Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 98

Thread: DNR meeting about Jim Creek usage

  1. #1
    Member RMiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,736

    Default DNR meeting about Jim Creek usage

    Why on earth is it being held in Anchorage at wendler middle school ??????!!!!!!

    It should be held at Butte elementary!

    First I even heard of it is tonight on the news just a minute ago. And the meeting starts in two minutes. Doesnt matter anyways I cannot drive to Anchorage.

    What a way to get imput from people who have only even been to the place a time or two. Leave out those who go there every day out of their back yards.

    ****ing up a perfectly good shooting area if you ask me!!!
    "You have given out too much reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later".

  2. #2
    Member tyrex13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage/Soldotna
    Posts
    1,176

    Default

    This can not be good

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Palmer Ak
    Posts
    106

    Default krpua

    the meeting at Butte elementary was day before yesterday [no I didn't hear about it either] last night at teeland middle school [made that one] everyone that spoke was against most of the plan [everyone seemed to agree what was needed was law enforcement not more regulation] if you are interested public comment will be taken till May 5 either in writing or by e-mail. Please take a few moments to make your voice heard every contact counts.

  4. #4
    Member RMiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aaalaska View Post
    the meeting at Butte elementary was day before yesterday [no I didn't hear about it either] last night at teeland middle school [made that one] everyone that spoke was against most of the plan [everyone seemed to agree what was needed was law enforcement not more regulation] if you are interested public comment will be taken till May 5 either in writing or by e-mail. Please take a few moments to make your voice heard every contact counts.
    Thanks for the info.
    "You have given out too much reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later".

  5. #5

    Default Comments due by May 2nd

    the DNR guy said the wrong dates at the meeting.
    www.knikriver.alaska.gov is the DNR web site. You can look at the plan and make comments online or mail them in. The site says May 2nd also.
    Almost all the comments at the meetings (was at all three) were against a non-motorized area that mysteriously showed up in the draft plan and restrictions on boating. There was also protests against losing recreational/target shooting through-out the area and not requiring a designated shooting area. The shooting ban does not include hunting.
    Mike
    Mike
    www.alaskaatvclub.org
    There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.

  6. #6

    Default

    I'm all for the ban on shooting out there, to many people don't care what they are shooting at and eventually someone is going to get hurt or killed.

  7. #7
    Member RMiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,736

    Default

    Mostly I have found the shooting incidents are from no-brainers riding their machines through the backwoods and coming in through the backs of the shooting lanes. The riders dont care about running over small trees or whatever it takes to make a new trail.

    Remember when the new back road was put in and it was graded gravel. It took about two years for mudboggers to tear it up.
    --
    There are a lot more unsafe riders there than shooters. I have nearly been ran into several times but I have never come close to coming between a shooter and the targets.
    "You have given out too much reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later".

  8. #8

    Default

    I had 2 friends ride out there about 2 weeks ago, they saw some guys sitting in a van, shooting at some tin cans hanging from some tree's and right behind the trees was an atv trail. These guys were sitting inside the van and shooting at the cans. I can't even tell you how many times I have been down there and seen unsaafe shooting practices. I'd like to ride at Jim Creek but won't because of the BS that goes on down there. It might be safe to ride during the weekdays but your taking your life in your hands out there on the weekends. To many drunks and idiots make it an unsafe place to ride.

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    694

    Default Totally Agree

    There are some responsible people hunting and shooting out there but, as you said its not safe. Last year I was cruising around when I saw two smart gentlemen shooting there pistols and the was a trail ten feet above there line of fire. I kindly addressed the two men and they said it was safe and was no one around when a kid who rolled his fourwheeler coming walking out about 30 yards away. They left and within 10 minutes another group of three took there place. Its crazy, why cant people spend 10 bucks and go to birchwood shooting range and get some good practice in. Or at least set a boundry.

    Terry

  10. #10

    Default

    Ok I have to put my say into this one.

    RMiller a lot of these atv trails around Jim Creek have been established long before I began riding the area, and I have been fishing, hunting, boating, and atving Knik since late 80's. These trails have been around before the hordes turned the area into a recreational shooting park. Name one common shooting spot around the Jim Creek area that does not have a trail directly behind the supposed "safe" backdrops! I cannot think of one. A couple of weekends ago I saw a guy with a semi auto rifle, banana clip and all, completely unload into a dirt bank. His bullets were hitting anywhere from spitting distance to only God knows where. My guess is he was trying to poke holes in the ozone layer every now and then. That's only one instance of unsafe shooting I commonly see by the dunes, and I see it all the time.

