OSV Meetings

Don Amador, from the Blue Ribbon Coalition, was at the Foresthill Meeting. He was handing out a land use update from the BRC regarding the new OSV rules.

The most important paragraph is below,

"It is important that we protect against efforts to portray the settlement (Wildlands Network vs USFS) as requiring, or even suggesting, that the agency must institute new restrictions on OSV use. The settlement is purely procedural, and does not dictate, or even imply, ANY substantive outcome. There is nothing in either the specific language or existence of the settlement agreement that requires any restrictions on existing OSV use."


Personally, I will not agree to any additional closures or restrictions in OSV use with the exception of the one acre area around historical building in Robinson Flat.


I will not consent to Loch Leven, Indepence Parcels or designated PCT crossings. For twenty plus years I have been told that we need to compromise with the environmentalists regarding land usage.


All that compromise has done nothing for OHV and OSV usage other than making our riding areas smaller.


Make sure to submit a comment to USFS regarding no new restrictions on OSV--

there are currently 109,808 areas designated as OSV prohibited in the current plan, including:


North Yuba Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Babbit Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Steep Hollow Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Kyburz Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Sagehen Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Indepence Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Donner Summit Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Onion Valley Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Truckee River Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Pole Creek Motor Vehicle Closure Area

North Fork American River Closure Area

Alpine Meadows Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Placer Big Trees Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Oak Flat Motor Vehicle Closure Area

Granite Chief Wilderness


Make sure USFS knows that you feel there does not need to be anymore.


Write your comments here,https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=45914

When writing your comments, there are very good scientific studies that you can note here to back up your pro OSV position.

http://www.snowmobile.org/facts_ece.asp

Looks like the USFS extended the comment period to April 20.

^^^^as stated above-- use the link and site (and notate) the SCIENTIFIC studies, that are listed, in your comments

The environmental movements hate it when facts disagree with their personal bias.

Here is a commenter who called me out by name (TWICE!) after reading my comments. I guess the truth hurts.

Here is what she had to say, and what we are up against.

"Date submitted (UTC): 3/26/2015 12:47:10 AM First name: Diane
Last name: Gleason
Organization:
Title:
Official Representative/Member Indicator:
Address1: 550 E Arbor Ave
Address2:
City: Sunnyvale
State: CA
Province/Region:
Zip/Postal Code: 94085
Country: United States
Email: gleasondiane@yahoo.com
Phone:
Comments:
Greetings, I am an avid backcountry enthusiast. I ski, snowshoe, and hike.
To quote the plan:
?The Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides management direction for OSV use across the approximately 829,510 acres of Tahoe National Forest lands as follows: Approximately 669,537 acres of NFS land are open to off-trail cross-country OSV use;
Approximately 109,808 acres of NFS land are closed to OSV use;?
To me this sounds like the OSV users are allocated quite a bit of public land to use. One of your commenters, Michael Murphy, complains that the non-OSV users are allocated too much compared to the OSV users. I do realize that cross country skiers can ski on the OSV land, but please do recognize that the back country skiing is vastly different in OSV vs non-OSV land. I suppose to someone who rides an OSV and is constantly listening to the loud sound, the sound doesn?t seem excessive. But to someone who is enjoying the solitude of the backcountry, OSVs are indeed quite loud and disruptive. Also, to those who ride OSVs, they move so fast that they don?t notice or smell the exhaust that makes a trail along their path, like a big smelly tail. But those of us on foot or snowshoe or ski are then left in the exhaust tail of the OSVs.
There are plenty of motorized objects in our world. Unlike Michael Murphy, I cannot afford to live in Truckee, and I go to the Sierras to get away from the traffic and noise and pollution of the cities and roads. Backcountry skiing on the same land that is open to OSVs is not relaxing nor rewarding. Noise and pollution do not belong in the solitude of the backcountry.
I support less land open to OSV use."

Please make a well thought out comment supporting OSV use.

Murph

sierra sleder said:

Hay guys can we get a link that works to the comments section please?
The above links no good.
Embarrassing.

Click to expand...

Here you go. Scroll to bottom of page

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=45914

Typical anti - OSV comment

What we are up against. Another non OSV user comment
Date submitted (UTC): 3/25/2015 6:49:33 PM


First name: mark
Last name: kircher
Organization: Snowlands Network and Winter Wildlands Alliance Title:
Official Representative/Member Indicator:
Member Address1: 7189 2nd ave
Address2
City: tahoma
State: CA
Province/Region:
Zip/Postal Code: 96142
Country: United States


Email: tahomus@sbcglobal.net


Phone: 530 525-1919


Comments:


Comments to the scoping notice on Over-Snow Vehicle Use Designation


Any management plan that does not further restrict snowmobile access from current levels will effectively be reducing the available terrain for quiet low impact winter recreation, compared to what was available when those rules were originally made.


The kind of snowmobiles that folks use these days didn?t even exist thirty years ago, when I started back country skiing here. These machines can now access places that weren?t even an issue when the rules were made. And at the same time there has been a boom in the popularity of backcountry skiing, likewise due in part to improved technology except that the commensurate increase in impact has been geometric not exponential. Ski gear has improved but you still have to push it with your own muscles. it doesn?t do all the work for you, so there are natural limits to range and impact. Not so with the new breed of snow machines. We have a very uneven playing field, so to speak. That?s where proper management should come in.


Your prior restrictions on snowmobile access were an acknowledgement that these machines do indeed have an impact on both the resource and other users. So to not increase restrictions on snowmobiles as the mobility and numbers of these machines has increased is inconsistent and neglectful. This is an undemocratic allocation of available resources. Why should a handful of noisy users be allowed to scare off a majority of lower impact users? How is this fair? We don?t have paid industry lobbyists to speak for us, no vested interest beyond our love of the mountains. We must rely on your good faith and judgment.


The situation on Mt. Rose is a perfect parody of proper snow mobile management. To allow snowmobiling on an area that?s only a few square miles, right up against a wilderness area, along a road where families go sledding, is ludicrous and the agency should be held liable for such mismanagement. It makes no sense. You have snow mobiles hurtling past families trying to sled and learn to ski. A half dozen trucks with snow mobiles get to show up and harass the occupants of the dozens of other vehicles that are parked there? It?s a joke. Who is representing all the random families from Reno who just want to go enjoy the snow a couple times a year? It?s not fair to anyone, not even the snow mobilers. You are putting the open cookie jar out in front of these (mostly) kids and expecting them not to take some, not to encroach in the wilderness? (entrapment?) You are basically training them to ignore the rules. Don?t you folks have dogs, or kids? This is obedience training 101. You need to structure situations so as to encourage compliance, not the opposite.


Take the Sonora pass area for instance. USFS couldn?t keep the bilers out so the agency effectively said ?o?kay fine. So now they are allowed?? Is that acting in good faith? on either parties part? rewarding their poor behavior. I now avoid Mt. Rose. & Blackwood & Ward & High Meadows & Forestdale & Castle Peak & Genoa, etc. ( the list seems to grow every year) all favorite old spots of mine, traditional backcountry ski areas literally for generations, but now no longer offering that quality wild snow experience we are willing to work so hard for.


More aesthetic neighborly considerations such as noise regulations and the barrage of mindlessly circling tracks aside, let?s not suppose that these snow machines aren?t high impact, just because they travel ?over snow?. I have seen countless snowmobile ruts in the bare ground, both in low lying areas from shoulder season use and on fetched out ridge tops from even mid winter. I find their garbage all over. the usual cases of coors cans and junk food wrappers that go with that demographic, but also windshields and ferrings and stuff too big for me to even carry out for them. These impacts are still there long after the exhaust fumes have settled and the screaming engines have departed. I haven?t seen a snowshoe hare on Mt Rose in years but I?ve seen crushed Krumholz, as if our treeline White Bark Pines don?t already have enough challenges now (blister rust, global warming).


In October a few years ago, some gung ho ?biler rode up to Relay ridge on barely 6 inches of snow, went strait to the wilderness boundary, crossed it and did a big old brodie high point in Mt Rose wilderness, literally spraying dirt. This is not an isolated incident. Any time I have gone to areas where there is snowmobile access near a wilderness area I can pretty much rely on seeing encroachments. There are tracks every year all the way into the heart of even Desolation Wilderness. It is a consistent pattern of not just ignoring the boundaries but intentionally flaunting them. There is a substantial portion of that user group who have open contempt for both fellow users and even the resource itself. And you expect us to ?share? with folks like that? They are like school yard bullies, spoiled children. Laissez-faire libertarianism is predicated on the assumption that you will be more obnoxious than your neighbors. This sure applies to snowmobilers. The widespread adoption of existing clean quiet snow mobile technology speaks to this user groups good intentions. Not. Well, children need boundaries, and clear consistent enforcement.


