snowkiting area potentialy being closed. ends 11/14/14

Occupied Columbia · Since 12 Nov 2011 376 Posts Columbia City Obsessed

Comments can be emailed to: fpr_npclW@fs.fed.us Act by Nov 14. Tell them OPTION B
Sorry for the last minute post. this info has been copied from snowest forums...
http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=383727

Option A is to support changing it into a wilderness. No mountain bikes, hangliders, parachutes or anything accept snowshoes and foot traffic.

Option B keeps the elitists from having it to themselves. We can snowmobile with option B, the only option.

For the Great Burn on the Montana/Idaho border....

This is from Stan Spencer of Backcountry Sled Patriots:

COMMENT PERIOD CLOSES NOV. 14!!!. I know there are people out there that figure someone else will comment so why bother. This is your vote to not only keep snowmobiling in the Great Burn but to also impact future Forest Planning to give the same consideration for SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS (SMA) for winter motorized use in areas recommended for wilderness. There are more Forest Plans coming up for review in Montana that this outcome will impact. *Your comment is important. The wilderness advocates are still blitzing their constituency to oppose the SMA'S. Check our facebook page for comment details. Comments can be emailed to: fpr_npclw@fs.fed.us .

A couple of side notes: I was cleanning up my desk (long over due) the other day and found some information I had gathered when Sandra and I were working on a National Protection Area designation for the Great Burn. Colorado has an SMA that was created in 1993. The Fossil Ridge Recreation Management Area surrounds the Fossil Ridge Wilderness area. Google it if you are interested. This solidly establishes precedent for the proposed SMA'S in the Great Burn. It also takes away the argument that the FS is going down a slippery slope etc.. It should dispel any political interference that may (hopefully not) try over ride the proposed SMA action as untested and not suitable in an RWA. I did forward this info to the Clearwater FS.

The University of Idaho contacted me recently to get my input on the Clearwater Forest Planning Collaborative process from a motorized perspective. Somewhere along the way they have accessed *BSP publicly released statements. They were quite interested in our (BSP) position 'that to some degree we are all environmentalists'. The question essentially was "how do snowmobile and environmentalist get in the same sentence" and "what was the reaction to that position". *

I think the question highlights a common misconception (we need to learn from) that all motorized users have no respect for the environment. We all need to convey to the public, in any relevant discussions, that the back country is our world for snowmobiling. Why (or how) would we want to harm it?. Obviously our message needs to clarify between reasonable and radical *environmental positions.

They were also quite interested in any interaction I had with the wilderness advocates, in particular the Montana Wilderness Association, and if any dialogue had opened up as a result of the collaborative meetings. To reiterate: I had some meaningful discussion with three principal groups from Idaho but MWA was not open to any compromise discussion.

Stan Spencer