Keep Island Park free of wildlife overpasses, tall fences, restricted access, and land designations
|
|
Center for Large Landscape Conservation 2017 News Letter
“In the summer of 2016, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recognized our expertise in connectivity conservation and asked CLLC to lead a global effort to create a new protected area designation for wildlife corridors around the world. CLLC’s Executive Director now chairs the new IUCN Connectivity Conservation Specialist Group (CCSG). This global effort seeks to advance a new conservation area designation – Areas of Connectivity Conservation (ACC) – that will serve to link protected areas into an ecological network.” So, this “global” effort is led by the Executive Director of CLLC, Gary Tabor. The IUCN headquarters is in Switzerland.
We now tie the global effort to transportation in the following quote: “As a subset of this work, CLLC’s Senior Conservationist, Rob Ament, co-chairs the Transport Working Group (TWG) to develop global policy that addresses transportation infrastructure and development with regard to roads and rails within the ACCs.” Rob Ament is with the Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University in Bozeman.
The following quote states CLLC transportation goals: “We will recruit members, develop a web-based platform to share knowledge and news, gather experts for workshops and assist in deploying resources to help practitioners who seek to develop expertise in mitigating roads and rails for wildlife and connectivity.” In this context, “mitigate” means remove, obliterate, and destroy. Does CLLC want to remove our roads and railroads and destroy our infrastructure?
The next quote refers to the creation of a new protected area beyond anything we have now. “Establishment of a new global protected area designation with guidelines on how to secure protection. Ultimately this effort will hopefully lead to governments across the globe creating new protected designations Areas of Connectivity Conservation, ensuring their parks and protected areas are connected to one another.” This is why the Island Park Preservation Coalition legislation must require Congressional and State approval of any land, resource, or wildlife designation. In addition, coordination with local governments is required by the National Environmental Policy Act and coordination should be invoked by every county in Idaho.
Farmers and ranchers, you better read this. Here is the quote on water. “In April, CLLC kicked off its Integrating Terrestrial and Freshwater Conservation to Support Landscape Integrity project, funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The project is piloting a process for prioritizing management actions that optimize joint benefits to terrestrial and freshwater conservation targets, using the Missouri Headwaters Basin of southwest Montana as a case study.” Ding, ding, ding!! This is why several conservation organizations pulled out of discussions with Idaho and Montana snowmobile organizations! Remember, they told us that they did not want us in the Headwaters of the Missouri River. They said it was an “emotional issue”. No, the conservation hierarchy told them to stop because of the bigger plans of CLLC.
Now let’s turn to our wildlife resources and the Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). This is the quote from CLLC: “CLLC is recognized as a national leader on connectivity policy that are transformed into local landscape protection in places identified by science as critical linkage areas. For a decade we have been driving policy creation and helping craft new legislative language at the federal, regional and state levels, as well as participate in a limited number of local, on-the-ground efforts. We are also focusing on state wildlife plans and state-based wildlife corridor legislation, county plans (such as in Madison and Park County in Montana) and highway plans and projects.” First, the Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan places the Centennial Mountains in a different management area from the rest of Fremont County. This allows IDFG to justify wildlife corridors from Yellowstone to Central Idaho. The only problem is, there are none. Note that CLLC is tying our SWAP to “highway plans”, i.e. Targhee Pass.
Now we turn to Congressional legislation, where the goal is to pass laws supporting their objectives. Here is the quote: “CLLC and the Wildlands Network successfully lead the effort to develop federal legislation for the National Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act, working with Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA). It was introduced in November, and we anticipate a reintroduction this spring.” The Idaho delegation better get this stopped. This will have implications for private property owners.
Now we get to the Idaho Transportation Department’s Targhee Pass Project. Here is the quote: “CLLC continues to advocate for reducing the impacts that roads have on wildlife by working to secure wildlife crossing structures and other innovative, cost-effective solutions. Our efforts are focused on numerous road projects in the region, including at Targhee Pass along US 20 near Yellowstone National Park, and in Idaho’s Sawtooth region, where an overpass will be built to reconnect a historic mule deer migration route.” What is important to understand is that the Idaho Transportation Department and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game routinely interface with CLLC and their member organizations. This could result in bias and lack of objectivity. This public/private partnership has for years neglected to include Fremont County.
