Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas

WMC · Jun 3, 2010

Much discussion has occurred on various websites already in regard to proposed winter non-motorized areas. WMC is here to ask for discussion about the issues. Our intent is for making a point, counterpoint, disagreement, complaint, ideas, views about these issues. We seek civil discussion about the issues while trying to listen and recognize that there are other legitimate user groups on the Forest. A lot of information, answers, and various views are available here:

http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=16511.0

http://www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/18996

http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7983343

WMC would encourage the 151,000 non-motorized Forest users and the 35,0000 owners of Registered snowmobiles in this state to discuss, give input, and comment to the appropriate Officials. (Figures were posted on TAY and justified by other posters).

This Washington State Parks website of Sno Park locations has maps of areas across the state. It is very instructive to view the maps and note the few designated non-motorized areas. This illustrates the need for USFS management to allow uses other than snowmobile riding in the winter by the designation of new and significant winter non-motorized areas.

http://www.parks.wa.gov/winter/trails/?TrailType=motorized

About the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition

Purpose: Advocacy for non-motorized winter recreation on Forest Lands.
Goal: Designation of USFS Non-Motorized areas for winter recreation. Specifically, we seek non-motorized status for the pristine unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.
Initial action -- the Thousand Skiers Project: One thousand skiers/snowshoers/Forest users will write (email) the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Supervisor and request designation of new non-motorized areas on the Wenatchee Mountains. The ‘significant’ area we are targeting is the unroaded Wenatchee Mountains ridge crest from Van Epps Pass to Three Brothers (mountain). This encompasses Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers and the Wenatchee Mountains Crest from Rd 9716 to the west of Diamond Head across Tronsen Head, Mt. Lillian including down to the Old Ellensburg trail to Mission Peak and on to the Mission Ridge Road including Lake Clara, Mission Peak, and surrounding areas. This area would offer many short day-tours, long day tours, overnight self-powered ski tours, and snowmobile road-assist tours. We hope to generate a thousand comments by August 15, 2010.

Contact information: Mail, email, or call
Rebecca Heath, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters
215 Melody Lane
Wenatchee, WA 98801
(509) 664-9200
Email: blheath@fs.fed.us
Also send a copy of your message to the Forest Plan Revision Team: r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us
Carbon Copy Us: wenatcheemountainscoalition@hotmail.com. We need to track our support and to capture additional thoughts and ideas of non-motorized recreationalists. Your privacy is paramount, we will not share your contact information or reveal your identity.
Help us Succeed. Please forward this message to your skiing/snowshoeing friends. Ask for their involvement.

Thank you.

hurleyboarder21 · Jun 3, 2010

land grab

wmc

not nearly as many riders on here right now as compared to december.

might want to bring this back to the top next winter.

have been following this on tay.

there was a message on snowest from the gal you referance at the forest service requesting that we stop sending her emails and letters.

you do realize that the closure you want will most likely result in that area being poached even more. just not from the group that already dose it and does not care , but also the new group you will create that were formally respectfull of closed areas.

i know of 20 plus ways to acces that area. the group you should be after is the ones that are coming in from scotty creek.

the forest service can't enforce the areas as they are now.

in regards to some of your lasts posts on tay...........

are YOU sure THIS area is worth fighting for.

regards
Hurly

WMC · Jun 3, 2010

hurleyboarder21 said:
wmc

not nearly as many riders on here right now as compared to december.

might want to bring this back to the top next winter.

have been following this on tay.

there was a message on snowest from the gal you referance at the forest service requesting that we stop sending her emails and letters.

you do realize that the closure you want will most likely result in that area being poached even more. just not from the group that already dose it and does not care , but also the new group you will create that were formally respectfull of closed areas.

i know of 20 plus ways to acces that area. the group you should be after is the ones that are coming in from scotty creek.

the forest service can't enforce the areas as they are now.

in regards to some of your lasts posts on tay...........

are YOU sure THIS area is worth fighting for.

regards
Hurly

Thanks for the very civil discussion. We are encouraging folks to contact the USFS Official and the Planning Team who hold authority in regard to these matters.

Yes, we chose this area with serious intent to ask for non-motorized status. Snowmobile riders sometimes like to mention 'previous' or 'traditional use', in response to that we will point out that members of WMC have skied or snowshoe hiked these areas since long before snowmobiles were ridden there.

