Snowmobiling Deathblow??......the greenies are winning!

mezz

mezz

Well-known member
Well, this "motorized yehaw" see's the potential of designated area's of use for skiers, snowshoers & snowmobilers. It is sad that such a stink has to be made in our courts regarding recreational land use. Hopefully, the seperation between them solves the issue & does not exclude anyone whom prefers a given sport. I personally do not believe that the courts would ban snowmobiles in the back country all together, we all have rights. I had to kind of chuckle at the statement made by the executive director of the Winter Wildlands Alliance, "we are seeking a peaceful experience in the woods", when he himself acknowedges the use of snowmobiles to get to their area's to ski. Beit as it may, perhaps the loud cans need to go, not the sleds.-Mezz
 
L

loriwlrc

New member
This was all part of the plan, 10 years ago, talking with business owners in West Yellostone , the park rulings were just the beginning, what was in the plan was to close all areas in a 100 mile radius of a National Park to motoized vechiles, it could or just may happen, as no one thought the regulations would happen for entering the park.Where would that leave us here in the U.P.???? Get involved, in your clubs/organizations that support your passions!
 
H

Hoosier

Well-known member
Blue Ribbon Coalition is the best group I know of for protecting our rights to use public land, although I do wish they were a little more snowmobile-specific. If anyone knows any other groups that should be joined, please post them here.

$20 a year or so makes you a member with BRC. Although donations are great too, membership numbers speak loudly, so it's important for everyone to join. Be nice if the dealers would push this also.

MSA is the other group I've joined. Again, minimal cash outlay compared to costs of sports. I get uneasy advocating too much, since many others on this site put countless hours into the trail system and I am unable to at this stage of life and from where I live.

Riding areas will never increase, and once they're gone, they're basically gone.
 
S

snoluver1

Active member
Just to clarify, this has the potential to effect ALL NATIONAL FOREST LANDS, not just National Parks. This would include any National Forest in the U.P. or any other state. Just imagine Hiawatha National Forest CLOSED to cross country travel, Ottawa CLOSED, Nicolet CLOSED, Chequamegon, etc! It would effectively end off trail ridding anywhere, NATION WIDE. The goal of Winter Wildlands Alliance is to have snowmobiles classified the same as ATV/OHV's and eliminate ANY cross country travel on public lands. Designated trails ONLY! And right now, they have Federal Judges agreeing with them!


Another good group to donate to:

SAWS http://snowmobile-alliance.org/

Sled Warior is a recent addition to the fight that is worth checking out, but their site seems to be under construction, when I went to it today.
http://sledwarrior.com/sample-page/
Here is their Facebook Page:
https://www.facebook.com/SledWarrior

I know there are a few others out there helping in the fight also. Please post if you know of any more. We need to get talking about these issues and get involved or our beloved sport will be gone, sooner than later!
 
P

polarisrider1

New member
Hoosier said:
Blue Ribbon Coalition is the best group I know of for protecting our rights to use public land, although I do wish they were a little more snowmobile-specific. If anyone knows any other groups that should be joined, please post them here.

$20 a year or so makes you a member with BRC. Although donations are great too, membership numbers speak loudly, so it's important for everyone to join. Be nice if the dealers would push this also.

MSA is the other group I've joined. Again, minimal cash outlay compared to costs of sports. I get uneasy advocating too much, since many others on this site put countless hours into the trail system and I am unable to at this stage of life and from where I live.

Riding areas will never increase, and once they're gone, they're basically gone.
Click to expand...

I support both these great organizations. They are on our side. If you guys on this site are serious about snowmobiling then make this a priority to join them. www.msasnow.org The greenies out number us and the government only understands numbers (voters).
 
P

polarisrider1

New member
snoluver1 said:
Thats why we need to be a "special interest group"! Please start donating. Even to fight for places you don't ride. It all sends a message.
Click to expand...

MSA and it's members are "our" "Special interest group" but it needs more members to be even more effective. It is amazing what they do with what little they have to work with. I am a "Life Member".
www.msasnow.org Remember the squeaky wheel gets the grease!
 
skiroule

skiroule

Well-known member
I’ll preface my post by stating that I’m still an active skier, just to make it clear that I’m not anti-skiing. This being said, the direction this lawsuit is taking doesn’t seem to be a two-way street. You can’t be in my part of the forest but I can use yours. What I also find strange is that, in effect, a primary basis of the complaint is that snowmobiles have been singled out for special privileges. It seems like we have a contradiction here.

I’m mildly amused by the “peace and powder snow in the backcountry” statement, which implies that snowmobiles are intruding on this experience. I would counter with “What about all that granola crunching?” I know it’s something I don’t want to hear when I’m riding the backcountry.

In all fairness, the complainers seemed to be taking a more moderate position than some groups but it does set a troublesome precedent. I see many signs in northern MN that say “Off limits to Motorized Vehicles, Except Snowmobiles”. Perhaps the last part may be a victim of this movement.

As others have said here, getting the ear of the decision makers, whether it be via numbers or lobbying (read: good old fashioned cash), is crucial. If there are no objections to proposed policies, there is no reason to consider the impact of these decisions on other users of public land
 
D

durphee

Well-known member
This should be a must read for all snowmobilers. Getting involved within snowmobile friendly organizations is a key and vital process. I am involved in a few and will get involved with some of the aforementioned groups.
I am a college instructor teaching environmental biology, and yes us "greenies" can still be snowmobilers. I just love when entering a meeting and introducing who I am and what I do, most attendees assume I will be representing the other interests. But my point, is that our snowmobile community is a large and diverse grouping of individuals. Mobilizing our base is critical for the future of our sport. Look at the NRA, a hugely successful organization that can sway members of Congress even with slight threats. This is just a theoritical, but guns owners hunt, hunters enjoy large tracks of forests, snowmobilers use those large tracks of woods, maybe there is a common tie to benefit all of us. Yes, there is a give and take but that's how the process must work. So, make your voices heard, utilize other organizations that can benefit all involved and police our own sport. Remember, our national forests are "OUR" national forests, not one individual group. But the loudest group, or best organized, gets the notice.
 
J

Jonger1150

New member
They could just ban custom pipes. My stock Ski-Doo with Etec is not loud at all, but some of these piped out sleds are ridiculous.
 
J

Jonger1150

New member
skiroule said:
I’ll preface my post by stating that I’m still an active skier, just to make it clear that I’m not anti-skiing. This being said, the direction this lawsuit is taking doesn’t seem to be a two-way street. You can’t be in my part of the forest but I can use yours. What I also find strange is that, in effect, a primary basis of the complaint is that snowmobiles have been singled out for special privileges. It seems like we have a contradiction here.

I’m mildly amused by the “peace and powder snow in the backcountry” statement, which implies that snowmobiles are intruding on this experience. I would counter with “What about all that granola crunching?” I know it’s something I don’t want to hear when I’m riding the backcountry.

In all fairness, the complainers seemed to be taking a more moderate position than some groups but it does set a troublesome precedent. I see many signs in northern MN that say “Off limits to Motorized Vehicles, Except Snowmobiles”. Perhaps the last part may be a victim of this movement.

As others have said here, getting the ear of the decision makers, whether it be via numbers or lobbying (read: good old fashioned cash), is crucial. If there are no objections to proposed policies, there is no reason to consider the impact of these decisions on other users of public land
Click to expand...

ORVs trash the trails and destroy plants and animal habitat... Snowmobiles usually leave no evidence of being there.
 
skiroule

skiroule

Well-known member
Jonger1150 said:
ORVs trash the trails and destroy plants and animal habitat... Snowmobiles usually leave no evidence of being there.
Click to expand...

I hope my post didn’t leave the impression that I was objecting to snowmobiles being excluded from policies that may apply to other off-road vehicles. If so, then I need to go back and take another writing class. </SPAN>

Snowmobiles may be the ultimate “tread lightly” land vehicle. Every summer when I drive east on 28 out of Wakefield, I’m amazed at the lack of impact in some sections of the trail along the highway. This is a high usage trail and I would defy someone who didn’t know the trail was there to find it among the grasses and wildflowers in the summer. </SPAN>

To that end, it’s not unreasonable that snowmobiles should not be automatically subjected to the same policies as those applied to wheeled vehicles. To date, agencies such as the Forest Service have apparently agreed, as is evidenced by the fact that it hasn’t felt the need to draft usage plans for snowmobiles. It is also reinforced by the fact that there are many areas that allow snowmobile traffic only.</SPAN>

My main point of confusion is that I guess I don’t understand this “exclusive use” concept for public lands when there doesn't seem to be any driving environmental factors. Now, if it was claimed that these areas were needed for the skier winter range, or even skier breeding grounds, I’d have no problem with setting aside some areas for non-snowmobiling, but I don’t believe this is the case. My apologies for the flippant remarks, I do realize that there probably has to be some compromise but it has to be a balanced compromise.</SPAN></SPAN>
 
Last edited:
C

coldbear

New member
I'd say MSA for sure. We contribute to several special interests groups but I think the MSA is strong .I'm for banning those silly *** cans once and for all. I love to hear a well tuned mill at Eagle River and the Soo. As a land owner that has to listen to their TUNES at 3:00 am., silence them or snowmobiling is doomed.
 
H

halfpint

New member
thanks i'll check it out. i agree, even though i used to run them.Then we bought a house close to the trail in our area, and got woke up by them also. Yes they do sound good in the right place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top