Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas (PART 4)

AKSNOWRIDER said:

umm being a trapper over the last 15 yrs, animals are just as bothered by humans on foot as by motorized use...heck I collected a wolf a few years ago who was peeing on my sled...I have sat on a ridge time and again and watched sledders come thru valleys below me and watched moose, fox, wolves, bears, and both sheep and goats stand and watch them pass by...so if the animal /motorized use is a reason to deny access then all human access should be stopped.....

Click to expand...

Good info, that is others' concerns that we are relating. Our thing is to get areas for non-motorized recreation. Point was, several others want that area to be non-motorized.

And I would think that you would need to know this area, and the concentration of riding done on both sides of that crest and to the summits. But again, WMC is not qualified to debate issues other than what we seek for recreation management- we have related what we have been shown or told.

Thanks.

modsledr said:

My guess is that if you (WMC) had come to the snowmobile community asking for help in gaining easier access to wilderness areas, and policing the wilderness boundaries being abused by a FEW who chose to ignore the rules, then you would have been offered help, rather than met with resistance.

As you have already seen by Yammadog and a few others, this is a very generous and giving community that will rally to a cause...but if you want to threaten our already limited access to public lands, then that cause will be directed against you.

If your stated goal of working together for a solution is sincere, then you will also have to be open to the possibility that the end result may be a compromise that does not meet your current intent, but whose end result may actually be equal or better (for everyone).

If that is the direction you wish to take things, then lets work together and come up with a solution that works for everyone and doesn't limit the public resource even further.

Click to expand...

We heard from someone who came on this Forum and asked for riders to stay out of Wilderness. We heard that some folks stepped right up, some others were not really going along with that discussion, to put it mildly.

And in the end the USFS will decide, we may be seeing a real compromise to what we ask, but we will try for what we talk about. Another solution would be fine that met our concerns. Again, we are not trying to shut down riding everywhere, but unfortunately we know that this is some great and unique riding that we are proposing as non-motorized.

And it would be great to hear from snowmobile riders that they want certain other places for their use and seek that solid designation, WMC could get behind that sort of thing also.

WMC said:

Good info, that is others' concerns that we are relating. Our thing is to get areas for non-motorized recreation. Point was, several others want that area to be non-motorized.

And I would think that you would need to know this area, and the concentration of riding done on both sides of that crest and to the summits. But again, WMC is not qualified to debate issues other than what we seek for recreation management- we have related what we have been shown or told.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

yes and no..standing back and looking from a far without the emotional draw of I have used this area my whole life you arnt wanted here vrs a impartial everyone has a right to use veiw....bottom line on this whole deal...some want it closed to nonmotorized use..some want it shared..if the whole area was unrestricted, I could see making nonmotorized consessions..but since at least 40% is nonmotorized wilderness, yet still open to nonmotorized use..I think there is plenty of area for nonmotorized but that it needs better/easier access..then and only then is everyone getting equal access..and no ones rights of public access are infringed on...as far as gaining the access to those areas..I promise you that it will be far cheaper to fund that project then a long drawn out court battle, and I am still quite positive that the forest service would openly entertain honest well planned privately funded access proposals that solve these issues...

ruffryder said:

agreed. A study was done a while ago that stated non-motorized users actually have a bigger effect on wildlife, especially during the winter. The problem with non-motorized users is that they are able to get really close to these animals without them knowing it, and then they end up scaring the animals by their sight or noise.

Motorized users on the other hand, can be heard before they are seen, so there is little surprise involved, and the animals do not spend a lot of energy trying to flight out of the area.

For animals it seems that surprise = threat.

Interesting stuff out there..

Click to expand...

True, I have seen those studies.

USFS folks we talk to now are talking about new type- recent technology-snowmobile use with new concerns about how much of the total of an area is tracked. So, anticipate seeing new studies. And there are the subnivean species- the ones who live in cavities under snow on top of ground. So I am not trashing you comment, just saying new studies are on the way.

Another reason for your user group to get with it and find out what you can get solidly designated for your use as well. That would help non-motorized as well if you guys get some and so do we and we are not in each others' way. As I have said, how about if snowmobilers do the research, put up solid proposals saying we want this and we are not hurting anything there. That would be proactive instead of reactive with $$ litigation and obstruction of the process after decisions are made. USFS seems to appreciate civil conversation about uses and user concerns, in our experience. And we also find, they pretty much know what is up and pull out data usually when we bring something up... they seem to already know what is up.

WMC said:

Honestly, the following answer is not intended as smart-aleck. WMC folks know these areas well for most of our lives. The honest answer is: see the WMC proposal- at a minimum something on that crest has to be non-motorized in order to have a pedestrian corridor to Wilderness. And sorry, but without the entire ridge closed to allow enforcement from the Road, the riding will continue across that area outside and inside Wilderness, tracks in view of folks flying over, and as observed by others and including USFS folks.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

No smart aleck there...just pure uncompromising position. The crest you identify, one side is wilderness, non-motorized and the other mixed use. yet the only solution or offering you have is to simply shut out the mixed use. If you could answer the direct question, setting aside your closure option, then you may get support. Until then, you are just simply creating opposition.

WMC said:

Another reason for your user group to get with it and find out what you can get solidly designated for your use as well. That would help non-motorized as well if you guys get some and so do we and we are not in each others' way.

Click to expand...

The WMC seems to be the only ones that want or require this. They need a space designated just for them. As been stated many times by many non-motorized users, there is not a conflict problem in these areas. Many non-motorized users are fine with the way things currently are, and don't see a need in the FS dictating were users can and can not go.

I think the WMC should spend more time looking at the needs and wants for the large non-motorized base, then the perceived or implied benefits that they think there plan will offer. Again, the big problem most non-motorized users have with the proposal is that it does not include their input. The WMC seems to justify itself in their use of a proposal for everyone, every type of users. This is just not the case.

snowmobiler said:

it sounds to me like some want a handicap-like parking spot in front of the store because they think its to far to walk from the main parking lot like everybody else does.?

Click to expand...

BINGO

I've closed this thread and continued this in Part 5

CLICK HERE FOR PART 5