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

94fordguy said:

Let's try and get this discussion back on a more respectful track folks. There's a little bit of mud-flinging starting that doesn't need to happen.

EVERYONE please keep this topic respectful and on-track.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

OK, to restate, in summary-

Yes we are asking for something that takes away an area that snowmobiles have been using. That is very negative for you guys, understandable. The reason that we ask is that we want our area where we do not compete with snowmobiles. Conversely, WMC has no problem with you guys having your highmark fun in areas for you, fine too if you do not have a lot of intentional pedestrian traffic in some places so that you guys can rip around.

About WMC. We are NOT an environmental organization, we are NOT trying to create Wilderness. We are NOT against snowmobiles outside of the areas that we ask for. Within WMC we are not a bunch of liberal hippies! Some ride motorcycles, some ride mountain bikes, some drive pickups, Jeeps, and also Subarus. We have business folks, ex-loggers, ex Forest-Service folks, ex-industry lobby type folks, some vote Democrat, some vote Republican- our home area is strongly Republican, and some of my WMC partners would probably like to change that! Our Coalition has one purpose that we all support- the creation of new and significant designated winter non-motorized areas on the non-Wilderness Forest. We have no problem acknowledging that we like to use the Wilderness, sure. But access for the wide assortment of non-motorized Forest users to Wilderness is not practical. Our proposal provides close to the car access, to a few hours from the car, to areas for overnight winter trips- all uses that are in demand increasingly in this area and state.

The truth is, in spite of the internet experiences, this poster has never met an unpleasant snowmobile rider while snowmobiling out to ski. The irony to us is that we have nice discussions with snowmobile riders who are polite and friendly, then they go off and track the rest of the powder slope quickly and do not realize that they give us concern as they ride by us as we slog uphill on skis and climbing skins. On the other hand, we do not approve of skiers with negative attitudes and actions against snowmobiles. So, in general, snowmobile riders are normal, great folks. But our use is degraded or eliminated by snowmobile riding. As a result, we are asking the USFS to manage the Forest so that we may have areas without snowmobiles. In the County where we ask for the Teanaway/ Ingalls divide non-motorized area, there is "400,000 acres" open for snowmobile riding, we ask for perhaps 10% or less of that number. Yes, the area is unique for riding, but unfortunately for motorized use, Congress created the Wilderness there, and Wilderness is structured so that adjacent areas are to be managed in a manner that does not detract from the Wilderness.

So again, WMC is here because we believe that it would be better for everyone if snowmobile riders and skiers (who also need to behave in a civil fashion) could enter the conversation with USFS with suggestions instead of just opposition, and we know that what we ask is tough for you guys to imagine.

Thank you.

94fordguy said:

Excellent post:beer;


[/B]
You want a good discussion, there's some for ya.:beer;

Click to expand...

Cool, cheers! Thanks for that! In my fridge I keep Guinness and St Pauli Girl- sounds good.

So again, WMC is here because we believe that it would be better for everyone if snowmobile riders and skiers (who also need to behave in a civil fashion) could enter the conversation with USFS with suggestions instead of just opposition, and we know that what we ask is tough for you guys to imagine.

Thank you.[/QUOTE]

once again, the area you ask for is there..what you should be asking for is better access to existing nonmotorized areas...(IE wilderness)..can you tell the difference between an untouched powder slope in the wilderness area vrs outside it? no?..so in other words it all comes down to easier access right?..so why not ask the forest service for road access for nonmotorized users close to the wilderness area vrs shutting motorized users out of any use?...as I have said..this answer is a win win for all..and by not even contemplating it you are showing that your concern isnt in nonmotorized access but in denying motorized access...I hope that motorized access users will present this to the forest service on nonmotorized users behalf as a viable alternitive that helps all users without hurting any users right of access...

AKSNOWRIDER said:

So again, WMC is here because we believe that it would be better for everyone if snowmobile riders and skiers (who also need to behave in a civil fashion) could enter the conversation with USFS with suggestions instead of just opposition, and we know that what we ask is tough for you guys to imagine.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

once again, the area you ask for is there..what you should be asking for is better access to existing nonmotorized areas...(IE wilderness)..can you tell the difference between an untouched powder slope in the wilderness area vrs outside it? no?..so in other words it all comes down to easier access right?..so why not ask the forest service for road access for nonmotorized users close to the wilderness area vrs shutting motorized users out of any use?...as I have said..this answer is a win win for all..and by not even contemplating it you are showing that your concern isnt in nonmotorized access but in denying motorized access...I hope that motorized access users will present this to the forest service on nonmotorized users behalf as a viable alternitive that helps all users without hurting any users right of access...[/QUOTE]

Agreed we would like that kind of access. That kind of access in these mountains is available at Highway Passes, Ski Areas, and Mount Rainier NP. Very limited access, and all those places get crowded with folks quickly.

