Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas (PART 7)

WMC · Jul 14, 2010

huFfer said:
I do respect others rational views.

As I stated earlier, there are over 4.5 million acres in Washington State set aside just for that serene enjoyment. The difficult access complaint is weak. Many remote areas of the wilderness are visited by climbers and skiers every year and really none of the wilderness boundaries bordering the areas you want closed are all that far, with a bit of planning and effort. Snowmobilers have a mere fraction of that area available and your goal is to further reduce that amount. With that I have issues and we part ways...

There have been comments in this long discussion about snowmobile riders inconvenienced by driving further, about access for the less-able on snowmobiles. Why the double standard? Should not a variety of non-motorized users have some reasonable access (YES!). Snowmobile riders originally fought and won access and grooming for their sport, non-motorized users are likewise looking for their share to be restored after expansion of snowmobile use to new areas constantly.

The Wilderness arithmetic is mentioned quite often. I believe the number established by ruffryder is 40% Wilderness in the Forest. That leaves 60%. WMC is asking for a few percent in collaboration to perhaps 8% in all-or-nothing competition of the non-Wilderness in the County to set aside for designated winter non-motorized use. The clear majority of Forest users do not ride snowmobiles much less ride modern $12k machines for high-marking. Check that arithmetic, it does not add up except to snowmobile riders' advantage! Share? Never give an inch is more like it in this discussion. USFS has long ago established existing winter non-motorized areas. Was that wrong, should you guys be going after those areas for snowmobile use (aside from the usual trespass)?

WMC is advocating for something that helps others and ourselves. We know where to go to ski, but we see the shrinking available Forest terrain taken by snowmobiles.

Thanks. Out for a while.

mountainhorse · Jul 14, 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruffryder View Post
It is a shame those places don't have Wilderness like Washington state does...
Say what?...

Sawtooth Wilderness
The spectacular beauty and solitude of the 217,000 acre Sawtooth Wilderness is experienced by people from all parts of the country. It is considered the "crown jewel" of the Gem State. First protected in 1937 as a "Primative Area," the rugged Sawtooth Wilderness was officially created by Congress in 1972. The Sawtooth Wilderness is exceptional in scenic beauty and is characterized by high granitic peaks and narrow glacial valleys. The Wilderness is comprised of hundeds of jagged peaks, 50 over 10,000 feet in height, with nearly 400 high alpine lakes dotting the predominantly rocky terrain. Also hidden within its boundaries are deep, secluded valleys covered with enormous stands of trees. These mountains hold the headwaters of the North Fork and Middle Fork of the Boise River, the South Fork of the Payette River and contributes significantly to the headwaters of the Salmon River. Nearly 350 miles of trails provide a wide range of routes and many of the high lake basins do not have constructed trails to reach them. The hiking season is short. Alpine wildflowers bring the high meadows alive with color in the months of July and August. An abundant population of wildlife thrives upon the lush, grassy meadows and many species of fish make their home in the thousands of streams that feed the headwaters of four major rivers. The Wilderness offers opportunities for recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historic purposes.

Sincere question... Does the Wood River area, in the example above, have the same proximity to the SawTooth Wilderness as the Washington areas mentioned in this discussion by the user named WMC?

For skiers, perhaps no other spot was more sacred or worth fighting over than the series of high, secluded bowls in the rugged Boulder Mountains above Galena Lodge. Guarded by jagged peaks, this rugged patch of high-country-powder-lover’s paradise had always been the exclusive playground of skiers, and they weren’t about to let that change.

I'm not familiar with this area... Are these Bowls above Galena Lodge accessible in short day trips by families or less skilled skiers?

In short... what is the correlation between Galena area and the areas that the user named WMC is proposing? Do the Galena skiers have Wilderness areas as close to or farther away from parking lots compared to the areas discussed by the user named WMC?

rmk2112 · Jul 14, 2010

deepdiver said:
I found an interesting article from a BC Skiier from Colorado.

Here is an excert: Backcountry skiing and the snowmobile are joined at the hip. In Washington and California, skiers use the machines to aid travel to remote huts. In my neck of the woods, our groomed snowmobile routes, (known as "over-snow roads") are popular with the nordic ski skating crowd.

Such grooming is paid for by snowmobile registration fees, while skiers pay little or nothing for their use. Snowmobilers work hard for trailhead parking, access and trail marking. Just as we skiers do, snowmobilers love the winter backcountry. Senior citizens, disabled people and many others do hut trips supported by snowmobiles. I've met one guy, a paraplegic, for whom snowmobiling is the equivalent of performance backcountry skiing. For skiers who can't afford guides who store bedding and food at the huts, hauling baggage by machine to these huts is a fair option. Upkeep of many huts requires the use of snowmobiles. Virtually all rescue of backcountry skiers involves snowmobiles. Yet some backcountry skiers feel snowmobiles are nothing less than machines from hell.

