Proposed Forest Plan released and it's UGLY

Thanks for the report and all of the work you've done to try to keep these areas open, unfortunately it's already gone. I think it's time to stop fighting amongst ourselves about who makes the best sled and start banding together as a group and start fighting for our sport. It's not going to matter what brand you ride, if you have nowhere to ride it. Thanks again for fighting the fight that so many sledders just avoid and ride, time to get involved.

Recreation Road Shutdowns

Not to mention that the forest service is not going to repair forest service roads that have been washed out due to flooding as a result of a large amount of rainfall and snowmelt as a few of the forest service roads in the little naches areas experienced a couple of months ago. I own a cabin in the gold creek area just east of Whistlin Jacks. Gold Creek, Rock Creek, Milk Creek roads are closed due to washouts. I am a member of the Chinook Pass Cabin Homeowners Association and we had our spring meeting the weekend of June 25-26. We had a Forest Service guest speaker talk to us about all sorts of issues that they have and answer questions that we all had at the meeting. I brought up the question of forest service road repair as i use gold creek and milk creek roads during winter snowmobiling and summer dirtbike riding and fall hunting. The Forest Service rep stated that they do not have any budget to repair any roads at this time and that all roads closures will be looked at and addressed on a needed basis. All road closures will be blocked with jersey like barriers with signage and all closures will be strickly enforced with heavy fines. Thought i would pass this on to all who use those recreation areas. This is another way for the FS to put a stop to those of us who use those areas responsibly. Just another way for the forest service to pose thier agenda's of keeping people out of the woods IMO.

Newtrout,

I know that you have put it a ton of effort into this already, but do you think you could reference the sections of the proposal more directly as well as figures and maps, and locations more directly.

It could be used easily by others in writing their responses / comments to the FS for those that ride the area, but might not have the knowledge of the locations that you do.

WMC was here last year, attempting dialogue with snowmobile enthusiasts. WMC asked for meeting between user groups, and arranged for our state Rep to moderate such a meeting, and was encouraged by OWNF Supervisor Heath to have such a meeting and "include us" (USFS). No one from the snowmobile side wanted to meet and talk formally about other winter Forest users and issues with winter recreation on the Forest. Such dialogue is still wanted, such meetings of various winter Forest users would be valuable and could occur.

WMC has advocated for management, WMC did not ask for Wilderness. WMC has offered ideas of compromise so that some areas would be open for snowmobiles, some closed to snowmobiles, and collaboration between user groups used to solve issues such as snowmobiles in Wilderness and lobby for new or improved Sno Parks.

Proposal 1-

http://www.justgetout.net/ClientFile...oposal 1.pdf

Proposal 2-

http://www.justgetout.net/ClientFile...oposal 2.pdf

Proposal 3-

http://www.justgetout.net/ClientFile...oposal 3.pdf

The OWNF Draft Forest Plan Revision was released yesterday, with parts of the Teanaway as recommended Wilderness.

(Below from TAY http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing...91283#msg91283)


Wenatchee Mountains Coalition has advocated for the past 14 months for USFS designation of significant winter non-motorized areas along the pristine crest of the Wenatchee Mountains. The WMC Proposal included the area from Mission Ridge Ski Area to Blewett Pass Hwy 97, and a second area that is the Ingalls-Teanaway crest roughly from Van Epps Pass to Three Brothers and south to the NF Teanaway Rd. Our Proposal became three in discussion of possible collaboration between user groups. Our goal was management so that significant areas would be closed to snowmobiles, and in Proposal 2 and 3 more of the area was to be left for snowmobile access aside from non-motorized areas.

The map " Forest Plan Revision Proposed Management Areas Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest" shows "Wilderness- Preliminary Administrative Recommended" is the designation for the area from the Teanaway-Ingalls crest down to the NF Teanaway Rd.

The map below from the USFS website-

Forest Plan Revision Proposed Management Areas
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5312317.pdf


Other statements from the Proposed Action section-


We believe this statement to be inaccurate- "increased participation in specific activities such as snowmobiling." Snowmobile registrations decreased from around 36,000 to 33,000 last season in Washington, according to an article on WSSA Snoflyer. We are certain that the majority of winter off-road Forest users are skiers, snowshoers, winter campers, winter non-motorized users. We are certain that this majority is increasing as well.

Under "Trail Management" in the next 15 years, "Provide five additional non-motorized settings readily available to non-motorized winter recreationists distributed across the southern half of the Forest."

