ATV loop proposed from Challis to Arco

[Ten Bears]

ATV loop proposed
from Challis to Arco

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By GREG MOORE
Express Staff Writer

A 460-mile loop of all-terrain vehicle routes that would connect Challis, Mackay and Arco is being proposed as a new tourism draw for southeastern Idaho. The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation would like to see the loop in place for ATV users by the summer of 2004.

IDPR officials expect to submit the department’s plan for the trail to the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management by mid-March. The two agencies, which manage most of the land through which the proposed ATV trail would run, say they would probably take about a year to conduct an environmental review and reach a decision.

ATV use in Idaho is booming—in the five years preceding 2001, off-highway vehicle registrations rose from 27,700 to 55,100.

To provide a place to attract some of those vehicles, the IDPR would like to link existing dirt roads and trails to form a loop that would go southeast from Challis past Mackay to Arco, and then around to the east side of the Lost River Range for a return route back to Challis.

Basically, the western half of the 460-mile loop would proceed south from Challis through the dry foothills of the White Cloud Mountains to the White Knob Mountains, west of Mackay, and continue south over Antelope Creek Pass into BLM rangeland west of Arco.

From Arco, the loop would circle the southern end of the Lost River Range to Howe, and then proceed up the Little Lost River drainage over the Hawley Mountains to the Donkey Hills and the Pahsimeroi River drainage. West of May, the ATV loop would cross the Pahsimeroi Mountains to reach Challis.

One of the trail’s spur loops would take riders through Copper Basin, east of the White Knobs and north of the Pioneer Mountains.

Another spur would take riders over Double Springs Pass—just north of Borah Peak, the state’s highest mountain—in to the top of the Pahsimeroi drainage. And a third spur would travel southeast out of Mackay over Pass Creek in to the top of the Little Lost drainage.

The IDPR has stated that the trail would be a demonstration project for future ATV management throughout Idaho.

The trail would be funded by the state’s Off-highway Vehicle Fund, which collects about $600,000 annually. The department would spend $105,000 to build three parking lots, $9,000 for information kiosks, $6,000 for cattle guards, $37,500 for restrooms and $15,000 for signs. An annual budget of $62,000 is proposed to cover operating costs.

The IDPR held public hearings on the proposed trail on Feb. 4, 5 and 6 in Challis, Mackay and Arco. The approximately 60 comments collected there will be forwarded to the Forest Service and BLM. The IDPR’s comment period ends Friday, Feb. 29, but public comments will again be collected by the Forest Service and BLM once their decision-making process begins.

Dave Claycomb, outdoor recreation program specialist with the IDPR’s Eastern Regional Office in Idaho Falls, said he has not read all the comments, but that sentiment expressed at the public meetings mostly favored the project.

"I think it’s a great idea," Challis Mayor Catherine Becker said in an interview. "It would give more people the chance to see our country and it would be good for business."

Part of the IDPR’s sales pitch is that the trail will stimulate the economies of Challis, Arco and Mackay. The proposed trail is modeled after the 500-mile-long Paiute Trail in south-central Utah, which in 2001 attracted more than 60,000 riders, who spent about $6 million in the area.

But those kinds of numbers scare some of the proposed tails neighbors. Andy Goodwin, a rancher in Mackay and part-time Ketchum resident, said in an interview that he fears the trail will attract so many ATV users that the valleys it runs through will become overwhelmed.

"The people will not stay on those trails," he said. "What’s actually going to happen is that they’re going to give people a main artery from which they can branch out and go wherever they want."

Claycomb said the department is well aware of that possibility and plans to address it. The department has supported a bill now before the Idaho Legislature (House Bill 66) that would allow IDPR employees to issue citations outside of state parks. Claycomb said his department has budgeted enough money to fund two full-time rangers to patrol the ATV trail.

"The off-trail travel is already taking place," he said. "This is an opportunity to eliminate that, to give them a designated route."

A Forest Service travel plan limits off-road travel on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. The BLM is in the process of creating such a plan for the Challis Resource Area. ATV riders who violated those plans could be cited.

But Mackay rancher Keith Hill said he doubts the public agencies will be able to control illegal use, and fears there would be heavy impacts on wildlife, especially elk, on the landscape and on the peace of the valley.

"When the ATVs are out there, you can spot every one of them from the dust clouds," he said.