More about highway crossings. “Recently CLLC partnered with ARC Solutions to coauthor two papers- “Highway Crossings for Wildlife: Benefits of a National Commitment to Increase Driver and Animal Safety,” and “Innovative Strategies to Reduce the Cost of Effective Wildlife Overpasses”. ARC Solutions is in the wildlife overpass business. In a review of ARC Solutions’ website a few months ago. This statement was found: “We prioritize wildlife overpasses, not only because they are the crossing structures that work best for some species, but because they are more visible and therefore have the capacity to communicate and inspire.” The problem is that Idaho Taxpayers get to pay for these massive “billboards”.
I have taken you on a journey from the global perspective all the way to Targhee Pass in Island Park. I hope you now understand what CLLC is planning for us and you will do something about it. We are perfectly capable of running our County and our State. We have done a great job for well over a century.
We now tie the global effort to transportation in the following quote: “As a subset of this work, CLLC’s Senior Conservationist, Rob Ament, co-chairs the Transport Working Group (TWG) to develop global policy that addresses transportation infrastructure and development with regard to roads and rails within the ACCs.” Rob Ament is with the Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University in Bozeman.
The following quote states CLLC transportation goals: “We will recruit members, develop a web-based platform to share knowledge and news, gather experts for workshops and assist in deploying resources to help practitioners who seek to develop expertise in mitigating roads and rails for wildlife and connectivity.” In this context, “mitigate” means remove, obliterate, and destroy. Does CLLC want to remove our roads and railroads and destroy our infrastructure?
The next quote refers to the creation of a new protected area beyond anything we have now. “Establishment of a new global protected area designation with guidelines on how to secure protection. Ultimately this effort will hopefully lead to governments across the globe creating new protected designations Areas of Connectivity Conservation, ensuring their parks and protected areas are connected to one another.” This is why the Island Park Preservation Coalition legislation must require Congressional and State approval of any land, resource, or wildlife designation. In addition, coordination with local governments is required by the National Environmental Policy Act and coordination should be invoked by every county in Idaho.
Farmers and ranchers, you better read this. Here is the quote on water. “In April, CLLC kicked off its Integrating Terrestrial and Freshwater Conservation to Support Landscape Integrity project, funded by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The project is piloting a process for prioritizing management actions that optimize joint benefits to terrestrial and freshwater conservation targets, using the Missouri Headwaters Basin of southwest Montana as a case study.” Ding, ding, ding!! This is why several conservation organizations pulled out of discussions with Idaho and Montana snowmobile organizations! Remember, they told us that they did not want us in the Headwaters of the Missouri River. They said it was an “emotional issue”. No, the conservation hierarchy told them to stop because of the bigger plans of CLLC.
Now let’s turn to our wildlife resources and the Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP). This is the quote from CLLC: “CLLC is recognized as a national leader on connectivity policy that are transformed into local landscape protection in places identified by science as critical linkage areas. For a decade we have been driving policy creation and helping craft new legislative language at the federal, regional and state levels, as well as participate in a limited number of local, on-the-ground efforts. We are also focusing on state wildlife plans and state-based wildlife corridor legislation, county plans (such as in Madison and Park County in Montana) and highway plans and projects.” First, the Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan places the Centennial Mountains in a different management area from the rest of Fremont County. This allows IDFG to justify wildlife corridors from Yellowstone to Central Idaho. The only problem is, there are none. Note that CLLC is tying our SWAP to “highway plans”, i.e. Targhee Pass.
Now we turn to Congressional legislation, where the goal is to pass laws supporting their objectives. Here is the quote: “CLLC and the Wildlands Network successfully lead the effort to develop federal legislation for the National Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act, working with Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA). It was introduced in November, and we anticipate a reintroduction this spring.” The Idaho delegation better get this stopped. This will have implications for private property owners.
Now we get to the Idaho Transportation Department’s Targhee Pass Project. Here is the quote: “CLLC continues to advocate for reducing the impacts that roads have on wildlife by working to secure wildlife crossing structures and other innovative, cost-effective solutions. Our efforts are focused on numerous road projects in the region, including at Targhee Pass along US 20 near Yellowstone National Park, and in Idaho’s Sawtooth region, where an overpass will be built to reconnect a historic mule deer migration route.” What is important to understand is that the Idaho Transportation Department and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game routinely interface with CLLC and their member organizations. This could result in bias and lack of objectivity. This public/private partnership has for years neglected to include Fremont County.
