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

ruffryder · Jun 15, 2010

WMC said:
Good. I have already emailed two new ideas to the folks we talk to, and will include these other ideas in our future discussions.

This has been asked before, but can you explain about what you mean about future discussions? Some of us are not know very much about the possible dealings with the FS and we are curious as you have mentioned it many times.

WMC said:
So what if in the end of all this back and forth we different user groups and come up with a mutually agreeable plan? Dream big maybe.

I think that is the point of view for many of the snowmobilers on here, even if it isn't the WMC's current initiative.

WMC · Jun 15, 2010

ruffryder said:
This has been asked before, but can you explain about what you mean about future discussions? Some of us are not know very much about the possible dealings with the FS and we are curious as you have mentioned it many times.

I think that is the point of view for many of the snowmobilers on here, even if it isn't the WMC's current initiative.

We are doing what we said, advocating for winter non-motorized areas, recreation management by USFS. We have encouraged others including folks here to get informed and talk to USFS to help with the Plan that is being written for a Draft Forest Plan that addresses winter recreation (different from the WMC proposal)..

So we have been talking on three Forums about the WMC proposal, talking to USFS folks, talking to others such as a snowmobile industry person. We are here talking to you, I do not think that we are withholding information that I can think of pertinent to the discussion. Nothing behind the scenes or secret deals, no Organization tells us what to do, we pretty much post practically everything about what we are about and what we are doing.

Good discussion. Thanks.

ruffryder · Jun 15, 2010

WMC said:
talk to USFS to help with the Plan that is being written for a Draft.

By plan you mean, the WMC proposal, and by Draft you mean WMC draft?

WMC said:
talking to USFS folks

Is there a reason why you won't expand on the details of this? Just looking for some information is all.

WMC said:
talking to others such as a snowmobile industry person.

Do you mind saying anything more about this person? Manufacturer, dealer??? Obviously you don't have to give out names, but it would be interesting to hear more specifics..

WMC · Jun 15, 2010

ruffryder said:
By plan you mean, the WMC proposal, and by Draft you mean WMC draft?
Is there a reason why you won't expand on the details of this? Just looking for some information is all.
Do you mind saying anything more about this person? Manufacturer, dealer??? Obviously you don't have to give out names, but it would be interesting to hear more specifics..

We do not want to name anyone, we have good faith discussions and ask that they not put our names out. We do not want phone calls to our homes, we do not want the discussion to be about us but about the issues. Likewise, we are not just going to drop names, We talk to the people in USFS that we posted and encouraged folks to give input to.

The WMC proposal is our thing, we are trying to sell it. We do get some support letters, no not a Thousand Skiers so far....but dream big, eh?

Unrelated to WMC, USFS has been working on a Management Plan for years that will take more years to finish. We were told that USFS may soon produce a Draft Plan to put out to the public for comments. We also give input that we know about where we ski, where we see snowmobile riding for that planning. you all can do the same. They are trying to get the best information in Forest use in winter. We have learned that USFS already pretty much knows what goes on where on the Forest. In the future, all indications are that all USFS will manage in winter areas for snowmobiling and other areas outside Wilderness for winter non-motorized use.

So with all of that, WMC is fine with snowmobile riders giving their input and advocating for their use. WMC believes that USFS really wants to provide for the different uses fairly.

So if we all can respect the other's uses and concerns, and could agree, that would likely be better for everyone. So you guys on the Forum could get your Organizations talking the way we are here and see what we can get together on.

Thanks. Goodnight.

winter brew · Jun 16, 2010

The "snowmobile industry person".....I am also curious, no name needed, but how about their background? Is this just someone who owns a sled? A dealer? Rental service? Are they actively involved in the WSSA?
I would think the best source for WMC concerning a sledders point of view would be the people responding on this thread.....and none of them are concealing their identity.

yammadog · Jun 16, 2010

winter brew said:
The "snowmobile industry person".....I am also curious, no name needed, but how about their background? Is this just someone who owns a sled? A dealer? Rental service? Are they actively involved in the WSSA?
I would think the best source for WMC concerning a sledders point of view would be the people responding on this thread.....and none of them are concealing their identity.

