WMC Update 2012

Still 2 questions of curiosity I'll like to hear someone respond to as WMC has not.
The "voluntary" non-motorized area(triangle shaped) Beverly-Bean seen on this map... www.parks.wa.gov/winter/trails/?TrailTyp...ed&Region=3&Park=108
How long would it take to "use" it up skiing, or how long would it take to put down ski tracks on all the skiable terrain in that graphic?

It would take a very long time and would never get tracked out ("used up"). Also, there wouldn't be enough space available for user parking at the sno-park to track it out by non-motorized users.
I can say that the few times I have been up the N. Fork Teanaway I have never seen a sled track heading up to Bean Basin. The only track I have seen go up the road was mine, and I parked at the TH to ski tour in Bean Basin.
I think the voluntary closure has worked in that area, and would be a prime area for non-motorized use only.

I will be in opposition of this project until the huge areas that don't make sense are cut down to size. (ie- The whole crest from Van Epps to Three Brothers.)

I'm off to Brohm Ridge to sled-ski there before they turn it into a ski area!!! :'(

Do you know where this data comes from? Is it licensing data?

The Washington State Snowmobile Association ("WSSA") lists the number as "around 36,000", so I believe it is accurate enough.

Great continued discussion with some good points. Perhaps an alternate vision is something to offer the skiers, meaning not an attempt to prove the skiers wrong. But please consider this discussion.

Skiers who are on TAY have taken or know folks who have taken trips to BC for hut skiing, with helicopter access. Or even trips to Europe. Great terrain there, according to reports. We cannot and do not directly compare the terrain of the Wenatchee Mountains, however the terrain and climate of the area is quite nice for ski touring- open slopes, great weather, more cold days, more cold snow compared to the main Cascades. We do not see accessing this range of mountains as problematic in a day, overnight on a weekend, or by using a snowmobile on the roads. Currently, interest is low to access and ski these areas, perhaps after skiers consider the amount of snowmobile traffic. From greater Puget Sound, the Teanaway or Blewett are accessed in what, two hours time, 2 1/2 hours? So, a few hours of driving compared to going to the Mt Baker area, or out of state or traveling deep into the North Cascades to find this much of a mountain range with open subalpine terrain on all aspects.

This is a large area of significant terrain. We would ask, why is it not deserving of non-motorized status. How is it that non-motorized winter Forest users deserve a small amount of the Forest to use without snowmobile activity? How many backcountry skiers in the future will be out looking for terrain to ski, terrain and a mountain range for spectacular overnight trips? The terrain and vegetation of this area are very different from the main Cascades. We like to say, in comparison to Stevens Pass for example, the Wenatchee Mountains often get perhaps half of the snowfall, but twice as many sunny days. Clear nights in the Wenatchee Mountains preserve and enhance the quality of the snow, soft skiable snow often remains high quality for many days. We find good soft snow skiing often five days after a snowfall, and in some particular spots ten days after a snowfall, depending on weather but not uncommon. Hard crusts formed on the snow are fewer than in the main Cascades, as are rain on snow events that contribute to refrozen crusts. We have seen weak crusts that have formed on top of soft snow degrade and become hardly significant after many clear nights. The excellent weather of the Wenatchee Mountains, in our experience, offers more decent skiing days compared to the Crest in regard to snow quality, and especially in regard to partly cloudy to bluebird days more of the time. Some of us (aged) WMC skiers have hundreds of days skiing the Strevens Pass corridor as well as hundreds of days skiing the Wenatchee Mountains. In regard to the avalanche problem, which is very real in the Wenatchee Mountains also, compared to the main Cascades as a result of usually smaller snowfalls, resultant hazard may be less sizeable, perhaps more often manageable compared to the larger accumulations near the Crest. Wind seems to be very important for avalanche building in the Wenatchee Mountains more so than direct-action precipitation and snow dumps always building the big hazard. The best summary, when touring on the Crest, Gore Tex is desirable to wear most days, and big heavy boots and fatter stiffer skis help with that Cascade snow. In the Wenatchee Mountains, Gore Tex stays in the pack most of the time, and we find more days of good skiing than we do toward the crest.

As far as zero sum, snowmobile riders have the run of the larger portion of the Forest currently. We have described how clearly snowmobile riding and skiing are not compatible on the same terrain. We have not seen the documentation or regulations that state that snowmobiles may go without exception to Forest lands other than Closed or Wilderness lands, that is done perhaps as a result of lack of management, perhaps technology got ahead of management. Human- powered winter recreationists also deserve to have their use accomodated on the Forest.

We see this proposed winter non-motorized area as very desirable for skiing, snowshoeing, overnight trips, snowmobile-assisted trips. The proposal is expansive, the terrain is excellent for skitouring. This significant winter area for non-motorized designation as proposed will greatly enhance our sport now and is large enough to consider future needs.

I'm having a hard time getting behind the WMC initiative as it applies to the Van Epps/Fortune/Teanaway.  As a longtime Kittitas County skier, these are the home hills.  Frankly, the proposed closures are not much skied during the winter.  The issue is access - few skiers have machines and the rest of us are generally unwilling to slog up the valley bottoms to get to the goods.  There are some early season tours before the roads are snowed in but after that, it is just to far to go.  When the roads melt out in the spring, these areas become viable venues again and the snowmo's have largely quit or gone elsewhere.  I just don't see much user conflict here.  

