Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas (PART 5)

WMC · Jun 17, 2010

yammadog said:
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.

Sure, a reasonable request. For the sake of this discussion:

The original proposal for winter non-motorized designation-

This encompasses Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers in the Teanaway crest area. From Blewett Pass, the Wenatchee Mountains Crest from Rd 9716 to the west of Diamond Head across Tronsen Head, Mt. Lillian including down to the Old Ellensburg trail to Mission Peak and on to the Mission Ridge Road including Lake Clara, Mission Peak, and surrounding areas.

The proposal after collaboration in exchange for agreed concession to winter- non motorized use the areas of the proposal to the east of Longs Pass, and snowmobile-group monitoring of the Wilderness Boundary-

This encompasses the existing Voluntary Non-Motorized Area (Beverly-Bean) and Earl Peak to Navaho Peak (Stafford Creek per newtrouts proposal), and Three Brothers for the Teanaway crest area.

From Blewett Pass the Wenatchee Mountains Crest from Rd 9716 to the west of Diamond Head across Tronsen Head, Mt. Lillian including down to the Old Ellensburg trail to Mission Peak and on to the Mission Ridge Road including Lake Clara, Mission Peak, and surrounding areas.

Snowmobiles would continue to ride what we are told are the best areas at Longs Pass and Van Epps including Lake Ann. We have been told by our snowmobile contact that what we ask for from Blewett is mostly "ride through" country, the better riding is on the open slopes toward Lion Rock and into the Naneum, which connects to the Wenatchee Heights and Colockum. The area furthest east is on the border of the ski area has the best access from the Mission Ridge lot for snowshoe hikes and skiers.

Thanks for continuing the discussion.

WMC · Jun 17, 2010

WMC has called our contact and is waiting for a possible response in order to set up a collaborative meeting.

WMC is out of here for mountain biking, then WMC will be elsewhere for 5 days so there may be few or no posts for a while.

Thank you.

winter brew · Jun 17, 2010

My fear in conceding certain areas specifically for one user group.....if this happens, then all of a sudden 20 "other" groups see this and they all want "their" own area to use. It sounds like the areas of concern are those used by the members of WMC..??? What about the people that live 100+ miles away that want the same thing in "their" area? All of a sudden we (sledders) will be facing the loss of ALOT of riding areas (public lands) and it will go quicker and easier if a precedence is set by this.
The best (and only) idea I have heard that I would support is making easy access to existing Wilderness areas in MANY parts of the state. In most cases it is a matter of making a parking area in a convenient location and/or maintaining a road in the winter. This would give new terrain and easier access to ALL BC users, not just WMC. JMHO-

yammadog · Jun 17, 2010

winter brew said:
My fear in conceding certain areas specifically for one user group.....if this happens, then all of a sudden 20 "other" groups see this and they all want "their" own area to use. It sounds like the areas of concern are those used by the members of WMC..??? What about the people that live 100+ miles away that want the same thing in "their" area? All of a sudden we (sledders) will be facing the loss of ALOT of riding areas (public lands) and it will go quicker and easier if a precedence is set by this.
The best (and only) idea I have heard that I would support is making easy access to existing Wilderness areas in MANY parts of the state. In most cases it is a matter of making a parking area in a convenient location and/or maintaining a road in the winter. This would give new terrain and easier access to ALL BC users, not just WMC. JMHO-

Good point WB...certainly don't want to create an open season on getting areas closed and then the ongoing expansion in the future to close more and more....very challenging to address. I agree, creating better access is the most clear cut way of appeasing the various groups.

newtrout · Jun 17, 2010

WMC said:
This encompasses the existing Voluntary Non-Motorized Area (Beverly-Bean) and Earl Peak to Navaho Peak (Stafford Creek per newtrouts proposal), and Three Brothers for the Teanaway crest area.

Just to be clear, I certainly don't represent all snowmobilers in my suggested compromises. It was a personal suggestion, based on the consistent, repeated Wilderness poaching by riders coming in from the Blewett side (through Stafford into Wilderness).

I'm surprised that none of that group has chimed in, yet. They were quite vocal when that issue has been brought up in the past.

CleElum Sledhead · Jun 18, 2010

I have not, and do not plan to, read all of the past posts on this issue on Snowest. Most volunteer SAWS reps such as myself, are far too busy with their full time real jobs and families, and also in their free time looking at “current” real issues to get too excited about WMC’s many comments (I may have not seen something relevant on this thread, don’t think I did), but if they have an alliance with Winter Wildlands Alliance, there is no reason for any of you snowmobilers to waste your time and energy talking with WMC. Seriously now, go look at the WWA website. These folks want to end all snowmobiling period!

We few SAWS Reps cannot follow every forum in the US were someone without valid data to back their opinions, wants to complain and expect a response, and we won’t.

