When I spoke of "strained essential services" I was speaking of the situation in the whole Interior region, outside of primary urban areas and their immediate subdivisions.

At present there is almost no law enforcement, public safety presence, emergency services, or even the means to relay a call for help, in many, many habitated and used rural areas of the Interior, not just the Dalton Hwy corridor.

It is not just that provisions for such essential services should be a mandatory part of the consideration as to whether to allow [makes changes that will lead to] increased recreational use of the Corridor. It is that we should not even be considering creating a situation of increased demand, unless and until we can adequately and consistently provide those essential services to areas already in use. I am not heartless, but every time there is a heroic rescue of a snowmachiner, hypothermic, lost, out of fuel, etc, etc, it draws down a very inadequate budget for law enforcement and public safety in rural areas where people already wait days, or even weeks, for Trooper response.

I too can see both sides to this issue. However if it is passed the legislature also needs to pass a bill adding another trooper post, more troopers, more road maintenance crews for DOT. Where is that money coming from and is it a state priority right now?

Tompat… interesting post with the name-calling, and well off the mark by the way. You may have intended to be offensive and intimidating, but in this case your attempt to demean someone you don’t know was not only inaccurate, but lacking in any relevant or credible views you might have shared. All Alaskan experiences on the Dalton, including yours and mine through the decades, are all relevant to this issue whether you agree with them or not. Please stick to the issues and not the personal attacks.

That being said, I believe there is common cause for concern on HB267. This proposed bill would increase recreational traffic in winter, and that raises a valid public safety concern for anyone who lives, works, hunts, recreates or travels this road, particularly given the virtual lack of emergency and public services.

I can see both sides of the issue. Although the pipeline and haulroad were never intended to be a fence across Alaska, north of the Yukon River it effectively creates a boundary that prevents many Alaskans from enjoying perfectly legal activities on allegedly public lands.

I think the off road vehicle restriction on much of the corridor is overly restrictive, and I would like to see a few access corridors open to snow machine traffic off of the haul road.

However I think that if the State chooses to provide that access it should also accept responsibility for providing necessary emergency services. At the very least money should be invested in public education and signage warning people that there are no emergency services available north of the FNSB boundary.

Those "essential services" that Pearl talks about aren't just "strained", they don't exist on the haul road. There are rarely State Troopers on the road, and there are NO EMS or rescue services north of the FNSB boundary.

Truck traffic is increasing on the haul road, and if the GVEA liquified natural gas scheme is approved and funded, that traffic will increase even more. In addition to the many highly experienced truckers who have driven the road for years and have an intimate understanding of the highway and it's perils, there are also more than a few inexperienced "Ice Road Trucker" wannabes hauling hazardous materials on the road, coupled with way too many citiot tourists. Increasing recreational traffic on the Dalton without providing the necessary support and infrastructure is just plain irresponsible and it will get people killed.

I thought a "middle ground", a compromise, was what we got, years ago, when we got the TAPS and Haulroad Corridor, on the condition that it be closed to off-the-road vehicles.

What you say, articroadrunner and haulitnorth, is probably true, for now. But give it a few years, and there will be more demands, more expense, and more associated problems, especially for the people who actually *need* the road now, for their livelihood, or their home, or both.

I think there is a difference, and a difference of priority, between essential needs and play/recreation. By limiting ATVs, including, and maybe especially, wintertime snow-machine use, we can limit unnecessary demands on essential services, that are limited and strained already. That's quite apart from issues such as terraine damage [the reason for the original limitations in exchange for access for the Corridor], especially in low-snow years like this one, and problems that might arise for work related traffic.

I'll have to agree with haulitnorth,if they want drag their stuff up that road,thry'll see what it'll cost when somebody loses a tire or a bearing on the trailer,they can't leave it up there....

wildwisdom ?? you do not have a clue I have lived, worked, and traveled this road for nearly 30 years!! you, and the PETA, TREE HUGERS should go back to a LIBERAL state you came from!!

I have worked on this road nearly twenty year, There are plenty of pullouts north of the bridge, in fact the TAPS has fewer pullouts and is legal to ride here. Yet I seldom see anyone riding here on a snowmachine. Just a trapper or two. The folks at Wiseman just want it all to themselves and BLM is using you because they want everyone out! Why should half of the state have restrictions on public access to public lands? snowmachines do not harm the tundra.... seriously after trip up the road with a snowmachine trailer and you see all the rock damage to it and your sled most wont make the trip again. OPEN IT UP ITS PUBLIC LAND FOR ALL TO USE EQUALLY!

There is nothing casual about driving the haul road. It has earned its reputation, as has the land north of the Arctic Circle, for being a vastly remote, rugged and isolated territory the likes of which are rarely found anywhere anymore. I've travelled that road more than a few times, and unless you go up there with a lot of respect for the truckers who drive it regularly, and with the skills and abilities to experience the land on its own terms, your experience is bound to be one of humility and drama when you discover for yourself just how remote and challenging a territory it is. An interesting part of the meeting today was that of all the people who testified opposing this bill, they presented themselves with dignity and respect, informed and experienced. Of the few who supported this bill, some did so with an attitude of arrogance or ignorance. That sort of thing won't help when you find yourself in a ditch on the Dalton in the middle of winter. Plain and simple, this bill is a bad idea. I love my off road recreational vehicles, and I am delighted to use them responsibly in the abundance of appropriate areas available to me. The Dalton Highway Corridor was never meant to, nor should it be, one of them.

Hey triproad you sound a little upset towards the truckers, but what it really comes down to is safety issues. I've driven that road off and on over the past three years and you find alot of people ( not truckers) stopping in the middle of the road, on hills and on blind corners. You wouldn't do that on the Parks or any other Highway so why do it on the Dalton. Keep in mind it takes alot longer for a semi-truck with a trailer to stop when their going 50mph. If you wish to ride your dirtbike, nobody really cares, just pay attention and don't do anything stupid. Remember if something happens to you or your bike, you'll probally be depending on a trucker to help you.

The Dalton is a state maintaned road. If the truckers would like to get together and assume responsibility for it's maintanance that would be fine with me. Then they can talk about restricting access. Untill then I have as much right to drive that road as anyone. In fact, this spring I am going to do just that, on my 250 dirtbike, at 45 MPH. You truckers don't have a problem with that do you?

This is a good start. They need to establish proper corridors that provide for safe parking near the highway and over land routes that will not cause disproportionate damage. There is certainly no need for snow machiners to have access to the entire adjacent area. It is also important to note that nearly the whole area from the Yukon to the north side of Atigun pass except for a small area at Coldfoot is managed by BLM.

One of the biggest perks of going up the Dalton is the lack of 4-Wheelers and Snowmachines.

The Dalton should remained closed for the use snow machines.