Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
C10. Trend/Issue: Motorized recreation is becoming more popular.
Comment #: 1
Motorized recreation needs its own corridor but not to go everywhere.
Comment #: 2
It should be addressed and public land shouldn't be a playground for four-wheelers or ATV's.
Comment #: 3
Limit use of motorized vehicles in forest. To much damage, litter, noise, polution.
Comment #: 4
Ban all off-roads.
Comment #: 5
Lets encourage mororized users to "do something" after they get out there, not just ride. They'll have a richer outdoor experience and negative impacts will be lessened if the purpose of the trip is altered. Let's instill in our young people an apreciation for the opportunities awaiting them, when they stop to take a break on the far side of this beautiful race track we call Wisconsin.
Comment #: 6
I see this as one of the biggest challenges facing forest managers. ATV's are taking over the forests and trails and this trend will only tend to get worse in coming years. Something needs to be done and done quickly to limit/restrict motorized use of forested areas and trails.
Comment #: 7
Get them out and keep them out.
Comment #: 8
These recreationists spend more money in the bars on alcohol - that is why most "trails" lead from bar to bar. More laws fro drunken driving need to be enacted for ATVers and snowmobilers - not more trails for them to kill each other on.
Comment #: 9
This is one of our biggest problems.
Comment #: 10
Do not stop recreateon.
Comment #: 11
Forests need to be protected from these insults. There are other venues available to moterazed recreationists.
Comment #: 12
People for the most part should keep their toys out of the woods. They cause rutting and erosion.
Comment #: 13
Motorized recreationists have no God-given right to damage the environment. Such use must be restricted to non-sensitive areas.
Comment #: 14
"Motorized Recreation" - END!! There is no such things as a "motorized sprot." "Motorists" don't belong in God's treed temples at all.
Comment #: 15
There are not that many places for them to ride don't take this privlege away
Comment #: 16
"spend more money" - on what data is this based? I find this hard to believe.
Comment #: 17
I would advocate for removing motorized vehicles from much of our forest
Comment #: 18
Local Law and should govern.
Comment #: 19
Motor trails should parallel highways. Let motors be used in treeless areas primarily.
Comment #: 20
Agree it should be addressed and reduced.
Comment #: 21
Something must be done to curtail the growth of these offensive off road vehicles - people want and use - many should not be an issue
Comment #: 22
Do not allow motorized vehicles in public forests let them ruin their own private woodland.
Comment #: 23
The DNR can not make all the people happy all of the time regarding recreating in our state forests. You can hope that interested citizens can find one or two activities on state land that they like to do. I oppose ATV trails on state land. I would feel it was discriminating if maintaining a no ATV policy would keep an entire group of people out of the state forests. However, I am confident that ATV enthusiasts are not one dimensional, and that they also enjoy fishing, boating, hunting or snowmobiling which is allowed in our state forests. I do not expect our state foest to fulfill all my outdoor recreating desires, and it doesn't. Motorized snowmobiles rul the winter. Please let non-motorized activities rule the summer.
Comment #: 24
There is no place for them in the forest.
Comment #: 25
motorized recreation should be restricted.
Comment #: 26
keep motorized vehicles out of the woods!!
Comment #: 27
I do not want 4-wheelers and dirt bikes in our public forests.
Comment #: 28
Motorized uses need to be contained to manage trails. Tickets need to be issued.
Comment #: 29
We need to set aside large areas wherein motorized recreational vehicles are completely barred; just as has been done in some federal parks and forests.
Comment #: 30
There should be more areas restricted to this use. This issue is no different than that of fishing "seasons", "bag limits" or non use of motors in some lakes.
Comment #: 31
I agree if there is a place for it as used for
Comment #: 32
Motorized use shoold be kept to an absolute minimum
Comment #: 33
Logging roads are wide.
Comment #: 34
Motorized recreation needs to be better controlled or banned altogether!
Comment #: 35
Exhaust fumes and pollution are the real reason for use of quiet forest trails - to get away from all of that. Let's not promote these activities and the negative impacts of erosion, rutting and noise!
Comment #: 36
There is more to it than the almightly dollar. It is hard to find a place in WI where you do not hear a machine. Keep motorized recreation to a minimum, we need a more GREEN attitude towards FOREST recreation.
Comment #: 37
I think you have to restrict some of this use.
Comment #: 38
Concentrate motorized use more control it better and put a limint on how fast these machines are. We won't need as many trails - charge them more to use these lands for this purpose.
Comment #: 39
I don't see the level of non-motorized use justifies the current acreage reserved for it. Less congestion for motorized users would be nice.
Comment #: 40
there should be more ATV trails
Comment #: 41
we have real problems with the noise pollution and ATV disregard for trails and forest ecology
Comment #: 42
Motorized recreation in the forest should be eliminated except for driving a car or truck on an established road. Motorized vehicles for recreation have NO place in the woods! The destructive aspects of motorized vehicles and the people who use them and abuse the privledge far outway any financial benefit that is made. The profit of a few does not justify the destruction of what belongs to be shared by all. Those recreation vehicles - do not stay on paths but look for thrills with increased speed and noise!
Comment #: 43
Reduce motorized travel in forests
Comment #: 44
ATV trails ruin quiet environment!
Comment #: 45
I favor stricter limitations to motorized craft.