    There must be a solution to the problem. It seems most do not want to restrict target shooting in the KRPUA, that is until they hear a bullet whizz by them or are apart of an unfortunate accident. A step in the right direction might be to have an official shooting range somewhere in the valley area. A shooting range like Birchwood or Rabbit creek. People might not be able to dump their old tv's and unload box after box of bullets into their old appliances, but it would be an option besides shoot on the dunes. That may be a large task to accomplish, but like I said it would be a step in the right direction.

  11. #11
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RMiller View Post
    Why on earth is it being held in Anchorage at wendler middle school ??????!!!!!!
    Because most of the people using/abusing the area are from Anchorage.

  12. #12

    Default

    I have to agree with adding shooting restrictions at Jim Creek. I have been in the valley for a long time and I am generally against added regulation, but the situation at Jim Creek has gotten out of hand and it's only a matter of time before someone is killed. The real problem is where to put the boundaries for shooting. There are a lot of hunting areas near the "main" area that would possibly be affected. How about putting a real range in somewhere nearby? The issue is pretty complex but definitely needs to be addressed. Too many irresponsible people shooting firearms with disregard for the general public are ruining it for people who want to go out small game/waterfowl/big game hunting. A restriction definitely needs to be put in the highest use area where people fish/ride right at the creek. I'm not sure exactly where the "management area" boundaries are but I'm pretty sure they are much larger than the problem area.

  13. #13
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brackman47 View Post
    I have to agree with adding shooting restrictions at Jim Creek. I have been in the valley for a long time and I am generally against added regulation, but the situation at Jim Creek has gotten out of hand and it's only a matter of time before someone is killed. The real problem is where to put the boundaries for shooting. There are a lot of hunting areas near the "main" area that would possibly be affected. How about putting a real range in somewhere nearby?.........
    Most of the people out there shooting drove right past a range to get there.

    The problem isn't the need for a range. The problem is that the people out there shooting irresponsibly are out there doing it because:

    1) they wouldn't be allowed to shoot with complete disregard and impunity at the Birchwood Recreational Shooter's Park, and

    2) they don't have to pay a fee to shoot at Jim Creek.

  14. #14
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Is compromise even possible in KRPUA?

    The org I co-chair has been involved in the KRPUA comments. If you want to see our recommendations on an earlier draft plan, you can see them here:
    http://www.knikriver.alaska.gov/krpu...g_comments.pdf

    They are comment #234 starting at the bottom of page 79, from Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

    Since we sent in those comments, some things have caused us to get pretty discouraged. Mainly the fact that there seems to be absolutely no willingness from motorized groups/users to compromise at all on designating even a miniscule fraction of the area as non-motorized, even if only during certain periods. I just don't get this. If all of us motorized users get to the point where we aren't willing to say, "Hey, you know what, we should 'give' some of this over to non-motorized use only," then what does that say about us? If making a part of Rippy trail non-motorized, and putting some kind of limits on outboard size in just a fraction of the KRPUA, is going to be vehemently opposed by motorized users/groups, then frankly it just sickens my stomach that so many others can be so callous to another user group. And forget the BS that there are plenty of other places for non-motorized users only...many of the folks who are asking for just a tiny bit of non-motorized only areas within KRPUA are people who've lived in Butte or along the Knik for twenty, thirty, and more years. They are just plain fed up with the overuse and abuse, and I can't blame them. They are also tired of the shooting, and the burning, and the lawlessness.

    Yet few are willing to compromise on any of these issues so we can actually have a safe enjoyable public use area for ALL user groups. Not all uses are compatible. They just aren't. We've asked the motorized groups to consider time-sharing some areas, but even that is shouted down. "By God, you will not take away my right to motor wherever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want!"

    I can certainly see all sides, and God knows I've tried to continue to see all sides, but over the last month or so since this last draft plan came out, I have just been very bummed at the vehemence and tactics of the motorized groups that basically says "screw you" if you want to keep motorized users out of any area at any time, even if it is just 3% of the total area of KRPUA.

    So it goes. I don't envy DNR managers having to make the decisions, but then again there is a lot of poltitical muscle and connections being used here that favors one user group over another on many levels. Gun enthusiasts over responsible gun owners. Motorized users over responsible motorized users. Motorized users over non-motorized users. Those who don't ever want to see any user fees to actually pay for improvements and enforcement over those who do. And on and on and on.

