After several months in which the issue was quiescent as attorneys for the county and landowners attempted to negotiate a middle ground, the issue came up at February's board session held Monday night.

During the Board's public comment period, several speakers addressed the issue.
Bayfield County resident James Radtke read a statement to the board in which he asked how many board members were property owners, how many had to contend with snowmobile trails and asked if they believed in property rights.

At this point, board member James Beeksma called the line of inquiry "insulting" and asked Radtke to come to the point. Board Chairman Bill Kacvinsky also warned Radtke that the comments were "inappropriate."

Radtke said the crucial issues of the trail debate was whether the board was sensitive to owner issues and the need for property owner consent with regard to future trail development and maintaining the existing series of trails.

"First of all are you as county board members sensitive to property owner issues and what about the matter of consent, or is this a case of seizing without consent?" he asked.

Radtke warned that if the county lacked that sensitivity, there could be a reaction from hundreds of landowners who provide access to snowmobile trails through easements on their lands.

"Your attitude and policy relative to this issue could seriously raise concerns about how these people might be treated in the future," he said. "It might also raise concerns and serious questions over the impact on property values for these public minded citizens."

Radtke questioned the need for more snowmobile trails citing the over 600 miles of trails already existing in the county.

"It isn't a matter of public need. It is just a matter of providing a more convenient access to a group of recreationists," he said.

Radtke charged that if board members pursued development of the right-of-way they would be fighting against their own constituents.

"You are using our tax dollars to fill the pockets of lawyers in Seattle and Madison to fight with us, your neighbors."

He also charged that trail development would reduce property values, costing the county up to $600,000 a year in tax revenues.

Another trail opponent, Mike Jackson said the board should consider "the severity of where we are and the consequences" in making their decisions about the corridor.

He asked them to consider three factors, including fairness, the legal ramifications of their decisions and the money aspect.

"You are going to have to make a tough decision. Spend a lot of time on it and make the right decision," he said.

Jackson said he was willing to use his own money to "fight anyone who says I do not own my own property."

He said seeking to use the right of way would be opening a "Pandora's Box" of legal consequences.

He urged the county board to "ask deep probing questions" of their lawyers in their deliberations about the course the county will follow regarding the trails.

Jim Nemec of Mason, on the other hand said that recreational trails were important to the county.

"Public trails are where we have to go. I've seen too many times that we make arrangements for easements and after five years the trail is shut down," he said, urging the county to continue to work for publicly owned trails.

Scott Brown, president of the White River Ramblers snowmobile club said that snowmobile trails were crucial to many small businesses in the county.

"Some of these people cannot survive without this," he said. "You've got to take a hard look at it. It is time that the board makes a decision. I know it won't be a win-win decision."

Brown later presented the board with petitions signed by over 1,500 snowmobilers who favored opening the Highway 63 trail.

The board agreed to hold a special session on March 22 at 1 p.m. to meet with their attorneys on the trail issue. They also agreed to have the agenda reflect that they may take some form of action in open session on the matter following an executive session in which they would hold closed-door discussions with their lawyers.

The board turned down, on 7-5 vote, a motion offered by Harold Maki that called on the Board to make a decision once and for all about the course to be followed regarding the right-of-way at the next regular board meeting on March 29. Board members who voted against the measure said they did not want to force a decision on a complex issue until they were certain they had all the information they needed.