WMC Update 2012

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."

Remember, you are not getting MORE people to enjoy the BC, but LESS. The more you post the more it looks selfish and greedy.

And going with the snowshoer and skier conflicting on the same terrain...I bet bigfoot would like you to stay out of the "wilderness" designated areas, which are currently legal skiing terrain and should absolutely be considered in the overall territory you currently get to use, it conflicts with his quiet time also....

now, on to a TGIF...sunny out, get out on the slope..we hit the snoqualmie area yesterday..excellent spring time fun...left tons of slope open to the skiers, if they ever got back that far... Seen more hiked and carved evidence at the ski slope at the pass..which is where the majority of skiers prefer..simply by the numbers you can see every weekend. Maybe they should open the terrain for sledders once the operations are closed for the season. Make it have parity in shared use... or perhaps your not advocating sharing, but personal use only...I'd dig on hitting the half pipe on my sled...or some of those big booters the boarders use..

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.....  

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.

Newtrout, I agree 110%, Fine them in to a second mortgage and then use the funds for more enforcement.

As to the why question...really, who actually wants more gov't in their lives?

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.

I modified the Blewett map slightly based on these comments. Again, I'm guessing on some of the changes. Also, when I initially posted the maps, I was having trouble with my website's FTP service, so I put them in a temporary location. I've moved them to a more permanent spot, so some links may be broken in followup posts. I've edited my own posts to use the correct files.

I support the WMC/TSP goals. My concerns have been mainly directed at how to make the project successful in the long run.

Thanks again, yammadag, Ruffy, and Newtrout, your points have merit, but we will disagree.

Firstly, as thoughtful and kind are are the words yammadag, Ruffy, and Newtrout- thank you-  but we disagree. Where have any of you three agreed that a skier and snowmobile ridden on the same slope are incompatible uses? No matter the argument, that is the reality. We need our own areas. thus the Forest must be divided. davidG nailed this with his comment above-

"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."

As far as losing the high alpine, you will gain sympathy from some skiers who understand, but I think you have much more powerful enemies such as the Wilderness protection organizations who likely wish to keep snowmobiles far from Wilderness. WMC is not fighting that fight, we advocate for areas of winter non-motorized use designation. However we recognize the important issue.

The reality beyond both of our dialogues is that snowmobile riders have no Designated off-road Forest Areas to use. All that is discussed by USFS are the groomed systems for snowmobile riding, as far as we know in WA. The WMC proposal does not take any groomed roads that are explicitly designated by USFS for snowmobile use.

WMC/TSP advocates for more new and significant designated Forest winter non-motorized recreation areas.

Newtrout, I agree 110%, Fine them in to a second mortgage and then use the funds for more enforcement.

I'll third that statement.

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.

I've updated the western map to show the Etienne road system, based on the Green Trails maps. I adjusted the boundary there, but again, it's mostly guesswork.