Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas (PART 3)

In an effort to be transparent, let me introduce myself. My name is Susie Rainsberry. I'm a backcountry snowmobiler, who has NEVER ridden in the areas of concern to WMC. However, that does not mean that I won't, someday. I am also the Oregon Representative for the Snowmobile Alliance of Western States. www.snowmobile-alliance.org

Now, can you, WMC, become and remain transparent too? Who are you and your two other board members?

I would also like to know the name of the "snowmobile industry" person you spoke with yesterday. Can you please provide it.

If you really want to have open discussions in order to share ideas then that is not going to happen behind forum names. It just isn't. It can imply distrust and secrecy. I know that forums are designed and used in some respect for anonimity, but that isn't going to work to solve real problems where heated-debates are a natural part of the process.

It is through debate and conflict that complex and challenging problems are resolved. Yet, you don't seem to be willing to debate nor enter into a contentious discussion. This is a contentious discussion, and some players may not be respectful or polite. There are those of us who will engage with maturity and those that will not. That's the way it is and myself, Yammadog, Ruffy, MountainHorse, etc cannot stop the actions or words of other, but if you cannot remain engaged with those of us who are participating with maturity, then you are again, painting sledders with a broad stroke. That is both disrespectful and short-sighted.

I hope you will answer the questions previously posted here by others, and also tell us who you are.

-Susie

mountainhorse said:

WMC... you also have to entertain this idea if you are going to have a more complete picture of backcountry use:

In the past, Backcountry access to skiers was pretty limited untill the modern Teli, Rondi and Touring skis have come to the fore. Before that, there were very limited numbers of Skiers in the "Pristine backcountry" as well.

Ski touring Technology has advanced, prices have dropped on the gear and it is readily available at most sporting outlets (eg REI, Sportsbarn, Mountain Gear etc). Also instruction clinics for BC ski access and BC ski/snowboard clubs have been growing in numbers as well as numerous BC Touring books and maps for skiers. Sure, Franz Klahmer may have been ski touring in the late sixties... but he would have been pretty alone in the BC.

In the last 6-8 years, BC snowmobile equipment, education, availability and awareness have caught up with the initial wave of ski touring expansion in the backcountry.

I often see the reticence of the ski groups to share what they feel is their "staked claim" in public lands and the bad sentiments towards snowmobilers that they feel are "poaching or intruding" upon.

It is more work to get to the Wilderness in SOME areas, not so hard in others.

I feel that both groups (I belong to both) of Snomobilers and Skiers/Snowboarders need to recognize the access rights of either one... and SHARE the lands that they both currently enjoy.

So that you might understand You have also proposed a closure to what is already a greatly shrinking snowmobile access-ability of snomobilers in the BC. There is a reason that snowmobilers feel that the Public Lands that they currently enjoy is under siege from groups that keep "inching thier way" into closing down more and more areas to our way of enjoying the backcountry beauty and expansiveness.

Click to expand...

We agree that we need to be civil to each other. This poster has had more stinkeye from skiers than from snowmobilers when I ride my old snowmobiles out to go skitour. All sides need to respect each other and recognize the other's legitimate use.It is a true statement that in person ALL snowmobile riders that we meet are great folks, we chat and enjoy meeting each other. Then off they go on their fantastic machines and track the snow up, all legal nothing wrong, but we cannot compete! Thus, we ask for areas for our use.

As far as WA, expansion of riding areas continues, we see it in the backcountry that WMC members have skied or snowshoed for 30 and in some cases 40 years. There is a lot of terrain outside Wilderness in WA not yet ridden that is traditional terrain for snowshoes and skis. Since there is no Regulation or Law against it, WMC would expect to see snowmobile riders find routes and expand into these areas with the new technology. That new technology is cool, BTW, we just cannot compete and we would like to ski. Areas that we have skied and shared the same peaks with snowmobiles for years, we have seen the machines increase the terrain used until now there is noting left to ski on many peaks that would have been 50/50 snomos/skis or better for many years- no longer "sharing."