The extension of the Wilderness down to the NF Teanaway Rd will include roadless area that will provide winter non-motorized recreation opportunities in an area that is popular with skiers after the snowmobile riding stops in spring. If designated as Wilderness, the area will provide quiet and untrammeled self-powered recreation opportunities in winter. Although not what WMC advocated, the area we are told has proven "unmanageable," the area is deserving of Wilderness status because of the pristine character and will in the end benefit skiers, snowshoers and winter campers.

The Draft Forest Plan Revision avoids otherwise, to our knowledge and at first glance, avoids reasonable management of snowmobile riding and provision for winter non-motorized recreation. It is our hope that some of the designations will allow for creation of winter non-motorized areas. Sadly, the question was avoided for the past 15 years in the Forest Plan and is not strongly addressed yet again. We will remind again that the huge expansion of off-road snowmobile riding on the Wenatchee Mountains in the past 20 years roughly has occurred without USFS designation, intent, study, or reasonable consideration. These areas were never "given" for snowmobile recreation in a manner similar to other Forest uses designation, such expansion occurred by default of management. Therefore we need individual comments asking that offroad snowmobile riding be studied and designated to satisfy the NEPA process, something that has never occurred.

We are here (on TAY) to encourage skiers to send comments to USFS in the next 60 days. Please be specific about certain areas that you may want to be managed for winter non-motorized use. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/forest-plan/

Thank you.

WMC, if you are going to engage people on here, please do so with something else then repeated posts, copy and pasting, or your usual rhetoric.

Thanks

ruffryder said:

WMC, if you are going to engage people on here, please do so with something else then repeated posts, copy and pasting, or your usual rhetoric.

Thanks

Click to expand...

You may ask why is WMC here? Trying to get us to talk.

Ruffer- more censorship? More attack, more of the "no", the Cle Elum Sledhead anger? How are those strategies working out for ya? Do others just fold up and quit because of aggressive language- no- what about trying to have dialogue with others?

What about trying to respect others, even though you may disagree, and trying honest dialogue? It seems that 'your' side has gone for all-or-nothing...indeed.

USFS is paralyzed in some ways by motorized-interests litigation and political influence. On the other extreme are the annoying enviro initiatives and lawsuits. What about finding the middle ground, citizens connecting with each other, finding solutions? There is good indication that USFS could work with such collaboration!

Perhaps I need to explain, in my experience in all of this advocacy, 'your' side best hope may be in finding a compromise through collaboration and implementing ideas successfully together to control the Wilderness trespass and share the resources. It will take years for and if/when Congress passes the Law to make the Teanaway part of Alpine Lakes Wilderness. In the interim, meaning starting now, if collaboration provided solutions then that could be used to show the land is appropriate to be left out of Wilderness. In that interim there is no guarantee that snomos get to continue to ride, it could change per Cle Elum Sledhead's post.

Or 'your' side could just throw disrespect at this side, try to scare folks away, write lots of letters- but wait, it is well known what the letters will express before even being written!

As you all like to say, public land is for all of the public, and WMC agrees. We need to talk and try to find some middle ground rather than just all-or-nothing.

WMC,

No one in censoring you, or attacking. I was just asking that if you are going to post here, be at least a little respectful to our intelligence levels and post something original and sincere..

So I ask you again, if you are going to come on to Snowest, I would appreciate it if you post something other then copy and pastes and cross posts.

It would also be appreciated if you would not make every washington land use thread about the WMC. We are snowmobilers, and while you are free to state your opinion, repeating your opinion on every thread that deals with land use looks like trolling and is a distraction to the issues at hand.

Thanks

ruffryder said:

WMC,

No one in censoring you, or attacking. I was just asking that if you are going to post here, be at least a little respectful to our intelligence levels and post something original and sincere..

So I ask you again, if you are going to come on to Snowest, I would appreciate it if you post something other then copy and pastes and cross posts.

It would also be appreciated if you would not make every washington land use thread about the WMC. We are snowmobilers, and while you are free to state your opinion, repeating your opinion on every thread that deals with land use looks like trolling and is a distraction to the issues at hand.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Again, we should form a collaborative discussion- and not just with this poster, WMC will bring in relevant folks as will your side. Our State Rep will host it, he is pro-snowmobile, USFS wants to be there. We have been told fairly directly that such collaborative solutions could be implemented.

Edit to add- I registered two snowmobiles last season, one was new. I rode about 700 miles. I rode offroad about 30 different days. I am not a hardcore highmarker, probably a lame rider, but I am a snowmobile rider over 25 years.

