WMC Update 2012

My response after reading the WMC proposal and reviewing most of the posted comments:

As a backcountry skier living in Leavenworth, I usually ski the Cascade Eastern Slope and have experienced the affects of new technology snow machines, especially in the Mission Peak area (west of Mission Ridge) and near Earl Peak along the main crest of the Wenatchee Mtns.  These machines are changing the winter recreation scene faster than any of us could have guessed 10 years ago, especially in the more open terrain of the Wenatchee Mtns.  A typical rider can climb almost anything I can skin-up, even through narrow slots between dense forest.  Their deep tracks left after a half-hours play make trying to ski an alpine slope--or even a gladed area--a lesson in futility and frustration.  Without significant day-use areas set aside for non-motorized use, the average skier and snowshoer could soon find themselves with few options, except for true wilderness multi-day treks.  Machines will simply dominate the more accessible terrain.

Count me as a supporter of the WMC's strategy of lobbying the USFS to create selected non-motorized areas for winter recreation.  How their goals could be reached--even in part--is an open question.  The 1000 skiers e-mail campaign is a good concept, but I suggest the proposal be clarified by breaking it into logical segments--perhaps the Mission Peak/Marion and Clara Lks. could be one.  Another might be the existing Tronsen non-motorized area but with expanded boundaries to include Mt. Lillian.  A 3rd could be the higher summits along the west part of the Wenatchee Mtns.  I encourage specificity.  

It will not be easy to explain to the USFS and to the public-at-large that the winter recreation scene is being fundamentally altered by technology, and that a growing conflict in use justifies restrictions and land-use allocations.  But I see no alternative if we are to avoid having much of the day-use terrain in the Wenatchee Mtns. become unusable for skiing.    

That looks about right Lowell, but like I stated a few posts back most of this terrain is already designated "Voluntary Non-Motorized"

AW....Let me help you remember....

I guess I'm alluding to the idea that tons of land is already blocked off for too many users or would be users, so to push for even more seems greedy. And yes, we all have choices on where to live, I recently gave up a 6 figure job requiring me to move to Oregon where land use is even more restrictive to stay in NB. And I chose to live in WA vs Kansas City for the same reasons  as many of you, I like being in the mtns.

I would think that riding a dirt bike, you'd feel the pressure of land closures by the non-motorized crowd. Or is this about protecting your personal stash and not really about equality? I think the latter....

AW....Let me help you remember....

I guess I'm alluding to the idea that tons of land is already blocked off for too many users or would be users, so to push for even more seems greedy. And yes, we all have choices on where to live, I recently gave up a 6 figure job requiring me to move to Oregon where land use is even more restrictive to stay in NB. And I chose to live in WA vs Kansas City for the same reasons  as many of you, I like being in the mtns.

I would think that riding a dirt bike, you'd feel the pressure of land closures by the non-motorized crowd. Or is this about protecting your personal stash and not really about equality? I think the latter....

Yammadog, As I've already pointed out, voluntary non-motorized status is meaningless, there is no way to enforce regulations if none are violated. So, currently that area is open to motorized traffic despite the voluntary closure. I'm happy to share the trails over here with motor bikes, hikers, mtbs and horses, it's all legal and there are many hundreds of mile of trails to share. There aren't very many miles of trail outside of the Wilderness Areas that are closed to dirt bikes. There are no secret stashes as all the trails are on FS maps. I don't believe that the current winter travel plan considers extensive off route travel by snowmobiles. A good analogy would be if you were hiking cross country in summer and there were dirt bikes riding all over the place off trail. That wouldn't be a very good idea and not very safe for hikers.

Great continuing discussion all!

