Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. ?

Draft Letter for the DNR trail coments


Guest

Recommended Posts

Guys, here's a draft of a letter you can send to the DNR guy (Donald Buckhout). I received it today from ATVAM.....All Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota

Of course, add or delete as you wish, sign, date, mail or FAX.....no emails will count.......
********************************************

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Office of Management and Budget Services
ATTN: Donald W. Buckhout
500 Lafayette Road
St Paul, MN 55155-4010

RE: Moosewalk/Mooserun ATV Trail EAW Comments

Dear Don Buckout,

After reviewing the EAW you have prepared for the Moosewalk/Mooserun ATV Trail. I am ready to submit comments on select areas of the EAW.

Number 6. Description

General Information

I believe it is important to state the existing situation, that being the
DNR forest lands and the Lake county forest lands in this area are in a "Managed" forest classification. Which means all forest roads and trails are open to Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) travel unless posted closed. This means that all of the trail in this proposal, except the 6.6 miles of the
NSST is open and has been open for OHV use. However under that condition no specific monitoring or maintenance occurs unless timber management activities are occurring.

Under the proposed change of including this system in the ATV grant program routine maintenance and monitoring will occur. Existing trail conditions will be improved as will the overall conditions of the forest. This is the right approach to take and certainly the responsible thing to do.

Trail Construction

The majority of this trail project is utilizing existing trail and forest
road. Some wetlands have been filled in the past to accommodate other use and timber management. Those conditions should be maintained, and drainage improved if necessary. The need to fill additional wetlands in these areas shouldn't exist. Most of this trail has been built twelve to twenty feet wide, this ATV activity only needs eight feet. If additional wetlands are
encountered most can be avoided with some trail realignment. If wetlands must be crossed this can be reasonably and economically accomplished with wooden boardwalks. ATV's are light weight with low ground pressure thus making boardwalks a very practical alternative to filling or hardening a wetland. This process does not require a permit either, when properly
installed.

Wildlife Resources

Concur with your assessment that very little direct loss or adverse impacts to wildlife resources will occur as a result of this project. Actually you state it as ".... a result of new trail construction." I wouldn't term this project as new trail development because 97% of the alignment is existing and presently be used trail and road. The 3% of new alignment is not
totally new development but rather reclaiming an existing road bed.

It should also be noted that the proposed season of operation is from June 1 through November each year. This means the trail will be closed during the early nesting period each year which is the most critical period of time for wildlife. Studies have also been conducted out west on elk and deer to comparing motorized impacts to non-motorized. These studies determined that
when the activity happens upon these animals the non-motorized has a greater impact to the animals circulation system and energy level. This is because the "silent sport" surprises the animal by all of sudden appearing and frightens the animal. They also tended to travel further from the sight of encounter with the non-motorized.

With the motorized encounter the animal usually heard the vehicle approaching and had time to prepare for it. If it needed to move it usually had adequate time to do so without becoming startled. If the vehicles
stopped to observe this would some times result in an elevated heart rate as
it moved further away. Copy of this study is available through NOHVCC if you would like to review it.

Number 22. Vehicle-related air emissions

Gas study done for ATV use indicated 0.18 percent of state fuel consumption can be attributed to ATV use within the state. Therefore the internal combustion emissions that is attributed to ATV use in Minnesota is very small. This is largely due to the small engines used to power these vehicles and the fact they get very good gas mileage.

Number 24. Noise

DNR rules for noise limits on ATV's state that all ATV's must be equipped with a functioning spark arrester type muffler and a United States Forest Service approved spark arrester. Also states ATV's may not be operated in the state unless equipped with a muffler where overall noise emissions do not exceed a sound limitation of not more than 99 decibels on the A scale at a distance of twenty (20) inches using the test procedures and instrumentation as set forth in the Society of Automotive Engineers'
Standards, SAE J1287 June of 1987. DNR staff will be trained and this rule will be enforced. Machines that are in compliance with this rule will not exceed MPCA Standards for noise as outlined in the EAW.

Fugitive Dust

With the humid weather and normal rainfall this will not be an issue most of the time. Shaded woods trails generally do not dry out adequately to be dusting until late afternoon if no additional precipitation is received. Recreational ATV riders typically wear long pants and long sleeve riding
shirts. Because of this the days when the dust would be the worst, hot dry days, are also the most uncomfortable for riding so use will generally be low.

