EARTH TO FOREST SERVICE: YOUR PLAN CAN'T WORK
Make New Rail Trail Bicycle Only
Fortunately, we still have time to do the Taft to St. Regis Rail Trail correctly, but only if you write the letter.By Bill Schneider, 5-06-10
 |
|
 | |
| A portion of the proposed Route of the Olympian along Rainy Creek and one of the two tunnels along the route. Families enjoying the nearby Route of the Hiawatha. Can we have more of the same on this new trail? Photos courtesy of the Forest Service. | |
|
The Forest Service (FS) still clings to the fallacy of ATVers and hikers/bikers peacefully and safely sharing the same trail. And that it can write a travel plan that pleases everybody when in reality it’s almost guaranteed to please nobody.
Case in point. The Superior Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest has just released a long-awaited “scoping notice” for a 30-mile rail trail in western Montana, running from Taft to St. Regis along the abandoned Milwaukee Road railbed. This proposed trail, tentatively named the Route of the Olympian after a historic train, could extend the extremely popular Route of the Hiawatha bicycle trail, which runs 17 miles on the same railbed, over 4 trestles and through 9 tunnels, from Taft, Montana to Pearson, Idaho. What a great idea. We could have a spectacular, 47-mile rail trail that would attract cyclists from all over the world, promote healthful outdoor activities and booster local travel-related businesses.
But it won’t happen unless the FS abandons the folly of trying to make it a “multiple-use trail” open to both ATVs and bicycles.
Except a short section at the beginning, the Route of the Hiawatha is a bicycle-only trail, which is precisely what makes it so popular. Last year, 32,000 cyclists enjoyed it, each paying a not-insignificant fee ($9 for adults, $6 for kids) to ride the trail, but they didn’t really object to paying the fee because it’s such a rare and delightful opportunity to enjoy a scenic bicycle trip--often with children in tow--without worrying about conflict or safety issues posed by motor vehicles.
The FS could orchestrate a repeat performance with the Route of the Olympian, which has a tunnel and two trestles, but instead, the multiple use mindset is making the agency squander this rare opportunity. The proposed plan is very complicated with the 30 miles split into four separate management zones with different uses on each, further varying with the season, but in general the FS proposes allowing motorized use on the entire trail except the first eight miles on the west end where there are parallel routes and ATVs and bicycles can be separated.
You might actually think I’m writing a spoof, but no, the FS not only is serious about mixing ATVers and cyclists on the same trail and believes both will enjoy it and not have safety concerns, but the agency even proposes that part of the trail be dedicated to “family ATV use” i.e. sort of a training ground for children too young to have driver’s licenses to learn how to drive ATVs.
As a cyclist, a shiver goes up my spine when I visualize how it will be dodging 10-year-olds motoring around at 30-40 mph on ATVs on an eight-foot-wide rail trail. Yikes!
In a phone conversation with NewWest.Net, Superior District Ranger Sharon Sweeney and Elizabeth Kennedy from her wildlife and resource staff made it clear that we’re still a year or more from the final decision on use of the rail trail corridor. The scoping notice is merely meant to solicit comments, they pointed out, and later, probably about a year from now, the FS will send out a draft Environmental Assessment (EA), which will include a list of alternatives. That will be decision time.
So, at this point in time, the onus is on cyclists to make sure the agency gets enough feedback to make sure a bicycle-only alternative makes the final cut. If the agency keeps hearing mostly from local folks who strongly support motorized use, which has been the case so far, well, the Route of the Olympian will be an ATV trail.
This is, no doubt, an uphill grind. The mixed-use approach as currently proposed has a big lead and strong support locally. It will indeed prevail unless cyclists can sway the FS into considering more than local pressure, which in most rural areas is heavily skewed to motorized use. Interestingly, for example, on the Route of the Hiawatha website, it already states that the trail will be--not might be--open to ATVs.
In the scoping notice, the FS sold the plan as a “collaborative effort” and stated that the “collaborative group” supported the current plan. After making a few calls, though, I’d say that’s a push at best.
The FS lists members of the collaborative group as Nightriders Snowmobile Club, Bitterroot ATV Club, St. Regis Resort Board, Friends of the Coeur d"Alene Trails, Milwaukee Rails to Trails Group and Adventure Cycling Association (ACA). Sounds sort of balanced, eh? Well, not exactly.