Comment #: 46
So What! OUTLAW ALL the atv's, 4 wheers and dirt bikes
Comment #: 47
Let the taxpayer use the facilities - Continue if not increase availability - if trails are provided logging roads, etc. I see little or no problem.
Comment #: 48
I personally don't like motorized recreation.
Comment #: 49
It is a paradox that the organization whose duty it is to look after our resources supports and spends millions $ to provide places for the most environmentally destructive "toys" to be used - ie snowmobiles, four wheelers, etc. The money that the "motorized recreations" spend only helps a few people financially. It appears that the DNR is in the "back pocket" of the various lobbies for snowmobiles, their manufacturers, tavern leages, etc.
Comment #: 50
Motorized vehicles should be severely restricted!
Comment #: 51
I don't like ATV's either.
Comment #: 52
I am strongly against almost all use of recreatoinal motorized vehicles in the forest.
Comment #: 53
Put more limits on use of motorized recreation - benefits not worth damage caused
Comment #: 54
Stringent - no gray areas - management is required.
Comment #: 55
Better law's are needed to control this problem -
Comment #: 56
Reduce and/or eliminate the use of ATV's, etc on public lands.
Comment #: 57
Special areas should be set aside for mechanized vehicles snowmobiles are NOT compatible with cross country skiing
Comment #: 58
There is room for all. Everyone needs to be more tolerant.
Comment #: 59
Motorized recreation needs to be restricted to allow other areas of quiet and solitude.
Comment #: 60
Abominable snowmobile and its fossil-fueld ilk is out of place in public forests.
Comment #: 61
ATV's issues and non-issues have to be addressed soon.
Comment #: 62
Public land belongs to no one every person should be able to use it, not a select few
Comment #: 63
ban all motorized recreation in forest land!
Comment #: 64
But isn't this a problem for the gas tax program? Lots of room for these guys or selected areas. Restrict rest conder development are for intense use!
Comment #: 65
This use must be more restricted and regulated
Comment #: 66
Restrict motorized use to designated trails, locate motorized trails as far from non motorized trails as possible. Require user fees to help cover the costs of ecological damage.
Comment #: 67
Restrict it to foot power.
Comment #: 68
Money vs the environment! Who will win in long run?
Comment #: 69
Minimize this type of recreation.
Comment #: 70
Discourage dirt-bikers, four wheelers
Comment #: 71
I don't think most of these uses should be a part of forest recreation
Comment #: 72
These vehicles should be totally banned. What about legs and feet. Let's wlk more.
Comment #: 73
Charge more for fees and use the dollars to buy forestland
Comment #: 74
I am not in favor of motorized equipment raring around in woods or fields. They should be banned.
Comment #: 75
I would like to see major reductions in motorized (A.T.V.) use in all forest areas.
Comment #: 76
(". . . Motorized recreationists also tend to spend more money recreating than other types of recreationists . . . ") Disagree
Comment #: 77
Motorized activity has no place in forests. Motorized activity is not recreaton, it's pursuit of speed.
Comment #: 78
Motorized recreation needs to be limited and controlled. Non motorized uses need to be developed and encouraged. See answers to B5 and C3. The money they spend benefits a small percentage of the overall community and causes a detriment for others. Develop motorized recreation in the urban areas.
Comment #: 79
Motorized recreation highly regulated.
Comment #: 80
a very conflicting statement! 1. Most activity has no recreational value whatever. 2. They can get between bars by using the paved roads.
Comment #: 81
Motorized vehicles have no place in an ecosystem where they were not created.
Comment #: 82
RESTRICT motorized access
Comment #: 83
Just cut the practice out.
Comment #: 84
Motorized recreation helps maintain the logging trails and fire prevention roads. Motorized recreation is good.
Comment #: 85
Needs some limit on motorized use of forest.
Comment #: 86
am against all motorized anything
Comment #: 87
No opinion
Comment #: 88
This problem has to be addressed
Comment #: 89
At what cost? This is a very poor attempt to justify motorized recreation
Comment #: 90
Blocking off use 4-wheelers, etc. to the public seems an accessive decision. Encourage it.
Comment #: 91
Ban them!
Comment #: 92
Same answer as C7 and A12
Comment #: 93
Motorized vehicles should be limited to specific trails in designated aresa so as to have minimal effect on wildlife and land ecology.
Comment #: 94
Agree, but I don't have to like it.
Comment #: 95
They also provide greater disturbance and benefit only merchants in those areas - not the forest owner.
Comment #: 96
*
Comment #: 97
Curtail it.
Comment #: 98
Reduce wheeled traffic in forests. If you want to see it, walk. Can you hear a bird sing above a motor?
Comment #: 99
ATV's are very popular near our cottage in northern Wisconsin and also a major concern.
Comment #: 100
There are two conflicting items in this paragraph. I think there should be only minimal motorized use in the forest. ATV's should not be allowed. It has been a proven fact that silent sports enthusiasts do spend money and there is an increasing number of the silent sports users (actually out numbering motorized users). Please use all the information gathered when making these decisions -- the answers seem obvious but whose bold enough to make the decisions without being politically swayed? The DNR and other Environmental groups have done endless research - However, in the end, is it just up to a Politician who has financial gains to make? Basis for statement made after reading Wisconsin's Northern State Forest Assessments Socioeconomics for the NHAL Forest Region Dec, 1999, prepard by The DNR.
Comment #: 101
Motorized recreation needs to be tighter regulated. Limite a good long trail system thru most areas but set aside the other areas as off-limits. This would still help tourism.