    The people I know who have lived in, and played in, and hunted in that area for decades are just plain fed up. Some of those are our members...and most of those folks use atvs and powered boats. To get emails from them saying we must do something, we must protect the fish and fowl and tundra and public safety...that finally too much of anything is just too much...well many are to the point where they are just giving up, calling the area "overrun" and a "lost cause."

    From a hunting and fishing and conservation perspective...well I'm not seeing any kind of that perspective any longer among most hunters and anglers who use the KRPUA. And that's what is way sad.

    End rant -- these off the cuff comments are borne out of more than a year of working on this issue with people who have been around long enough to see all the changes. In the end, I really believe our personal greed for "rights" to do whatever the hell we want whenever the hell we want has overtaken our common sense and real conservation ethic. Many of us know the problems out there. We don't want to "ban" anything, or impose more "limits," but it's more than just a "few" bad apples now that are ruining it for the rest of us. It's widescale "I don't give a crap about anyone or anything other than ME having a good time however I see fit."
    Sincerely,


  15. #15
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    ......Since we sent in those comments, some things have caused us to get pretty discouraged. Mainly the fact that there seems to be absolutely no willingness from motorized groups/users to compromise at all on designating even a miniscule fraction of the area as non-motorized, even if only during certain periods...
    And why should they? There are non-motorized areas aplenty right on the other side of the Knik River in the Municipality of Anchorage.

    Why do you think most of Anchorage brings their atvs right across the border to the Mat-Su?:

    Because there isn't anyplace in the Anchorage area to ride them.

    ....I just don't get this. If all of us motorized users get to the point where we aren't willing to say, "Hey, you know what, we should 'give' some of this over to non-motorized use only," then what does that say about us?.....
    That maybe we realize that a good portion of the state is already non-motorized?

    ....If making a part of Rippy trail non-motorized, and putting some kind of limits on outboard size in just a fraction of the KRPUA, is going to be vehemently opposed by motorized users/groups, then frankly it just sickens my stomach that so many others can be so callous to another user group.....
    Sorta' like how non-motorized groups are so vehemently opposed to motorized access, even in places where it's been that way all along?

    ....And forget the BS that there are plenty of other places for non-motorized users only...many of the folks who are asking for just a tiny bit of non-motorized only areas within KRPUA are people who've lived in Butte or along the Knik for twenty, thirty, and more years. They are just plain fed up with the overuse and abuse, and I can't blame them. They are also tired of the shooting, and the burning, and the lawlessness.....
    Who in the area is opposed to motorized vehicles?

    We're all tired of the irresponsible shooting, the burning of stolen and junked vehicles, the litter, and the lawlessness.

    But nearly all of that is already illegal, isn't it?

    ....I really believe our personal greed for "rights" to do whatever the hell we want whenever the hell we want has overtaken our common sense and real conservation ethic....
    Bullspit. Nobody is demanding "to do whatever the hell we want whenever the hell we want".

    Personally, I want to see current crime quashed with extreme prejudice before making motorized use a crime.

    So show me DPS putting an end to the current crop of crimes in the area, and I'll consider enacting more laws, but frankly, they won't be needed if existing laws get enforced.

    ....it's more than just a "few" bad apples now that are ruining it for the rest of us.....
    I don't know why the number of bad apples makes a difference whether or not they're going to be collected up and dealt with.

  16. #16

    Default

    My two or three cents for what they're worth.....

    1. All it takes is a few idiots escaping from their villages to ruin a good thing for everyone.

    2. There are laws on the books already that make the majority of what folks are complaining about illegal. The problem is there aren't any means to enforce the laws. In my opinion the argument is can be compared to the whole gun control issue. The issues the gun control weenies complain about are already illegal. The nutballs committing the crimes know their actions are illegal and they don't care. There isn't anyone around the Knik area to stop illicit or illegal activities. Does anyone think these nutballs are going to respect any new restrictions on activities? Me thinks not and there still won't be anyone around to stop them.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    The org I co-chair has been involved in the KRPUA comments. If you want to see our recommendations on an earlier draft plan, you can see them here:
    http://www.knikriver.alaska.gov/krpu...g_comments.pdf

    They are comment #234 starting at the bottom of page 79, from Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

    Since we sent in those comments, some things have caused us to get pretty discouraged. Mainly the fact that there seems to be absolutely no willingness from motorized groups/users to compromise at all on designating even a miniscule fraction of the area as non-motorized, even if only during certain periods. I just don't get this. If all of us motorized users get to the point where we aren't willing to say, "Hey, you know what, we should 'give' some of this over to non-motorized use only," then what does that say about us? If making a part of Rippy trail non-motorized, and putting some kind of limits on outboard size in just a fraction of the KRPUA, is going to be vehemently opposed by motorized users/groups, then frankly it just sickens my stomach that so many others can be so callous to another user group. And forget the BS that there are plenty of other places for non-motorized users only...many of the folks who are asking for just a tiny bit of non-motorized only areas within KRPUA are people who've lived in Butte or along the Knik for twenty, thirty, and more years. They are just plain fed up with the overuse and abuse, and I can't blame them. They are also tired of the shooting, and the burning, and the lawlessness.

