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

AKsnowrider: I have read it all..and once again the simple answer is the same..the wilderness area is open to nonmotorized use..which means you can access it..which gives you the access you are wanting..without disturbing other users right of use..

the time you have spent on here alone if spent getting sponsors would already have this issue taken care of..rather then make excuses, why not try ?

what do you have to lose by making a few phone calls/ sending a few emails to local snow removal/construction companies and to ski gear manufacturers/dealers to ask for help?

Why not ask the forest service if you can come up with funding/equipment if this is a viable alternative?or is it simpler to get others rights denied?

Is it to limit/end other public users rights to enjoy the same country as you want to?bottom line is compromise by all users so all have as equal of access as possible..and this solution does that for all users...

Click to expand...

Yammadog: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...

WMC... I have read all the posts on the TAY thread and the Posts here on SnoWest... I see you skirting and redirecting questions.

I would like to see an answer to AK's proposal.

You say that Non-motor users need areas that are not able to be used by snowmobilers... AND that those areas need to be easier to access than an "all day Hike" or an "overnighter"...

I get that... and can see the value in that as a fellow backcountry skinner.

There are Massive lands, AKA Wilderness, that are available and Legal for Human Powered use Directly adjacent to the areas in your proposal. (In fact you call these "buffer" areas)

You state that Wilderness areas are too far away to be accessed by less capable skiers or "family's with kids"...

I get that too... and understand the value in that as a fellow backcountry skinner.

AND... As AK and Yammadog suggest;

Question 1: Why are you opposed to working WITH snowmobilers, Human Powered Users and the USFS to establish Plowed road access to a Non-motorized OHV, Human Powered Only access, parking lot(s) that is near the Wilderness area so that you will have your goal of skiing unfettered by snowmobiles rather than your current segregation plan?

Question 2: If you have easy access to the Wilderness areas that are abundant in the area that are ALREADY ILLEGAL to snowmobile in, how is that not a means to an end for you?

Question 3: How and/or why would having exclusive Human Powered staging areas close to Wilderness which is off-limits to snowmobilers, NOT meet the stated goals of your proposal?

Please don't continue to "redirect" by talking about the few rotten apples making ALL the wilderness unusable... Those people snowmobiling in the Wilderness ARE illegal and are being dealt with by USFS, human and motorized friends of the Wilderness... ... this point only further clouds your presentation.

Question 4: 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.

The snowmobilers posting on this thread, Including me, feel repeat, deliberate, Wilderness area non-motorized intruders should be arrested and their snowmobiles should be impounded.. ANY trespasser should be ticketed by the USFS.

As a reminder... these are the same "snow covered roads" that you say you ALREADY ride your own snowmobile on to get deeper into the backcountry... your non snowmobile owning fellow Human powered enthusiasts would probably really like to have this access on plowed roads to the same areas you already use with your snowmobile as a staging area.

AK is simply pointing out, and I agree, If you had easier access over these roads to the Existing Massive Human powered only Wilderness areas would get more of your fellow skiers to low traffic, motor excluded, Wilderness POW RUNS extraordinaire!!

..
..

md2020: (TAY site) The areas adjacent to the road up to the crest are really the prime winter play areas.

Click to expand...

This would exclude snowmobilers from these Prime areas if they were changed from the current "Shared system" that seems to be free from conflict by many skiers and Nordic groups, even from Ski users on this thread.

The point is Human Powered (HP) users DO have this exclusive access that is unique to HP recreation method... The law excludes snowmobiles in the Wilderness... That has been taken care of. HP users have some great areas to use that are exclusively for the use by HP means.

The words that keep popping up are "segregation", "seperation", "exclusion" etc...That has already been done... With the Wilderness areas, that are adjacent to the areas that this proposal, already available to HP Recreation ... this will EXPAND the effective size of the "exclusion" for many people that enjoy the current shared areas.

md2020: (TAY site) You guys keep referring back to these "massive lands, AKA wilderness". You're not listening. Skiers can't get to them in the winter

Click to expand...

"You guys" .... are words that generate conflict... as I have said before, I'm an avid backcountry skinner/snowboarder/snowshoer... as well as a snowmobiler.

I AM Listening...BELIEVE ME!!
What I am saying is that it would be worth while to put effort into gaining access to certain "gateways" to the Wilderness...with easy access (plowed) parking lots close to the HP-only Wilderness.

If access to the Wilderness were to be made "easier" by plowing to HP-only parking lots closer to Wilderness areas:

Will you be able access "Human Powered ONLY" Wilderness areas that already exist in this region easily... Yes

Would you be able to access ALL of the Wilderness without effort... NO.