Indeed....WMC, you won't get a more proactive or industry wide communication outside of this forum. For the most part you are speaking with just about all levels of snowmobile user and if not directly, within an email or phone call away on a personal level.

WMC · Jun 16, 2010

winter brew said:
The "snowmobile industry person".....I am also curious, no name needed, but how about their background? Is this just someone who owns a sled? A dealer? Rental service? Are they actively involved in the WSSA?
I would think the best source for WMC concerning a sledders point of view would be the people responding on this thread.....and none of them are concealing their identity.

Well, you would agree that they are a significant player. We took away some ideas from that person about possible modifications to our proposal, comments about which would be toughest for snowmobile riders to lose and which would not be as significant to be made non-motorized.

It is great that individuals here are advocating and may provide leadership back to their Organizations to get off of the obstinate soapbox, consider other users and try for something that perhaps works better for other users but keep important riding for snowmobiles.

Thanks for the discussion and ideas here!

WMC · Jun 16, 2010

yammadog said:
Indeed....WMC, you won't get a more proactive or industry wide communication outside of this forum. For the most part you are speaking with just about all levels of snowmobile user and if not directly, within an email or phone call away on a personal level.

WMC trusts the snowmobile industry individual that we met, other than that we will probably speak through Forums and to USFS.

We local skiers know generally who skitours these areas when, where, in general, and we know each other or know about each other to some extent. We know someone who told us about asking here for riders to stay out of Wilderness, which had lots of folks stepping up here to support that. However, perhaps the group that you guys finger for Wilderness poaching, someone was putting up veiled threats here, comments including "snitches get stitches." We are not going to be afraid, actually we prepared for any possibility that we could be confronted or have our vehicles vandalized or our sleds vandalized while we were skiing. We do not want to go there, we do not want our email boxes filled with opposition (kindly put) comments or our home phones ringing with the same. So we are using Forums for discussion.

So you guys here are picking up the advocacy, giving ideas, great. WMC would ask that you try to consider our views also, and also try to remember that we are not trying to just shut down snowmobile riding everywhere. WMC asks for USFS management that gives skiers and snowshoers, even winter campers, some new and significant areas outside Wilderness without snowmobiles.

Thank you.

yammadog · Jun 16, 2010

WMC, could you give your opinion of the previously posted comments by Newtrout? See below.

The area proposed for snowmobile closure by WMC would eliminate snowmobile access to the North Fork of the Teanaway, as well as Lake Ann and Van Epps areas. This is one of the few alpine areas in the state accessible by snowmobile. From Teanaway Peak to the west, I would estimate snowmobile use outnumbers skier use by 100:1; probably much more before mid-May. East of Teanaway Peak are several basins that are very difficult or legally impossible to access by snowmobile. Even taking into account the occasional snowmobiler in the Wilderness, there is more skiable terrain than could be tracked up by 50 skiers a day all winter long.

Compromise? I'll throw some ideas out there:
(1) Stop sled use in the North Fork of the Teanaway when the road melts out to Stafford Creek. That is when skiers use the area, and that is when sledders are done. Make it official. I can live with that.

(2) Addition to voluntary non-motorized area: The Beverly non-motorized area is a waste. It isn't used by skiers. Bean, on the other hand, has some really nice skiable terrain. It is very difficult to access from the bottom on sleds, and you can only come in the top by riding through Wilderness. Likewise, Stafford is hard to access from the bottom by sled. You can get in the top over Navaho, but it is also the prime access point for the Wenatchee gang to get into Wilderness. Add Bean Creek basin and Stafford Creek basin to the voluntary non-motorized areas. These are prime ski basins used by a minority of sledders.

