Mat Valley Moose Range/Wasilla Cr. Salmon Habitat Conditions

[68 Bronco]

Do us both a favor and don't start throwing out derogatory things about folks that disagree with you. I am not being counterproductive, distracting, or unwilling to compromise.
We ALL have personal belief's and assumptions.
You believe several areas need to be closed immediately 24/7 to ALL motorized access assuming that there in no immediate alternative.
I believe that immediate 24/7 closure of areas to ALL motorized access is not necessary. My assumption is once they are closed it will be VERY difficult to reopen end up being permanent closures.

Apologies
Not meant to be personally derogatory at all, but 'extended' definitions of words don't enhance conversation. Do us all the favor of checking that technique, one also stricken from rules of fair debate, and I will happily have no cause to point it out. I respect your opinion otherwise.

Yep, might be hard to get some sensitive habitats reopened for some particular uses, especially w/o a supporting budget - if that is the case, consider it may likely be for good cause such as productive fish habitat. Compromises do indeed have their role and it is good to see you use that word. Thnx

[fishNphysician]

68 Bronco

Those deplorable pictures are enough to make me sick. Such utter disrespect and disregard for the habitat is difficult to fathom.

Bass turds... dirty bass turds!

[68 Bronco]

'Administrative Decision' example

Here is how a similar situation, sans fish habitat concerns, was addressed by DNR.

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/rextrail/d...n_decision.pdf
http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/rextrail/

The State Supreme Crt. affirmed DNR's decision upon appeal.

[68 Bronco]

More

....... another article on the Rex Tr. example:

[Derby06]

Unless I am missing something---That supports what I am saying.
Issues can be fixed/addressed without a closure.

[68 Bronco]

Unless I am missing something---That supports what I am saying.
Issues can be fixed/addressed without a closure.

Only somewhat - probably don't want to celebrate just yet:

1. Seasonal closures (like Rex) to protect the trails, hopefully upgraded not to lock out other users, including F&G and Troopers. Possible with lots of bucks. Ongoing trail maintenance fund. (There has been no dry route thru identified; has so far eluded experienced trail folks.)

2. Many bridges approved to 10K lbs. plus would be needed to protect the anadromous stream crossings from the present class of abusers. (Trails between a separate issue, not to be ignored, as many of them are diverting fresh waters from wetlands that feed the streams/fish)
3. Enforcement to keep rigs on repaired trails and prevent recurring problems at similar expense.


Number 2. and 3. highly unlikely. Very Big Bucks and other priorities.

Getting strict unfettered access orgs. to make these, or any, science-based responsible compromises for important habitat usually is a political uphill battle. (Remember the political support base.)
They did not win on Rex Tr. appeal, however, and fish habitat on the Moose Range adds an important element.

A difficult issue that we are on the way to realistically discussing.

[Derby06]

Don't celebrate; highly unlikely; is not happening; too expensive; etc.

All things that makes it appear as some here are not willing to compromise.

[68 Bronco]

Don't celebrate; highly unlikely; is not happening; too expensive; etc.

All things that makes it appear as some here are not willing to compromise.

Got an affordable proposal/compromise that will convincingly protect fish habitat to a reasonable extent?
Sorry that some things have proven ineffective, truly.


P.S. Some funding is under discussion.

[kasilofchrisn]

I hate to see this type of destruction.
I also hate to see us loose access to so many areas of Alaska.
on the peninsula we have a habitat ordinance (anadramous stream)that went into effect.
On the surface it looked good. Protect salmon habitat.
But then it progressed to where property owners were told they could be shut down from mowing their lawns on the lake as it was in habitat zone.
Recreational gold miners could no longer mine parts of their claims.
If a tree falls in the zone you could potentially have to get a permit to cut it up.
Waterways were listed that did not even have spawning salmon.
Basically people lost part of their property to use.
So while I see the need to protect the habitat we need to do so cautiously so we don't end up passing something we cannot change.
One that closes down access to certain areas forever or denies property owners basic rights on their private property.
The butt holes who tear up areas like this are the real problem. Not the other 95% of us.
Definitely need more enforcement. Because even if they pass new laws the types that do this do not care.
And without enforcement laws do not matter.

[68 Bronco]

Yep, very few people have created the worst of this mess.

Hard to get in the mood to help support/fund big enough bridges at large expense to accommodate a few fools.
The costs for streams, trails and wetlands restoration alone, not to be ignored, will be immense even if that happens

I'm steadfast on the need for improved management parameters as part and parcel, being sick to death of these problems. Untenable, and if ever doubted, Wasilla Cr. represents the epitome of irresponsibilities and a clear sign for change.

Again - F&G must be empowered, particularly if land managers, commissioners and the like do not/can not step up to the plate.
(i'd take great pleasure in bumping a few of them up and waltzing them through this mess - and I'm no youngster.)

Imagine the frustrations of not getting sufficiently near your mission statement. Some on this board know exactly.

