Inappropriate snomo assist skiing on Sasse Ridge

I was a citizen involved in the original discussions held at the Cle Elum Ranger District.  Our goal was to provide non-motorized (NM) opportunity in each of the major drainages on the district, accessible to all abilities and types of NM users.  The areas were strategically chosen for the following criteria:<br>- Provide a reasonable day use distance.<br>- Provide possible opportunity for overnight use.<br>- Accommodate Nordic skiers, track skiers, backcountry skiers including AT/Tele, snowshoers, and dogsledders.<br>- Provide for anyone wanting a quiet winter recreation experience, and some chance to go off and find            solitude, knowing that the Wilderness Boundary was well beyond a realistic travel distance in winter.<br>- AND do this only where the snowmobile community could travel well beyond these closures to access the type of terrain and different experiences they desire.<br>Please respectfully understand the significance of this challenge.  At one point early on a snowmobiling neighbor was thrusting a finger into my friend's chest saying, " I hope you're ready for a war!?/#."  However, in the end even the groomer council endorsed this plan.<br><br>With respect to Jolly and Howson in particular, for those who use snowmobile assisted turns, please view maps of French Cabin Creek, Cooper Pass, and Fortune Creek drainages for all the square miles of terrain you could imagine.  Please leave Jolly and Howson for NM users from both sides of the Cascades who, for there own reasons, do not partake in snowmobile assist.<br><br>In response to this discussion, I would like to add a few things. <br>1. The signs should now be posted at the Salmon La Sac snowpark according to verbal communication with a snow ranger.  <br>2. Paris Creek does indeed have a well-graded logging road, at least 4 or 5 miles long constructed by Plum Creek Timber in the early 90's.  It does receive snowmobile use.  Beyond the road, the drainage does indeed have some nice telemark terrain.  However, the trail skiing and the creek crossings are not viable for the intermediate (non-turn oriented) touring crowd that the Jolly and Howson roads attract.<br>3. Last Saturday there were over 100 vehicles of non-motorized users (no sno-mo trailer) parked at the Kendall Road at Snoqualmie Pass.  Today there were 50+ vehicles at Amabalis, Exit 63.  I mention this to show that there is a demand for more Nordic skiing, ski touring, snowshoeing, and backcountry skiing opportunities than just at the passes and behind the ski areas.  Arguing that the plowed passes provide enough terrain does a disservice to the tour crowd that does not "skin up to turn down".  In addition to the crowd whom does not want to pay a fee for set track.<br>4. I agree with Charles that it is a cop out on the F.S. part.  Nevertheless, given the heat in the meetings it was all the district ranger at the time was willing to do.  Think of the Cle Elum Chamber of Commerce at your office door when talking about legal restrictions.   It was also meant to be REVISITED to monitor its' effectiveness.  Any one want to be involved in that should let the Cle Elum Ranger District know.<br>5. Finally, I whole-heartedly disagree with the "hypocrisy" argument.   From leaving Seattle on foot with hides for clothes and wood skis on ones' back to allowing motorcycles onto Wilderness trails because the trail is "Man-made terrain built with machinery" (in cases), we have to choose as a society where to draw the line.  I hope that after reading my discussion points and historical summary of the process, most can agree that the NM areas have significant merit and should be maintained.  Getting personal, I would prefer many roads ripped up and replanted, along with the clear cuts, to once again become late sucessional forest habitat in a couple hundred years.  However, I will yield to consensus, and the current political climate, to leave these roads for USFS administrative access and NM opportunity in winter. <br>

We have a problem at Hyak were a handful of residents feel it is ok to ride in the areas behind Hyak, around Mt Catherine and such. There is always a big debate at every home owners meeting between the group that rides, and everyone else that wants them to stop. The big problem is that 2 of the offending snowmobilers are State Patrol and they feel they can do whatever they want. Their exact coments at our meeting was, "nobody is going to catch us, so who is to stop us"? Its really hard to deal with folks like this who are suppose to be people upholding the law, excpet on weekends they go out and trash all the x-country trails riding through the non-motorized areas on forest service land that boarder Hyak..