For what it is worth, nothing much will happen in this area until the forest plan revision is complete. This revision was started in around 2003, and release of the DEIS has been slid several times. The DEIS was suppose to be released March 2010, but has been slid again. I have been vocal since the beginning opposing closures in these areas during and after the public scoping comment period. I am positive that some of these snowmobile areas will be recommended for wilderness or other closures to snowmobilers, and unfortunately there was very few public input from snowmobilers opposing this. When the DEIS is released, I can assure you that SAWS will study the proposal and issue another alert.

SAWS is proud of the fact that we take the position that we have enough designated wilderness areas, and that we do not see a need for anymore “exclusive use” areas period. We have said in the past that we are “acceptable” to the current amount of designated wilderness, but that has now started to fade with the increase of about 5 million additional acres of wilderness since we formed SAWS in August 2004. SAWS still does not support snowmobilers entering currently designated wilderness areas.

It seems that some groups never learned to play together, so they want to be left alone in their own little playground with only friends they play well with. That is too bad, because we are talking about “public lands”, not “exclusive private lands”.

There are gangs in Seattle with this same “exclusive private lands” thought pattern. If you do not agree with my colors, ethnic group, or politics for that matter, they would just rather eliminate you from their “area”. It would be nice to not see that attitude continue to be encouraged by a “few” on our public lands.

But if that is the desire in Wenatchee National Forest (WNF), I would be more than happy to agree that motorized and non-motorized could “compromise”; but I am talking a real compromise where each side agrees to give and take. Not just the normal compromise were snowmobilers agree to lose x number of acres that some like to call a compromise. If so, my proposed deal is we separate uses for those that cannot share, and leave areas open for those that can share.

My proposal:

1/3 of WNF would become non-motorized only. I think we all know what that means. And yes, this includes non-motorized wilderness areas. Since wilderness IS a non-motorized use area, it would be insane to leave these areas out of the equation.

1/3 of WNF would become motorized only. This concept might be new to those folks that do not play well together. These areas would mean “no non-motorized recreation” is allowed. See how the “exclusive” agenda can work for both sides? If non-motorized users were not allowed in the motorized areas, which includes most of the nice groomed trails snowmobilers pay for, they couldn't complain about our presence where they want "quiet" recreation.

1/3 of WNF would be “shared use” for those that can get along..

Deal? I bet not.

I do not plan on monitoring this thread frequently so that I can respond to every little rant from WMC, because I already know what WMC’s answer will be. But at least now I hope the SAWS position is clear for all.

Carry on - excuse my little interruption.

WMC · Jun 18, 2010

CleElum Sledhead said:
I have not, and do not plan to, read all of the past posts on this issue on Snowest. Most volunteer SAWS reps such as myself, are far too busy with their full time real jobs and families, and also in their free time looking at “current” real issues to get too excited about WMC’s many comments (I may have not seen something relevant on this thread, don’t think I did), but if they have an alliance with Winter Wildlands Alliance, there is no reason for any of you snowmobilers to waste your time and energy talking with WMC. Seriously now, go look at the WWA website. These folks want to end all snowmobiling period!

We few SAWS Reps cannot follow every forum in the US were someone without valid data to back their opinions, wants to complain and expect a response, and we won’t.

For what it is worth, nothing much will happen in this area until the forest plan revision is complete. This revision was started in around 2003, and release of the DEIS has been slid several times. The DEIS was suppose to be released March 2010, but has been slid again. I have been vocal since the beginning opposing closures in these areas during and after the public scoping comment period. I am positive that some of these snowmobile areas will be recommended for wilderness or other closures to snowmobilers, and unfortunately there was very few public input from snowmobilers opposing this. When the DEIS is released, I can assure you that SAWS will study the proposal and issue another alert.

SAWS is proud of the fact that we take the position that we have enough designated wilderness areas, and that we do not see a need for anymore “exclusive use” areas period. We have said in the past that we are “acceptable” to the current amount of designated wilderness, but that has now started to fade with the increase of about 5 million additional acres of wilderness since we formed SAWS in August 2004. SAWS still does not support snowmobilers entering currently designated wilderness areas.

It seems that some groups never learned to play together, so they want to be left alone in their own little playground with only friends they play well with. That is too bad, because we are talking about “public lands”, not “exclusive private lands”.

There are gangs in Seattle with this same “exclusive private lands” thought pattern. If you do not agree with my colors, ethnic group, or politics for that matter, they would just rather eliminate you from their “area”. It would be nice to not see that attitude continue to be encouraged by a “few” on our public lands.