Would that "expansion" of EASILY accessed "NON-Motor only" areas (the current Wilderness areas that would be made more available with less effort) be at least equal in size to areas that are proposed to be eliminated as shared use ... YES

Some areas will still require more effort to get to...Deeper into the BC/Wild... which is the reward for those that are willing to "Earn their turns" and have truly fresh tracks.

NOTE: This is the user, with the user name WMC, response on TAY to the above question.

Although the user "WMC" logged on earlier today he chose not to post the reply in this forum as well.

As a side note... "Last activity" is public information in any users profile... this information is accessable to all logged in members of SnoWest.

I thought it would be appropriate to post a copy of that that reply here.

WMC from the TAY website, reply #607 on Page 25:

Mountainhorse, WMC will attempt to answer questions for the sake of the discussion. WMC will point out your intentional bad-faith misrepresentations of our statements and positions, and your false pretense here that you have not seen answers which have been provided. WMC will ask for civil discussion, not screaming via bolded text, desperate attention-wanting hyperbole. WMC finally will point out that aggression in comments is boring and unimpressive, unhelpful to the discussion, and causes many gentle citizens to avoid this discussion. Clearly, some here just wish to derail this discussion and would contradict WMC at any opportunity. WMC will take exception to your last bolded post as unacceptable. We anticipate that mountainhorse and others will disagree with most WMC responses and will continue to ask a barrage of poorly-considered questions and continue criticism in bad faith. Fair enough, all allowed here, but not part of a fruitful discussion.

Plowing the Road was discussed here previously, please read the thread/ WMC stated that we would support the idea and we have considered it for years. WMC also discussed the problems with it based on our knowledge and experience.

Questions 2 and 3 are unclear, again if you had read this thread extensive discussion about that topic is already here. On Snowest WMC has stated that it would be great to have more high-elevation access which now is limited to Highway mountain passes, MRNP, ski areas.

In regard to Question 4, the best non-motorized Wilderness access corridor would start from a (theoretical to your discussion) Sno Park at Beverly Creek. WMC would support that, please let us know when you will get that approved and funded and we will write letters and lobby for that. In consideration of the reality of USFS and State budgets and resources, the WMC proposal has less cost to make changes for access and to offer any idea for improved enforcement of the Wilderness Boundary.

The problem with areas smaller than the controversial WMC entire-crest proposal is that the Ingalls Creek snowmobile riding corridor provides backdoor entry to any area next to the Wilderness Boundary. Also, as we have experienced, one may walk in the south non-Wilderness slope to gain the slopes of the Wilderness, then find snowmobile tracks or snowmobiles as we have during every skitour to that crest for many years. All along the crest of the proposal are areas used for Wilderness snowmobile trespass. Wilderness snowmobile trespass is recognized as a problem here for a decade, and across Mt Baker closed areas, in the Mt Adams Wilderness for as long a period, and per the Yakama letter to WSSA, violation of the Yakama Mt Adams Area has occurred for 37 years. These and other examples question 'education' efforts and drain credibility from many counterpoints to WMC.

WMC has discussed alternatives to the entire Teanaway crest proposal more than once in meetings with officials. The glaring problem remains, what would happen if just a part of the crest were closed to snowmobiles- would the traffic on the rest of the crest continue into Wilderness and defeat the purpose of the new non-motorized area?

The question for snowmobile riders is that if a smaller part of the crest was closed to snowmobiles with an admonition for snowmobilers to police their own, would that work? Or would there be more of the same and another advocacy effort the next year to close the entire crest to protect the Wilderness Boundary and the areas including that Wilderness that should allow non-motorized winter recreation?

Thanks to others for honest and civil discussion here.

Click to expand...

I also found interesting, the reply to the user named "WMC" from the Administrator, Marcus, of the TAY website.

I'm very pleased to find Marcus to be the level headed person that he has shown himself to be! Kudos to Marcus!

Marcus:
Just to be clear, all is not allowed here. I think this has been an interesting thread and from what I've read (here and on the SnoWest forum), WMC, you feel that TAY is a free-for-all that allows any manner of rudeness, disrespect, etc. Knowing the history of the site and, in particular, the discussions in the last few months over censorship, civility, etc, I think expectations should be adjusted a bit. Of the forums that I've spent time on and the posts I've read here and elsewhere, TAY is pretty tame. I'm also not inclined to delete posts and prefer to encourage folks to keep it polite, but as with all things internet you definitely need to have a thicker skin, even here.

