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

[WMC]

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.

OK, the unfunny joke is removed with apologies. WMC will perhaps drone on and not try any humor. All good. You all are actually being amazingly kind and patient toward this controversial topic- that is what I meant but I was trying not to be mushy.

If discussion is desired, please read some of the above WMC posts and comment/ discuss them. Thank you.

 

[WMC]

The numbers of Forest users affected by snowmobile use on the Forest is significant. There are significant numbers of non-motorized users on the winter Forest.

Here are the most recent set of figures regarding WA backcountry Forest users from TAY page 19, posted by JimH who explained the source there-

XC Skiing 112,942
Snowmobiling 98,072
Snowboarding (not at an area...) 44,297
Snowshoeing 37,778

WSSA states "There are over 36,000 snowmobiles registered in Washington"

http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=16511.450

Aside from the WMC proposal, these very significant user groups are entitled to use the winter Forest as well. WMC and others argue that snowmobile riding in the same area degrades or removes non-motorized or quiet winter Forest use.

So, here it is asked of snowmobile riders: If sooner or later USFS divides up non-Wilderness Forest between snowmobiles and non-motorized use what are your ideas and suggestions?

Consider the large areas with open slopes for snowmobile riding in the Entiat and Chelan Mountains? Why or why not are those areas significant for snowmobile riding? Consider Mt St Helens and Mt Baker, and the Gifford-Pinchot NF- all have huge and significant good snowmobile riding opportunity.

Thank you.

 

[snowmobiler]

somebody call the waaambulance,

thank you.

 

[hurleyboarder21]

this is ALL this landgrab is about

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 .

This can only be described as a selfish elitist minded screw everyone else landgrab.

THAT is all it is.

Go to tay and read all of wmc posts. and the ones on here also.

it is all about wmc pow stash private skiing club.

i feel sorry for the forest service to have to be burdened with the actions of such a misguided selfish effort to lock out the general public for the benefit of a "special" few. total bs

like the forest service has any extra resources as it is.

regards
hurly

 

[WMC]

This can only be described as a selfish elitist minded screw everyone else landgrab.

THAT is all it is.

Go to tay and read all of wmc posts. and the ones on here also.

it is all about wmc pow stash private skiing club.

i feel sorry for the forest service to have to be burdened with the actions of such a misguided selfish effort to lock out the general public for the benefit of a "special" few. total bs

like the forest service has any extra resources as it is.

regards
hurly

Thanks for the comment. You unquestionably defend your use as we do our own. There may be a similar counterpoint view.

Folks who do not ride snowmobiles along the Teanaway/ Ingalls divide may very well see an "elitist minded screw everyone else landgrab." and "actions of such a misguided selfish effort to lock out the general public for the benefit of a "special" few. total bs." USFS never planned and never designated that area for snowmobile recreation. Even though Federal Law requires and USFS asks for snowmobiles to stay out of the Wilderness there, in winter when we ski to those summits the highest concentration of snowmobiles that we see many times are over the Wilderness Boundary. We looked over at seven snowmobiles in the Wilderness from Earl Peak last March. We have reported similar observations for several years.

Another view held by many would ask is it more elitist to ride a $10k snowmobile to the Wilderness Boundary and beyond, elitist compared to skiers or snowshoe hikers walking and sweating for hours using a few hundred dollars worth of gear? One snowmobile may use the entire slope in an hour or two, how many hikers campers and skiers could use the same area if it were quiet and untracked? More than snowmobile riders and they could have peace and privacy even with a large crowd of skiers, hikers, or campers! Skiers and snowshoe and overnight travelers often travel that far in a day, but would not go there now in winter with all of the snowmobile traffic.

The Teanaway is a popular destination for skitouring, after the snowmobiles are not around anymore. Here is one of several recent TRs-

http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=16810.0

Here is the OP answer on that TR when asked, "See any snowmobilers?"