But if that is the desire in Wenatchee National Forest (WNF), I would be more than happy to agree that motorized and non-motorized could “compromise”; but I am talking a real compromise where each side agrees to give and take. Not just the normal compromise were snowmobilers agree to lose x number of acres that some like to call a compromise. If so, my proposed deal is we separate uses for those that cannot share, and leave areas open for those that can share.

My proposal:

1/3 of WNF would become non-motorized only. I think we all know what that means. And yes, this includes non-motorized wilderness areas. Since wilderness IS a non-motorized use area, it would be insane to leave these areas out of the equation.

1/3 of WNF would become motorized only. This concept might be new to those folks that do not play well together. These areas would mean “no non-motorized recreation” is allowed. See how the “exclusive” agenda can work for both sides? If non-motorized users were not allowed in the motorized areas, which includes most of the nice groomed trails snowmobilers pay for, they couldn't complain about our presence where they want "quiet" recreation.

1/3 of WNF would be “shared use” for those that can get along..

Deal? I bet not.

I do not plan on monitoring this thread frequently so that I can respond to every little rant from WMC, because I already know what WMC’s answer will be. But at least now I hope the SAWS position is clear for all.

Carry on - excuse my little interruption.

WMC states here on Snowest its only goals. If we can collaborate and agree, we would also agree no more seeking of non-motorized areas by WMC. WMC would agree to advocate to protect the snowmobile riding in the discussed area if we get some non-motorized area and similar support from your side. After that, WMC wants to move on to Sno Parks as we discussed, and maintain our respective areas for use as discussed. In other words, if we can collaborate so that some new non-motorized areas are created in areas called here less desirable, and we concede areas that are identified by snowmobile riders here as the best, that could be win-win that would be a tremendous boost for snowmobile riders in status in the general community. WMC then would have what we went after, and would try to ally with snowmobile interests to maintain motorized and non-motorized recreation in those areas.

WWA does not tell WMC what to do. WWA posted our article on their Facebook and asked skiers to support WMC/ TSP. WMC states here and on Snowest its only goals. WMC does not want to end snowmobiling or do anything other than getting some areas designated as non-motorized for skiing. Again, the least desirable areas for snowmobile riding, but good for skiing, snowshoe hiking, and winter camping.

WMC does not seek and will not support any proposal for new Wilderness in the area that we describe. We seek the share in the Wenatchee Mountains that we describe, that share being described to us by a prominent person in the snowmobile industry as less desirable, some described as "ride through" country.

WMC believes that the Wilderness incursion situation can be controlled by efforts proposed here and by the designation of the primary area of the Wilderness incursions as winter non-motorized.

Mr Cle Elum Sledhead, if you wish you may pm me and I will let you know our contact in the snowmobile industry and you may discuss this with him.

A collaboration could benefit both of our interests. WMC is open- transparent- in regard to our purpose and agenda and will in collaboration enter agreements guaranteeing the above.

Thank you.

modsledr · Jun 18, 2010

WMC, I (and others) would like to know what is your definition of collaboration? So far, there have been numerous ideas presented and so far, your only answer is that you wish to close off your special area to snowmobiling. You have referenced "desirable and less desirable" many times...but defined by who? What if the areas you are advocating closing to snowmobiles are also the same areas we define and being most desirable?

I would guess if we came to you and said we want to close this area off to your particular use, you would fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.

Dont expect any of us to support or "collaborate" with your idea of creating a private playground for a few.

If you continue with the same rhetoric, then expect the same resistance.

ruffryder · Jun 19, 2010

Despite the different levels of cooperation and or collaboration with different members of the snowmobiler population, shouldn't we all agree that something needs to be done about Wilderness trespassing? Solving this issue is a part of the WMC proposal, and has been stated that constant Wilderness trespassing is a very bad thing from many people, including people in the FS that represent and help us. From a lot of people on this thread, all I have seen is lip service about this issue. "We don't approve of it"..(With respect to Wilderness) Is that all snowmobilers are going to say about it? Or say that it is the forest service's responsibility?

Whether you agree with any of the proposal or not, we snowmobilers need to start stepping it up and stopping the Wilderness incursions. Are we ready to stand up and do our part? Or is it someone else's job to be hold us responsible for our own actions..

Just some thoughts to try and keep this all in perspective...

WMC · Jun 19, 2010

modsledr said:
WMC, I (and others) would like to know what is your definition of collaboration? So far, there have been numerous ideas presented and so far, your only answer is that you wish to close off your special area to snowmobiling. You have referenced "desirable and less desirable" many times...but defined by who? What if the areas you are advocating closing to snowmobiles are also the same areas we define and being most desirable? How is that fighting everyone worked? Why is there the common statement that snowmobile riders continue to lose? That defiant approach, how's that working for you? How about trying citizens trying to talk, to fellow citizens each having a right to use the Forest, thus if one use destroys the other, management is needed.

