Living in Little Cottonwood Canyon during the winter, I'm lucky to be
able to enjoy backcountry skiing in both wilderness and watershed areas, zones
that are free (read - prohibited) of snow-machine travel. If you're
reading this, most likely you're a skier or snowboarder, and even if you use an
old beat-up sled to get deep into the mountains, once you're there you probably
trade it for skins and slog your way up the mountainside to earn your face
shots. Backcountry skiing is about solitude and isolation, a dance with
the wilderness. When not used correctly, snow-machines can create a
noisy, hectic, and often dangerous atmosphere. If you value you value the
solitude and serenity of a quiet mountain range dressed in white, then you
should know this: on June 18th, the Forest Service issued a
long-awaited rule for public comment on designating areas as open or
closed to winter motorized vehicles, this is a good first step,
but comments from our backcountry community can make it stronger! Your help is
both needed and essential to capitalize on this opportunity to bring
balance to the backcountry. By designating specific trails and areas
where over-snow vehicle use may occur, winter travel planning is an opportunity
to bring balance to the backcountry. The community of backcountry skiers
needs to be heard! Please consider adding your comment to the voices of
support for human-powered winter recreation. To get a better grasp of the
issues at hand, and help you draft a comment worthy of consideration, the
Winter Wildlands Alliance has put together a very helpful page to aid you in
navigating this beurocratic issue. Keep reading to see a few links that
can help you along, as well as my annotated comment if you're interested.
LET'S DO THIS!!!
Check out Brennan Legasse's excellent overview of
the issue at hand, as well as his sample comment here. Couldn't have said it better
myself!
Check out the Winter
Wildlands Alliance how-to and form letter here.
Definitely give this page a read if you're interested in commenting
(which you SHOULD BE!) but also consider regulation.gov's (i.e. THE
MAN'S) advice for submitting an effective comment (spoiler
- a well crafted comment is more effective than 1,000 form letters, TELL
YOUR STORY!).
Thanks for reading, and as promised here is the
comment I submitted today, a loosely assembled patchwork of my comment and
the form.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the
Forest Service’s proposed rule for over-snow vehicle use. My name is
Tim Rogers, I am a professional ski patrolman with Alta Ski Lifts Company in
Alta Utah, a member of the American Alpine Club, a partner of the Winter
WIldlands Alliance, and the writer-editor for the web log Nature of Motion,
which is a resource of inspiration and experience for human-powered recreation
in the mountains. As someone who values National Forest System lands
for skiing, mountaineering, rock climbing, and other human-powered recreations,
I look forward to seeing snowmobiles and other over-snow vehicles held to the
same standards as motorized vehicles in other seasons, in other areas. This
rule is an incredible opportunity to reflect the growing interest for
human-powered recreation and larger trend in awareness towards ecologically and
socially responsible use of our precious natural resources.
Throughout the winter, I live and work in Alta,
where you can see firsthand the very clear, and very different characteristics
and impacts that exist from one area of use to another. Alta itself
sits on National Forest property, and shares boundaries with watershed,
wilderness, and open use areas. Although my work in Alta takes place
on land leased from the Forest Service for private use, I most value the
surrounding wilderness and watershed areas where Over Snow Vehicles (OSVs) are
not allowed. Personally, I have always been drawn to these areas for
their appeal of isolation and solitude; areas free of machines and human impact
are scarce resources today. Because these reasons are subjective,
and may be the same ones used in support of OSV use, I’d like to address a more
practical, and objective issue: safety.
Snow is a dynamic medium. As a ski
patrolman, a large part of my responsibility is the mitigation of avalanche
danger within the resort. But in the backcountry, explosives and
closed areas do not exist, and your safety is dependent upon the judgment,
skill, and experience you and your partners exercise. OSV’s can
travel faster and farther than skiers, and the power and agility of modern
machines has created an illusion of safety for their drivers. This
reality is reflected in the sad statistics of mortality. Last season
alone OSV’s (in this case snow-mobiles) accounted for 100% of avalanche
fatalities in the mountains of Utah, while across the U.S. their use resulted
in 13 out of the 32 avalanche-related fatalities, by far the highest among any
winter user-group (http://www.avalanche.org/accidents.php). Sharing
the backcountry with OSVs creates a confusing and dangerous environment, rarely
do their users respect the considerations of skiers or other users, seldom do
they communicate plans or abilities with others, and on countless occasions I
have witnessed their poor judgment and reckless behavior put numerous parties
of skiers in dangerous situations.
I understand the use and appeal of OSVs and respect
their place in the National Forests, so this is not to say that they have no
place, but rather that their unique abilities make it hard for them to
reasonably share an area with non-motorized users. Please appreciate
the reality that it is the NFS’s mission to advocate for a conservation ethic
in promoting the health and diversity of pubic lands, which in todays largely
industrialized world means curtailing the use of mechanized travel in our
National Forests.
By designating specific trails and areas where OSV
use may occur, winter travel planning is an opportunity to bring balance to the
backcountry, address different recreational preferences and minimize resource
damage on NFS lands.
In order to address this, I urge the Forest Service
to incorporate the following recommendations:
· The proposal to allow an “open
unless designated closed” approach (the status quo) or a “closed unless
designated open” approach (same as ORVs) is inconsistent, and confusing. The
final rule should require a “closed unless designated open” approach to OSV
management in order to promote seasonal and geographic consistency.
· The draft seems to grandfather-in
a range of past designations for over-snow vehicle use. Only plans that
address a whole Forest or Ranger District, minimize user conflict and resource
damage, and had meaningful public involvement should be carried forward.
· The proposed definition of an
“area” would allow designated OSV areas nearly as large as a Ranger District,
with impacts of trails in that area exempt from analysis. The rule
should make areas smaller, with clear geographical boundaries, and require
trails analysis.
Overall, the draft is a step in the right
direction, but it does little to improve conditions for human -powered winter
recreation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on
this important issue, and I hope you consider the great opportunity for
fostering future generations of responsible use.
Sincerely,
Tim Rogers
Alta, Utah
Now get to work and SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT!
No comments:
Post a Comment