"None actively, probably because their approach via King Creek/Shaser Creek (gated roads) has long since melted out. But we could still could see many older snowmobile tracks throughout all the open slopes this deep in the wilderness. See photos below. There is a bright red wilderness boundary sign at the Falls Creek/Negro Creek divide with tracks going past it . I will also note that there were many tracks that also turned around at the divide and stayed in legal terrain. My synopsis is most stayed legal but those who entered the wilderness new they were doing so, new exactly which terrain in the wilderness they sought, and purposedly disregarded the law with intent.
Photo 1: old tracks lower right of skier on NE gully Navaho.
Photos 2 and 3: tracks in basin, east slope Navaho, below Falls divide and climbing toward saddle"

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[rmk2112]

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

Logan James aka rmk2112jr
May 11, 2010
8:32 am
7 lbs. 8 oz.

 

[yammadog]

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.

Wilderness is absolutely part of the equation since it is non-motorized and has penalty that could be enforced. It also meets your stated goals of non-motorized alpine slopes. The discussion is at a dead end if you won't accept this fact. You speak of parity in the forest and this is a huge chunk of land available only to non-motorized folks. At a minimum 40%+ of the forest is non-motorized wilderness.

With regard to chelan area riding, it's an extremely long way for a day trip for me, perhaps you need to go to the north side of baker or over to the olympics as a comparison....not realistic.

 

[winter brew]

Public lands are just that...PUBLIC! If you want an area just for yourself or a specific group of users, then BUY your own land. I believe this is why ski resorts exist. Maybe think about buying land and starting your own, then and ONLY then will you have the RIGHT to lock out other users.
There seems to be a very small (but very vocal) number of users (mainly skiers) that want anything to change...most have a great time enjoying their sport.
Life is too short for this kind of crap....just go live it!

 

[suitcase]

They did this very thing in OR. yrs. ago when I was a kid still in high school and we did not understand the ramifacation of this act back then 25 yrs. ago. But here we are again, the buffers are proposed and implaminted, and in a few yrs. it is added to the current wilderness. HOW IS THIS SHARING? Around 30 yrs ago we use to ride motor cycles and snowmobile on the same trails that the back packers, and horse people used, with no problems at all. If we where on a motorized tool and came across some one on foot, or horse back we stoped, shut down the motor and waited. And 99% of the time we ended up there for periods of time talking and sharing stories about where we where going, and where they where going. We sean these same people yr. after yr. We had our uses of the forest, and they had there uses for it, they where not the same, but yet we enjoyed each other, and gave each other respect. They where not out to get more wilderness, we where not out to brake the law to get into the wilderness, because we had lots of area we could use. Now with the buffers being put into place and the buffers becoming wilderness over the yrs. we have lost 98% of our access and no longer share trails because they became wilderness, and we have very little areas which we can ride in, if any at all. We no longer see our horse friends or our backpacker friends, because some left wing lib. that does not use the moutains thinks that they need to protect it, and keep use from using it. And I do not mean just the motorized public these people are after everyone. They don't want us in the mountains. So the more we can work together the better, You scratch mine, I'll scratch yours. Don't start locking it up for just a few, because the next thing you know it will be locked up to the few as well. It is our forest, we all should use it, yes EVEN you!

 

[yammadog]

They did this very thing in OR. yrs. ago when I was a kid still in high school and we did not understand the ramifacation of this act back then 25 yrs. ago. But here we are again, the buffers are proposed and implaminted, and in a few yrs. it is added to the current wilderness. HOW IS THIS SHARING? Around 30 yrs ago we use to ride motor cycles and snowmobile on the same trails that the back packers, and horse people used, with no problems at all. If we where on a motorized tool and came across some one on foot, or horse back we stoped, shut down the motor and waited. And 99% of the time we ended up there for periods of time talking and sharing stories about where we where going, and where they where going. We sean these same people yr. after yr. We had our uses of the forest, and they had there uses for it, they where not the same, but yet we enjoyed each other, and gave each other respect. They where not out to get more wilderness, we where not out to brake the law to get into the wilderness, because we had lots of area we could use. Now with the buffers being put into place and the buffers becoming wilderness over the yrs. we have lost 98% of our access and no longer share trails because they became wilderness, and we have very little areas which we can ride in, if any at all. We no longer see our horse friends or our backpacker friends, because some left wing lib. that does not use the moutains thinks that they need to protect it, and keep use from using it. And I do not mean just the motorized public these people are after everyone. They don't want us in the mountains. So the more we can work together the better, You scratch mine, I'll scratch yours. Don't start locking it up for just a few, because the next thing you know it will be locked up to the few as well. It is our forest, we all should use it, yes EVEN you!

