WMC Update 2012

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.

Well sir, what is the "conflict?" This is a discussion. WMC has some ideas in advocacy, we are very clear about them, we believe that they are the right approach to manage the limited recreational resource, to share the resource. We are glad that yammadog adds to this discussion, thank you. We see that yammadog is asking on Forums for snowmobile riders to send in their emails. That is great, let this discussion hear all sides, all points, and let various users- fellow citizens- express their views as well. The job of allocating the resource is the responsibility of USFS, as is the enforcement.

We are pleased with your civility, thanks. We do see on Snowest and BackcountryRebels names, addresses, phone numbers, photos, in other examples of persons opposing motorized use or snowmobile use where it is believed by some that it is not acceptable. And there are aggressive words and ideas directed toward these folks who dare to oppose snowmobile riding on any level. We read tales related on Snowest about vandalism of 'skiers' cars, intimidation or assault of 'skiers' or whatever the name used is. The thread on BackcountryRebels listing derogatory names for anyone who wants to limit snowmobiles is quite interesting. We do not approve of skiers being hostile toward snowmobile riders either -this poster rides snowmobiles on roads with friends and has unfortunately experienced uncivil skiers in that situation.  WMC does point to the problem of aggressive words perhaps designed to intimidate similar to what we see on snowmobile Forums, and we make the point that we all need to be civil in this discussion and recognize that there are others' valid points to be heard.

As far as other areas for snowmobile riding, we will encourage snowmobile riders to speak to that, we are concentrating on a proposal for areas for designated winter non-motorized use. We have stated that we believe that USFS needs to manage this recreation by non-compatible user groups and WMC asks for that. We are starting advocacy directed at our local area in the Wenatchee Mountains. We make no secret of the fact that we believe that throughout Washington there is a serious need for management of the incompatible uses by the designation of winter non-motorized areas. We have no intention of advocating to generally prohibit on or off-road snowmobile riding as will be managed by USFS, and outside of Wilderness and areas Closed to snowmobiles. We are certain that the Forest area used by snowmobiles is much larger than non-motorized areas outside Wilderness, and that area is growing constantly with new technology machines. We are certain that there is an inequity in use of the available resource, powder snow, between snowmobiles and skiers, snowshoers, etc.

The area from Van Epps to Brothers that is the unroaded crest is a logical setback from the Wilderness Boundary, and WMC takes advantage of that fact in asking for non-motorized designation there. It is possible in our view that at some point in the future some of the large, formal Organizations may lobby and secure this area as non-motorized for the purpose of Wilderness protection. WMC takes advantage of this proximity to Wilderness in asking for non-motorized designation.

We have stated many times here that a larger portion of suitable Forest outside Wilderness is defacto motorized playground at the expense of other legitimate users who do not ride snowmobiles. or do not ride snowmobiles offroad. We believe that it is unassailable fact  that snowmobile use is growing and expanding in the Forest and does very literally exclude other user groups from enjoying the resource.

Thanks everyone for the discussion here!

WMC....I had to laugh at your answering machine 3rd person reply. How about answering my question directly?

100% of all forest land is available for skiing/non-motor recreation.

As a minimum 40% is designated wilderness and cannot be accessed to the motorized user, with additional area off limits with defacto wilderness, non-motorized or other restrictions.

As a sledder I am stating a position on the area for motorized recreation, and it's the existing territory with emphasis on enforcing boundary incursions. I also advocate providing greater access to the EXISTING areas for day trip adventures in the "wilderness", so much so, that you could do it from your car and wouldn't need the stinky old machine you propose get you closer while leaving others out.

You state that no where in the forest are the 2 users compatible and the sledders need to go for safety reasons or other such reasoning. If 100% is available for skiers, then when do you stop asking for closures and in what areas would that be in?

Is this a wilderness land grab or a real effort to get skiable terrain with more access? Why not explore the access concept and have conversation about that? conversation is a give and take...you are only wanting to take and with your cardboard replies, I don't see any conversation happening.

