***LAND ISSUES & CLOSURES*** SnowBlog

The Winter Wildlands Alliance (WWA) has filed a lawsuit against many Idaho Forests claiming they should not have relied upon the ‘Over snow vehicle’ exemption (OSV)  in the 2005 Forest Service Travel Management Rule.  The US Attorney was served on December 8, 2011.   You may recall that over-snow use was treated differently than summer uses for good reasons;  we have different impacts.

WWA petitioned the Forest Service a couple of years ago challenging the Travel Management Rule, specifically the over-snow vehicle (OSV) exclusion.  The Forest Service denied their request and in doing so, upheld the OSV exclusion.  That did not work so now they are trying the courts.

WWA is a non-profit association that prefers human powered sports.  They work endlessly to do everything they can to force the Forest Service to severely restrict or eliminate our use.

ISSA’s Board of Directors voted to intervene in the suit.  Mike Ealy from Coeur d’Alene will be representing us. Lawsuits are costly, fortunately, ISSA has been putting money away in a Legal Defense Fund for years, however, there are at least two other cases on the horizon that may well require legal action.  If you agree that snowmobilers need to defend themselves against this attack, please help us by contributing to the Snowmobile Defense Fund, ISSA, 10400 Overland Road #384, Boise, ID  83616.  Your donation will be used wisely and will be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to let me know.  I will keep you informed as we move through the process.

Thanks!

Sandra Mitchell

Smitchel@alscott.com

208.424.3870

Attack on Snowmobiling

Island Park News January 12, 2012 issue

Mountain Views

Another public lands issue has surfaced. It’s against snowmobile access in national forests, and it’s not going to go away until anti-snowmobiling environmentalists have their day in court.

When the Fund for Animals filed its first lawsuit against snowmobiling in Yellowstone Park 20 years ago, many locals scoffed at the idea of an East coast group having enough power to change how a national park is managed. How wrong they were. The Fund attracted many more anti snowmobiling groups to its cause and the resulting limitations on snowmobiles have crippled winter business and recreation opportunities in Yellowstone’s gateway communities.

When it became clear that the Fund and its supporters were succeeding, they said national forests would be their next target.

The first lawsuits demanding a Yellowstone snowmobiling ban had nothing to do with emissions from the machines or noise snowmobiles make in wild places. The early suits targeted groomed trails undefined specifically Yellowstone’s trail grooming program that made it easy for bison to leave the park and then be killed during the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks sanctioned hunt.

The national media printed graphic, bloody photos of Yellowstone bison killed by hunters, the public was outraged, and animal rights groups were able to get the hunt stopped for many years.

The anti snowmobiling groups continued to focus on groomed trails, saying when bison leave Yellowstone on the trails, grizzly bears have less to eat in the spring, since bison weakened by Yellowstone’s harsh winters are an essential food source for bears.

Emission and noise were then added to the reasons environmentalists think snowmobiles should be banned from Yellowstone, largely because other groups had succeeded in getting motorboats and jet skis banned from California waterways because of emissions and noise.

The current Winter Wildlands Alliance (WWA) lawsuit, detailed in last week’s paper, charges that national forests have been negligent in not specifically addressing snowmobiling’s impact on quietude, air quality, and natural resources when the forests developed their travel plans. WWA, which claims 90 supporting groups, wants all forest where snowmobiling exists to redo their plans so snowmobiling is restricted and areas are set aside for nonmotorized winter recreation.

If the court agrees that the plans should address snowmobiling, the anti snowmobile groups will demand that the plans address impacts on quietude, wildlife, fish, insects, plants, soil, and air and water quality.

Trying to soften what this could mean to snowmobile access, in a DealerNews.com article last year, WWA’s executive director, Mark Menlove, is quoted as saying he does not want snowmobiles completely banned from the forest, and he even asserts that he has spent time on a snowmobile. His says WWA wants areas set aside for non-motorized winter recreation, just like there are snowmobile play areas.