More about highway crossings. “Recently CLLC partnered with ARC Solutions to coauthor two papers- “Highway Crossings for Wildlife: Benefits of a National Commitment to Increase Driver and Animal Safety,” and “Innovative Strategies to Reduce the Cost of Effective Wildlife Overpasses”. ARC Solutions is in the wildlife overpass business. In a review of ARC Solutions’ website a few months ago. This statement was found: “We prioritize wildlife overpasses, not only because they are the crossing structures that work best for some species, but because they are more visible and therefore have the capacity to communicate and inspire.” The problem is that Idaho Taxpayers get to pay for these massive “billboards”.
I have taken you on a journey from the global perspective all the way to Targhee Pass in Island Park. I hope you now understand what CLLC is planning for us and you will do something about it. We are perfectly capable of running our County and our State. We have done a great job for well over a century.
Targhee Pass Project Scoping Report
Island Park and Fremont County,
I have spent the last week doing a forensic analysis of the ITD Targhee Pass Project scoping report public comments. This forensic attempts to determine true/unique submissions and gauge impact population support or opposition to wildlife overpass alternatives.
The document is 217 pages, claims 496 total comments. At least 243 were a form letter or ‘canned pre-prepared’ comments. ITD has expressed that such comments would only count as 1, therefore, in three comment periods those comments should only count as 3. I have not considered the non-governmental organizations or agency comments in this analysis.
It is very critical to know that NO COMMENTS are DATED, therefore it cannot be determined if the comments were provided during the legal comment periods. It is also critical to know that the scoping document did not reveal any names or addresses. Public agencies are required to inform people providing comments that their names and address may be released to the public, they should be, it is the only verifiable control in the process.
Island Park and Fremont County also need to know that ITD’s conservation partners on this project were given a project number to submit comments to at least 6 months before they ever came to Island Park to talk about the HWY 20 Targhee Pass Project. The Island Park Safe Wildlife Passage initiative has been running an active campaign since at least July 2016, and those same wildlife advocacy partners came with ITD to that first December blizzard ‘workshop'. At that sparsely attended event, wildlife overpasses were not offered as alternatives being considered.
During the first comment period, which the report verifies lasted 6 months, December 15, 2016 to July 27, 2017, ITD had not yet publicly revealed that wildlife overpasses were being considered in the alternatives. The public was also instructed that the comment period ended January 30, 2017. Some people had guessed about the wildlife overpasses. Many asked repeatedly for this to be confirmed or denied, and were told that we had to wait until an alternatives ‘workshop’ could be held. that would not happen until the end of July 2017.
Positives during this comment period should be suspect, the public did not know. How can the public trust that the positive 61 comments received during this time are valid, or know if the comments come from local , in-state, or out of state residents. The public was informed of a 45 day comment window, the study team accepted comment for at least 6 months after that. This comment segment is improper on many levels.
The last two comment periods, 60 days, there are 18 more positives than negatives.
・Allowing for all of the serious failures of proper process not being followed during this scoping period and resulting report, and lack of full and transparent disclosure of information to the public;
・there have been years of failure to coordinate with, and involve and inform Island Park and Fremont County in the studies leading up to overpass recommendations;
・Allowing that the wildlife overpass advocates that are involved with this project now, have had intimate collaboration with those years of study leading up to these alternatives:
・and that this scoping period has generated hundreds of form submissions that are not dated;
・Discovering that the Island Park Safe Wildlife Passage Campaign had at least 6 months to front-load comments, and an additional 6 months to do so after the public was told the comment period had ended:
・and knowing that they are working as partners with ITD in TP project development
・knowing the public was not informed about the overpass alternatives until the final 2 /30-day comment periods;
・and finally that within the comments in this report residency, names and dates of submission cannot be verified;
*an 18 comment advantage does not illustrate over-whelming local, county and true impact population and stakeholder support for wildlife overpasses.
Leanne Yancey
I have spent the last week doing a forensic analysis of the ITD Targhee Pass Project scoping report public comments. This forensic attempts to determine true/unique submissions and gauge impact population support or opposition to wildlife overpass alternatives.
The document is 217 pages, claims 496 total comments. At least 243 were a form letter or ‘canned pre-prepared’ comments. ITD has expressed that such comments would only count as 1, therefore, in three comment periods those comments should only count as 3. I have not considered the non-governmental organizations or agency comments in this analysis.
It is very critical to know that NO COMMENTS are DATED, therefore it cannot be determined if the comments were provided during the legal comment periods. It is also critical to know that the scoping document did not reveal any names or addresses. Public agencies are required to inform people providing comments that their names and address may be released to the public, they should be, it is the only verifiable control in the process.
