Judge sides with backcountry skiers over snowmobilers
By John Miller and Todd Dvorka, AP
BOISE, Idaho — A federal judge in Idaho says the U.S. Forest Service broke the law when it didn’t craft rules to govern snowmobile travel, handing powder-loving backcountry skiers and snowshoe enthusiasts a victory that could extend to national forests nationwide.
U.S. District Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush ruled Friday that the Forest Service must go back to work on its 2005 Travel Management Rule and draw up regulations designating areas of use and non-use by all off-road vehicles, including snowmobiles, on national forest lands.
How this decision affects the Lake Tahoe Basin, Eldorado, Tahoe and Toiyabe forests is not known.
A decision in Idaho curtailing snowmobiling could affect national forests throughout the U.S. Photo/LTN file
The Idaho-based Winter Wildlands Alliance had argued the agency’s decision to allow individual forests to exempt snowmobiles from the rules was illegal and has created conflicts between snowmobiles and backcountry skiers.
The judge agreed with the skiers’ group, ordering the Forest Service to write a new rule consistent with his decision within 180 days. The decision will lead to changes in national forests in Idaho, but could also prompt national forests across the West and other states to revisit its off-road policies.
”The court finds the OSV (over-snow vehicles) exemption is contrary to law,” Bush wrote. ”The court finds that the 2005 Travel Management Rule is arbitrary and capricious to the extent that it does not require designations for the use of OSVs upon the national forest lands.”
Mark Menlove, executive director with the Winter Wildlands Alliance, said the decision was a monumental victory for backcountry skiers and other winter recreationists seeking a peaceful experience in the woods.
The group’s goal is to not shut down snowmobiles in national forests, but force the agency to designate specific boundaries that carve out distinct areas for those who want to explore on powered sleds and those preferring skis, snowshoes and hiking boots.
”Many of our members use snowmobiles more and more to get to certain places, so we’re not in any way asking the forest service to ban them,” Menlove told the Associated Press on Monday. ”But we are asking for some balance there, where our constituents can go and find peace and powder snow in the backcountry.”
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Idaho, which represented the Forest Service in the case, said the review process has not yet started to determine if an appeal is appropriate. Government lawyers also declined to comment on the decision.
But the ruling was disappointing to Idaho’s snowmobiling community and the groups that joined the lawsuit to defend the existing rule. Sandra Mitchell, public lands director for the Idaho State Snowmobiling Association, said she was prepared to take part in the process of drafting a new rule and defending the recreational opportunities and the rural economies that benefit from the snowmobiling industry each winter.
”Obviously we want to ride in a responsible way, and be in places where we don’t have negative impacts,” Mitchell said. ”But we also want to ensure that opportunities exist not just now but for future generations. Snowmobiling brings thousands of people to Idaho to recreate, and that’s a huge driver for economies in the winter for rural Idaho.”
Well, this is a big deal. I just spent almost $30k on two new snowmobiles and a trailer.
Anyone want to trade? I’d consider a McMansion and a Prius in the Bay Area.
I will take advantage of your overreaction because you don’t read.
$10k.
thing fish: Let me know what I misread. My understanding is that the U.S. Forest Service will now have to designate specific routes (trails) for OSV use.
IF THE SKIERS HAVE THERE WAY, YOU WON’T EVEN BE ABLE TO RIDE IN YOUR OWN YARD, I’VE BEEN THERE AND DONE THAT, I SOLD ALL OF MY SNOWMOBILES BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALL BUT CLOSED THE HOPE VALLEY AREA TO SNOWMOBILES, USED TO BE ABLE TO RIDE ANYWHERE AND ENJOY THE OUTDOORS, THEY STARTED THE GREEN STICKER PROGRAM TO HELP BUILD BETTER TRAILS AND MAINTAIN THEM FOR US, BUT NOW THEY HAVE CLOSED OFF MOST OF THE AREAS WITH THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THEY TAKE FROM US, THEY HAVE CLOSED US OUT. THE SAME GOES FOR THE JEEPING COMMUNITY. THE ONLY REASON THAT THEY HAVEN’T CLOSED THE RUBICON TRAIL INTO RUBICON SPRINGS IS BECAUSE THERE IS 400 PRIVATE ACRES AT THE SPRINGS AND THEY CAN’T DENY ACCESS TO THE OWNERS, THANK GOD FOR JEEPERS JAMBOREE.
I applaud this decision. My encounters with snowmobiles has not been positive, loud, stinky and disrespectful.
Why don’t manufactures understand that making quieter vehicles opens up much more access and less public complaints? Whether Harley’s or snowmobiles or powered boats. Of course some customers equate lots of obnoxious noise with, oh well, you name the psychiatric term.
‘ My understanding is that the U.S. Forest Service will now have to designate specific routes (trails) for OSV use.’
You should reevaluate that. By reading.
”The court finds the OSV (over-snow vehicles) exemption is contrary to law,” Bush wrote. ”The court finds that the 2005 Travel Management Rule is arbitrary and capricious to the extent that it does not require designations for the use of OSVs upon the national forest lands.”
thing fish, I’m fairly certain I’m interpreting this correctly. How do you understand it differently? Maybe you aren’t familiar with the 2005 Travel Management Rule? Prior to the court ruling this story is about, OSVs were not restricted to designated routes as other OHVs have been. If this ruling stands, OSVs will also have to remain on designated routes.
Romie, I dont want this to sound like there is no reason for alarm, there is. But it seems most likely that the USFS is going to be required to designate areas for OSV’s, not routes. But the reality is that the USFS doesnt want to deal with this at all, so the designated areas will become smaller and smaller over time and anti groups will continue to file suit until they win their ultimate goal of excluding snow machines from the backcountry. The way NEPA works is that the group with the largest war chest for lawsuits will ultimately win. That is also true for CEQA which is why Nevada should pull out now.
John, I agree with one exception; designated routes will be easier to defend in court than designated areas.
I hope I am wrong.
It seems it would be better to just designate a much smaller area as not approved for OSV use.
Set aside a few places for ? Back country travel. Consider some area’s that might be impacted by heavy osv use, although I do not think that is really a consideration. The advantage of Some Machines is that they can go almost anywhere and spread out into a vast area, impacting nothing. The only issue I see is the conflict between the new Back Country Skiers hikers and OSV at the trail heads where they converge in a big way. And Snow machines tracking up the untracted that skiers hiked to get to. And that is what is driving all of this