Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas (PART 2)

[rmk2112]

...continued for all members to see/participate.

POSTS 74 - 90 from Part 1

rmk2112 06-04-2010 10:59 PM Thread closed and continued to Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas (PART 2) so all members may particapate

94fordguy 06-04-2010 10:34 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddave (Post 2302197)
I think considering this is a land issue, that maybe we could bend the rules and open up the posts for everyone????

Otherwise, Ruffy misses my invite to his garage.

only way to do that is to move the thread... or we can just start a 'part 2'

diamonddave 06-04-2010 10:20 PM I think considering this is a land issue, that maybe we could bend the rules and open up the posts for everyone????

Otherwise, Ruffy misses my invite to his garage.

ruffryder 06-04-2010 10:03 PM crap, the threads were merged and now yammadog won't see my post making fun of him about not paying. How ironic is that for you? Rhetorical question, as I won't be able to see it either..

diamonddave 06-04-2010 10:03 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by rmk2112 (Post 2302186)
LAME Thread has been merged with this thread.

Hope it make it easier for ya diamonddave.

STEAK!?! LOBSTER!?!

** Waits for coordinates to load into GPS **

Cool. I don't know how they doo 3 sites. I can't even doo 2 threads.

diamonddave 06-04-2010 09:58 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by ruffryder (Post 2302184)
Crap, now you are making me feel guilty. Ok, how about Sunday guys? Yammadog? Justadude? Crap, this sounds like a fricken man date. Maybe I know the reason they would rather bail then go for dinner.. I have been rather lonely these last couple of months...

Beer getogether in your garage with electronics and an 800 CFI this summer?

rmk2112 06-04-2010 09:55 PM LAME Thread has been merged with this thread.

Hope it make it easier for ya diamonddave.

STEAK!?! LOBSTER!?!

** Waits for coordinates to load into GPS **

diamonddave 06-04-2010 09:53 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by ruffryder (Post 2302184)
Crap, now you are making me feel guilty. Ok, how about Sunday guys? Yammadog? Justadude? Crap, this sounds like a fricken man date. Maybe I know the reason they would rather bail then go for dinner.. I have been rather lonely these last couple of months...

Or if you really wanna be cheap...take em to Sledmodr's BBQ tomorrow. Free beer and steak.

ruffryder 06-04-2010 09:51 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddave (Post 2302182)
That's supposed to happen immediately following sled retrieval. Same night...steak and lobster.

Crap, now you are making me feel guilty. Ok, how about Sunday guys? Yammadog? Justadude? Crap, this sounds like a fricken man date. Maybe I know the reason they would rather bail then go for dinner.. I have been rather lonely these last couple of months...

diamonddave 06-04-2010 09:48 PM Quote:

Originally Posted by ruffryder (Post 2302180)
now that is the real tragedy here... yammadog was going to pay for something..

Yes, I know, I owe you and steak meal still....


You still haven't wined and dined those boys?

That's supposed to happen immediately following sled retrieval. Same night...steak and lobster.

No wonder Yammadog is fired up.

ruffryder 06-04-2010 09:44 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by yammadog (Post 2302090)
the sad thing is I was ready to drop the money for the membership....Now I'd rather drink it up and let it out on a dead stump....

now that is the real tragedy here... yammadog was going to pay for something..

Yes, I know, I owe you a steak meal still, and justadude too.. Does it count if my new diet doesn't allow me to eat out? By diet, I mean the, no whole frozen pizza and half a container of white chocolate macadamia nut cookies, with two hard ciders, while watching movies laying in bed diet..

Tough times these days..

diamonddave 06-04-2010 09:43 PM No kidding...took me 30 minutes to catch up with the other thread.

ruffryder 06-04-2010 09:42 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by diamonddave (Post 2302175)
I can't keep up with 2 threads guys.

try adding the 2 other forums...

ruffryder 06-04-2010 09:42 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleyboarder21 (Post 2302165)
somewhere....
a
village
in
minnassotta
or is it michigan
is missing its genious

I am missed all over the place... or were you talking about someone else?

diamonddave 06-04-2010 09:42 PM I can't keep up with 2 threads guys.

ruffryder 06-04-2010 09:39 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by WMC (Post 2302172)
No. If they made that Wilderness down close to the Road, I would oppose that, it has not been discussed by the WMC Executive.