The Forest snowy slope resource is not unlimited,it needs to be managed, meaning divided up since skiers and snowshoers do not want to be on the same slope as snowmobiles. And your point is valid that you should have your areas to ride hard and have fun without us in your way- fine. We are asking for management for all uses on the Forest.

The few and small winter non-motorized areas (accessible outside Wilderness) that exist get tracked by skiers quickly and completely since our technology has upped the abilities in general. In the past fewer skiers skied all of the steep open stuff, now our new technology allows many to go anywhere also.

Thanks.

The two uses do not mix on the same slopes, that is the issue.

Click to expand...

This is Opionion, so lets get that on the table...

Why do you discount, the the degree that you are, the importance of ski access to wilderness areas that denied to snowmobilers.

As you've stated... If you want pristine access to far reaching Wilderness areas that are able to be skied, you can buy an old snowmobile and travel there... or put in the the time to "earn your turn" I have and do.

To be fair in reference to your comment,

As far as WA, expansion of riding areas continues, we see it in the backcountry that WMC members have skied or snowshoed for 30 and in some cases 40 years

Click to expand...

There are many die-hard old school snowmobilers that have accessed certain areas for the last 20 - 30 years that have been Officially Closed to them (as snomobilers) by legislation in that time frame.

I would say the 2 sports are more compatible than cars and bicycles on the same road.....not trying to change the topic, but get others thinking about how 2 different groups can establish some guidelines to be able to share the same areas. Obviously we both want to have access to the same slopes/areas....how can this be accomplished short of simply excluding one of those groups?
I will say that I have encountered skiers on a fresh slope....I left it all for them and moved on to another area....perhaps just showing some courtesy to the other users would go a long way.

WMC said:

Yes, we understand the opposition here. WMC has said many times that we are not against all motorized use, we are asking for some areas free of motors other than the generally difficult to access Wilderness.We want to make the point that pedestrians cannot compete with snowmobiles for snowy slopes, and we do not want to be on snowy forest slopes with snowmobiles.

Click to expand...

It really doesn't seem like you do understand, or you would freely acknowledge that you can travel on your skis in the existing Wilderness, and we cannot travel on our snowmobiles in the existing Wilderness. You have options, you see. All we have is the snowy forest slopes...not the snowy Wilderness slopes.

WMC said:

USFS is in a Planning process to determine where on the Forest outside Wilderness should be designated for non-motorized and which should be for snowmobile use.

Click to expand...

Is this an active Planning process? I wasn't aware that any of the Washington forests, outside of The Blues were in an active comment period.

WMC said:

...the Wilderness nearby has even more rules, but is unenforced and a snowmobile speedway in winter.

Click to expand...

That's just slanderous. Please refrain from using incidenary comments. You have asked us to be civil and I'd like to see you behave the same way.

WMC said:

The cost of all of my six ski, boot, binding combos, my avalanche airbag, shovels, beacons, that price would pay for a great new snowmobile. That amount of gear is not average. On some of the same type of terrain as snowmobile riders many of us prefer to walk on skis and ski downhill on skis.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

This is not a discussion about economics and adds no value to this specific discussion. IMO.

winter brew said:

Obviously we both want to have access to the same slopes/areas....how can this be accomplished short of simply excluding one of those groups?

Click to expand...

There is a dense winter recreation area near Bend, OR and there are use specific groomed trails, right next to each other in some cases, for skiing and for sledding. This does not address the slope usage though. This area supports ALL winter recreation activities...skiing - downhill & cross-coutry, dog-sledding, snow-cats, snowmobiling and snowshoeing. Now, I rarely ride there, because there are simply too many people in one place for me, but it is divided up like an amusement park for specific uses. However, this division only happens in the areas nearest the sno-parks. Once the users are dispersed, the FS does not maintain motorized vs non-motorized, except for Wilderness and Watershed boundaries. Which are VERY CLEARLY marked and enforced.

It appears that WMC is not interested in any dialogue that could be seen as contrary to their goal of shutting out user groups other than their own...so here is a compromise that I would GUESS would be acceptble to the snowmobile community:

You claim that the area in question has been used by your members for up to 40 years, and that the recent incursion of snowmobilers is not compatable with your personal use of these lands.