[68 Bronco]

National Fish Habitat Partnership

Sent today to a broad list of those involved and a reminder for all concerned with fish habitats :

"Good Day,


Most of you have seen at least some of my photo documentation of the current shameful conditions of upper Wasilla Cr. and Mat Su Moose Range wetlands/trails (if not, feel free to ask).
This attached document is meant as a simple reminder of why remedy is so important. Those of you actively involved in seeking remedies that may cut months, or even years, off the degradation of this important salmon habitat are more than appreciated! "

[bushrat]

Motorized access groups need to be educated on why this is bad for them (and the habitat). Until we get all the user groups to support a temp or permanent solution, nothing will likely happen. Of course money is a large part of it too ... access requires the proper trails, bridges, etc, so we don't damage habitat.

Some lessons learned are unfortunately not conducive to providing solutions. Inre the Rex Trail issue, some of us here spoke with AOC and finally AOC got on board with restricting the heavier vehicles on Rex Trail. Temporarily. That reasonable position, however, resulted in the ouster of most of the AOC board and a complete makeover of the org really. Lesson was, if you vote to restrict access in any way it will make a lot of people/members angry and they will rebel.

It's always an education issue and trying to combat the partisan nature of unfettered motorized access proponents vs anyone or any org with a different view. Motorized access proponents need to learn why this is bad for them, how it could lead to closures down the line.

Having said that, I have little faith that will happen. As far as the agencies, they are underfunded to deal with these kind of issues, and inertia is the norm. Bronco knows this better than most of us! Legislative solutions are hard to come by.

"Freedom" to go wherever the heck you want with a four-wheeler or swamp buggy is the norm, and no one wants that freedom taken away. There is understandable and correct fear as well that any closures will be permanent, and affect other users. What finally happened with the Rex Trail is that other motorized users (miners, trappers) couldn't use the trail due the damage being caused, so it pitted folks from the same general motorized access user groups against each other. "Your access is hurting mine." Again, that message needs to be understood by all motorized access proponents, that too much could lead to closures if we allow unfettered access.

[68 Bronco]

AOC 'couches' their messages very carefully - "We still have a right, in Alaska, to access public resources." (quote from the KTUU vid - link in post #1) One more word - "responsibly" - would likely cost the org in base member numbers.
Though technically correct, there we have a missed opportunity to educate users.
That being said, it is notable that AOC supports OHV registration at this juncture. The folks tearing up the crossings are doing so illegally, as zero crossing permits have been issued for the stream crossings of topic.

Rod Arno mentions, in the same segment, monies directed towards bridges - but, IMO, that fails to cover the issue in its entirety. Until one visits the area, it is difficult to visualize just how torn up the wetlands and trails are between the bridges - accesses. The damages also, in multiple places, divert fresh waters that feed Wasilla Cr. - important filters for fish habitats.
These trail sections are effectively single use, displacing other legitimate users; and added to the fact that F&G and Troopers can't 'get there' does not help motor users' case. 'Buffer zone' parameters for wetlands and streams are laid out in the Moose Range Plan (pg. 103), but 'passive ' management shot that in the foot. The Plan also has a section on potential restrictions for habitat destruction, safety and more (pg. 123), pointed out to Clark Cox yesterday. The State and some user orgs habitually give up and instead attempt accommodating easily identified incompatible and unenforceable uses - feeding the beast. The words laying out adjustments for important habitats and future situations seem inserted only as eye candy at inception of the plans.

Monies for bridges are now being actively sought, but that addresses only the crossings - one piece only of the root problem. Irresponsible use, 'passive' management and related damages all need addressed.

Like the Rex Trail, we again have a "Your access is hurting mine" situation. The prime justification given for an administrative decision on Rex was safety.
An important difference in the Moose Range/Wasilla Cr. case is that prime fish habitat is in the mix.
The most affordable and effective path needs taken by the State to protect this resource, as by law.

The same old 'solutions' are proven unwise quite vividly on Wasilla Creek.

[68 Bronco]

Letter to Gov. Walker

"Dear Gov. Walker,

It is pleasing that you have designated tomorrow 'Wild Salmon Day' - a resource dear to all Alaskans.
Thank You! It is nice to see the stories of this celebration in today's ADN.

I am writing you to ask if you are aware of the absolutely shameful condition of salmon habitats on the State managed Mat Valley Moose Range/Wasilla Creek area? This situation on acknowledged prime salmon habitat was recently covered by KTUU News stories and video.

State F&G Director, David Rogers, is fully aware and can provide you with details. If you have not sat with him on this topic, i would ask that you please do so. Many thousands of dollars and much effort by F&G, conservation groups, and citizens has been spent on trying to mitigate the debacle being presently faced.

We need effective change and the State, specifically DNR, has the management role for these public lands that are being incredibly and lawlessly abused.

Please ask for more information as needed, to include photo documentation.........."

[68 Bronco]

Mat-Su Moose Range Plan: Wetlands

"d. Access. Access through wetland buffers and wetlands will be allowed
only on winter ice roads for recreation, habitat enhancement, forest
product harvest and other activities as approved by ADF&G and DNR."