I have stronger feelings about the situation around Blewett.  Here we have a mix of official and voluntary non-motorized areas.  The official closures seem generally respected but occasionally poached, probably by the same wilderness-riding miscreants we all seem to hate.  I have less experience with the voluntary closures but at least on Road 800 along Wenatchee Ridge, machines have been rare, particularly since the signing campaign mounted during Todd Stile's tenure with Cle Elum District.

I remember, dimly, the meetings in the late 90s that led to the voluntary closures.  Facilitated by the Cle Elum District's Tim Foss, skiers, dogsledders, snowshoers and snowmobilers gathered, pored over maps and identified areas important to each user group.  Areas designated for non-motorized use were typically close to plowed roads to allow easy access. The Forest Service did not have the will to officially close new areas to motorized use so voluntary closures were adopted as an achievable compromise.  Perhaps it is time to revisit this process and, this time, come up with boundaries with teeth.      

 

Thanks glenn_b for some thoughtful comments and valid points. We will offer some other thoughts.

Why should we limit other skitourers with our own limitations? Why should we limit ski tourers in the future in a growing sport! The WMC proposed non-motorized area is large, but so is the demand for skiing and other non-motorized winter recreation on the Forest. Why do non-motorized areas need to be small and right beside the car only? Skiers etc. have a valid claim to use their Forest lands in an area that is not dominated by snowmobiles.

Actually two of us have done self-powered overnight ski trips into Brothers and Navaho, one several times. And our trips were before snowmobiles were in there. Now we get in there on snowmobiles and ski tour from the road end. One of us with a friend as far back as the '80s snowmobiled the Teanaway Roads and from the Trailheads self-powered and skied south Ingalls, skied great powder on Iron Peak, skied great powder on Earl. those trips are feasible for overnight trips, and there is plenty of interest- we see folks in other places doing winter overnight trips for skiing. The areas of the WMC proposal are now tracked by snowmobiles, and some days full of snowmobiles and the noise. So who wants to go overnight in such a place- even though the open slopes are great for skiing, the Wenatchee Mountains climate and snow is much nicer than the main Cascades- it is currently overrun by snowmobiles?

Think of other skitourers- some young tourers and Lowell Skoog cover huge distances in a day- just look at TRs here. Twice on the summit of Earl we have met folks who came from 29 Pines self-powered to the summit and back out in a day trip. Increasing numbers of skitourers get snowmobiles for access. To ride to the Wenatchee Mountains crest between Van Epps and Brothers requires a capable machine, some cost 8$k to $10k+ new. Some of us WMC folks access ski touring by riding roads on machines that we have paid $500 and $1000 to purchase.

We encourage consideration of the bigger picture of our sport and of the future needs of our sport.

Thanks for the great discussion!

WMC....in your last couple of posts you mention the quality of the area and unique status and location as compared to others. These are reasons sledders also seek to spend time in these areas as well. Yet you are looking to eliminate sledders from this alpine territory completely. Yet, just on the other side of the ridge and then the next range you have complete and uninterrupted access to areas that are already non-motorized. You already have a vast area without sleds or motors with the terrain you described above, and even better. I'd love to be able to ride that area, but it's off limits.

As TobyT said....of the existing non motor area known as bean-beverly it would hard to track out, if not immpossible by skiers. Yet you look to expand on that area by, what, 8x's along with the EXISTING area that connects to the north.

the more you post, the less likely you sound to have any level of compromise and you're coming across as greedy and self serving. Not the right way to manage "public" forest lands. All user groups need to be addressed and you are trying to eliminate one without suggestion or compromise and no alternative.

Thanks for answering one of my questions TobyT. I'll be hoping that WMC has the ability to answer the second. If he has really thought this process out, then he will consider the needs of all users in his suggestions, not just himself.

I suggest easier access to the wilderness areas for non-motorized users.

just on the other side of the ridge and then the next range you have complete and uninterrupted access to areas that are already non-motorized. You already have a vast area without sleds or motors with the terrain you described above, and even better. I'd love to be able to ride that area, but it's off limits.

I think most skiers would love to get to that terrain more often, but its too far for a day mission. Maybe not on sleds! But too far for skis only until the road melts out and/or you have a few days for what's essentially a camping trip.

I'm guessing that both groups have to pursue their passions on the weekends or with vacation time for the most part, and day trips are just easier to do - less time, easier to chose your days/snow conditions. So really we're in the same boat in terms of wanting access for day trips most of the time. I'm sure you understand that since we'd probably both like a few more days to get out into the snow on whatever it is we chose to ride.

I suggest easier access to the wilderness areas for non-motorized users.

Well amen to that. I'm not sure that I want to see helis landing in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, or to have all river bottom roads plowed all winter long. But it seems like we could do better.

Would you like to see WSSA support better access to already protected areas for skiers in an effort to help protect and enhance access for its own constituents? Is that a place where there could be common ground?

Good discussion. Thanks all for their candor and civility.