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

[94fordguy]

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.

Well put Dave... That is how a 'compromise' is supposed to work, both sides make concessions to make the other side happy.

WMC, one thing that I don't know if you understand here is that in the past, every time a 'non-motorized' area is proposed, it is only one side that is losing out, skiers have had access to that area all along, and now you are telling your fellow forest users to 'get out'! sounds like a friendly plan doesn't it???

As has been asked before, PLEASE provide a map of the areas you are proposing to limit access to, I think that would help us all understand you a little bit better... names of the peaks mean nothing to someone not well-versed with the area you are referring to.

 

[WMC]

Here is text from WSSA http://www.wssa.us/content.aspx?page_id=9&club_id=431529

"What do we want?
· Snowmobilers want to be a legitimate and active partner in maintaining and caring for our public lands.
· To promote recreational snowmobiling as a family sport.
· Protect and preserve access to public lands.
· Support multiple-use for recreation."
(end quote)

The argument about Wilderness that is often presented is not listed there, but along with the above makes up a lot of snowmobile riders' argument.

Below is from WSSA Dick Coppock's WSSA COMMENT LETTER ON FOREST PLANNING RULE-
http://documents.clubexpress.com/do...0NMI2nPaDfg8GOAVewEjmjhIkHzDYcA45U+yUFGvPknA=
...
9. We do not support “Roadless Areas” managed as de facto Wilderness. No impact recreation, such as snowmobile travel, do not degrade the wilderness characteristics of an area and motorized OHV travel on established trails and roads do not establish a lasting footprint any more than wildlife, hiking, cars, livestock, or pack animal trails.

WMC and others are making the point that snowmobile riding does degrade and effectively remove Forest use in the same area for non-motorized winter recreation on snow, and for quiet recreation. WMC argues that on the general Forest, snowmobile riding unquestionably dominates therefore the winter Forest defaults to one use, snowmobile riding, not multiple-use at all.
...
15. The combined membership of WSSA is also very disturbed by the continued public reference in the press and in numerous speeches by public land management agency leaders for the need to curtail and regulate motorized recreation. This continued press release barrage indicating that motorized recreation is harmful and must be controlled has been highlighted in many press releases by administration level agency personnel, and has been continued in nearly every speech given by the Chief and Deputy Chiefs of the Forest Service, without separation as to type of motorized recreation, snowmobile or wheeled.Whether these continued demeaning references were intended to put motorized recreation in a bad public light and pave the
way for increased regulation is not clear as the Forest leadership refuses to work with or inform the local user groups of policy changes. What is clear is the fact that Forest Service Leadership continues to say derogatory things about motorized recreation or groups which then becomes a public but unsupported fact, but supported by liberal public opinion.

Interesting, objecting that others have opinions? Poking the legitimate authority in the eye in so many words? And the liberal thing is a hoot. Around here there are as many conservatives skitouring as liberals!
...
25. Without support of all the National Forest System stakeholders, sustained management practices of the public lands are not realistic or possible.

Agreed, great! WMC does not think that we will convert the folks here or anywhere else, but we need to keep talking and try to understand each other.

In regard to many of the points especially about resource management, WMC members would probably find common ground!

 

[ruffryder]

I think he was just being...

myself?

good luck on saving the riding area ruff.im out

I didn't mean you had to leave, but simplistic statements (and one liners you and I are so fond of) won't go very far with WMC.

I think the fact that I knew what WMC was going to respond with when I saw your statement frustrated me a little. Saying to share is not acceptable to the WMC, as the committee has already decided that sharing does not work and is not an option (their statements).

 

[WMC]

Well put Dave... That is how a 'compromise' is supposed to work, both sides make concessions to make the other side happy.

WMC, one thing that I don't know if you understand here is that in the past, every time a 'non-motorized' area is proposed, it is only one side that is losing out, skiers have had access to that area all along, and now you are telling your fellow forest users to 'get out'! sounds like a friendly plan doesn't it???

As has been asked before, PLEASE provide a map of the areas you are proposing to limit access to, I think that would help us all understand you a little bit better... names of the peaks mean nothing to someone not well-versed with the area you are referring to.

Sorry guys, other than drawing on topo paper maps, WMC has no map. We are trying to get one made but will probably include it in our formal proposal to USFS.

WMC did not come here asking for compromise, and we do not plan to surrender, we know that many or all here do not agree. We are here for discussion, to present openly what we propose and what we think, and to try to understand the views here as well. Can you imagine that perhaps we want to try to respect the likely opposition by engaging in conversation? This is not easy or fun, WMC is doing this for our stated purpose. USFS and fair-minded folks would expect a discussion to include various stakeholders.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[ruffryder]

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

dang, now I know why my stupid vacuum sealer was giving me fits.. dang Karma..