Comment #: 102
Motorized vehicles belong on paved roads! Our forests and its wildlife should be enjoyed in silence. C10 should be discouraged.
Comment #: 103
I didn't allow motorized vehicles (snow, 4 wheels, motorcycle, ect. On my land, I used too!
Comment #: 104
This is an excellent example of who uses our forests and are enjoying what has been provided for them. Most of these trails are/have evolved from forest mgt. Activities. Good sustainable forestry and BMP's should be adhered to in every forest activity.
Comment #: 105
These "noisy" uses need to be kept away from "quite" uses such as fishing, skiing, biking, etc. User fees for all types could be used to offset costs.
Comment #: 106
Remember: prohibition didn't work for liquor and it won't for ATVs either - give them an alternative -
Comment #: 107
Shares of the pie for user-groups has gone to the loudest voice. Unfortunately, ATVs and snowmobile lobby have been "louder" although this form of recreation is detremental to the forest. Silent sports enthusiasts and forest preservationists are less "aggressive" and do not have an economic argument the motor sports do. As a result, they are misrepresented. Again, the health of the forest and the internal ecosystem should come first. Because of the population growth and number of motorized vehicles, the amount of noise and pollution, and damage are a huge concern. These people rarely actually enjoy a natural experience, just look at the trail, so send them elsewhere.
Comment #: 108
Motorized recreation very negatively affects my ability to enjoy the woods. My dog was nearly killed by an out of control ATV. Enforce rules. Keep ATVs/snowmobiles on trails, out of wilderness.
Comment #: 109
My comment here is the same as mine for B3.
Comment #: 110
I may sound grumpy, but I believe that the use of motorized recreation is NOT compatible with good forest preservation. Further, I believe that most users of motorized recreation have little interest in or appreciation of wilderness.
Comment #: 111
Look at situation in Yellowstone Nat. Pk - where human and mechanized pressure is ? closing some areas due to overuse - people will destroy the very forests they love by loving it to death.
Comment #: 112
Like everything else a few people give the whole thing a bad name. I don't like the motor sports because some people just don't ask before comming on my land.
Comment #: 113
Use ok ?? abuse!
Comment #: 114
Four-wheelers and dirt bike trails should be kept to a minimum.
Comment #: 115
Some public forests should be closed to all motorized vehicles.
Comment #: 116
Limit use.
Comment #: 117
Trail etiquette, motor speeds, anti-litter rules, etc. must be established and strictly enforced.
Comment #: 118
Motorized use must be sustained.
Comment #: 119
Motorized trails should be completely separated from non-motorized.
Comment #: 120
Snowmobilers took great pains to try and address some of their problems. 4x4's (and I own 2) 4-wheelers and dirt bikes are trashing the roads. Access, especially as a result of new cuts, needs to be RESTRICTED.
Comment #: 121
More limitations needed.
Comment #: 122
Keep all motorized out of forests. We need more exercise. Walking and skiing are great!
Comment #: 123
They should be used only where necessary for management. This might include the need to harvest more deer in remote areas.
Comment #: 124
There must be some way to limit damage done by motorized vehicles.
Comment #: 125
Do not increase available areas, lands, trails
Comment #: 126
I'm opposed to most motorized traffic in forests. Making money should not be the main reason for encouraging such usage. It often causes more harm than good.
Comment #: 127
If a statewide plan is adopted, careful and strict rules used to be implemented to ensure the preservation and natural beauty of our forests.
Comment #: 128
But cut down on this activity.
Comment #: 129
At what cost?
Comment #: 130
Why use our forests for this?
Comment #: 131
Restrict use.
Comment #: 132
ATV's are a problem if not on developed trails.
Comment #: 133
Noise and fire.
Comment #: 134
Motorized recreation should be encouraged.
Comment #: 135
Enforce the laws on books.
Comment #: 136
There should be limited use of ATV in our forest.
Comment #: 137
Snowmobile trail is a mile away and all you hear is the screaming of the reved up engines.
Comment #: 138
Can there be a limit placed on usage? Would it be possible to have a reservation system like is used with our parks or at the boundary waters area in Northern Minnesota?
Comment #: 139
True.
Comment #: 140
I don't agree and see too much ATV use off designated trails. Poor enforcement. Also no respect by most ATV users.
Comment #: 141
Need more areas for non-motorized recreation use (not just trails-linear, but areas). These should be mostly managed areas, need not be wilderness!
Comment #: 142
More fines or restrictions are needed to keep RV's on trails and not in wooded growth areas.
Comment #: 143
Motorized use impairs non-motorized use - i.e. noise and speed. This does not occur in reverse - i.e. non-motor does not impair motorized use.
Comment #: 144
Could help in rebuilding/managing these trails.
Comment #: 145
I, myself, own an A.T.V. and use it on our woodlots. It is discouraging to go "way back" into a county or national forest and see four-wheeler trails cutting every which way.
Comment #: 146
Need to limit, restrict, reduce.
Comment #: 147
Minimize motorized recreationalists to public forests!
Comment #: 148
Limit access open to motorized use.
Comment #: 149
More ATV/snowmobile trails are needed on state owned land. Other trails are being "cut" by development and lost for use.
Comment #: 150
Walking trails are more healthy for the forest and environment. Not to this type vehicles.
Comment #: 151
I would like to see motorized "recreation" curtailed or eliminated as much as possible.
