Why the opposition?

[Jingles]

Revisiting this as it seems the county commissioners have not heard the saying time to schitt or get off the pot
Let's take a hypothetical senario and see opinions
A group of environmental wackos get together and decide they don't like a particular type/model of a vehicle although that vehicle is licensed for use on roads, so they find or have a bunch of snakes(lawyers) on staff and work to get that particular street legal/licensed/compliant with state regs for insurance banned or prohibited from the roads in the Methow. Would you be as anti about the use of that vehicle.?
This has been before the commissioners for over 5 years and the they are still sitting on the crapper, it is time for them to Schitt or Get Off the Pot and open the roads for ALL vehicles that meet the State requirements for operating on roads that are already open to other vehicles / modes of transportation

[just-jim]

.
I have not kept up on the whole discussion re: FS roads open or not, for quite a while. So, I’m not going to hazard a guess.
.
One caution….the ‘Plan’ in your picture looks pretty old! I do not know when one of those was last produced (or printed). It just MIGHT be that the most recent ‘plan’ has either expired (because of how it was originally dated), or has been terminated…for any number of reasons. Again, I don’t know for sure.
.
Nationally, the FS started a large planning effort to get all the non-winter vehicle uses under one map system. And get the appropriate level of Environmental Analysis done (which hadn’t been done previously, according to some). I don’t believe the local Oka-Wen Forest has completed it. So, that may be an issue…..
.

[Jingles]

JIM
While I am a proponent of opening some roads to WATV's I whole heartedly agree T- C road is one that could be eliminated from the proposed roads for reasons you mentioned of limited to non existent access to Forest Service an WADNR /WDFW properties.
However, under the current Okanogan National Forest Travel Plan ,and I quote,
" Off highway vehicle (OHV) and Motorcycle or Mountain Bike Riding:
If your Off Highway Vehicle is licensed to operate on public roads or highways, then it can operate on National Forest system roads open to highway vehicles."

Yes certain employees and former employees attempted to make pen and ink changes however pen and ink changes to an official document do not make those changes official as I am sure you are aware of. So consequently FS roads are officially open to licensed WATV's that meet the requirements of State licensing. Also the only District that is attempting to prohibit WATV use is the Methow District all other districts in the Okanogan Wenatchee Forest permit WATV use.

In regards to noise I hope we agree that they are no louder than the motorcycles (Harley's) that visit the valley every summer and being on the T-C road you can probably he re them roaring up and down, across the river, on 153.
The speed limit on the paved portion of Upper Bear Creek is already 35 and on Lester Road because of it being Gravel which would provide access to the FS roads up and over the loup
As far as Rendevous area (Gunn Ranch Rd), speed limit already 35 because of being gravel, that opens up access to the FS roads, that are open as previously stated, to the west of Gunn Ranch all the way to Hart's Pass.
Thank you for expressing your concerns and please consider the points I made in your letter to the commissioners

Maybe Ray can turn the attached photo's
Thank you

usfs1.jpg (37.68 KiB) Viewed 15035 times

[just-jim]

.
You bring up good points, Verne.
.
I am not strictly opposed to ATVs being on some roads. (Although, I will be blunt and admit that Im not crazy about them, overall, mostly because of the noise.)
.
I might be OK with say EITHER Balky Hill or the Lester Rd/Bear cr system - but not both - open to allow people access in and out of Winthrop or Twisp. However, ONLY IF Winthrop and or Twisp allows them in town. Otherwise, it makes no sense to me.
.
And doing so would also have to depend on the FS getting their Travel Plan done, and/or WADNR and WADFW opening roads or areas, to create some linkages in Beaver Cr. THAT is true for ANY proposed designation. There is no point in the County designating open roads which don’t have suitable links to other opportunities.
.
The one road I do have some specific concern is the Twisp-Carlton rd. (I do live on that road). Besides the fact that it is busier and busier each year and that most folks are doing the 50 mph limit at 55 and 60…I don’t think it is a suitable road for opening. I say this because as far as I can figure, there are 1) no open Forest roads accessible from the T-C road, nor are there any adjoining gravel County roads of any length. And 2) there isnt any appropriate public land available that adjoins that route - no USFS ground, and the only large chunk of WADFW land is on the Golden Doe and I’m pretty sure the WADFW doesn’t want motorized use there. So…designating the T-C road just creates a paved track for ATVs to run back and forth on…..I don’t see the point. And again, Twisp would have to designate some routes for it to make sense to me.
.
Similarly, the east-side Twisp-Winthrop County road. There isn’t much access to other road systems, other than the two I mentioned, above. So, opening it doesn’t create a lot of ‘new’ recreational opportunity for ATVs, which I think is the point.
.
I think probably the same could be said for County Roads on either side of the Chewuch. They need to be able to link with either other roads or a suitable land base. The east side doesn’t appear to, very well. The west side maybe works….but again either WADFW/DNR and/or FS need to have some linkages.
.
The Rendezvous system of County roads makes even less sense. There is just too much ‘open’ ground that is not constrained by vegetation or topography - we could end up with vehicles where they are not wanted. And, almost all the WADFW and DNR land there is a wildlife emphasis area, so that doesn’t seem to be very compatible.
.
Overall, I also have trouble imagining how this would be managed by law enforcement at the County level.
.
I’ve been thinking about this since I read the MVN article. And I was planning a letter to the County about it.
I’ll give it some more thought. Thanks for making me consider it further……
.

[Jingles]

After reading the initial article in the MVN about the North Central WATV club meeting with the Commissioners about opening some roads in the Methow to WATV use and seeing the letters to the editor I am curious as to why some people are so opposed to opening the roads mentioned to use by street legal, licensed WATV's?.
Maybe we can have a civil discussion here.

I have read they are noisy, yes they are noisier than a bicycle but a lot less noisey than the motorcycles that visit the valley and use some the the same roads mentioned in the article, or even some of the local cars and trucks that need midiasizing.

I have read they could cause environmental damage to sensitive areas. We are talking about already existing public county roads, that already have motorized and non motorized traffic.

Have read they could disturb the quietness and solitude of hikers using these roads, are these the same hikers that are hiking with their earbuds stuck in their ears oblivious to the sounds around them?

Have read if involved in an accident with a motor vehicle (car or truck) traveling at posted speed limit it could have devastating results. Would be be as devastating as a motor vehicle traveling at the same speed and a bicyclist and with bicyclist riding 2 and 3 abreast?, let's be honest you, I and everyone else knows they ride 2 and 3 abreast.

Have read that some oppose a reduction of posted speed limits. For the most part the roads in question the speed limit is already 35 and those that aren't are heavily used by bicyclist, which for the safety of the bicyclist due to the curves, blind hills and traffic probably should be reduced

Please inform me as to what the major legitimate opposition is.