N
Gee, I can't imagine why someone wouldn't respect our point of view after that?? :face-icon-small-dis
Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas (PART 7)
- Thread starter rmk2112
- Start date
Gee, I can't imagine why someone wouldn't respect our point of view after that?? :face-icon-small-dis
C
Man you are right on here LMAO snowmobiler gets some good ones.
coming from the guy who said that "your only giving WMC what he wants, publicity" too..
W
The entire ridge in question from Van Epps to Mission Ridge includes one basin off-limits to snowmobiles in the Teanaway, the Beverly-Bean Voluntary Non-Motorized Area. And there is the north side of the crest Tronsen Non-Motorized Area that is closed to snowmobiles. Those two nice areas are a small part of the total, a fracton of the area available to snowmobiles!
Repeating over and over that skiing and snowmobile riding are compatible on the same slope is just silly.
Please explain the common use of the word "share" in snowmobile rider's use please. We share a slope that has snowmobiles actively riding, or a rutted slope afterward? How about we get a share of the non-Wilderness (and Wilderness) without snowmobiles, please!
But thanks for the replies.
Last edited:
C
The problem with you and the likes of you is it is never ending IT IS JUST SMALL PART OT THE RIDDING AREA.When you get this then you go for more you never stop. Snowmobilers are done giving.
It is not silly for us to share (ONLY IN YOUR MINE IS IT SILLY). I know allot of people that are OK with sharing.
you have wilderness with out us go there to ski
Last edited:
Yes. And even if WMC simply got what they asked for and never wanted snowmobiles eliminated from more areas, it sets a precedence for other groups....if the FS and sledders bow to one group, they have to bend over for every group....pretty soon there is nothing left.
W
That is one common idea, indeed. And probably not an unreasonable concern.
Another discussion here was what if the different user groups came up with a plan that both could live with? And therefore, if that reasonable user-groups agreed, USFS approved plan was implemented, would it stabilize that area for the future- meaning protect snowmobile use areas? By that meaning stop further attempts to have other areas made non-motorized in the Wenatchee Mountains, since a reasonable plan was agreed by user groups and USFS approved and implemented the plan. And as far as other areas, if that worked in the Wenatchee Mtns, could it work elsewhere? Negotiate, compromise, share, rather than all-or-nothing.
Is is not better to work with the other users and then go to USFS rather than to have Organizations and lobbyists and lawyers and courts force-manage USFS lands? If WMC is the tip of the iceberg, if more and more skiers and snowshoe hikers and winter campers feel left with fewer accessible places in winter untracked by snowmobiles, what kind of backlash may occur? That is an honest comment, WMC does not want to see snowmobiling on USFS land prohibited on the large scale, we ride snowmobiles also. WMC believes that snowmobile riding on and off-road is a legitimate use of the Forest.
A question, sir: does USFS favor snowmobile riding as a result of lobbying and constant contact by organized snowmobile folks? If so, is the snowmobile lobby strong enough to withstand a potentially larger motivated human-powered winter Forest users drive that could curtail snowmobiling? WMC does not wish for this, just pointing out the reality that could evolve if non-motorized users feel shut out. It is better for users to recognize others' legitimate uses of the Forest in winter.
Good discussion, thank you very much!
Last edited:
WMC.....do you belong to SAWS? If not, you should join.....they send out notices almost weekly (sometimes more/less) of the constant barrage of groups throughout the country trying to shut down snowmobiling in areas big and small. So, without an organized defense, snowmobiling would be a thing of the past in a short time.
In the 38 years I've been sledding in Wa, I have seen wilderness expand and riding areas shrink, rules tighten and enforcement grow.
I guess my concern is where does it stop? Sure....we could possibly come to an agreement, but a few years later someone (WMC II or ???) has new ideas and wants another area closed.....just like what you (WMC) are proposing now.
It's good to talk the issue though, it allows one to see the others point of view.