Original, sincere? We have many supporters and Organizations supporting this, but I am the author of the WMC Proposal. Whether coincidence or whatever, the Proposed Wilderness in the Teanaway is similar to the WMC Proposal 1. As I answered you a year ago, the purpose of WMC is not to get new Wilderness, or take away all from snowmobiles. WMC wants management of snowmobiles and would be pleased to have some areas of the Teanaway for snowmobiles and some for skiers/ non-motorized, and a solid plan to stop the snomo Wilderness incursion. But we get it, you guys fear losing anything. Well, we feel we have lost a lot of quiet, untrammeled mountain opportunities in the past 20 years to expanding snowmobile riding, no NEPA process, no public discussion, no designation to allow that- pretty shaky.

Although the Wilderness designation will help skiing when implemented, WMC does not see that as our preferred choice. WMC believes that public land is for public use, yet believes that management of 'winter travel' and 'winter recreation' is needed.

These issues across the US seem now to be stalemated, lawsuits back and forth, plenty of unhappiness and battles. If citizens could discuss and reach collaborative solutions worthy of implementation, we would lead the entire US on these issues.

Really no intention on this Forum other than to try to set up this dialogue, talk through our differences, try to understand the other side.

In opposition our sides amount to little, together in collaboration we could make a difference.

The facts are the facts regardless of who cross posts what, talks in 3rd person about themselves and here-says this and that.

Looks like we got all the information we need in order to fight for our rights, but then again, it looks like quite the uphill battle.

WMC said:

Again, we should form a collaborative discussion- and not just with this poster, WMC will bring in relevant folks as will your side. Our State Rep will host it, he is pro-snowmobile, USFS wants to be there. We have been told fairly directly that such collaborative solutions could be implemented.

Sounds like this meeting needs to be scheduled, however too late it may be, it looks like this discussion could hold more good than harm for the future.

Well, we feel we have lost a lot of quiet, untrammeled mountain opportunities in the past 20 years to expanding snowmobile riding, no NEPA process, no public discussion, no designation to allow that- pretty shaky.

You haven't lost any land, but yes skiers have less easily accessible untracked area than they did 20 yrs ago. Unfortunately I can't argue with that, I don't think any skier or snowmobiler can, but I think you'll find that these days everything is getting overcrowded including the forest. I still think you need to do as everyone else does in this world and try exploring some new zones.

It sucks that more people are skiing and snowmobiling in your preferred zone, but in reality you're pretty much just catering to yourself and a few others for your own gain. I feel like a much better approach is to simply talk to snowmobilers in your area and ask them kindle not to ride certain small zones. I think you'd get a similar outcome, avoid all the work you're doing, make new friends and work to bring two communities together without being a "taker."

When we sled and ski in particular areas at snoqualmie pass we constantly are talking to locals, hikers and skiers, figuring out their wants and working to help each other. Maybe you should do the same. The amount of snowmobile traffic in this particular area has increased drastically in the last 5 years and the local skiers don't like it a whole lot. It's actually probably more drastic than your precious zone, but since you don't ski there, you don't give a flying eff. This is how I know your whole proposal and agenda is bull, you aren't helping and speaking for the user group. You're speaking for your selfish ***.

Although the Wilderness designation will help skiing when implemented, WMC does not see that as our preferred choice.

Word, you don't see it as your preferred choice most likely cause you want to use a sled to access these areas as well. Except your sled isn't capable of getting you to the top of the mountain, so you must skin up. Then crap, you've spent an hour skinning up and the rest of the winter enthusiasts have shredded the pow already. Being a skier I totally understand where you're coming from, but this is America, if you want some fresh lines or a pristine mountain to shred then go find it. There's plenty out there. You've seen an increase in sledding in your area because of this concept.

My second thought is where does it end? Further down the road will it actually help skiers? Maybe, but a small chance you'll be kicked out as well. Parts of the North Cascades are already heading towards restricted to what we consider low impact; skiing, hiking, biking, horseback, etc. IIRC, not sure if that proposal has hit a road block or is on track though.

These issues across the US seem now to be stalemated, lawsuits back and forth, plenty of unhappiness and battles. If citizens could discuss and reach collaborative solutions worthy of implementation, we would lead the entire US on these issues.

In opposition our sides amount to little, together in collaboration we could make a difference.

Collaboration is a great idea. However, what happens if you continue to restrict snowmobiling areas? You're still gonna have the few riders who ignore that, and you're still gonna be pissed off cause your pow is tracked out. No one is going to actually stop those people from riding in the restricted area (no actual management), and you've just wasted a bunch of tax payer dollars while continuing to increase the impact on lands designated as motorized by increasing density.

One major flaw with your whole proposal is that word "management." Who the hell do you think is going to manage our motorized and non motorized areas? Are the existing non-motorized areas being managed right now? NOPE. Just look at the wilderness boundary in the teanaway. In this particular case your bull**** word could be substituted for any truthful term like, restrictions.

