Avoiding conflict between skiers and snowmobilers

Snowmobile/skier conflicts are increasing in the Cascades.  Recent TAY threads have discussed problems on Skyline Ridge and Sasse Ridge .<br><br>I looked back through the Hot Air forum and found these older threads on the subject:<br><br> Snowmobiles on Easton Glacier <br><br> More about Easton Glacier <br><br> Snowmobiles where they shouldn't be - discussion <br><br> Snowmobiles where they shouldn't be - documentation <br><br>A few TAYers such as Larry Robinson and John Morrow have been working with the Forest Service to get ahead of the problem in certain areas of the Cascades.  I applaud their efforts.  Skiers and snowmobiles are on a collision course and we're going to have to deal with this.  I'd like to see us work toward a harmonious relationship, where each user group has a say in the policy and feels that reasonable efforts have been made to accommodate their needs.<br><br>We need three broad classifications for motorized winter access in the Cascades.  John Morrow discussed some of these ideas in the Sasse Ridge thread.<br><br>1. Open motorized access. No restrictions on motorized access. Snowmobiles are free to go virtually anywhere, limited perhaps by snow depth rules. Schreiber's Meadow on the south side of Mt Baker is a current example. As long as the snow is at least 3 feet deep, snowmobiles can go anywhere up there.  (This is a current example, but I'm not saying I like it.)<br><br>2. Non-motorized. National Park and Wilderness designation requires this by law, but we know there have been violations. We should develop other management tools to enforce no-motors in certain areas outside Parks and Wilderness. Skyline Ridge is a good example.<br><br>3.  Limited motorized access.  This essentially means zoning.  You might allow motorized access on a road corridor, but not off the road.  Or you might have different zones within a river drainage for motorized and non-motorized use.  My favorite example is the North Cascades highway.  I don't have any problem with snowmobiles on the highway, but between Silver Star creek on the east and Thunder Creek on the west, I think they should be limited to the road.<br><br>I'd like to hear about experiences people have had implementing systems like this.  Does anybody know how it has been done in other regions of the country?  Are there organized groups working on these issues?<br>

Lowell, thanks so much for the kind words. Looking at some of the recent threads I've begun to wonder if I am the one on the wrong side of the tracks. <br><br>One organization that is working on the issues you mention is the Snowlands Network.<br><br> www.snowlands.org/

I'm very impressed with their approach, their documentation, and the level of detail. They have been doing this for a while, and it shows. I think they, far more than we, know what has a chance of working and what does not.

It's my impression that the terrain in the area that Snowlands serves is far more conducive to user group conflict. In that way the PNW has not faced the issue to the degree that California and Nevada have.

As machines get ever more powerful this situation is likely to change. I recently asked a well-known climber if he was concerned about snow machines in the Wilderness. His reply was to the effect that machines could not go to the areas he goes to (in the North Cascades). My thought was that one should think back to the capabilities of snomos say 5 or 10 years ago vs. what they can do now. It's entirely possible that in a few years 'inaccessible' areas may become accessible to those not concerned about wilderness trespass laws.

As a hint to what may come, a few years ago a group of snomos made it to near the top of Mt. Stuart ( over 8000'+ ft as I remember). Last year, tracks were spotted near the top of Cashmere Mtn. Both of these peaks are well within the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. I'm sure there are other examples, in and out of formal wilderness areas.

This suggests that a proactive approach is in order; I applaud your efforts here!

Larry

As a suggestion, a good title of the thread would be something like "appropriate areas for snowmobiling and reports of violations" or something better. More conciliatory communication that will establish common ground may be more productive.<br><br>The "vs." is another them against us. It is so easy for any of us to launch into a "them v. us" attitude. In some cases them is us. I will randonnee ski perhaps 80 days this season at my current rate. I snowmobile roads in order to randonnee ski less then 10% of my ski days. I have snomo yo-yoed once in the 80's and do not care for that activity. It isn't that I am offended, it is just more productive to recognize that all types of users are citizens who own the Forest or Park.<br><br>The threads about Skyline are a good example. It sounds like the snowmobilers described in posts this year were polite and considerate. In another post a skier's pack was carried down by the snowmobiler. If those snowmobilers were polite and considerate and were lawfully and properly recreating, why should one assume such strong negative thoughts or assume and superiority of our recreational activity?<br><br>Like it or not, snowmobiling is a valid activity that has no less validity in the view of the USFS and public than self powered travel. Unlawful or inappropriate snowmobiling is not acceptable, just as any such described behavior is not acceptable.<br><br>I would suggest that Skyline is an example of an area to lobby for possible reclassification with a snowmoblie closure. It would seem to be of little value to snowmobiles because of the limited usable acreage. What I fear is the progression, because of the location allowing one to put on a good show, of table top jumps and inverted aerials of snowmobiles as is the leading edge now of snowmobiling. That activity could be particularly disturbing to self-powered users in the area.<br><br>In regard to the "us v. them," if that is the approach, self-powered users are already losing. Policy, law, and precedent weigh heavily toward continued snowmobile use. If one offends the powerful snowmobile-associated group at the start, it will be a difficult uphill struggle that may not be overcome.<br><br>One would perhaps do better to recognize legitimacy where it exists, such as lawful and proper snowmobile use. Recognize similarities, such as enjoyment of winter sport, recreation on the Forest, fellow citizens on snowmobiles (instead of lazy !!##**%%!) that are held in common. After common ground with snowmobilers has been established, then careful and appropriate discussion of restricting snowmobile use in a certain area may be more productive.<br><br>I am willing to help as described. My Wenatchee-based State Representative Cary Condotta sells snowmobiles. In the interest of support of a proper and civil lobbying effort, I would be willing to approach my Rep. in regard to the issue.

