Snowmobilers vs. Wilderness

Personal opinion, they shouldn't mandate Wilderness, if they can't obligate funds to manage it, sign it, survey it, patrol it, and repair infractions. How is outlawing "more" of something, you can't enforce, accomplishing anything. Open wilderness to sleds, then there's no infraction to worry about. It's a self inducted problem, created by idiots.

BTW, I do support some wilderness, just not 107 million acres of it. And, I don't support people snowmobiling on it, at least not for now.

some wilderness?

Wade, if you realy believe that snowmobiles should be excluded from some wild places, how do you propose to keep 'em out? Zero dollar fines?
You would allow people but not their sleds?

Well I don't know Swami, I just proposed that they charge you for actual damage. The damage done by a snowmobile on 5 feet+ or snow, would be about $0. I only believe there should be some wilderness, so people that enjoy that sort of thing have the option. I also believe in skier free areas, cause skiers whine so loudly.

Some other fines that have increased include failing to dispose of garbage, which went from $50 to $150; damaging natural features or U.S. property, $75 to $500; abandoning personal property, $50 to $150; setting off fireworks, $75 to $200; and carelessly discarding material that may cause a fire, $75 to $300.

Click to expand...

Let's look at this list. Dumping garbage is $150, So, since sleds are $500, they must worse than Garbage discarded in the wilderness? At least garbage has the cost of removing it. Sleds don't stick around. And, when you walk through the wilderness in summer, you can see the garbage, but the tracks have disappeared.

Causing a fire, or creating the risk of a fire $300. So, snowmobiles do more damage than firebugs, and forest fires? So, when you walk through a big burn, you might notice it, but a doubt you will notice that sleds were ever there.

Abandoning an old car is $150, so snowmobiles do more damage than a bunch of old cars left to rot? I'm sure you'd notice a car abandoned. Might distract from the "natural" beauty.

Humm, seems like these other costs are based on actual costs to correct, or as a deterrence due to the obvious damage they inflict upon wilderness. They also seem to be cheap. The snowmobile fine is based on a what, outright hate of a group, because they chose to snowmobile? May I even call this discrimination? So, if deterrence is the motive, then why $500? I mean, the wilderness is priceless, so why not execute everyone that rides a snowmobile into a wilderness area? Now that's a deterrent. How is $500 any better than say $1000, or $10,000? If I can afford the $500 fine, is it then OK for me to ride there? Wouldn't it be better if the fine was say 1% of your Gross Adjusted Salary? Sounds like their picking on poor people to me.

Yha, I know some people believe noise pollution is a real pollution, they also say that the gases that plants depend on for life is a pollutant (CO2).

We have places that the forest service has requested we stay out of around here, people generally stay out. We didn't need a fine, they asked nicely, and we complied. You imply that fines are the only way to get control, they don't seem to be working. Maybe they should just ask nicely, and not try to kick us out of every square inch of the national forest. It'd be a lot easier to support wilderness, if it made sense and was fair. But instead, it appears to be nothing more than a chest pounding land grab.

Yes, I don't believe there should be any Federal National Forest, that should be off limits to the public. Except maybe living quarters of the employees of the FS. It's our NF.

huh?

Your message is contradictory Wade.
If you actually believe that "there should be some wilderness" to offer an option for "people who enjoy that sort of thing," your criterion for excluding sleds has nothing to do with harm to resources... it is based on satisfying a select group of people. If you honestly want to satisfy those people, what measures do you suggest to actually deter/prevent sleds from using the wild area where you "don't support people snowmobiling on it"? As we know, some sledders will voluntarily comply with a simple request but some will not.

My point was that fines will not prevent ALL sledders from entering wilderness either. Since no amount of fines will keep ALL sledders out, an infinite fine is the only eventual outcome.

We should set aside some small areas, and ask sledders to stay out. This should be the limit of the forest service's powers. There should be no guarantee of a "perfect" wilderness experience. The forest service should only be allowed to recoup money for actual damage caused. My point is logical.