Hill said most of the other speakers at the Mackay meeting made statements similar to his.

www.mtexpress.com/2003/03-02-26/03-02-26ATVtrail.htm

 

[Muledeer4me]

I have ridden and hunted alot of those area's and would love to see a loop trail.
There is already alot of dirt roads in the area and plenty of great riding.
There is a killer loop trail off of the little lost river that is super riding.
It's true that you can see the dust from anything on the road for miles -ATV's and truck's alike.

Every time we are in the Howe/Arco/Mackey/Challis area we see Elk,Antelope,Moose,Deer & have seen bear right on the road.
Alot of that area between the donkey hills and macky was marked as a wilderness study.
Lets hope that has been put on the back burner.

 

[Oak]

Alot of that area between the donkey hills and macky was marked as a wilderness study.
Lets hope that has been put on the back burner.

Why would you hope something like that? As a hunter, that statement makes no sense to me.

Oak

 

[Ten Bears]

I have heard many statements here that make no sense coming from sportsmen.

Lets hope things get worked out MD.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"There is already alot of dirt roads in the area and plenty of great riding.
There is a killer loop trail off of the little lost river that is super riding....."

Then that should be enough. I'll never understand why some people think they have to ride everywhere, even around the aisles at WalMart. And we hear everyday what lousy physical shape Americans are in!

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Then that should be enough. I'll never understand why some people think they have to ride everywhere, even around the aisles at WalMart. And we hear everyday what lousy physical shape Americans are in! "

Ithaca ,I at least understand where you are comming from in not liking off road use.
But I do not understand any statment like your's above trying to degrade someone that for reasons unknow to us would need to use a motorized cart or wheelchair to get around of all places walmart that should be open to EVERYONE ,not just of us that are blessed with good health.
(There but for the grace of god go I)
Should those people sit home so you don't have to deal with them?
Your disregard and contempt for other's comes across more and more with every post.
You are a real sick puppy!!!!!!!!


There are alot of dirt roads so why not make them a loop? Its not asking for more only that they be connected.

"Why would you hope something like that? As a hunter, that statement makes no sense to me."

Oak,
That area in no way comes under the wilderness classification so why try to MAKE more wilderness?
Im not opposed to wilderness area's and we have them now along with roadless area's that should remain that way.
But there are other classification that wont tie us down on ways to protect those areas .
We dont need the most restricted statis .
As a hunter and outdoor user I value family's of all ages so I like to see protection that also allows for multiple use.
Wilderness does none of that,it restricts it to those of money/health that can afford to own livestock ,hire an outfitter,or have the time off work to pack in and spend the time.
Nothing wrong with the wilderness we have now as it gives a wide range of option's to everyone.

 

[Ithaca 37]

MD, "That area in no way comes under the wilderness classification so why try to MAKE more wilderness?"

We've explained about a thousand times why it's not possible to "MAKE more wilderness". I'm pretty sure you're the only one here who still doesn't understand wilderness designation, but it's not for lack of information. Continuing to make that accusation only perpetuates confusion amongst people who might be trying to figure the issue out.

Maybe we can make another topic outta riding carts at WalMart, but we all know that many of those riders have no handicap except laziness, and that's not an official handicap. Ever watched someone park in a regular parking spot (not the handicapped ones), walk across the parking lot, into the store and plop down in a cart? The ones who do have some handicap certainly deserve to ride.

 

[Ten Bears]

IT, then go volunteer as the wallymart shopping cart monitor.
This is an article about "designating" an area for riding ATV's. It will probably restict "passenger vehicles" from the loop area (I hope), with the exception of those with grazing leases.

"The off-trail travel is already taking place," he said. "This is an opportunity to eliminate that, to give them a designated route."

It will also hire two more "officers" to enforce the restrictions for that area.

The department has supported a bill now before the Idaho Legislature (House Bill 66) that would allow IDPR employees to issue citations outside of state parks. Claycomb said his department has budgeted enough money to fund two full-time rangers to patrol the ATV trail.

IT, MD really hit the nail on the head.

Your [complete] disregard and [utter] contempt for other's [that are different] comes across more and more with every post.

 

[JoseCuervo]

The department has supported a bill now before the Idaho Legislature (House Bill 66) that would allow IDPR employees to issue citations outside of state parks. Claycomb said his department has budgeted enough money to fund two full-time rangers to patrol the ATV trail.

