Wisconsin OHM/DS Motorcyclists - Trail and Legislative Issues

Once again I will put together some points to cover in OHM/DS advocate comments like I did back when I started working this project. I will tailor them to the current situation and range of options. I've been out of town so I haven't put anything together yet, but I will in plenty of time to send them in.

Please don't repeat the suggested remarks word for word. Best to rewrite the points in your own words.

You guys have heard me mentioned Recreational Trails Program money in the past. This is important to us because it allows us to get matching grants to get some projects done. It is significant coin here in WI. The money comes from taxes we are charged on fuel we use for off-road purposes.

Someone just introduced an amendment to a bill that would kill off this program.

We can't live with that.

Please send a message to your Senators asking them to oppose amendment No. 1742 to S. 1243.

It only takes a moment to do so. Just search for the Senators for your state and submit an e-mail or comment.

Sorry, Senate Bill 1243.

If this is another lobster drive-by . . . .

BRC just learned that Sen. Rand Paul (KY) is planning to offer an amendment - Senate Amendment 1742 -- to the Transportation Appropriations bill (Senate Bill 1243) to transfer all funding from the Transportation Alternatives Program to pay for bridge repairs instead. The Transportation Alternatives Program includes all the funding for the Recreational Trails Program, in addition to funding for what used to be known as Transportation Enhancements, as well as Safe Routes to School.

Personally, I rely on the attorneys and lobbyists for the major recreational interest groups to watchdog and interpret these things.

I didn't realize you were so interested in the Recreational Trails Program. Next time I see you I'll make it a point to tell you all about it. (I serve on a council at works the program in Wisconsin.)

Damn few people. That is why it is important to join associations that advocate for us. Issues run too deep in the detail sometimes for casual observers to pick out.

I've been going over the Sauk Prairie Recreation Area materials for this iteration of a comment period. The period runs from 15 July - 30 August.

During the initial comment period, motorized recreation made a significant showing in expressing a need for motorized recreation opportunities in this underserved part of the state - particularly single track motorcycle trail.

This significant expression may have surprised some people that might not be fond of the idea of motorized recreation at the site.

I heard from a group that has been very involved with this project over the years and has a strong and narrow vision of how the property should be developed. Their vision does not include motorized trails.

The DNR is taking an extra step by providing this additional comment period before presenting a draft master plan. They say they want to be sure that all stakeholders have a chance to be heard from. Could be that this is being done because this is a contentious issue with some groups.

You can bet that during this comment period those that are against motorized recreation on this property will be a significant voice.

We need to make a strong showing again (maybe even stronger) this time around to advocate for OHM trails.

I will put together some notes for people to consider in formulating their input to the DNR on this topic. The message will be the same, but I'll tailor some of the talking points to follow the format of the on-line survey the DNR is using. I'll attend the in-person meeting and afterward put together some material for you to reference in making your comments.

Expect to see that later this week. The comment period ends August 30th.

Public comment meeting on Sauk Prairie this evening. A lot of people were there. Most seemed to be against the option that includes motorized recreation at the site.

The DNR pointed out that this is an opportunity to address some recreational interests that are underserved in the region (our contention).

So far 315 people have already responded to the survey. Last time, when we made a substantial showing, about 400 turned in comments. You can bet there are a greater proportion of low-impact respondents than motorized this time around so we have to make a strong effort to get our comments in this time.

Basically there are three options. One is to do nothing (mandatory alternative). Another is emphasis on ecological restoration with limited low-impact uses. The third is an emphasis on outdoor recreation that includes motorized use.

The DNR feels like they are not filling the needs that are out there (like ours) so the recreation emphasis would scratch that itch a little.

There will be another on site self-guided tour of the property on 24 August.

The proposed motorized area includes an adjacent shooting range. We would be segregated from the rest of the property by a separate entrance. Our part of the program, including the range, would be about 562 acres.

The decision of whether the Ho-Chunk will take their slice of the property should be made in September. If they don't take it, more for the DNR.

Lots of DNR cops there.

The firing range issue is tied to motorized . . . that is we are in it together. People have opposition to one or the other or both. Both are in the alternative that allows motorized recreation.

I will put out some guidance on things to cover in formulating a response. If you are a shooter, you will probably want to give strong support to the range too. It is best for both proposals to win to carry us.

After this comment window closed 30 August, the DNR will go to work on a draft master plan and environmental assessment for the preferred alternative. In the Spring of 2014, we will get a whack at that. In the summer of 2014 it goes to the Natural Resources board.

I'll get the info out for formulating comments within the next few days.

I did an interview with Channel 27 (Madison) in favor of motorized as part of their coverage of the meeting.

News story.