Number 25. Nearby resources

The NSST has not been maintained for non-motorized summer use. It has always been open for that use but little has been done to encourage the use because demand has been so low. During some years the trail was mowed once during the summer, but as ATV use has increased this effort has been reduced. Therefore the ATV use has also reduced maintenance cost of the trail.


Respectfully,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • Screw your little toy e-augers and chain saws!  😏  😆          
    • the wife and I took a little drive to Arkansas for one more ride. 
    • I get where your coming from Leech. There are some gray areas and loopholes and they know how to work them. These youtube people they want you to be angry, it all plays right into their revenue.   The thing with these youtubers is they unfortunately  have a mass following and they will tell all their fans to show up at the DNR offices, court house, call the office phones etc. And it just drives up their following, youtube views etc. and the result is just more revenue for the youtube channel and people get sucked right in (myself included). Like I said love him or hate him he's generating significant income by doing it and its like a bad car wreck you just cant look away.    In some cases the DNR getting involved the risk outweighs the reward if you get my drift. look at the crowds that came out for him over a misdemeanor jet ski fine in TN. It looks like its straight out of the movie "Time to kill" lol:   More:  
    • Another reply from the DNR Capt.  Sounds like their a bit afraid to dig in and get what the need to prosecute.   Mr. Beeeped-out  😉 I do want to thank you for your time in researching and sending us the information.  The second video in particular involves the CBoyz near Cormorant Village in Becker County.  If you watch many of their videos they are full of violations.  We have met with the County Attorney’s Office and we have been told that unless we can provide a date/time of the actual event they will decline to prosecute.  We have identified many of the players in these videos but only have a date/time of the video release and not the actual date and time.  We have also made contact with them and taken enforcement action in many of their videos.  They are not afraid to film our officers in action.  In addition the first video was a year or two old if I recall.  I will not disagree that when looking at the video there is areas of concern but unless we can observe the damage and be able to testify in court that the wetland was damaged we would likely not be successful in prosecution.  We will continue to monitor their activity and if observed causing damage we will be taking enforcement action.  We appreciate and share your concerns.  If you have any additional information please forward to us.  Capt. Seefeldt   These Jackwads!    
    • Can't stand the guy and don't watch his craap!  I was watching videos on the Sherp vehicle which is pretty cool and these two popped up.  When I saw them mowing over Wild rice beds it [PoorWordUsage]ed me off and got me to send it in to the DNR.  
    • ahh good old whistlindiesel, your just part of the click bait generating even more revenue for him now   love him or hate him he sure knows how to generate some buzz   Also he was already on the Mn DNR $hitlist for this and ticketed see below:      
    • Watch the two videos below and see what you think?  Wet land destruction or not?   I saw these clowns on Youtube and sent it in to the MN DNR and this was there reply and mind back to them.   May help to read the Wet land use description on the DNR web page as well.     Read bottom-up.     To: Vollbrecht, Brice (DNR) Cc: Seefeldt, Phillip (DNR)  "Well you are the experts paid to protect our wet lands.  If you didn’t see any objectional wet land damage in either of the two videos I forwarded.   Then I guess I must have been mistaken what wetland and Wild rice bed damaged must be?  Just a question if there registered to operate in a public water area, do they have to use a boat launch like every other water craft or just fly off through the reeds like they did in the video?  Keep doing a great job guys!  May be I buy one.  Thanks for your time.  Steve"          Sent from Mail for Windows From: Vollbrecht, Brice (DNR) Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 3:53 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Seefeldt, Phillip (DNR) Subject: Sherp Complaint Steve: I got an email sent to me through the info center regarding a wetland complaint you had sent in about a year ago.  I also saw the email you attempt to send Captain Seefeldt.  Just wanted to let you know the Captain was not  ignoring you, it looks like you misspelled his name in the original email you sent.   This spring after the snow/ice melted and things started to green up, one of our enforcement pilots flew around the area where the farm is located.  The pilot was unable to locate any areas of concern where the Sherp may have caused damage to the wetland.  The pilot also flew over other wetland areas close to the farm, but did not observe any damage. The Sherp is dual registered which would allow it to operate in a public water area.  If the other wetland/lake where they drove down the road is private property we have not received any complaints from landowners down there for trespass.   I have included the Captain in this email.  If you have any further questions feel free to contact either one of us. Thank you Conservation Officer Brice Vollbrecht, Bemidji #1 Station MN DNR Enforcement (Cell)-218-760-1798
    • 👍👍 yessirree.........mayhaps even from your back yard!!!!!!!!!!🤭🤗
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.