WMC Update 2012

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

The problem with the areas in question that have "Voluntary Non-Motorized" status is that there is nothing to enforce if the closure is "voluntary". It's basically a gentleman's agreement between local advocacy groups and anyone else can choose to ignore it. Would you be opposed to having these areas getting an official Non-Motorized status since the voluntary status is meaningless?

Yammadog - I'm wondering if you can answer, how many of those Wilderness Area acres are accessible in a reasonable day from a parking area by the average backcountry skier? Yes, there are the Skoogs and Hummels who traverse the Pickets, but most of us want what most snowmobilers want - reasonable day touring options. And I don't believe that even if all bc skiers joined the cause, that we'd get the Wilderness Act changed, nor that we'd get new roads built and plowed (heck, hikers are losing summer access regularly due to budget issues combined with washouts). Both your and WMC's math seems a tad too simplistic.

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.

Guava, my backcountry brother, I find your support for the folks in Bend touching. I guess I've seen outdoor-related causes that compell me as well as those that either have problems from my perspective, or simply aren't compelling enough to get the required groundswell to make a difference, so I tend to ask some questions before hopping on the bandwagon. But since I do share at least some of the high level concerns that you and WMC have stated, I'm trying to help as I'm willing and able. For , since you are both incognito, that involves posting suggestions here. Check out the WTA's approach  - they publish a yearly list of "endangered trails." This has been an effective method of raising awareness. Since you are not trying to protect any private stashes, you might consider lifting this page from their book. If you are looking to protect an area that is of broad potential interest (and not just to the crew that wants to snowmobile roads to tours, as TobyT notes above), the WTA approach would seem to have merit. In their own ways, it seems that this is what A_Dappen and John Morrow have done on this site with some of their trip reports.

The problem with the areas in question that have "Voluntary Non-Motorized" status is that there is nothing to enforce if the closure is "voluntary". It's basically a gentleman's agreement between local advocacy groups and anyone else can choose to ignore it. Would you be opposed to having these areas getting an official Non-Motorized status since the voluntary status is meaningless?

I'd rather see an "education" type of an effort first. Part of the problem with "non motorized" in sledding, is that it also shuts down summer use for 4x4 or motorcycles or even cars on logging roads...and then no camping in the BC for lots of folks, particularly with young kids..

Plus, it would cost way less to get the FS to promote this "voluntary" winter closure than it would to add more enforcement area...considering they have a hard enough time enforcing the hard lined "wilderness" areas.

I still have yet to see any suggestion to give sledders area in trade for eliminating areas...the only thing we see year after year is closure and elimination. As a whole, we are seeing too much land excluded form the average citizen. Mountain biking is another form of BC use that is being eliminated with the wilderness and other designations.

Dirt bikes have been reduced to some small specific areas, and some of these are being elimnated or cut in half, if you look at the recent Reiter pit actions. The middle fork of snoqualmie has just been wiped out for mountain biking with the "wilderness" designation...nothing but taking away from the average person.

We need them to experience the BC at some level to get them to appreciate the areas. Some do need to be "heavily" protected, some don't. Who's to say, that the area you ask for isn't moved even further in 10 years...As it is the FS is managing forest land as "defacto" wilderness without it being designated by congress.

Again, the map of suggestion is the quickest way to have real discussion. Anyone remember when snowboards weren't allowed on the ski slopes?

Yammadog - I'm wondering if you can answer, how many of those Wilderness Area acres are accessible in a reasonable day from a parking area by the average backcountry skier? Yes, there are the Skoogs and Hummels who traverse the Pickets, but most of us want what most snowmobilers want - reasonable day touring options. And I don't believe that even if all bc skiers joined the cause, that we'd get the Wilderness Act changed, nor that we'd get new roads built and plowed (heck, hikers are losing summer access regularly due to budget issues combined with washouts). Both your and WMC's math seems a tad too simplistic.

I'm choosing to use the math stated here to avoid getting caught up in the tit for tat, acre by acre comparison as to make headway in the conversation.

I think overall the wilderness designation process is beginning to take it's toll on even non motorized users. It's eliminating the ablity to address things like access to the wilderness or more remote BC areas by non motorized users. Although as you highlighted, some folks want their motors to get them to the stashes, where they will have only themselves to enjoy the area in the way they see fit.

From what I'm hearing so far, without a map, the areas in question are bordering wilderness, not closer to parking. Why not ask for areas closer to parking? I have no problem riding another 10 miles for the more extreme terrain.

Hikers aren't losing areas to hike...they just won't have the highway type trails to make a go of it. You can hike anywhere you like in any part of the forest, no matter the designation. Can't tell you how many times I've gone by the Mt Si trail head to see the trash can overflowing on the ground...who needs a budget to pack out your own crap? Yet, you cannot do the same with a motor or in some casess, with a bike or even a wheel chair, since it is designated "mechanized".

I think there are opportunities outside of exclusion that can help improve the relations of motored vs non motored activities. And the wilderness actions have run their course.

WMC's posts described two main areas of interest. One is NE of the North Fork Teanaway River and south of Ingalls Creek. The other is roughly between Swauk/Blewett Pass and Mission Ridge. Since I know the Teanaway area better, I've taken a shot at an overview map. Based on WMC's posts, I think my map is pretty accurate on the left side. On the right side, in the area of Miller Peak and Etienne Creek, my map is just conjecture. I don't know that area well. Enjoy:

thanks for the map....is that the only proposed closure? I'm guessing you are skiing from the "end" of plowed road? or riding a sled and then skiing?