People who believe in multiple use of and equitable access to public lands should pay attention to this issue. Snowmobiling will almost certainly be restricted in our national forests, although it will be hard if not impossible to cite many negative impacts snowmobiles have on natural resources undefined especially wildlife like bears and wolves, which are abundant in many national forests these days.

The result could be an increase is non-motorized winter tourism, but it will be slow in coming, if West Yellowstone is an example. It will most certainly have an immediate and far-reaching negative impact on the snowmobiling industry’s contributions to the local economy.

Elizabeth Laden
ipnews@mac.com

Thanks to Marc Hildesheim, North Region Trails Specialist for IDPR, for sharing this letter with us:

Dear Groomer Coordinators, 

I’d like to thank everyone for contributing to the success of the Idaho snowmobile trail grooming program.  Without the partnerships we maintain with the counties and land managers, we would not be providing what I believe are some of the best winter recreation opportunities in the world.  Groomed snowmobile trails, plowed parking areas and trailhead facilities don’t happen without the dedication and enthusiasm of active snowmobilers and volunteers.  I can’t express enough thanks to those of you who help make this happen.  Please extend my thanks to the operators, clubs and volunteers who provide countless hours of time helping keep trails cleared, signs posted and groomers running.

With the recent snowfall accumulating, the excitement of snowmobilers is evident.  I spent the Thanksgiving weekend in McCall and saw quite a few snowmobile trailers heading to the trailhead north of town.  Since many of you are receiving phone calls asking when you plan to start grooming, I thought it would be good to send a quick reminder that Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation expects grooming to occur only when eighteen inches of snow is present at the lowest elevation at which you groom.  The reason for this is to protect the rolling capital (groomers) owned by the state.  If anybody has an issue with you not grooming because you are concerned about damaging the equipment, please feel free to direct the phone calls to your regional IDPR Trail Specialist:

Mike Robinson (East Region)                      208 525-7121

Todd Wernex (South Region)                     208 514-2413

Marc Hildesheim (North Region)               208 769-1511

Each of you have an intimate knowledge of your local area and do a remarkable job with daily operations of your programs.  Thanks again for your hard work.

Sincerely,

Troy Elmore
OHV Program Manager
Idaho Dept. of Parks and Rec.
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID  83720
208 514-2411 (office)
208 866-8682 (cell

The Winter Wildlands Alliance is at it again, hoping via a lawsuit to set the stage to eliminate motorized winter recreation from Idaho’s public lands.  Their suit alleges that the Forest Service erred in their 2005 Travel Management Rule by not making it mandatory to include over snow vehicles (snowmobiles) when designating routes and areas open to off-road vehicles.  Under this rule each Forest Supervisor decides, based on local use and conditions, whether he or she needs to include winter use in travel plans.  The Alliance says the rule violates an executive order signed in 1972 by Richard Nixon that established policies and procedures for control of off road vehicles on public lands to protect resources, promote safety, and to minimize conflicts among users.

In their 2005 travel planning rule, the Forest Service felt they had complied with the 40 year old executive order, establishing the policies and procedures for which the order called.  Forest Supervisors review over snow use in their travel planning, deciding whether the conditions require inclusion of winter use, considering issues such as safety, environment, wildlife, and user conflict.  They also must set priorities.  The federal pot of gold is no longer unlimited and they must aim their resources at the greatest need.  Some forests separate summer and winter use travel plans because they are different, directing efforts first towards summer use where concerns are more immediate.  Others incorporate winter travel with summer travel plans.  Some with little over snow travel and issues choose to forgo winter travel plans.  This makes sense in these times of shrinking staff and budgets.

The Winter Wildlands suit cites as its basis old studies, many irrelevant today, such as each snowmobile producing almost as much pollution as 100 automobiles.  According to Ed Kim, President of the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, “the new 2-stroke snowmobiles produced meet or exceed all the EPA standards and are cleaner than many engines used in other products.” 