(3) Improve skier access: What are the real options here? Realistically, you're not going to improve access much from the North Fork; too much snow and road that can't be maintained. What about from the Blewett side? How much closer to the crest could a road be plowed? We'd still be talking about pretty serious dollars to keep a road like that maintained; but banning sleds doesn't help skier access!

yammadog · Jun 16, 2010

WMC, could you give your opinion of the previously posted comments by Newtrout? See below.

The area proposed for snowmobile closure by WMC would eliminate snowmobile access to the North Fork of the Teanaway, as well as Lake Ann and Van Epps areas. This is one of the few alpine areas in the state accessible by snowmobile. From Teanaway Peak to the west, I would estimate snowmobile use outnumbers skier use by 100:1; probably much more before mid-May. East of Teanaway Peak are several basins that are very difficult or legally impossible to access by snowmobile. Even taking into account the occasional snowmobiler in the Wilderness, there is more skiable terrain than could be tracked up by 50 skiers a day all winter long.

Compromise? I'll throw some ideas out there:
(1) Stop sled use in the North Fork of the Teanaway when the road melts out to Stafford Creek. That is when skiers use the area, and that is when sledders are done. Make it official. I can live with that.

(2) Addition to voluntary non-motorized area: The Beverly non-motorized area is a waste. It isn't used by skiers. Bean, on the other hand, has some really nice skiable terrain. It is very difficult to access from the bottom on sleds, and you can only come in the top by riding through Wilderness. Likewise, Stafford is hard to access from the bottom by sled. You can get in the top over Navaho, but it is also the prime access point for the Wenatchee gang to get into Wilderness. Add Bean Creek basin and Stafford Creek basin to the voluntary non-motorized areas. These are prime ski basins used by a minority of sledders.

(3) Improve skier access: What are the real options here? Realistically, you're not going to improve access much from the North Fork; too much snow and road that can't be maintained. What about from the Blewett side? How much closer to the crest could a road be plowed? We'd still be talking about pretty serious dollars to keep a road like that maintained; but banning sleds doesn't help skier access!

mountainhorse · Jun 16, 2010

WMC... You answered "Yes" to the question above...

Mountainhorse: #2 ....Would this meet your goals of access and quell your appeal to current and future calls to close currently shared, mixed use, areas to Snowmobiles?

And then followed up with this in a later post:

WMC asks for USFS management that gives skiers and snowshoers, even winter campers, some new and significant areas outside Wilderness without snowmobiles.

In an effort to keep communications open and a two way discussion flowing please clarify for all reading this thread.

Question: If we work together to get a HP-only staging area, close to the designated Wilderness, with easy plowed-road access, will WMC cease to seek closure of the current Shared areas to snowmobiles that your proposal has outlined?

As stated many times in this thread, snowmobile groups and individuals have agreed to help police the Illegal use of designated Wilderness areas by snowmobiles.... which would happen with or without any formal agreement as this is in the best interests of all snowmobilers.

WMC · Jun 16, 2010

yammadog said:
WMC, could you give your opinion of the previously posted comments by Newtrout? See below.

Actually I told Newtrout that these were valid ideas and we would add these ideas to our discussion.

Again, the rock and hard place is keeping snowmobiles out of non-motorized designated areas outside and inside Wilderness. It appears that USFS sees our point to some extent, but no one in USFS just wants to pull the rug out from snowmobile riding, nor does WMC. USFS does not have surplus funding to send snowmobile people to chase violators. USFS "takes very seriously" the issues of snowmobiles going where they should not go.

Compromise is possible in our view. But WMC cannot speak for the USFS folks including Biologists and Wilderness folks, we cannot know which interest in the USFS will in the end yield the most power to influence this.

Collaboration and recognition of other users legitimate views are key to progress here. Even though we will not meet face to face we can discuss here, use our trusted industry person if that person is willing, use USFS to facilitate a solution between the groups.

WMC · Jun 16, 2010

mountainhorse said:
WMC... You answered "Yes" to the question above...

And then followed up with this in a later post:

In an effort to keep communications open and a two way discussion flowing please clarify for all reading this thread.

Question: If we work together to get a HP-only staging area, close to the designated Wilderness, with easy plowed-road access, will WMC cease to seek closure of the current Shared areas to snowmobiles that your proposal has outlined?

As stated many times in this thread, snowmobile groups and individuals have agreed to help police the Illegal use of designated Wilderness areas by snowmobiles.... which would happen with or without any formal agreement as this is in the best interests of all snowmobilers.

If the situation existed that you describe in #2 and #3 we would not need to advocate as we are doing. We would support such an effort, and are not resisting it when we state that would be years away from any possible implementation. Last night email was sent to our contact about these future possibilities- now is a good time with the Draft Forest Plan Team working on a Plan!

Read the discussion here and you will see discussion of compromise that we will continue to discuss in good faith.

yammadog · Jun 16, 2010

WMC said:
Actually I told Newtrout that these were valid ideas and we would add these ideas to our discussion.

Again, the rock and hard place is keeping snowmobiles out of non-motorized designated areas outside and inside Wilderness. It appears that USFS sees our point to some extent, but no one in USFS just wants to pull the rug out from snowmobile riding, nor does WMC. USFS does not have surplus funding to send snowmobile people to chase violators. USFS "takes very seriously" the issues of snowmobiles going where they should not go.

Compromise is possible in our view. But WMC cannot speak for the USFS folks including Biologists and Wilderness folks, we cannot know which interest in the USFS will in the end yield the most power to influence this.

Collaboration and recognition of other users legitimate views are key to progress here. Even though we will not meet face to face we can discuss here, use our trusted industry person if that person is willing, use USFS to facilitate a solution between the groups.

Your industry person will end up having to be identified if you are looking to get support based on this single persons view, which you support and you have also acknowledge our "concern" about your motive.

USFS aside, if we can't resolve conflict between us, their control won't make things better. And like most points of view, data can be produced to support the side you are on and if the biologists find a hair or "think" that something could survive, then we are both doomed. Just look at the "wolverine" blockade the Seirra club and another group created for the Stevens pass bike park as an example.

mountainhorse · Jun 16, 2010

WMC, I've read that... "we would add these ideas to our discussion" ...

Please give us YOUR opinion as the online delgate for the organization "WMC" about NewTrouts proposal.

I think that some of the friction comes from not really talking, point-to point as laid out the questions that are presented here.... or giving direct answers to direct questions.

Please also refrain from telling me to "read the discussion here" repeatedly as I can assure you I have read the discussion here and on the TAY site in their entirety... more than once

From your reply above... what I'm reading... please clarify/correct as needed.

The WMC will cease its current appeal for closure of lands to snowmobiles that are currently shared and are currently used for mixed use including snowmobiles will stop when the process is put into motion for easy plowed-road access to HP-only staging area near the designated Wilderness area like the Beverly Creek area that WMC has suggested.

IMO, for this cooperation to be effective, there would need to be some assurance that those involved/affiliated with the organization "WMC" would also cease further closures to snowmobiles in current shared areas through/with other organizations.

WMC · Jun 16, 2010

yammadog said:
Your industry person will end up having to be identified if you are looking to get support based on this single persons view, which you support and you have also acknowledge our "concern" about your motive.

USFS aside, if we can't resolve conflict between us, their control won't make things better. And like most points of view, data can be produced to support the side you are on and if the biologists find a hair or "think" that something could survive, then we are both doomed. Just look at the "wolverine" blockade the Seirra club and another group created for the Stevens pass bike park as an example.

Good points. Because of an owl I have seen my home community changed from working people producing logs and lumber with some tourism on the side, to now increasingly just tourism and retirees moving in.

The point that I am making is the worst scenario here that WMC does not want is that no new management of snowmobile riding with the new technology eventually leads to some big-picture backlash and then riding gets shutdown in a big way. WMC is the tip of the iceberg, most folks in general do not know yet where snowmobiles can go and where. As I mentioned, some folks are learning, some who do not go into the mountains in winter have told me personally about seeing the snowmobile tracks in Wilderness from flying over in a plane!