Comment #: 152
These people have a right to use the forest also and the money they spend is important.
Comment #: 153
I believe strongly that motorized recreation should be limited, with the exception of snowmobiling. Few people are using the forests in winter and erosion, etc. is not a problem.
Comment #: 154
I'm a snowmobiler, but I would rather see limited use, and maybe no use of snowmobiles in state forests. Absolutely NO 4-wheelers
Comment #: 155
Control deduc's and allocate "time" for motorized use of public lands
Comment #: 156
The motorized vehicles should not be used for hunting. All motorized should be kept on trails only and away from the center of the forest, so as to the disturbances they create away from the main central part of the forest
Comment #: 157
There should be limits put on vehicles and their use. More standard laws and uses
Comment #: 158
It is not fair to give them more priority because their sport costs more. Damage needs to be weighed.
Comment #: 159
Address impacts on forest/water/soils
Comment #: 160
5
Comment #: 161
Too many environmental concerns associated with motorized, etc. Don't neet to be in the forest!
Comment #: 162
Less trails. Let public enjoy the beauty of forest in natural state. Walking is healthy.
Comment #: 163
no motorized vehicles in our forests.
Comment #: 164
Snowmobiles do not damage to the ground and it is frozen in winter ATV and dirt bikes are bad for the erosion of ground - should be kept from trails
Comment #: 165
Unfortunately the trend is to promote tourism in forested areas causing damage to the environment. I see all terrain vehicles as one of the biggest threats. People do not stay on trails and there is no law enforcement. The lcoal DNR wardens say there is no money budgeted for it.
Comment #: 166
more and better trails
Comment #: 167
Four-wheelers should be allowed for those hunters who cannot walk. Four-wheelers have soured the sport of hunting. If you cannot walk to your satnd, you shouldn't be in the woods.
Comment #: 168
A recent survey showd 11% of Wisconsinites use ATV's 50+% use forests for quiet activities. 50%+ of the people are losing their rights for 11% of the population. This is not democratic. These users do not stay on trails - their machines are advertised that way! They disturb wildlife, cause erosion, hasten fragmentation and cause loss of biodiversity.
Comment #: 169
Do not allow these vehicles any ? access than they currently have and increase user fees, trail fees, ? fees and restrict use of public property to any and all of these vehicles.
Comment #: 170
Many people we the public forests to escape. It is impossible to escape with ATV's running everywhere!
Comment #: 171
Do we tell these people they cannot use the forests that also belongs to them? Do we concentrate their actvities thus increasing the impact to spare other land from no impact? Who decides where they will be allowed and where they will not?
Comment #: 172
Motorized - must be discouraged
Comment #: 173
See C9
Comment #: 174
National/State Forests should not provide motorized recreation opportunity.
Comment #: 175
Agains this is only a problem becaues of the public ownership.
Comment #: 176
motorized recreation is damaging and should be highly restricted.
Comment #: 177
I believe that there should be areas for motorized recreation, but not all areas. Peace and quiet king in the forest is a fantastic recreation and hearing and seeing motorized vehicles has a definite negative impact on those wishing to enjoy the forest as God intended.
Comment #: 178
Too many now
Comment #: 179
Designated ATV trails needed. Stronger restrictions also needed. These things are doing terrible harm to roads/trails.
Comment #: 180
Ok.
Comment #: 181
Limited to certain areas and certain times of year, especially a problem in hunting season
Comment #: 182
NO further expansion of trail "footprints" for motorized traffic
Comment #: 183
Keep motorized vehicles out of the forested areas.
Comment #: 184
State must do a better job collect feews for usage state park stickers for bikes and snowmobiles.
Comment #: 185
Keep ATVs and snowmobiles out of public land except on trails. Heavy fines for ATV, etc. use on private property (trespass).
Comment #: 186
No motorized vehicles on forest land!
Comment #: 187
do not need these
Comment #: 188
Motorized vehicle use should be barred in high quality forests. ID high quality forests and set the rules.
Comment #: 189
Reduce use of ALL off-road vehicles on State forest.
Comment #: 190
Eliminate them - focus on silent sports with public forest being great places to contemplate and get away from the urban noises/ugliness. Let the industries who profit from selling these machines find a place to use them. Public lands don't have to accommodate every new use.
Comment #: 191
should limit the number of trails
Comment #: 192
Too many trails.
Comment #: 193
Some areas should be wilderness and other areas developed for motorized vehicles.
Comment #: 194
damage is highly overated - use should be allowed in almost all places
Comment #: 195
Snowmobiles - Yes All others - No Non motorized trails are all right
Comment #: 196
****The vast majority of our forests whould ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT the use of motorized vehicles as there are paved streets for those who desire a smelly and noisy outdoor experience. The environmental impacts especially noise, carry well beyond the immediate trails where these vehicles are being used.
Comment #: 197
If you won't walk then you can't go. The forests and wildlife should not be used as race tracks.
Comment #: 198
Snowmobilers ATV's and dirt bikes should only stay on established trails
Comment #: 199
Work at developing "green accounting" to show value and to compensate for the maintenance of forests for their traditional uses.
Comment #: 200
We need a proper balance.
Comment #: 201
Snowmobiles are fine they stay on the trail. The four wheelers don't always and should be disqualified from the trail.
Comment #: 202
The forest does not have to be a "play" area for hotrodders, non-motorized vehicle access needs control.
Comment #: 203
Too bad you aren't as concerned about motorized use on our public waters as you seem to be on our public lands.
