WMC Update 2012

And we can't over look the wilderness as part of the overall user area for non-motorized. We just have to find a way to make it more of a day trip to use it.

You make it sound so easy! I'm eager to hear practical details of what you have in mind...

(note, I agree with what jplowtz has stated above about the importance of collaboration and compromise, and on his observation about WMC, but that doesn't lead me to believe fairy tales either)

In reviewing some of the news releases from the WWA website, a common theme in  the success stories was that of collaboration and compromise between motorized and non. WMC's attitude af, "there is no compromise because both pursuits are incompatible," would not lend itself to successful collaboration it seems. If/when the forest officials tell us forest users to sit down at the table and hash out an equitable plan, we all have to approach each other in the spirit of collaboration in protecting our precious powder, rather than it's my way or no way!

Great discussion here, thanks to all.

Well, sir, it would appear that some comments here would define "compromise" as requiring skiers and snowshoers to "share" snowy slopes on the Forest with speeding snowmobiles with riders also having fun and enjoying the Forest. Most non-motorized users lack your ability, Mr Plotz to go the miles and ascent the vertical feet that you do in a day. However, Mr Plotz's TRs demonstrate the utility for skiers of the significant area in the WMC proposal.

Is zealotry defined as one user group currently with access to a lesser portion of the Forest asking for a fair share, a portion of the Forest designated as non-motorized? We think not. In various previous efforts to reach out to snowmobile riders WMC members have experienced the universal "no" and a lack of consideration for other Forest users. WMC recognizes that both snowmobile riders and skiers (snowshoers) have a right to use the Forest and both user groups enjoy their sports with enthusiasm! However, as we have discussed and established, snowmobile riding for many reasons removes the area ridden from reasonable use by non-motorized users. Therefore, WMC is asking the appropriate Authority, the USFS OWNF Forest Supervisor to consider this problem and to manage this problem. We have defined and asked for designated non-motorized areas per our proposal.

WMC has invested many years of experience, consideration of other uses, consideration of the resources, and considerable hours discussing this situation with USFS personnel. We do not seek to prohibit snowmobile riding on the Forest, some of us own and ride snowmobiles. We ask for a fair share, a new portion of the Forest to be set aside for non-motorized winter recreation. These issues are relatively recently created, WMC members have used virtually all of the areas in the proposal for skiing at the time before snowmobile technology allowed riders to track these areas.

Mr Plotz, WMC has a member who has seen snowmobile tracks through Wilderness into the Eightmile area, an area in which you have enjoyed some ski trips. If that blazed trail is followed by many other snowmobiles next season and then all of that Wilderness area is tracked by snowmobiles, how would you characterize advocacy intended to keep snowmobiles from that area? We are not asking for all of the Forest, we are asking for significant portions of the Forest to be designated as non-motorized in winter to be used by the significant population of Forest users who seek non-motorized winter recreation on the Forest.

WMC asks for a fair share of the Forest to be designated for non-motorized winter recreation apportioned through management of USFS.

Thanks to all for the ongoing discussion.

Is zealotry defined as one user group currently with access to a lesser portion of the Forest asking for a fair share, a portion of the Forest designated as non-motorized?

You keep making this statement.  You have your "fair share" already.  It is ALL OF THE WILDERNESS.  Unfortunately, it seems you don't like it because you can't get their easily enough, and in a timely manor.

Lets not forget all the land that is currently utilized in ski resorts, lets not forget all the land that is currently set aside as voluntary non-motorized, lets not forget all the areas that snowmobilers don't go into because they don't have access.

You should be more clear when you speak about parity.  Here is what it seems that word means to you.

Skiers want to have their fair share of terrain that is the following-
- not at ski resorts
- accessible to good riding areas during single day trips
- not wilderness
- on the east side as the snow is better
- in the alpine areas that are really good

This is what you are stating as parity.

We do not seek to prohibit snowmobile riding on the Forest, some of us own and ride snowmobiles.

Correct, only to prohibit snowmobiling in one of the few areas where snowmobilers can ride in the alpine.

