• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

PLEASE READ... IMPORTANT INFO THAT AFFECTS US ALL.

R

rmscustom

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2010
2,181
1,801
113
This isn't getting enough views in the general section so I figured I draw some attention here:face-icon-small-ton

Time is running out, Please comment on the links below.

I would hope the Mods would leave this up for a little bit. I asked Christopher if maybe he could send a mass PM out to members but haven't heard back so I'm going this route.

Emails from Backcountry Sled Patriots.

xicon1.gif.pagespeed.ic.zL6wBwjGyI.png
Great Burn action needed!!

There could be decisions made by the FS this week re:the Travel Plan that our comments could impact. Also the comment website will only handle about 140 words so comments need to be concise and brief.

I need everyone to comment - not just Great Burn riders. The outcome impacts Forest and Travel Plans everywhere.

TALKING POINTS FOR COMMENTS ON CLEARWATER NF

Adjacent to the proposed Clearwater Great Burn RWA are 3,873 million acres of Congressionally approved wilderness. Selway-Bitterroot, Frank Church and Gospel Hump. This is the largest almost contiguous wilderness area in the lower 48 States. Population centers within the region are not placing any additional demand for additional wilderness acreage.

The Clearwater Forest Service presented the participants in the Collaborative process the results of a study that showed documented access into the backcountry by foot power has remained static over the past five years yet motorized use has doubled. This study conflicts with the desire to reduce historic motorized access and increase pedestrian only access.

There are no similar areas in the Clearwater NF to duplicate or even come close to offer the experience snowmobilers enjoy in the Great Burn Area. The closest area to similarly duplicate this experience would be 400 miles north in the Revelstoke, BC area, which has several primitive snowmobile access areas.

There is no documented evidence of any species that need protection in the Great Burn Area. Snowmobile tracks are gone when the snow melts which negates any impact on other social or ecological values. Snowmobiling causes no depreciation of the wilderness resource.

Region one guidelines allow for boundary adjustments to a proposed RWA to accommodate historic motorized use. The proposed boundary adjustments within the Great Burn RWA presented to the Clearwater NF Collaborative participants on March 8/2014 accurately reflect the acreage historically used by snowmobilers. There are no user conflicts in the winter months.

The 2012 Travel Plan did not present any documented evidence that would substantiate a need to close the historic snowmobile areas to snowmobiling. It is very doubtful that the Record of Decision will stand up to a legal test.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___

The information outlined above is a guideline that examines a minimum of factors the Forest Service must consider when determining a need for more wilderness. While I personally do not feel we need any more wilderness, I can support a wilderness designation for the Great Burn that includes boundary adjustments to permanently keep our historic snowmobile areas open.

Take a look at the above material and frame your comments around them. This particular comment session is to show continued support for snowmobile boundary adjustments. We out commented the wilderness advocates substantially last year which was a determining factor for getting our proposed boundary adjustments to the table. The wilderness people will have this figured out and will likely be taking counter measures. Your comments will make a difference. There will be two more formal comment opportunities (I'll advise dates) as the Collaborative Forest Plan progresses.

The Judge handling the ISSA lawsuit recently ruled that the three senior Forest Service officials including Tom Tidwell that are involved with the 2012 Clearwater Travel Plan can now be deposed to a discovery. This means our lawyer can ask them questions pre-trial and ask for specific information. Of particular interest is the guidance Region One has for managing a RWA as DEFACTO WILDERNESS.

It is critical that you emphasize in your comments that the Collaborative Forest Plan must adhere to the proposed boundary adjustments for snowmobiles because it is very probable the 2012 Travel Plan will be partially or fully overturned in a legal action.

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. THESE COMMENTS MUST BE SENT THIS WEEK. My gut instinct tells me there could be an OPPORTUNITY for real meaningful negotiation on the Travel Plan now that the deposition ruling has been made. The more comments, the more leverage we have. DON'T BLOW THIS OPPORTUNITY!!!


The website to comment on is: Http://my.usgs.gov/ppgis/studio/launch/4290

If any questions call me at 406 544 0144 or stanspencer@montana.com


Sandra Mitchell passed on an idea that sending comments directly to Rick Brazell, Clearwater Forest Supervisor, might have more impact due to some of the Travel Plan issues recently surfacing in conjunction with the Collaborative Forest Plan. I suspect Rick would only see a recap of comments if they go to the e-collaboirative site but if they come directly to him it may peak his attention. I think it is well worth the effort.
This is an opportunity to send a more comprehensive comment if the word limit on the e-collaborative cut you short. You can also just send a copy of your e-collaborative comment. email: rbrazell@fs.fed.us
Stan
 
Last edited:
R

rugbynitro

Well-known member
Nov 4, 2009
186
70
28
Kamloops, B.C.
While I appreciate your zeal to get people's attention, I think it's really cheap to be slagging reputations in order to get it. Many people will read the thread heading and nothing more. Another "look at how crappy Polaris is" forum.

We already have a bunch of fools here that are modifying their stock engines and then swearing up and down that Polaris won't back up their product when things blow up or don't run right. :face-icon-small-fro


Some people have have some legitimate complaints for sure, but lets not embellish to get traffic.
 
S
Feb 21, 2009
810
91
28
56
800 blown

Well got my attention guy in our group had his pop this week with 1300 miles on 2013 assault! Polaris needs to get it figured out the amount of problems in the engine dept. is unacceptable. Great sled **** motor! Good luck keeping the land open!!
 
R

rmscustom

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2010
2,181
1,801
113
While I appreciate your zeal to get people's attention, I think it's really cheap to be slagging reputations in order to get it. Many people will read the thread heading and nothing more. Another "look at how crappy Polaris is" forum.

We already have a bunch of fools here that are modifying their stock engines and then swearing up and down that Polaris won't back up their product when things blow up or don't run right. :face-icon-small-fro


Some people have have some legitimate complaints for sure, but lets not embellish to get traffic.


Call it cheap I don't really care. This has been seen by almost as many users in 1 hour than it has been in the general section after 4 days...

I sincerely hope this gets viewed by 2000 members like any other bash thread but the truth is this will probably disappear while the your brand sucks and mine is better thread will live on because apparently making sure your brand is worse than mine is more important than having a place to ride them.

Trust me the fools that think Polaris suck will be the first to open this and nobodys reputation will suffer.
 
R

rmscustom

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2010
2,181
1,801
113
Well got my attention guy in our group had his pop this week with 1300 miles on 2013 assault! Polaris needs to get it figured out the amount of problems in the engine dept. is unacceptable. Great sled **** motor! Good luck keeping the land open!!


In the amount of time it took you to write this you could of posted a comment to the FS!
 
W
Sep 15, 2008
287
46
28
Spokane, Wa
It would help if you could concisely just post up the main bullet points you think we should hit when sending the email. People can write it in their own words and add any additional info they might have. I just dont have enough facts to send and sound intelligent doing so. I just know the tree huggers want us completely out of all forested areas no matter what the cost and no matter what the actual facts are.
 
R

rmscustom

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2010
2,181
1,801
113
It would help if you could concisely just post up the main bullet points you think we should hit when sending the email. People can write it in their own words and add any additional info they might have. I just dont have enough facts to send and sound intelligent doing so. I just know the tree huggers want us completely out of all forested areas no matter what the cost and no matter what the actual facts are.



There is a list of "Talking Points" in the first post.

More info here
http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=294303&page=3
http://www.sledpatriots.com/index.html
https://www.facebook.com/MontanaSledWarrior?ref=br_tf
 
Last edited:
R

rmscustom

Well-known member
Jun 8, 2010
2,181
1,801
113
No problem with the edit MH I knew it was coming and just wanted to draw some attention.
 

Old Scud-doo

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 28, 2007
995
507
93
Middle Montana
Well I commented. I don't ride there but I am sick of these wilderness groups fighting for segregation by recreation. Bunch of rich hoetty toetty snobs that want OUR federal lands open to only them and their style of recreation.

It's sad people but we are being asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to our federal lands.
 
Yeah those clowns want it all pristine for their grand kids but by the time the kids are old enough to know what's going on it will be nothing but a bunch of rabbid wolves and ashes. Sounds pristine to me lmao
 
O
Dec 6, 2007
857
495
63
The truth is, those fighting to close it will NEVER use it, they never do. It is just more central government control, heck most if not all wilderness closures are unconstitutional. The federal government was never intended to control ANY lands. It is the same issue the rancher in Nevada is fighting.

The BEST thing I think you can do is the same thing the rancher did, ignore the illegal authority, use your public lands responsibly. The game changes when the authorities have to try and enforce those laws. People are tired of this garbage.

I say this because it is (unfortunately) highly unlikely you can stop wilderness expansions and mismanagement of any public lands. The established channels for doing so are completely corrupted and the current political climate supports the corruption. Unless sledders can conjure up some massive campaign donotions, the comments will fall on deaf ears.

This is just my experience from dealing with these folks for the last decade and spending time with people who have been fighting such things for three times that long. The sooner sledders change tactics to civil disobedience instead of trying to politic our way out, the sooner we can force them to recognize our sport and our desire to recreate on OUR public lands.
 

snomoride

Member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 26, 2009
137
23
18
Sierra Village Ca.
Important Info That Affects Us All

Well here's some more Facts on Trying to keep us out. Here on the Stanislaus National Forest there having a meeting that involve 5 Forest in our area of region 5.
Lassen
Tahoe
Eldorado
Stanislaus
Plumas
The meeting is an Open House type meeting in Sonora Ca. at the Sonora Oaks Best Western about the Five-Forest Over-Snow Vehicle Addressing minimum snow depths and a Forest Rule on this for Damaged Done by Snowmobiles in minimum snow depths . A Proposed Rule By The forest Service 6/18/2014.
They have already started a NEPA and need a EIS prior to Winter.

You can get the full content of this on the R-5 Forest Web site or on the Federal Register . Travel Management Rule Subpart C- Over Snow Vehicle Use.

THERE HERE!!! PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!!
 
Premium Features