Randonnee, your points are well taken. I have also used snowmobiles on occasion and I have no desire to ban them. Snowmobiling is a legitimate recreational activity in the Cascades. I've changed the thread title to to "Avoiding conflict between skiers and snowmobilers".  Is that any better?<br><br>When I wrote "Snowmobile vs. Skier", I was thinking from a land use point of view. For a given parcel of land, we must eventually decide whether it is more appropriate for motorized or non-motorized use. I've seen little evidence that the two usage types can co-exist in a single place. They need separate playgrounds. Unfortunate, but true. Does anybody disagree?<br><br>I'm all for trying to minimize antagonism and conflict from the outset. But I think we need to be clear about where we are heading. Eventually, we'll have part of the Cascades used by snowmobilers and part used by skiers, with very little mixing. In those areas where mixing occurs, there will be conflict. If we do nothing, the conflict will occur out in the field or in angry exchanges afterward. If we're proactive, we may be able to replace conflict with conversation, and decide ahead of time which areas are appropriate for which group.<br><br>I agree with Larry that the trends point to greater accessibility by snowmobiles to areas where skiers never expected to find them. It would be better to have this conversation before they arrive, rather than after.

Great, I am interested and support what you and others are trying to do. Our cause is probably already somewhat behind.<br><br>I am aware of snowmobiles going to around 8000' elev. on Cashmere Mtn. and to the 6900' summit of Wedge Mtn., and to 7000' on Icicle Ridge for nearly a decade. These are just some local examples. The folks doing this are not necessarily young jerks with attitudes, some are surprisingly mature well-off members of the community. It would be a good idea to bring the issue of inappropriate snowmobile travel in Wilderness or areas of buffer to Wilderness to the Federal and State authorities.<br><br>The approach to the issue is important. Elitism and disrespect, or any appearance of such, will work contrary to our interest. Done well, there is a solid case to be made, given the comparison of terrain close to a trailhead available for snowmobiles compared to that available for skiing and snowshoeing.<br><br>There are areas of the Forest managed as you have described. For example, in one area that I am aware of there are snowmobile road-only corridors through ski/ snowshoe recreation areas, a voluntary no-snowmobile area, and a large area with several ridges, valleys, trails, and roads closed to snowmobiles and separated by terrain for human-powered recreation. Precedents exist for good management.<br><br>One suggestion that I made in the other forum is talking to State officials about having larger, visible licensing on snowmobiles. This could make it somewhat more feasible to identify violators.<br><br>We need not re-invent the wheel- meaning there are folks already involved and having success in this endeavor. Hopefully those individuals can advise us.

Its not clear to me whether you folks would be pushing for non-motorized versus motorized or non-motorized versus multi-use, or skier-only versus everything else. I'm a fan of multi-use on road corridors and, for instance, the skier-only designation of NF-Tieton R. Road is problematic for me. For instance, am I allowed to ski in there behind the dogsled as I often do elsewhere? If not, then what of the woman I saw skiing in there with her two loose standard Poodles running around?<br><br>I should add that there is little, if any, conflict between safe, respectful 'biling and skijoring or dogsledding. These sports are quite complementary. Have a look, for instance, at the late Col. Vaughan's Serum Run in AK. I really dislike the one-sport-only designations such as dogsledding at Crystal Springs. I may be alone on this.<br><br>I just saw above a new designation I had not run into before: human-powered. This worries me since I am dog-powered. If I understand Wilderness designation, in general, it prohibits mechanized travel. Thankfully, this does not prohibit dogsleds. If "human-powered" starts getting tacked onto that here and there, I'll be one unhappy camper. Its even more worrisome when one realizes that there is ZERO lobbying effort from the mushing community in this direction. All the majority of them do is hold their races, not trek through designated Wilderness.