Agreed.
Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas
- Thread starter WMC
- Start date
- Status
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 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???
X
X2Freeride
Well-known member
Unfortunately Yes. This is going exactly as I figured it would.
BE VERY CAREFUL HERE WITH YOUR COMMENTS. I have a feeling that they are looking for a certain type to use against snowmobilers to prove their point and use as ammunition for their cause.
Last edited:
Over the years I've been thanked by dogsled teams for cutting a trail when the snow was too deep for their dogsled team, also shuttled a musher coming out of the woods who was thrown from his sled and seperated from his team. Picked up snowshoers that were trying to get to a backcountry lake which I gladly saved them hours of hiking to the trailhead. Shuttled hikers up Bakers southside and Glacier creek on the northside so they could enjoy the backcountry as we do. It's all about building bridges not walls, you seem to want your own little peice of heaven but it shouldn't come by taking it away from others.
W
WMC
Banned
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.
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.
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_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?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. 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. 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.
Last edited:
WMC, post your map to show what you propose for exclusion.
Besides eliminating off-road snowmobiling from areas you have chosen your are not seeking to eliminate off-road snowmobiling?
WMC has stated that they could foresee the non-motorized areas that they are proposing, being turned into Wilderness and being something that they would support. Based on their stance of buffer zones needed along Wilderness boundaries, this could result in further land being deemed non-motorized in order to provide for a new buffer for the once non-motorized land but now newly created Wilderness.
W
WMC
Banned
Besides eliminating off-road snowmobiling from areas you have chosen your are not seeking to eliminate off-road snowmobiling?
WMC has stated that they could foresee the non-motorized areas that they are proposing, being turned into Wilderness and being something that they would support. Based on their stance of buffer zones needed along Wilderness boundaries, this could result in further land being deemed non-motorized in order to provide for a new buffer for the once non-motorized land but now newly created Wilderness.
WMC has not made any statement and is not involved in creating Wilderness. If such a statement was made, why was that statement not quoted here? Please discuss the issues truthfully.
H
hurleyboarder21
ACCOUNT CLOSED
between the lines
my understanding from reading all your posts at tay is that you would fully support wilderness designation of any areas you are proposing as non motorized.
so to make it easy on everyone here.
WOULD WMC SUPPORT A WILDERNESS DESIGNATION OF THE AREAS YOU ARE PROPOSING AS NON MOTORIZED??
a simple YES or NO would be great.
and if no...would wmc defend the area from going wilderness?
thank you
regards
hurly
my understanding from reading all your posts at tay is that you would fully support wilderness designation of any areas you are proposing as non motorized.
so to make it easy on everyone here.
WOULD WMC SUPPORT A WILDERNESS DESIGNATION OF THE AREAS YOU ARE PROPOSING AS NON MOTORIZED??
a simple YES or NO would be great.
and if no...would wmc defend the area from going wilderness?
thank you
regards
hurly
W
WMC
Banned
Great question and the answer is NO! WMC will not advocate or support the proposed areas to be included as Wilderness. This is not in any thought or discussion of our three person WMC Executive, and we do not know that any of our supporters want to make these areas Wilderness. Wilderness Designation is also problematic for users other than snowmobile riders. WMC is not an environmental organization, we advocate for USFS management of recreation. WMC supports and enjoys existing Wilderness. WMC is aware that the Teanaway crest area is on a map by an Organization as desirable for Wilderness, we are aware that Wilderness protection proponents want the buffer for Wilderness (WMC agrees with the buffer concept). We are not opposed to wildlife and resource protection, but that is not our purpose. We advocate for recreation management by USFS.
Thank you for the discussion!
From TAY...page 12...
The area from Van Epps to Brothers that is the unroaded crest is a logical setback from the Wilderness Boundary, and WMC takes advantage of that fact in asking for non-motorized designation there. It is possible in our view that at some point in the future some of the large, formal Organizations may lobby and secure this area as non-motorized for the purpose of Wilderness protection. WMC takes advantage of this proximity to Wilderness in asking for non-motorized designation.
crap, yammadog, I just spent 15 minutes searching that stupid thread for that statement. son of a 
ha ha. I am going to post it, because I have to in order for my time to be validated.. lol
There, I quoted it better and made it bold too... ahh.. self satisfaction right there.
ha ha. I am going to post it, because I have to in order for my time to be validated.. lolThere, I quoted it better and made it bold too... ahh.. self satisfaction right there.