In the 38 years I've been sledding in Wa, I have seen wilderness expand and riding areas shrink, rules tighten and enforcement grow.
I guess my concern is where does it stop? Sure....we could possibly come to an agreement, but a few years later someone (WMC II or ???) has new ideas and wants another area closed.....just like what you (WMC) are proposing now.
It's good to talk the issue though, it allows one to see the others point of view.
C
wow am i glad i live in canada, the hippie skiers up here arent orginzied enough (yet!!!) to get a crazy ball like this rolling. although you have to admire WMC balls, going on a sledding website talking about taking sledding areas away. must be a couple VW`s in that guys drawers!!!
up here it is a unspoken agreement (from what i have seen) to keep off of peoples terrain. our major problem comes from catski operations.....but the positive there is they open up some SICK spring riding!!!!!!! Meadow mtn anybody?????
up here it is a unspoken agreement (from what i have seen) to keep off of peoples terrain. our major problem comes from catski operations.....but the positive there is they open up some SICK spring riding!!!!!!! Meadow mtn anybody?????
W
Yes, thanks. WMC was told in the meeting with the snowmobile industry person, " I don't know about taking an entire ridge." Yes exactly, back at you- skiers and snowshoers have been mostly pushed off of that entire ridge- within our memory- our experience.
In the area of the WMC proposal there has been steadily increasing snowmobile use in numbers and in total area used by snowmobiles for over a decade. So in this particular area, WMC has observed snowmobile-use area increase and non-motorized users pushed out.
On the SAWS website there is an emphasis on preventing more Wilderness. There is more to the Forest than that one issue, WMC are talking about management of recreation, not about creating Wilderness. Management of recreation on USFS land is about letting all Forest users coexist instead of all-or-nothing free-for-all. If we can try to give and take between users perhaps a solution will be created rather than sides being taken, all-or-nothing.
Some areas that would be valuable for winter non-motorized use have been described by different snowmobile enthusiasts as a "waste" and as "ride through country." That would be a start of a discussion.
If anyone wonders why I am still here, I will repeat that in person I have never met a disagreeable snowmobile rider. I think that in spite of some stuff that is online, snowmobile riders are regular good folks. There is disagreement and fear of motives but there may be considerable common ground.
Thank you.
Y
WMC, lets be sure to include the existing non-motorized and wilderness in the overall concept of management of recreational land......WMC, it is still appreciated if you would produce the maps as discussed earlier.
Seen an article on http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012348833_kiket14m.html?syndication=rss that is symptomatic of a parks like management...non-motorized...very restrictive..attitude of parks type folks...
Seen an article on http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012348833_kiket14m.html?syndication=rss that is symptomatic of a parks like management...non-motorized...very restrictive..attitude of parks type folks...
W
Yes, a big thumbs up for you guys working on marking the Wilderness Boundary!
Wilderness is not accessible for most non-motorized users, unfortunately. Those of us who do travel to the Wilderness along the Teanaway crest reliably find either snowmobiles or snowmobile tracks in the Wilderness. Just to have those areas free of snowmobiles (per the Law) would be a huge improvement!
The next paragraphs discuss adding areas to existing Non-Motorized Areas, those areas called by snomo riders "a waste" and "ride through country."
The current Beverly-Bean Voluntary Non-Motorized Area gets snowmobile tracks from Stafford, but many fewer than the Wilderness basins to the north. When one summits Earl Peak in the Voluntary Non-Motorized Area then there are snowmobile tracks to the summit from Stafford, an area open to snowmobiles. That defeats the purpose of having a Non-Motorized Area. Adding Stafford would greatly enhance and make it a legitimate Non-Motorized Area- especially if when on the summit of Earl there are no snowmobiles over on the Wilderness side as we see every winter. Stafford and Beverly-Bean are the closest self-powered areas of the high elevation open terrain from the 29 Pines Sno Park.
