Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents split on Open Lands plan: critics decry bike‑optimized focus and hunting omission
Summary
Public comment at the Commission work session split between supporters who praised access, health benefits and volunteer stewardship and opponents who said the plan favors 'bike‑optimized' trails, undercounts walkers, omits hunting safety, and lacks ADA and cost detail.
Public comment on the Open Lands Trails Plan produced clear divisions among residents and user groups. Opponents argued the plan under-represents hikers and hunters and gives disproportionate weight to mountain-biking features; Jenette Bomberger said the plan’s non-motorized proposals were overly bicycle-focused: "Fourteen of the nineteen proposed new, non- motorized trails, are characterized as bike optimized." Resident Jim Schneider questioned the outreach sample size (498 respondents) and raised ADA and sanitation concerns, saying the plan’s porta-potty reliance and lack of defined ADA trail standards left gaps for residents who need accessible routes.
Supporters countered that a balanced, multi‑use network protects legacy access and improves year‑round recreation near town. Representatives of the Anaconda Trails Society and several residents pledged volunteer labor and fundraising to build foundational trails; Robin McKernan of the Anaconda Trails Society said the group expected to sponsor and help construct key sections. Commissioners and NRDP staff acknowledged the concerns and asked the committee to clarify language on trail character, access and priority sequencing before formal adoption.