Swami said:

Your message is contradictory Wade.
If you actually believe that "there should be some wilderness" to offer an option for "people who enjoy that sort of thing," your criterion for excluding sleds has nothing to do with harm to resources... it is based on satisfying a select group of people. If you honestly want to satisfy those people, what measures do you suggest to actually deter/prevent sleds from using the wild area where you "don't support people snowmobiling on it"? As we know, some sledders will voluntarily comply with a simple request but some will not.

Click to expand...

We're all criminals - don't you get it! JAIL (or death) is the only proper punishment for someone evil enough to ride a snowmobile across an imaginary line in the snow...

carrots for compliance

You said, Wade, that you "support some wilderness." But comes now: this must be a small place or "small areas".
That sounds contradictory.

I read your message: big snowy places remote from roads - wilderness - should be open for sleds... but in some other (small) areas, snowmobile use should be discouraged. Your message is muddled by claiming to support "wilderness".

And yes, I know that some people are real hung on fines. That's why I suggested that the govt should reward high compliance by opening more acres to sleds. I think that kind of carrot would eliminate any need for fines.

Basically, those areas of wilderness that have snow and can't be accessed by skis, should be left for sledders to use. Or should I say, you can only get fined for actual damage. I actually think they should be converted to a backcountry recreation designation, but that's another argument. As for the group of skiers that enjoy wilderness, that group is actually two groups. One group is the skiers that just want to ski, and find some government reserved fresh powder, the whole "quite experience" stuff is just bull to get more fresh powder without trenches side hilled through it. The other group are greenies that will use any excuse to close more land. But, your basic question revolves around how to keep sledders out of the skier's areas. The only thing I can offer, is that there is no full proof way to satisfy this requirement. Fines will slow some people down. But, even the highest fine will not stop everyone. But, if it's so important that we fine people for irritating some reclusive superior special interest group, by all means go for it. They still won't be happy. Something tells me there aren't really that many skiers that use wilderness in the winter, their too cheap to develop winter access to wilderness, so they have to use a snowmobile to get there. So, to tell you the truth, I wasn't really speaking to this 1% or 1% scenario.

Now, your suggestion that areas be opened for compliance is a great idea. I just want to be invited to the meeting where a bunch of greenies try to decide what precious area they can live without. Maybe your referring to non-wilderness closed areas, or recommended wilderness areas, but it would take an act of congress to mandate a piece of wilderness to be opened.

I think we all have the same right to our forests. they are our forests and I don't see any good to split it up by motorized and non-motorized areas. If a cross country skier want to ski in 10 15 miles to our play areas my hat will be off to them. If they want nice quiet areas to ski in go to a ski resort and take advantage of their trails ( I know the resort next to my house has them.)

Are there good unbiased studies that show a negative impact on the forests or the animals from sledders? If the FS can't come up with one that wasn't conducted by bunny huggers or the FS I don't think they should be able to shut us down.

pick your line

Wade, there are some sizable quality places in Cali & Nev - wilderness but not official W - where snowmobiles can't now go but certainly might. But your argument that absolutely nothing (infinite fines - LOL!) will keep sleds out of Wilderness or restricted areas is the killer. Your 'fines for actual damage' plan is basically a license for sleds to go anywhere. As such, it is the exact opposite of the 'reward compliance with acres' idea. If rewards (opening of more quality acres) depended on 100% rider compliance with existing rules for weeks at a stretch - I am convinced that peer education would be more than enough to attain the supposedly impossible goal of full compliance. Sledders will easily unite on that plan. :beer;

Closely related is a question for Summitchaser to ponder... if there was unbiased repeatable studies showing an obvious cause-effect link between high altitude snowmobile use in a particular place and, say, disappearance of frogs or fish, would you actually support snowmobile limits at that time and place? resent:

Yes, my idea is laughable. Basically, it would open up wilderness to snowmobiles. My idea just removes the Forest Service's ability to enforce.