I think snowmobilers should demand parity for access to alpine riding areas.  I mean, it is only fair isn't it?

Mr Plotz, WMC has a member who has seen snowmobile tracks through Wilderness into the Eightmile area, an area in which you have enjoyed some ski trips, If that blazed trail is followed by many other snowmobiles next season and then all of that Wilderness area is tracked by snowmobiles, how would you characterize advocacy intended to keep snowmobiles from that area?

Tracks -> blazed trail -> all wilderness tracked out by snowmobiles?

Is this a scare tactic? Are you trying to get an emotional response?

Lets not forget all the land that is currently utilized in ski resorts, lets not forget all the land that is currently set aside as voluntary non-motorized, lets not forget all the areas that snowmobilers don't go into because they don't have access.

Non-motorized users are discouraged and/or prohibited from using ski resorts during the season, not everyone wants to buy a ticket and lift serve ski. Ski resorts use less than 6000 acres of the OWNF, insignificant. As previously pointed out, Voluntary Non-motorized designation is meaningless because it's voluntary and lacks official non-motorized status, we're asking you to stay out, not telling you to stay out. You can't enforce incursions into voluntary closures areas because there is nothing to enforce.

Where is the compromise coming from snowmobile advocacy groups? Wilderness areas were created decades before snowmobilers would even dream of sledding in those areas because they lacked the technology, that is why those areas don't enter into this debate. Even if the roads were plowed into areas allowing better access to Wilderness, non-motorized users would still have to travel through areas "shared' with snowmobiles. Why have snowmobile advocacy groups opposed official designation for voluntary closure areas? Is it because snowmobile users want the ability to legally expand into those areas as ridership continues to grow? You talk about losing terrain and being displaced from areas that you have been using, what about skiers and snowshoers being displaced from areas that they had been using for decades until snowmobile technology allowed sledders to access those areas? We've already established that the two users groups are largely incompatible. These are issues that I would like thoughtful answers to from snowmobilers, not just we're using this terrain now and nobody has told us we can't so tough sh*t.

Voluntary Non-motorized designation is meaningless because it's voluntary and lacks official non-motorized status, we're asking you to stay out, not telling you to stay out. You can't enforce incursions into voluntary closures areas because there is nothing to enforce.

It isn't meaningless.  I think for the most part, snowmobilers stay out of those areas.  It has been stated that most snowmobilers are not against removing the voluntary status. I am not.

Even if the roads were plowed into areas allowing better access to Wilderness, non-motorized users would still have to travel through areas "shared' with snowmobiles.

Maybe make a specific non-motorized direct access corridor for easy access to the wilderness locations?  Aren't you changing the argument though? I thought the point of this discussion was that SINCE it is too difficult to get to the wilderness areas for non-motorized users, THEN they would like some areas that are non-motorized closer by for their use.

Why have snowmobile advocacy groups opposed official designation for voluntary closure areas? Is it because snowmobile users want the ability to legally expand into those areas as ridership continues to grow?

When was this?  As to the second part, I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE if that were true.  Unfortunately, all across the country snowmobilers are fighting to keep the riding areas they currently have.  It has been stated many times here BY SNOWMOBILERS that WE ARE NOT AGAINST the designation of the voluntary areas as mandatory.

You talk about losing terrain and being displaced from areas that you have been using, what about skiers and snowshoers being displaced from areas that they had been using for decades until snowmobile technology allowed sledders to access those areas?

That is a valid point.  Though I would argue that this is only due to having to share some of the resources with snowmobiles. Before snowmobilers, you had it all.  Now, you have to share with other users.

Stupid message window is too small... lol

WMC, I really think you're preaching to the choir, on both sides of the aisle in fact, in regards to snowmobile intrusion in Wilderness. Thankfully, this year I did not see any sled tracks leading into the 8 Mile drainage, and I was up there a lot.

As for my TR's being an example of the utility of the significant area of Forest in dispute here, that is not entirely correct since I almost exclusively tour in Wilderness.

And finally, I agree with you in that I would not expect the mileage I put in to get to my Wilderness stashes to be a reasonable baseline for the majority of ski tourers.