Don't you understand the fact that even though you would oppose it, you would still be facilitating it?

And by poster, you mean, one of the other WMC's? It would be nice for this to be one individual, as maybe that would cut down on the repetitiveness and copy and paste tactics we have seen so far. Just some advice..

WMC 06-04-2010 09:36 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by ruffryder (Post 2302164)
Nope I got it and understand it quite well. The WMC realizes that by making the area in their proposal, they will allow for the area to be converted to Wilderness. WMC states that it is likely. Just because you don't want it to happen and don't support it happening, has no bearing due to WMC's acknowledgment of the cause and effect relationship between getting the area deemed non-motorized and getting it turned into Wilderness. It is a two step process (simplification) that you acknowledge. Make the area non-motorized, then make the area Wilderness. You have acknowledge this likely possibility before.

So if the non-motorized area becomes Wilderness, will you then be a proponent of a non-motorized buffer? As you have stated many times before that you are in favor of?

No. If they made that Wilderness down close to the Road, I would oppose that, it has not been discussed by the WMC Executive. This poster dos not have a real understanding of how likely that area is to become Wilderness. More Wilderness is not the answer, it causes problems for recreation aside from snowmobiles. Other than this, I will try to speak for what the group has discussed, thanks.

WMC will be out of here for a while. TAY and NWHikers has lots of discussion about this.

Thank you for the discussion.

94fordguy 06-04-2010 09:36 PM Quote:
Originally Posted by winter brew (Post 2301961)
WMC.....I keep hearing you use the term "incompatible".....I have to be honest, skiers and snowshoers do not bother me a bit!! You guys are more than welcome to tear up the snow right along side me any time you want.
I have been sledding for 38 years in Wa. and I can count on my hands...and a few toes.. the number of skiers I have seen, yet on 2 occasions I can remember we were THANKED by the skiers for making tracks for them.
"Incompatible" as determined by who???

I think you will find this is a far more common feeling than you (WMC) seem to think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WMC (Post 2301999)
Not sure of the meaning of those quotes. WMC is here in good faith, to allow another user group, with a legitimate use of the Forest, to offer other ideas, comments, proposals, etc. WMC is not here to give grief or disrespect, not looking for approval, we are trying to communicate and hear valid discussion. WMC is told from a few sources that a Team and perhaps an individual was told in USFS to follow the thread at TAY, and it is very possible, actually likely, that USFS will be reading this thread.

Sounds good so far


WMC has stated from the start that we advocate for designated winter non-motorized areas. WMC has stated consistently from the start that outside of designated non-motorized areas (including our proposed new ones, yes) we do not seek to otherwise regulate of eliminate on or off-Road snowmobiling. Any other characterizations of the WMC position are not correct.

Something I would like some clarification on from you... In the eyes of a snowmobiler, What is the difference between the Wilderness and one of your new 'Non-Motorized areas? We are effectively banned from both areas, so how is one more of a compromise than the other? Why not just advocate for full Wilderness status and be done with it?


WMC has solid plans to meet with individuals prominent within the snowmobile community. WSSA has sent a letter in opposition to something, a letter that does not discuss the details of the WMC proposal, and WSSA complained that WMC did not contact the snowmobile users. In fact, WMC has been on TAY from the start
http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing...?topic=16511.0 discussing this in a very public fashion, snowmobile riders were aware and participating from the start with counter-threads posted on snowmobile forums immediately. WMC will point out that WSSA and other snowmobile riders opposed WMC before understanding or considering the proposal or the issues, and WSSA has not made contact with WMC in any fashion even not on the very public TAY Forum discussion. The WMC proposal is entirely in regard to USFS management of areas bordering and outside of Wilderness.