So, we'll get a map of current Wilderness in WA State, and we'll identify designated wilderness areas that have been used in the past by snowmobilers that are no longer available for our use. If you can get Congress to re-designate those areas as "motorized" only, then you can have your "non-motorized" designation.

This seems to be a fair trade...we are only asking for the same thing that you are asking, to have our land returned to us, the public backcountry users.

Obviously, this will never happen, but our constant loss of land, with none returning, is a major hot button topic.

WMC...

Please note that the above comments since your statement have been civil and intelligent.

They are contrary to your point, but meet your requirements...

Please remain engaged in this discussion and also please patrol the TAY, with same fervor, for those posts that are discourteous from the skiers perspective.

I agree with you, parity is an issue here...as viewed from both sides of the coin.

easy guys, repetitive calling out of the WMC won't make them answer any questions...

It might be best to go slow, being bombarded with 50 questions.. might be a little much.

I have 1 simple question for WMC. As 94fordguy posted "Approx. 40% of Wash. forests are already off limits to motorized users." How can you possibly complain about not having enough space to yourself? If you want better access to wilderness, fight for better access, don't try to steal away access to the rest of us.

The reason we are so combative to your views is simple, you already have millions of acres that are 100% devoted to you and your nonmotorized pastimes. Millions of acres that are off limits to a great number of people who enjoy other pastimes. Stop trying to take away from us and go figure out a way to better utilize the land that is already set aside for you.

Do that and then we can get along. Until then I will fight you the entire way.

skibreeze said:

I have 1 simple question for WMC. As 94fordguy posted "Approx. 40% of Wash. forests are already off limits to motorized users." How can you possibly complain about not having enough space to yourself? If you want better access to wilderness, fight for better access, don't try to steal away access to the rest of us.

The reason we are so combative to your views is simple, you already have millions of acres that are 100% devoted to you and your nonmotorized pastimes. Millions of acres that are off limits to a great number of people who enjoy other pastimes. Stop trying to take away from us and go figure out a way to better utilize the land that is already set aside for you.

Do that and then we can get along. Until then I will fight you the entire way.

Click to expand...

OK back for more discussion here. Like I said lots of this is covered at the 23 page TAY thread, but I will try to give some quick answers since you all are kind enough to discuss these issues, thank you.

OK, the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition is about management of winter non-motorized recreation on the general non-Wilderness Forest of the Wenatchee Mountains. WMC is not against snowmobiles, we use some old ones on Roads and a little offroad, to go out to ski tour, as many as say 40 days per year, I skitour 80 days or so from Nov-August, my two WMC Executive partners skitour less and do some snowshoeing. We refers to the WMC Executive and what we have discussed. My two partners will not go online, one tried and gave it up right away. There is some decent discussion to be had here sometimes in my opinion. WMC is not interested in prohibiting snowmobiles we are not against offroad snowmobiling in general. WMC is asking USFS to manage the Forest in the area of our interest so that there are new and significant winter non-motorized areas for skiing and snowshoeing. We have about 300 or so folks on our email lists, it is a pretty informal and unfunded Coalition asking for citizens to ask USFS to manage for their use.

OK, stipulations to our point of view are:

For reasons discussed at length on TAY, many and likely most skiers and snowshoers consider their activity to be incompatible on the same slope as snowmobiles. WMC thinks it is fine for snowmobiles to have their place to go highmark and have fun, likewise we want our own places not rutted and full of snowmobiles to go do our quiet stuff (other than Wilderness which is usually too far away except for long trips).

Wilderness is not easily accessed so we ask for areas that are accessible for various non-motorized winter uses- xc ski to snowshoes to tele and AT skitouring. We are sure that compared to snowmobile riders there are many many more Forest users who own at least some snowshoes or a pair of xc skis up to someone like me who has $10k worth of touring ski setups and other gear and $1000 snowmobiles.

