The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is planning a new “Glacial Heritage Area.” Earlier this summer they had a survey in which they invited comments from the public. Unfortunately, I didn’t post this until too late; the comment period is closed. Apologies, apologies, apologies. However, I did submit comment. I really like their thinking about this. The questions were, shall we say, a bit leading. But I liked where they were leading us. The following are my narrative responses to some of their questions:
***********************
Item 5 (Conservation Parks):
NO ATVs!!!!!!!!! Also, it is really irksome for those of us who, for environmental reasons, do not own a car, but who periodically rent one and so thus must pay the daily rate at parks. I think you should have a special annual pass for non-car owners that can be transferred to rental cars.
Item 8 (Linking Trails).
The horseback riders always end up on the bike trail, pitting and tearing up the surface (see the “400 Trail” right now for an example.). I think horse trails should be very separate from the bike trails.
Also, the Glacial Drumlin trail really should be paved. It links communities. It isn’t *just* a rec trail. There are billions in stimulus funds available for exactly this sort of upgrade. As it stands right now, the trail is only usable for about 2.5 mos out of the year because it is either snow/ice covered or muddy or a series of sandtraps the rest of the year. And I’ve heard that the reason it is kept this way is snowmobiles. That is a bogus. You should talk to your counterparts over in MN who have done studies showing that there is no difference in snow coverage over the course of the winter between gravel and asphalt.
Also, there should be some parts of the trail reserved for XC skiing in the winter, especially segments that can make for interesting overnight connections (i.e., places with lodging).
DNR survey said: “11. The GHA project also proposes to create buffers of working farmlands and scattered conservation lands adjacent to many of the wildlife areas. These buffers, known as Rural Landscape Protection Areas (RLPA), would complement efforts to protect farmlands in the area. In total, the GHA project proposes to establish 3,000 acres of protected lands within the 25,000 acres encompassed within the RLPA.”
Item 11 is something I’ve been dreaming of for a long time. Excellent idea. So much of Wisconsin’s beauty is in it’s rural landscape. We all know we aren’t in the High Sierras; so enjoying the rural heritage is what one enjoys here. It really sucks that so many state parks are now hemmed in by hideous McMansions. The Kettle Moraine units are the worst case scenario in this regard.
Item 16 (River based Conservation)
A. I don’t think the bands [along the river] should be so narrow.
B. I think you should use conservation funds as an adjunct to CRP [conservation reserve program] funds to really target highly erodable lands all the way to the hilltop and *pay* farmers to put those lands into permanent conservation, or at least perennial crops like hay, clover, etc.
C. Work with farmers to at least have contour strips of permanent perennials at intervals [alternating with crops] all the way up all hillslopes which provide more infiltration zones to facilitate more even flow in the rivers across the course of the year [as opposed to storm surges straight into our surface waters].
That is to say, protecting rivers starts at the top of the hill, not down at the bottom. Once you’ve got a problem down at the wetlands, it is too late.
On the boat access issue: NO MOTORS!
18. What do you think the priorities of the GHA project should be?
Saving the rural landscape–and not just along the trails. As we see farmland getting gobbled up, we are losing the great biking this state offers. As a rec cyclist, I consider an acre of farmland to be better than an acre of parkland in terms of getting away from it all while still living in the city. If DNR could manage to team up with the farm folks to ensure that a) their practices are sustainable, and b) they remain economically vibrant *and preserved* green zones surrounding cities (instead of being used as development zones), I think we could see a real win-win for the environment as well as our ability to continue to enjoy Wisconsin’s great outdoors. So the thrust isn’t necessarily to buy land; it should be to ensure that the remaining open spaces remain rural. I think you could get a lot more bang for your buck (from a recreational & environmental standpoint) by doing transfer of development rights/purchase development rights or land trusts & the like rather than outright purchases. And this is particularly important in these sprawl zones between Madison & Sprawlkesha. Why? So we who live in the city won’t need to drive for hours to get to the great outdoors. We should be able to bike for a half hour from the capital and find ourselves in the middle of farm fields.
19 (Additional comments).
Is there any way we could work out a more extensive foot trail network that is similar to the snowmobile network? I mean, the farmers are already on board with having the motorized menaces ripping across their land in the winter. How about extending it to peaceable hikers in the fall?
Also, how about gun-free zones for fall hiking?
*********
In sum, Wisconsin Department of Natural resources is proposing a place that does not suck. Thanks, Ranger Rick!