I really don't understand what you legitimately plan to accomplish with your proposal. In reality it doesn't make a positive long lasting difference to any major user group. You're talking about changing the designation of an area for the benefit of the few. What is this difference you speak of? Also, on any given weekend day how many non-motorized users are in these areas vs. Motorized?

Click to expand...

I hope that didn't come off too harsh.... I don't mean to stir it up too much, just wanted to state my opinion.

BTW, thanks for posting that information here Newtrout. I think I had seen it in the Land Use section, but was having trouble getting to some of the specific information regarding impact to our areas.

This definitely sucks.

How can I join WMC ? Is anyone welcome to join and how many members are there currently?

Whatever. Some guys feel the need to make personal attacks instead of discussing like a man.

From my view we can either try to get the proposed Wilderness closed completely next year, or we could try to collaborate with you guys. WMC exists and has facilitated a fairly significant coalition behind the scenes that supports many of these ideas. I am the one here trying to have a conversation since others on this side think it is a waste of time. We offer respect and discussion of our differences and get what in return?

kartorium said:

I hope that didn't come off too harsh.... I don't mean to stir it up too much, just wanted to state my opinion.

Click to expand...

Well kid, as they say, I was skiing these peaks when you were pissin' your diapers. As well, I was skiing these peaks before snowmobiles went up there, as were others that I know. My new snomo could go to the summits, but I am not interested, like some guys here are not interested in skitouring. Besides I am often hauling people to go skiing. And I am not here saying snomos should not have any high summits or offroad terrain. But I am trying to point out the issues, and trying to convince you guys to discuss and collaborate.

It could be too late, but discussion and collaboration could help us all. USFS just does not want to deal with this. We were not asking for Wilderness and are not aware of other Organizations really going after it. But we suspect the pressure to control snowmobiles in Wilderness was a factor here.

WMC said:

Well kid, as they say, I was skiing these peaks when you were pissin' your diapers. As well, I was skiing these peaks before snowmobiles went up there, as were others that I know. My new snomo could go to the summits, but I am not interested, like some guys here are not interested in skitouring. Besides I am often hauling people to go skiing. And I am not here saying snomos should not have any high summits or offroad terrain. But I am trying to point out the issues, and trying to convince you guys to discuss and collaborate.

So, the issue(s) are; You don't like snowmobiles in your backyard cause they track out your slopes. How do you collaborate on a solution? Talk to these riders in your local area, and come to an agreement. Every once in a while you'll find someone new is riding there exploring new terrain. When you see them, have a friendly chat, let them know where you are planning to ski, and figure out some boundaries for that day. Maybe stop in to the local snowmobile shops and clubs and ask them to please stop and chat with you and other local skiers when they are seen.

I'll tell you right now, if I see you (or any other skier) out in the teanaway or near mission I'll stop and say hi and get the low down. Not only that but it might prove helpful in an emergency.

It could be too late, but discussion and collaboration could help us all. USFS just does not want to deal with this. We were not asking for Wilderness and are not aware of other Organizations really going after it. But we suspect the pressure to control snowmobiles in Wilderness was a factor here.

Click to expand...

You hardly ever actually answer the questions that are seriously asked though, which makes it hard for us.

It seems like you got my points. However, have you ever actually tried to talk to a snowmobiler in your particular area without coming off as a pompous dickhead? This isn't a joke either (surprisingly it is really easy to come off as a dickhead, as you've probably seen from my posts), all it usually takes is a friendly "hello" and a nice conversation and all the sudden you've accomplished exactly what all your hard work on the internet has in a matter of seconds. Not to mention the people you talk to in the field, guess what? They are the same people that frequent that particular area as often as you.... Over and over, weekly throughout the season. Since you are more concerned about your particular zone than the user group as a whole, maybe you should start with this and work on collaborating at the base level.

Part of the reason these issues come up is because folks don't just go say hi and communicate. There might be isolated instances where that doesn't work, but for the most part it does. The other part, maybe just good old fashion hatred between groups.

Suspecting that pressure to control snomo's in the wilderness was part of the issue? So the logic is to make more of the area that people actually snowmobile in right now wilderness, in the real world that just means more people are going to break that boundary. Both unknowingly and knowingly. Doesn't seem like a great solution to me. Maybe if the FS was actually writing tickets and they were trying to generate extra revenue.....

I bet there are plenty of ways to help you "gain" back some skiing ground without just completely restricting whole regions. The idea of communicating with sledders you see in the mountains is one of the best ways I'd say.