98% favor less motorized access...
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Sorry Ringer, you cant fire anyone.
Hangar18
New member
You missed part of it Buzz.
...Jacobs said he supports the third option, or eliminating motorized use. The Rocky Mountain Front is a pristine area where traditional uses should be enjoyed.
Ehnes said it is important to allow motorized travel in areas of the Front.
"We have a number of club members who ride in the Badger-Two Medicine," he said. "Those trails have been open to motorcycles and used since the mid-'60s."
The fourth option creates a separation of motorized and traditional travel. A trail loop allowing ATV use would be allowed in the Badger-Two Medicine area, but it would be limited to a few main access trails. There would be limited motorized access to adjacent trails.
Snowmobiling activity would be restricted to the same areas where motorized access is in the summer. Alternative four has significantly less mileage for motorized travel than the first two options, but more than options three and five.
Alan Brown, legal affairs director and past president of the Montana Snowmobile Association, said only a small area of the Front is used for snowmobile recreation. He said he will examine the maps to make sure play areas north of the Teton River remain open.
The fifth alternative was developed after consultation with the Blackfeet tribal government...
Back to this passage from the article:
...Jacobs said he supports the third option, or eliminating motorized use. The Rocky Mountain Front is a pristine area where traditional uses should be enjoyed.
Ehnes said it is important to allow motorized travel in areas of the Front.
"We have a number of club members who ride in the Badger-Two Medicine," he said. "Those trails have been open to motorcycles and used since the mid-'60s."
The fourth option creates a separation of motorized and traditional travel. A trail loop allowing ATV use would be allowed in the Badger-Two Medicine area, but it would be limited to a few main access trails. There would be limited motorized access to adjacent trails.
Snowmobiling activity would be restricted to the same areas where motorized access is in the summer. Alternative four has significantly less mileage for motorized travel than the first two options, but more than options three and five.
Alan Brown, legal affairs director and past president of the Montana Snowmobile Association, said only a small area of the Front is used for snowmobile recreation. He said he will examine the maps to make sure play areas north of the Teton River remain open.
The fifth alternative was developed after consultation with the Blackfeet tribal government...
Back to this passage from the article:
Who is the "Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front"? Answer: Gloria Flora. Where did they get the information regarding respondants' comments? Since the preliminary analysis maps from the DEIS plan were released 11/29 and posted on the USFS website 12/13, and the article was published 12/17, that would be a record turnaround on a FOIA request. Or was this "news" a repeat of information released in 2002?
Yeah. I sure believe that almost 8000 letters and e-mails were sent to anyone in 4 days and recapped for an article. Sounds like more liberal manipulation of fact or maybe even outright lying. Like I said, reasonable minds should prevail and close what is necessary but allow some area for fat assed recreation. Interesting that a major statement of "fact" was made again and as more information is exposed it doesn't look quite as factual. Who is the "coalition to spank the rocky mountain monkey" anyway?
Thanks.
Thanks.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Ruttrow Buzz,
Getting your ass handed to you again. Smoking all that dope with Buffalo Field boys is starting to dull your thinking
Getting your ass handed to you again. Smoking all that dope with Buffalo Field boys is starting to dull your thinking
AKHighmark
New member
Another good day away from the elitist pricks who infect this section of the board. hump
BuzzH
Well-known member
Pointer,
Thanks for pointing out the obvious to those that have trouble with such things, like reading, understanding what they read, comprehension, etc. etc. etc.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious to those that have trouble with such things, like reading, understanding what they read, comprehension, etc. etc. etc.
Hangar18
New member
Yes, they did. I was partially wondering why this was considered "news", more by the author than by Buzz. I was further wondering why a number of this sort needs to be quoted from a partisan source. It would be interesting for a non-interested party to analyze the comments to see what proportion came from form letters, something that I thought was against forest service policy when drafting an EIS.
Nice picture AK
BuzzH
Well-known member
Hangar,
Numbers like that are quoted all the time...usually independent consulting firms compile written comments...keeps people from believing the gummint is doctoring the results while flying around in black helicopters.
Numbers like that are quoted all the time...usually independent consulting firms compile written comments...keeps people from believing the gummint is doctoring the results while flying around in black helicopters.
I need to own a poll firm, where does the money come from that makes these things.
I could poll here and a few more boards.
Seems like I usually get quite a bit of response from them here.
Just like the one I asked about those voting for or against Bush, I don't remember getting one against seeing as a few are just to good to post on any thing such as that when they see that the poll is and alway's goes against every thing they "percieve" as right...
