WMC Update 2012

Well sir, that would be where allowed outside of Closed or non-motorized areas and outside of Wilderness. We have been over this extensively here- "Yes, sir you are indeed claiming it all for your use- snowmobile riding. Do you ski? We are familiar with your posts on Snowest as an avid snowmobile rider and see that you are going on there and here right now.

As far as Sno Parks, a vehicle that has displayed a valid Permit may park there. Perhaps sir you could share here some of the sentiment on this topic that is expressed on your usual forum? Sharing, eh?

WMC is seeking areas for non-motorized winter use so that skiers (etc) may have a shot at quiet recreation on untracked snow in some reasonable balance of the Forest total area. WMC has never stated that we seek prohibition or regulation of snowmobiles outside of non-motorized areas."

Does WMC agree that the wilderness and designated non-motorized areas are non-motorized and fit the description as you state above? Does WMC agree that the remaining areas are for mixed use which includes snowmobiles? Does WMC acknowledge that nowhere in the state do we have snowmobile only recreation or parking? All areas used in sledding can also be used by non-motorized users? At what point does WMC state where snowmobiles can ride in the alpine areas of the wenatchee forest, since you are suggesting that most all the areas with open aspects are being restricted to snomobile use and added to the existing wilderness areas already designated non-motorized.

With regard to shared parking in the snow parks that are traditional snowmobile access points, many non-motorized users park extremely close and disregard the ability to load and unload or even in some cases give the ability to exit your rig from the parking spot, and quite often will park in the turn around areas which in most cases are clearly signed. Yet, does WMC acknowledge that there are non-motorized parking areas for their use only? No shared parking in those spots.

As for my participation on both forums, I am here on this one to better understand the desire by your group to limit access to a large portion of the best riding in the state to motorized users and to see if there is any compromise in the idea of shared use of the areas you describe. I have not mentioned the conversation on this forum, yet. At this point, I will be yelling at the top of my lungs to put forth the effort and fight your selfish motivations. 1000 sledders will be the small number fighting this movement. You're creating a conflict. Good job.

I have yet to hear your answer with regard to where you would accept snowmobiles enjoying the similar terrain as you describe that won't someday be asked to close for your convenience.

Below is another illustration of this problem that has been communicated to WMC (names and locations omitted, in WA):

"... we have a beautiful north facing meadow ... that is near the groomed snomo trail.  Sled heads access it via the summer trail (illegal!).  It makes a great place to take beginning ski tourers for safe, low angle skiing.  This year, I was leading a party of four there...  We were almost there, it was untouched since the last storm, when four "gladiators" roared up our uptrack on the summer trail.  All they wanted to do was yell at me when I motioned them to stop, saying we needed to "share".  How do you share a restaurant with someone who wants to throw up on your table?  They stayed there for 20 minutes or so and ruined the fine low angle slope for us before heading off to thousands of other acres they had access to.  (We did manage to move on to steeper slopes and thicker trees).  I'm sure they saw our machines parked and followed our track with intent.  I know they do not like skiers as we try to limit their access..."

I'll say it again, if someone is breaking the law by using illegal areas/access, then they should get the full punishment by law. If you are complaining because someone got to the goods before you...cry to your mom. I get just as frustrated to see people getting in to my stash spots, but that's the name of the game, I don't think the forest should be managed to only allow me and my certain type of useage in that area. And AGAIN..the wildersness is the complete and unfiltered area that you can access legally all day long! try it out and leave the shared use areas as shared.

"Executive Order 11644 also required the Forest Service and other land managers to designate specific areas on which the use of off-road vehicles may and may not be permitted. According to the order, designation of motorized areas or trails will be based upon the protection of natural resources, promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among various user groups. " See  www.winterwildlands.org/grassroots/regulations.php   We are asking that the appropriate authority address this problem and implement changes on the Forest before November 1st, 2010.

That order was issued by Nixon and amended by Carter, good luck on the November 1st implementation

Hi yammadog,

First, I would like to thank you for you contributions to this thread. Even if we can't resolve all (or any) of our differences, I think it is good that the different user groups have polite interactions so that views and opinions can be shared.

Second, I would like to add my comments to a couple of ideas you have brought up. Regarding your suggestion that there be some snomo-only areas in which pedestrian traffic is banned, I would like to say, as a human-powered recreationalist, that I would be open to the establishment of some reasonable moto-only areas as part of an agreement that expanded non-moto areas. I'm not sure if the desire for pedestrian free areas is genuine, or if you are simply using it as a rhetorical device to highlight the perceived asymmetry in the management of motorized and non-moto rec. I'm serious about this. I have wondered, while skiing out of snomo sno-parks, if I am negatively impacting the sledders. We always try to be considerate, stay out of the way, etc., but still we are there (and I know my experience would be better if the snomos weren't there).

With regard to shared parking in the snow parks that are traditional snowmobile access points, many non-motorized users park extremely close and disregard the ability to load and unload or even in some cases give the ability to exit your rig from the parking spot, and quite often will park in the turn around areas which in most cases are clearly signed. Yet, does WMC acknowledge that there are non-motorized parking areas for their use only? No shared parking in those spots.

