WMC Update 2012

WMC, please don't continue to cut and paste your responses over and over and over again. By the way, there are two Iron Peaks along the Teanaway Ridge crest.  Which one are you talking about? This is why we need maps and more specific information with the proposed areas and boundary lines.

Iron Peak is above the NF Teanaway. Iron Mountain is on the Shaser-Etienne Cr divide.

A step in the right direction. Bravo!
IMO, a proposed non-motorized area paralleling the Wilderness Boundary from Van Epps to Three Brothers is asking for way too much.

Jim,

I am not advocating for your support because I have a favorite ski stash somewhere in the Wenatchee Mtns. I am asking for your support because there is essentially no winter management occurring on our National Forests and by default they have become winter playgrounds for the snowmobile. This is not just happening in Washington State but all over the West. That is why when a BC skier form Bend, Oregon (who I don't know from Adam) sends out an email asking for a show of support by writing a letter on his behalf I step up to the plate and offer my support. Because I know that what a BC skier is experiencing in the Bend area is the same thing I run into in the Wenatchee Mtns.

Like WMC I support equality in how the resource is used by all of us including the sledders.

Ruffryder, I went back and checked on the wilderness figure you quoted and you are correct; the OWNF has approx. 40% in wilderness. Thanks for pointing out my error.

Jim,

I am not advocating for your support because I have a favorite ski stash somewhere in the Wenatchee Mtns. I am asking for your support because there is essentially no winter management occurring on our National Forests and by default they have become winter playgrounds for the snowmobile. This is not just happening in Washington State but all over the West. That is why when a BC skier form Bend, Oregon (who I don't know from Adam) sends out an email asking for a show of support by writing a letter on his behalf I step up to the plate and offer my support. Because I know that what a BC skier is experiencing in the Bend area is the same thing I run into in the Wenatchee Mtns.

Like WMC I support equality in how the resource is used by all of us including the sledders.

Ruffryder, I went back and checked on the wilderness figure you quoted and you are correct; the OWNF has approx. 40% in wilderness. Thanks for pointing out my error.

40% Wilderness, non motorized. I'm guessing that the other 60% does not fully allow snomowbile access. does anyone know the % of allowed motorized access? I doubt it's 60%. But lets say for simple math. If the 40% was the total non motorized area, are you advocating another 10% to create equality? And does that mean that you would not be using the "motorized" areas for ski touring/snowshoeing? I hardly think this is the case.

If any success is to be gained and supported by all it's the funding needed to enforce the wilderness incursions.

And with the totality of winter recreation users, what's the percentage of motorized vs non-motorized users in the BC, not the ski areas, but the BC? How about the financing of the snowparks and grooming?

I found this interesting- www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/recreation/wi...leelum/#nonmotorized
Having been in some of these areas, voluntary non-motorized designation is meaningless as many sled users ignore this non-regulation, it's a token gesture from the snow mobile advocacy groups. Areas on the NE side of the Teanaway(Bean/Beverly/Upper Stafford) are included in this agreement and part of WMC's proposal. This doesn't seem like cooperation to me.

I found this interesting- www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/recreation/wi...leelum/#nonmotorized
Having been in some of these areas, voluntary non-motorized designation is meaningless as many sled users ignore this non-regulation, it's a token gesture from the snow mobile advocacy groups. Areas on the NE side of the Teanaway(Bean/Beverly/Upper Stafford) are included in this agreement and part of WMC's proposal. This  doesn't seem like cooperation to me.

No arguement from me on enforcing the existing areas. I say give the FS more funds to do so.

I think organizing a campaign to "educate" more sledders and human powered recreationalist would be as or more effective than creating a hostile user group and not making any headway at all.

I would bet the annual WSSA conference would be willing to let you have a booth to promote "safety and shared" riding areas...Even as an effort to educate the restricted areas, noise and litter. I have never seen this type of information presented, unless it's searching different sites or on 4m's.

Problem is, much of the sledding community doesn't surf the 4m's much.