In the scheduled meeting to come, WMC will approach the seemingly impossible task of finding some common ground that could lead to a consensus with snowmobile proponents to present to USFS. In two years, as far as WMC is aware from USFS sources, the USFS across the country may move toward managing snowmobiles in a fashion similar to how motorcycles are now managed. Perhaps what is coming, and per the original Executive Order stating that USFS allow ORVs to be ridden only where Designated, management similarly of snowmobiles will be specific in regard to where on the Forest snowmobiles may be ridden.

Now IS the time for winter Forest users to discuss these issues, to consider, understand, and respect the needs of the other user.

Agreed

WMC agrees that if the impossible is achieved, if snowmobile proponents and winter non-motorized use users can understand the other, and map out areas in compromise over the Forest, not all of the general Forest for one use, then we will all have a better future on the Forest.

The forest is not currently restricted to one use (snowmobiling as you make it sound) it is currently OPEN to ALL FORMS of recreation EXCEPT WHERE MOTORIZED RECREATION IS BANNED. There are NO places in the national forests where non-motorized access is banned, therefore that would represent that 100% of National Forest Land is currently OPEN to snowboarders and Skiers.

WMC believes that we will be meeting with a person prominent in the snowmobile community who will advocate for snowmobile riding but also will consider the issues, the other users, the resources, the need for USFS Management to allocate for each use in winter. Progress can be made only in good-faith discussion where individuals respect the needs of the other users and discuss and debate in a civil manner.

Thanks everyone for the discussion here.


Above are some points I would look forward to a response to.

 

[2Thetopp]

So this is my take on what they want, (the big picture) Designate non motorized buffer zone around wilderness, then in a few years buffer zone becomes wilderness. Oh now we need a buffer zone around the new wilderness, OK, then in a couple years buffer zone becomes wilderness, hey we need a buffer zone and so on and so on.........snowball effect!

 

[ruffryder]

Is it possible to take all the posts after #75 of the other thread and put them here?

 

[WMC]

Great to continue the discussion. WMC is here in good faith to try to get meaningful discussion. WMC believes that snowmobile riding is a legitimate use of the Forest. WMC is not here to start a fight, but conversely is not here to surrender. We like to talk about what we propose and why. We are talking to you folks here because you are another legitimate Forest user group. We shall see if we learn from each other and we shall see if there is any possibility of common ground.

The WMC proposal seeks significant and new winter non-motorized areas along the pristine crest of the Wenatchee Mountains. We do not seek outside of that to ban snowmobiles or limit them on or off-road. Here is our mission statement-

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.



WMC is founded to advocate for recreation management, WMC is not an environmental organization, WMC is not proposing or supporting the creation of Wilderness, WMC has no interest other than stated above.


Here is a page answering questions about Wilderness, etc.- http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/faq/index.shtml#question13

Thank you.

 

[WMC]

WMC bases our proposal on our observation that skiing and snowmobiling on the same slope, in the same area, are incompatible uses. We ski, WMC members backcountry ski from 30 to 100 days per season. Some WMC folks use snowshoes. So for the basis of this discussion we stipulate that skiing and snowmobiling on the same terrain is incompatible.

WMC recognizes that snowmobile riding is a legitimate Forest use. We meet folks regularly who are quite 'opposed' or perhaps better put, fricken' nuts about snowmobiles on the Forest. WMC will not try to prohibit snowmobiles on the Forest nor support that, other than what we ask for as non-motorized winter recreation. We want USFS to manage recreation- we will not try to generally prohibit snowmobiles on the Forest.

So how do these points fit together? Clearly, there is not enough to go around, so the resource of snowy Forest slopes needs to be managed- divided up for uses. Snowmobile riders compete for powder snow, as do skiers. Last year during the best powder the slopes of the couple of miles of Tronsen Non-Motorized Area was tracked by skiers wall-to-wall as never seen before. So both sports see increasing use on the Forest.