Thank you, Lowell. There is a Road system that crosses from N  Shaser Cr between Iron Mountain and Miller Peak, west down to the Etienne Cr. valley far past Miller Pk to the base of Three Brothers 7303'. The Road then turns back east and climbs into Gold Creek Basin. That road would be proposed as open for snowmobiles. There is significant snowmobile play terrain left out of the Proposal that is on Iron Mountain and over to King Cr on Hwy 97. The valuable ski terrain surrounds the extremity of that Road into Etienne Cr., both sides of the valley, and also there is great skiing to the east aspect of Brothers 7303' facing east, and open slopes from Brothers 7169'. We ski Miller Peak, it has open terrain to all sides, a steep east face, and north facing powder terrain in mixed open forests that have a lot of Larch. The south aspect from Brothers 7303' has a very fine corn run of about 2700' falline, Gold Cr has perhps 2400 ft east facing skiing. Navaho Peak has an excellent NE bowl, shown in the photo of the original post.


Jim Oker, the close to the car stuff is added at Mt Lillian and next-to-the car near Mission Ridge ski area. That was detailed above. From Upper Tronsen Road @ 3900' one ascends to south Mt Lillian summit 6191.' Mt Lillian offers about 1000 vert falline, then one would travel back across Haney Meadow and from Tronsen Head (above the Horse Camp)  there are nice open basalt-rock slopes for about 700 to 800 vert to a road system to ski back to the highway.

Lowell, for years there have been discussions with USFS about Enforcement. There was a Grant for Enforcement and a few Citations, we are told, about two seasons ago. USFS has a tough task here, and is not insensitive to the issue or ignoring the problem. The WMC proposal would limit access to the Wilderness Boundary by set back with only Van Epps being close to the Wilderness Boundary. The closure to snowmobiles we propose would be at the ends of the Roads, Etienne Cr Rd, Stafford Cr Rd, Beverly Cr Rd, and NF Teanaway Rd. Those Closure points in our view are easier to enforce than is the current terrain that is along the Wilderness Boundary- very open terrain with many access points.

Thanks again for great discussion.

the proposed map for the teanaway area is far reaching for so few BC users for skiing only. IMO.

Are you a backcountry skier? How do you form that opinion?

Many skiers including some WMC skiers have skied much of that terrain self-powered. We have also used snowmobiles to access it on the Roads. As it is now, that beautiful range of mountains is overrun with snowmobiles and much is tracked and rutted, and the quality is altered with the noise.

This Proposed area is significant and deserved also by users other than those who push on throttles to track it. To the south areas for snowmobiling extend far. It is probably unnnoticed by motosports riders the pristine nature of the area. That range is a primary WA example of serpentine rock and ferro-magnesium soils that contribute to the open terrain. Whitebark Pine grow on the ridges, high-altitude examples of twisted trees surviving the mountain environment. In spite of the dry climate and open direct south slopes, some very large trees grow by the streams in the shaded valleys. A very large Larch stands not far upstream from the end of the Road in Etienne Cr. As we skied by that tree back to the 80's our pole held up indicated a 5 ft. + dbh Larch tree. Lately, a winding snowmobile highway is packed up and down, through many side streams, up to the summits of Brothers and Navaho, on out to the large basin between Navaho and  Earl, to the summit of Earl. Sadly, snowmobile highways also cross into the (Wilderness) Falls Creek, Cascade Creek, and Hardscrabble Creek basins which drain into Ingalls Creek. Above Chester Marler mentions a tour to Earl Peak, on a day that the skier group stood on that summit and watched seven snowmobiles in the Wilderness.

Many snowmobilers claim ignorance of the Boundaries, but so much traffic is certainly intentional and habitual, and what of personal responsibility?  Sadly, there was a Forum comment by a snowmobiler about "saving snowmobile access to Ingalls"- Ingalls Creek is far into the heart of the Wilderness, but used by snowmobiles.

The WMC proposal will add significant and high-quality non-motorized areas for skiing and quiet recreation. Those areas will be in proximity from right by the car, to 2 hours from the car, to a major day trip, or an easy snomo on the road approach. Importantly, if the terrain of the high Wenatchee Mountains crest is left untracked by machines it will offer miles of beautiful mountain range just across from with views of the Stuart Range, terrain very suitable for weekend overnight trips by self-powered winter recreationists.