    Yet few are willing to compromise on any of these issues so we can actually have a safe enjoyable public use area for ALL user groups. Not all uses are compatible. They just aren't. We've asked the motorized groups to consider time-sharing some areas, but even that is shouted down. "By God, you will not take away my right to motor wherever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want!"

    I can certainly see all sides, and God knows I've tried to continue to see all sides, but over the last month or so since this last draft plan came out, I have just been very bummed at the vehemence and tactics of the motorized groups that basically says "screw you" if you want to keep motorized users out of any area at any time, even if it is just 3% of the total area of KRPUA.

    So it goes. I don't envy DNR managers having to make the decisions, but then again there is a lot of poltitical muscle and connections being used here that favors one user group over another on many levels. Gun enthusiasts over responsible gun owners. Motorized users over responsible motorized users. Motorized users over non-motorized users. Those who don't ever want to see any user fees to actually pay for improvements and enforcement over those who do. And on and on and on.

    The people I know who have lived in, and played in, and hunted in that area for decades are just plain fed up. Some of those are our members...and most of those folks use atvs and powered boats. To get emails from them saying we must do something, we must protect the fish and fowl and tundra and public safety...that finally too much of anything is just too much...well many are to the point where they are just giving up, calling the area "overrun" and a "lost cause."

    From a hunting and fishing and conservation perspective...well I'm not seeing any kind of that perspective any longer among most hunters and anglers who use the KRPUA. And that's what is way sad.

    End rant -- these off the cuff comments are borne out of more than a year of working on this issue with people who have been around long enough to see all the changes. In the end, I really believe our personal greed for "rights" to do whatever the hell we want whenever the hell we want has overtaken our common sense and real conservation ethic. Many of us know the problems out there. We don't want to "ban" anything, or impose more "limits," but it's more than just a "few" bad apples now that are ruining it for the rest of us. It's widescale "I don't give a crap about anyone or anything other than ME having a good time however I see fit."
    Sincerely,
    You're solutions are worse than the problem. I live right on the River 5 minutes from Jim Creek on my atv, I listen to the shooting and explosions 24/7. I report illegal activities to the troopers. I want the LAWS ON THE BOOKS ENFORCED. I WANT EVERY USER ALLOWED WITH NONE BANNED. Just who is stopping the nonmotorized users from going up there. NO ONE except themselves.
    What is really laughable is that people think ACCESS to JC can be restricted and regulated somehow. There are dozens of ways to get up there through the woods. You're security fence would have to be 10 miles long. The fastest way up there is on the dry river bed starting at the bridge. 2.5 months of the year your fence will be under water. The new sport here would be destroying the fence.
    NO TO BANNING ANY USER GROUP FROM KRPUA!
    ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!
    GO SOME WHERE ELSE IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

  18. #18
    Member jkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    1,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    And why should they? There are non-motorized areas aplenty right on the other side of the Knik River in the Municipality of Anchorage.

    Why do you think most of Anchorage brings their atvs right across the border to the Mat-Su?:

    Because there isn't anyplace in the Anchorage area to ride them.



    That maybe we realize that a good portion of the state is already non-motorized?



    Sorta' like how non-motorized groups are so vehemently opposed to motorized access, even in places where it's been that way all along?



    Who in the area is opposed to motorized vehicles?

    We're all tired of the irresponsible shooting, the burning of stolen and junked vehicles, the litter, and the lawlessness.

    But nearly all of that is already illegal, isn't it?



    Bullspit. Nobody is demanding "to do whatever the hell we want whenever the hell we want".

    Personally, I want to see current crime quashed with extreme prejudice before making motorized use a crime.

    So show me DPS putting an end to the current crop of crimes in the area, and I'll consider enacting more laws, but frankly, they won't be needed if existing laws get enforced.



    I don't know why the number of bad apples makes a difference whether or not they're going to be collected up and dealt with.

    Nicely said Mark, Don't give an inch on non-motorized area creation. Not Jim Creek, not the Rex, Not Eureka.