 

[ruffryder]

WMC did not come here asking for compromise, and we do not plan to surrender, we know that many or all here do not agree.

So what is the point of the discussion then? To better formulate your argument based on our statements? To create a better justification for you proposal? So you aren't going to budge at all, so what is the point in engaging us? It seems to me like you are trying to get a head start on any argument against your proposal, to be better prepared when the time comes to submit it.

Sorry guys, other than drawing on topo paper maps, WMC has no map. We are trying to get one made but will probably include it in our formal proposal to USFS.

I guess this statement makes sense then..

We are here for discussion, to present openly what we propose and what we think, and to try to understand the views here as well. Can you imagine that perhaps we want to try to respect the likely opposition by engaging in conversation?

If you are here trying to understand the view points of those here, why do you state that they won't have any effect on your decision making process? How is it respecting the likely opposition when it seems that the concerns of the opposition are falling on deaf ears?

This is not easy or fun, WMC is doing this for our stated purpose. USFS and fair-minded folks would expect a discussion to include various stakeholders.

So is the benefit of this to WMC the fact that they can now say they have engaged snowmobilers and that they were unwilling to compromise except to say no?

 

[diamonddave]

Sorry guys, other than drawing on topo paper maps, WMC has no map. We are trying to get one made but will probably include it in our formal proposal to USFS.

DD's response...How fitting...

WMC did not come here asking for compromise, and we do not plan to surrender, we know that many or all here do not agree. We are here for discussion, to present openly what we propose and what we think

Thanks for the discussion.

So in other words, it is your way or the highway? Then what else doo you have to say that you haven't already said? Do you like to hear yourself type? That was just a joke; just humor.

I love the fact that you'll have a map for your proposal, but don't have one now. I invite you to throw some boundaries on a piece of some topo map. What's the harm other than making us look at someting and strain our eyes a little more?

 

[yammadog]

Sorry guys, other than drawing on topo paper maps, WMC has no map. We are trying to get one made but will probably include it in our formal proposal to USFS.

WMC did not come here asking for compromise, and we do not plan to surrender, we know that many or all here do not agree. We are here for discussion, to present openly what we propose and what we think, and to try to understand the views here as well. Can you imagine that perhaps we want to try to respect the likely opposition by engaging in conversation? This is not easy or fun, WMC is doing this for our stated purpose. USFS and fair-minded folks would expect a discussion to include various stakeholders.

Thanks for the discussion.

I would pull the picutre maps from the TAY thread to help show the territory you claim to want to not exclude us from, we just have to use it in the way you see fit....which is as far as your sled will take you, then off to the prime slopes AND EXISTING non-motorized and wilderness areas ALREADY established which comprises of over 40%+ of the forest land.

As for discussion, it's a give and take, if you're done making your point, then you can move on. If you want to discuss and find compromise then stay, but don't keep repetition as part of your tactic.

Identify how many slopes in the proposed area you can cover in a day, how long would it take to track out with how many skiers/boarders and then which areas you see sledders riding in your vision of your proposed change.

 

[yammadog]

Here's two of them....

 

[94fordguy]

Sorry guys, other than drawing on topo paper maps, WMC has no map. We are trying to get one made but will probably include it in our formal proposal to USFS.

WMC did not come here asking for compromise, and we do not plan to surrender, we know that many or all here do not agree. We are here for discussion, to present openly what we propose and what we think, and to try to understand the views here as well. Can you imagine that perhaps we want to try to respect the likely opposition by engaging in conversation? This is not easy or fun, WMC is doing this for our stated purpose. USFS and fair-minded folks would expect a discussion to include various stakeholders.

Thanks for the discussion.

Forgive me for not understanding, but then why did you come here? If you have no intention to listen to our views about possible outcomes to your proposal, what is being gained here? Trying to understand our fellow forest users (the opposition as you call us) is beneficial to us all... We are all willing to listen, yet you clearly don't give us that same benefit in return?

To put it another way, you are asking me my opinion about trucks when you have no interest in anything other than compact cars? What are we gaining here?

 

[WMC]

I would pull the picutre maps from the TAY thread to help show the territory you claim to want to not exclude us from, we just have to use it in the way you see fit....which is as far as your sled will take you, then off to the prime slopes AND EXISTING non-motorized and wilderness areas ALREADY established which comprises of over 40%+ of the forest land.

As for discussion, it's a give and take, if you're done making your point, then you can move on. If you want to discuss and find compromise then stay, but don't keep repetition as part of your tactic.

Identify how many slopes in the proposed area you can cover in a day, how long would it take to track out with how many skiers/boarders and then which areas you see sledders riding in your vision of your proposed change.