Comment #: 204
must be carefully regulated
Comment #: 205
Where motorized access is permitted it should be controlled if it starts to damage forest.
Comment #: 206
Probhibition is NOT an answer. Regulation of noise is a principle to be dealt with.
Comment #: 207
4-wheelers not compatible Top priority - recreation sue must b compatible - NO Snowmobiles, NO 4-wheelers, NO dirt bikes
Comment #: 208
I strongly oppose motorized transport in woods. The level of damage is totally unacceptable.
Comment #: 209
I don't have much use for any of the motorized recreational vehicles - more cross-country ski trails and bicycle trails should be developed - check Minnesota.
Comment #: 210
These motorized recreationist also are the most destructive to our envirronment. Fees should be charged for trail upkeep.
Comment #: 211
Close more areas to motorized activity!
Comment #: 212
Where ever trails are put in especially for ATV's they don't stay on the trails make mess of the area.
Comment #: 213
There may be limits or areas that are off limits to off road vehicles - again, a balance is the best answer.
Comment #: 214
We need less motorized recreation in our public forest!
Comment #: 215
It should be noted that increasing motorized recreation should not come at the cost of non-motorized uses.
Comment #: 216
Snow mobiles and three wheelers should be banned unless for use by crippled person.
Comment #: 217
"as well as in habitat off the trail." Not There.
Comment #: 218
Limit to only designated trails
Comment #: 219
Big problem of trespass on private lands related to this.
Comment #: 220
Again, separate issue from forest plan that must be addressed
Comment #: 221
Get ATV's the hell out of the woods.
Comment #: 222
But is the money worth degrading the resource?? NO!
Comment #: 223
Our most important goal should be to protect and manage the resource. We should not "cater" to any one specific group. We need to be fair to all the users.
Comment #: 224
If I was able to and had the choice of "uninventing" either nuclear weapons or snowmobiles/ATVs/jet skis-----I'd have to think about which I would choose!!!!
Comment #: 225
Motorized recreationalists spend most of their money on the equipment at a dealership located far away from the community that they recreate near. persons visitng forested areas who do not participate in motorized receation spend far more money at the local level.
Comment #: 226
But is there really a reason that they have to have access to ALL trails? horseback riders only have access to limited trails
Comment #: 227
They probably spend more to get there machine, But I don't agree they support the community more. They probably are there for a day at most and leave, and create more problems in the forest that require more costs to the community for upkeep.
Comment #: 228
I agree with all but the last sentence
Comment #: 229
Motorized uses should be limited.
Comment #: 230
We need to acknowledge that motorized vehicles exist and will be used. However, there should be set asides for motorized areas and quiet areas. Not all folks should expect to be able to use any place they please, just as their are roads for vehicles, there will be specific areas for motorized vehicles.
Comment #: 231
Motorized recreation is a viable, family oriented way of relaxation and access to public lands must be maintained in a resonable manner.
Comment #: 232
should not discriminate, but work with these users
Comment #: 233
Balance is the key. To much vehicular use deminishes the use of others and impacts the health of the forest. Some use should be provided, but it should not be prevasive or perverse as it is in some areas. An important point to remember is that vehicular use of the forest reduces the carrying capacity of the forest--10 square miles of forest can provide recreation to more hikers than it can provide for ATV users. ATV users can carry bait deeper into the forest and privatize an area of the public forest and public deer!
Comment #: 234
I think we need to designate areas where this type of recreation is allowed, and strictly enforce the other areas to prevent them from ruining everything. There is a place for such recreation, but right now, they go whereever they want and pretty much do whatever they feel like doing. I believe something needs to be done soon regarding this issue.
Comment #: 235
Combine with C11.
Comment #: 236
Road and access plans are important now! Consider Washburn County Forests' Plan as a model to start from on State Lands. Stop talking about it and require plans ( long range - so the resource can be ,managed as at least some QUIET SPACE ) )
Comment #: 237
Road and access plans are important now! Consider Washburn County Forests' Plan as a model to start from on State Lands. Stop talking about it and require plans ( long range - so the resource can be ,managed as at least some QUIET SPACE ) )
Comment #: 238
This is an important issue. As I stated previously, it is important that people understand a forest cannot be all things. Just because a recreational activity "provides greater financial support" for a community doesn't mean it belongs on a state forest. Doesn't mean the state forests need to cater to that activity. I think the forest plan needs to assess the impacts all of these motorized vehicles are having on the health of the forest.
Comment #: 239
The DNR needs to take a strong stand to limit motorized vehicle use from an ecological point and due to its conflicts with other user groups.
Comment #: 240
These recreationist should have to pay the true cost of their sport. Erosion control, bridges, L.E. , Etc. How many people would find this fun? The resort owners are just like thew mills when it comes to getting wood into their mill. They don't care about the enviroment as long as the wood comes to the mill. The resorts say the same thing, Keep the ATV's coming as long as spend their $. The environment suffers.
Comment #: 241
Get 4-wheelers on their own trails. Or ban them from the forest.
Comment #: 242
If Wisconsin's forestry programs have any environmental problems that will attract the eyes of preservationist groups, the biggest is the rampant use of motorized vehicles on our forests and the lack of respect these users have.
Comment #: 243
But so is non-motorized use!!
Comment #: 244
How can that be beneficial to the environment? We gain our sustenance for the environment around us in that it supplies us with water and oxygen in which to survive. How can we destroy it? We will be destroying ourselves. The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives.
