WMC Update 2012

Funny, we keep coming back to the same solution...stop being selfish, except that one group continues to ignore the wilderness as part of the overall solution. Only to create adversaries in exclusion.

C'mon yammadog. We've discussed this above, so it's not being ignored. I believe you want to have a reasonable dialog here, but ignoring the good replies above regarding why much (not all, but most) of the wilderness is practically useless to many day ski tourers isn't helping the cause of finding a meeting of the minds. A few folks may sled to ridges on the boundary, but that's not a reasonable answer for many of us, and even that leaves much of the wilderness out of reach except for the multi-night adventurer.

As for exclusion, I'll repeat that there is legal exclusion and then there's practical exclusion (as in "might wins"). I don't see any more or less selfishness, nor any less of a "land grab" in one form of exclusion or the other. The sledders have practically managed a grab that's even bigger than what WMC proposes. If you can empathize with that statement for a moment, you might see reason in some form of meeting in the middle.

Ok Jim, I'll jump in with you. And I appreciate you, Aaron, and others participation. I'm still not seeing any constructive comms with WMC, not sure if you could point it out to me, but he seems tone def to any suggestion other than complete closure to the areas suggested.

From my reading on this subject, WMC is only proposing the exclusion of sledding in this alpine area. No suggestion of where they might want to share and completely avoiding the question. Where are the areas that are similar in terrain that can be effectively off limits to future closure? As suggested by this group?

I think the real answer is to find a way to make the existing area(wilderness) more accessible.

How do we do that and is that a workable solution in WMC's mind? The area proposed is some of the best riding in the state and used by many, what about looking at other areas to make non- motorized instead of such a popular location? I'm only hearing the same response from WMC....no compromise or even suggestion of a workable solution to provide access in comparable terrain and over all alpine type open areas.

I've tried to bring suggestion to make the situation more workable and leaving openings for WMC to participate in a give and take. I know whatever the solution, the education of the sledders and non-motorized groups will need to happen. Enforcement of the areas is going to need to happen and we know that's somewhat of a challenge with the existing aeras.

...I know whatever the solution, the education of the sledders and non-motorized groups will need to happen. Enforcement of the areas is going to need to happen and we know that's somewhat of a challenge with the existing aeras.

With the WMC proposal, enforcement will be possible by Officers sitting at the end of one of a few roads. That is a plus as far as management of the problems.

WMC is pleased that two of our Executive asked for support and answered questions today for Winter Wildlands Alliance. WWA has pledged support and help to the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition and the Thousand Skiers Project and is including us in their national emailings. Thank you Winter Wildlands Alliance! www.winterwildlands.org/index.php

I've got to admit, although I share the desire for quiet skiing destinations with no motor vehicles, I don't see much evidence from WMC's posts of any desire to work toward a solution that works for all user groups.  It's possible that non-motorized designation in certain areas could be a useful part of a solution, but WMC seems to entirely emphasize it as an end goal rather than working by any and all reasonable means toward what I think is the real skier goal: Having lots of accessible and excellent terrain to ski without motors nearby.  It's easy to confuse an actual goal with the perceived best path to that goal, and I think WMC is doing that.

With regard to the question of whether motors are allowed by default or not allowed by default on FS land, I think a default to freedom applies unless an action is expressly not allowed or known to cause harm.  Like it or not, I think it's a pretty established legal principle (must have some Latin name).  For instance, I'm sure there is no FS regulation that expressly allows you to play a clarinet while wearing a sombrero in a goofy fashion, but I'm equally sure that this is not a prohibited activity in the NF.

I've got to admit, although I share the desire for quiet skiing destinations with no motor vehicles, I don't see much evidence from WMC's posts of any desire to work toward a solution that works for all user groups.  It's possible that non-motorized designation in certain areas could be a useful part of a solution, but WMC seems to entirely emphasize it as an end goal rather than working by any and all reasonable means toward what I think is the real skier goal: Having lots of accessible and excellent terrain to ski without motors nearby.  It's easy to confuse an actual goal with the perceived best path to that goal, and I think WMC is doing that.

With regard to the question of whether motors are allowed by default or not allowed by default on FS land, I think a default to freedom applies unless an action is expressly not allowed or known to cause harm.  Like it or not, I think it's a pretty established legal principle (must have some Latin name).  For instance, I'm sure there is no FS regulation that expressly allows you to play a clarinet while wearing a sombrero in a goofy fashion, but I'm equally sure that this is not a prohibited activity in the NF.

We are beginning with very limited total areas along the Wenatchee Mountains designated as non-motorized. We are asking for a piece of the significantly larger area used by default by snowmobile riding to be designated as non-motorized. We picked the most logical areas to ask for the designation.

We understand how the area that we are familiar is used, in negotiating this we are starting out very far behind in terms of parity and equality. The Forest has largely become a defacto motorized playground in winter. Imagine if most of your skitouring areas were tracked and trenched by snowmobiles and taken from your use. Imagine being out on a bluebird powder day with your skitouring friends and you see 14 snowmobiles arrive, have pleasant conversation, then the riders on snowmobiles proceed to lap that powder slope up and down, coming within five feet of skiers climbing on skins. Imagine walking for two hours on skis and skins to the Wilderness Boundary to ski a bowl into the Wilderness, and there find snowmobile tracks across that peak, in the Wilderness. This is the situation that we advocate for management by USFS.

We see, and we see here, no compromise or sharing from the snowmobile community, and we do not expect to see that.

Here is an example comment from the counter-post on Snowest: "I think they should keep everyone outta the fresh powder till i have a chance to go get all I want. Then everyone can go ride thru MY tracks!! Oh wait, they're talkin about their clack clack tracks. Whats gonna happen when they visit their favorite Pow stash and find some other skiers already tracked it up Hitch up yur skirt, get out and get all u can. It ain't gonna be good all the time, just like for us gas powered guys.You want more access closer to the road? Try the ski areas. You want to stack the odds in your favor. Too bad , thats life. Suck it up and quit Cryin."

Well actually there are indeed small odds for non-motorized winter recreationists in competing with snowmobiles on the Forest. We advocate for equity and parity for winter non-motorized recreation on the Forest.