To me, it seemed strange that a group like Adventure Cycling would support mixing bicycles and ATVs on the same rail trail. And sure enough--and contrary to the scoping notice--ACA executive director Jim Sayer told NewWest.Net that ACA has not taken a position on the current proposal and that he has already called the FS and asked the agency to remove the group’s name from the scoping notice. “We haven’t been involved in developing this plan,” he said.
John Weyhrich, representing the Milwaukee Rails to Trails Group, told NewWest.Net that his group supports “further development of the trail, but we’re still waiting to see what sort of consensus comes out of the process as far a use goes.”
I was unable to find a phone number for anybody from the Friends of the Coeur d’Alene Trails group, nor did I receive a reply to my email.
The upshot is, the collaborative group, at least those members representing cycling and non-motorized use, does not for the most part agree with the current plan.
Asked about the dubious claim that the entire collaborative group supported the proposal, Sweeney assured NewWest.Net that bicycling interests were invited and involved in the meetings. “Cyclists were represented,” she said.
She also emphasized that her agency could include a bicycle-only alternative in the upcoming EA “if we get some comments to this regard.”
Although Sweeney plans no changes in the scoping notice to correct the mistake, Sweeney said the agency “will not carry the ACA name forward.”
And then, there is the issue of economics. Four small towns along the trail--Saltese, Haugan, DeBorgia and St. Regis--could see big-time benefits from out-of-state bicycle tourists, just like business owners along the nearby Trail of the Ceour d’Alenes in Idaho where merchants get as much as 80 percent of their business from bicycle tourists traveling to northern Idaho from all over the world to enjoy the scenic bicycle-only trail.
So that begs the question, where are travel business promoters? This 47-mile rail trail could be a tourism home run, but it’s going be a strike out unless tourism agencies and businesses join cyclists in efforts to switch course and make the Taft-to-St. Regis rail trail bicycle only.
Fortunately, we have time to get this project back on track, but it’s up to us to capitalize on this opportunity to have a world-renown bicycle trail--and give Montana’s tourism biz a major league boost.
You have until May 17 to enter the official record for this scoping notice (click here to read the whole thing) but even if you miss that deadline, still email your comments to Kennedy who assured me they still would receive genuine consideration. Email your comments to the official email address, which is comments-northern-lolo-superior@fs.fed.us, and to her direct email address, which is ekennedy@fs.fed.us. You can also call her at 406-822-3954.
Don’t rant. Instead, politely encourage the FS to include a bicycle-only option in the upcoming EA, perhaps even making it the preferred alternative. If we don’t make a splash right now, there probably won’t even be a non-motorized option in the EA, and we can chalk this one up to lost opportunity.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Ten years or so ago, I dragged my family up to N. Idaho to ride the Hiawatha. I was totally enthusiastic, but I had to convince them they'd enjoy it.
I was right! It's a fantastic trail, and riding it is an experience one will remember for a lifetime. (I have a redo, along with the Trail of the Coeur d'Alenes on my "bucket list.")
I can't imagine it having nearly the charm, if motorized vehicles of ANY kind were buzzing up and down, sharing the same trail. (I am NOT anti-motor-vehicle... I generally get about 6000 miles each on my bicycle AND motorcycle, in any given year.) There are places where they mix nicely. And there are places where everyone benefits if they are kept separated.
I've written to the email addresses provided.
Keep the Shiny Side up.
First, the trails are already multiple-use. Both bikes and walkers (and the occasional horse riders) use them with no apparent conflict. On any given day from early Spring through the Fall you will see virtually all sections of the Trail of the CDA used by people of all ages on all sorts of bikes. They get along perfectly. When the trail was initially constructed as part of the Silver Valley Superfund cleanup there was local opposition and calls to make the trail available for ATV use. Today, many of those same opponents support the trail and use it extensively. The trails are important community assets and a source of pride.
Second, the economic impact of the trails is driven largely by the crowds of bike riders to the area. Few, if any, out of town ATV riders are going to trailer their machines to ride a flat, paved trail. ATV use will be locals and they will inject virtually no new money into the local economy. They will drive out the out-of-area bikers who will and do spend in the local businesses, campgrounds, and hotels. I see it every time I visit. There are literally hundreds of miles of excellent ATV riding in the area on public lands. Why would the FS drive away a source of community income by opening the trail to inevitable user conflicts?