Your idea would force greenies to rent sleds and stage "non-compliance". Thereby resulting in the stick being used, more riding areas lost. Plus, I doubt you can find a greenies or FS rep that will agree to this, unless it's land they know they can't close anyways. The lawyers would like your plan.

BTW, I don't believe the Forest Service or the Greenies will ever give one acre back to us, unless they can gain a million acres in return. It's a one way street.

here where I'm at in Montana they are spending who knows what patrolling on sleds and flying a chopper around every week looking to bust people going across the imaginary line who pays these guys!? The other day we ran into 8 fs guys on brand new polaris 700's they stopped us on the trail and basically harrased us for 15 minutes and we where about 4 miles from their 'line" I think something should be done over all the money these people are spending trying to catch a few riders on 12 feet of snow!

Interesting. I took two things from this story.

1. Stay the he11 out of existing wilderness. The forest service does notice when people ride out of bounds. We're shooting ourselves in the foot and giving them more ammunition to shut it down.

2. Boundaries need to be marked better. Unfortunately, here in Washington, I'll bet 95% of the people who ride in wilderness know exactly where they are. It usually isn't easy to get to, and you don't 'stumble' upon it.


The general public doesn't see any difference between snowmobiles, bikes, quads, etc. We all know that sleds don't do any harm in the winter, but it's the law, plain and simple. Should we pick and choose which laws we want to obey? I guess we need to fight harder to get it changed. Too bad we don't represent the majority......

Wade said:

Basically, those areas of wilderness that have snow and can't be accessed by skis, should be left for sledders to use. Or should I say, you can only get fined for actual damage. I actually think they should be converted to a backcountry recreation designation, but that's another argument. As for the group of skiers that enjoy wilderness, that group is actually two groups. One group is the skiers that just want to ski, and find some government reserved fresh powder, the whole "quite experience" stuff is just bull to get more fresh powder without trenches side hilled through it. The other group are greenies that will use any excuse to close more land. But, your basic question revolves around how to keep sledders out of the skier's areas. The only thing I can offer, is that there is no full proof way to satisfy this requirement. Fines will slow some people down. But, even the highest fine will not stop everyone. But, if it's so important that we fine people for irritating some reclusive superior special interest group, by all means go for it. They still won't be happy. Something tells me there aren't really that many skiers that use wilderness in the winter, their too cheap to develop winter access to wilderness, so they have to use a snowmobile to get there. So, to tell you the truth, I wasn't really speaking to this 1% or 1% scenario.

Now, your suggestion that areas be opened for compliance is a great idea. I just want to be invited to the meeting where a bunch of greenies try to decide what precious area they can live without. Maybe your referring to non-wilderness closed areas, or recommended wilderness areas, but it would take an act of congress to mandate a piece of wilderness to be opened.

Click to expand...

Well said Wade, keep up the drive.

newtrout said:

Should we pick and choose which laws we want to obey?

Click to expand...

I guarantee you that each and every day you are picking and choosing which laws you obey.

Snowmobilers are no different than skiers, each looking for the next line, their own little space, fresh tracks, etc... Confining a growing number of sledders to smaller and smaller areas is not going to solve the problem. Especially when were talking about areas that we grew up riding and have ridden for generations. To just close it because some greenie wants a yurt there is completely wrong, but because of corrupt thinking and money it happens. How can someone really justify closing an area that has had 30 years of snowmobiles traveling there and NOTHING has changed? Yea maybe a tree or two gets ran over, but make us go plant trees in some other part of the forest if thats what your concerned about. Shutting it down in hopes that snowmobilers stay out is stupid. I hate to admit it but timeshares (skiers this weekend, sledders next weekend) might be better than trying to smooth the friction of co-use.