Island Park and Fremont County also need to know that ITD’s conservation partners on this project were given a project number to submit comments to at least 6 months before they ever came to Island Park to talk about the HWY 20 Targhee Pass Project. The Island Park Safe Wildlife Passage initiative has been running an active campaign since at least July 2016, and those same wildlife advocacy partners came with ITD to that first December blizzard ‘workshop'. At that sparsely attended event, wildlife overpasses were not offered as alternatives being considered.
During the first comment period, which the report verifies lasted 6 months, December 15, 2016 to July 27, 2017, ITD had not yet publicly revealed that wildlife overpasses were being considered in the alternatives. The public was also instructed that the comment period ended January 30, 2017. Some people had guessed about the wildlife overpasses. Many asked repeatedly for this to be confirmed or denied, and were told that we had to wait until an alternatives ‘workshop’ could be held. that would not happen until the end of July 2017.
Positives during this comment period should be suspect, the public did not know. How can the public trust that the positive 61 comments received during this time are valid, or know if the comments come from local , in-state, or out of state residents. The public was informed of a 45 day comment window, the study team accepted comment for at least 6 months after that. This comment segment is improper on many levels.
The last two comment periods, 60 days, there are 18 more positives than negatives.
・Allowing for all of the serious failures of proper process not being followed during this scoping period and resulting report, and lack of full and transparent disclosure of information to the public;
・there have been years of failure to coordinate with, and involve and inform Island Park and Fremont County in the studies leading up to overpass recommendations;
・Allowing that the wildlife overpass advocates that are involved with this project now, have had intimate collaboration with those years of study leading up to these alternatives:
・and that this scoping period has generated hundreds of form submissions that are not dated;
・Discovering that the Island Park Safe Wildlife Passage Campaign had at least 6 months to front-load comments, and an additional 6 months to do so after the public was told the comment period had ended:
・and knowing that they are working as partners with ITD in TP project development
・knowing the public was not informed about the overpass alternatives until the final 2 /30-day comment periods;
・and finally that within the comments in this report residency, names and dates of submission cannot be verified;
*an 18 comment advantage does not illustrate over-whelming local, county and true impact population and stakeholder support for wildlife overpasses.
Leanne Yancey
Scoping Report Appendix B comment #10 Citation #11 & Citation #12
In studying the scoping report, I have found in each comment period a lengthy guidance/suggestion comment submitted jointly by The Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. At this time I will not address the majority content, it is very comprehensive.
I would like, however, to address a single sentence found in the first comment they submitted.
“A separate letter was submitted regarding both Targhee Pass and other statewide ITIP projects by GYC, Y2Y, and other partners throughout the state and region, which also requested funding to implement wildlife passage mitigations.” citation #11
Citation #11 reads:
Weskamp, David, (The Nature Conservancy), Laatsch, Jamie, (Henry’s Fork Foundation), Rinaldi, Kathy, (Greater Yellowstone Coalition), Trotter, Kim, (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative), VanFleet, Mary and Parmer (various affiliations), Seidler, Renee, (Wildlife Conservation Society), and Reynolds Ph.D., Timothy (wildlife biologist). Letter to Idaho Transportation Department, Attn. Adam Rush, Comments on Idaho Transportation Department 2017-2021 Idaho Transportation Investment Program. 29 July, 2016.
Please note the date on that letter: 7-29-16
This is 6 months before ITD ever came to Island Park to talk about a project on US 20, and it would not be until the end of July 2017 that ITD would tell Fremont County and IP that wildlife overpasses were included in the alternatives. The advocacies promoting wildlife overpass alternatives at Targhee Pass are represented in citation #11. From that July 2016 date, you can conclude that these ‘special interests’ had an entire year to seek other agency and non-governmental organizations support for the overpasses. Since they had partnered with ITD in HWY 20 analysis, they also were aware of the ITIP planning effort and potential HWY 20 projects.
They all knew.
They were all collaborating far in advance.
The community of Island Park and Fremont County did not.
We have not been involved, informed or coordinated with in this process.
Island Park and Fremont County should request and be given a copy of that letter.
Leanne Yancey
Citation #12
First Joint Comment Submission
Yellowstone to Yukon and The Greater Yellowstone Coalition Scoping Report
Targhee Pass Project
HWY 20
For a researcher, rarely do you find a definitive document that is full of multiple validations. Usually it takes months of dogged discovery of bits and pieces of information that you find in multiple sources, and it
requires the researcher to pull it all together in one place.
The Center for Large Landscape Conservation did that for us in the 2017 Newsletter and past articles Ken
Watts has written for this paper have broke down that document.
