The limits of winter recreation on Rabbit Ears and Buffalo Pass

[marbuc77]

Here is an interesting article on Rabbit Ears and Buffalo Pass written by a Steamboat area snowmobiler. The article contends that adding more parking and snowmobilers will cause more problems because the acreage is limited and that non-motorized users need to better utilize areas they already have.


http://www.steamboattoday.com/news/2013/jan/15/mark-hartless-both-sides-are-wrong/


I can definitely relate to both points in the article. But I also think the parking for both motorized and non-motorized users could be better managed on Rabbit Ears, Buffalo Pass, Vail Pass, Berthoud Pass, Loveland Pass, Jones Pass and many other areas across the state.



While snowmobiling in Washington and Oregon over Christmas 2012 I saw for the first time and became a fan of Sno-Parks. Sno-Parks are desiginated winter recreation areas with parking and plowing. Some of the Sno-Parks we visited even had restrooms, camping and warming huts. Funds for the Sno-Parks are provided by Sno-Park permits which all users, including motorized and non-motorized users must purchase and display. Some people may complain that they shouldn't have to pay to access public lands. But maintaining parking areas costs money and knowing that all users must pay and that the money goes directly to Sno-Parks makes me feel better about them. Another nice thing about Washington and Oregon is "Reciprocity" where Sno-Park permits for Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California are all honored by each other. It sure would be nice if there was reciprocity between Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.


http://www.parks.wa.gov/winter/permits/
http://www.parks.wa.gov/winter/trails/


http://www.oregon.gov/odot/dmv/pages/vehicle/sno_park_permits.aspx
http://www.tripcheck.com/Pages/SPentry.asp


If you have any thoughts on how to better manage parking at Rabbit Ears, the Forest Service is taking comments on it's proposed changes and possible closures through 2/1/2013. Just follow the link below and voice your thoughts while you can!!!


http://snowmobilecolo.com/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=45117&module_id=128132


I hope the article on Rabbit Ears and this post are some food for thought. Please pass it on to other people who might be interested.


Thanks,
Mark

 

[03RMK800]

Quote: "Funds for the Sno-Parks are provided by Sno-Park permits which all users, including motorized and non-motorized users must purchase and display."

Right there is a key difference. There is debate if pay lots help, or increase use or cause over use. Still, I think we ought to consider it. After all, snowmobilers are already paying between most and all the cost of some lots. My example:

The top of the Grand Mesa has four plowed parking areas with restrooms-- Three primitive, one (the Visitor Center) has flush toilets, serves nonusers, snowmobiles and non motorized users. One is by regulation dedicated nonmotorized (Skyway); one is either dedicated or de facto nonmotorized (County Line); the other one, Mesa Top, was developed for snowmobilers but is mixed use.

I understand that snowmobile money went into developing the mixed-use Mesa Top parking area, which was made with motorized use in mind. I keep hearing that snowmobile money goes into extra plowing at the (mixed use) Visitor Center and all the plowing at Mesa Top. This money comes from the snowmobile and ATV registration system.

To the extent there is any non-tax money in the non motorized lots Skyway and County Line lots, the money is the result of donations and fundraising, not a mandatory fee. The rest of the services at the two non motorized lots are purely tax supported.

I think a mandatory snopark fee paid by all might be a better idea. It could have funded the improvements that are needed. (Two weeks ago, two people in the (nonmotorized) County Line parking lot were killed by a car involved in a wreck that started with someone improperly pulling over and pulling back onto the highway.)

By the way, do the Vail Pass non-motorized users pay a fee at the guard station, or just snowmobilers?

 

[backcountryislife]

Quote: "Funds for the Sno-Parks are provided by Sno-Park permits which all users, including motorized and non-motorized users must purchase and display."

Right there is a key difference. There is debate if pay lots help, or increase use or cause over use. Still, I think we ought to consider it. After all, snowmobilers are already paying between most and all the cost of some lots. My example:

The top of the Grand Mesa has four plowed parking areas with restrooms-- Three primitive, one (the Visitor Center) has flush toilets, serves nonusers, snowmobiles and non motorized users. One is by regulation dedicated nonmotorized (Skyway); one is either dedicated or de facto nonmotorized (County Line); the other one, Mesa Top, was developed for snowmobilers but is mixed use.

I understand that snowmobile money went into developing the mixed-use Mesa Top parking area, which was made with motorized use in mind. I keep hearing that snowmobile money goes into extra plowing at the (mixed use) Visitor Center and all the plowing at Mesa Top. This money comes from the snowmobile and ATV registration system.

To the extent there is any non-tax money in the non motorized lots Skyway and County Line lots, the money is the result of donations and fundraising, not a mandatory fee. The rest of the services at the two non motorized lots are purely tax supported.

I think a mandatory snopark fee paid by all might be a better idea. It could have funded the improvements that are needed. (Two weeks ago, two people in the (nonmotorized) County Line parking lot were killed by a car involved in a wreck that started with someone improperly pulling over and pulling back onto the highway.)

By the way, do the Vail Pass non-motorized users pay a fee at the guard station, or just snowmobilers?

Everyone at VP pays.

 

[P Money]

Walking sticks must have registration stickers above the knee line displayed at all times!

 

[trinitypowder]

I dont know if Mark is a member on Snowest, if not, I'd like to buy him a Premium Membership. That was well written, and EVEN BETTER DEFENDED

 

[bushy]

An interesting tidbit. The parking at Grizzly creek was drastically reduced because somebody (who will remain un-named) got stuck in the big lot they used to plow out west of the main lot with the toilets. This fella wrote letters complaining about the poor job the state was doing keeping the road plowed. So, they quit plowing out that lot to solve that problem. You have a whiney sledder to thank for that. That area is pretty remote, and if the wind blows for an hour it can put up 6 foot drifts across those roads. It's understandable why the plows don't get right on it but some VIP's can't be delayed I guess. At least that's the story I was told by a reputable local.

 

[snokaw]

Hey bushy, are you saying that they don't plow down to the big lot?

 

[Dogmeat]

I sent my comments via email today.

Essentially I said that I think the problem has been exaggerated and that the super-crowded weekends (3-day weekends) are the exception, not the rule ... And that I didn't feel it was necessary to go changing everything.

I stated that I thought the safety issues regarding trailers turning in and snowmobile crossing could be addressed with radar-speed-limit-signs that reduce the speed limit from 65 to 45 mph from East Summit to the west of MC and then around the Dumont area. I also said that some 'road ruts' to wake people up prior to the speed limit change zone would probably do wonders to get people to pay attention. Same concept as reducing the speed limit in a school zone.

IDK, I think I know what is coming with this, and its just the first step in corralling people into an even smaller area so they can claim we're impacting it too much and regulate it even more. Yeah ... more parking sounds good at first glance, but I don't think thats the ultimate goal with the FS here.