There is background to why we chose the area which is in two sections. The east portion is the small area of pristine Wenatchee Mountains crest that joins to the existing small non-motorized area beside Blewett Sno Park on the west end and joins to the Mission Ridge Ski Area on the east end. There is a major Road through there that is groomed and we are not seeking to shut down any of the Road. This area has parts with closest access to the car. The opinion of the snowmobile industry person that WMC Executive met with yesterday was that the east portion would not be a great sacrifice for riders, there is so so much more similar and even better riding next to that area.

The west portion of our proposal is the south slope of the Teanaway-Ingalls divide, the divide being the Wilderness Boundary. Now all you snomo folks are gonna love it perhaps when I tell you that a USFS person explained to me today that USFS does not create "buffers" to Wilderness...but...USFS manages lands close to Wilderness to be compatible uses to the Wilderness nearby. Clear (probably not)? But I know that you guys are smiling that I got schooled about the buffer thing (grin!). It is true that USFS never planned for that area to be for snowmobiles, it was just not considered and technology has outrun the USFS management. Snowmobile riders value using that area and feel strongly about losing it, understandable. Wilderness does come into the discussion because that Boundary gives what, 8 miles or so of open access to Wilderness, and we are learning that a lot of good folks perhaps do not know the Boundary (you should though) so anyway there is a lot of snowmobile traffic in the Wilderness there. USFS knows, locals here who never go in the mountains know because when they fly over they see the snowmobile tracks climbing the flanks of Mt Stuart and other places in the Wilderness. In the end, USFS needs to get a handle on this, lots say just enforce it, but they cannot. As a result, other than providing the area for skiing/ snowshoeing area that we ask for, the winter non-motorized setback to the Road would allow enforcement from that Road. There are very limited access opportunities from the Road where the crest Boundary is very open. Yes we understand that this is the controversial part of the proposal. It is great that snowmobile riders here are talking about policing the Wilderness trespass, that would have been great during the past 10 years. Other issues we hear about with the area are several resource and wildlife considerations including goats- they live where we all like to go to that high alpine.

Aside from WMC or our proposal, the USFS here is working on the Plan that will divide up the Forest outside of Wilderness between skiers and snowmobiles. Skiers and WMC did not invent Wilderness and we did not invent the Planning process. WMC is asking for roughly 26000 acres out of 400,000 acres in that County that are open for snowmobles. WMC is advocating for new and significant areas for winter non-motorized use in on the pristine crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.

OK, I tried to discuss this straight up, many here do not like it or agree. We hope that we may better understand each other, and maintain a civil discussion. The best scenario of course is that if we could agree to anything and take that together to USFS. But we respect the fact that many will not agree.

Thank you.

WMC, I'll restate my main concerns with your proposal, in case they were buried too deeply in previous threads to get noticed.

First, the skier/snowmobile conflict in this area is fabricated. It just doesn't exist. There is a ridiculous amount of prime skiable terrain that will NEVER have snowmobile tracks, and skier traffic in the winter is almost non-existant. I've spent dozens of days in the legal sledding areas of the Teanaway over the past few years and there is almost no skier traffic! 95% of the time, skiers have their choice of several entire basins that are untouched in the Teanaway. The problem for skiers is accessibility. Banning sleds from this area will not help accessibility. I use this area summer and winter. Skier traffic doesn't pick up until the North Fork road melts and snowmobile use is done for the year.

The area proposed for snowmobile closure by WMC would eliminate snowmobile access to the North Fork of the Teanaway, as well as Lake Ann and Van Epps areas. This is one of the few alpine areas in the state accessible by snowmobile. From Teanaway Peak to the west, I would estimate snowmobile use outnumbers skier use by 100:1; probably much more before mid-May. East of Teanaway Peak are several basins that are very difficult or legally impossible to access by snowmobile. Even taking into account the occasional snowmobiler in the Wilderness, there is more skiable terrain than could be tracked up by 50 skiers a day all winter long.