The Tronsen Non-Motorized Area has four (640 acre) sections- compared to the 400.000 acres open to snowmobiles in Kittitas Co on the south slope of the Wenatchee Mountains. Snowmobile riders pushed into the Tronsen Non-Motorized Area last winter more than my Eburg friend has seen in 30 years of skiing there. Some signs were added there. WMC proposes a clear Boundary at the road, and the addition of Mt Lillian and Haney Meadow to enlarge the non-Motorized Area. Our local ski guide guided skiers on paid trips to stay overnight at Haney Meadow cabin before so many snowmobiles were there and before all of the off-road was tracked by snowmobiles. One may ski from south Mt Lillian summit (2-3 hrs from Hwy 97 to climb) to Haney Meadow, then from Tronsen Head through the existing Non-Motorized Area. If that area was given to skiers, a very small part of the terrain of the area used by snowmobiles but a significant addition of accessible non-motorized area from Hwy 97.
The area of the proposal from Mission Peak to Lake Clara and Mission Ridge Rd is along the Ski Area Boundary, thus enlarging another area that is dedicated to skiing. Not a lot of riding, but the most accessible terrain for skiing and snowshoeing natural high elevation open areas.
Three different folks have promised a map, when we get it it will be put up.
Thanks.
Last edited:
Ruffy, you're out of line taking a shot at Newtrout. You didn't take part in giving WMC any publicity? If you're on our side, then it's time to quit with the semantics, man up and get on board for real. If not, then step off!!!
Let's consider the publicity thing for a minute. How can you argue the success he's had? Everyone arguing the same thing for the last what... month and a half?
He's gotten 20 times the publicity than he would've recieved had people who can't handle typing the last word and arguing both sides at times seen this for what he was really trying to accomplish. I did say this in the very beginning (the publicity thing). Ruffy seems to have some issue with this. OK. Nobody bothered to listen to CLE ELEM SLEDHEAD, not even me. Seemed to be what he said also.
He even got sledders arguing semantics between themselves even. :hurt:
Brilliant on his part. Absolutely....Brilliant!!!
Last edited:
S
"WMC was told in the meeting with the snowmobile industry person, " I don't know about taking an entire ridge." Yes exactly, back at you- skiers and snowshoers have been mostly pushed off of that entire ridge- within our memory- our experience."
Can you clarify what you mean by "pushed off"? Did someone ask you to leave or did people just CHOOSE to no longer go there??
Can you clarify what you mean by "pushed off"? Did someone ask you to leave or did people just CHOOSE to no longer go there??
W
If that was a tangent point, which it is not, it is negated by the simple comparison that there are more millions of acres outside of Wilderness that are open to snowmobiling, and individuals who ride snowmobiles on the Forest are a minority of Forest users. What that means is that a fewer number of snowmobilers dominate the Forest and remove a disproportionate share to the user groups from practical use of the majority Forest users, skier, snowshoers, winter campers. As you folks like to say, try to share! (now we will see responses trying to prove that there are more Forest users who ride snowmobiles costing from thousands to $12k than there are folks wanting a quiet walk in the Forest on skis or snowshoes.)
WMC dares to ask for a few percent to as much as perhaps roughly 8 percent of the acreage in Kittitas County open to snowmobiles to be made designated winter non-motorized area. WMC has been willing to discuss compromise in the proposal to meet the needs and considerations expressed here by snowmobile enthusiasts.
Is the only alternative to be all-or-nothing opposing interests? WMC is seeking discussion, collaboration, and possible compromise.
Thank you.
W
Folks choose to not go to places to walk on skis or snowshoes where there are snowmobiles riding, or where snowmobiles have tracked and rutted the snow. Please, it is a stretch to think that folks here do not understand this, honestly. If there were hundreds of skiers blocking your riding, do you think you would try to protect areas for your sport? Of course you would.