The FS should take some lessons from the management of two very successful examples – the Route of the Hiawatha and the Trail of the Coeur D’ Alenes. Keep the trails nonmotorized, manage them for locals and tourists alike. Take a look at the dozens of sponsors for the Friends of the Coeur d'Alene Trails on their website and tell me there is no constituency for nonmotorized trail use.
Regardless of how many ATVs are using the trail, I've been riding logging roads and mixed use trails for over a decade, and can't really say that ATVs pose a threat. You can hear them coming from miles away, so they shouldn't be sneaking up on anyone to create physical conflict, and bikes and horses can tear up a trail with the best of them in wet conditions. Limit ATVs to dry weather, and you take care of a big part of the problem.
Why do we as cyclists have exclusive rights to the trail in the first place? I say open it up to mixed use, which will also give us a larger population to pitch in for trail maintenance.
As for the Milwaukee, I favor all-use trail. 47 miles is quite a ways, never mind the west side is already exclusive use for bicyclists. Now you want it all, all all, Bill? What an exclusionist you are. Never mind that the people who might appreciate the trail for the engineering achievement it was/is probably appreciate other engineered products.
At the very least, the plan should start with combined multiple use on the east end. If the plan results in genuine safety issues, not just trumped-up "user conflict" by the attitude-challenged, then use windows should be set up with maybe alternating weeks or weekends, with the weekdays being all-use.
Who want to breathe that stuff - would the rider like to stick his nose in a tailpipe? Probably not.
Of course bikers always need to let the person ahead of them know the are approaching. We have shared use hiking trails here and many bikers do not let you know they are coming.
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/68725_FSPLT1_027518.pdf
It does seem like the route could be a valuable travel corridor for ATV use during the hunting season, when there would presumably be less bike use. Maybe some type of shared arrangement like that would maximize public enjoyment of the route?
I would fear that under a shared use scenario, impacts from illegal, off route ATV use could compromise the splendor of the area and that the FS would not have the resources to adequately enforce their travel rules.
I think there are more options to look at than non-motorized or motorized, and I wish Bill would have dug a little deeper and presented a more well rounded viewpoint.
No, you clearly haven't been there.
People are not going to be booting around off the trail. It's steep and thick, you can barely stand up most places along the grade. It was some tough engineering, has always been tough ground.
Again, let's start with shared use and see how it goes.
Actually, I'd love to ride that whole stretch this summer. If leaving the trail is so treacherous, does that mean the route would not be used for hunting access via ATVs?
The Forest Service is determined to make it a multiple use area by putting snowshoers on the groomed area.
The net result is that the volunteers will go away and the area, developed for and by cross country skiers will be yielded to unorganized snowshoers.
Good luck to the cyclists.
I'd come over from Great Falls to ride your trail if you can keep the ATVs off.
Maybe it would be best to direct our enthusiasm toward that, and getting the trestle and tunnel refurbished enough to serve cyclists?
I doubt the access for ATV hunting would be anything but absolutely minimal. If you want to hunt there, you go up, down, or sidehill. Might be a SLIM possibility you'll bag something within winch range, but that's maybe one in a thousand at best. So that's not a factor. Would be a good way to get in, and if I did, I would always make sure whatever I kill is UPHILL of the access.
Alan, I agree completely with your premise. So, you multiple users who understand what multiple-use really means....PLEASE make sure to comment.
I don't want it all. With the exception of urban bikeways, the Route of the Olympian would be the only trail in Montana devoted to bicycle use, 30 miles out of many thousands of miles of trails.
That's what makes it such a rare opportunity for the local community.
I say, if local folks want an ATV trail, I'm cool with it. Make it an ATV trail, but forget about cyclists coming in to booster the local economy. If the local businesses don't want to bring a lot of tourists into the area, that's their decision.
I don't know much about the ATV market, but I doubt thousands of people per year are going to trailer up ATVs and travel long distances to ride on any 30-mile trail. I guess we'll find out, right?
I suspect, incidentally, that if I talked one-on-one with local merchants, many would already know about how profitable the Trail of the Ceour d'Alenes has been for small-town businesses like restaurants and motels and gift shops along that route, but they couldn't say anything publicly because local people simply don't want a bunch of Lycra-clad people riding around on skinny wheels and spending money. So be it.