Please get the word out about this discussion. WMC believes that the resource of snowy Forest slopes is limited and that the time has come for management for various types of recreational uses.

To allude to unlawful behavior is not the best argument. The WMC proposed designated non-motorized winter recreation areas have definite boundaries that are enforceable from a Road. The above problems involve areas that are closed to snowmobiles bu do not have clear and enforceable boundaries.

Thanks for the discussion.

ruffryder · Jun 3, 2010

WMC said:
and the 35,0000 owners of Registered snowmobiles in this state to discuss

You are still using this number, yet the sources you use for the 151k users puts this at 95k. The Washington SCORP estimates are 113k cross country skiers, 38k snowshoers, and 98k snowmobilers. WMC, if you are interested in discussion, could you please use factual information?

I see you are still trying to use the word parity too.

WMC, you are not interested in having a discussion, and you are not interested in anything except for justifying your point of view.

It is discouraging to see the committee as trying to be the voice of skiers, since you seem to not represent the wishes of the majority of backcountry skiers with your exclusionary proposals.

Snowesters, be wary of this group (this is multiple people, not just one individual). I suspect that any negative statements made towards the WMC will be quoted and spread throughout the internet as proof that snowmobilers are not interested in discussing this topic.

Thank you for your input.

ruffryder · Jun 3, 2010

WMC said:
And again, does the opposition to winter non-motorized recreation think it wise to oppose such an area that is on the hit list for several major organizations to prohibit snowmobile riding? In other words, would it be better to defend other areas for snowmobiling? Or does the opposition firmly believe that nothing will change, that snowmobiles will indefinitely have the run of the Forest by default of omission in management?

Taken from TAY. Doesn't really seem like a person interested in a discussion about use, does it? Opposition opposition opposition... I thought we were all backcountry users here? I guess if you say it enough, then it becomes true?

Thank you for your input.

ruffryder · Jun 3, 2010

Response to Wenatchee Mountains Coalition re: Designating Areas on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest for Non-Motorized Winter Recreation

The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Supervisor, Becki Heath, has recently received several e-mails requesting that certain areas on the National Forest be designated for non-motorized winter recreation. Supervisor Heath appreciates the interest expressed in these messages and recognizes the need for a range of winter recreation opportunities on the Forest. The Forest Planning process is the appropriate venue for identifying and addressing these types of interests and issues. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is currently in the process of revising its Forest Plan, and in order for us to address the interests conveyed in recent e-mails we request that you direct future correspondence regarding this topic to the Forest Planning team. Supervisor Heath maintains close communication with the planning team and regularly reviews public input, so she will remain informed of your interests.

Please address future correspondence regarding designating areas for particular types of winter recreation use to: r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us. {*Please note the third character is an underscore= r6_ (underscore) ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us} To send comments via US Mail the address is: Forest Plan Revision Team, Okanogan Valley Office, 1240 Second Ave. South, Okanogan, WA 98840.

For more information about the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests- Forest Plan Revision please visit the project website at: www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/forest-plan

Thank you for your interest and thoughtful comments.

Comments are to be sent to the location above. Taken from the TAY thread and posted by a forest service representative. WMC has failed to accept the FS observation as to the correct method of letting your voice be heard.

Thank you for your input.

ruffryder · Jun 3, 2010

SeaTacExpat said:
I agree with treeswarper, and I also don't own (or use) any motorized offroad vehicles. As mentioned earlier, there's a substantial thread going on at turns-all-year (18 pages now!) that covers this discussion in more detail. It's pretty enlightening about what WMC wants.

From WMC's postings, they don't consider wilderness areas as accessible or suitable for skiing most of the year, so they don't want to consider those as skiable areas, but they want to (A) maintain snowmobile access on approach roads but (B) ban snowmobile access from open and alpine areas in the wenatchee mountains. So, WMC can ride a snowmobile 5 or 10 miles up an approach road, then skin up and enjoy untracked powder. Meanwhile, people who snowmobile to ride in the alpine lose out, as do people who like to backcountry ski but don't use approach vehicles.