Please elaborate. I try to be courteous. I park my car all the time and hardly ever have disputes with other drivers. The only contentious parking scene I have found is at sno parks. I have to admit that I have been unable to figure out the in's and out's of parking with snomo rigs. It seems that folks want room all around their trucks and trailers. I'm never sure how close to get. On one hand I would like to conserve the shared resource. On the other hand, I'm terrified of aggravating sledders who don't appear to want me around no matter how I park. I'm also being serious here. I sometimes ask folks (if they are around) if my parking is 'OK'. They always say it is, but something tells me they probably don't honestly approve (maybe they think I should be at a non-moto snopark??). I would appreciate any advice you have. Maybe I should check out some of the snomo boards and look for rants....

As for equity in parking.... I have seen several allusions to an impression that non-moto users do not pay as much for the use of the sno parks as snowmobilers. I'm skeptical of this, although I have to say I don't know how much the motorized pass costs. If it is different (more) than the non-moto pass I think you guys (sledders) are getting screwed. I don't think it is. Last time I bought a pass (two winters ago) I think it was $35. To park at sno parks near Seattle you also have to buy the 'groomed trails' sticker (don't know exact cost, but I think it is between $40 and $50). I have been in the situation of not being able to park at a sno park because I didn't have the groomed trails sticker while sledders were filling the lot.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. And seriously, if you have tips for parking with sledders, post up!

Happy riding,
Micah

Micah,

Yes, my statement is somewhat rhetorical, in that I'm assuming since WMC wants shared area for just skiing and eliminating sleds, like in the non-motorized areas and wilderness that already exist in over 40%+ of the forest, then I would have to believe that he also means that there would be dedicated sledding area without the concern for overtaking skiers/shoers in a turn at a higher rate of speed, or dogs in path, etc....if he's being sincere in saying both have a valid right to enjoy the BC.

Yet he still has not answered the question of where he would suggest that would be comparable in terrain to what he is suggesting be taken away.

I think the whole idea of taking more land and excluding a large user group for personal gain is just simply not the way to manage public lands. Every person I know and ride with takes consideration with hikers/skiers when passing them or when playing in a bowl etc. by giving a wide gap to the non-motorized users. The existing areas are more than spacious enough to try and get fresh tracks or even untouched, as TobyT says, it would be near impossible to track out, and that was for one area only, didn't even touch on the wilderness area that it connects with. I feel that we as citizens have already let too much land get locked out from the average person.

With regard to parking, it's pretty simple and I would say that it's not the norm, but if you park next to a sledding rig, think of how much room it will take to load a 10ft long sled with the ramp extended..maybe 15-20ft min. Then the idea that we can't really parallel park with a trailer, so giving enough room to pull in or pull out with consideration of the snow/ice on the parking surface. The guys that take the entire family with a 30ft trailer needs momentum and sufficient room to turn around, so giving a wide area at the turn around is needed.

I think the whole mess is simply that some areas have been found by sledders, that used to be skier stash and they're upset and don't want to share. I also feel that the access to the non-motorized/wilderness that already exists could alleviate the conflict that WMC is creating. As stated before by regular users of the area, no real conflict exists when you are out there. I also think enforcement of the existing boundaries would do a lot to lower the pressure on the near boundary areas by those that don't want the penalty.

I think it can all be solved by educating our fellow users and perhaps user groups pow wows to cover topics of concern, versus creating conflict and eliminating the opposition. Simply being respectful of our fellow users and enthusiasts. We are all out there for similar reasons.

Good input, yammadog - thanks. The parking stuff all makes perfect sense if you spend time watching folks load/unload as well as navigate their rigs around the sno-parks. It's common sense really, but the first time a skier shows up at a shared sno-park and all the sledders are already off, it's awfully tempting to slip into those seemingly giant gaps, so I suspect it's helpful to explicitly explain this stuff here, in that it helps educate skiers who haven't spent much time and shared sno-parks. I'm pretty sure that most skiers who park in rigs to it from ignorance, not malice.

As for the sharing, I get most of your points, except when you say

If you are complaining because someone got to the goods before you...cry to your mom. I get just as frustrated to see people getting in to my stash spots, but that's the name of the game, I don't think the forest should be managed to only allow me and my certain type of useage in that area.

As noted repeatedly above, sledders are wildly more efficient at tracking out terrain than are skiers. And skiing next to whining sleds tends to be aversive enough to drive folks away even if tracking of terrain weren't an issue. Perhaps some sledders share when they see skiers on a slope, but if the sledders got there an hour before the skiers (which is of course quite easy to do on a sled), then tough luck to the skiers. So the net is that "shared use" often equates to"the forest is managed to only allow you and your certain type of useage in the area." Now I'm not in love with the exclusion described by WMC above, as it indeed seems to be an over-reach (and telling sledders "you have vast areas to the south" seems disingenuous, as I'm sure sledders appreciate the comparitive aesthetics of the Teanaway versus areas further south too). But at any rate, your argument for keeping shared access as it is heavily favors sledders at the expense of skiers. Legal sharing does not equal practical sharing. I hope you can find a way to see that, as your acknowledgement of that reality would go a long way toward enabling the sort of constructive dialog that you seem to seek.

As for sledder-only areas, I'm open to proposals that woudl net me something bback in return ((again, keeping in mind that sled technology has granted you an awful lot of terrain at the practical expense of skiers in the past two decades). However, I'd assume that even if you did'nt need to worry about hitting a skier or a dog, you would still need to worry about hitting another snowmobiler who may have stopped their rig for some reason (or an animal), and that responsible sledding dicates that you don't commit to travel into any space you can't see (or that a spotter you're in radio contact wth can't see). Let me know if I'm off base there.