I'm okay with an ATV trail, really, I'll just keep driving right by it on my way over to Idaho to spend money there enjoying something that state parks and tourism officials and local business owners were smart enough to see as a big economic opportunity.
It will come as no surprise that I don't ride an ATV, but I don't object to other people having them or using them. My objection, the reason for this column, is to the folly of spending all this money on something that won't work. It might work for ATVers, I suppose, but it won't work for cyclists, especially those attracted to places like the Hiawatha Trail because it's a safe place to ride with their families.
Cyclists are simply not going to travel long distances to ride the trail with ATVs on it, which is completely counter to the concept of a rail trail. If cyclists want to ride with ATVs, they can do that anywhere in Montana, usually a few miles from where we live.
Concerning the sharing issue, I'm all for sharing. I do it almost every day out on the roads when I'm on by bicycle, sharing the road with motor vehicles. But this is simply not going to work on a highly promoted recreational trail environment like this. Anybody saying this just isn't being realistic. I strongly suspect most ATVers wouldn't like it either, having to slow down and weave around a much of kids on bicycles.
Even though I don't ride ATVs, I think ATVers have a right to their share of our public lands, but that's not a problem. They already have more than their share. ATVers have access to at least 60 percent of the federal lands and 90 percent of Montana.
Cyclists have access to as much land, but most of it is not a safe, quiet, scenic place to ride. That's why cyclists make extra efforts to find and go to places like the Trail of the CdA--and precisely the reason the same would happen here. We already have this area widely known as a wonderful place to ride in a bicycle-only environment because of the Hiawatha Trail. This would be a very popular extension.
Northern Idaho has at least three such bicycle-only trails--Hiawatha, CdA, and Centennial--all in close proximity, a tourism home run. Montana has none, unless you count the first mile or so of the Hiawatha (which allows ATVs and Jeeps, incidentally, and cyclists hate it and can't wait to get the bicycle-only section). Making the Route of the Olympian a bicycle-only extension of the Hiawatha Trail would make the region (northern Idaho AND western Montana, not only northern Idaho) a much more attractive tourism destination.
Incidentally, some local businesses along the route of CdA trail also opposed the bicycle-only status, but they're singing a different tune nowadays. That could happen here, too.
But if the locals don't want it, well, that's the way it goes. They probably can successfully pressure the Forest Service into continuing this guaranteed-to-fail plan. A real shame, I'd say.
Bill Schneider
that Mr. Schneider and others have self-service in mind in opposing a multi-use project for the Route of the Olympian. We
are all entitled to the use of public lands and should thus be able to count on a fair, shared use of this stretch of land. Generally speaking, the economic impact of cyclists has never been as great as purported and therefore does not justify giving them any single use of public land in this area. ATV groups have consistently supported the economies of our small towns throughout their long histories and should have equal use of the land. In fact, precedent should require multi-use without question. Keep in mind that many cyclists make one trip, one ride per year on the Hiawatha Trail.......and they bring their bikes from far away places. ATV riders make many
trips over the course of the season and they purchase their ATVs locally and in the surrounding cities. They do bring their
ATVs in trucks, on trailers, etc. just as the Snow Mobilers do in the Wintertime. This is a way of life here in northwestern Montana and Idaho. We invite the rest of the country to enjoy, not destroy what we have had here for decades. Thus, we commend the FS for their multi-use proposal.
2nd week of month atv's, motorcycles
repeat above indefinitely.
http://bit.ly/9PpV2x
On including bicycles in designated wilderness, you finally got most of the wilderness crowd to willingly consider "wilderness lite" for new areas as long as it didn't undermine the '64 act itself and, the next thing we knew, a maladjusted minority within the cycling community was launching a push to rewrite the '64 act.
You pushed for a closer look at the Tester bill; but, even Tom Vilsack and his staff (who are sure not flaming libs) finally had to come out and explain how the cut rates in the bill weren't realistic and that it wasn't the right approach to roadless resolution.
Now, you advocate for keeping high speed motorized thrillcraft off a bike path and look where the response is falling out. I presume that you've seen what motorized thrillcraft do to an unpaved trail over time?
Again, I applaud your good intentions; but, the bottom ten to fifteen percent of the human race truly are beyond redemption. Fight to save the bike path instead.
I have lived in the west end of this state for the bigest share of my life and road the rail grade with my sonwmobiles,motor cycle and atv for many years. I have given skiers and bike riders rides to get help or pull them up the hill to make another run . We can and should work together and enjoy the trails toghter. I'm all for a mutli-use trail.
