WMC, Please take a few moments to put forth YOUR personal feelings on NewTrout's proposal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas (PART 5)
- Thread starter mountainhorse
- Start date
- Status
I won't ever look at a goat the same after that comment. :face-icon-small-sho
Y
WMC, I think it would be helpful to see your proposal modify as the discussion goes along so as to move forward from challenge points with the end result a proposal that all could support. Perhaps a periodic proposal post to show modifications of agreed upon points. I'm sure you would agree that a level of trust needs to grow and this would help given the repetition of your previous reposting of the first version of proposal.
And if you were to listen to anyone with the sledders point of view, Newtrout is the guy.....he knows that area very well both winter and summer. With that intimate knowledge he can help you shape the proposal with the sledders perspective of the terrain in question.
And it may be below your effort in "working" with us, but the direct answers come about because we didn't see the answer in the previous pages on TAY or here, so direct answers to direct questions help.
Newtrout...glad you talked about yellow snow with the goats..I was worried you were going to pull an Ellensburg fun fact about goats and stumps or velcro gloves and sheep......:face-icon-small-sho
W
Plowing is a great idea in spring. When there was logging 20+ years ago, sometimes we could take advantage of plowed roads for logging jobs to get access to skiing. We have long discussed this, many of us skiers have talked about paying for the plowing etc. Not a done deal, there are other issues that will come up when this is proposed, but WMC would support this.
The concept for a future non-motorized Sno Park at Beverly TH is a fantastic idea- a big problem proposal, but that is a great concept! The area from there is now Voluntary Non-Motorized. Bean Cr basin is accessed from there, and is huge for skiers, for the Mountaineers groups- they even had a book about that area.
The compromise that I am seeing in this discussion is leaving from that Voluntary Non-motorized area from Beverly out to Van Epps open to snowmobiles with the agreed monitoring and closure if Wilderness violations occur. You folks are doing the right thing to confront that, that is the most damaging aspect of this entire discussion. For the purpose of WMC, if non-motorized areas are created by the Wilderness Boundary, but then snowmobiles are nearby riding the Wilderness then the non-motorized areas are not that. That is why control of that is fundamental here.
As far as leaving open Van Epps basin into the Jack Cr Wilderness basin, that is an issue perhaps. However, such a compromise as discussed here would leave open for snowmobiles up to Van Epps Pass, Lake Ann open, up to Longs Pass open, that would be we are told the most desirable riding, and also good for the hybrids to reach Longs and Van Epps to drop in to ski from there.
If the area from the Bean/Beverly current Voluntary closure were extended east to Brothers, that is great for skiing, snowshoeing, quiet winter camping. Some here have stated that is not as good for riding as to the west, and some here have stated that is a main area of entry for Wilderness snowmobile trespass.
Good discussion. Hang in there, lets keep this going.
Thank you.
W
OK, some other discussion...
Did you folks know that when hiking into the Enchantments (high basin across Ingalls) the long list of rules such as NO walking on vegetation also states campers/ hikers must urinate on rocks. That is because the goats lick the urine and tear up vegetation if there.
When camped there, first thing in the morning, probably 30 goats of all ages come walking on to the designated camp areas right up next to us and start licking the rocks! Funny, the goats are just right beside you there when you camp.
Last edited:
Y
W
WMC would support plowing the Road right now. The public comment period required will bring out the resistance about issues such as more dirt going into the NF Teanaway river, more traffic up the road, who knows. And there are the Road condition issues, will a mudhole situation be created, traffic issues, all these issues would need to be addressed and probably others. EDIT to add- If the Road got plowed in spring, then a warmup made it too muddy, it could then get closed and then neither vehicles or snowmobiles could go up the valley. But we are not against it, there are just things to consider.
As far as a Beverly Sno Park, the issues are getting the concept approved to improve the road and build the Sno Park, the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), the public comment period and expected resistance from some groups. Then if approved more EIS etc, USFS has to get the funding, contract to do the work, it could take a while. But I think that is a solid concept and we could work toward that AND we should try to get Blewett Sno Park plowed up to the larger summer Discovery Trail lot for more winter Sno Park parking.
Jack Cr is the head of the Icicle Drainage in Wilderness, that is where Van Epps basin is located- because of the former mines that area dips right into surrounding Wilderness. That is deep in Wilderness, there is a regular snowmobile riding pattern down Van Epps, up over Stuart Pass and into Ingalls. And that basin is right above the deepest part of Wilderness when coming up from Icicle on the Leavenworth side, so I wonder how USFS would see this.
Thanks.