    Burning cars is called Arson

    Drinking and riding is called DWI

    Throwing trash on the ground is called Littering.

    Shooting without knowing where your bullet is going is called Reckless endangerment.

    Maybe we should cancel these meetings layoff the DNR employees and use the money to hire some Troopers to enforce the stinking law.
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming-----WOW-----what a ride!
    Unknown author

  19. #19

    Talking

    Mark Richards - Thank You for your comments.
    There needs to be some balance here.

    I have enjoyed the Knik area since the 70's and have a pretty good knowledge of the place. I know what most of us like about the area and am aware of the unique biological and geographical diversity of the area.
    I enjoy all sorts of activities in the Knik - including the use of a dirt bike, 4-Wheeler, and modified full size rig. (My family is hard to talk into going there anymore.) I taught my boys to ride dirt bikes out there - we canoe, hike, ski, skijor, fish, hunt, kayak, shoot, snowshoe, on and on - or just go for a ride for the pleasure of it.
    My kids used to go barefoot in the sands and play in Jim Cr. - not possible to do without undue risks these days. We have cleaned up out there, put out fires others have left, performed rescues of several people and advocated for changes. Everyone wants changes out there.

    Enough of that for now - let's get down to brass tacks in this discussion. We are in the eleventh hour of the KRPUA Planning and I am sickened by some of the poorly thought out arguments, too!

    Let's start here - To those of you whom are telling non-motor users to 'go somewhere else' : you obviously do not understand the full reasoning behind why or how these users enjoy the area. We can get into those debates if you want - I call them 'user ego debates'. I'm an older fellow now, and egos piss me off - how about we talk habitat value instead, since life requires it to exist?
    I think we can all agree we enjoy the habitat in the Knik. So to the point - there are at least a dozen studies (if you can't see it yourself and need to read up on it and see who signed off on them - do your research, or I'll point you if you need) regarding the value and uniqueness of the Jim/Swan Wetlands and Uplands. So when you tell folks to kiss off and go somewhere else are you suggesting taking the habitat, where machines are making their mark, with them??

    I'm sorry gentlemen, I realized a long time ago that machines do not belong everywhere. To say they do displays a certain lack of awareness, to try to put it gently. The Knik watershed has some of those places - and I'll argue with you all you want on that, as well as whether or not the damages occur, we can police ourselves, other users are displaced, etc.
    This is a problem with the 'don't give an inch' argument used by some organizers of opposition to quiet places:
    It is an emotional argument only - about 'my rights' Biased crap. It leaves out consideration for habitat and the fact that someone else may actually prefer to escape trappings of man and fossil fuel for an experience that all outdoorsmen should actually be able to grasp! What happened here? Totally hooked on toys and fuel, are we? Do you really think no creature or person is deserving of an experience that does not include your intrusive toy?
    I enjoy using my ORV's - but I also insist on quiet, intact places. Period. Face it. Don't tell me go someplace else instead of an area of documented value that I enjoy and know machine use is degrading. I care about the area for what it is! Don't argue with me about degrees of degradation - it's OK for some folks to want to quietly experience what Mother Nature does on her own. Big boy toys are not the end all - maybe I should rephrase that ..... :-)
    That's my rant this time - in another installment, I will voice an opinion on how and why the PUA got stuck with ineffective enforcement (for now).

    Cheers

  20. #20
    Member RMiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Water_Gremlin View Post
    Ok I have to put my say into this one.

    Name one common shooting spot around the Jim Creek area that does not have a trail directly behind the supposed "safe" backdrops!
    Your right there isnt one. Thats my point. Riders should not have every gosh darn inch of ground out there. Why cant they see where the shooting is taking place before they indesciminately start running over everything at warp speed seeing who can stir the most dust.

    The only thing I have nearly been hit by is a four wheeler. I was coming down the trail towards wolf point to where the open riverbed narrows down to trails through the brush. Before I went into the brush I slowed way down to take a peak in cause I had a bad feeling. Sure enough a four wheeler came flying end over end in front of me going at least 40 feet making about a 540* flip through the air. I go down the trail and there is a teenager laying in the trail. I help him up and straighten out his handlebars for him and as quick as he can he is off again full throttle.

    Good thing I live off KGB road. Plenty of shooting areas the end of that road.

    ----

    Fairbanks and Valdez have the best shooting ranges. Why cant we have some recreational shooting areas like those? Benches, covered areas 200 -300 meters and FREE!!
    "You have given out too much reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later".

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •