• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Email from OR SAWS rep about snowkiting

R
Nov 27, 2007
1,241
92
48
Newport, WA
Just got this from the OR SAWS rep:

Snowkiters at Bald Butte flying above Forest Service wilderness rules for now

by Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian
Sunday April 12, 2009, 6:29 PM

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/snowkiters_at_bald_butte_flyin.html

BEND -- Three years ago, Chris Sabo first saw the colorful kites twisting above the snowy contours of Ball Butte.

The Deschutes National Forest trails specialist was patrolling the boundary of the Three Sisters Wilderness west of Bend on a snowmobile when he came across a group of snowkiters, who harness the wind to pull them across the snow on skis or snowboards.

"I do remember the big question was, 'Is this legal technically?'" recalled Sabo.

That question could soon lead to one of the first changes to the U.S. Forest Service's wilderness regulations in more than two decades.

"It has rapidly made its way up to the Washington office" of the Forest Service, said Shane Jeffries, Bend-Fort Rock District Ranger in Bend and Sabo's supervisor.

The small sport of snowkiting is about a decade old in Oregon, but it's growing. Congressionally designated wilderness areas have been around since the 1960s. The recent intersection of the two demonstrates how government agencies react as the way we play on public lands continues to change.

"Periodically new things pop up on us that we just can't envision," said Sabo.

It happened with hang gliding and, more recently, Geocaching -- a GPS-driven treasure hunt popular on public lands. Now it seems it's snowkiting's turn to bow to the bureaucracy.

The sport is basically the winter version of the colorful kiteboarders you may have seen ripping along and above the Columbia River in the gorge.

Snowkiting first arrived in Oregon thanks to pioneers such as Aaron Sales, a Hood River resident and editor of Kiteboarding magazine. Kiteboarders' feet are strapped to a short board, and they wear a harness around their waist that is connected to a control bar, affixed with lines leading to a parabolic nylon kite from 5 to 12 meters in size.

Using the wind as their engine, they carve across the river, launching high into the air off wind-formed waves.

Sales first tried doing the same thing on snow with his snowboard on Mount Hood's Palmer Glacier in 1998, when the sport was gaining ground in Europe but still essentially unheard of in Oregon. Today, Sales estimates there are at least 200 snowkiters in the state.

Their biggest challenge: Finding somewhere to kite. Snowkiters need large, unobstructed snowfields. Frozen lakes work, but the terrain is monotonous. More mountainous areas above treeline, areas like Ball Butte west of Bend, offer excitement and challenge.

"It's above the treeline. It's rolling hills. It's everything you need. It works in any wind direction. And it's just absolutely beautiful," said Tim Carlson, a member of the Bend Kite Crew.

At the butte, a bare plain slopes up to a rocky peak. Snowkiters on boards or skis can carve on the flats or loft huge aerial stunts, drifting slowly back to earth, sometimes hundreds of feet away.

The problem: Mountainous areas above the treeline also happen to be where land designated as wilderness often is. That's the case with Ball Butte, which is just inside the Three Sisters Wilderness near Mount Bachelor.

This winter, Sabo told Carlson and others that they would no longer be allowed at the butte and that he may even have to ticket them in the future. Yet a mile away, just across the wilderness boundary, snowmobilers are free to gun their machines to the top of Moon Mountain.

So what rule decrees that the public can tear up one slope with a two-stroke engine and can't use the wind to ride up another nearby? The 1964 Wilderness Act does. It says you can't use motorized craft and "other form of mechanized transport" in wilderness.

But that's pretty broad. The Forest Service manual gets into details about just what mechanized transport means, including "any contrivance ... that provides a mechanical advantage to the user and that is powered by a living or non-living power source."

While the agency's rules seem to disallow snowkiting because the kite provides "mechanical advantage," they may not be specific enough, said Terry Knupp, Wilderness Program leader for the U.S. Forest Service. So the agency is looking to amend its rules, posting a note in the Federal Register as early as this summer and then going into a lengthy public process to explicitly ban snowkiting.

"It's been over 20 years, I think, since we changed the existing regulations, so that tells you something. It takes quite a big issue," said Susan Sater, northwest wilderness program manager for the agency.

That change could exclude kiters from the more than 35 million acres of wilderness managed by the U.S. Forest Service, and Congress recently passed a bill that added more than 200,000 acres of new wilderness to Oregon, from the deserts east of Bend to the Coast Range.

But there's more to the debate than the definition of "mechanical advantage."

It gets to our ideas of just what, and who, wilderness is for. And the emphasis should be on preserving "wilderness character," said Bill Worf, who as a Forest Service employee helped write the first rules for wilderness in the 1960s and went on to found Wilderness Watch in 1989.

"Since there wasn't snowkiting even dreamed of at this time, that would come under a new impact that would change the wilderness character," said Worf. "There's nothing wrong with snowkiting, but it shouldn't be in wilderness."

Kiters consider their sport low-impact, green recreation. And they are organizing to lobby the agency to preserve access, much like cycling groups do now. Sales recently organized U.S. Snowkite Association to give his sport a voice.