Comment #: 245
Wisconsin should be proud of it use of forests for recreation.
It should not change now.
Economic impact would be huge, if changes are made here.
Many people do not have the time, or ability to hike through the forest, as some do.
Human impact, even by foot can do as much, or more damage as other forms of forest transporations methods.
Don't let a few extreme parties, upset the cart for millions.
Comment #: 246
Strictly limit the use and impacts of all motor vehicles. The vehicle is the end for these people and forests are the means. As such their use and enjoyment has a much higher disproportionate negative impact on the resource and on other users than almost any others.
Comment #: 247
Greater amounts of money being spent shouldn't be an issue. Municipalities that encourage this use based on an increasing economy should be viewed as prostitutes. The tradgedy of the commons I think is the real concern
Comment #: 248
Sopme access must be maintianed along trail corridores and old railbeds. Creating new access is not needed at this time.
Comment #: 249
Exotic species need to be addressed.
Comment #: 250
State forest should prohibit motorized recreation
Comment #: 251
State forest should prohibit motorized recreation
Comment #: 252
ecological impacts-fumes are not true. get facts from manufacturers. cars cause more fumes. this should be addressed in a positive way
Comment #: 253
motorized use should be allowed to continue
Comment #: 254
Too many ecological impacts, should be very restricted.
Comment #: 255
The impacts of these types of uses need to be quantified and included in a statewide plan. These uses should be limited in areas susceptible to degradation.
Comment #: 256
I'm not a big fan of motorized recreation in WI forests but I know it is a reality that must be dealt with. Perhaps there can be motorized rights-of-way on industrial forest land-kind of a public easement that might also have some re-seeding benefits for the forest.
Comment #: 257
It's non-symmetric decision making. The passive participant impinges on the few while some of these other uses impinge on the many.
Comment #: 258
once again, you can't plaease everyone, we can't make thousands more miles of trails, but overcrowding is more dangerous. i think there is plenty of space out there for everyone. no matter how many miles of trails you have for any one group at busy times of the year every inch of them will be flooded with people.
Comment #: 259
The income to the state is a definite benefit to the state of Wisconsin, but these activities need to be addressed further for their, as was stated earlier, "Green" value.
Comment #: 260
The income to the state is a definite benefit to the state of Wisconsin, but these activities need to be addressed further for their, as was stated earlier, "Green" value.
Comment #: 261
I realize the dollar impact of this type of recreation.. but the safety and environmental problems lead me to dislike having these activities .
Comment #: 262
IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE GOOD QUALITY FOREST MANAGEMENT AND HEALTH AND STILL HAVE A WORLD CLASS SNOWMOBILE/ATV TRAIL SYSTEM. IF THE ENVIRO-EXTREMISTS WOULD JUST QUIT BEING SO GREEDY WITH EVERYTHING THEIR WAY OR THE WILL SUE OR HOLD THEESE MASTER PLANS UP LONGER THAN THE PLANS ARE FOR THEN WE COULD ALL MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS A WELL BALANCED COMPROMISE SOLUTION TO FOREST MANAGEMENT.
I AM PAINFULLY AWARE THAT MOTO-REC. DOES NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS OR THE DOLLARS THAT THE EXTREME GROUPS DO TO THROW AT THIS ISSUE TO SWAY THE OUTCOME. MANY OF US WHO LIVE IN,OR NEAR STATE FORESTS MAKE OUR LIVINGS OFF OF RECREATION/LOGGING/ETC. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO AWAY SO THAT THE FANATICS CAN SAY THAT THEY SAVED THE FOREST FROM THOSE WHO USE THE FOREST FOR OTHER THINGS THAN THEIR NARROW VIEW OF WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE FOREST.
Comment #: 263
Perhaps the external costs of the damages caused by motorized uses (e.g., air pollution, erosision, siltation) should be considered in calculating economic benefits.
Comment #: 264
Address it so it can be controlled. Motorized use of forest lands is not beneficial, nor sustainable.
Comment #: 265
As stated in a previous comment, I have a minor problem with motorized recreationists due to the majority of them direspecting the landowners.
Comment #: 266
If this issue isn't addressed the users with the biggest and loudest motors will push everyone else away.
Comment #: 267
If motorized recreation is allowed in forests, other types of recreation and the revenue that is generated from it could also suffer. A trade-off must be made.
Comment #: 268
If motorized recreation is allowed in forests, other types of recreation and the revenue that is generated from it could also suffer. A trade-off must be made.
Comment #: 269
If they ruin the place they visit, then why keep visiting? They had better pay more if they are doing more damage. Emissions and noise regulations should apply to ATVs, etc.
Comment #: 270
I think this is going to be a major concern now and increasingly in the future. Laws need to be set and followed if we want to keep our forests the way they are.
Comment #: 271
If everybody gets a piece of the pie, the motorized sector gets one too. Question is how big, where, and how to enforce rules to keep them from spoiling the rest of the pie.
Comment #: 272
That doesn't mean there has to bemore let in to forests.
Comment #: 273
There is a place for these activities however they need to be considered relative to all other uses. A balance must be established. Both ecinomic and ecological cosiderations must be the basis of determining such a balance.
Comment #: 274
They spend more because of all the gas and oil they use. Please don't allow four-wheeler use in the state forests.
