P
Wenatcheee Snw Rnger
- Thread starter PowderMiner
- Start date
Thanks for the info, hope they don't start shutting our area down!
Great...more of my tax dollars flushed.
I think it's potentially a great thing, because the FS (in their long term Management Plan released in '11), formally recommended converting the Scatter Peak and Van Epps areas and all the terrain N of the Teanaway Road up to Long's Pass to wilderness, and the only reason offered thus far is sled poaching. I think the possibility that the rangers can help prevent encroachment could be enough reason to argue against that conversion. The FS will be doing an EIS assessment on their recommendation this year, which will likely open the door for Congressional consideration (only Congress can designate federal land as wilderness). So we gotta do everything possible this year to help keep these areas open. First and foremost, I think we need more folks to ride these areas. It's a lot harder to close something that's getting used. We also need to make sure everybody knows where the boundaries are, and what's at stake if they choose to poach.
I would venture out and agree with most of this. I regularly use the Teanaway area, also in the summer. It's sad to think it could go away. I will add, that in the last 5 years of riding here, I've never seen encroachment, not saying it hasn't happened because I've seen the posted pics. It's been well documented and names have been put out there. More use would help but in being selfish it takes away from the reason I go there. So maybe, if prevention is the goal to help it remain open I agree. If there's another reason to help support the closure, I disagree.
We would be fools to think that any good will come from an additional ranger/patrol/enforcment.
I'm not looking at the rangers as a positive, per se, but rather that their deployment reflects an acknowledgement by the FS (albeit implicitly) that without actual documented evidence of the frequency of sled encroachment and its impacts, they have no material basis to support their recommendation for a wilderness conversion. The rangers may or may not be able to establish evidence for their position, that's pretty much up to us.
I plan to fight the conversion, and I think our chances are great, given the current political environment. There's some areas near Snoqualmie Pass that are currently slated for Wilderness designation, that are pretty much uncontested by user groups and supported by nearly all WA legislators from both parties, and that legislation has had great difficulty getting through: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021456637_alpinelakesbillxml.html
I suspect it will be even more difficult to convert Scatter/Van Epps/ Teanaway to wilderness if there is significant opposition. We sledders need to lead that opposition, but with a rational voice. WSSA's stated position is no new wilderness, ever. I personally think that sounds stupid. Any significant public land use proposal needs to be evaluated on its merits, and in this case the merits do not support the conversion.
It's also worth noting that the ALW expansion statute discussed in the linked article was sponsored by a Republican, Dave Reichart and begrudgingly supported by Doc Hastings (i.e., not likely a forgone conclusion as part of some liberal agenda). I suspect both would be willing to listen to our points. If you agree, please take the time to call their offices or send them an email and let them know how you feel about closing off some of the best expert alpine sledding (and sled accessed ski touring) terrain in Washington.
I plan to fight the conversion, and I think our chances are great, given the current political environment. There's some areas near Snoqualmie Pass that are currently slated for Wilderness designation, that are pretty much uncontested by user groups and supported by nearly all WA legislators from both parties, and that legislation has had great difficulty getting through: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021456637_alpinelakesbillxml.html
I suspect it will be even more difficult to convert Scatter/Van Epps/ Teanaway to wilderness if there is significant opposition. We sledders need to lead that opposition, but with a rational voice. WSSA's stated position is no new wilderness, ever. I personally think that sounds stupid. Any significant public land use proposal needs to be evaluated on its merits, and in this case the merits do not support the conversion.
It's also worth noting that the ALW expansion statute discussed in the linked article was sponsored by a Republican, Dave Reichart and begrudgingly supported by Doc Hastings (i.e., not likely a forgone conclusion as part of some liberal agenda). I suspect both would be willing to listen to our points. If you agree, please take the time to call their offices or send them an email and let them know how you feel about closing off some of the best expert alpine sledding (and sled accessed ski touring) terrain in Washington.
Last edited:
wa back country , I totaly idsagree with you
From some one who has been involved in this sport for over 30 years, Know matter what you think we still need enforcement in many areas. We have done a very poor job of "policing ourselfs" over the last 4 or 5 years. On the south side of the district "poaching" happens just about every weekend from the lake ann / van epps area. Believe it or not there are skiers and snowshoers in there all the time reporting violations. The stupidness of a few will wreak havick on us all. Just the facts, Also we need enforcement to make sure everyone has a licensed sled and snopark permit, this money goes DIRECTLY into our snowmobile grooming budget.
From some one who has been involved in this sport for over 30 years, Know matter what you think we still need enforcement in many areas. We have done a very poor job of "policing ourselfs" over the last 4 or 5 years. On the south side of the district "poaching" happens just about every weekend from the lake ann / van epps area. Believe it or not there are skiers and snowshoers in there all the time reporting violations. The stupidness of a few will wreak havick on us all. Just the facts, Also we need enforcement to make sure everyone has a licensed sled and snopark permit, this money goes DIRECTLY into our snowmobile grooming budget.
I disagree with the idea that we should be reasonable on some wilderness expansion but not others. Whether we want to admit it or not, our sport and any other motorized sport that uses federal lands is under constant assault. The Sierra Club doesn't want us in the mountains. Liberals don't want us in the mountains. When are new areas for us opened up? Never. The enemy never compromises on this issue so why should we. I contacted Dave Reichert's office a while back on this issue and he basically said he was for wilderness expansion in the Teanaway. The only way he and the rest of congress will say no to this is if you bombard their office with comments. Please, take a minute and write him a note saying you do not support wilderness expansion and explain how it limits your access to public lands. Here is a link. http://reichert.house.gov/ http://hastings.house.gov/
Last edited:
I can actually get Dave Reichert on the phone, I have had dealings with him in the past. What really lights these guys up is money, donations for his campaign. I think if we did some contributions as a group he would re-think his stance. He is not a conservative and he needs some guidance on issues like this even though he is a Republican. I have had to hold his feet to the fire on gun issues before. If anyone is interested in meeting with him/donations let me know.