On TAY was a discussion about plowing the Road, lots of reason why it will not happen, we have discussed it for many years.

Thanks.

WMC said:

we are NOT trying to create Wilderness.

Click to expand...

Yet you have stated that your proposal would facilitate the ability for other groups to get the proposed non-motorized locations to be turned into wilderness.

You might not be trying to create wilderness, but that doesn't mean you won't facilitate it. You have stated so yourself many times.

Thanks

WMC said:

Agreed we would like that kind of access. That kind of access in these mountains is available at Highway Passes, Ski Areas, and Mount Rainier NP. Very limited access, and all those places get crowded with folks quickly.

On TAY was a discussion about plowing the Road, lots of reason why it will not happen, we have discussed it for many years.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Let's move the discussion to finding ways to create better access vs. exclusion and closure. All areas are seeing crowding, you're getting it just like we are, but that's part of life unless you look at closing out areas to even the same user group you are part of.....

You have mentioned the 2 prime areas that would need or you would want better access, are there any others? I think your comments of the Blewitt parking is a key location. If you are coming out of Wenatchee, is the Scotty Creek access better than the teanaway with regard to travel time, both in vehicle as well as the ski/sled portion?

WMC said:

OK, to restate, in summary-

Agreed we would like that kind of access. That kind of access in these mountains is available at Highway Passes, Ski Areas, and Mount Rainier NP. Very limited access, and all those places get crowded with folks quickly.

On TAY was a discussion about plowing the Road, lots of reason why it will not happen, we have discussed it for many years.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

have you discussed this with the forest service? and if so is the main reason for not being viable due to funding? surely this would be the best way to satisfy all users, and somehow all users should be able to work togeather to make this happen....

yammadog said:

Let's move the discussion to finding ways to create better access vs. exclusion and closure. All areas are seeing crowding, you're getting it just like we are, but that's part of life unless you look at closing out areas to even the same user group you are part of.....

You have mentioned the 2 prime areas that would need or you would want better access, are there any others? I think your comments of the Blewitt parking is a key location. If you are coming out of Wenatchee, is the Scotty Creek access better than the teanaway with regard to travel time, both in vehicle as well as the ski/sled portion?

Click to expand...

NF Teanaway access is the best and most practical- groomed, from a Sno Park at 29 Pines. From "Scotty Cr Rd/ Old Blewett" at Hwy 97 Roads (no grooming, no Sno Park) cross the logged Shaser basins with lots of private land there, the North Shaser Rd goes over Iron Mtn at 5400 ft elev and drops into Etienne Cr.- Brothers/ Navaho. Some riders go up from Hwy 97 from King Cr and intercept the North Shaser Rd below the 5400' crossing to cross to "Navaho (Etienne Cr, Brothers, Navaho).

WMC said:

NF Teanaway access is the best and most practical- groomed, from a Sno Park at 29 Pines. From "Scotty Cr Rd/ Old Blewett" at Hwy 97 Roads (no grooming, no Sno Park) cross the logged Shaser basins with lots of private land there, the North Shaser Rd goes over Iron Mtn at 5400 ft elev and drops into Etienne Cr.- Brothers/ Navaho. Some riders go up from Hwy 97 from King Cr and intercept the North Shaser Rd below the 5400' crossing to cross to "Navaho (Etienne Cr, Brothers, Navaho).

Click to expand...

how about the best access with a road regardless of motorized snowpark?..the idea here is to figure out a way to get you your own access areas...

WMC said:

NF Teanaway access is the best and most practical- groomed, from a Sno Park at 29 Pines. From "Scotty Cr Rd/ Old Blewett" at Hwy 97 Roads (no grooming, no Sno Park) cross the logged Shaser basins with lots of private land there, the North Shaser Rd goes over Iron Mtn at 5400 ft elev and drops into Etienne Cr.- Brothers/ Navaho. Some riders go up from Hwy 97 from King Cr and intercept the North Shaser Rd below the 5400' crossing to cross to "Navaho (Etienne Cr, Brothers, Navaho).

Click to expand...

If it(Scotty) were groomed and a snopark would this be something that would help for access? Not being a skitourer, not sure of the access/effort with that route.....

yammadog said:

If it(Scotty) were groomed and a snopark would this be something that would help for access? Not being a skitourer, not sure of the access/effort with that route.....

Click to expand...

Scotty Cr Rd goes up to Hwy 97 (new) Blewett Sno Park, it roughly parallels the Hwy 97 in another drainage.

Heading out this week to go to some high glaciers...and some mountain biking. Thanks all, great and considerate discussion.