Comment #: 275
We need to provide for outdoor motorized recreation in WI. also. However, ecological and other impacts need to be addressed.
Comment #: 276
How about a 50:50 split of the resources for the nonmororized and motorized users. Highly unlikely though.
Comment #: 277
Fast noisy toys should pay alot more because of the damage caused. They should be restricted as much as possible to private land. When on public land they should be peripheral or segregated. If the motorized recreationalists spend more money let them pay user fees.
Comment #: 278
Snowmobilers and especially ATV use should be extremely limited.
Comment #: 279
The ecology outweighs the economics of tourism vastly. I am vehemently opposed to these forms of recreation.
Comment #: 280
I think this trend is about peaked. None motorized recreation is really becoing more popular, bird watching and photography. These people "hate" motorized vehicals. Mountain bikes are increasing.
Comment #: 281
This one could explode. Big kids don't "share" any better than little kids.
Comment #: 282
Responsible use needs to be addressed with stiff penalties when irresponsible users are caught.
Comment #: 283
I think NOISE is one of the largest problems. I boat and snowmobile, but even I find the loudness of two-cycle motors in jet-skis and some older snowmobiles to be disturbing. I don't find jet skis and snowmobiles to be an annoyance in-and-of themselves (most owners follow the law and respect others), it is the noise I don't like and most of my friends and neighbors agree.
Comment #: 284
I believe this is a conflict of wealthy vehicle users demanding more space to operate with little knowledge or empathy for land ethics and stewardship.
Comment #: 285
I feel that more trails need to be made for these people. They do bring a great amount of income to Wisconsin. The trails should just be planned out better and there should maybe even be speed limits where people feel it is a dangerous or unsafe place for people.
Comment #: 286
In the strongerst terms! This is nuts!!
We are struggling with fossil fuel costs and
increasing concerns of scarcity, we have a president-
elect that can only react to the crisis by wanting to
open up vast Alaska wilderness to drilling, and there
are more and more people on the planet every day!
Where will it end? In addition, we had some 35-40 deaths
from snowmobiles last year in WI. Is there lobby
so strong that our represntatives are blind to the
obvious? The typical recreational motorized participant
moves his/her overweight and underconditioned body
from one bar to the next, oblivious to the noise and
pollution created for "silent sport" and residents using
and living near the forests! Not sure how to counterbalance
the income generated by these people, perhaps you could take up
a fund drive as I know about a 1000 Bayfield county residents that
would contribute if it meant getting rid of these "recreationalists!"
If money is the bottom line, perhaps some kind of fee structure can be
explored that will substitute for these obnoxious things!
Comment #: 287
Skyrocketing ATV use is a serious and growing problem. This use is causing significant cumulative adverse environmental impacts. Instead of promoting ATV uses, the DNR should be working to restrict these uses and mitigate the damage.
Comment #: 288
Skyrocketing ATV use is a serious and growing problem. This use is causing significant cumulative adverse environmental impacts. Instead of promoting ATV uses, the DNR should be working to restrict these uses and mitigate the damage.
Comment #: 289
Control and limit motorized use.
Comment #: 290
The negatives and positives of this issue
should be addressed, but a statewide forest plan
is too large. Should be implemented on a local level.
Think globally... act locally.
Comment #: 291
This is probable the most significant issue for me personally. The loudest, most expensive and most intrusive forms of use should not be allowed to prevent others from enjoying the forests or be allowed to have a disproportionate impact on the forest.
Comment #: 292
I strongly dislike off-road vehicles of any kind and don't feel that it is the duty of the DNR to provide opportunities for users who only want space wreak havoc on the natural world. Let them go to Disneyworld if they want thrills.
Comment #: 293
Again, noise trumps silence every time. You can't have ATVs and snowmobilers occupying the same space as wildlife observers and nature hikers. The noisy sports always displace the silent sports.
Comment #: 294
winter use for mortorized vehicles only.No I do not have a snowmobile
Comment #: 295
Again, give them poor quality forests to four-wheel in - degraded, destroyed soils and pioneer and invasive species to zip past and enjoy the color and fragrance of. The semi-urban forest fragments are grossly abused by these off-highway vehicles. It is noisey, disrespectful to neighboring residents, polluting and the fact. It should be restricted. When I see quality forests degraded by these activities, I know it can't be justified by their financial support. Obviously the true VALUE hasn't been determined.
Comment #: 296
ORV uses are skyrocketing, and causing huge problems. Much more must be done to begin to solve these problems. Please add exotic species to the list of ORV concerns. Seeds from exotic plants can become attached to ORV wheels and undercarriages, and then be dispersed in distant locations to start new infestations. Many exotic plants need disturbed soils to initially colonize an area. ORVS cause such soil disturbance and thereby greatly facilitate exotics. Of course, snowmobiles in the winter are relatively much less environmentally harmful than ATVs during other seasons. And it is mostly the tourist snowmobilers who are the big spenders, not the local ATVers. Don't overlook these two key distinctions.
Comment #: 297
I believe that motorized recreation should generally be prohibited in forests.
Comment #: 298
Motorized recreation is becoming more populare and is more fun. So we should find better ways to manage it.
Comment #: 299
there are too many moterized vehicles- more restrictions
Comment #: 300
I think that motorized recreation is increasing but i think it has good things that come with it like money for the comunity, and fun things that the whole family can do together.
Comment #: 301
keep them!
Comment #: 302
keep them!