Funny you mention it eventually getting locked out to even non-motorized groups. On TAY, they are talking about doing this very thing along hwy20 and the methow. American Alps legacy project....if you ride harts etc, you better be watching for this.....even if you ski, they are looking at stopping.

 

[Oregongirl]

Wilderness is absolutely part of the equation since it is non-motorized and has penalty that could be enforced. It also meets your stated goals of non-motorized alpine slopes. The discussion is at a dead end if you won't accept this fact. You speak of parity in the forest and this is a huge chunk of land available only to non-motorized folks. At a minimum 40%+ of the forest is non-motorized wilderness.

With regard to chelan area riding, it's an extremely long way for a day trip for me, perhaps you need to go to the north side of baker or over to the olympics as a comparison....not realistic.

We are facing a similar and ongoing battle here in Oregon outside of the Bend area....where the skiers want untracked snow, but also claim that the Wilderness is too far to get to in a day trip. Now, I hate to be simplistic here, but why isn't someone coordinating a snow-cat to haul skiers to the edge of the Wilderness? Why is this not an option??? I can only imagine the complexities associated with scheduling etc, so I'm not saying that it's would be easy, but as with anything of value, sometimes you have to work hard to meet your goal.

As a snowmobiler, my goal is to ride in the back country as often as I can during the winter. That means, I work hard and deal with an immense amount of logistical planning to make that happen. We don't just get in the truck and drive to the closest sno-park. It is no where near that easy. That is one reason, I believe, that snowmobilers are so sensitive to any mention of closures. We have to set up our lives - year 'round - to support and enable our passion for preferred activity.

So, if skiers need to be creative and develop a snow-cat system to get to the Wilderness, then I see no reason that Wilderness shouldn't be a part of this conversation. The fact is, there are millions of acres where you can go and we cannot. If easy access to it is the biggest obstacle you have, as a user group, then I believe you can easily over come that one....WITHOUT asking us to compromise or give up anything. We have already given up parking and acreage to Wilderness for several decades now.

 

[Oregongirl]

Another view held by many would ask is it more elitist to ride a $10k snowmobile to the Wilderness Boundary and beyond, elitist compared to skiers or snowshoe hikers walking and sweating for hours using a few hundred dollars worth of gear?

A few hundreds dollars worth of gear? Really? If these skiers are equipped with the proper safety apparel and equipment for winter, backcountry recreation....of any sort.....then they should have far more than a few hundred dollars worth of gear. An avy beacon alone is a few hundred bucks. So, while they may only have a few hundreds bucks invested in skis and we have a larger investment in sleds, that is a choice we as individuals made.

The elistist issue is not about $$ anyway! It's about ACCESS RIGHTS. The elistist issue is that only the physically healthy - those without physical limitations like back, knee, or other muscluar-skeletal issues have UNLIMITED access to ALL the backcounty. The aged, the young, the physically limited will have less and less access to public lands if more sledding areas are closed. That's the elitist issue. It's not about money.

The economic issue - is, obviously, about money. Let's try and not get the waters muddy (ier) by confusing the two, becuase they are not one and the same issue.

Oh, and your comment about "Wilderness and beyond", well, can you please stop painting all snowmobilers by such a broad stroked-statement that implies we are criminals? Please. I will not deny that some sledders are not respectful of Wilderness boundaries, but if skiers had boundaries, can you say without question that you wouldn't have some individuals that would ignore them? You cannot. There are those, in every walk, of life that don't follow the rules. You and others love to use that one against us - but seriously, skiers are not any more or ANY LESS criminal as a user group than snowmobilers. In the forest though - they have no restrictions for parking or access - so snowmobilers cannot prove that equality. While skiers are always trying to prove our inequality.

