WMC Update 2012

As WMC has stated previously, it is not his peragotive to try and "work this out".  He is going to or is petitioning the Forest Service for increased lands for non-motorized use.  As to use for motorized purposes, he has stated that motorized users should do the same.

It seems that this puts the onus and responsibility on the FS to come up with a plan. He is trying to get his, we are supposed to try and get (keep) ours, and the FS will say what is what.

Interesting times, these are.

Must be a politician...doing what's good for him only, don't worry about the rest of the bunch and then dump the responsibilities on some other group.....and sure enough he's got people willing to vote for him, blindly following....

And never answering a direct question.

While I hear you on the odd nature of the "conversation" with WMC (which can seem like talking with one of those wind-up dolls), I do have to say that some of your comments about "sharing" have come across as being kind of self-serving as well, given practical realities.

But in any case, I still have a hard time buying the notion of making that whole Teanaway stretch non-motorized. Perhaps another basin in addition to Bean, but... The area nearer to Mission Ridge seems a little more interesting to me, even though it's a longer drive, as on a cursory glance it would seem to offer more terrain that I'd be likely to access on a typical weekend day trip. I think I'd want to explore the terrain on foot (or see some details of cool trips in that area) before starting to send letters though.

And to answer your question about day trips, I might travel a mile or two and maybe 1-2K vertical feet as an "approach" to access really good skiing, but generally prefer to "get to the goods" sooner than that if possible. I think you're going to get a fairly variable answer to this question, and I'm not sure it really matters how WMC (is that one person, or is there really a committee agreeing on each reply as implied by the use of "we"??) would answer you, since he or she (or they) is not necessarily representative of the average skier (their use of sleds does not strike me as being "average," for instance).

As for non-motorized corridors, do you have specific ones in mind that won't require plowing and that are w/in a mile or so of good ski terrain of the sort WMC wants to "protect?" I've asked oncce before on the thread and don't recall seeing a reply...

While I hear you on the odd nature of the "conversation" with WMC (which can seem like talking with one of those wind-up dolls), I do have to say that some of your comments about "sharing" have come across as being kind of self-serving as well, given practical realities.

But in any case, I still have a hard time buying the notion of making that whole Teanaway stretch non-motorized. Perhaps another basin in addition to Bean, but... The area nearer to Mission Ridge seems a little more interesting to me, even though it's a longer drive, as on a cursory glance it would seem to offer more terrain that I'd be likely to access on a typical weekend day trip. I think I'd want to explore the terrain on foot (or see some details of cool trips in that area) before starting to send letters though.

And to answer your question about day trips, I might travel a mile or two and maybe 1-2K vertical feet as an "approach" to access really good skiing, but generally prefer to "get to the goods" sooner than that if possible. I think you're going to get a fairly variable answer to this question, and I'm not sure it really matters how WMC (is that one person, or is there really a committee agreeing on each reply as implied by the use of "we"??) would answer you, since he or she (or they) is not necessarily representative of the average skier (their use of sleds does not strike me as being "average," for instance).

As for non-motorized corridors, do you have specific ones in mind that won't require plowing and that are w/in a mile or so of good ski terrain of the sort WMC wants to "protect?" I've asked oncce before on the thread and don't recall seeing a reply...

The WMC proposal for winter non-motorized areas between Blewett Pass and the Mission Ridge Road provides the closest access terrain from a parked car. From Hwy 97, the addition of Mt Lillian and the Tronsen Head south side significantly enlarge the existing Tronsen Non- Motorized Area. Traveling to the summit of Mt Lillian is an effort somewhat similar to traveling to the summit of Diamond Head from Hwy 97. From the area of the Mission Ridge parking lot the summer trail accesses the popular open areas for skitouring or snowshoeing, or there is direct access from the top of the ski area into these areas. This article www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/18996 has photos of the areas that area close to Mission Ridge Ski Area.

The crest area from Van Epps to Brothers offers a large range of open slopes and would require a long day trip or an overnight trip without a snowmobile assist on the Road. The problem of Wilderness snowmobile trespass degrades non-motorized use for the slopes to the north of the proposed area that are accessed through the proposed area. Current  snowmobile use of the slopes to the south of the Wilderness Boundary changes the nature of the area from pristine mountain slopes to one of snowmobile recreation, with groups of snowmobilers enjoying laps to the summits and groups of snowmobilers sitting on the summits, on the Wilderness Boundary (some in Wilderness areas) enjoying their picnics. The WMC proposal allows USFS Enforcement to be managed from the ends of a few Roads- the proposed boundary. The  Wilderness Boundary is problematic to enforce as a practical matter, given the open slopes terrain along that crest and numerous routes of access. With the proposal, the question of Enforcement against snowmobile Wilderness trespass is changed from hardly possible despite large expenditure and effort to possible by one to a few USFS Personnel at Road ends. Also, it may be argued as logical to choose the pristine unroaded areas of the crest that also connect to existing non-motorized areas

WMC values the discussion here and any interest generated among skiers here. Many thanks to TAY for allowing the discussion! Except for two posts, one of the three WMC Executive has authored the words here. Yes, the WMC Executive is in regular discussion face-to-face, by email, and by phone.

In regard to letters of support WMC is pleased at the variety thus far from three states, and of various focus from endorsing the WMC proposal to other proposals and also in general support of the need for more non-motorized winter recreation areas.

While I hear you on the odd nature of the "conversation" with WMC (which can seem like talking with one of those wind-up dolls), I do have to say that some of your comments about "sharing" have come across as being kind of self-serving as well, given practical realities.

And to answer your question about day trips, I might travel a mile or two and maybe 1-2K vertical feet as an "approach" to access really good skiing, but generally prefer to "get to the goods" sooner than that if possible. I think you're going to get a fairly variable answer to this question, and I'm not sure it really matters how WMC (is that one person, or is there really a committee agreeing on each reply as implied by the use of "we"??) would answer you, since he or she (or they) is not necessarily representative of the average skier (their use of sleds does not strike me as being "average," for instance).

As for non-motorized corridors, do you have specific ones in mind that won't require plowing and that are w/in a mile or so of good ski terrain of the sort WMC wants to "protect?" I've asked oncce before on the thread and don't recall seeing a reply...

Jim, thanks for the reply. I see the sharing comments as more of self preservation, since we are not allowed in to many areas and consistantly being pushed toward more restrictions, but not the same case for non-motorized users.

My line of questioning is with regard on how to better make the experience for skiers and snowmobilers and anyone that wants to enjoy off road areas. Knowing the preferred distance for a "typical" day trip for ski-touring, will give me a baseline to see what's possible and offer a suggestion. Since I'm not inclined to ski-tour or snow shoe with my young boys any lengthy amount of distance, then I have a level of ignorance to the "typical" ski-touring enthusiast.

As WMC states in his last post, he is leveraging folks from other states to restrict those of us that actually use the area. I think it's more important to hear from the folks that live in Washington and actually use the area to come up with a solution. But again, I don't think that is WMC's goal. No workable solution, Just "his" way and nothing else is acceptable. he show's this repeatedly by not answering the direct questions I have given. the sad part is that many people will blindly send their emails and letters and will never set foot in that valley or on that crest. And if WMC get's their way, even more citizens will never set foot on that crest and get to see that beauty. So, I guess this is my way of gearing up for the fight that WMC is going to force, because "he" is not willing to have a "mutual" discussion on how to improve things other than blanket exclusion.

Without a doubt, the existing wilderness incursions need to be heavily enforced. Make a number of them pay the hefty fine and increase the education of the boundaries at the club events, snow shows and increased marking, then perhaps find ways to enforce the non-motorized areas in the same manner. Then look at ways to increase access to the EXISTING non-motorized wilderness areas to offer day trip activities with corridors of non-motorized access. I've been busy at work and also waiting to hear some numbers for distance before I sit and look at maps for suggestion.

So, Thanks Jim for participating with me on this situation. Too bad you're not leading WMC, I think they could use someone with a level head that is willing to discuss alternatives. But instead they are gearing up for a major land grab battle, that I think has nothing to do with back country recreation in the modern era.

As WMC states in his last post, he is leveraging folks from other states to restrict those of us that actually use the area. I think it's more important to hear from the folks that live in Washington and actually use the area to come up with a solution.

But instead they are gearing up for a major land grab battle, that I think has nothing to do with back country recreation in the modern era.

Most of the people who actually use these areas for ski touring live here, east of the crest. Aren't you coming from North Bend? Most people over here would consider that another "state" so your argument about out of staters supporting this doesn't hold water, also most of the proposed areas are federal, not state, land. I think anyone interested in federal land access issue should be encouraged to participate regardless of geographical location.

I don't think that snowmobile use is the future of back country recreation in the modern era, snowmobile sales have been for the most part stagnant over the past decade while equipment for human powered recreation continues to grow. So while it seems that there are more snowmobilers because of their increased travel capacity, it is in reality fewer users using more of the resource.

Most of the people who actually use these areas for ski touring live here, east of the crest. Aren't you coming from North Bend? Most people over here would consider that another "state" so your argument about out of staters supporting this doesn't hold water, also most of the proposed areas are federal, not state, land. I think anyone interested in federal land access issue should be encouraged to participate regardless of geographical location.

I don't think that snowmobile use is the future of back country recreation in the modern era, snowmobile sales have been for the most part stagnant over the past decade while equipment for human powered recreation continues to grow. So while it seems that there are more snowmobilers because of their increased travel capacity, it is in reality fewer users using more of the resource.

Won't debate with you about the difference of east/west population. If I could have a job that provided a living for my profession on the east side...I'd be there in a minute. And then maybe my position would be taken more in to cosideration of "out of staters, meaning out of washington" helping to dictate how the lands located within Washington are used. People that will never use the area. And I guess in some ways you make my point about the land being locked out to the average citizen. People jumped on board to close down the Snoqualmie middle fork and many have never and probably won't ever enjoy the area. Lot's of areas like that here on the west side. And my comment was a repeat of WMCs comment.

I'm also not saying that the future is only snowmobiling, but you also identify that the capabilities of the modern snowmobile allows this ability for more people to experience the remote areas of the forest that was in the past used exclusively by human powered recreationalists. Again, supporting my point that this is about someone else using up your stash, since WMC is proposing it's ok to use snowmobiles, but only in the areas that they want to also take advantage of the technology and only in the way they see fit. Some people prefer dirt bikes and extreme riding and some prefer road bikes just cruising. Should the road bikers be able to shut down riding of dirt bikes because they have evolved to a higher capability over the years?

I'll ask the question again, where do you see the areas that are acceptable for off trail snowmobile use with terrain similar to the areas proposed as closed to motorized?

What suggestion do you have aside from complete exclusion? Let's talk parity of the prime areas we both want to enjoy, open alpine. Compare the areas of proposed closure in the teanaway to the area adjacent in the wilderness that is also alpine and non-motorized. Let's agree that the flatland woods is not even part of the desired locations for either sport.

While I think that a workable solution exists with non-motorized corridors and creating areas closer to parking or parking closer to existing wilderness access and enforcement of the wilderness boundary, I'm willing to throw out another suggestion, since you are saying there is inequity. Let's trade areas as they exist on the map.