WMC Update 2012

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.

Based on the above description, I've drawn another map. In this case I found using TOPO! easier than Google Earth. Both the Teanaway and Blewett maps are linked below. The Blewett map contains some guesswork on my part. Click map to enlarge:

Teanaway:

   Blewett:

You call it land grab, we are not sure what that means, WMC is advocating for Forest areas to be designated as winter non-motorized areas. This is for the reasons that have been discussed exhaustively above. As previously discussed, we believe with certainty that snowmobile riding is incompatible on the same terrain with skiing, therefore we need our own areas, and more of them, in suitable locations.

If snowshoers clamored to isolate Commonwealth Basin or Skyline Ridge as a "non-skier zone", would we see it as anything other than people taking away a time-honored resource to further their own enjoyment? There are tons of other places to ski; sometimes snowshoers are startled to see a skier schussing down the uptrack; we travel faster than they do; our whoops of joy break the quiet; our tracks break up pristine snowy vistas; and skiers very rarely trigger avalanches that hit hikers....

It's sad that our wild places are not infinite in size and scope, so that we might all be able to play in them, each in our own way, to our heart's content. To be able to skin deep in the backcountry of the wintertime North Cascades, beyond the reach and rescue of civilization, is a blessing for which I cannot give enough thanks.

WMC - without a sense for the size of your group, it's hard to understand what "we" means in the context of your posts.

Based on the above description, I've drawn another map. In this case I found using TOPO! easier than Google Earth. Both the Teanaway and Blewett maps are linked below. The Blewett map contains some guesswork on my part. Click map to enlarge:

Teanaway:

   Blewett:

Lowell. thank you very kindly for the effort and for the excellent maps! We say thank you so much for your interest and support of the discussion. We do not take it for granted that anyone 'signs on' to all of WMC/ TSP, let us make that clear, when we say thank you for the support in the discussion of these very important issues.

The maps are close to the WMC proposal with some small difference. The road system into Etienne Cr is missing, and would be left open for snowmobiles. In a few places, the map of the eastern section has slightly more area included than we had envisioned but is really very good. The map-indicated Mt Lillian summmit points to the summer trail on the north summit, while the south Lillian 6191' summit has the expansive open slopes from the south aspect through the east aspect, and the base of south Lillian 6191' borders Haney Meadow. We should also point out that in the east portion, the area "Tronsen Meadow" to the north of the crest (Chelan Co) is in current Non-Motorized area for decades, as is the area to the south of Rd 9716 part of the Non-Motorized Pipe Creek Area.

We appreciate that you have the character to explore this important issue, in spite of opposing perhaps WMC/ TSP on some levels. Perhaps that you realize, as does WMC, that this is just a start. In the end the entire Forest sorely needs management of winter recreation in a similar fashion.

Again, thank you.

  If 40+10=50 (%, ie. 'parity', a premise I do not accept), what do you do in the areas where Wilderness density is much less than on the OWNF?

No amount of gamesmanship changes the fact that off trail sleds are the smoker in the restaurant ~ only one compromises the other (parking excepted). 

If I am the only BC skier, I still expect to readily find public space free of noise and stink and reasonably natural ~ and that this should be the norm.   Buffers areas to designated wilderness areas are a logical choice, as part of the whole, and frankly, the default should be that off trail public space is non-motorized

If I'm a sledder, I expect to reasonably find where I can have my responsible fun without having to answer to every pseudo environmentalist or individual or group that doesn’t appreciate my activity.  “Islands” , with fall lines, should be part of this just like some sand dunes, etc, are available for motorized activity.

The motorized community will only harm their objectives until they accept that their activities, by their very nature, and absent of personal behavior,  trespass on the experience of other BC users.  Some ‘get it’, which is why voluntary non-moto zones exist.  I am a bit surprised that public land agencies have done so little to date to manage these concerns, but it will be coming.  The best thing the motorized community can do for itself is to police its’ abusers and probably offer up further voluntary non-motorized zones.

davidG your post adds some fresh thought and excellent points to this discussion. That is good to illuminate another aspect, that, "If I'm a sledder, I expect to reasonably find where I can have my responsible fun without having to answer to every pseudo environmentalist or individual or group that doesn’t appreciate my activity." Good point, Thank you.