And how does all this play out in an era of rapid climate change? You are setting a policy that will last decades, managing an ecosystem that your own science tells you will be stressed by what ever climate change is to come. It seems likely we will see extended shoulder seasons, more months with marginal snow cover, and more mid winter thaws. These are times when the alpine areas that are likely to be most threatened by climate change will also be the most exposed to vehicular damage. Are you being conservative in your management? How will posterity judge it? Twenty years from now will folks say you were being too strict? trying too hard to protect the resource from impact? unlikely. and would this be so horrible? compared to a legacy of ruts and garbage in our fragile alpine areas? And does the agency really need to actively encourage and facilitate such high impact energy consumptive recreation in these times?

Go ahead and surprise me and do the right thing for a change. This is Tahoe! It should have been a national park. Now it?s like going to a motocross park, just like most everywhere else in the inter mountain west.

Can?t we manage our world class terrain with a little extra consideration and just tell the snowmobiles to drive somewhere else or heaven forbid get off their lazy asses and get some exercise and maybe even experience first hand a little of what this awesome place has to offer on its own terms? No we wouldn?t want to encourage that. Well good luck. You?re going to face criticism no matter what you do. So why not do what?s best for Tahoe? Bet you don?t hear too many snowmobilers suggesting that. What should that tell you?




sincerely (with moments of sarcasm), Mark Kircher



7189 2nd ave


Tahoma, ca 96142

My Response to Mark Kirchner

Rebuttal to Mark Kirchner

Mark Kirchner--"Any management plan that does not further restrict snowmobile access from current levels will effectively be reducing the available terrain for quiet low impact winter recreation, compared to what was available when those rules were originally made."

Michael Murphy-----Quiet Recreation is currently available on 109,808 acres in the Tahoe NF

Mark Kirchner--"The kind of snowmobiles that folks use these days didn?t even exist thirty years ago, when I started back country skiing here. These machines can now access places that weren?t even an issue when the rules were made. And at the same time there has been a boom in the popularity of backcountry skiing, likewise due in part to improved technology except that the commensurate increase in impact has been geometric not exponential. Ski gear has improved but you still have to push it with your own muscles. it doesn?t do all the work for you, so there are natural limits to range and impact. Not so with the new breed of snow machines. We have a very uneven playing field, so to speak. That?s where proper management should come in."

Michael Murphy--- Mr Kirchner has obviously never ridden a snowmobile and is speaking from a place of ignorance. Some of us enjoy both human powered and motor powered back country endeavors. I would gladly invite Mr. Kirchner to two days of activity for his education. One day we will go human powered, one day motorized-- I will supply him with a 2011 Polaris snowmobile that is both EPA and noise compliant. My sincere hope is that he will come away with a new appreciation of motorized access and a respect of the "muscle effort" required to ride one.

Mark Kirchner--"Your prior restrictions on snowmobile access were an acknowledgement that these machines do indeed have an impact on both the resource and other users. So to not increase restrictions on snowmobiles as the mobility and numbers of these machines has increased is inconsistent and neglectful. This is an undemocratic allocation of available resources. Why should a handful of noisy users be allowed to scare off a majority of lower impact users? How is this fair? We don?t have paid industry lobbyists to speak for us, no vested interest beyond our love of the mountains. We must rely on your good faith and judgment."

Michael Murphy--- undemocratic? Non-motorized users sued the USFS (Wildalnds vs USFS) to change policy. Litigation was used to usurp power from both the USFS and steal the access rights of motorized users. No vested interest, no lobbyists? Sierra Club, Wildlands, Snowlands, Wilderness Society-- plenty of urban and outside of Tahoe liberal donors funding the aforementioned Special Interest Groups.