WMC targeted the area of the proposal for several reasons. First, we are familiar with it. We skied and snowshoed that area before snowmobiles got in there, some WMC folks and acquaintances back in the '70s and further drove the now washed away N Creek Road up that valley and then walked up to ski Brothers. Some of us have skied that pristine Teanaway crest without snowmobile assist on several trips over the years. The WMC proposal adds winter non-motorized that enlarge the existing Tronsen Non-Motorized Area, tie into the Wilderness, and tie into the Mission Ridge Ski Area.

Thank you.

 

[WMC]

With all of the discussion, where is a counter-proposal other than 'no' and clearly many disagree with the WMC proposal. If, as WMC is told is the future USFS management, more Forest areas are to be made non-motorized in winter, where do folks here propose for that to happen? Try to consider that like snowmobile riders, skiers are looking for areas that are good skiing, views, etc.

The question has been asked about where are snowmobile riders supposed to go if the WMC proposal is implemented. There has been no discussion yet in regard to the very large and significant areas of the Entiat Mountains and the Chelan Mountains. Those are huge areas with open slopes, dominated by snowmobiles. And you folks can drive there and be riding before we have walked to a Teanaway summit for a ski run the same day.

If skiing or snowshoe hiking are incompatible on the same terrain with snowmobile riding, then WMC will contend that the majority of the general Forest, and the Forest easily accessible to pedestrians, is dominated by snowmobile riding. One use, not multiple-use at all. Skiers do start early, do go far, but cannot compete with snowmobiles. Therefore we see the general Forest (and too much Wilderness!) dominated by one use- riding snowmobiles.

cc from TAY-

"The vast majority of the 400,000 acres (of public land) in Kittitas County are available to snowmobiles"- a past quote in the local paper from Todd Stiles of USFS Cle Elum. The current Tronsen Non-Motorized Area, primo skiing, appears to be about four sections or around 2500 acres (in Chelan Co, bordering Kittitas Co). What would be the total of all of the Designated and Voluntary Non-Motorized areas in Kittitas County- 10,000 or 15,000 acres?

The WMC Executive has eyeball estimated roughly that the Teanaway crest Wilderness Boundary portion of our proposal at around 20, 500 acres, and the Blewett to Mission portion at around 5800 acres.

Simply put out the Wenatchee NF map and observe all of the area to the south of the Wenatchee mountains crest open to snowmobiling, that could not covered on that map by outstretched hands, compared to the primo-skiing Wenatchee Mountains crest area at Tronsen Non-Motorized area at Blewett Pass- which on the map would be covered by a Quarter coin.

What the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition (WMC) asks for is parity. There are significant numbers of non-motorized winter recreationalists, yet the non-Wilderness portion of the Wenatchee National Forest allows a disproportionate amount of the Forest to be monopolized by one use - snowmobiles. We do not wish to prohibit snowmobiles on the Forest (some of us are also snowmobilers), but because motorized and non-motorized uses are incompatible on the same terrain, we ask for more non-motorized terrain. We invite all winter recreationalists to share their thoughts about this issue and this need with the Forest Supervisor and Forest Planning Team.
(end of cc)

Thank you.

 

[snowmobiler]

LEARN TO SHARE

THANK YOU

 

[WMC]

LEARN TO SHARE

THANK YOU

Sure, agreed, we ask to share the Forest in our proposal. Below is another example sent to WMC of 'sharing"-

(cc edited to protect area and identities)
I would support limiting Snowmobile use to roads only in certain areas of the Wenatchee and Okanogan Forests where such off-road use "destroys" (conflicts with/endangers) skier use. I'm sure this will have to be limited to high use skier areas, yet perhaps include some easy to reach, lower angle slope areas hardly used at all because they have always been "devastated" by snomo tracks. We have a beautiful north facing meadow that is near the groomed snomo trail. Sled riders (edit) access it via the summer trail (illegal!). It makes a great place to take beginning ski tourers for safe, low angle skiing. This year, I was leading a party of four there. We were almost there, it was untouched since the last storm, when four snowmobiles (edit) roared up our uptrack on the summer trail. All they wanted to do was yell at me when I motioned them to stop, saying we needed to "share". How do you share a restaurant with someone who wants to throw up on your table? They stayed there for 20 minutes or so and ruined the fine low angle slope for us before heading off to thousands of other acres they had access to. (We did manage to move on to steeper slopes and thicker trees). I'm sure they saw our machines parked and followed our track with intent. I know they do not like skiers as we try to limit their access. Just pick up a snomo mag and check out the editorials or legislative lobbying sections. This will not be easy!
(end quote)