W
WMC
Banned
There is nothing there about WMC wanting to make the area Wilderness. That is a discussion of the buffer concept. WMC will not advocate and will not support this area becoming Wilderness. Our entire purpose if for recreation management, we seek winter non-motorized areas on the general Forest. We seek a share, yes you all would in a fashion 'give it up', we are not trying to shut down on or off-road snowmobile riding. We are seeking a fair share of the resource of snowy Forest slopes.
H
hurleyboarder21
ACCOUNT CLOSED
good work yammadog
i knew i had seen something like that!!!!!!
i knew i had seen something like that!!!!!!
W
WMC
Banned
What? Do you argue with the concept of Wilderness buffer areas? It was discussed on TAY by others, and is the usual plan on USFS for summer use especially. That is not about Wilderness Designation, not our intent at all. WMC advocates for recreation management, meaning for creation of new and significant winter designated non-motorized areas outside of Wilderness.
Last edited:
H
hurleyboarder21
ACCOUNT CLOSED
between the lines
it is all about a private little "Club" havin it all to themselves
imagine....
good work wmc !!!.... beers and dinner on me and everyone else for saving "our" area!!!! wmc you are my hero!!!! let me pick up a new set of skiis for you!
slaps on the back.....way to go... now it is just "ours" too bad we had to "USE" the forest service to get our own private playground...maybe they won't catch on.
THIS IS ALL THIS LAND GRAB IS!!!!
it is all about a private little "Club" havin it all to themselves
imagine....
good work wmc !!!.... beers and dinner on me and everyone else for saving "our" area!!!! wmc you are my hero!!!! let me pick up a new set of skiis for you!
slaps on the back.....way to go... now it is just "ours" too bad we had to "USE" the forest service to get our own private playground...maybe they won't catch on.
THIS IS ALL THIS LAND GRAB IS!!!!
No, but you have shown that the WMC considers it likely that their proposal can / would be utilized by others for creating new Wilderness lands.
WMC states that they wouldn't vote for the Wilderness (congress votes for it, btw) but I am curious as to how strong of a supporter against it they would be? When push comes to shove, would WMC be as aggressive against it as they are in trying to make the are non-motorized? Would the WMC risk being seen as anti-wilderness by their supporters?
based on the above comments, I would think no...WMC said:
Last edited:
W
WMC
Banned
Did you miss the post above quoted here-
"Great question and the answer is NO! WMC will not advocate or support the proposed areas to be included as Wilderness. This is not in any thought or discussion of our three person WMC Executive, and we do not know that any of our supporters want to make these areas Wilderness. Wilderness Designation is also problematic for users other than snowmobile riders. WMC is not an environmental organization, we advocate for USFS management of recreation. WMC supports and enjoys existing Wilderness. WMC is aware that the Teanaway crest area is on a map by an Organization as desirable for Wilderness, we are aware that Wilderness protection proponents want the buffer for Wilderness (WMC agrees with the buffer concept). We are not opposed to wildlife and resource protection, but that is not our purpose. We advocate for recreation management by USFS."
W
WMC
Banned
Please read post #25.
Why is WMC here? To try to have a discussion, a discussion of the issues, most of which folks here differ in opinion. A discussion with snowmobile riders, a use that WMC states is a legitimate use of the Forest. OK, let us talk, can we ever reach an agreement or find common ground?
WMC has a proposal, a postion that we advocate to USFS. We are asking for your input, WMC is not assuming this or that other than we do not expect agreement or support but what if there became some common purpose?
Thank you.
Why is WMC here? To try to have a discussion, a discussion of the issues, most of which folks here differ in opinion. A discussion with snowmobile riders, a use that WMC states is a legitimate use of the Forest. OK, let us talk, can we ever reach an agreement or find common ground?
WMC has a proposal, a postion that we advocate to USFS. We are asking for your input, WMC is not assuming this or that other than we do not expect agreement or support but what if there became some common purpose?
Thank you.
- Status
Similar threads