Mark Kirchner--- The situation on Mt. Rose is a perfect parody of proper snow mobile management. To allow snowmobiling on an area that?s only a few square miles, right up against a wilderness area, along a road where families go sledding, is ludicrous and the agency should be held liable for such mismanagement. It makes no sense. You have snow mobiles hurtling past families trying to sled and learn to ski. A half dozen trucks with snow mobiles get to show up and harass the occupants of the dozens of other vehicles that are parked there? It?s a joke. Who is representing all the random families from Reno who just want to go enjoy the snow a couple times a year? It?s not fair to anyone, not even the snow mobilers. You are putting the open cookie jar out in front of these (mostly) kids and expecting them not to take some, not to encroach in the wilderness? (entrapment?) You are basically training them to ignore the rules. Don?t you folks have dogs, or kids? This is obedience training 101. You need to structure situations so as to encourage compliance, not the opposite.

Michael Murphy---- Motorized use of Mt Rose is limited to one side of the Highway. Non- motorized users have free reign on both sides. Seems like a fairly "democratic"(your word) allocation of resources. What you are really saying is you want it all. You are completely ignoring/ marginalizing another user group because they don't fit your standards? Do you always marginalize groups that you don't relate to?

Mark Kirchner--Take the Sonora pass area for instance. USFS couldn?t keep the bilers out so the agency effectively said ?o?kay fine. So now they are allowed?? Is that acting in good faith? on either parties part? rewarding their poor behavior. I now avoid Mt. Rose. & Blackwood & Ward & High Meadows & Forestdale & Castle Peak & Genoa, etc. ( the list seems to grow every year) all favorite old spots of mine, traditional backcountry ski areas literally for generations, but now no longer offering that quality wild snow experience we are willing to work so hard for.

Michael Murphy--- You "avoid" these areas. That is your choice, OSV users have limited choices as to where they can ride. Along with the areas you "avoid" (must be nice) you still have
North Yuba Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Babbit Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Steep Hollow Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Kyburz Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Sagehen Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Indepence Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Donner Summit Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Onion Valley Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Truckee River Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Pole Creek Motor Vehicle Closure Area
North Fork American River Closure Area
Alpine Meadows Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Placer Big Trees Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Oak Flat Motor Vehicle Closure Area
Granite Chief Wilderness


Mark Kirchner--More aesthetic neighborly considerations such as noise regulations and the barrage of mindlessly circling tracks aside, let?s not suppose that these snow machines aren?t high impact, just because they travel ?over snow?. I have seen countless snowmobile ruts in the bare ground, both in low lying areas from shoulder season use and on fetched out ridge tops from even mid winter. I find their garbage all over. the usual cases of coors cans and junk food wrappers that go with that demographic, but also windshields and ferrings and stuff too big for me to even carry out for them. These impacts are still there long after the exhaust fumes have settled and the screaming engines have departed. I haven?t seen a snowshoe hare on Mt Rose in years but I?ve seen crushed Krumholz, as if our treeline White Bark Pines don?t already have enough challenges now (blister rust, global warming)."

Michael Murphy---wow, more generalizations and prejudice. I suggest you actually read some SCIENTIFIC studies instead of making assumptions. I will give you some places to start:
Dr. Andres Soom, University of Wisconsin,Emission, Propagation and Environmental Impact of Noise from Snowmobile Operations

Response of White-Tailed Deer to Snowmobiles and Snowmobile Trails in Maine, conducted by wildlife scientists for the Maine Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Snow Machine Use and Deer in Rob Brook, conducted by the Forest Wildlife Biologists of White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire

Effects of Snowmobiles on White Tailed Deer, The University of Minnesota, Michael J. Dorrance


Snowmobile Use and Trails Assist Wildflower Survival—Professor William Mitchell of the Landscape Horticultural Program at the University of Maine

As I stated before, I enjoy both human powered and motorized recreation. I have also seen evidence of litter and thoughtlessness in non motorized areas. If we were to follow your logic, that would mean that no one should enjoy the Tahoe NF. Going back to your Mt Rose example, I have seen plenty of snow saucers and plastic sleds up there after the snow melts and I assure you, the snowmobilers didn't take them up there.

Mark Kirchner---In October a few years ago, some gung ho ?biler rode up to Relay ridge on barely 6 inches of snow, went strait to the wilderness boundary, crossed it and did a big old brodie high point in Mt Rose wilderness, literally spraying dirt. This is not an isolated incident. Any time I have gone to areas where there is snowmobile access near a wilderness area I can pretty much rely on seeing encroachments. There are tracks every year all the way into the heart of even Desolation Wilderness. It is a consistent pattern of not just ignoring the boundaries but intentionally flaunting them. There is a substantial portion of that user group who have open contempt for both fellow users and even the resource itself. And you expect us to ?share? with folks like that? They are like school yard bullies, spoiled children. Laissez-faire libertarianism is predicated on the assumption that you will be more obnoxious than your neighbors. This sure applies to snowmobilers. The widespread adoption of existing clean quiet snow mobile technology speaks to this user groups good intentions. Not. Well, children need boundaries, and clear consistent enforcement.