Compromise? I'll throw some ideas out there:
(1) Stop sled use in the North Fork of the Teanaway when the road melts out to Stafford Creek. That is when skiers use the area, and that is when sledders are done. Make it official. I can live with that.

(2) Addition to voluntary non-motorized area: The Beverly non-motorized area is a waste. It isn't used by skiers. Bean, on the other hand, has some really nice skiable terrain. It is very difficult to access from the bottom on sleds, and you can only come in the top by riding through Wilderness. Likewise, Stafford is hard to access from the bottom by sled. You can get in the top over Navaho, but it is also the prime access point for the Wenatchee gang to get into Wilderness. Add Bean Creek basin and Stafford Creek basin to the voluntary non-motorized areas. These are prime ski basins used by a minority of sledders.

(3) Improve skier access: What are the real options here? Realistically, you're not going to improve access much from the North Fork; too much snow and road that can't be maintained. What about from the Blewett side? How much closer to the crest could a road be plowed? We'd still be talking about pretty serious dollars to keep a road like that maintained; but banning sleds doesn't help skier access!

newtrout said:

WMC, I'll restate my main concerns with your proposal, in case they were buried too deeply in previous threads to get noticed.

First, the skier/snowmobile conflict in this area is fabricated. It just doesn't exist. There is a ridiculous amount of prime skiable terrain that will NEVER have snowmobile tracks, and skier traffic in the winter is almost non-existant. I've spent dozens of days in the legal sledding areas of the Teanaway over the past few years and there is almost no skier traffic! 95% of the time, skiers have their choice of several entire basins that are untouched in the Teanaway. The problem for skiers is accessibility. Banning sleds from this area will not help accessibility. I use this area summer and winter. Skier traffic doesn't pick up until the North Fork road melts and snowmobile use is done for the year.

The area proposed for snowmobile closure by WMC would eliminate snowmobile access to the North Fork of the Teanaway, as well as Lake Ann and Van Epps areas. This is one of the few alpine areas in the state accessible by snowmobile. From Teanaway Peak to the west, I would estimate snowmobile use outnumbers skier use by 100:1; probably much more before mid-May. East of Teanaway Peak are several basins that are very difficult or legally impossible to access by snowmobile. Even taking into account the occasional snowmobiler in the Wilderness, there is more skiable terrain than could be tracked up by 50 skiers a day all winter long.

Compromise? I'll throw some ideas out there:
(1) Stop sled use in the North Fork of the Teanaway when the road melts out to Stafford Creek. That is when skiers use the area, and that is when sledders are done. Make it official. I can live with that.

(2) Addition to voluntary non-motorized area: The Beverly non-motorized area is a waste. It isn't used by skiers. Bean, on the other hand, has some really nice skiable terrain. It is very difficult to access from the bottom on sleds, and you can only come in the top by riding through Wilderness. Likewise, Stafford is hard to access from the bottom by sled. You can get in the top over Navaho, but it is also the prime access point for the Wenatchee gang to get into Wilderness. Add Bean Creek basin and Stafford Creek basin to the voluntary non-motorized areas. These are prime ski basins used by a minority of sledders.

(3) Improve skier access: What are the real options here? Realistically, you're not going to improve access much from the North Fork; too much snow and road that can't be maintained. What about from the Blewett side? How much closer to the crest could a road be plowed? We'd still be talking about pretty serious dollars to keep a road like that maintained; but banning sleds doesn't help skier access!

Click to expand...

Great, a real counter-proposal WMC will add your idea to the discussion when we are in meetings. WMC has its proposal, but does discuss other ideas in the meetings we have had. We get the strong impression that USFS manages for all uses at least on the Planning Team. That does not mean that everyone will get what they want.

I know skiers other than my group who are in that area all winter skiing. I know that I ski other places on weekends because of the expected snowmobile traffic- but fortunately I have some weekdays off to ski.

I think #1 is what we have now, skiers start in when snowmobiles quit more than winter- see the TAY TRs. Do skiers avoid the area in winter because of the snowmobile traffic? Before snowmobiles were in there, I skied sweet pow all over the place there on skinny skis where now it is tracked by snowmobiles.