Just a thought...
That said, the Olympian Hi didn't hold on past 1960, at least not west of, um, maybe Missoula or perhaps Butte. De-facto parallel NP from there West. And I think all of the passenger service was gone by 1964 on Milwaukee west of the Twin Cities.
As for traveling by train, we're not there yet. Not when a revived North Coast Limited/Hi would cost 250 plus in subsidies per ticket. The Builder only covers about 80 percent of operating costs only, not capital charges....so I feel pretty guilty ripping off my fellow taxpayers.
I'm a bit confused by your claims.
"I don't want it all." Then let it be.
"I say, if local folks want an ATV trail, I'm cool with it." By your own claims this IS what the local folks want. Let it be.
"I don't know much about the ATV market" And yet you make great claims as to the type of people they are and what their spending habits are compared to bicyclists.
"the folly of spending all this money on something that won't work." Now there's an open-minded comment.
"ATVers have access to at least 60 percent of the federal lands and 90 percent of Montana." There's an old saying...73% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Feel free to provide proof of your figures (including the article's claim that 80% of local merchant business is from bicyclists).
"But if the locals don't want it, well, that's the way it goes." Sounds to me like the locals are fine with a mixed-use plan. I.E. they are accepting of you even if you don't accept them.
"pressure the Forest Service into continuing this guaranteed-to-fail plan." The only "fail" I see here is your failure to be open-minded and accepting of others rights and recreational activities.
For one thing ATV's are not suppose to be doing over 25 miles an hour. And if you think that you can do it on that trail you are wrong. I ride that RR grade 8 to 10 times a year. There are 6 ATV clubs in the area that plan yearly trips to the area. Sometimes as little as 10 and sometimes as many as 100 riders. All spending money for gas, food and lodging. Souveniers also. I have meet bicyclers and horseriders on the trail. We slow down or stop as to be curtious to all users.
There are national clubs that use the area. They travel from Alaska, Canada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, Colorado, Tennessee and Hawaii and many more states. I have ridden with them and they love it. Closure of this trail is likely to hurt all the small businesses in the area.
As a Wallace resident I see very little economic stimulas from bikers. They come ride the trail and go home. I believe that most of the 32,000 riders of the Hiawatha are from the surrounding areas within 150 miles of drive time.
This grade has been used by snowmobilers and atvs for many years. Bikers are welcome to use it too.
The statement that we are allowed in 90 percent of the forest is just plain crock. Take a look at the mvum maps and tell any motorized user how much area they have lost in the last 15 years to use.
Our land is definitely not our land, it is open to less and less people. If the bikers want to complain about sharing they need to go talk to the diabled people that would love to be able to see some areas in the forest. No motorized use means even less area for them. I know of several parapalegics who ride quads. One of whom took up quading because he missed the woods since his logging accident. Tell him he can't ride anymore.
Do you think riding with the buses on the return trip from the botttom of the Hiawatha trail are exciting to atvers and vehicles?
With a little curtesy and concern about your fellow outdoors enthusiats multi use systems can and do work. So smile and ride or walk.
This grade is also used by full size vehicles to get to favorite hunting, woodcutting and fishing areas. Yes we live in an area that it is steep, rocky, and treed but there are a few areas that you don't need to repel down or scramble up. So why close off the way to these areas for everyone except a few bicyclist?
Have you done any research on where the monies for the bike trails came from. I can assure you it didn't come from the license and taxes you paid for you bike. Whether it is a grant or forest service or government. It came from one place---- All of out taxes, including GAS TAX that I pay everytime I fuel up. I can ride for that $18.00 a day that you pay to use the trail. Sometimes two days. So share the land people, share the land.
Slamming peoples chose of life and how they chose to make a living is not productive for anyone.
The logger may not have a college education, but he gets the wood to the mill that builds your furniture, house, apartment, and deck.
The scientist may have an education but that doesn't mean he can mow your grass, cook you meals or fix your plumbing and heating and cooling when it is broken.
Try asking a cook at the restaraunt to fix your car.
Yes, there are still a few jack of all trades out there but not many.
Most errors on here could be fixed by simply re-reading your post.It has nothing to do with education. Usually just fast fingers.