 

[WMC]

Thanks for the comments, I hope that there are more. Clearly, WMC has an idea, an agenda, we have tried to clearly describe it. WMC is interested in trying to understand you folks, and at the same time try to create understanding on your side.

This type of management as WMC proposes is very likely to occur in the future. It will be better perhaps if we (all users) engage in discussion, try to understand each other, try to keep what is most important for each side. Perhaps I am wrong, but the message that is given here is that it is not understood or agreed why (as far as our motivation) we would advocate per our proposal. Not to start an argument, please, but it does seem that there is a strong and consistent limited-view message from snowmobile riders not really open to compromise.

So I do ask that we try to respect each other, even though we do not agree. Thanks again and comments and views are read and appreciated.

 

[Oregongirl]

but it does seem that there is a strong and consistent limited-view message from snowmobile riders not really open to compromise.

That about sums it up. Perhaps if you walked in our boots for a winter, you'd be more understanding of our position. We are totally willing to share, but your compromise(s) are not about sharing - they are about exclusion.

 

[jacmmaxwell]

Are these not public lands? And should be open to the public... all of the public. No long winded explinations needed.

There is a need for wilderness, I agree. But that is your non motorized area's. If you don't want to ski there that is not my fault, we should learn to ride side by side instead of fighting over what little land is out there for us to enjoy.

I drive 110 miles one way to ride, if you have to hike longer to get into the wilderness to ride untracked powder then you can... I can't. I really think this is just plane wrong that these types of things even are open for discusion... public lands for the public ... not public lands for 5% of the public.

It's hard to be open minded when people like WMC are trying to take our riding areas away one place at a time.

 

[ruffryder]

Perhaps I am wrong, but the message that is given here is that it is not understood or agreed why (as far as our motivation) we would advocate per our proposal.

The WMC proposal goes beyond its motivations and needs to be considered based on its ramifications, even if those are beyond its motivations. As to understanding, what about the posters saying that wilderness needs to be enforced? What about posters saying that we need to stay out of the wilderness? What about posters stating that they are courteous to other non-motorized users and giving them a wider berth and space to recreate? Are these not understandings of the needs of non-motorized users? They might not go to the extent that the WMC thinks they should go to, but to ignore it is not correct.

Not to start an argument, please, but it does seem that there is a strong and consistent limited-view message from snowmobile riders not really open to compromise.

I thought that was the WMC's stance as well? Isn't that what the WMC meant about "not surrendering" ? WMC hasn't been open to any ideas besides their own, and yet the WMC casts snowmobilers as not open to compromise? Where is the WMC's compromise? What is the WMC willing to compromise?

 

[newtrout]

There is one key point that I want to add. I haven't read through every post, so forgive me if it has already been discussed.

THERE IS NO USER CONFLICT IN THIS AREA!!!!

I sled the Teanaway as much as anyone; and I hike the area in the late spring and summer. I know the areas in question very well. This area sees very little skier use all winter long (the few that do use it mid-winter almost always sled-access, and usually make most of their runs in the Wilderness or areas where sleds don't ride). It isn't until the road melts out up toward Beverly that skiers start to use it more heavily. By that time, sleds are about done up there for the season. There just isn't the conflict that WMC would like us to believe.

If I was a skier, I could find limitless untracked lines any day of the winter in the Teanaway. 95% of the time, I could find an entire drainage that was untracked. This issue isn't even about fresh tracks. This is about a small select group who doesn't even want other users in the same mountain range. Seriously, if hearing a sled in the distance is enough to ruin your backcountry experience, we better contact the FAA and see about re-routing flights so you don't have to listen to the Seattle to Spokane Horizon shuttle....

The only conflict in the area is from sledders that ride in the Wilderness (as our good friend Randonee pointed out to us earlier). That is a separate issue that has very little to due with WMCs proposal. I fully support more enforcement and penalties for sledders that cross Wilderness boundaries.

I'm happy to compromise. Come to me with a proposal that doesn't effectively eliminate sledding from one of the few prime alpine areas in the state where sledding is allowed, and we'll talk. The area in WMCs proposal would eliminate all mountain sledding in the North Fork of the Teanaway, and would also include Lake Ann and Van Epps.

How about an example from the opposite perspective: We would like to ban skiing between Stevens Pass and Snoqualmie Pass. What? You don't like that idea? You won't compromise? What is wrong with you? I guess we'll have to tell the USFS that your user group was completely unreasonable and unwilling to compromise.

One last comment: Could you clarify who WMC is? Is this an individual representing a large group? Your comments always say 'we'. Is there a commitee that gets together every night to decide how to resond to comments on internet forums? Would your comments be more appropriately authored by 'I' or 'me'? I don't mean to make this a personal attack, but I really have to question who you represent. I know that very few skiers actually use this area. Many of those who do, do not support your proposal.

 

[WMC]

Are these not public lands? And should be open to the public... all of the public. No long winded explinations needed.

There is a need for wilderness, I agree. But that is your non motorized area's. If you don't want to ski there that is not my fault, we should learn to ride side by side instead of fighting over what little land is out there for us to enjoy.

I drive 110 miles one way to ride, if you have to hike longer to get into the wilderness to ride untracked powder then you can... I can't. I really think this is just plane wrong that these types of things even are open for discusion... public lands for the public ... not public lands for 5% of the public.

It's hard to be open minded when people like WMC are trying to take our riding areas away one place at a time.

Thanks and what you say is true as far as public lands. However those lands are managed, We cannot just do anything anywhere on the Forest.

WMC is making the case that skiing or quiet recreation on the snowy forest are incompatible with snowmobile riding the same place. Many uses are removed by snowmobile use. The Wilderness is only accessible in this area by walking through a corridor of buzzing snowmobiles.

We live in the Wenatchee Mountains and can be to the Blewett Pass Hwy 97 crest in under 1/2 hour. We see that most of the pristine, unroaded Wenatchee Mountains crest is used by snowmobiles, not compatible with non-motorized winter recreation.

It is clear to understand the stated fear here of losing it all for snowmobiles. We are trying to discuss where and how the Forest is well- suited for snowmobile riding and skiing is located. All we get is no, nothing anywhere is to be given up, please correct this if wrong. WMC states that we want the traditional pristine crest on the Wilderness Boundary areas for non-motorized and leave other areas, other crests, for snowmobiles- but this discussion is stuck, it has not produced any other absolute that snowmobile riders want to protect. What seems to be the discussion here is no compromise, no real consideration of other significant types and numbers of other Forest users.

The question of legal Wilderness is pertinent here because the proposal area borders Wilderness, and the area of the proposal for non-motorized provides the easy access for Wilderness trespass by snowmobiles. It is difficult to imagine that USFS will indefinitely allow such motorized traffic along such a long portion of the Wilderness Boundary.

The stories here of losing so much infers the questioning of tactics. Is that approach characterized as aggressive defiance of the USFS, and of "libs", and of all of the other users and citizens who may ask that another use be accommodated on the Forest? Those other uses are actually among the original Forest uses and involve significantly greater numbers of participants. In other compromises forced by USFS, snowmobile folks have been very late and reluctant in joining the discussion to find a solution. WMC is trying to continue the discussion. WMC recognizes snowmobile riding as a legitimate use of the Forest, as is winter non-motorized recreation, and believes that both must be accommodated reasonably on the Forest.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[newtrout]

[
WMC is making the case that skiing or quiet recreation on the snowy forest are incompatible with snowmobile riding the same place. Many uses are removed by snowmobile use. The Wilderness is only accessible in this area by walking through a corridor of buzzing snowmobiles.

We live in the Wenatchee Mountains and can be to the crest in under 1/2 hour. We see that most of the pristine, unroaded Wenatchee Mountains crest is used by snowmobiles, not compatible with non-motorized winter recreation.

Let's be honest here. This area is not accessed by walking through a corridor of buzzing snowmobiles. This area is accessed by skiers ON snowmobiles. The only way you access the crest in 1/2 hour is by snowmobile access. Unless, you're talking about this time of year when you can drive up the North Fork; then there are no snowmobiles anyway.

 

[winter brew]

So...if snowmobiles were silent there would be no issue??