Inappropriate snomo assist skiing on Sasse Ridge

Inappropriate activity on Sasse Ridge<br><br>This post is in lieu of my usual weekly trip report from Sasse Ridge. It was not much different from last week in any case.<br><br>For the last two weeks while ski camping, I have seen evidence of snomo assisted skiing in the terrain accessible from FS Road 4315, which ascends Sasse Ridge. Further, this week a customer at a local ski shop was overheard unapologetically describing snomo assisted yo-yo skiing near Jolly Mtn. <br><br>I believe that this is a completely inappropriate and unacceptable use of this area. Here's why, and here are more details of what I found while skiing this week.<br><br>As I understand, according to the Forest Service master use plan the Cle Elum river drainage should offer viable non-motorized winter recreational activates. Considering the extensive support for the snomos (grooming, parking lot maintenance, snomo patrols, etc.) it is entirely reasonable to have an offering for the non-motorized community.<br><br>Locations for non-motorized use in the drainage are few. Hex Mountain has effectively been lost, as the route crosses private property that is expected to be developed. <br><br>The Howson Creek area via FS Road 128 suffers from a long flat approach. In addition, snomos have begun the habit of high marking the wonderful large talus slope above the logged section. This slope cannot be seen from the road, so I suspect that few skiers would want to deal with the long slog up there, not knowing whether on not the skiing on the slope would be ruined. <br><br>The entire west side of the Cle Elum drainage is heavily used by snomos. On one weekend last year, I was told that the LEO counted 1600 empty spaces on snomo carriers at various snomo parks along the road. The west side is not the place to backcountry ski on a weekend. It is often unsuitable even on weekdays.<br><br>This leaves the terrain around Road 4315, which ascends from the large parking area at the end of the plowed road. In support of the goal of offering non-motorized recreation, this road is, and has been for a number of years, a voluntary snomo closure area. I understand that this is considered a trial solution to the issue, and that it is reevaluated periodically. I've been asked on a number of occasions how well I think it's been working. Although the voluntary closure signage is not up yet this season, the status of this area remains. I hope the signs will be put out soon. <br><br>Snomo assisted skiing is a motorized use. It is not consistent with the voluntary closure of this area. <br><br>For those who wish to undertake this activity, there is a vast amount of skiable terrain in the drainage accessible by snowmobile that could be utilized instead. Clearly, these skiers are not bothered by the presence of snomos, opening up all sorts of possibilities for them that do not trespass on terrain suitable for non-motorized use. <br><br>By contrast, the number of square miles accessible to non-motorized use is quite small. I think at one time the Forest Service had for illustration purposes drawn 5 mile circles around the legal parking areas indicating possible non-motorized usage areas. This does not account for elevation gain, which is inversely related to the distance that can be covered. In short, snomo assisted skiers could easily use locations that don't infringe on non-motorized usage areas while skiers and snowshoers dependent on muscle power for transportation have far less opportunity.<br><br>Why Road 4315? In spite of the snomo noise from across the valley, it's still an excellent destination. The Salmon La Sac loop is now groomed for XC skiing. The first portions of the road above are suitable for beginning and intermediate skiers as well as snowshoers - - provided the road surface has not been too degraded by snomos choosing not to respect the voluntary closure. There is an overlook a mile and a half from the parking area that makes a nice lunch spot when introducing people to non-motorized winter recreation. Further up, the skiing can be as challenging as you would want it.<br><br>If not stopped, what would be the effect of repeated snomo assisted skiing in this voluntary closure area?<br><br> Here's what I found this week: more extensive snomo usage on the road, with the machines occasionally having sunk into deeper snow. In razzing the engine to get out, a foot or more high piles of snow were thrown up behind. These mounds of churned up snow are now frozen solid, making the descent down the road difficult to potentially dangerous. On the frontside, several sets of new ski tracks descended one of the best lines, removing it as a descent option.  The only skin track up there was mine, and it had not been used since last week. Over the ridge, the upper bowl had new ski tracks. This nice little hill had also been significantly degraded by snomos since last week. Multiple tracks, some one foot deep and now freezing up, went up and down the slope. It made me wonder what the snomo riders did while the skiers were skiing. The pattern of snomo usage was particularly thoughtless in that there is an even larger clear-cut area just to the south that is not commonly skied.<br><br>I'm hoping that the Forest Service will be able to use some of the non-motorized rec patrol hours in this area this to educate snomos and snomo assist skiers in about the voluntary closure, and the effects of their presence on non-motorized users.  I think that  a couple of yo-yo skiers and a couple of snomos can effectively remove this site from consideration by a whole class of outdoor enthusiasts who might otherwise want to go there.  <br><br>Charles, what effect would this activity have on your choice of destinations? Lowell?<br><br>Imagine backcountry skiers starting out up the hill early in the morning, part way up being confronted by snomo assist skiers whizzing by, and then after a tough climb , finding their favorite runs for which they worked so hard now occupied by yo-yo skiers assisted by smelly, noisy snomos.  Will non-motorized users thus be driven from this area? <br><br>My personal view would be that if education fails, perhaps a reassessment of the voluntary closure concept might need to be undertaken. Considering the tremendous range of terrain available to snomos and snomo assist skiers in the Cle Elum drainage, I'm not sure how continued legal access to Road 4315 could then be supported. <br><br>Larry<br>