On one hand, they condemn old machines as polluters and on the other new machines for being faster and more capable.  In fact, very few old machines are in use, the average snowmobile’s lifespan being 9 years.  The new machines are quieter, cleaner, and have a lighter footprint and better traction because of improved track and ski design.  Environmental impact studies cited in the lawsuit, such as delaying flowering of spring plants, are highly questionable.  Studies done in Vermont and Yellowstone conclude that snowmobile emissions are not retained in the snowpack.

A big part of the Alliance’s argument is based on conflict.  Their members just don’t like to see or hear snowmobiles when performing their “human powered” activities.  That Forests with significant non-motorized winter recreation have set aside areas for their exclusive use is not enough.  The fact that they can access the entire scope of national forest land, including big game winter range and over 4 million acres of Idaho wildernesses which are off limits to snowmobiles, is not enough.

We can’t really blame the Alliance for citing conflict.  In the past by simply stating that they found conflict in encounters with snowmobiles, they were rewarded with more exclusive access.  They use the exclusive areas and everything else, however, there are still shared use areas so the cries of conflict continue.

Lastly, many non-profits and their legal representatives have become litigation factories, bullying agencies into giving them preferential treatment, and draining the agency of money and personnel better directed to actual resource management.  We pay twice for these lawsuits, many frivolous, once for defense of the government and again, thanks to an oversight in the Equal Access to Justice Act, for the lawyers suing the government.  There are big bucks involved in these lawsuits, all from your pocketbook.

Please read and be aware of these closures in the Granite Creek area!

Granite Creek Closure.pdf

Thanks to Senator McGee who did a great job with the debate and to all the senators who voted for our bill, and to the Governor who asked them in writing to support our bill and to you guys who took the time to let them know how important this legislation is, our bill passed 26 to 9.  (By the way, Senator Davis almost voted for it!)

Step two is complete now on to step three, the House Transportation Committee.  I am working on getting us on the agenda tomorrow, don’t know if it is possible but we will try.   if not, we have to wait until Monday.

At least two senators mentioned all the messages they had received from users so we know it makes a difference, now you need to work your magic on the House Transportation Committee.

Please contact them as soon as possible with a simple, polite message, asking them to “support S 1001 because it is a responsible piece of legislation that will help protect access to Forest Service roads for Idaho Families.”  Please leave your name and address and give them personal information like how important OHV riding is to your family or how often you ride. I have attached our information sheet on the bill if you are looking for material.  Also, clubs can send a message on behalf of their membership.  Just tell them a little about your club.

Chairman           Leon Smith      Twin Falls, District 24          lsmith@house.idaho.gov

Vice Chair          Phil Hart          Hayden                                 plhart@house.idaho.gov

                         JoAn Wood        Rigby                                  jawood@house.idaho.gov

                         Scott Bedke       Oakley                                sbedke@house.idaho.gov

                          Rich Wills         Glenns Ferry                         rwills@house.idaho.gov

Bob Nonini          Coeur d’Alene                   bnonini@house.idaho.gov

             Marv Hagedorn    Meridian, District 20B          mhagedorn@house.idaho.gov

Joe Palmer         Meridian, District 20A        jpalmer@house.idaho.gov

                   Linden Bateman     Idaho Falls, District 33     lbateman@house.idaho.gov

Julie Ellsworth   District 18A                      jellsworth@house.idaho.gov

Frank Henderson  Post Falls                    fhenderson@house.idaho.gov

Jeff Nessett       Lewiston                            jgnesset@house.idaho.gov

                      Shirley Ringo        Moscow                                sringo@house.idaho.gov

                      Phylis King            Boise, District 18B                pking@house.idaho.gov

                    Bill Killen               Boise                                     bkillen@house.idaho.gov

Thank you and keep on working!