People on TAY have tried to engage WMC in discussing different approaches (for example, having voluntary non-motorized areas near trailheads, so that easily skinned slopes are accessible to BC skiers, but allowing the areas farther from the trailhead to be open to snowmobiles), but they are not having any of it.

Converting multiple use areas to single use areas shuts out everyone in favor of a few - which just concentrates the use (and resource damage) in progressively fewer areas. Do we really need to carve up the NF into separate recreational areas for every single hobby?

Interesting post by a non-motorized user, posted on the NWHikers website.

Thanks for your input.

yammadog · Jun 3, 2010

Making the rounds and finding limited support at all locations.....

winter brew · Jun 3, 2010

Designated Wilderness IS designated non-motorized....it's all yours and there is already alot of it. Why the need to go after a specific area? Does this just happen to be the areas you typically use already? Is this the area of the largest concentration of non-motorized users? Just curious-

yammadog · Jun 3, 2010

I think WMC should post in the Ford and Gravy section over at BCR to get some "positive" feedback...

X2Freeride · Jun 3, 2010

As I told WMC in the Pm that "they" sent me... THIS WILL NOT BECOME A WHICH HUNT AGAINST SNOWMOBILES or SNOWMOBILERS... PERIOD. This is Snowmobile site first and foremost and the interests of snowmobilers and the members here comes first to SNOWEST.

Posting here is a PRIVILEGE not a right. The rules need to be observed at all times, this includes not attacking members or taking their words of of context, or using their views against them. If the discussion can in fact remain civil and on topic without becoming a personal vendetta for people then the topic can remain here, however if it gets out of line I will pull it and that will be the end of it.

hurleyboarder21 · Jun 3, 2010

unlawfull behavior

it was the wilderness area getting tracked up that started wmc on this landgrab to protect their "powderstash" for their small group of elitist minded skiers.

heavin forbid that anyother backcountry user with a mindset not exactly like theirs should have access to "their" area. be it a snowmobiler...snowmobiler skier who wants more turns or snowmo boarders- skiers who do not have the ability or time to skin all day. some folks have jobs and limited time to play.

To allude to unlawful behavior is not the best argument. The WMC proposed designated non-motorized winter recreation areas have definite boundaries that are enforceable from a Road. The above problems involve areas that are closed to snowmobiles bu do not have clear and enforceable boundaries.

that area already has boundries that the forest service cannot enforce..

what are you proposing to do to stop the incursions from the north, the west and the southwest???? enforce from the road ??? are you kidding WMC ?

good luck with that.

this landgrab is so transparently about a few who want "their stash" for themselves that they forsake any reasonable consideration to others in the same genre .

that is ALL this is, and wmc knows it . hence the same rhetorical statements from wmc stirring the pot.

regards
Hurly

2Thetopp · Jun 3, 2010

WMC, do me a favor and take a map of Wash. and if you can color in the areas that we can legally ride in, then color in the rest of the state a different color where "YOU OR I" can ski, snowboard, snowshoe, bicycle, canoe, climb and hike legally year round. It looks a little lopsided doesn't it, especially when we can only ride for a few months a year and you want MORE! It's a big world out there you should explore it and leave us to our limited areas, and like it or not we are not trying to keep you out of any of our areas you're more than welcome to enjoy them as we do.

ruffryder · Jun 4, 2010

hurleyboarder21 said:
what are you proposing to do to stop the incursions from the north, the west and the southwest???? enforce from the road ??? are you kidding WMC ?

good luck with that.

No he isn't kidding, that is the plan. Snowmobiling is allowed on the road, and off road travel past the road is not allowed. Keep this in mind when you see WMC state that he is a snowmobiler and that he is not for banning snowmobile usage. They will still be allowed.... on the road only though.

ruffryder · Jun 4, 2010

As to the wilderness issue. This is something that snowmobilers need to get a handle on. This is OUR problem, not the FS. The onus is on us to stop this behavior, as we are the ones that have the most to loose.

For those that say it doesn't matter and that it is just an excuse for people to take our riding areas, sit down and have a discussion with your FS representative about the issues they are facing. Most are normal people and are down to earth. Some of the complaints of skiers are invalid, but the Wilderness trespass issues is not.