You might want to contact the Cle Elum Ranger district and see if you can get the ranger to replace the signs.  Or perhaps at least get copies of the "voluntary non-motorized area" signs and offer to post them for them.<br><br> www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/district/cleelum/skiinfo.html

www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/district/cleelum/winterrec.html

Also try contacting the Ellensburg Ski Club -- I believe they were pretty inolved in the creation of the "volunyary non-motorized areas" program.

www.geocities.com/ellensburgskiclub/

Hi Larry,<br>Could you please explain "voluntary closure?"<br>Thanks.

Never mind. Just read the above link.

Without signage in place, I can't see how they really did anything wrong. A voluntary closure is pointless if  nobody knows about it. <br><br>And just to play devils advocate, getting offended by motorized use of a place like Sasse Ridge because that use is tracking up the logging roads and clearcuts you like to ski is a little hypocritical. YOU are, in essence, a motorized user through your choice of man-made terrain (logging roads and clearcuts) created through the use of some very large and destructive machinery. The next drainage to the north, Paris Creek, is easily accessible from the end of the plowed road at Salmon La Sac, has no forest road, and likely little if any snowmobile activity.<br><br>Don't get me wrong Larry, I love your reports and think you hold an important and valid point-of-view on this issue, but I personally wouldn't get all that upset if I saw a snowmobile on Sasse Ridge when skiing up there. I've been up there once, last season, and on a busy Saturday saw no snowmachines. Given the slowness of the snow surface on that day, I was happy to have their track to speed the descent.<br><br>The Cle Elum drainage is unique in that it has a plowed road surrounded by a large area of National Forest that has no Wilderness designation. This makes it a hotbed for snowmobile use. With so much of the Cascades tied up as wilderness (which is not a bad thing, IMO) I really can't complain as a non-motorized user in this state. Look at Paradise, Baker, Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass (to an extent), Hurricane Ridge, and in spring/summer Chinook Pass and the North Cascades Highway. Most of our highest plowed backcountry access points (places most likely to have snowcover) have no motorized access beyond the highway itself. If we get those prime areas more or less to ourselves, I personally will not shed too many tears over places like Sasse.<br>

I basically try very hard to avoid going where there will be snowmobile activity. It's not that I don't like snowmobilers, the people, I just don't want to be around their noisy smelly machines when I'm in the mountains. For the Salmon la Sac area in the winter it seems like there are very few choices for avoiding snowmobiles. Sasse Ridge if the closure is respected, and into the Alpine Lakes Wilderness via Polallie Ridge or Waptus River. I've never tried Paris Creek. On winter weekends I tend to either avoid Salmon la Sac altogether, or get a really early start so that I can be into the quiet zone before there is much snowmobile activity. My first choice is to go on a weekday.<br><br>It seems like the missing signs are a significant factor in this instance, but overall the real problem might be this "compromise" of the voluntary closure which keeps things tilted in favor of the motors. With a voluntary closure, one can never head out for a trip and be certain of a quiet day. To me a "voluntary closure" seems like a cop-out, and it would certainly be better to really make a decision about the area - motorized or not motorized. Given the area available to motors vs the area devoted to no motors, it seems entirely reasonable to me to simply make Sasse Ridge closed to motors, period. To be fair, maybe most of the many miles open to motors could be formally designated as "closed" to non-motorized use. This would have no impact on me, and I would guess most other skiers, because they are effectively closed to me already.