"Navaho" is the big conflict point from all sides and I do not know of a compromise to make anyone happy. No one except the riders using Wilderness there for their private stash wants the status quo to continue. Wildlife considerations on that high ridge are discussed when we talk to USFS, and the amount of snomo traffic in the Wilderness there is just a big negative for all sides. As I mentioned, locals who hear about WMC have told me about seeing from airplanes snowmobile tracks climbing the flanks of Mt Stuart. The commercial flights go right over that, great views, I have taken that flight a few times. Some USFS folks describe to me sitting high on Stuart and watching the snowmobiles work the drainages from Ingalls after coming over Stuart Pass from Jack Cr. The whole argument that skiers should go to Wilderness is invalidated if Wilderness is tracked by snowmobiles as well. Aside from talking and wishing for enforcement there are really no workable ideas to control this, except in our view the setback to the roads.

Sleds access Bean from the Stafford side, but every winter when we summit Earl a few times, we have been seeing more snowmobiles in Wilderness than even old tracks in the Voluntary Closure Area. Iron Peak above Beverly has nice powder lines.

There is a wide variation as to what skiers cover in a day. On the Icicle some skiers do the miles of road then climb, ski and return. And overnight trips into a quiet range of mountains is a viable use.

Thanks, good input.

WMC: The best scenario of course is that if we could agree to anything and take that together to USFS. But we respect the fact that many will not agree.

Click to expand...

Another direct, easily answered question...

Does WMC (any/all of the 3 execs you offer up in your opinion above) feel that ANY changes to what you have proposed is acceptable?

What mechanisms do YOU have in place to entertain mutual crafting of a proposal that both parties would be proud to present to USFS together?

Skibreeze had a very well presented question which you seem reticent to answer simply.

Please answer his question simply.

"Approx. 40% of Wash. forests are already off limits to motorized users." How can you possibly complain about not having enough space to yourself?

Click to expand...

I access a lot of snowboarding in the backcountry without a sled... I too feel that the "conflict" is grossly exaggerated in your presentation... If you can provide some more concrete, verifiable sources to your claims (studies, polls, petitions) as well as solid numbers of Users .... total skiers and total snowmobilers, you will help forward a truthful discussion.

Random statistics aside.

Without revealing your source, please tell us what you are talking about.... "snowmobile industry person"??.... service? Dealer? Regional? Corporate level (mfg)? or Snowmobile support services?.... How are they qualified to evaluate the area discussed here and make comments on appropriateness?

That will help you to qualify your claims at least.

As I mentioned, locals who hear about WMC have told me about seeing from airplanes snowmobile tracks climbing the flanks of Mt Stuart.

Click to expand...

That, sir, would have to be a VERY low flying plane for the passengers to see tracks that could be conclusively determined to be snowmobile tracks. I'm very dubious of your claim... I fly over mountain ridges from the Sierras to the Monashies in winter ... so I'm not off base in this observation. Often people see what they want to see, this... IMO... MAY be the case here .

What you are saying is that the illegal "poaching" of lines within the Wilderness areas that are exclusively open to non-motorized enthusiasts is so bad that they have become unusable to you?? Really?

BTW, I have carved some pretty sweet downhill lines side by side with skiers/snowboarders on my snowmobile... 1000 vert of linked, graceful turns on steeper terrain than most alpine skiers are comfortable on... we had a blast, shared lunch and parted as friends... which is the way it should be.

I agree with Susie Rainsberry, you need to be a bit more transparent if your presentation is to be considered as sincerely looking for parity.

mountainhorse said:

Another direct, easily answered question...

Does WMC (any/all of the 3 execs you offer up in your opinion above) feel that ANY changes to what you have proposed is acceptable?

What mechanisms do YOU have in place to entertain mutual crafting of a proposal that both parties would be proud to present to USFS together?

Skibreeze had a very well presented question which you seem reticent to answer simply.

Please answer his question simply.