Are snowmobile enthusiasts unwilling to share, intolerant of giving a few percent of total riding areas back to the majority Forest users? Is it really all-or-nothing, do-or-die resistance? Why does such a small compromise upset so many here? If the WMC proposal is ridiculous and our complaints and points make no sense, why the strong responses and argument?
Discussion leading to collaboration and compromise would tend to result in a more balanced result for the various users. All-or-nothing fights create winner-take-all. Do folks here believe that snowmobile enthusiasts will win all forever?
Thank you.
N
OK, I'll take this bait. Yes. In the case of the Teanaway, and particularly the alpine portions of the Teanaway, snowmobiles are absolutely the majority user group; by a long shot. I could almost understand your argument if you were going after an area that was heavily used by skiers and snowshoers.
This is not a small compromise that you propose. You wish to entirely remove one of the few prime alpine snowmobiling areas in the state from motorized use; an area that happens to be used by a very small group of skiers on an infrequent basis; an area that has a ridiculous amount of untracked, skiable terrain on ANY GIVEN DAY all winter long.
Please drop the rhetoric for one minute here..... You come here with a proposal that has a huge impact on our sport in this county, and benefits a select few individuals; you paint it as a minor proposal by using your 8 percent figure; ignoring the fact that it covers a much, much larger percentage of the rideable alpine terrain in our county. Then when we don't jump for joy at your proposal, you paint us as intolerant, unwilling to compromise, blah, blah, blah.....
Enough with the games. The only problem in this area is snowmobiles riding in Wilderness. There is no legitimate user conflict here. A skier in most of the basins east of Esmerelda might have seen one group of snowmobilers pass through in a day (before your PR efforts). Does that really make the area unusable? It is a huge stretch to claim that skiers have been 'pushed off' of any skiable terrain east of Esmerelda.
W
Good discussion and arguments, thanks. Again, WMC is seeking alternatives that could be more acceptable that would serve both user groups- collaboration. Without collaboration, it just becomes opposing user groups going after winner-take-all. Currently snowmobile riding is taking the entire ridge with a few non-motorized users there during snowmobile season.
Try to consider the point that (agreed) there is no conflict because skiers and snowshoers are not going to throw themselves in front of snowmobiles so that you may see us, skiers and snowshoers and certainly winter campers do not go to the Teanaway because of snowmobile riding- just look at the numbers of skiers and snowmobile riders who go there and post TRs after riding ends in spring. Access is also a consideration, but the distance to Beverly or Stafford is commonly traveled for ski touring and winter camping, one may see this on many TRs as well. please consider that there are uses other than snowmobile riding for that prime alpine terrain- share, perhaps?
The Wilderness snowmobile trespass is a problem, more taking of resource from non-motorized users and a significant violation of Federal Law. If you folks have success in curbing that problem, cheers and congratulations all around!
Thank you.
Last edited:
When I am out riding and see snowboarders or skiers on a hill (VERY rare have I seen skiers, and only an occasional snowboarder who also has a sled).....I will leave that area to them and go elsewhere. I can be to the next hill in minutes. This is just common courtesy IMO.
As for sleds rutting/tracking up the hills making them un-skiable.....well, it snows quite often in Wa. Rarely more than a couple days before ALL areas are once again pristine and smooth after being tracked up (by sledders OR skiers). I have also faced disapointment MANY times, coming to my favorite areas and someone has beat me to first marks and making the terrain undesirable for my use....Should I demand changes in policy so this doesn't happen? Or should I just try again in a few days after it snows? Or perhaps get out of bed earlier to get first dibs??
As for sleds rutting/tracking up the hills making them un-skiable.....well, it snows quite often in Wa. Rarely more than a couple days before ALL areas are once again pristine and smooth after being tracked up (by sledders OR skiers). I have also faced disapointment MANY times, coming to my favorite areas and someone has beat me to first marks and making the terrain undesirable for my use....Should I demand changes in policy so this doesn't happen? Or should I just try again in a few days after it snows? Or perhaps get out of bed earlier to get first dibs??
Similar threads