Last edited:
W
The compromise that I am seeing in this discussion is leaving the area from the existing Voluntary Non-Motorized area from Beverly/Bean out to Van Epps open to snowmobiles with the agreed monitoring and closure if Wilderness violations occur. You folks are doing the right thing to confront that, that is the most damaging aspect of this entire discussion. For the purpose of WMC, if non-motorized areas are created by the Wilderness Boundary, but then snowmobiles are nearby riding the Wilderness then the non-motorized areas are not that. That is why control of that is fundamental here.
WMC would be pleased to try to work out something that provides for both user groups. If that evolves, then we could work toward the possibility of face to face meetings to get together on an agreement in regard to some areas for skiers and snowshoers or winter camping, such as the ones identified here as not the best snowmobile riding. At the same time, we see here the real possibility of a solution to also preserve the best of the Teanaway crest for snowmobiles, the area furthest from pedestrians. USFS would prefer such collaboration. If the new approach produces a solution for Wilderness snowmobile trespass, we all will benefit. I just emailed our snowmobile industry contact that we met about this possibility of a collaboration, and asked if that person could help mediate. WMC would be pleased to meet with that person and with other snowmobile interest folks to work something out that we both would agree.
Thanks for the discussion.
Last edited:
W
Good morning.
Projects to place signs are a fantastic and positive effort. However, placing signs is one smaller part of the discussion brought by the WMC proposal.
WMC is going forward to set up this discussed collaborative effort as was discussed here yesterday. We will be in contact with the person that we met who is in the snowmobile world and ask if he would facilitate a meeting to set up the collaboration as discussed with him and on this Forum yesterday. Such collaboration has been requested on both main Forum discussions since the inception of the WMC as posted on TAY. Now is the time to move forward with that effort.
Collaboration in this is the best approach for all sides. WMC has spent many hours in meet and greet meetings where we state our advocacy position. We see that the snowmobile advocates are well known and have regularly visited the folks who are required to manage for all of us, for all of our uses.
WMC understands that proper management for the balance of uses, and especially for the original uses engaged by the majority of Forest users is a requirement that will be brought to the forefront ahead of social connections and specific-interest pressure groups. That statement is inclusive of continuing snowmobile use as well as providing for winter non-motorized recreation that has been displaced by expanding snowmobile riding on the Forest.
Collaboration in this will benefit the snowmobile community, it will show citizens considering in good faith other Forest users.
Thank you.
Projects to place signs are a fantastic and positive effort. However, placing signs is one smaller part of the discussion brought by the WMC proposal.
WMC is going forward to set up this discussed collaborative effort as was discussed here yesterday. We will be in contact with the person that we met who is in the snowmobile world and ask if he would facilitate a meeting to set up the collaboration as discussed with him and on this Forum yesterday. Such collaboration has been requested on both main Forum discussions since the inception of the WMC as posted on TAY. Now is the time to move forward with that effort.
Collaboration in this is the best approach for all sides. WMC has spent many hours in meet and greet meetings where we state our advocacy position. We see that the snowmobile advocates are well known and have regularly visited the folks who are required to manage for all of us, for all of our uses.
WMC understands that proper management for the balance of uses, and especially for the original uses engaged by the majority of Forest users is a requirement that will be brought to the forefront ahead of social connections and specific-interest pressure groups. That statement is inclusive of continuing snowmobile use as well as providing for winter non-motorized recreation that has been displaced by expanding snowmobile riding on the Forest.
Collaboration in this will benefit the snowmobile community, it will show citizens considering in good faith other Forest users.
Thank you.
S
"displaced".BS.
Y
I'm thinking we should be picking the person that represents our points in these discussions. Unless you wish to identify the person or at what level they are within the sledding community, then I find it hard to support your position in the meeting without some level of confidence that we will be properly represented and not pushed over by your fervor. After all, you wouldn't vote for a representative in your government without knowing who they are.....right?!
Show us your good faith in posting your complete and modified proposal, the connection to this snowmobile person from our point and when the public meeting is to be held and then I think it could move forward with support.
You will need to remember that the folks involved in this discussion total maybe 30 on the forums to help shape anything. Although each of us is involved with the clubs, associations and industry at some level, this proposal or suggestion has not made it beyond these forum walls to the greater population. If you wish for us to support and advocate this position to the greater group, then we will need that information. Who, what, where, when as they say. Still need a revised map and descriptions of the "wish" list.
show us the good faith you have been suggesting you stand behind....
Last edited:
Can we select a person that reflects WMC's view?...I have JUST the right person, REALLY!
Y
LOL....everyone knows, even the skiers, you can't trust a skidoo guy....:face-icon-small-win:face-icon-small-sho:face-icon-small-hap
W
The WMC proposal is controversial and perhaps offensive to folks here because it would displace snowmobile riders from areas prized for riding. WMC is continuing to attempt collaboration, where give and take would adjust the displacement felt by each interest group as much as possible, in compromise.