If snowshoers clamored to isolate Commonwealth Basin or Skyline Ridge as a "non-skier zone", would we see it as anything other than people taking away a time-honored resource to further their own enjoyment? There are tons of other places to ski; sometimes snowshoers are startled to see a skier schussing down the uptrack; we travel faster than they do; our whoops of joy break the quiet; our tracks break up pristine snowy vistas; and skiers very rarely trigger avalanches that hit hikers....

It's sad that our wild places are not infinite in size and scope, so that we might all be able to play in them, each in our own way, to our heart's content. To be able to skin deep in the backcountry of the wintertime North Cascades, beyond the reach and rescue of civilization, is a blessing for which I cannot give enough thanks.

WMC - without a sense for the size of your group, it's hard to understand what "we" means in the context of your posts.

We advocate for accessible winter non-motorized areas so that more may enjoy what you allude to, "a blessing for which I cannot give enough thanks."

The undeniable and resource-altering conflict is the one between snowmobiles and non-motorized users. Clearly, snowmobiles eliminate the practical use of snowy mountain slopes for skiing, and the noise and physical threats of speeding snowmobiles are incompatible with pedestrian use in the same area.

As for size, WMC has a three-person Executive that communicates daily. We circulated the message and asked for support from eighteen individuals before posting on TAY- the 'public' launch. We cannot evaluate how large or how small the entire base of support. The WMC founders have at the start around 200 contacts.

An advantage of this concept is that individuals can themselves email the Forest Supervisor and remain out of public view and stay away from any issues or antagonism that could arise in public. We will continue to advocate and hope that after critical mass support is gained, WMC will take part in this discussion on a formal basis with USFS, in determined pursuit of our stated goal. When we accomplish our goal, do not expect WMC to stand together for a photo for the newspaper- we just want to go skitouring!.

Hi Newtrout,

Just want to say thanks because it is refreshing to hear from a sledder who doesn't start out with threats and talks of harassment and hate to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Up in the Wood River Valley, North of Sun Valley Idaho, a few years ago there was some real tension between sledders and skiers even some acts of violence. The conflict was very real and so the Forest Supervisor stepped in and told the two groups to come to the table and work out a mutual agreement. Thus the Sawtooth Snowmobile Club and the Nordic and Backcountry Skiers Alliance met and developed a map designating areas for both groups to play in, it was a collaborative effort.

I appreciate the kind words; and I appreciate the restrained response to a sledder posting on your board.  I've seen the less than civil responses that skiers have received on snowmobile boards.

Fortunately it hasn't reached that level of conflict in our area.  Hopefully it never will.  I would even venture to say that the actual encounters between skiers and sledders in the backcountry are relatively rare (not including some of the more heavily used areas like Crystal Springs or the shared routes to Salmon La Sac non-motorized areas).  That's not meant to minimize the frustration of a hours of hard work only to find sled tracks in your line in the Wilderness.

I would love to see a mutual understanding between these user groups.  Unfortunately, the closure proposed by WMC would completely eliminate one of the prime sledding areas in the state.  By closing Esemerelda Basin, Teanaway would be effectively closed and all sledding traffic would be forced through the Salmon La Sac access.  And personally, I would have a very hard time giving up access to one of the few alpine areas in our region where I'm allowed; and a region where I rarely see skiers.

I appreciate this comparison:

If snowshoers clamored to isolate Commonwealth Basin or Skyline Ridge as a "non-skier zone", would we see it as anything other than people taking away a time-honored resource to further their own enjoyment?

But I also appreciate that sleds have a much greater impact on skiers than the comparison above.

I still think that Wilderness incursions are near the heart of this problem.  Without them, a good chunk of WMCs proposed area east of Esmerelda is relatively inaccessible by sleds.  My question is: how do we get everyone to follow the rules?  I'll be crucified by sledders for saying this, but we need a few people to get hammered with the maximum penalty.  If a few of the repeat violators get hit with a $5K fine and sled confiscation, I think the boundaries would get taken more seriously.....  

Perhaps that you realize, as does WMC, that this is just a start. In the end the entire Forest sorely needs management of winter recreation in a similar fashion.

The quote above is exactly what I'm afraid of. Perhaps WMC realizes that such a proposal will elevate this conflict to a whole new level; effectively creating a major conflict where none currently exists. I hope that is not the point of this whole exercise.

My question is why? Why does the entire Forest need management of winter recreation in this fashion? Relatively few user conflicts exist. There is no more harm being done to the environment by sledders than by other users.