Meanwhile, Jeffries, the district ranger, said he'd like to work with kiters to find some nonwilderness areas in the forest for their sport.

But Sales and other kiters say they've been looking for years, and Ball Butte is the only reasonably accessible place in Oregon.

"It's very frustrating to have these locations that are so dear to us taken away," said Sales.

-- Matthew Preusch; mattpreusch@news.oregonian.com

I guess now they know how it feels! I hope the FS down there sticks to their guns on this.
 

off road rider

SnoWest Paid Sponsor
Premium Member
Jan 2, 2008
1,729
354
83
Kent Wa
So because we cant us it .. you think they shouldnt be able to either??
I dont see any harm in the kiters ..Or us for that matter. but it is two completely different things..
 

kidwoo

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 28, 2008
2,630
1,875
113
Lightweight, padded hiking shoes provide a 'mechanical advantage'. So do hiking and ski poles and touring ski bindings.

Friggin ridiculous.

Can someone explain to me what 'wilderness character' is? The original intent of the wilderness act was to preserve lands from develpment, mining, logging, and watershed infringement.

How sliding across snow with the help of wind challenges this, I have no idea.
 

kidwoo

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 28, 2008
2,630
1,875
113
good point.fine the skiers too.

Hey now........:p

My point was just that snowkiting is an extremely minor variation of what's already permitted.

I'm for more INclusion, not EXclusion :D
 
R
Nov 27, 2007
1,241
92
48
Newport, WA
So because we cant us it .. you think they shouldnt be able to either??
I dont see any harm in the kiters ..Or us for that matter. but it is two completely different things..
Not necessarily, I just think its nice to have the anti-motorized crowd see how it feels when someone tells them they can't play there anymore. Maybe, just maybe, they will remember how that felt the next time a proposal comes up to shut down an area to motorized use.
 
S

Soccerd6

Well-known member
Nov 21, 2007
788
52
28
62
Marysville, WA
Maybe, just maybe, they will remember how that felt the next time a proposal comes up to shut down an area to motorized use.

maybe they'll join in the fight against increasing the amount of Wilderness land if they are banned from it as well.......
 

Wheel House Motorsports

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2007
29,933
5,968
113
34
SW MT
maybe they'll join in the fight against increasing the amount of Wilderness land if they are banned from it as well.......
this is the biggest thing that could come from this!

once some of the non SUPER green type groups start getting excluded they will realize they are just pawns in a much larger game.
 

sled_guy

Well-known member
Premium Member
Jul 5, 2001
3,566
843
113
Riverton, Utah
so sad.ball butte area was a fun place to sled 30 years ago before it was wilderness.no more.so pack up your colorfull greenie fairy kites and get out of there or pay a 5000 fine.

A couple of thoughts...

1 - We should be eager to help them fight any change to the Wilderness regulations... I can garantee that if a change is made it will be for more than just snowkiting.

2 - They may just organize, pack up their kites, ask the FS to help them find someplace to do it and that some place may just end up being a closure of your riding areas so they now have their own play ground. That's what the cross country skiers have done in more than one location.

A better approach is to get with the kiters and say "see, it sucks when someone wants to limit your access, how can we help".

The green radicals have done a GREAT job in masking their true intentions from the masses that contribute to their causes. Things like this might just start breaking that masking down.

sled_guy
 

kidwoo

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 28, 2008
2,630
1,875
113
The green radicals have done a GREAT job in masking their true intentions from the masses that contribute to their causes.

What are those 'true intentions?'

From what I've seen mostly, it's just congressional pandering to a constituency that is largely urban, doesn't really even get out to most of the areas that get affected, but just think the word 'preservation' sounds good and should be implemented. Unfortunately wilderness designation is the simplest most well defined setup that's already in place so that's what gets thrown out there. As has been said over and over again, there needs to be an additional level of protection that stipulates no development but at the same time isn't so exclusionary to recreational users that have no or very little impact on the long term sustainability of the 'natural state'.
 

PJ-Hunter

Paid Premium Member
Lifetime Membership
Jan 31, 2006
29,663
4,671
113
50
Kremmling, Colorado
Not necessarily, I just think its nice to have the anti-motorized crowd see how it feels when someone tells them they can't play there anymore. Maybe, just maybe, they will remember how that felt the next time a proposal comes up to shut down an area to motorized use.

HERE HERE!:beer;:beer;:beer;:beer;
 

sled_guy

Well-known member
Premium Member
Jul 5, 2001
3,566
843
113
Riverton, Utah
The green radicals true intentions are to control and then exclude access to anything they deem worth of "protection". It is not about protection, it's about control. But they don't present it that way so when the mailer comes to the soccer mom's house talking about saving the mighty endangered booboo bird she jumps right on board with her $25 check.

Never mind that money goes to some of the most radical domestic groups there are and some which are the highest on the FBI domestic terrorist list.

And that money then goes to buy the influence with Congress and other policy makers. The fact that this Chris Sabo's first reaction was to prohibit the kiters access should be a sobering thought to all of us.

