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.
Is there anything a kid like me can do to help out?
I caught that as well. Same topics, same points.. good old WWA. No wonder they are supporting the WMC, they have the same ideologies.
Funny how citizens other than snowmobile riders want to use a share of the Forest.
I find it interesting that you call yourself a snowmobiler, but then have no clue of what you are talking about with respect to snowmobiling.The pm says, "How they are going to restrict Snowmobile access to all US Forest Service Land"
They? They will do nothing as far as management. USFS will be required to manage snowmobiling in a manner similar to management of other ORVs.
Snowmobile enthusiasts are quite organized around strong resistance to any other use on the winter Forest unless snowmobiles are allowed there also. Anyone who questions the dominant snowmobile-lobby message is immediately showered with name-calling, strong language, disrespect.
Rhetorically, is anyone aside from snowmobile riders deserving of respect and consideration?
Thank you.
Funny how citizens other than snowmobile riders want to use a share of the Forest.
WMC was founded specifically to ask for USFS management of recreation on the non-Wilderness Forest to provide some areas for winter non-motorized use. Not everyone that asks for a share of the Forest is an environmentalist, liberal, etc., we are citizens like you guys, but without a share of the Forest.
Your interest group is well organized around a simple "no" strategy. WMC has tried to reach out and talk and even discussed the idea that if we came to a mutual agreement on the area of the WMC proposal, perhaps that could be used as leverage in the future to preserve some riding.
As far as the WWA Petition, it addresses the mystery of management of snowmobiles on the Forest. The Executive Order resulting in management of ORV use does not exempt snowmobiles, it is a curious development how snowmobiles were exempted. In the future, sooner or later, snowmobiles will be managed in a manner similar to how motorcycles and ORVs are now managed on the Forest. Soon, an EIS will need to be done to prove that snowmobiles may ride in an area of the Forest. Areas for snowmobile riding will be required to be planned and designated. Recreational conflicts and other considerations will be addressed.
As discussed before, we shall see how the "no' strategy works out in the future.
Thank you.
WMC was founded specifically to ask for USFS management of recreation on the non-Wilderness Forest to provide some areas for winter non-motorized use. Not everyone that asks for a share of the Forest is an environmentalist, liberal, etc., we are citizens like you guys, but without a share of the Forest.
Your interest group is well organized around a simple "no" strategy. WMC has tried to reach out and talk and even discussed the idea that if we came to a mutual agreement on the area of the WMC proposal, perhaps that could be used as leverage in the future to preserve some riding.
Funny how citizens other than snowmobile riders want to use a share of the Forest.
WMC was founded specifically to ask for USFS management of recreation on the non-Wilderness Forest to provide some areas for winter non-motorized use.
You really aren't very bright, are you?
You talk of "compromises", which the way I understand the meaning of the word, requires give and take from both sides of the argument. Yet the only give I see would be snowmobilers giving up an area out of a very small total available to them. You have nothing to give, period. You are simply a taker. Once again I ask, why should they say anything but no, you bring nothing to the table. An example of an appropriate compromise might be you get Stafford Creek and snowmobilers gain Ingalls Pass/Lake...
Once again you say you don't have a "share of the forest" yet in a previous post you claimed to "know where to go". Which is it? Like I said earlier, why not do something constructive such as make a list of accessible areas to ski, snowshoe, and, camp without the snowmobiles? and make it available to those seeking such an area. I'll even start the list: Commonwealth basin, Kendall Stump, Nason Ridge, Heather Ridge, Colchuck Lake area, Grindstone Mt, Mt Index, Mt Persis, Mt Pilchuck, Big Four, the list can go on and on...
"perhaps that could be used as leverage in the future to preserve some riding" This is my favorite quote yet. The future? So when does the "taking" end? What areas are next on the agenda? What exactly is your goal? "preserve some riding"? How about we rally and preserve all of the areas we currently have available, a very small sum. As previously stated, your 60% is both extremely flawed and misleading.
At least you're letting your true colors finally shine through.
The only 'no' is in response to your desire to take an entire riding area away from us; an area that you can readily use with very little chance of encountering snowmobiles.
We are far from organized. Referring to a snowmobile 'lobby' is laughable. But, I would like to congratulate you on doing more to unite our user group than we have managed to do on our own (in addition to increasing snowmobile traffic in the area you desperately want for yourself). Keep up the good work.
Thank you.
Sounds more like a justification (albeit lame) than a compromise...
It is these threats of "if we don't get what we want we will go for it all" that make people hesitant in trusting you... You don't need to compromise, you are only interested in it if it is the path of least resistance.We could get started now in collaboration and compromise, instead of your side saying "no" and WMC going for implementation of our entire proposal.
It is these threats of "if we don't get what we want we will go for it all" that make people hesitant in trusting you... You don't need to compromise, you are only interested in it if it is the path of least resistance.
In the meantime, we suggest discussion, collaboration and compromise that may secure a better outcome for both rather than winner-take-all.
I suggest first starting with the truth and honesty in your posts. Meaningful discussion can only happen afterwords. Also, why are you posting on here?
Haven't you been told once already that it would be appreciated if your agenda posts would be kept to your own threads?
Not all discussions about land use need to have the WMC's input and it would be appreciated if you would keep your proposal posts to the threads that the moderators have tirelessly kept going for non-paying members.
No, you are constantly talking about your own proposal. Is this more of the honesty and truth?WMC is here talking about the WWA Petition. WMC associates ride snowmobiles and also have registered here to view and post this Forum.
No, you are constantly talking about your own proposal. Is this more of the honesty and truth?