Continuing our respective efforts on a competing path only strengthens the possibility of developments that will harm all of us.
WMC seeks this collaboration, if we both can recognize the other's legitimate uses and try to reach out to accomodate the other use to some extent, we all will be better off in the end.
Thank you.
W
Not what we are saying. We want you guys and your organization, WSSA, or whomever it is to represent your views. We want to use our contact to set up and referee the meeting, since he is within snowmobile interests and not supporting the WMC proposal, but we trust him.
Thank you.
Y
WMC, you're not going to win everyone and I think it best if you simply pass by the challenge to provoke your deep emotional need to respond to comments that are not productive. Please stay on the path and continue with the discussion that makes sense and move forward. We know your motivations in creating an opposition, just like us, don't respond to the more extreme side of the groups....from ours and yours(md2020 on TAY)
W
OK, thanks. I am not real sure what comments I make are stirring you up, but I will try to take it easy and keep this thing on track. I am not trying to ramp up the argument on purpose. I walk in here talking about something that is controversial, sorry and thanks for putting up with this, but I truly hope that we can try to collaborate here.
Thank you.
Ive spent alot of time reading this thread and trying to understand WMC's position..I somewhat understand, although disagree you need a spot that is not wilderness, Is that not what the wilderness designation is for??
Here is an idea.. Have all your ski buddies purchase some type of license.. much like us snowmobilers and off road enthusiast do. from that you can use the money to leverage a new road/plowing into somewhere you feel suitable for your use. Why should the state pay for it??
Snow parks are paid for by the sledders from resources collected by our tabs, not from the tags on our trucks etc, or the tags from the Subaru's that poach our snow parks.
Here is an idea.. Have all your ski buddies purchase some type of license.. much like us snowmobilers and off road enthusiast do. from that you can use the money to leverage a new road/plowing into somewhere you feel suitable for your use. Why should the state pay for it??
Snow parks are paid for by the sledders from resources collected by our tabs, not from the tags on our trucks etc, or the tags from the Subaru's that poach our snow parks.
W
Thanks for commenting here.
As above the concept of new Road-plowing and a new Sno Park for non-motorized users to access a corridor (that already exists) to Wilderness has been approved all-around in theory. WMC will support that, it will take years if ever approved to be in place.
As in a lot of the discussion. Wilderness is mostly not accessible for pedestrians except in very few places. Snowmobiles are now going nearly everywhere, and we observe snowmobiles expanding onto new terrain constantly. As a result, our "stashes' or areas that we ski and have co-existed for years with snowmobiles are now getting tracked and rutted. So we are asking for a share on non-Wilderness Forest. Our proposal total is less that 10% of the acreage available to snowmobiles in the County, but clearly perhaps the best, so that is the problem.
In a great discussion about collaborating, WMC is considering giving up part of the proposal- the best part for snowmobile riding we are told. That area is also desired by hybrid skiers/ boarders for access to Mt Stuart and the Wilderness north slopes. In exchange, snowmobile riders are stepping up to help with Wilderness intrusion that harms us all. Also, WMC asks that we get some new winter non-motorized area in the area identified by snowmobile riders here as less desirable, and the area closer to the car for non-motorized folks. USFS will get help with the Wilderness incursion, if we collaborate and compromise to a solution, then USFS will not need to deal with our individual demands. And importantly for snowmobile riders, when we get a share and Wilderness incursion is controlled, we will not have issues about snowmobile riding to bring to USFS and you all can just let 'er rip in your areas. Sounds like possible win-win all around.
Thanks for commenting.
Last edited:
Y
CC'd from TAY...
Lay it out here for all to see, say in a final rough draft. I'm certain that the changes will be noticed and more refinement could be made. I'm also certain that the WSSA letter was in response to the first version of your proposal.
The resason for the completed "rough draft" is to encapsulate your proposal without reading endless pages from 2 forums and trying to piece together the modifications. This could be used as the tool to continue refinement and get out to the interested parties before a meeting with usfs, so the burden on their shoulders is reduced to a rubber stamp effect, although we still have yet to see the public comment response.
Lay it out here for all to see, say in a final rough draft. I'm certain that the changes will be noticed and more refinement could be made. I'm also certain that the WSSA letter was in response to the first version of your proposal.
The resason for the completed "rough draft" is to encapsulate your proposal without reading endless pages from 2 forums and trying to piece together the modifications. This could be used as the tool to continue refinement and get out to the interested parties before a meeting with usfs, so the burden on their shoulders is reduced to a rubber stamp effect, although we still have yet to see the public comment response.
- Status
Similar threads