For my part, I think mountainhorse is asking his questions in good faith and is genuinely interested in a dialogue. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread, but WMC's stance has been fairly firm (which is fine) and I think that's becoming frustrating for some of the folks that are looking for a more collaborative approach.

Carry on!

Click to expand...

WMC on the TAY website: In regard to Question 4, the best non-motorized Wilderness access corridor would start from a (theoretical to your discussion) Sno Park at Beverly Creek. WMC would support that, please let us know when you will get that approved and funded and we will write letters and lobby for that.

Click to expand...

My take on this statement...Please correct me if I am not being accurate.

The user named "WMC" would support plowed road access ONLY on the condition that another group ("YOU") makes the arrangements for the implementation and cost of this plan.

I agree more with md2020's position that he, as a backcountry skier/skinner, would be willing to pay for access to areas that already exist that are for Human-Powered-Only use.

I see no reply from WMC that a Beverly Creek NON-Motor staging area, if funded and implemented, would meet his/her goal of better access and that the repeated, to coin a phrase from Marcus (TAY admin) "BOILERPLATE", appeals to shut down motor access to the current Shared lands would subside.

What I DO see, IMO, is many backcountry users... both Motorized and Non-motor... wanting to cooperate for a common good, in good faith, where all parties are able to enjoy these great lands in their preferred method of recreation in the Backountry.... outside of the extreme, "Boilerplate", demands of the user named "WMC"

It is my sincere hope that the user WMC DOES continue to participate here.

WMC
Questions 2 and 3 are unclear, again if you had read this thread extensive discussion about that topic is already here. On Snowest WMC has stated that it would be great to have more high-elevation access which now is limited to Highway mountain passes, MRNP, ski areas.

Click to expand...

Question 2: If you have easy access to the Wilderness areas that are abundant in the area that are ALREADY ILLEGAL to snowmobile in, how is that not a means to an end for you?

Question 3: How and/or why would having exclusive Human Powered staging areas close to Wilderness which is off-limits to snowmobilers, NOT meet the stated goals of your proposal?

Click to expand...

I have read this entire thread (all 25 pages) and see this being discussed, YES... though I do not see any answers or participation with suggestions in this topic.

Acting in good faith I will attempt to clarify questions 2 and 3.

Question 2: If Human Powered "staging areas" were to be established, with the cooperation of Human-Powered-Only (HP) users, snowmobilers and the USFS, that are close to the Wilderness areas that are Illegal for snowmobiles to access... 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?

Question 3: If these HP "staging areas" were established, close to the Designated Wilderness, would the goals of the user named WMC be met in regards to access to lands "unspoiled" by snowmobiles?


In context with these questions I reiterate my point that the small amount of I Purposeful illegal intrusion into Wilderness areas by snowmobilers needs to stop and should be a goal of all users of the neighboring areas to police and report. There is NO ROOM in the Wilderness designation for recreational use of motorize vehicles.

Here is a possible outcome that I will use an analogy to present.

Two brothers are playing in the backyard with their Tonka-Trucks... Both boys want the Fire Engine.... so an argument between the two sweet boys ensues.... Both boys start calling each other names, crying and pulling on the fire truck.

The mother of the two boys hears the scuffle and walks outside...sees what is happening and takes the fire engine away from both boys.

She says "If you two cant learn to share, then I'm going to take the Fire Engine into the hose and put in on the top shelf where none of you can play with it... and with that she sets the Fire Engine down on the ground next to them.

Both boys look each other dead in the eye, scream "MINE" to each other and... well the Fire engine now lives on the top shelf where neither gets to use it.

Click to expand...

Make no mistake about it... If the USFS get overwhelmed by the two parties that cant get along, they may just take away the area from all use... this could happen!!

In addition to this, the Current Wilderness areas could get closed to use by BC skiers as well. The current designation is for Human powered "non MECHANIZED" users which includes mountain bikes. It is not too far of a reach, that once irritated, the USFS could designate Tele/AT/Rondi rigs and snowshoes as "Mechanized" as well, and prohibit the use by any one except those that are on foot.

Lets turn this into a WIN-WIN for all recreationalists in this area.

I for one support the development of HP-ONLY staging areas and will support the HP-only users in their quest to have unspoiled access in the backcountry and help them to help themselves get plowed road access to these staging areas.

WMC,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I notice that you may have forgotten to post your reply to my re-clarified questions #2 and #3.

If you could address those questions, I would appreciate it and it would help to clarify your position.