Let's stick to the issue at hand and the facts, not personal issues
For your information this is an area of a narrow canyon with Interstate 90 running through it. Most areas of the canyon are sided by tall, steep mountainsides. The trail runs proposed trail runs within 200 yards of the interstate in most areas. Hence, if you are thinking that you are going to have peace and quiet along this newly proposed trail, you are highly mistaken. Noise in this canyon reverberates with trucking jake brakes and passing motorists. I don't think you will get the interstate closed down for your peace and quiet.
Way to prove your point with a run-on sentence. I believe this comment (as well as the one I am making here) violate the "Comment Policy" that is clearly posted at the bottom of the page and they should be removed.
1. Share.
2. Go to an odd/even day system. Odd days, allow motorized, even days do not.
Now I am not a supporter of allowing reckless use of ATV's; there have to be regulations. But I do find it ridiculous that you don't feel that you can ride this road safely with multi-use allowed. If this is the case you better not ride your bike anywhere and especially not the streets of Missoula.
Bill, when you say things like "a travel plan that pleases everybody when in reality it’s almost guaranteed to please nobody." and "continuing this guaranteed-to-fail plan." I really wonder where you are coming from. This may not please you and it may fail in your mind but this plan has been pleasing many people and has been working just fine long before a "travel plan" was ever developed by the FS and long before this little old stretch of railroad bed was ever brought into discussion on NewWest and commented on by so many people who have no idea what they are talking about.
In the end you are not saying we want to create this new trail and restrict it only to bicycles you are telling everyone that lives there that we are going to take this road that they have been using all their lives and only let bikes on it.
For instance part of the trail from Saltese to DeBorgia and Two Mile is used for access to private land, uses county road and has to be left open to motorized vehicles. There fore the route will never be entirely non-motorized.
There is part of the trail that can be used seperately between Taft and Saltese. This was closed about 3 years ago. We use to be able to ride this area but the tunnel and trestle were deemed not safe for travel and closed.
Fenske suggests even and odd. Well how about we open the Hiawatha to atvs on the same grounds even and odd? I would love to ride it on my quad, pay my nominal fee. I already have to by a restricted use plate from the state and an Idaho Parks and Recreation sticker to ride in the forest. Then I pay taxes on the gas, parts and anything else I purchase for the maintance of my machine. Maybe the bikers would like to start buying some permits for all the Centenial Trail and the Centennial Trail. Every one should be willing to pay their fair share.
In a recent publication, Montana Adventurer, placed along with our Missoulian there were 20 pages of bike trails that didn't allow non-motorized vehicles and 2 single trails that did. The 2 trails for ATV's also shared with everyone else. With the Centennial, Couer d' Alene and Hiawatha exclusively bikes, how much more do you need?
What do you think of SR2477? It demonstrates that past lawmakers could foresee the exclusion of the rights of access for all people. You want to take away those rights, again.
We have been fishing at Harrison for a long time. I took a personal survey and asked the business owners how profitable the bike trail is to them. One business made money only because of the quantity of bikers not because of their individual spending habits. Another said they had to eliminate their free samples because of the cyclists. All of the small towns along the proposed route are a distance off the trail and the concensus is the cyclists would not go off the graded trail to come to town. In some instances the motorized users would lose access so the town would lose again.
Bill, I think you should ride this trail and write another article after you have more of a feel for the situation.
It is amazing to me that so many want only their sport to prevail. When you can't ride bicycles anymore you better hope we have fought for multi-use so you can still find a way to visit those areas you remember best. We volunteer to groom trails to be shared by all and not for just the few. Shared we did - share they did and we all had fun together!
BTW did you know that these bike trails lie on a beds of contaminated mining waist??? This is true these rails where used to haul mining ore and waste out of the mountains.. so if I were U I would wear a dust mask like the ATV group have in their helmets.
I travelled from Northern Alberta, Canada. I stayed in Wallace for 6 nights, ate at many of the restaurants, spent money in several of the local businesses. I travelled to Wallace specifically for some ATV riding and was impressed by the trail system in the area. I will continue to come back to Wallace to ride the trails as long as they remain open to ATV's, otherwise whats the point. I know many others travel to Wallace to ATV, I spoke with quite a few while I was there. The Town was obviously benefiting from the ATV traffic, as were many of the other communities in the area.... KEEP THE TRAILS MULTI USE seems to be the way to go here...