I access a lot of snowboarding in the backcountry without a sled... I too feel that the "conflict" is grossly exaggerated in your presentation... If you can provide some more concrete, verifiable sources to your claims (studies, polls, petitions) as well as solid numbers of Users .... total skiers and total snowmobilers, you will help forward a truthful discussion.

Random statistics aside.

Without revealing your source, please tell us what you are talking about.... "snowmobile industry person"??.... service? Dealer? Regional? Corporate level (mfg)? or Snowmobile support services?.... How are they qualified to evaluate the area discussed here and make comments on appropriateness?

That will help you to qualify your claims at least.



That, sir, would have to be a VERY low flying plane for the passengers to see tracks that could be conclusively determined to be snowmobile tracks. I'm very dubious of your claim... I fly over mountain ridges from the Sierras to the Monashies in winter ... so I'm not off base in this observation. Often people see what they want to see, this... IMO... MAY be the case here .

What you are saying is that the illegal "poaching" of lines within the Wilderness areas that are exclusively open to non-motorized enthusiasts is so bad that they have become unusable to you?? Really?

BTW, I have carved some pretty sweet downhill lines side by side with skiers/snowboarders on my snowmobile... 1000 vert of linked, graceful turns on steeper terrain than most alpine skiers are comfortable on... we had a blast, shared lunch and parted as friends... which is the way it should be.

I agree with Susie Rainsberry, you need to be a bit more transparent if your presentation is to be considered as sincerely looking for parity.

Click to expand...

Yes, we are open to changes that would work given the considerations and what is stated above two posts ago. That is why we are here talking, that is why we talked to a snowmobile industry person, that is why we are talking with USFS folks at various levels and jobs. There are various considerations. First, suppose a smaller area is carved out for quiet untracked winter recreation, but the geography makes the Boundary unclear or impossible to enforce? Answer, the new area does not serve anyone's purpose.The big question here is the long open ridge terrain that allows snowmobiles to easily duck over into Wilderness, we are learning that perhaps many are not really aware where they go into Wilderness, anyway an end run is made that way around any small area so that the new area remains surrounded by snowmobile riding. The result is that there is no corridor to travel to Wilderness without snowmobile traffic, and it would remain as we have found, a snowmobile-tracked Wilderness after we walk on skis for hours to get there. If there is a solution other than the area that we mapped that actually works we would like to see it. Most folks in this conversation just say "Enforcement" or "Education." Fine, but we are skeptical given the decade problem here and also the example on the WSSA website from the Yakamas in regard to the "37 years" of "illegal snowmobiling" on the Yakamas Mt Adams Area. Our idea is that the WMC proposal gives a solution to the our non-motorized boundary and the Wilderness incursion which would actually allow snowmobiles into any smaller area made for non-motorized. enforcement- a drastic and controversial solution, sorry, but we are waiting to hear of something else that would be effective.

No, when we get to Wilderness we find great skiing, but the fact that snowmobiles are there with the noise and intrusion transforms the Wilderness into something else. Wilderness is created by Federal Law, like it or not, with strict regulations to manage it. Are we a nation of Laws or shall we behave as some third world nation that enforces Law only when easy or convenient and so as not to anger any significant interest group?

The question above was about our use of the 40% of Wilderness. This was discussed a lot at TAY. But you all are kind to discuss it here so I will answer again. A lot of that Wilderness is accessible only after a full day approach or overnight. We do that, but we cannot do that a lot. Here snowmobilers complained about driving an extra 1 1/2 hours to the alternative areas that we suggested. Imagine having to lug a 40 lb backpack while walking on skis to go overnight to the Wilderness. We do it, just not a lot. So we seek areas in the accessible general Forest. In our meeting with the snowmobile person, we were told how poorly snowmobile sales are for several reasons, and we were told that some Puget Sound snowmobile dealers are quitting business. On the other hand, we are certain that there are a lot of folks with snowshoes, xc skis, tele skis, snowboards, AT skis, all these folks want to park the car and go nearby for on-snow winter recreation. Wilderness was not created by WMC or by skiers and snowshoers, Wilderness was NOT created for WMC or skiers and snowshoers. By intention Wilderness should have less human-use and little human impact- that is the design. We would like to use Wilderness more, but by design that use is not made easy to access.