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game should work to ensure that all hunters' rights are supported, writes Adena Cook.

What is a method of take? The Idaho Department of Fish and Game defines it as a means by which game is harvested, like a gun or bow and arrow. It also can be an enhancement to these weapons giving the hunter an unfair advantage. IDFG defines and bans these innovations.

Several years ago, IDFG expanded their definition of method of take to include off-highway vehicles -- not something that's carried, but a means of transportation that takes the hunter on a valid, open trail.

This regulation only applies to hunters on OHVs during hunting season. It does not apply to a casual rider out for enjoyment who carries a sidearm. It does not apply to hunters carrying camping equipment to camp. How does a conservation officer know the difference? That's one of the regulation's many problems.

IDFG defends the regulation claiming it prevents OHVs from running amok off trail, causing damage and unfair access. The agency claims it prevents OHVs from disturbing nonmotorized hunters.

On federal land, federal agencies have the authority to decide which trails and roads are open or closed to OHVs and when. These decisions are preceded by extensive public input.

The resulting travel plans prohibit all off-designated road and trail travel. OHVs traveling off these routes violate federal law. An additional confusing IDFG regulation is superfluous and usurps federal travel plan authority.

Millions of acres are available for nonmotorized hunting across Idaho. Travel plans create more every year. For example, in the recently implemented travel plan for the Salmon-Challis National Forest, OHV trail mileage decreased from 1,119 miles to 864 miles. IDFG has failed to communicate to the hunters where they can go to find these vast acres of solitude.

This controversy culminated in bills introduced by Sen. Tim Corder, R-Mountain Home, in this year's legislative session. Sen. Corder's bills would have stopped IDFG from making regulations prohibiting OHV travel.

At the hearing I attended, both the Forest Service and BLM testified. The agencies clearly explained travel plan processes and travel plans. They then each stated that they had no problem with IDFG defining OHVs as a method of take. I was astounded. I just apparently heard them cede their travel regulating authority if additional restrictions were imposed.

I wondered if agency policy would be so accommodating if public access were at stake instead.

Would they be so agreeable if, for example, counties sought to promote access by assuming authority over roads and trails on federal land?

The bills failed to pass out of committee but were recommended for consideration by the interim natural resources committee. OHVers are exploring options for resolution outside the legislative process. IDFG needs to realize there are benefits to working with the OHV hunting public.

Cook is a consultant with the BlueRibbon Coalition.

Press Release

For Immediate Release

April 9, 2010

Idaho Recreation Council

Mel Quale, President

208.731.4940

Subject:  Tarrance Group Opinion Poll of potential 2^nd Congressional District Republican Primary Voters concerning the Boulder White Cloud Wilderness Bill, otherwise known as CIEDRA

Twin Falls:  A recently conducted opinion poll of Republican voters in the 2nd Congressional District indicated overwhelming opposition to Congressman Mike Simpson’s Boulder White Cloud Wilderness bill.  According to Mel Quale, President of the Idaho Recreation Council, 70% of respondents opposed the bill.  Quale said, “We felt confident that, based on results of a narrower poll conducted in 2008, the majority of the 2^nd District voters would oppose more wilderness in the Boulders, but we were astonished by the amount of opposition.”

Those polled were asked the question: “As you may or may not know, the proposed Boulder White Cloud Wilderness will designate 319,000 acres of the Boulder-White Cloud Roadless area as “Wilderness” and eliminate many historic recreation uses such as mountain biking and snowmobiling.  Thinking about this-Do you favor or oppose this wilderness proposal?”  A surprising 70% were against the bill, 14% were unsure and only 16% favored it.

Quale went on to say, “I hope the results of this poll will give Congressman Simpson some pause for thought about his pursuit of wilderness designation of the Boulder White Clouds and encourage him to listen to what his constituents are saying.  The Boulder White Clouds are well managed as part of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area.  Those polled in the 2^nd District spoke clearly, “leave them alone”