WMC said:

........... Is WMC a threat? No sir, but we hope that the power of a mobilized citizenry will show all the Organizations who it is that really owns our public lands. We encourage discussion and we talk to officials, we have no budget, no structure- we encourage skiers to speak up to ask for designation of winter non-motorized areas. ..........

Click to expand...

I find it interesting and a bit (ok, a lot) hypocritical that in one breath you imply that the public lands are owned by the citizens, while at the same time admitting you are trying to limit access to those same public lands for a specific user group and denying access to another.

Bottom line is you dont want to share the public lands, you want to basically create a private, convenient playground for a specific user group, and any concept that is contrary to that is ignored or met with the same rhetoric.

There have been many suggestions in recent posts about ways to make wilderness access easier for you and your group...will you consider that there may be better uses of time, money, resources, etc...in coming up with a solution that will give you easier access to the existing wilderness, than in creating another battle over existing public lands?

WMC said:

Scotty Cr Rd goes up to Hwy 97 (new) Blewett Sno Park, it roughly parallels the Hwy 97 in another drainage.

Click to expand...

If that were groomed with a non-motorized snow park, would this help in access and fit your goal to easier access to exisiting non-motorized?

yammadog said:

If that were groomed with a non-motorized snow park, would this help in access and fit your goal to easier access to exisiting non-motorized?

Click to expand...

No, that Rd intersects the ridge from Blewett Sno Park to the west that is Voluntary Non-Motorized. That is basically a road for xc skis, the clearcuts out there are probably growing in.

Thanks.

WMC said:

No, that Rd intersects the ridge from Blewett Sno Park to the west that is Voluntary Non-Motorized. That is basically a road for xc skis, the clearcuts out there are probably growing in.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

In your opinion, what would be the best route to access the wilderness and existing non-motorized areas from new snopark/routes without closing the alpine areas in your proposal. Again, these are questions with the access concept in mind and realignment of non-motorized areas/access.

modsledr said:

I find it interesting and a bit (ok, a lot) hypocritical that in one breath you imply that the public lands are owned by the citizens, while at the same time admitting you are trying to limit access to those same public lands for a specific user group and denying access to another.

Bottom line is you dont want to share the public lands, you want to basically create a private, convenient playground for a specific user group, and any concept that is contrary to that is ignored or met with the same rhetoric.

There have been many suggestions in recent posts about ways to make wilderness access easier for you and your group...will you consider that there may be better uses of time, money, resources, etc...in coming up with a solution that will give you easier access to the existing wilderness, than in creating another battle over existing public lands?

Click to expand...

The sharing thing may be turned you way as well. We believe that your use degrades and eliminates our use on the same terrain. We need different areas for each of our uses. That would be sharing the Forest. Again, review the numbers of users, acres, close access not used by snowmobiles, these are our points.

USFS budgets are limited, Roads and Trails are being decommissioned, new roads will not happen since there is not logging anymore, even private timberlands are getting sold off in this area for other uses.

Sorry to repeat and not trying to upset you all, but the Teanaway/ Ingalls crest is the Wilderness Boundary, and important for wildlife, rare plants, somewhat limited forest species. That crest is important goat habitat, a print like a grizzly track was found on a Pine Marten track plate (I was told) in Etienne Cr 20 yrs ago and I did see what looked like grizzly tracks in that valley in June near my camp 20 years ago when I was skiing there (all self-powered in that area then). That area is considered as possible Lynx habitat. I do understand how great the riding is there, but there are all sorts of reasons why snowmobile riding on that crest is not ideal in the view of many various interests. If WMC never existed, as we have explained, we have learned that there are already considerable efforts to make that crest non-motorized for many reasons including for non-motorized recreation.

So I would argue, that yes, sure, advocate to save Teanaway crest for your use, but snowmobile riders should also identify other areas to advocate for clear designation for riding. I think that some nice riding areas get less attention because the Teanaway is used, so why go elsewhere? Clearly I am on the side of the WMC agenda, but I cannot see as helpful that opposition would just continue to deny our right for our uses, dismiss our views of incompatibility with snowmobile riding on the same slope, continue to just tell non-motorized users to go to the Wilderness- man that fight was 20 to 40 years ago, do some here want to blame non-motorized users? WMC believes that snowmobile riding is a legitimate use of the Forest, and support riders having areas to highmark and rip around and even areas where skiers and snowshoers are not in your way.

Thanks. Out of here for a while.

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.....

yammadog said:

In your opinion, what would be the best route to access the wilderness and existing non-motorized areas from new snopark/routes without closing the alpine areas in your proposal. Again, these are questions with the access concept in mind and realignment of non-motorized areas/access.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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...

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..