Since the '80s we have used a snowmobile to go ski, we skied some days in the midst of snowmobiles and it was fine- because the snowmobiles were limited as to where they could go. At first, snowmobiles hardly left the road. Now, and especially the past few years, really no snow is left since the new machines even climb up a skier track from a road through the trees to go track a powder stash that we used for years that did not have any snowmobile use. So technology there has influenced the available resource of snowy Forest.

WMC may be backing off here as we are busy in contact and setting meetings with USFS folks and some elected officials.

Thanks for the discussion. It is encouraging that we may eventually have some fruitful discussion about these issues.

I'm guessing these meetings you are arranging with USFS are public? Seems that forest planning should be public. I'm thinking SAWS and the like need to make contact with those folks they deal with to confirm or deny these meetings claimed by WMC. Is the FS making backroom deals with the FS?

WMC, you have still not answered any direct questions. Would you like me to repeat those for you?

yammadog said:

I'm guessing these meetings you are arranging with USFS are public? Seems that forest planning should be public. I'm thinking SAWS and the like need to make contact with those folks they deal with to confirm or deny these meetings claimed by WMC. Is the FS making backroom deals with the FS?

WMC, you have still not answered any direct questions. Would you like me to repeat those for you?

Click to expand...

Uncalled for. Uncivil, offensive to the people of integrity in USFS, offensive to the good folks that we meet with to talk about the issues and about our concerns. This is a public process. We are here talking about it. You apparently want to fling accusations and say "no."

Any of you folks may similarly contact USFS, they are wanting input! WMC is doing the work, we are here talking to snowmobile riders, we are here saying that we are good with you folks having your highmark fun but we want areas without snowmobiles. We are reaching out, you yammadog are just flinging unfounded comments from the start without substantive ideas. Step up and be a citizen, defend your rights and try to think about the rights and uses of others. Try to share.

WMC said:

Try to share.

Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle.

WMC said:

Uncalled for. Uncivil, offensive to the people of integrity in USFS, offensive to the good folks that we meet with to talk about the issues and about our concerns. This is a public process. We are here talking about it. You apparently want to fling accusations and say "no."

Any of you folks may similarly contact USFS, they are wanting input! WMC is doing the work, we are here talking to snowmobile riders, we are here saying that we are good with you folks having your highmark fun but we want areas without snowmobiles. We are reaching out, you yammadog are just flinging unfounded comments from the start without substantive ideas. Step up and be a citizen, defend your rights and try to think about the rights and uses of others. Try to share.

Click to expand...

wait...I feel it coming on......LMAO.......there, it's out....talk about sharing, you have yet to answer any direct questions, you have only offered closure. After dealing with you over the last month or so, I'm getting more humor out of your "position" than actual productive "conversation". The main problem in the "discusssion" with you is that you don't listen and respond to questions. And fortunately, I'm being rather civil given your unwillingness to acknowledge anything but your white noise statements.

As a citizen, I'm stating that your selfish view of the fabricated conflict is just that...made up to get a rise without facts or support other than from a few extreme "followers". Even your "fellow" skiers think there is abundant land and access to the wilderness and even workable solutions to this WMC generated controversy.

Now, if you want to answer direct questions, then we can be "civil" and converse openly and BI-DIRECTIONAL....I'm not going to stand for you to make your statements and not participate in the give and take without calling you out on it. So, really it's your choice....I can get more abusive, easily, but prefer to work on a real strategy given I care for the BC user of any form to enjoy the area as much as I do and hopefully my kids will.

If the meetings with FS are formal and an actual comment period then I think it should be widely known. Is it a comment period?

You are fighting for your "history" and I'm fighting for my kids future. The ball is in your court.

yammadog said:

If the meetings with FS are formal and an actual comment period then I think it should be widely known. Is it a comment period?

Click to expand...

Nope.. probably just walked in and started talking to them... like everyone else is able to do. Maybe they had an appointment too...