It would be interesting to hear how or if snowmobile riders think that winter non-motorized recreation areas could be located. Or to hear that the only response is 'no way.' The proposal is just that, it has not yet been presented formally, we are not going to surrender before it is presented. If we heard something convincing to us, we would modify the proposal, but we have decades of experience in regard to this and have considered issues carefully.

If you all do not want WMC discussing this here, that is fine. Some of the discussion has been enjoyable, some not. All the best and good luck.

 

[94fordguy]

It would be interesting to hear how or if snowmobile riders think that winter non-motorized recreation areas could be located. Or to hear that the only response is 'no way.' The proposal is just that, it has not yet been presented formally, we are not going to surrender before it is presented. If we heard something convincing to us, we would modify the proposal, but we have decades of experience in regard to this and have considered issues carefully.

If you all do not want WMC discussing this here, that is fine. Some of the discussion has been enjoyable, some not. All the best and good luck.

Nobody has said that, we are simply asking questions in return that you have not been willing or able to give a solid answer back to... the only one here who has suggested that you leave is you.

I think this conversation is still progressing, lets keep it going with solid responses each way.

 

[yammadog]

It would be interesting to hear how or if snowmobile riders think that winter non-motorized recreation areas could be located. Or to hear that the only response is 'no way.' The proposal is just that, it has not yet been presented formally, we are not going to surrender before it is presented. If we heard something convincing to us, we would modify the proposal, but we have decades of experience in regard to this and have considered issues carefully.

If you all do not want WMC discussing this here, that is fine. Some of the discussion has been enjoyable, some not. All the best and good luck.

Fact is your sport already has dedicated territory and parking that already excludes our preferred recreation, with penalty if violated. If you really thought out your plan, then it should be no problem to let us know your vision of the other user groups.

There has already been land given up agreeably by sledders in the establishment of the non-motorized and voluntary non-motorized discussions in the late 90's...

No one is asking you to surrender, just give your opinion on where you envision sledding in appropriate off road territory. And I would prefer to have slopes similar to the area you are proposing closed.

 

[WMC]

Nobody has said that, we are simply asking questions in return that you have not been willing or able to give a solid answer back to... the only one here who has suggested that you leave is you.

I think this conversation is still progressing, lets keep it going with solid responses each way.

OK, thanks, fair enough. Let me know when I should get get off of here, I am fine with that when the time comes. Taking a break for now, please read some of the posted stuff and there is a ton at TAY

http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[94fordguy]

The following are a couple of maps of wilderness areas outlined in green (off-limits to sleds, but open to skiers/snowboarders) throughout the state of Washington and in the vicinity of Wenatchee. Please describe as best you can in reference to the maps provided the areas that you would like to see restricted per your proposal.

 

[yammadog]

I posted a cople of maps from the TAY board that he agreed were close to their proposal.

 

[WMC]

Fact is your sport already has dedicated territory and parking that already excludes our preferred recreation, with penalty if violated. If you really thought out your plan, then it should be no problem to let us know your vision of the other user groups.

There has already been land given up agreeably by sledders in the establishment of the non-motorized and voluntary non-motorized discussions in the late 90's...

No one is asking you to surrender, just give your opinion on where you envision sledding in appropriate off road territory. And I would prefer to have slopes similar to the area you are proposing closed.

One last answer then I need to take a break.

WMC Executive discussed this recently. What about the huge open slope areas of the Entiat Mountains and the Chelan Moutains? There could be great skitouring there, except for the fact that is is dominated by snowmobiles.

Wilderness will not be altered, it was created by Congress. Wilderness is not really part of this discussion, for the reasons stated. We are after a larger share of the winter Forest outside of Wilderness for the reasons stated.

Out for now.

 

[ruffryder]

Surely you can find a better phrase to use...

 

[diamonddave]

Free ride, tis is exactly what we don't need. Seth and 2112 are dooing a fine job here already.

 

[2Thetopp]

WMC.....Geez, start calling me some names or I might start liking you guys...naah (joke).

Pretty much says it all right there, just looking for ammo from us to better his case when he presents his proposal. I'm sure with that kind of attitude we'd be more than willing to give up OUR LAND only to have you sit on your side of the fence that you've created and taunt us As stated with the 'fishing senario' you don't take away from others to fulfill your needs or wants, you adapt. Maybe deal with the cards you've been dealt, adapt or move on thats what I did after I skied for thirty years, it didn't fulfill my needs anymore I couldn't enjoy enough of the backcountry so I adapted. Now I have a whole new appreciation for whats out there so understand why we won't just give it up because somebody would like to have it to themselves.