Signs, laws, and brochures aren't enough; with the Fat-Assed crowd you need 2 full time enforcement officers to try and keep them within the Law....

 

[Ten Bears]

GUNNER, you have already admitted in an earlier post that you only follow the rules you feel pertain to you. The legitimate ATV riders have always called for more enforcement. What's the matter, affraid you might get caught being selective?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Why would I worry about rules that don't pertain to me? We have laws on the books for emissions from Coal fired plants. I don't worry too much about my compliance with them....

legitimate ATV riders

How many illegitimate ATV riders are there?

 

[Ten Bears]

Nor your compliance with speed limits (as I recall was your earlier example).

How many illegitimate ATV riders are there?

It is often said that as many as 10% of the ATV riders don't follow the rules. Idaho has about 70,000 registered ATV's. You do the math, but remember, by registering, these riders already show a propensity to follow the rules.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, You're such a joke! "It is often said that as many as 10% of the ATV riders don't follow the rules." Just 'cuz you often say it doesn't give it any credibility. Actually, I'd be surprised if even 20% of the ATV riders stay on designated trails and roads. I'm always amused when they claim they never get off a road with their ATV, then about five minutes later when they're talking about the deer they got last season they say, "....and we could drive the four wheeler right up to him and load him on!" Next time some fatassed ATV rider is telling you about his deer, ask him how far he had to drag it. Then keep quiet while he tells the story.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I thought it was often said that 98% of the Fat-Assed ATV riders don't follow the rules. Luckily, we have the other two here, MD and Ten, who ALWAYS follow the rules.... NOw if we could just get the Blur Ribbons to edjumacate that last 98%...

 

[Muledeer4me]

I understand what wilderness is Ithaca and what it is not.

["Continuing to make that accusation only perpetuates confusion amongst people who might be trying to figure the issue out."]
It's clear Ithaca that you are the one that keeps the confusion going.


The area In question has alot of road's NOW and is being USED ,and was being consedered for wilderness.

It's not wilderness and no amount of study by you green group's will MAKE it wilderness.

Ithaca you are so far out of it you have confused walmart with wilderness and off road abuse.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"I understand what wilderness is Ithaca and what it is not."

Then please explain how it's possible to create more wilderness. Once you've told us how, I think I'll go create some.

 

[Muledeer4me]

["Congress determined, "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.""]


The area I was talking about does not meet that definition.
When your green friends use the term "wilderness study area" on any land that doesn't fit the definition of wilderness ,it smell of treehuggers trying to MAKE UP more wilderness.
Not that any of us expected you Ithaca to understand it--Hell you mixed up illegal off road riding with handicapped people out shopping at walmart!!!!!!!
Tell us how does a person get to be your age in life and turn out to so mean-spirited ,I have never met anyone that is so well tuned to critcize and judge other's .
We see this nasty disposition of your isn't limited to rancher's/ATV's.
I really hope that one day you find something that let's you understand how many good people there are in the world and that your worth as a human isn't measured in how many others you take down but by how many other's you can lift up.
I'am saddened by your lack of empathy for others,and your ability to keep on track as to who or what you oppose.
From your posting the only thing I get out of it is that you oppose everything and everyone that might be slightly different then yourself.

 

[RockyDog]

Ironically, most the areas where i kill big elk are wilderness study areas. In my area these study areas are typically the last of the lower-elevation roadless (the high elevation crap was made wilderness). These study areas usually have lots of roadless tracts, big old growth stands, and lots of mature big game, which makes me doubt this study area is already mostly roaded. These study areas are always a prime target for the like of tenbeers and muledr4 me who just simply dont understand that letting everyone who can sit on a foam seat into these areas kinda turns the hunting to shit. But oh well.

 

[1_pointer]

My problem with much of the ATV supporting crowd is that if a road is in a WSA then it should no longer be a WSA. Even if the road was blazed illegally. Using this same logic one could eliminate all wilderness by blazing a road!

By the way, no where in the above definition does it state that there can't be roads or evidence of man. (with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable)

 

[Ithaca 37]

"From your posting the only thing I get out of it is that you oppose everything and everyone that might be slightly different then yourself."

What a looney tune!