Further validation of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation’s role in the Targhee Pass Project can
be found in the scoping report.
Last week, I reported about citation #11, found in the first joint comment submitted by The Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. This week I will follow with citation #12 of the same
comment submission.
The subject of both citations are about two letters, submitted to ITD concerning future funding and projects coming available. These letters speak to intimate knowledge about the upcoming project at Targhee Pass in the first place, and how wildlife passages were introduced into what was originally a scheduled highway upgrade on a segment whose life-cycle requires it.
citation #12
"A separate letter was submitted regarding both Targhee Pass and other statewide ITIP projects by GYC, Y2Y, and other partners throughout the state and region, which also requested funding to implement wildlife
passage mitigation.”
Citation #12 credits:
Callahan, Renee (Center for Large Landscape Conservation), Domenech, Elizabeth (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative), McClure, Meredith, (Center for Large Landscape Conservation), Paul, Kylie (Defenders of Wildlife), Robinson, Lacy (Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative), Trotter, Kim (Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative). Letter to Idaho Transportation Department, Attn: Adam Rush, Comments on Idaho
Transportation Department 2017-2021 Idaho.
When ITD credited this community for the requests that they had received asking for wildlife overpasses to be introduced into this project, they were in fact misleading this community. Those requests did not come from us, they came from the largest and most influential conservation/environmentalist NGOs operating in our 5-western state region.
IP Guest Research Leanne Yancey
I would like, however, to address a single sentence found in the first comment they submitted.
“A separate letter was submitted regarding both Targhee Pass and other statewide ITIP projects by GYC, Y2Y, and other partners throughout the state and region, which also requested funding to implement wildlife passage mitigations.” citation #11
Citation #11 reads:
Weskamp, David, (The Nature Conservancy), Laatsch, Jamie, (Henry’s Fork Foundation), Rinaldi, Kathy, (Greater Yellowstone Coalition), Trotter, Kim, (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative), VanFleet, Mary and Parmer (various affiliations), Seidler, Renee, (Wildlife Conservation Society), and Reynolds Ph.D., Timothy (wildlife biologist). Letter to Idaho Transportation Department, Attn. Adam Rush, Comments on Idaho Transportation Department 2017-2021 Idaho Transportation Investment Program. 29 July, 2016.
Please note the date on that letter: 7-29-16
This is 6 months before ITD ever came to Island Park to talk about a project on US 20, and it would not be until the end of July 2017 that ITD would tell Fremont County and IP that wildlife overpasses were included in the alternatives. The advocacies promoting wildlife overpass alternatives at Targhee Pass are represented in citation #11. From that July 2016 date, you can conclude that these ‘special interests’ had an entire year to seek other agency and non-governmental organizations support for the overpasses. Since they had partnered with ITD in HWY 20 analysis, they also were aware of the ITIP planning effort and potential HWY 20 projects.
They all knew.
They were all collaborating far in advance.
The community of Island Park and Fremont County did not.
We have not been involved, informed or coordinated with in this process.
Island Park and Fremont County should request and be given a copy of that letter.
Leanne Yancey
Citation #12
First Joint Comment Submission
Yellowstone to Yukon and The Greater Yellowstone Coalition Scoping Report
Targhee Pass Project
HWY 20
For a researcher, rarely do you find a definitive document that is full of multiple validations. Usually it takes months of dogged discovery of bits and pieces of information that you find in multiple sources, and it
requires the researcher to pull it all together in one place.
The Center for Large Landscape Conservation did that for us in the 2017 Newsletter and past articles Ken
Watts has written for this paper have broke down that document.
Further validation of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation’s role in the Targhee Pass Project can
be found in the scoping report.
Last week, I reported about citation #11, found in the first joint comment submitted by The Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. This week I will follow with citation #12 of the same
comment submission.
The subject of both citations are about two letters, submitted to ITD concerning future funding and projects coming available. These letters speak to intimate knowledge about the upcoming project at Targhee Pass in the first place, and how wildlife passages were introduced into what was originally a scheduled highway upgrade on a segment whose life-cycle requires it.
citation #12
"A separate letter was submitted regarding both Targhee Pass and other statewide ITIP projects by GYC, Y2Y, and other partners throughout the state and region, which also requested funding to implement wildlife
passage mitigation.”