http://www.wkow.com/story/22960809/...art=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9153004<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" async="true"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://www.googletagservices.com/tag/js/gpt.js" async="true"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://WKOW.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/WNVideo.js?rnd=189116;hostDomain=www.wkow.com;playerWidth=630;playerHeight=355;isShowIcon=true;clipId=9153004;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;advertisingZone=;enableAds=true;landingPage=;islandingPageoverride=false;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDscript;controlsType=overlay"></SCRIPT>
<LINK rel=stylesheet type=text/css href="http://content.worldnow.com/global/css/_pub/off-platform.min.css?ver=2013-07-13-0300"></LINK><SCRIPT id=wnAffiliateConfig type=text/javascript src="http://WKOW.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/wnaffiliateconfig.js?ver=2013-07-13-0300"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT id=wnOffPlatform type=text/javascript src="http://content.worldnow.com/global/js/_pub/off-platform.min.js?ver=2013-07-13-0300"></SCRIPT><IFRAME id=_atssh26 title="AddThis utility frame" style="BORDER-TOP: 0px; HEIGHT: 1px; BORDER-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-BOTTOM: 0px; POSITION: absolute; LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: 0px; Z-INDEX: 100000; TOP: 0px; WIDTH: 1px" src="//s7.addthis.com/static/r07/sh133.html#iit=1375329663640&tmr=load%3D1375329663253%26core%3D1375329663285%26main%3D1375329663633%26ifr%3D1375329663642&cb=0&cdn=0&chr=iso-8859-1&kw=&ab=-&dh=www.advrider.com&dr=&du=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.advrider.com%2Fforums%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D423792&dt=&dbg=0&md=2&cap=tc%3D0%26ab%3D0&inst=1&irt=1&jsl=32&prod=undefined&lng=en-US&ogt=&pc=men&pub=ra-5102ac9c412bc09d&ssl=0&sid=51f9dd7fdf264b8c&srpl=0.00001&srcs=1&srd=0.01&srf=0.02&srp=0.2&srl=1&srx=1&ver=300&xck=0&xtr=0&og=%5Bobject%20Object%5D&rev=122424&ct=1&xld=1&xd=1" url="undefined" frameborder="0"></IFRAME>
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://s7.addthis.com/static/r07/core089.js"></SCRIPT>

Area they are looking at for motorized trails. 500+ acres. Segregates us from some other users. Firing range to the east of us.

We have until August 30th to get our comments in regarding proposals for the Sauk Prairie Recreation Area.

Last time we did a great job making our interests for motorized recreation known - especially the need for single track motorcycle trails.

Last time there were about 400 comments overall and we made up a good percentage of those. At the time of the public meeting on 31 July, 315 had already offered comments about the proposals. You can bet that this time around there will be many more comments that are not in favor of motorized recreation at the site. There are some organized efforts to promote options that do not allow for motorized recreation.

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET COMMENTS SUBMITTED THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THE OUTDOOR RECREATION EMPHASIS PROPOSAL THAT INCLUDES MOTORIZED RECREATION.

Get word out to other riders and clubs and make sure that people act right away.

These things are often confusing so I have sorted through the issues to help people understand things a little better. Some of my comments are in previous posts.

This time comments are being taken via an on-line survey. The survey itself can be confusing to some as they spend a lot of time talking about vision statements and only a little time concentrating on the three options.

To help sort through this, I am offering some sample comments as they relate to each section of the survey. Please don't use the same words, but try to cover the same points in your own words.

The notes are organized to align with the questionnaire.


Comments to consider for the on-line questionaire.

<?xml:namespace prefix = "o" ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>Page 1 of 4 asks for your zip code. It is a good idea to comment later in the survey that despite the distance from your home, you would be willing to travel to Sauk Prairie to enjoy motorized recreation (and to use the firing range).
<o></o>
Page 2 (Vision)
It would be useful to comment that this large tract of land is proximate to a large number of Wisconsin residents whose recreational interests are underserved in the region. The vision statement should include a statement that recognizes this as an opportunity to bring underserved recreational interests into more reasonable balance while providing opportunities that are within reasonable reach of where people live.
<o></o>
Page 3 (Ecological Management)
Ecological management is important but in this case it should not eliminate opportunities for outdoor recreation. It must be clear that recreation and ecological management do not exclude each other.
<o></o>
Page 3 (Recreation)
It must be clearly stated that recreation takes priority here. There are recreational interests that have not been adequately addressed in the region. Converting this large former industrial site to public land provides an important opportunity to address some of those shortfalls. There is already a large existing tract of parkland in place in this area. The priority here needs to be to address other recreational interests that include motorized recreation and a firearms range.
<o></o>
Page 3 (Cultural Resource Preservation)
Significant sites should be identified and preserved, but not to the extent that it unreasonably restricts recreational use of the land. The priority should be to maximize recreational use of the site while preserving significant cultural features.
<o></o>
Page 3 (Education and Interpretation)
As in cultural resource preservation, education and interpretive opportunities should be addressed without unreasonably restricting recreational use of the land.
<o></o>
Page 4 (Draft Conceptual Alternatives)
No Action Alternative
I do not like this alternative. It wastes a public resource that could otherwise be developed to provide recreation opportunities for a large number of residents that are proximate to this site. The property needs to be developed to maximize recreational opportunities.
<o></o>
Ecological Restoration Emphasis
The site had limited vehicle access and perceived remoteness when it was an industrial site. This is largely because the public was denied use of the land. Now that we can change that, we need to make use of this property by addressing shortfalls in recreation opportunities for a large number of people that live within range of the property. We already have adjoining land that offers traits of what is proposed under this option. Tieing up this property under this option would severely limit the number of residents that would benefit from the resource. We need to maximize the recreational opportunities at the site, not unreasonably limit how it can be used.
<o></o>
Outdoor Recreation Emphasis
This proposal offers the best balance of uses for the property and maximizes the benefit of the property for the most users. The site has the potential to serve a large number of Wisconsin residents because of its proximity to population areas. It also has sufficient space to be able to accommodate some regionally underserved recreational interests like motorized recreation and target shooting. The size and layout of the property would allow a variety of recreational interests to be enjoyed without interference. This option also allows for many of the important features of the other options to be part of the program. The other two options are too restrictive. This option best addresses everyone's interests. I am willing to travel a long distance to be able to participate in motorized recreation and target shooting at this site - especially since these interests are largely underserved in this part of the state.
<o></o>
<o>Thank you for making our interests known. If we prevail we will have a nice riding opportunity that will serve a lot of people - especially since there are so few other options.</o>
<o></o>
<o></o>