In regard to the widely quoted study that snowmobiles do not affect wildlife badly, you folks need to anticipate new ideas about snowmobile impacts and new studies that I think are coming. The new technology snowmobiles use the Forest in a manner different- more areas completely covered. So I would suggest, do not just resist and criticize, try to understand what is coming and get in front of it for your own interests.

Likewise with us skiers etc., there are lots of us. Try to understand where we are coming from. All better if we can work together as much as possible.

Thanks.

mountainhorse · Jun 16, 2010

From a well respected member of TAY...an avid skier and backcountry adventurer.
Lowell_SKoog...

In his own words:

Lowell_SKoog: in reply #70 of the TAY thread:
I've posted in support of the WMC proposals, but now I'm going to shift gears. While I agree with the ideas being suggested here, I find it hard to take this project seriously. I don't think it can succeed as it has been presented here. I'm going to offer a few suggestions.

First, WMC will eventually have to shed its cloak of anonymity. As Antonin Scalia said yesterday, "Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage." I don't think you'll be able to generate the political support you need if you stay anonymous. I can't put my support behind an anonymous campaign. We will all need to step forward.

According to WMC, the new organization has no website, no funds, just an email address. That's not going to cut it. As I'll discuss below, you've got some serious communicating to do. A website is a first step toward crafting your message.

You need to document the historical use by skiers of the areas you're concerned about. Having visited a few snowmobiling areas, I'm not so sure that backcountry skiers outnumber snowmobilers anymore. There are a lot of sledders out there! Unless you can prove that skiers far outnumber snowmobilers, your defense of skiing will have to be framed in terms of the traditional use of the areas you're concerned about. You need to show that skiers have been using these areas for a long time, and that the growth and evolution of snowmobiling has been crowding them out. This is fundamentally a conservative argument. Respecting such traditions is a conservative value. Use this to your advantage.

You need to explain why federally designated wilderness does not meet the needs of the ski community. That's the first thing that the skeptical listener is going to ask. You need to explain that federal wilderness was established primarily with summer use in mind. Neither snowmobiling nor backcountry skiing were given much consideration when our state's wilderness areas were designated. Most wilderness areas are too remote for regular winter use by skiers (although they serve well for summertime use by hikers and horse riders). You need to illustrate the problem with concrete facts and examples.

You need to be very specific about which areas you are proposing for non-motorized management. You need to provide maps. Verbal hand-waving with reference to topo maps is not good enough.

You need to be specific about which areas will NOT be managed for non-motorized use. Again, the maps must be explicit. Snowmobile enthusiasts will justifiably distrust you unless you clearly tell them which areas will remain open to them. They're going to disagree with you no matter what you do. Don't give them a reason to distrust you as well. Writing off these areas for skiing may be painful, but I don't see any alternative if you want people to accept the plan.

This thread is a nice way to kick off discussion of the issue. But the proposals that WMC has offered are much too vague. I can't throw my support behind the proposal at this point, and I doubt that you'll get 100 letters, let alone 1000, unless you get more serious and organized about this project. My two cents...

WMC · Jun 16, 2010

mountainhorse said:
WMC, I've read that... "we would add these ideas to our discussion" ...

Please give us YOUR opinion as the online delgate for the organization "WMC" about NewTrouts proposal.

I think that some of the friction comes from not really talking, point-to point as laid out the questions that are presented here.... or giving direct answers to direct questions.

Please also refrain from telling me to "read the discussion here" repeatedly as I can assure you I have read the discussion here and on the TAY site in their entirety... more than once

From your reply above... what I'm reading... please clarify/correct as needed.

The WMC will cease its current appeal for closure of lands to snowmobiles that are currently shared and are currently used for mixed use including snowmobiles will stop when the process is put into motion for easy plowed-road access to HP-only staging area near the designated Wilderness area like the Beverly Creek area that WMC has suggested.

