Sitka Gear Turkey Tool Belt

Sledheads and Enviros Compromise

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
14,152
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
Opponents agree on forest snowmobile plans
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian



Snowmobilers and wilderness advocates have staked out some common ground on Montana's Rocky Mountain Front, negotiating a plan that makes space for both wildlife and snow machines.

"Some hard decisions had to be made," said John Gatchell, conservation director for the Montana Wilderness Association. "But that's part of the give and take."

Alan Brown agreed. He's the legal affairs director for the Montana Snowmobile Association, and has worked with Gatchell for years now hammering out collaborative land-use plans.



"It's worked well for us," Brown said. "It's a very successful process that we have going."

Over the past year, Gatchell and Brown have helped steer negotiations about how best to manage winter recreation on the Helena and Lewis and Clark national forests.

In a joint press statement released Monday, the two groups concurred that "the agreement is good for wildlife, good for the forests, and good for the many different Montanans who use the forests."

The agreement covers the Lincoln Ranger District in the Blackfoot Valley, the Continental Divide where the two national forests meet, and an area north along the Rocky Mountain Front, west of Augusta.

It recommends that certain wildlands, including popular snowmobiling areas around Lincoln, should remain open to snow machines.

Other parts of the forest, including Flesher Pass, parts of Stemple Pass and the Rocky Mountain Front, should be off-limits, providing quiet winter trails for skiing and snowshoeing. Quiet winter areas are important to wintering elk, bighorn sheep, mule deer and mountain goats.

It is not the first time Gatchell and Brown have sought consensus, with their negotiation process being repeated on public forests throughout the state.

In 2000, they first met to hammer out a plan for the Seeley Lake area of the Lolo National Forest. Since then, they have worked on winter recreation agreements for the Flathead National Forest, and for the Little Belt and Big Snowy mountains.

The two groups, which admittedly do not always share the same land-use philosophy, begin their talks on what common ground they could find: All are Montanans, all care about public lands, all treasure wildlife, all have in mind future generations of forest users.

From there, they pulled in expertise from both federal and state land managers, including maps and scientific studies.

Into the mix they blended resident stakeholders - in this case, members of the local Wilderness Association chapter and the local snowmobile clubs.

By sticking to specific sites, working through the forest bit by bit, Gatchell said, they succeeded in bridging philosophical gulfs.

That's important, Brown said, because the alternative often is to leave the decision to the courts. "And courts," he said, "never compromise. One side wins it all, and neither of us are particularly interested in that kind of solution."

Brown said that when he and Gatchell first met to talk winter recreation, "neither one of us trusted the other entirely."

But in the years they've spent working together, he said, a certain amount of respect has grown for each other's positions. The conservationists generally don't try to shut down established systems of groomed snowmobile trails, he said, and the snowmobilers don't push to ride in wilderness areas.

The snowmobilers generally get the roaded areas they want, and the conservationists protect the non-roaded lands.

The goal, Gatchell said, is to maintain forest uses currently enjoyed by both groups, while at the same time heading off future conflicts.

"This is our way of providing some leadership," he said. "Without some limits, motorized use will simply expand to fill everything. None of us want that."

The process nevertheless remains, at times, a bit bare-knuckled, particularly when one side is asked to give up something that's important to its members.

"But that's the process," Gatchell said. "That's how you work together to get it done."

To really get it done, however, both Gatchell and Brown will have to wait on the Forest Service. While both sides hope their yearlong negotiations will be included in long-range forest travel plans, there is no guarantee. The agency still must open the debate to the general public, many of whom are sure to disagree with the arrangement signed Monday.

But similar agreements have fared well on other forests, and Lincoln District Ranger Amber Kamps is encouraged by recent efforts in her neck of the woods.

"It's really great to see people come together in a spirit of compromise," she said.

While she said she does not know when her office might implement final rules, Kamps said "this alternative will be given full consideration because it clearly provides an approach that would represent a number of diverse interests."

The groups, meanwhile, are calling it "a win-win for all parties," including snowmobilers, skiers, snowshoers, wildlife and Lincoln's business community.

The Snowmobile Association, Brown said, "believes that the cooperative approach is the only sensible way to resolve land use issues."

"After all," he added, "there is enough public land available to meet the needs of both interests."

As for continuing to work together, across what sometimes seem like enormous divides, Gatchell said simply "we can, and we must."
 
Sound's like they have a good thing going .

"The two groups, which admittedly do not always share the same land-use philosophy, begin their talks on what common ground they could find: All are Montanans, all care about public lands, all treasure wildlife, all have in mind future generations of forest users"


The part I never understand is how some people think there way is the only way.
When we look more at the things we have in common ,the mode we each choice to enjoy it by shouldnt be the major issue, as long as we can place limit's and set good laws that will be inforced.
I X-country ski and dont have the desire to get on a snowmachine, but I support those that want to and think they should have a place to do that.
 
The two groups, which admittedly do not always share the same land-use philosophy, begin their talks on what common ground they could find: All are Montanans, all care about public lands, all treasure wildlife, all have in mind future generations of forest users.

Looks like every single person on this board that I have ever seen... ;)

That's important, Brown said, because the alternative often is to leave the decision to the courts. "And courts," he said, "never compromise. One side wins it all, and neither of us are particularly interested in that kind of solution."

Now isn't that the truth

The conservationists generally don't try to shut down established systems of groomed snowmobile trails, he said, and the snowmobilers don't push to ride in wilderness areas.

Sounds like those in here, but the ones this article calls "conservationists" only see the worse from any one else and that they are the only ones that walk on water... ;)

"After all," he added, "there is enough public land available to meet the needs of both interests."

Now this is a great quote... There are a few elitists here who think any motorized vehicle should not be allowed any where, when all these elitists need to do is to go to areas that are closed off to motorized vehicles, not stomp around like spoiled babies that don't get their way... :)

The part I never understand is how some people think there way is the only way.

These are the people that live in a box and it just scares the hell out of them when others who can see past petty wishes and wants to be able to bridge gaps between both and or all sides...
 
"Some hard decisions had to be made," said John Gatchell, conservation director for the Montana Wilderness Association. "But that's part of the give and take."
I don't see any "give" on the part of wilderness advocates. Unless there was any closed land opened back up to snowmobiling, then this isn't a compromise.
 
Hey Hangar, could you explain how the hell you get around the Wilderness Act?

Good catch though, its about time the fat-assed motorheads compromise for a change...

Oh, and I wouldnt/wont compromise with opening up another acre of land for motorheads. I'm done compromising and I'll do everything within my power to see more and more public lands off-limits to ATVers.

If the current trend continues...I'd really think about selling all my ORV's while they're still worth more than scrap iron.
 
Hey Buzz, where in the article, besides "... the snowmobilers don't push to ride in wilderness areas..." was there any mention of designated wilderness. Where did I mention it?

There happens to be area in the west closed to snowmobiling that is not designated wilderness or WSA, is not wildlife habitat, and does not meet the requirements for xc-skiing / snowshoeing. So there is no legitiamte reason for it to remain closed to snowmobiling.



On a more serious and sincere note, I have a question.

I was reading this the other day:

PL 98-550, Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/sc/recreation/fcronr/rod/appendix/a.pdf

pg A-6 Sec 401.(b) 5 says
"unless expressly authorized by Congress, the Department of Agriculture shall not conduct any further statewide roadless area review and evaluation of National Forest System lands in the State of Wyoming for the purpose of determining their suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System."

Is the purpose of this act to cap WSA's and roadless inventory as of the date of enactment? Or am I reading it wrong. Thanks in advance.
 
Hangar,

Sorry about that, I dont really know what Wyoming was up to.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say they were pretty much going with RARE II to classify their roadless country. Thats typically what most other states use as well. If you arent familiar that was the legislation that forced the Federal land agencies to classify all areas with NO ROADS and at least 5000 acres in size and either designate that as wilderness or roadless.

Anything that doesnt meet those parameters would likely not be considered for wilderness or for roadless.

But, like I said, I'm not familiar with that exact piece of Wyoming Legislation. It does sound like the Government still retains the right to adopt more land if approved by Congress, which would clearly be outside the parameters of RARE II. So I'm guessing less than 5k acres or land containing some roads. I dont think its very important to anyone at this point.
 
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,606
Messages
2,026,524
Members
36,244
Latest member
ryan96
Back
Top