Wenatchee snow ranger
There is no reason to compromise with the Sierra Club, Do not give in to them, forgiving an area thinking they will be happy and go home. They want you to think its already theirs and will make a deal with you. We need not work with them, they only will take,take,take. Granted its hard to fight every battle. thx. for the info.
There is no reason to compromise with the Sierra Club, Do not give in to them, forgiving an area thinking they will be happy and go home. They want you to think its already theirs and will make a deal with you. We need not work with them, they only will take,take,take. Granted its hard to fight every battle. thx. for the info.
I was looking at a map the other night. I was sort of playing "wilderness connect the dots". I was comparing no wilderness areas to wilderness areas. Take a look at the different wilderness areas from south of White Pass to the reservation. Then look north, northwest and north east. It is consecutive wilderness after wilderness piggybacked to each other. Then look at the alpine lakes and the bs to the west and then look to the East into the Teanaway and north of that. It looks like that is the idea in this section as well. It will be wilderness/Reservation from Trout Lake, north to the BC border with some low elevation open areas to the east for the masses to herd up in.
Add in a nice little National monument restriction for miles around St Helens and we will all be hoping for a new ice age so we can enjoy the snow in the lowlands.
Add in a nice little National monument restriction for miles around St Helens and we will all be hoping for a new ice age so we can enjoy the snow in the lowlands.
N
newtrout
Well-known member
Thanks for posting this PowderMiner.
I'm going to partially disagree with you here, Dan. We are actually doing a much better job of policing ourselves. Wilderness trespass is way down in the Teanaway (including Scatter, Van Epps) over the past 6-8 years. We've been documenting it for the past several years (because the USFS does not do any enforcement up there, and they are basing decisions solely on reports from non-motorized users).
The past few years, we have seen tracks once or twice per year into Headlight Basin, and once or twice per year in Fourth and Hardscrabble. It used to be a relatively common occurrence.
What hasn't changed in the Teanaway, is that it gets very little skier use mid-winter, and the vast majority of those that get in there do it by snowmobile. The real reason behind this proposed Wilderness in the Teanaway is to increase terrain for non-motorized backcountry users.
I agree with you, Dan, that that an additional snow ranger is a great thing. It will help the USFS document actual use in these areas; it will help demonstrate that there is no motorized/non-motorized conflict; it will help demonstrate that 95% of the mid-winter use is motorized; and it will help demonstrate that Wilderness trespass is not near the problem that non-motorized groups proclaim.
More to the point, this snow ranger grant is not likely going to result in a ranger patrolling Wilderness boundaries. That would require an experienced backcountry rider on a lightweight, modern machine. I seriously doubt that the USFS is going to hire an experienced snowmobiler for this position..... Also, look at the terrain that is covered by this grant. Blewett through the Entiat (and Chelan County specifically). Will this ranger travel up Salmon La Sac and the Teanaway, through Kittitas County, to access the Chelan County boundary of Alpine Lakes Wilderness?
V
volcano buster
Well-known member
Contact your local county commissioners for that area and express how much money you bring to their area. Congress won't propose and vote on these "new" wildernesses if they are not locally supported. If the Counties are not in favor due to a potential lack of revenues, they will not support the proposal. Keep it local and you have more influence.
I'm in Oregon and see the border to border "W" designation as well.
I'm in Oregon and see the border to border "W" designation as well.
he problem with aknowledging any viable value to added wilderness areas and letting it go on merit, is that the door only goes one way. it's dictated by congress that the FS can only look at NEW wilderness, they can't reduce or move the line in to the old wilderness based on evidence of migration or anything else. if the door went both ways, then the possibility could be considered to look at requests based on merit.
W
WMC
Banned
Snowmobile Wilderness trespass is an ongoing and widespread issue throughout the west. According to discussions that I had while traveling this fall on my dualsport moto in the Rockies, folks nearly everywhere on both sides are aware of snowmobiles ignoring Wilderness Boundaries and other Boundaries. For the purpose of gaining clout and furthering the cause of the management of snowmobiles, thank you very much, moto-poachers!
One thing that I noticed is that there is considerable on-the-ground management of snowmobiles in the Rockies- meaning signs and designations. Perhaps that was due to the open and flat terrain being more easily accessed with old-tech snomos. Had there been some management in the Wenatchee Forest, for example, would there have been WMC and others working as has been done in recent years to ask USFS to actually manage the snomo free-for-all? Simply put, on the Wenatchee Mountains crest we could skitour most if it in the early 80s without any snomo traffic. With the advance of technology, and no management of the Forest, is a decade on the Wenatchee crest very little terrain is without snomo traffic.
Some snomo folks seem to assume that it all should be for them to ride, and that the rest just need to go to Wilderness. That is unreasonable for many reasons, previously discussed at length.
Yes, we are continuing our work. There are some serious efforts that some here would find surprising in regard to observing and documenting snowmobiles on the Forest and in Wilderness.
All uses could be served, with none 'shut out' at least on our Wenatchee Forest. No reason to shut out snowmobile riding, as well no reason to shut out human-powered use of the quiet non-motorized Forest in winter.
Dave Reichert is OVERATED...
Last edited:
Similar threads