<br>3. Last Saturday there were over 100 vehicles of non-motorized users (no sno-mo trailer) parked at the Kendall Road at Snoqualmie Pass.  Today there were 50+ vehicles at Amabalis, Exit 63.  I mention this to show that there is a demand for more Nordic skiing, ski touring, snowshoeing, and backcountry skiing opportunities than just at the passes and behind the ski areas.  Arguing that the plowed passes provide enough terrain does a disservice to the tour crowd that does not "skin up to turn down".  In addition to the crowd whom does not want to pay a fee for set track.<br>

<br><br>Drawing a motorized/non-motorized boundary is one thing, but now you want the forest service to groom and set track in that area, and do it for free? Golf is a non-motorized sport too, but I dont see golfers lobbying to have national grassland mowed for them. This is exactly the kind of stuff Fee Demo advocates love to see, because it gives them more justification for piling on the fees. Free access is always going to involve some compromise. The forest service can draw boundaries, but I don't think it is right to expect it to accomodate the special needs of every user group out there, whether those users are motorized or not. <br><br>

I appreciate Larry's and John's posts. You've made me aware of a situation I was ignorant of. I applaud your efforts to reach a compromise between motorized and non-motorized recreation in the Cle Elum ranger district.<br><br>I don't have much to add except this observation. Based on my experience skiing in areas popular with snomobiles, I think there are way more snowmobilers than backcountry skiers in Washington state and they have way more clout than we do. They are also more willing to put their money behind their convictions.<br><br>I think we backcountry skiers sometimes feel a little smug because we are quieter and have less impact than snowmobilers. I think we sometimes get complacent politically, because we feel our position is more "right" or virtuous. Larry and John have reminded us that we need to keep engaged in the land management process. I thank you for that.<br><br>===<br><br>To hyak.net: I've seen snowmobile tracks on the Mt Catherine ski trail several times. It's really depressing to learn that state patrollers are doing it and that they're flaunting their authority.

Jerm, thanks for showing me how easy it is for the written word to be misunderstood. The only track setting I meant is that made by the first skiers going in after new snow. Simply on gradients that do not require skins. I did not mean grooming/track setting.<br>My point was that at Mt Baker, Stevens, and Snoqualmie the commercial grooming (private ski area ventures) takes up a good percentage of the safe terrain for the nordic touring crowd, i.e. those without skins, avy assessment, or turning skills. <br>For further clarification the only non-commercial track setting/grooming of nordic ski trail in the state of Washington is paid for through the Sno-Park revenues. The USFS then applies for grant monies, through that State program, to do some of the actual work. Winter Rec. is not connected to Fee Demo. The state feels that the feds, in certain circumstances, have the personnel, equipment, and are at the localle to best accomplish the work. In Kittitas County, Salmon-La-Sac campground is the only USFS ski track-set groomed area to date.<br>Lastly, in west side drainages like Nooksack and the Stillaguamish there are dedicated non-motorized areas to seperate the users and provide for quiet winter experiences. Twin Lakes and Deer Creek roads are examples. Great for basic ski and snowshoe touring. This type of experience is among the types we are trying to preserve in Kittitas County.<br>Area closures with clear boundaries (ridge tops, rivers) are beginning to make more sense than road closures. The 'biles are powerful enough to now cross steep terrain to access areas behind road closures (i.e. going over the top). See a recent report about a group scrambling peaks around Welcome Pass on NWHikers.net.<br>In all this, my basic point is that from plowed roads a dedicated NM area should exist. Something that allows a few miles of touring and/or points-of-interest. Have other areas from the same roads for machines to access and use. When there is not enough terrain adjacent to the roads themselves, have a corridor for the snowmobilers to pass though to access the larger non-wilderness terrain beyond. Swauk Pass is an effective example of this.

I've heard people in Glacier Ski Shop talk about riding sleds to the summit of Baker.