I would guess if we came to you and said we want to close this area off to your particular use, you would fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.

Dont expect any of us to support or "collaborate" with your idea of creating a private playground for a few.

If you continue with the same rhetoric, then expect the same resistance.

The detailed discussion described a proposal that closed the entire crest to snowmobile riding. WMC wants some area, in the previous discussion we arrived at giving snowmobile riders the best riding in the area, and skiers get another area that snowmobile folks here and elsewhere tell us are less desirable. The reasons were 1) skiers/ snowshoers need a winter non-motorized area and 2) the ongoing extensive Wilderness trespass in that area would spoil any possible non-motorized area and is an unlawful activity that has worsened instead of improved even with attention and "lip service" among snowmobile riders.

The collaboration was that some of the thinking persons here began to acknowledge that there are other legitimate Forest users, actually the majority, to consider. Those thinking persons also realize the potential damage from the Wilderness trespass as seen from public flying in airplanes and I can assure you is well known and documented to a frightening extent. So in collaboration, if snowmobile riders control the Wilderness trespass and give skiers a small part, then WMC skiers will support snowmobilers keeping the good stuff.

The fact that some snowmobile riders do not "share" thus skiers and snowshoers are left with few places to avoid snowmobiles endangers your sport and will eventually harm it. The Wilderness trespass issue is simply a powder keg, a mass law-breaking that eventually could result in some solution that is unpleasant for all.

WMC would prefer this working together approach. However your "rep" apparently tells everyone here how to think? So if we cannot talk, WMC continues to try to fix this by shutting down that entire crest, using the arguments for USFS management and demonstrating the significant numbers of Forest users who are non-motorized. We will use our growing connections and relationships with important Organizations who may help shut down that crest, those folks not interested at all in working with you folks, to put it mildly. WMC are local folks who would prefer to reach out to snowmobile riders to work this out.

So without collaboration, WMC proceeds in a manner to force a solution. Meeting each other, understanding each other, engaging in give and take are preferable. WMC prefers to collaborate and cooperate with snowmobile riders for a solution here.

snowmobiler · Jun 19, 2010

"However your "rep" apparently tells everyone here how to think? "

hahaha.your not the sharpest tool in the shed?.most of human race thinks the forests should be open to everybody for all to enjoy.get up early for first tracks like everybody else does

ruffryder · Jun 19, 2010

snowmobiler said:
"However your "rep" apparently tells everyone here how to think? "

hahaha.your not the sharpest tool in the shed?.most of human race thinks the forests should be open to everybody for all to enjoy.get up early for first tracks like everybody else does

How many times do you have to say this before you realize there is more to this issue?

Please keep your derogatory comments to yourself...

WMC · Jun 19, 2010

Are all snowmobile riders talking and thinking alike? Does one organization speak for all like some General? Probably not. Same for skiers.

Skiers and snowshoe hikers do not have one spokesman. WMC does not speak for all skiers, we have a pretty good list of supporters, a collection of letters of support, but one person does not dictate and WMC does not dictate either.The three WMC Executive do not agree 100%, so we go with what we agree!

WMC is involved in a lot of discussion with our friends and acquaintences and find all sort of opinion. We go forward with something to try to solve the issues. WMC is here to try to reach some understanding and discussion with intent to forge whatever common ground is possible.

There are significant issues of providing for winter non-motorized use on the Forest, and of significant ongoing, documented, and widely known snowmobile Wilderness trespass.WMC is looking for solutions, prefers to work with snowmobile riders, with skiers and snowshoers, and with winter campers.

There is talk of a precedent above. We see two possibilities.

First, WMC continues to make the case to USFS, asks the Supervisor to please make a decision to solve these issues. As well, WMC continues to enlist support of larger Organizations, continues to speak to State and National level politicians about these issues, and the snowmobile community has not collaborated or input except for "no" and basically telling the majority uses that we have no need or right to use the non-Wilderness Forest (edit to add) without snowmobile traffic now riding nearly any slope.

Second, the best scenario is that we interact, understand each other, solve the Wilderness trespass problem together, then try to discuss how various users may be accomodated.In this scenario, snowmobile riders would have input and some control of the process, in a collaborative process.

Thank you.

mountainhorse · Jun 20, 2010

This section (PART 5) of this discussion has been continued in PART-6 for further reading and discussion.

Please CLICK HERE to continue reading and commenting.

Search

Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas (PART 5)

WMC

Banned

WMC

Banned

winter brew

Premium Member

yammadog

Free Member

newtrout

Well-known member

CleElum Sledhead

Free Member

WMC

Banned

modsledr

Well-known member

ruffryder

Well-known member

WMC

Banned

snowmobiler

Well-known member

ruffryder

Well-known member

WMC

Banned

mountainhorse

Well-known member

Similar threads