Recently here in Utah there were some snowmobilers that decided to take a ride to the top of MT timpanogous (wilderness area). Like idiots they posted pictures all over the web and ended up being fined. The prosecuting attorney said, "We cannot let this go to trial, because the judge will probably just dismiss the ticket." They did a plea deal for them $500 each. I would pay $500 to snowmobile that area just once in my lifetime legally. Absolutely i would. And when i was done i would post the pictures all over the place so you guys would know what you missed out on

phatty said:

I guarantee you that each and every day you are picking and choosing which laws you obey.

Snowmobilers are no different than skiers, each looking for the next line, their own little space, fresh tracks, etc... Confining a growing number of sledders to smaller and smaller areas is not going to solve the problem. Especially when were talking about areas that we grew up riding and have ridden for generations. To just close it because some greenie wants a yurt there is completely wrong, but because of corrupt thinking and money it happens. How can someone really justify closing an area that has had 30 years of snowmobiles traveling there and NOTHING has changed? Yea maybe a tree or two gets ran over, but make us go plant trees in some other part of the forest if thats what your concerned about. Shutting it down in hopes that snowmobilers stay out is stupid. I hate to admit it but timeshares (skiers this weekend, sledders next weekend) might be better than trying to smooth the friction of co-use.

Recently here in Utah there were some snowmobilers that decided to take a ride to the top of MT timpanogous (wilderness area). Like idiots they posted pictures all over the web and ended up being fined. The prosecuting attorney said, "We cannot let this go to trial, because the judge will probably just dismiss the ticket." They did a plea deal for them $500 each. I would pay $500 to snowmobile that area just once in my lifetime legally. Absolutely i would. And when i was done i would post the pictures all over the place so you guys would know what you missed out on

Click to expand...

Know thy enemy and know their schedule........words I will NEVER forget.........true peace to riding in those areas that yes I as well would GLADLY take the fine for the opportunity to have been where I think it is ridiculous that over the snow vehicles are off limits...

Why break the law?

newtrout said:

Interesting. I took two things from this story.

1. Stay the he11 out of existing wilderness. The forest service does notice when people ride out of bounds. We're shooting ourselves in the foot and giving them more ammunition to shut it down.

2. Boundaries need to be marked better. Unfortunately, here in Washington, I'll bet 95% of the people who ride in wilderness know exactly where they are. It usually isn't easy to get to, and you don't 'stumble' upon it.


The general public doesn't see any difference between snowmobiles, bikes, quads, etc. We all know that sleds don't do any harm in the winter, but it's the law, plain and simple. Should we pick and choose which laws we want to obey? I guess we need to fight harder to get it changed. Too bad we don't represent the majority......

Click to expand...

I'm with newtrout...
What's the draw to the closed areas, knowing that you are breaking the law excites you? You want that kind of excitement - then go rob a bank, if you get caught - you pay the price but it does not affect me, my kids, or for that matter, others on this forum - poaching a closed area hurts us all!!!

Icehole said:

I'm with newtrout...
What's the draw to the closed areas, knowing that you are breaking the law excites you?

Click to expand...

im not saying its right or wrong, but here is a list:

The riding is vastly superior to all other areas, the bowl are bigger, the elevation is higher (more snow, better conditions) guaranteed fresh tracks, nobody else will be there, usually there isn't a lot of trees or other obstacles, closer to home (less gas to get to riding), much more scenic...

Im going to start saving $50 a month so i can go for a ride next year in a place i have only dreamed about sledding... LOL

Well it won't be long and everything will be closed to us and I see no reason to be curtious or obey the closed areas we've been riding for years.
I think it's actually going to be fun. Get a fairly big group together every so often, plan a route and a "escape route" through areas we have always ridin in and some we haven't always been allowed in.
We'll have names like Mr. Blue, Mr. White etc in case anyone gets caught.
I'm going to shred the he11 outta a few cross country ski trails (i.e. old snowmobile trails) and spit on them as I go by...just trying to give back.