My response after reading the WMC proposal and reviewing most of the posted comments:

As a backcountry skier living in Leavenworth, I usually ski the Cascade Eastern Slope and have experienced the affects of new technology snow machines, especially in the Mission Peak area (west of Mission Ridge) and near Earl Peak along the main crest of the Wenatchee Mtns.  These machines are changing the winter recreation scene faster than any of us could have guessed 10 years ago, especially in the more open terrain of the Wenatchee Mtns.  A typical rider can climb almost anything I can skin-up, even through narrow slots between dense forest.  Their deep tracks left after a half-hours play make trying to ski an alpine slope--or even a gladed area--a lesson in futility and frustration.  Without significant day-use areas set aside for non-motorized use, the average skier and snowshoer could soon find themselves with few options, except for true wilderness multi-day treks.  Machines will simply dominate the more accessible terrain.

Count me as a supporter of the WMC's strategy of lobbying the USFS to create selected non-motorized areas for winter recreation.  How their goals could be reached--even in part--is an open question.  The 1000 skiers e-mail campaign is a good concept, but I suggest the proposal be clarified by breaking it into logical segments--perhaps the Mission Peak/Marion and Clara Lks. could be one.  Another might be the existing Tronsen non-motorized area but with expanded boundaries to include Mt. Lillian.  A 3rd could be the higher summits along the west part of the Wenatchee Mtns.  I encourage specificity.  

It will not be easy to explain to the USFS and to the public-at-large that the winter recreation scene is being fundamentally altered by technology, and that a growing conflict in use justifies restrictions and land-use allocations.  But I see no alternative if we are to avoid having much of the day-use terrain in the Wenatchee Mtns. become unusable for skiing.    

Thanks for the comments and support!

The proposed non-motorized areas of the WMC proposal are two separate areas. One is the high elevation pristine unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains from Van Epps Pass to Three Brothers 7169.' The other area is the non-Wilderness pristine Wenatchee Mountains crest that is crossed by Rd 9712. This area extends from Hwy 97 Blewett Pass to the Mission Ridge Road.

The area to the east would annex Mt Lillian and surrounding areas to the existing Tronsen Non-Motorized Area that contains the north-facing terrain in Chelan County. Also, the south slopes from the Tronsen Non-Motorized Area crest would be annexed down to Rd 9712 to include Tronsen Head. From the west side of and including Haney Meadow, the boundary is along the drainage along the Old Ellensburg Trail and across to Grouse Spring where the Old Ellensburg trail intersects "Bentrim" ridge. From Grouse Spring the boundary would continue across the drainage to near the top of the lift at Mission Ridge to intersect the Ski Area Boundary. The northern boundary from Mt Lillian to the east would be Rd 9712 to the intersection with the Mission Ridge Rd. Mission Peak and Lakes Marion and Clara would be within the boundary. Road 9712 would remain open to snowmobiles. As a comparable example. to the west both Rd 9716 and Rd 9712 are open to snowmobiles and pass through Non-Motorized Areas.

The areas described are pristine and offer various aspects of open slopes, forest, and open forest, along with an existing network of summer Forest Trails. It is appropriate to designate the most pristine areas for non-motorized winter recreation. To the south and also to the east on the Wenatchee Mountains crest are much larger areas for snowmobile riding.

Good points about the changing state of Forest recreation in winter. Skiers must consider the tremendous capability of modern snowmobiles that may be on any of skiers' stashes soon! Snowmobiles are a lot of fun to ride in powder, and riders continually seek out new areas. We watch the riders spread out more each season. Skiers must consider that currently, non-Wilderness Forest areas may be ridden with snowmobiles unless specifically Closed to snowmobiles. Please consider that the great ski tours along WA mountain highways are unprotected and will be ridden on by snowmobiles at some point in the future. We need to set aside snow covered Forest areas for skiers and winter recreationists!