 

[snowmobiler]

go hit the millions of acres of wilderness if you want nonmotorized.or get up early if you want first tracks.share.

 

[rmk2112]

Is it possible to take all the posts after #75 of the other thread and put them here?

Added to POST #1 of this thread. Post's # 74 - 90

 

[ruffryder]

Added to POST #1 of this thread. Post's # 74 - 90

a for effort.. b- for execution. My head hurts trying to understand the flow on that... reminds me of work when they send me 20 reply emails with quotes in it from outlook and I try and make sense of it...
Stupid outlook and no conversations....

 

[yammadog]

a for effort.. b- for execution. My head hurts trying to understand the flow on that... reminds me of work when they send me 20 reply emails with quotes in it from outlook and I try and make sense of it...
Stupid outlook and no conversations....

I'm thankful for even the confusing layout, since it reminded me about the big dinner you get to buy me....if you're diet won't let you eat out, you can watch I'll share the table with you and won't suggest excluding you from the eaters....see sharing can happen!!!

WMC, put the map of of your proposal, so they can see where you're talking about.

 

[ruffryder]

Sure, agreed, we ask to share the Forest in our proposal. Below is another example sent to WMC of 'sharing"-

WMC, are you extrapolating this example as the average encounter backcountry users have with snowmobilers? As has been posted before, with examples of their own, most snowmobilers try to leave the non-motorized users alone and give them space. I think it is unfair for you to continually use a few examples of snowmobiles not be courteous (sp?) to other users while ignoring the times when snowmobilers have passed areas by that were being used by non-motorized users.

All they wanted to do was yell at me when I motioned them to stop, saying we needed to "share".

Maybe a better tact is needed? Most snowmobilers do not think the snowmobilers in your example behaved appropriately.

How do you share a restaurant with someone who wants to throw up on your table?

nice...

They stayed there for 20 minutes or so and ruined the fine low angle slope for us before heading off to thousands of other acres they had access to. (We did manage to move on to steeper slopes and thicker trees).

It sounds like this responder has a very aggressive attitude towards snowmobilers, and got upset when his "conversation" didn't go his way.

 

[ruffryder]

go hit the millions of acres of wilderness if you want nonmotorized.or get up early if you want first tracks.share.

LEARN TO SHARE

THANK YOU

snowmobiler, if you are not interested in participating in this discussion, please stay out of it. You aren't helping anyone.. except your post count.

Thank you

 

[WMC]

WMC, are you extrapolating this example as the average encounter backcountry users have with snowmobilers? As has been posted before, with examples of their own, most snowmobilers try to leave the non-motorized users alone and give them space. I think it is unfair for you to continually use a few examples of snowmobiles not be courteous (sp?) to other users while ignoring the times when snowmobilers have passed areas by that were being used by non-motorized users.

Maybe a better tact is needed? Most snowmobilers do not think the snowmobilers in your example behaved appropriately.

nice...

It sounds like this responder has a very aggressive attitude towards snowmobilers, and got upset when his "conversation" didn't go his way.

Here WMC is trying to help snowmobile riders get an idea of how skiers see the issue. Not intended to attack. Not trying to win, trying to show how another user may see it.

This is a tough discussion, there is aggression both ways and WMC will continue to state that uncivil or aggressive behavior is not acceptable! Skiers who take pokes with ski poles, or give uncivil input, or etc. are just wrong. Likewise from the other way. Yes, when I am on skis I see snowmobilers slow down, except when they cannot climbing deep pow next to me. All of the snowmobile riders that I meet when I am on my old snowmobiles are congenial and good folks. Now here is big irony for ya- more stink eye is sent toward this snowmobile skier from some skiers than from snowmobile riders toward this skier.