Here is the link for the rest of his thoughts. Seems a bit brighter and more realistic than WMC. http://www.wildsnow.com/articles/snowmobiles_paradise_5-4/backcountry_V_4.html

That is what its all about!!!!
That is what happens 99.9% of the time!!!!
That is how people who love the great outdoors in the winter treat each other!!!!
That is how we ALL help each other!!!!

WMC/Randonne are selfish little boys who just want to get there way as well as starve for the attention of others.
The more we engage them, the more they thrive on it. The more we respond, the more they spew the same rhetoric on different ways. If this was winter time and we all were riding, These 7 threads would probably be 2 because we would be too busy doing what we do.............Riding, not wasting our time with these fools. Its like trying to argue with a woman on PMS..........Its like talking to a brick wall.
The only positive thing I see that has happened here it that alot of sledders now know about some great riding areas (legal) that we can go to and get away from the gong show of the local hot spots where everyone goes!!!

Read the SAWS Rep's post from 4 threads ago, stop giving these guys any more publicity and attention. They know about them and I am sure they are working in our defense as they always do. Nothing is going to get solved here on these threads, but to give WMC more of what it came here for....Publicity and the use of our words against us at a later date.

Lets go back to sitting on our sleds in the garage and make "Braaaaaaap" sounds.

deepdiver said:
........So WMC how about we just ban Yamahas on Mondays, Skidoos on Tuesdays, Polaris on Wednesdays, and Arctic Cats on Thursdays. That would limit your tracked up areas by 25% per day for four days..........

Can we move Polaris to Thursdays? I have meetings on Wednesdays.:face-icon-small-dis

huFfer · Jul 14, 2010

WMC said:
There have been comments in this long discussion about snowmobile riders inconvenienced by driving further, about access for the less-able on snowmobiles. Why the double standard? Should not a variety of non-motorized users have some reasonable access (YES!). Snowmobile riders originally fought and won access and grooming for their sport, non-motorized users are likewise looking for their share to be restored after expansion of snowmobile use to new areas constantly.

The Wilderness arithmetic is mentioned quite often. I believe the number established by ruffryder is 40% Wilderness in the Forest. That leaves 60%. WMC is asking for a few percent in collaboration to perhaps 8% in all-or-nothing competition of the non-Wilderness in the County to set aside for designated winter non-motorized use. The clear majority of Forest users do not ride snowmobiles much less ride modern $12k machines for high-marking. Check that arithmetic, it does not add up except to snowmobile riders' advantage! Share? Never give an inch is more like it in this discussion. USFS has long ago established existing winter non-motorized areas. Was that wrong, should you guys be going after those areas for snowmobile use (aside from the usual trespass)?

WMC is advocating for something that helps others and ourselves. We know where to go to ski, but we see the shrinking available Forest terrain taken by snowmobiles.

Thanks. Out for a while.

I have never met a sledder that wouldn't drive wherever necessary to ride good terrain with good snow.

Non mechanized winter users have plenty of "reasonable" access, give us a break. Including, and certainly not limited to, on hwy 97. You claim to know where to go. Instead of spoon feeding the lemmings a new easier area, why not share your knowledge of the great places that are currently available to go. Do something more constructive.

Bah! Your math is flawed and misleading. Of that 60% how much are snowmobiles actually allowed/able to use? A quick search didn't get me an answer but precious little I'm sure.

"Share"? I've never had anyone tell me I couldn't ski anywhere on public property, including any snowmobile area. Nor have I ever found it difficult to find untracked lines.

"Give an inch?" Why? Sledders don't have many "inches" to give.

Yes I would support snowmobilers rallying to gain more motorized non-wilderness area but I'm far more concerned with maintaining what they already have.

WMC · Jul 15, 2010

deepdiver said:
I found an interesting article from a BC Skiier from Colorado.

Here is an excert: Backcountry skiing and the snowmobile are joined at the hip. In Washington and California, skiers use the machines to aid travel to remote huts. In my neck of the woods, our groomed snowmobile routes, (known as "over-snow roads") are popular with the nordic ski skating crowd.

Such grooming is paid for by snowmobile registration fees, while skiers pay little or nothing for their use. Snowmobilers work hard for trailhead parking, access and trail marking. Just as we skiers do, snowmobilers love the winter backcountry. Senior citizens, disabled people and many others do hut trips supported by snowmobiles. I've met one guy, a paraplegic, for whom snowmobiling is the equivalent of performance backcountry skiing. For skiers who can't afford guides who store bedding and food at the huts, hauling baggage by machine to these huts is a fair option. Upkeep of many huts requires the use of snowmobiles. Virtually all rescue of backcountry skiers involves snowmobiles. Yet some backcountry skiers feel snowmobiles are nothing less than machines from hell.

Here is the link for the rest of his thoughts. Seems a bit brighter and more realistic than WMC. http://www.wildsnow.com/articles/snowmobiles_paradise_5-4/backcountry_V_4.html

Did you read that entire article?

Quote: "we could mark a few "skier only" trails"

"We skiers and snowmobilers have more common ground than conflict. Let's work together. As a team, we could fight threats to all backcountry users -- threats such as development, trailhead vandalism, parking limits, and plowing of roads usually closed in winter and used as over-snow routes. Working together, we could insure kinder wilderness boundaries -- instead of those forced by fanatics who view huts and snowmobiles with equal disdain. Working together, we could mark a few "skier only" trails off the snow covered roads that sledders like. Working together, we could can get manufacturers to make quiet machines. Working together, we could simplify winter hut maintenance by using appropriate snowmobile transport. Combine forces-- we can make things happen!"
(end quote)

WMC has discussed and proposed every point above!

Thanks and out for now.

clutch man · Jul 15, 2010

What a croc :there comes a time where I don't think you even believe what you say.
With 35,150 Registered Snowmobiles in Washington and you say The clear majority of Forest users do not ride snowmobilesWhen I am up riding this is just not the case (it may be if you use the ski area numbers) you have a majority.
lets take your numbers 60% of the forest is open but you have to take out all the area that is not accessible on snow I would guess that is a good 50% and you have to take out all the ski areas too ( no sleds there) I bet on about 8% of that open area of forest and there would be even in the open areas with snow there is a good 10% that would be unsafe to go in to.
So now you are under the area of wilderness that YOU CAN GO TOO AND WE CAN NOT. now you wont us to give you a Meir 8% of what we have I DON'T THINK SO
Also if you are paying 12 K for a sled you are on drugs.
You can get a great used mt sled for 3 to $4000 so stop putting you blowen out of proportion stuff in here we did not just fall of the turnip truck.

WMC said:
There have been comments in this long discussion about snowmobile riders inconvenienced by driving further, about access for the less-able on snowmobiles. Why the double standard? Should not a variety of non-motorized users have some reasonable access (YES!). Snowmobile riders originally fought and won access and grooming for their sport, non-motorized users are likewise looking for their share to be restored after expansion of snowmobile use to new areas constantly.

The Wilderness arithmetic is mentioned quite often. I believe the number established by ruffryder is 40% Wilderness in the Forest. That leaves 60%. WMC is asking for a few percent in collaboration to perhaps 8% in all-or-nothing competition of the non-Wilderness in the County to set aside for designated winter non-motorized use. The clear majority of Forest users do not ride snowmobiles much less ride modern $12k machines for high-marking. Check that arithmetic, it does not add up except to snowmobile riders' advantage! Share? Never give an inch is more like it in this discussion. USFS has long ago established existing winter non-motorized areas. Was that wrong, should you guys be going after those areas for snowmobile use (aside from the usual trespass)?

WMC is advocating for something that helps others and ourselves. We know where to go to ski, but we see the shrinking available Forest terrain taken by snowmobiles.

Thanks. Out for a while.

snowmobiler · Jul 15, 2010

just like a trip to the beach or campground.most are happy to get up early and get a good spot and dont spend their whole life trying to close off a special little misfit area.

yammadog · Jul 15, 2010

The discussion is going in circles and won't be able to move forward until WMC posts his maps. Everything up to that point is pure difference of opinion.

I think it's foolish to overlook WMC's comments, certainly wilderness incursions don't help our cause, rude and crude inconsiderate jerks don't help our cause and if we are going to be heard clearly at the table of the FS, we have to know the details.

You know the FS is going to listen to WMC's take and whether we oppose or agree or simply understand an opposing position we have to know the details to present our position. This is the reason I say disconnect from WMC on an emotional level and let him present his facts, until then it's just pure opinion. He's talking to the environmental groups at the same time and emotional responses will do no good.

If anything we should thank WMC for bringing the proposal to us instead of getting blindsided by the FS. I would ask WMC to recognize the wilderness and the entire region when it comes to detailing the proposal for managing recreation, although Kittitas Cty numbers may reflect something that seems out of balance, the entire region is the playground and needs to be considered. Particularly for the terrain that is within the proposal and a recognition that this area he is complaining about is popular because other have been closed or restricted, thanks to growth of trees etc.. and don't have the terrain that he is looking to close down.