Nice pics fellows....
I could poll here and a few more boards.
Seems like I usually get quite a bit of response from them here.
Just like the one I asked about those voting for or against Bush, I don't remember getting one against seeing as a few are just to good to post on any thing such as that when they see that the poll is and alway's goes against every thing they "percieve" as right...
Nice pics fellows....
Hangar18
New member
an analysis by the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front is hardly an independant consulting firm. Same with the Montana Wilderness Association. Those are the only two sources I could find that quoted this percentage. And I am talking about the practice of counting form letters as unique comments, not about what the comments contain. If I remember right, a large percentage of the initial comments against snowmobiles in Yellowstone were from form letters, and were treated as such.
Do you honestly think that anyone is going to care about what you say when you write this kind of condescending arrogant shit? It's fine if you don't care, I am just wondering.BuzzH said:
cjcj
New member
Hey i would like to see more "enforcement" without it you got nothing...just look at illegal immigration... its a "felony' but millions are breaking the law.....what/how are they going to "Enforce" any new laws/restrictions?BuzzH said:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Hangar,
Was I the one that thought the turn-around on a FOI request and the results of nearly 8000 comments were received by the Front group only a couple weeks after the closing date?
Didnt think so, but you sure were quick to jump all over those "facts" that you didnt have straight.
I think its good that you at least take the time to understand the issues, and for the most part you do. You're one of the few that can make logical and well thought out responses that actually help OHV cases. I also think you're pretty ethical and I'm sure you dont bend or break laws while enjoying OHV activities. If more of the ATV crowd was like you, these issues probably wouldnt be issues...unfortunately, we both know that isnt the case.
Was I the one that thought the turn-around on a FOI request and the results of nearly 8000 comments were received by the Front group only a couple weeks after the closing date?
Didnt think so, but you sure were quick to jump all over those "facts" that you didnt have straight.
I think its good that you at least take the time to understand the issues, and for the most part you do. You're one of the few that can make logical and well thought out responses that actually help OHV cases. I also think you're pretty ethical and I'm sure you dont bend or break laws while enjoying OHV activities. If more of the ATV crowd was like you, these issues probably wouldnt be issues...unfortunately, we both know that isnt the case.
JoseCuervo
New member
Hey ElkCheese,
If you would start reading, you would find out that no "poll" was taken. You are clearly off-topic, and just trying to ruin a thread.
Hangar,
I think the Gov't is going back to counting the "form letters", as they are valid comments. Doesn't the NRA send Form Letters for people to send to their congressmen?
If you would start reading, you would find out that no "poll" was taken. You are clearly off-topic, and just trying to ruin a thread.
Hangar,
I think the Gov't is going back to counting the "form letters", as they are valid comments. Doesn't the NRA send Form Letters for people to send to their congressmen?
Ithaca 37
New member
1 pointer, You'll probably get hooked!
AKHighmark
New member
1_pointer said:
It is a lot of fun. Unfortunatley all the Sierra Club members on here that want to shut down OUR public lands from ATV's for their selfish desires would also close these same places to snowmobiles. These people blindly lump all motorized recreationists into one tidy term, fat azz lazy slobs. They must spend too much time looking in the mirror or don't get out of "their private Idaho" enough to get a sense of reality. You should give it a try sometime...another way to enjoy OUR public lands.
Hangar18
New member
OK Buzz, let's back up to the "facts I jumped all over"
From my first post on this subject, one page back:
That was me being rhetorical, poking a jab at the reporter for calling the analysis by the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front "news". I guess I could have been more clear about this by stating in this post that the author of the article should have finished the above italicized passage with the words "in 2002", or more accurately, stated that the author possibly credited the wrong source for the original analysis. But I left that out, mistakenly thinking that most people reading what I wrote would not need any further explanation, and would see instantly that I was being rhetorical, and sarcastic.
How else would I have come up with "2002" on the first try if I had not already read the release from the Montana Wilderness Association? To tell you the truth, I was trying to connect Gloria Flora with the Y2Y plan, which I could not, and stumbled on this information. The MWA is linked on the Y2Y website.
1_pointer - There are a lot of people in your area that ride a lot. It would be pretty easy to contact a club there and get a ride set up. Let me know and I will give you some people to call. Also, I have a spare sled so if we get some frickin snow, and you make it to Boise sometime, let me know & I'll take you up to West Mountain by Cascade to the perfect beginner spot. Most snowmobilers will never turn down an opportunity to hook another on our sport.
edit - reformatted the quote
Similar threads