With your comments of this being the starting point, it's pretty clear your real motivations in this "discussion". Very misleading in your rhetoric, I don't think it's about the skiing at all. Your simply a hater, of motors if not people and want additional land just for your own solitude. The sad part is, you want public land. Popular public land at that.

So, as entertaining as this has become, I'll be looking for your reply to my questions, yet again.

And just out of curiosity, what kind of skies do you run? Are you a telemarker? Free the heal, free the mind?

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

Jim, I'm the first to express how happy I am the new machines are much quieter and less offensive to the nose. And I also speak my piece to those that make them louder in the name of HP. I would say that the trend by all the sledders is toward quiet and less smell, and the manufacturers are listening, thankfully.

I have yet to really hear anyone connect the "management" of the forest and "wilderness" as being a part of the non-motorized management. I'll agree that skiing thru a sled trench would not be entertaining, it's not fun being on a sled and hitting some of those. But let's look at the forest as a whole, not just the "non-wilderness" area as useable terrain, then we can have a real conversation about management of the land for various uses. WMC is proposing all of the stewart range, heck, basically all of the alpine territory in that area as non-motorized. where's the compatibility in my access in winter recreation to areas such as that? parity...me and few hundred of my sledding buddies restricted to the parking lot and WMC with a few of his buddies using up entire mountain ranges, with tons of it never getting touched.

I think you are dead on in identifying WMC as being disingenuous in the real motivation of his position.

A little thread drift here, why can't snowmobilers park their rigs more efficiently and pull there rigs to the trail head to load and unload like a boat ramp? You could literally double the parking space at Blewett if this were the practice. What is wrong with a car parking in front of or in back of a truck and trailer given there is enough room to pullout and back up to the trailhead? I'm not being difficult here, I want to know. One day this winter three rigs took up the whole parking area at Devil's Spur that could normally accommodate 20 cars by pulling in and parallel parking with no room in front or back for others to park and they left their ramps down eliminating even more space. This all seems to be done in the name of convenience.

WMC is proposing all of the stewart range, heck, basically all of the alpine territory in that area as non-motorized. where's the compatibility in my access in winter recreation to areas such as that? parity...me and few hundred of my sledding buddies restricted to the parking lot and WMC with a few of his buddies using up entire mountain ranges, with tons of it never getting touched.

The Stuart Range already lies wholly within the ALW, was that a mistake or do you enjoy sledding there? The areas in the proposal are in the Wenatchee Mountains. Saying you would be restricted to the parking lot is a bit disingenuous as there are many hundreds of miles of groomed and ungroomed forest road available for your enjoyment.

A little thread drift here, why can't snowmobilers park their rigs more efficiently and pull there rigs to the trail head to load and unload like a boat ramp? You could literally double the parking space at Blewett if this were the practice. What is wrong with a car parking in front of or in back of a truck and trailer given there is enough room to pullout and back up to the trailhead? I'm not being difficult here, I want to know. One day this winter three rigs took up the whole parking area at Devil's Spur that could normally accommodate 20 cars by pulling in and parallel parking with no room in front or back for others to park and they left their ramps down eliminating even more space. This all seems to be done in the name of convenience.

Yeah, Blewett is probably the worst I've seen for parking. Most areas are a larger turn around and then parking along a road. With that configuration you don't have the ability to back down the road with other vehicles also driving in or out when it's time to leave. Yahoo's parking badly with their trailers is also a source of frustration for those of us that try to accomodate others in our efforts to park, believe me, it's not just "non-sledders" that have zero clue on parking. With regard to the ramp being left down, I know some do it for protection of the room and then other for convenience, which is fine in a parking area that has the room, like Stampede or others, but Blewett is not that place!

If there were the room, then a boat ramp parking situation wouldn't be a bad option, but usually that's not the case. Stampede is the only area that I know with ample room to park somewhat decent, I think it has 125 spots. Usually the snowparks are icey etc. so backing any real distance could create problems with some drivers. I've been to gold creek and had to park a mile up the road and it was difficult just drive forward let alone trying to back down that distance.