Simply stating that the FS should fine them is not enough of a statement, as I doubt you would find anyone in the FS that would argue against the point. It is a money issue. I believe all the money for tickets that the FS receives go to the courts, not the FS, so the FS does not have a monetary incentive to do this.

WMC · Jun 4, 2010

2Thetopp said:
WMC, do me a favor and take a map of Wash. and if you can color in the areas that we can legally ride in, then color in the rest of the state a different color where "YOU OR I" can ski, snowboard, snowshoe, bicycle, canoe, climb and hike legally year round. It looks a little lopsided doesn't it, especially when we can only ride for a few months a year and you want MORE! It's a big world out there you should explore it and leave us to our limited areas, and like it or not we are not trying to keep you out of any of our areas you're more than welcome to enjoy them as we do.

This view is often taken, however we would disagree. Snowmobile riders in our observation are expanding constantly into new areas of the Forest. There is no prohibition against riding the general Forest other than some small Closed areas. So it is understandable and natural for riders to seek new areas- great fun and adventure. We anticipate this expansion to become more of a problem when many more skiers and snowshoe hikers see their former quiet areas tracked by snowmobiles.

The reality is that the snowy Forest is a limited resource, there is not enough for unlimited use, therefore the Forest needs management for multiple-uses, not just for snowmobile riding which removes the use for quiet non-motorized recreation on untracked snow. As on other Forests, whether now or later, this type of management is likely in the future.

Thanks for discussion. WMC does not expect agreement here, but hopes for discussion and asks for riders to give input here, since in discussion we may learn from each other. Thank you.

WMC · Jun 4, 2010

winter brew said:
Designated Wilderness IS designated non-motorized....it's all yours and there is already alot of it. Why the need to go after a specific area? Does this just happen to be the areas you typically use already? Is this the area of the largest concentration of non-motorized users? Just curious-

Good questions, thanks. On TAY http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=16511.0 various folks discussed with yammadog and ruffy the fact that Wilderness is generally not practical for skiers to reach and use in a day. Also in many places skiers and snowshoe hikers would need to walk through snowmobile traffic for hours on the hike to Wilderness.

Also, all of Wilderness does not qualify as desirable for skiing or snowshoe hiking, nor would it be good for snowmobiling, so the total acreage of Wilderness is not a legitimate comparison. One could counter that there is all sort of roaded tree farm that skiers do not use, so why don't snowmobilers go there? Because that would not be good riding. So skiers and snowshoers are looking for areas of a certain quality as are snowmobile riders. So some areas need to be given to each (incompatibile use) group.

As far as the WMC proposal, there are several primary and secondary advantages in our view. WMC proposes to add areas as winter non-motorized designation that connect to other non-motorized areas. Those areas include the Wilderness, the Tronsen and Pipe creek Non-Motorized Areas, and the Mission Ridge Ski Area. The WMC proposal provides a corridor to Wilderness. Also, the areas of the WMC proposal provides a buffer to Wilderness which is the usual USFS management around Wilderness.

Here is ruffy's question and the answer from TAY-

Isn't the wilderness already available for weekend trips?

Sure, and how many times has this been discussed here and in response to your questions several times? But glad to help here.

First, any fair evaluation of the numbers would indicate that there is disparity between one user group, snowmobile riders, and all other user groups combined in total Forest acreage and especially in acreage outside of Wilderness.

Secondly, much Wilderness, in fact most, is often characterized by more avalanche hazard and fewer safe approaches. Also much Wilderness is steep, cliffy on the north slopes or has thick vegetation on the north slopes. So there is not necessarily a plethora of terrain and vegetation type available in Wilderness.

Thirdly, as discussed several times- many times- here. Pedestrian access to Wilderness is problematic.

And yes we do go overnight on skis into Wilderness. However in this example one would need to walk for most of a day or at least for hours through groups of buzzing snowmobiles, unless non-motorized winter status is secured for the area.

Last February while walking on skis into Wilderness for two hours we frequently stepped aside for groups of snowmobiles. Then, as we skied into Wilderness, we never actually got away from snowmobile tracks that were all through the Wilderness area. Several times from the Wilderness valley we looked up at groups of snowmobiles and riders parked on high points above 7000 ft on the Boundary looking down at us- we could hear them talking, cranking up their motors. Probably a description that makes the advocates and defenders of Wilderness quite livid.