Comment #: 303
Too many people turn to snomobile and atv recreation for fun. This has a horrible effect of the trees and surrounding plant and animal life. I feel trails through forest area should be small in size of none there at all.
Comment #: 304
I feel that making roads and trails in the forest and developing retail stores in the center of them is wrongt. It not only will help to destroy the little bit of forest land that we have left but it will also be disturbing of wildlife.
Comment #: 305
Motorized vehicles are more popular and by becoming more popular they become more of a hazard to the environment.
Comment #: 306
I think it should because we need to try and save our forests. It may seem like we have so much at the moment but once wisconsin's small town's turn into larger cities like chicago or madison, then many people will be complainint that there is no privacy and no beauty to wisconsin. Plus once forests are gone tourism in the northwoods will go down and businesses will go out of business.
Comment #: 307
Nobody realizes how much extra fuel motorized recreation takes up, and how much it disturbs the forest's natural activities. I think that if the trend continues, then some parts of the forests could be in trouble.
Comment #: 308
Is your last statement really true?
As having been struck by a bicyclist comming over a hill on a hiking trail and being forced off a trail while X-C skiing by a group of snowmobilers on State Forest lands, I agree that this needs to be addressed.
Comment #: 309
We need to limit human impact, especially the devistation caused by ATVs. We need a plan to give ATVs and future rec vehicles a space without disturbing the forests.
Comment #: 310
We need to limit human impact, especially the devistation caused by ATVs. We need a plan to give ATVs and future rec vehicles a space without disturbing the forests.
Comment #: 311
While they maybe increasing there are still many other users of the forest and we should not slat heavily toward motorized recreation. It is important to allow areas for both motorized and nonmotorized receation.
Comment #: 312
I use the outdoor recreation vehicles alot for hunting and just for fun, I dont think they should be banned from the forest the cars in the cities make alot more polution in one day than the recreation vehicles do all year.
Comment #: 313
IT IS BECOMING MORE POPULAR AND IT SHOULD STAY THAT WAY, KEEP SNOWMOBILES!
Comment #: 314
I think we should develop a plan that
allows the state of wisconsin to
either charge more for the licenses
or only be able to sell a certain amount
every year.
Comment #: 315
I believe we need motorized rec. because it is important to many businesses including my family's. The recreation could be managed but not banned.
Comment #: 316
I think we should limit the amount of recreational vehicles we use on our Wisconsin trails.
Comment #: 317
#1
Comment #: 318
some forests should allow motorized vehicles but only some, or some forests should reduce the amount of those vehicles coming in to and out of the forests.
Comment #: 319
In certian forests they should be reduced.
Comment #: 320
#1 trails should be placed farther into the woods to keep people off the roads and highways
Comment #: 321
Allow motorized vehicles only on designated trails. Preserve contiguous sections of forest for non-motorized uses and habitat protection.
Comment #: 322
I am strongly against most motorized activities in our state lands. I go to the forest to avoid motors - their noise, their pollution, their destruction. I am in favor of spending more for the privilege of enjoying quiet sports like skiing, biking, birding, canoeing if it comes down to dollars.
Comment #: 323
This very important and highly polarized topic must also be continuously examined to balance the multiple-uses of our forests.
Comment #: 324
The northwoods depends heavily on the tourism dollars spent on outdoor motorized recreation. This is the time when the state should be promoting these activities! I cannot understand why the State continues to purchase large blocks of land only to close the land to recreational vehicles. Why purchase the land for about 1% of the population that will hike into remote areas.If we can't snowmobile, camp, ATV, etc.. do we really need the land for just a few individuals? I think there are too many gates and berms restricting use of State land!
Comment #: 325
Snowmobile trails and bridges paid for by snowmobilers must not be taken by other user without the approval of snowmobilers. Example: Chippewa county paved a snowmobile trail from Chippewa Falls to Cornell without snowmobilers approval. Snowmobilers have at least $30,000 invested in bridges alone. This trail is already being damaged by snowmobile skis and traction devices. This is a snowmobile trail and then it was converted to a combination trail. Who ever made this decission should have known better to pave a snowmobile trail. There must be long range plans made so all can enjoy trails and the forest. Also, the federal government should not by executive order change Wisconsin or any other state's forest usage. The government gets permission from the people, not the other way around.
Comment #: 326
Make recomendations to control erosion and help provide more trails
Comment #: 327
Make recomendations to control erosion and help provide more trails
Comment #: 328
We must find a common ground on this issue or we will lose this prevlige.
Comment #: 329
I am against off highway vehicle use on public land. If these vehicles are neccessary, they should be limited to restricted areas as to not violate the environment.
Comment #: 330
Moderation between rival groups should follow rules or guidlines. The volume of one's voice should not be a measure of their issue, devotion, or merrit. Guidelines for extracting fact from rhetoric should be part of the plan. As noted above, motorized AND non-motorized recreational oppurtunities MUST be provided. Easements across lands which may change hands must be established.
Comment #: 331
Take a look to see what is going to happen in YellowStone in a few years. Snowmobilers spend alot of money and I guess we should look at stopping planes and trains also.
Comment #: 332
snowmobileing does not cause problems if anything it provides a place for deer and coyote wolves to walk more easily.i know this because i have seen these animals on the trials in northern wis.
Comment #: 333
The state should not have to devlop more forest lands just because
someone buys a new toy. What if tanks became popular?
Comment #: 334
Minimize this intrusion!!
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS