(Backcountry Sled Patriots)

In my haste to get comment talking points out I overlooked some of my/Sandra's notes.
In addition to the talking points, provide some personal information where you ride off trail, how long you have been riding, and the size of group you generally ride with. You can share what wildlife and/or other winter users you see (if any) in the backcountry. This aspect is pretty important because the *non motorized folks are hollering user conflict and wildlife enroachment. You might add that the reason you like to ride the backcountry off trail is for the solitude, scenery and challenge.
Remember, comment period closes on AUG 4.

It will be a while before I send talking points on the proposed action for the Gt. Burn. Sandra and I will be at a collaborative meeting in Orofino on Aug 14 and are thinking we want to hear what is going on there before we set our action/strategy. I would encourage everyone to pull a copy of the prposed action and read it and feel free to pass on any thoughts/comments to me that you come up with .
Stan

 

[montanasledhead]

First I would like to say thank you to all those on the front line fighting for snowmobilers and there right to ride.

It would be nice however if the forest service would direct the issues at the local, state and county level which are directly effected by closures (maybe it is) much like was done years ago when Yellowstone came under attack. Rather than working through a forest service administrator in Washington DC who quit frankly could care less about snowmobiling out west and the letters of concern snowmobilers have over possible land closures. Washington DC is a mess on every level.

IMO the fight needs to be conducted at the FS offices located directly next to each effected closure area and public hearing as well need to be conducted at the local level (hopefully they are )...I firmly believe had it not been for local meeting in and around communities surrounding Yellowstone the park would be closed snowmobiling and towns surrounding the parks would be boarded up during winter months.

Washington DC and the Sierra Club are in bed together mainly due to the large sums of money the Sierra Club pours into Washington DC. Again it would be beneficial to the snowmobile communities if the fight could be on the local level and not 2000 miles away in hostile territory.

I would like see Washington DC to come to effected areas and face the snowmobilers and communities face to face rather than sitting in there insulated office in DC.

DPG

man I sure don't want to sound like a complete a$$ H*&$
BUT THIS IS WHAT THIS WHOLE THING IS ABOUT!!!!!!
bringing things back to the state level....
PLEASE READ AND ASK QUESTIONS PASS THIS ON >>
DEAD LINE IS AUG 4th

 

[hilpulr]

Message

I have sent it out to all my riding buddies.

Scott do you know if something has been posted at Kurts, Gull or the Arctic Cat shop in Missoula? I do outside sales if somebody did up something i would be happy to take them around and post them up. I am just not really good with computers!

Thanks
Glen

 

[Deep Powder Guy]

I have been waiting for 10 years for scientific evidence that over the snow vehicles aka snowmobiles cause harm & damage to ground soil and vegetation once the snow pack has melted.

I have been waiting for 10 years for the scientific evidence that over the snow vehicles aka snowmobiles cause harm or trauma to wildlife.

Has the FS back in DC made copy's of such scientific evidence available yet ? Anyone know where a copy of such a report can be found ?

DPG

 

[diamonddave]

905 comments....

 

[OuraySledder]

all you negative folks I get it you don't care anymore, you tried , etc ,

if you would read what's out there and see what is going on you might have a different view.

This is not about reopening closed areas and that's it.

this is about taking the control of the forest back to the state level.
If you read the info we have been supplying you would see they CLOSED much of the Great Burn to PEDAL BIKES, as well as snowmobiles, yet there are a few trails that were REOPENED to MOTORCYCLES!!!!

Please read what were doing and get educated before telling us were all idiots.
Up Lolo Pass we did save two large chucks of land that the greenies wanted for their use we fought it and its still open to the sledders.
Mount Jefferson was slated to be fully closed last year ,,, did you notice it didn't get shut down!
The time you all take to tell us were wasting OUR time fighting for YOU ,,, you could have written a letter and helped US...

Not asking you to fight for me. I think you are going about it WRONG, JMHO.

So the truth is you are NOT making much if any headway, by your own admission...

Anymore we just ride what we want. Let them try to enforce their unconstitutional closures. Meanwhile you worry about the rules they made for you and try to play by them. That means, you are still losing this battle. You need to change tactics in order to win the battle. As long as you keep playing by their rules, you will continue to lose.

This has been going on for decades in other areas of forest use. NEVER has anyone beat them at their own game. You wont this time either.

I'm not sure moving it to the state level is all that desirable. It may help them to effect closures more quickly by circumventing the feds. Be careful what you wish for.