So try to think about the other view, not win or lose the debate. Snowmobile riders have a right to use the Forest, and so do skiers and snowshoers, so try to understand the other view, this debate cannot be won by anyone. In the end, USFS will manage according to the mechanism that is in place and will, we are told, be modified in the future to manage snowmobiles in some fashion more similar to how motorcycles are managed.

Here is another comment sent to WMC-

"As a back-country skier my personal experience with the incompatibility of motorized and non-motorized winter recreation was most evident on my ascent of Mt Baker, where not only were we constantly serenaded by the machine motors, but on reaching the summit there were snow-mobile tracks evident, which meant that someone had abused the boundary for motorized vehicles. To top this off, when we were skiing back to the trail-head, our skis became so coated with black, oily grease that we were no longer able to glide, but had to trudge along the trail with the stink of fuel and exhaust wafting out of the snow pack. On my return home it then took several hours of scraping and hot-waxing to make my skis usable again.

I think it fair that our wilderness be equally enjoyable for all, regardless of ones winter recreational pursuit. Having most of the easily accessible wilderness areas being designate as mixed use, which are then being dominated by motorized machines, does not meet my definition of enjoyable. I feel that setting aside more easily accessible wilderness areas, with a buffer, for non-motorized use is warranted."


Thanks for all the discussion.

 

[snowmobiler]

good luck on saving the riding area ruff.im out

 

[diamonddave]

Well, I thought about your view WMC....You want us to give up more riding area and be happy about it. You want the sledders to give in with you're plan while you are stern and not comprimising on your side.


This is just like steelhead fishing for me. I used to fish a river that didn't have very good bank access for hiking and fishing. I'd hike 4 miles to a pristine fishing hole and when I finally reach the hole, I'd find a boat parked in it or come in directly after me and cork me. Does this mean I should start a campaign to ban boats on the river or parts of it? The boat has the ability to go anywhere within his fuel range much easier than I can hike with 2 bad feet, ankles, and knee.

Same thing here, except I manned up.


If you want sledders on your side, then you're simply going to have add something else to your plan here man. You can't just take away riding area from somebody and then play it off like we should just be happy to jump on your bandwagon. You must think we're crazy or plain stupid to go along with your plan and be all happy about it.


Tell you what...I'll give up that land if you go and open up some of the wilderness land??? Since you stated it's not condusive for you guys, let us have some of the wilderness and you can have your areas. Washington has twice the amount of wilderness that Oregon has so it shouldn't be a big deal to jump on that idea.


BTW, unless you're willing to go along with my plan, then show me a map of your proposed area and then I can make an informed decision on whether your plan would work for me. If you're not willing to doo that or engage me with my plan, then you're wasting your time on this site and should just go away as you're stating the same thing over and over.

 

[yammadog]

snowmobiler, if you are not interested in participating in this discussion, please stay out of it. You aren't helping anyone.. except your post count.

Thank you

I don't think he's out of line. Put in simple terms I think it's a good opinion.

Fact is, there is already EXISTING non-motorized AND wilderness(without motors) available in his goal. He can ride his sled as close as possible and then ski for days without seeing a motor. It is area that we are legally excluded from already and we're not taking the position of excluding him from motorized areas. They have untouched pow they can access, we have limited area to do this in the type of terrain they are looking to exclude.

Again, in simple terms use the EXISTING non-motorized and wilderness and then share the rest. After all, those areas take up well over 40%+ of the forest.

WMC, copy and post the map from TAY that most closely matches the area you are speaking about.

 

[diamonddave]

I don't think he's out of line. Put in simple terms I think it's a good opinion.

I think he was just being...

 

[diamonddave]

Wow, 2112 is steppin it up. You won't have that kind of time when the little one is born.