Citation #12 credits:
Callahan, Renee (Center for Large Landscape Conservation), Domenech, Elizabeth (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative), McClure, Meredith, (Center for Large Landscape Conservation), Paul, Kylie (Defenders of Wildlife), Robinson, Lacy (Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative), Trotter, Kim (Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative). Letter to Idaho Transportation Department, Attn: Adam Rush, Comments on Idaho
Transportation Department 2017-2021 Idaho.
When ITD credited this community for the requests that they had received asking for wildlife overpasses to be introduced into this project, they were in fact misleading this community. Those requests did not come from us, they came from the largest and most influential conservation/environmentalist NGOs operating in our 5-western state region.
IP Guest Research Leanne Yancey
Access Scoping Report - P. Cramer Report - Citation #11 & #12 reports
click here for more information
Mount Jefferson Again
Ken Watts Article
Last spring I was asked by Sandra Mitchell, from the Idaho State Snowmobiling Association, to attend a meeting in West Yellowstone regarding snowmobiling in the Mt. Jefferson area. At the time, I was the president of the Fugowee Snowmobile Club. Apparently, Sandra had been contacted by several conservation organizations that were interested in a permanent “legislative solution” for Mt. Jefferson that respected both snowmobiling and non-motorized recreation. The meeting was attended by a representative from the Montana State Snowmobile Association, Sandra, myself, and several conservation organizations from Boise and Bozeman. This first meeting was mostly about getting to know each other, discussing the concept of a legislative solution, and to understand the objectives of those involved. The key accomplishment was that we agreed to meet again.
A second meeting was held a few months later in West Yellowstone with basically the same attendees. The one exception was that Bob Stantus, the chairman of the Fremont County Grooming Committee, attended. Early in the meeting one of the conservation groups stated that they did not want snowmobiling anywhere in the Mt. Jefferson area and that the existing open area should be closed. They reasoned that this was the headwaters of the Missouri River and that motorized recreation should not be allowed. It was pointed out that the snow in this area is many feet deep in the winter, you cannot see the headwaters, and snowmobiles leave no “mark”. Bob asked for the logic of not allowing snowmobiling in the area. The answer was that the constituents of the conservation organizations did not want snowmobiling there. Bob pursued the issue further, asking, “but why? Snowmobiles leave no mark.” The answer this time was that “it was an emotional issue for their members”. An emotional issue! Really! You have got to be kidding! They were not. Their position is, no snowmobiling in the Mt. Jefferson area. The meeting quickly ended as there was nothing further to discuss. No further meetings are planned.
I was clear to me that the conservation organization hierarchy had told these conservation organizations to stop this collaboration effort. It is also clear to me that they have a “bigger” plan for the Centennial Mountains, which does not include motorized recreation, and they did not want it disrupted by any legislation. If you snowmobile in the Mt. Jefferson area, you better be ready to defend it. One way you can help is to join the Idaho State Snowmobile Association and buy a beautiful “Save Mt. Jefferson” sticker from a Fugowee Snowmobile Club member. All proceeds go to saving snowmobiling in the Mt. Jefferson area. GET INVOLVED OR LOSE IT!
A second meeting was held a few months later in West Yellowstone with basically the same attendees. The one exception was that Bob Stantus, the chairman of the Fremont County Grooming Committee, attended. Early in the meeting one of the conservation groups stated that they did not want snowmobiling anywhere in the Mt. Jefferson area and that the existing open area should be closed. They reasoned that this was the headwaters of the Missouri River and that motorized recreation should not be allowed. It was pointed out that the snow in this area is many feet deep in the winter, you cannot see the headwaters, and snowmobiles leave no “mark”. Bob asked for the logic of not allowing snowmobiling in the area. The answer was that the constituents of the conservation organizations did not want snowmobiling there. Bob pursued the issue further, asking, “but why? Snowmobiles leave no mark.” The answer this time was that “it was an emotional issue for their members”. An emotional issue! Really! You have got to be kidding! They were not. Their position is, no snowmobiling in the Mt. Jefferson area. The meeting quickly ended as there was nothing further to discuss. No further meetings are planned.
I was clear to me that the conservation organization hierarchy had told these conservation organizations to stop this collaboration effort. It is also clear to me that they have a “bigger” plan for the Centennial Mountains, which does not include motorized recreation, and they did not want it disrupted by any legislation. If you snowmobile in the Mt. Jefferson area, you better be ready to defend it. One way you can help is to join the Idaho State Snowmobile Association and buy a beautiful “Save Mt. Jefferson” sticker from a Fugowee Snowmobile Club member. All proceeds go to saving snowmobiling in the Mt. Jefferson area. GET INVOLVED OR LOSE IT!