Michael Murphy---- Again, you paint all OSV users with a broad brush. You call OSV users bullies, spoiled children, obnoxious, Coors beer drinking..... And you wonder why you can't get along with OSV users? ---"substantial portion of that user group has open contempt for other users", you sir, are the one name calling and generalizing. My guess is that you are someone who voices his contempt for snowmobilers and/ or possibly swings your pole at passing snowmobilers. Is it any wonder that you are treated less than kindly in return? Is it really the OSV users fault that you start the bully tactics and they respond in kind?

Mark Kirchner--- And how does all this play out in an era of rapid climate change? You are setting a policy that will last decades, managing an ecosystem that your own science tells you will be stressed by what ever climate change is to come. It seems likely we will see extended shoulder seasons, more months with marginal snow cover, and more mid winter thaws. These are times when the alpine areas that are likely to be most threatened by climate change will also be the most exposed to vehicular damage. Are you being conservative in your management? How will posterity judge it? Twenty years from now will folks say you were being too strict? trying too hard to protect the resource from impact? unlikely. and would this be so horrible? compared to a legacy of ruts and garbage in our fragile alpine areas? And does the agency really need to actively encourage and facilitate such high impact energy consumptive recreation in these times?

Michael Murphy--- He mentions climate change. Hopefully he takes the time to EDUCATE himself vs PREJUDICE himself. Ever wonder how much diesel fuel is burned in the snow grooming snow cats at Tahoe resorts? 16 hours of continuous operation 4pm-9am. The amount of energy expended for snow making operations? The pumps, compressors, fans, etc? How about the number of "commuters" and day trippers from the Bay Area driving SUVs, and Subarus by the THOUSANDS? All that "human powered" superiority has a pretty big environmental impact-- ever seen the amount of garbage left at a ski area after the snow melts-- I have. Where is all the righteous indignation for the negative environmental impact?

Mark Kirchner---"Go ahead and surprise me and do the right thing for a change. This is Tahoe! It should have been a national park. Now it?s like going to a motocross park, just like most everywhere else in the inter mountain west.Can?t we manage our world class terrain with a little extra consideration and just tell the snowmobiles to drive somewhere else or heaven forbid get off their lazy asses and get some exercise and maybe even experience first hand a little of what this awesome place has to offer on its own terms? No we wouldn?t want to encourage that. Well good luck. You?re going to face criticism no matter what you do. So why not do what?s best for Tahoe? Bet you don?t hear too many snowmobilers suggesting that. What should that tell you?"

Michael Murphy----"tell the snowmobiles to drive somewhere else", do you still long for the days of telling "those people" that they need to sit at the back of the bus?

You call motorized users, "lazy asses". Check out another SCIENTIFIC study: York University, in Toronto Canada, "The Fitness and Health Benefits of recreational Off-Road Vehicle Riding." Some interesting conclusions of the study include:[color="rgba(0,"]
[/color]
OHV riding was found to require a true physiological demand that is expected to have a beneficial effect on health and fitness.
OHV riding was determined to be a recreational activity associated with moderate intensity cardiovascular demand and fatigue induced muscular strength challenges similar to other activities such as rock climbing and alpine skiing.

I am serious about my two day challenge with you Mr Kirchner. I guarantee you I will survive your human powered gauntlet, and you will experience muscle soreness in muscles you didn't even know existed after one day of riding snowmobiles. I highly doubt you will even make it through the day before your "superior" body conditioning calls it quits.

"Do what's best for Tahoe"--- according to who? You? Or all your narrow, like-minded, micro brew drinking (right back at ya!) friends?

sincerely (with moments of sarcasm),
Mark Kircher
7189 2nd ave
Tahoma, ca 96142

Michael Murphy
10050 Bridge St 3402
Truckee, Ca 96161

We need more pro OSV comments on the USFS page. Comment section closes 4/20/2015 but do it now.

Here is the link. Scroll to the bottom and fill out form.

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=45914