Yup, the radical green groups are MUCH better at this game than the shared access groups and until we learn to do things their way we are doomed to failure and loss of access.

sled_guy
 
P
Dec 5, 2007
193
26
28
Colville WA
work together

First the horse folks kick out the Motorcycles. then the bicycles kick out the hourses. then the hikers kick out the bicycles. then the governments kick out everyone.
 

xrated

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Jul 20, 2004
8,870
1,018
113
40
Plainview, MN
So because we cant us it .. you think they shouldnt be able to either??
I dont see any harm in the kiters ..Or us for that matter. but it is two completely different things..

I didn't take it as anti-kiter. More anti access, someone got pissed cause they saw a kite in the wilderness.

My question is, if using the wind is MA, where do bikes fall? Where do climbing ropes and cams fall? And here's one, where does a canoe and paddle fall?

i have bud who kites and if other kiters are like him, i don't think they are anti motors. I show the guy pics of the chutes, drops etc and he gets pumped.

At the core of both sports is an adrenalin rush...
 
Last edited:
Z

Zachcreek

Well-known member
Oct 18, 2008
1,357
241
63
Buena Vista Colorado
Snowshoes would be a mechanical advantage along with ski's. Is skiing or boarding in the wilderness illegal. Don't think so, but once you strap a bed sheet to your butt it becomes an issue? Ridiculous, but I do like the limited access for others. It's the "See what it feels like" affect.
 

kidwoo

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 28, 2008
2,630
1,875
113
The green radicals true intentions are to control and then exclude access to anything they deem worth of "protection". It is not about protection, it's about control. But they don't present it that way so when the mailer comes to the soccer mom's house talking about saving the mighty endangered booboo bird she jumps right on board with her $25 check.

Never mind that money goes to some of the most radical domestic groups there are and some which are the highest on the FBI domestic terrorist list.

And that money then goes to buy the influence with Congress and other policy makers. The fact that this Chris Sabo's first reaction was to prohibit the kiters access should be a sobering thought to all of us.

Yup, the radical green groups are MUCH better at this game than the shared access groups and until we learn to do things their way we are doomed to failure and loss of access.

sled_guy

I guess I just don't really see the difference between 'protection' and 'control'. Protection IS control since by its very definition it's a control over what activities are allowed. But what do you think those pushing for this control (in lieu of protection) gain to benefit exactly? Once a wilderness area goes up, fewer users are around to contribute to local economies through sledding, fishing, camping, boating and such. Therefore these activities can't be taxed, permitted etc...... So other than just pandering to sierra club types, I don't see where there's any underlying, hidden motivation. "Control" over rec users doesn't exactly make you supreme being of the universe or anything, especially when you lose that green sticker, registration and outside visitor income.

I live in california where almost the entire friggin mountain range is wilderness. I just want to punch something every time feinstein or boxxer starts spouting off about how increased wilderness will bring recreation dollars to an area. The areas are the same now as they will be with the wilderness designation, except now they'll be even HARDER for people to get to. Brilliant.


I do agree that the dubious way they appeal to soccer moms in your example sucks.....and it's kind of what I was saying as well. Send out a postcard that says "protect the (fill in blank), and you're a heartless bastard if you don't" without any mention of how keeping kiteboarders out is going to help that goal. Protection of the natural environment sounds good so up goes the wilderness......again stressing the need for some other type of designation.


My question is, if using the wind is MA, where do bikes fall? Where do climbing ropes and cams fall? And here's one, where does a canoe and paddle fall?

No bikes in wilderness areas. Climbing ropes and removable protection is allowed. Powerdrills to put in bolts are not. Canoes are allowed but rolling trailers to get them into wilderness areas aren't.:rolleyes:

I was a mountain biker long before I was a sledder and nothing annoys me more than the casual way that wilderness gets thrown around as the obvious answer to any sort of anti-development cause. It's amazing just how many user groups who are potential allies in land preservation get the middle finger by wilderness designation.
 
Last edited:

xrated

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Jul 20, 2004
8,870
1,018
113
40
Plainview, MN
sounds kinda funny to me what is and isn't allowed...I mean a paddle is man made to give advantage in moving on water.

Heck you remove the kite at the end of the day like climbing equip.

It is sick to see how many groups we could join with if both of us were willing to share and compromise with each other a bit.

Are horses allowed in wilderness?
 
F

flying pig

Well-known member
Jan 17, 2008
607
61
28
38
Wembley Alberta Canada
My way of looking at it is this: we know what its like to lose our areas, these guys don't. I'm way against them losing an area, them losing to me is just as bad as us. They share the love of the mountains that all of us users do. I think these idiots that we are fighting are so dead wrong. We should be gaining access to the mountains, not losing it. I think they should give these guys access to a particularly windy set of bowls and rigdes that will help their sport. Then give us the same! making us all gather together isn't the answer, neither is kicking anyone out. I think the anser to all of our problem is to get everyone who likes using the mountains together to protect our right to use them, and to help each other gain territory, not take it away. How many million acres have never ever had man set foot on them? I bet theres a hell of a lot. My opinion is that the whining *****ing greenies can stay the **** home they don't want to be in the mountains anyway.:mad::face-icon-small-con:cool::beer;
 
Premium Features