Produce the maps WMC and the discussion would be able to move forward...IMO..

clutch man · Jul 15, 2010

Remember Washington has a total of 4,423,676 acres of designated wilderness.

WMC · Jul 15, 2010

yammadog said:
The discussion is going in circles and won't be able to move forward until WMC posts his maps. Everything up to that point is pure difference of opinion.

I think it's foolish to overlook WMC's comments, certainly wilderness incursions don't help our cause, rude and crude inconsiderate jerks don't help our cause and if we are going to be heard clearly at the table of the FS, we have to know the details.

You know the FS is going to listen to WMC's take and whether we oppose or agree or simply understand an opposing position we have to know the details to present our position. This is the reason I say disconnect from WMC on an emotional level and let him present his facts, until then it's just pure opinion. He's talking to the environmental groups at the same time and emotional responses will do no good.

If anything we should thank WMC for bringing the proposal to us instead of getting blindsided by the FS. I would ask WMC to recognize the wilderness and the entire region when it comes to detailing the proposal for managing recreation, although Kittitas Cty numbers may reflect something that seems out of balance, the entire region is the playground and needs to be considered. Particularly for the terrain that is within the proposal and a recognition that this area he is complaining about is popular because other have been closed or restricted, thanks to growth of trees etc.. and don't have the terrain that he is looking to close down.

Produce the maps WMC and the discussion would be able to move forward...IMO..

Good words, thank you yammadog. Thanks for the discussion, after all of the back and forth there is quite a bit of civil discussion, which is most productive.

The Wilderness consideration is a valid point, access is the issue, and snowmobile trespass takes away a non-motorized area opportunity. If there was the as-discussed Beverly Sno Park for non-motorized access to the (snowmobile-free) Wilderness, the Teanaway part of our discussion would be largely solved. Again, if Stafford Cr was added to the Beverly-Bean Voluntary Non-Motorized Area it would actually be a non-motorized area without the snowmobile traffic from Stafford to Earl Peak summit.

Please consider the entire Wenatchee Mountains crest, with non-motorized areas only at the tiny Tronsen area and the Beverly-Bean area, a small share for non-motorized use.

These discussions have contributed to our mutual understanding, but have probably reached a useful end.

Thank you.

WMC · Jul 15, 2010

mountainhorse said:
Sincere question... Does the Wood River area, in the example above, have the same proximity to the SawTooth Wilderness as the Washington areas mentioned in this discussion by the user named WMC?

I'm not familiar with this area... Are these Bowls above Galena Lodge accessible in short day trips by families or less skilled skiers?

In short... what is the correlation between Galena area and the areas that the user named WMC is proposing? Do the Galena skiers have Wilderness areas as close to or farther away from parking lots compared to the areas discussed by the user named WMC?

Good questions. Check out the article pasted above about the Wood River Valley, where drainages were designated alternately motorized and non-motorized. This plan was in addition to nearby wilderness. A similar division occurred by 2005 in Logan Canyon Utah, areas designated for motorized and non-motorized in winter, areas that were adjacent to Wilderness. And then there is the Lake Tahoe example pasted above where theer was designation for motorized and for non-motorized.

I posted the Sawtooth Wilderness info after ruffryder said too bad they did not have Wilderness like WA in response to the Wood River plan posting, not the case.

Thanks and adios!

mountainhorse · Jul 15, 2010

Originally Posted by yammadog Produce the maps WMC and the discussion would be able to move forward...IMO..

1) [And most important] WMC... could you Please post up the maps so that everybody is on the same page?

Thanks.

WMC: This plan was in addition to nearby wilderness.

How "nearby" is the question that was originally posted.

The question stands....

MH In short... what is the correlation between Galena area and the areas that the user named WMC is proposing? Do the Galena skiers have Wilderness areas as close to or farther away from parking lots compared to the areas discussed by the user named WMC (in this thread)?

yammadog · Jul 16, 2010

Can't see......isn't land use stuff suppose to not have limits on viewing for basic?

Search

Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas (PART 7)

WMC

Banned

mountainhorse

Well-known member

rmk2112

Well-known member

huFfer

Free Member

WMC

Banned

clutch man

Well-known member

snowmobiler

Well-known member

yammadog

Free Member

clutch man

Well-known member

WMC

Banned

WMC

Banned

mountainhorse

Well-known member

yammadog

Free Member

Similar threads