IMO, for this cooperation to be effective, there would need to be some assurance that those involved/affiliated with the organization "WMC" would also cease further closures to snowmobiles in current shared areas through/with other organizations.

Slow down a little, do not get impatient and derail some productive discussion. I think that a real chance of a compromise here is being discussed. We will take that idea and newtrouts' and mountainhorses' to our meetings. WMC would prefer to find an agreement with snowmobile riders and take that to USFS, we just never expected that to be possible, but hey, dream big, maybe that can happen!

A real agreement could be written and agreed using the parties mentioned in these discussions. IMO both sides would gain and lose, but both sides would get the most important stuff as I am hearing from discussions. If this worked, USFS would be helped by users collaborating for a solution, the enforcement problem in theory could be solved without big additional USFS funding. This could be a win-win all around so stay with this discussion. No, WMC is not going to fold after a few paragraphs of discussion, but we again state it is the best scenario if we all hang in here talking and respecting the other to work out something. In the end WMC WILL stop asking if this agreement comes together agreed in writing and works as described.

Thank you.

mountainhorse · Jun 16, 2010

WMC:
Likewise with us skiers etc., there are lots of us. Try to understand where we are coming from. All better if we can work together as much as possible.

I AM a backcountry Splitboarder/snowshoer/skier that often leaves the snowmobile at home.

My friends include USFS forest rangers, National Ski Patrollers, Forrest conservation crew members, Mountain bikers, equestrians and hikers. I participate in many of the same functions.

I often tour with other people who think that snowmobiles are "the devil" and work hard to dispel those myths.... often taking them snowmobile touring to show them the "other side".

My personal sled has a clean burning, quiet exhaust and I have been an advocate (publicly) of quiet snowmobiles for some time now.

I am a good ambassador of both the non-motor and motorized users of the forests.

I can say confidently that I understand the position of the skier in this discussion.

newtrout · Jun 16, 2010

I'm happy to see the change in the tone of the discussion since I was on here last. It looks like there are some people honestly considering some compromises. You have to admit that there is a much better potential outcome for both sides if we work together.

I still have to feel that Wilderness incursions are the biggest problem. WMCs focus seems to have shifted that way, as well.

If WMCs original proposal was accepted in its entirety, skiers would still have the same distance to travel to access this skiable terrain. Honestly, the WMC proposal doesn't really do much for skiers. The snowmobilers that choose to ride in Wilderness (or the new non-motorized area) would now be further from other snowmobilers, and further from any potential enforcement. I just don't see a 'buffer' changing things much. We need to get to the heart of the problem: (1) wilderness incursions and (2) giving easier skier access to Wilderness.

I fully admit that enforcement is tough. You can't patrol 7 days a week at every incursion point. The most important thing that we can do, as snowmobilers, is change the culture and attitude toward Wilderness. We have to stop looking the other way. Poachers need realize that they don't just have to worry about USFS rangers; they need to worry about any other sledder they see who might have a camera. We're already seeing this change take place. It's a change that will help everyone on both sides of the issue.

Skier access to Wilderness is a tougher one. WMC seems to want wilderness to be closer to one mode of motorized transportation, but further from another. We'd all be happy to see a Beverly or Old Blewett Pass non-motorized snowpark. Money is obvious obstacle here; especially with such a small group of skiers currently looking to use this area (let's not kid ourselves; this area does not see significant skier traffic until late spring).

On that note, here's another option that would save some expense: plow the North Fork Road to Beverly in late March (or as soon as the threat of low elevation snow is gone). It might only need to be plowed once. That would lengthen the ski access season significantly.

On a side note, I have to chuckle a little bit at the wildlife/biologist comments. I've had the same reactions from goats in the winter on a snowmobile as I have in the summer on foot. If you stop on Ingalls or Longs Pass in the winter on a snowmobile, the goats come to you. They know that people = yellow snow = salt for their low mineral content diet......

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

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Premium Member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads