WMC, Please take a few moments to put forth YOUR personal feelings on NewTrout's proposal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I won't ever look at a goat the same after that comment.If you stop on Ingalls or Longs Pass in the winter on a snowmobile, the goats come to you. They know that people = yellow snow = salt for their low mineral content diet......
Slow down a little, do not get impatient and derail some productive discussion. I think that a real chance of a compromise here is being discussed. We will take that idea and newtrouts' and mountainhorses' to our meetings. WMC would prefer to find an agreement with snowmobile riders and take that to USFS, we just never expected that to be possible, but hey, dream big, maybe that can happen!
A real agreement could be written and agreed using the parties mentioned in these discussions. IMO both sides would gain and lose, but both sides would get the most important stuff as I am hearing from discussions. If this worked, USFS would be helped by users collaborating for a solution, the enforcement problem in theory could be solved without big additional USFS funding. This could be a win-win all around so stay with this discussion. No, WMC is not going to fold after a few paragraphs of discussion, but we again state it is the best scenario if we all hang in here talking and respecting the other to work out something. In the end WMC WILL stop asking if this agreement comes together agreed in writing and works as described.
Thank you.
WMC, could you give your opinion of the previously posted comments by Newtrout? See below.
WMC, I think it would be helpful to see your proposal modify as the discussion goes along so as to move forward from challenge points with the end result a proposal that all could support. Perhaps a periodic proposal post to show modifications of agreed upon points. I'm sure you would agree that a level of trust needs to grow and this would help given the repetition of your previous reposting of the first version of proposal.
And if you were to listen to anyone with the sledders point of view, Newtrout is the guy.....he knows that area very well both winter and summer. With that intimate knowledge he can help you shape the proposal with the sledders perspective of the terrain in question.
And it may be below your effort in "working" with us, but the direct answers come about because we didn't see the answer in the previous pages on TAY or here, so direct answers to direct questions help.
Newtrout...glad you talked about yellow snow with the goats..I was worried you were going to pull an Ellensburg fun fact about goats and stumps or velcro gloves and sheep......![]()
1Plowing is a great idea in spring. When there was logging 20+ years ago, sometimes we could take advantage of plowed roads for logging jobs to get access to skiing. We have long discussed this, many of us skiers have talked about paying for the plowing etc. Not a done deal, there are other issues that will come up when this is proposed, but WMC would support this.
what issues?
2The concept for a future non-motorized Sno Park at Beverly TH is a fantastic idea- a big problem proposal, but that is a great concept!
What big problem?
3As far as leaving open Van Epps basin into the Jack Cr Wilderness basin, that is an issue perhaps.
What issue?
Good discussion. Hang in there, lets keep this going.
Thank you.
WMC, could you elaborate on the 3 items above?
WMC, I think it would be helpful to see your proposal modify as the discussion goes along so as to move forward from challenge points with the end result a proposal that all could support. Perhaps a periodic proposal post to show modifications of agreed upon points. I'm sure you would agree that a level of trust needs to grow and this would help given the repetition of your previous reposting of the first version of proposal.
...
And it may be below your effort in "working" with us, but the direct answers come about because we didn't see the answer in the previous pages on TAY or here, so direct answers to direct questions help.
---
Good morning.
Projects to place signs are a fantastic and positive effort. However, placing signs is one smaller part of the discussion brought by the WMC proposal.
WMC is going forward to set up this discussed collaborative effort as was discussed here yesterday. We will be in contact with the person that we met who is in the snowmobile world and ask if he would facilitate a meeting to set up the collaboration as discussed with him and on this Forum yesterday. Such collaboration has been requested on both main Forum discussions since the inception of the WMC as posted on TAY. Now is the time to move forward with that effort.
Collaboration in this is the best approach for all sides. WMC has spent many hours in meet and greet meetings where we state our advocacy position. We see that the snowmobile advocates are well known and have regularly visited the folks who are required to manage for all of us, for all of our uses.
WMC understands that proper management for the balance of uses, and especially for the original uses engaged by the majority of Forest users is a requirement that will be brought to the forefront ahead of social connections and specific-interest pressure groups. That statement is inclusive of continuing snowmobile use as well as providing for winter non-motorized recreation that has been displaced by expanding snowmobile riding on the Forest.
Collaboration in this will benefit the snowmobile community, it will show citizens considering in good faith other Forest users.
Thank you.
Can we select a person that reflects WMC's view?...I have JUST the right person, REALLY!
"displaced".BS.
Can we select a person that reflects WMC's view?...I have JUST the right person, REALLY!
The WMC proposal is controversial and perhaps offensive to folks here because it would displace snowmobile riders from areas prized for riding. WMC is continuing to attempt collaboration, where give and take would adjust the displacement felt by each interest group as much as possible, in compromise.
Continuing our respective efforts on a competing path only strengthens the possibility of developments that will harm all of us.
WMC seeks this collaboration, if we both can recognize the other's legitimate uses and try to reach out to accomodate the other use to some extent, we all will be better off in the end.
Thank you.
WMC, you're not going to win everyone and I think it best if you simply pass by the challenge to provoke your deep emotional need to respond to comments that are not productive. Please stay on the path and continue with the discussion that makes sense and move forward. We know your motivations in creating an opposition, just like us, don't respond to the more extreme side of the groups....from ours and yours(md2020 on TAY)
Ive spent alot of time reading this thread and trying to understand WMC's position..I somewhat understand, although disagree you need a spot that is not wilderness, Is that not what the wilderness designation is for??
Here is an idea.. Have all your ski buddies purchase some type of license.. much like us snowmobilers and off road enthusiast do. from that you can use the money to leverage a new road/plowing into somewhere you feel suitable for your use. Why should the state pay for it??
Snow parks are paid for by the sledders from resources collected by our tabs, not from the tags on our trucks etc, or the tags from the Subaru's that poach our snow parks.
The idea is discussed above and incorporated newtrouts suggestion. We have a map for the envisioned meeting. In the description above WMC discussed conceding significant parts of the WMC proposal, and the most important areas for snowmobile riding to the Teanaway crest. The discussion in exchange is that snowmobile interests would agree to assist in protecting the Wilderness from incursion and recognize the need for some new winter non-motorized areas in the area that has been described by snowmobile riders as less desirable than the area of Long Pass and Van Epps, which are discussed as possible concession to snowmobile riders.
We believe that our snowmobile contact would be recognized as a significant person in the snowmobile world. We ask for that person's involvement if willing by contacting the appropriate persons in the snowmobile interests. WSSA has sent a letter of Rebuttal of the WMC proposal that does not address the proposal, but puts WSSA at odds immediately with WMC and our discussion. We will hope that our snowmobile industry contact can mediate and set up a meeting for colllaboration.
Clearly, both sides are prepared to continue on their own competing efforts, but our sincere hope is that both sides may sit down and concede some part to the other's legitimate use of the Forest.
Thank you, please let's continue in a spirit of collaboration.