So, as we have alluded, this is not the best area for snowmobile use for many reasons, but it is prime terrain for winter non-motorized recreation. Does the opposition to winter non-motorized recreation think it wise to oppose such a non-motorized area that is on the hit list for several major organizations to prohibit snowmobile riding? Also an area identified for grizzly habitat, potential Lynx habitat, other wildlife, home to rare flowers endemic to the Wenatchee Mountains, high wild ridges with gnarled old Whitebark pines clinging to rocks through the subalpine weather, the wet valley, now overrun in winter with cross country snowmobile routes winding, breaking brush and trees, through the lateral draining creeks that flow into Etienne Cr, an area that contains large old growth forest including some impressive Western Larch nearly 5 ft dbh. In other words, would it be better to defend other areas for snowmobiling? Or does the opposition firmly believe that nothing will change, that snowmobiles will indefinitely have the run of the Forest by default of omission in management?
(end TAY quote)

Those are our views, our advocacy. We do not wish to shut out snowmobiles in general, we do not seek to limit snowmobiles on or off Roads except in non-motorized areas. And yes, because of what we have discussed, we are asking for USFS management meaning new and significant winter non-motorized areas.

If there is common ground to be found between our user groups, we hope to identify it, that is why we are here.

Thanks again.

ruffryder · Jun 4, 2010

Does anyone else get the feeling that WMC is not interested in a discussion, rather in a justification for their proposals?

yammadog · Jun 4, 2010

ruffryder said:
Does anyone else get the feeling that WMC is not interested in a discussion, rather in a justification for their proposals?

It'll be interesting to see the responses once he puts up a map and identifies the areas they are proposing to exclude. Which need to be civil as he/they will try and use those comments in the negative light he's trying to shine, so be careful guys......

It's been close to a month since I started "discussing" with them on TAY and not one bit of concession on WMC's part. Only repetative rehtoric.

ruffryder · Jun 4, 2010

WMC said:
Good questions, thanks. On TAY http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=16511.0 various folks discussed with yammadog and ruffy the fact that Wilderness is generally not practical for skiers to reach and use in a day. Also in many places skiers and snowshoe hikers would need to walk through snowmobile traffic for hours on the hike to Wilderness.

So? You aren't advocating for increased day use for skiers only. If you were, then we could agree on the point, but you aren't.

WMC said:
Also, all of Wilderness does not qualify as desirable for skiing or snowshoe hiking, nor would it be good for snowmobiling, so the total acreage of Wilderness is not a legitimate comparison.

mmm... I am not buying it. The wilderness has the goods. I will trade you a Gold Creek and a Stampede for it? If it is not desireable, then why do you spend so much time (days) trying to get there? Why do a lot of people? Lots of pictures that I see of the Alpine Lakes areas from TAY trip reports show the areas are amazing and have really good amounts of terrain. If it were legal, I think snowmobilers would love to ride there.

WMC said:
First, any fair evaluation of the numbers would indicate that there is disparity between one user group, snowmobile riders, and all other user groups combined in total Forest acreage and especially in acreage outside of Wilderness.

Yes this has been stated before. Non-motorized users have 100% of the forest and snowmobilers at most get 50%. For having close numbers of users, that doesn't really seam fair to me.

WMC said:
Last February while walking on skis into Wilderness for two hours we frequently stepped aside for groups of snowmobiles. Then, as we skied into Wilderness, we never actually got away from snowmobile tracks that were all through the Wilderness area. Several times from the Wilderness valley we looked up at groups of snowmobiles and riders parked on high points above 7000 ft on the Boundary looking down at us- we could hear them talking, cranking up their motors. Probably a description that makes the advocates and defenders of Wilderness quite livid.

So they were lived because the snowmobilers were respecting the boundry and not going into Wilderness??

WMC said:
We do not wish to shut out snowmobiles in general, we do not seek to limit snowmobiles on or off Roads except in non-motorized areas.

So you don't except were you do?:face-icon-small-dis

WMC said:
If there is common ground to be found between our user groups, we hope to identify it, that is why we are here.

:face-icon-small-con

Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas

Banned

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Premium Member

Well-known member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads