WMC Update 2012

OK, and perhaps ruffy and yammadog could offer tangible counter proposals or ideas, or even an acknowledgement that non-motorized winter Forest users have legitimate needs other than that of snowmobile riders? 

WMC, thanks for the reply as this will be some of the information that will help in support of some of the proposals already given. I think Ruffryder summed it up pretty well, now on to figuring out the details as a start. I would like to add the idea of an educational effort perhaps combined with the avilanche training that more folks are participating in to get the word out about boundaries and shared use.

I would still like to hear an acknowledgment from you on wilderness as tangible non-motorized terrain in the total consideration for recreation. Of the total forest area, it's been agreed that a minimum of 40%+ is non-motorized wilderness with additional non-motorized or restricted access is in place for motorized recreation. Since part of any proposal would include greater access to this area, it's important that it be recognized as part of the sum.

And Scotsman is exactly right...got to write our legislators as they could have the greatest bearing on these decisions.

WMC, thanks for the reply as this will be some of the information that will help in support of some of the proposals already given. I think Ruffryder summed it up pretty well, now on to figuring out the details as a start. I would like to add the idea of an educational effort perhaps combined with the avilanche training that more folks are participating in to get the word out about boundaries and shared use.

I would still like to hear an acknowledgment from you on wilderness as tangible non-motorized terrain in the total consideration for recreation. Of the total forest area, it's been agreed that a minimum of 40%+ is non-motorized wilderness with additional non-motorized or restricted access is in place for motorized recreation. Since part of any proposal would include greater access to this area, it's important that it be recognized as part of the sum.

And Scotsman is exactly right...got to write our legislators as they could have the greatest bearing on these decisions.

Accessibility to Wilderness as a barrier in winter for skiers has been discussed from the start of this thread. Wilderness is actually reached quicker on a snowmobile and sadly along the Wilderness Boundary in question for many years received more use by unlawful snowmobile riding than by skiers! That has to do with the capability of a snowmobile to quickly use most of the Forest- it is not endless, and must be managed. So, back to the Wilderness buffer that is standard and usual, which is provided by the WMC proposal, and as yammadog suggested that area also serves as a non-motorized corridor to Wilderness. So no, as discussed early here Wilderness is not a practical solution. Accessible areas from the car are needed for non-motorized users. Parity is what we seek, a similar amount of the good stuff for non-motorized use as is used by snowmobiles. So, some larger areas for overnight or longer day trips are in the WMC proposal.

Enforcement will likely not happen along the Wilderness Boundary of the high Wenatchee Mountains crest if that area is allowed to be used for snowmobile riding, to the benefit of whomever it is snowmobile-tracking the Wilderness of the Ingalls and Jack Cr. drainages in recent years. With the WMC proposal, enforcement would be feasible with clear boundaries along Roads, and facilitation of access for USFS personnel.

And again, please look at the link for Sno Parks and note how many and how large non-motorized areas are currently- very little of the total- www.parks.wa.gov/winter/trails/?TrailType=motorized

WMC has not established in research any USFS Designation specifically for snowmobile riding any areas other than groomed and ungroomed Roads from Sno Parks. This snowmobile riding-use by omission also includes the areas of the pristine unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains. WMC is advocating and asking for USFS management that will allow for multiple use on the Forest rather than in winter domination by nearly universal snowmobile riding on continually increasing areas and most of the Forest. We understand that snowmobile riding is legitimate and exciting recreation, thus see it as logical that snowmobile riders will continue to find new riding areas, push the limits, cut limbs or brush in places to establish new apporoaches for more untracked snow. WMC is attempting to educate skiers (snowshoers etc) of the fact that advancement in snowmobile technology has changed the paradigm, and in fact ski tours and Forest areas considered as inaccessible by snowmobiles may very well soon be tracked by snowmobiles. And, indeed, without management most of the Forest has no regulatory exclusion for snowmobile use, again likely an unintended omission in Forest management overtaken by advancing snowmobile technology.

So yes, we citizens should ask for management for multiple-use on the Forest, not one dominant use of snowmobile riding. We are asking for sharing and compromise here, words familiar to this discussion.

Thanks all.

Accessibility to Wilderness as a barrier in winter for skiers has been discussed from the start of this thread. Wilderness is actually reached quicker on a snowmobile and sadly along the Wilderness Boundary in question for many years received more use by unlawful snowmobile riding than by skiers!

Wilderness access would need to be better addressed, but to simply write off any other options other than moving the boundary closer to the car is short sighted.

a non-motorized corridor to Wilderness.  Accessible areas from the car are needed for non-motorized users.

What kind of distance do think is a good day trip?

Parity is what we seek, a similar amount of the good stuff for non-motorized use as is used by snowmobiles.

Parity of the 40%+? or just the areas that are not singled out as non-motorized/wilderness? Sounds like a 1 for you 2 for me cookie scheme.

With the WMC proposal, enforcement would be feasible with clear boundaries along Roads, and facilitation of access for USFS personnel.

And again, please look at the link for Sno Parks and note how many and how large non-motorized areas are currently- very little of the total-    www.parks.wa.gov/winter/trails/?TrailType=motorized

From your proposal, enforcement would be from the roaded area only with most of the alpine areas dedicated to non-motorized and it seems that the only reason you say it's ok for sleds on those roads is so you don't have to walk so far, seems self-serving at a minimum. And I say, lets look at the entire forest, not just the snow park maps. After all, creating greater access might mean creating new snoparks just for non-motorized.

WMC has not established in research any USFS Designation specifically for snowmobile riding any areas other than groomed and ungroomed Roads from Sno Parks. This snowmobile riding-use by omission also includes the areas of the pristine unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains. WMC is advocating and asking for USFS management that will allow for multiple use on the Forest rather than in winter domination by nearly universal snowmobile riding on continually increasing areas and most of the Forest. We understand that snowmobile riding is legitimate and exciting recreation, thus see it as logical that snowmobile riders will continue to find new riding areas, push the limits, cut limbs or brush in places to establish new apporoaches for more untracked snow. WMC is attempting to educate skiers (snowshoers etc) of the fact that advancement in snowmobile technology has changed the paradigm, and in fact ski tours and Forest areas considered as inaccessible by snowmobiles may very well soon be tracked by snowmobiles. And, indeed, without management most of the Forest has no regulatory exclusion for snowmobile use, again likely an unintended omission in Forest management overtaken by advancing snowmobile technology.

Seems to me, again, that the creation of non-motorized voluntary areas happened in the late 90's with technology capable of going far of road, so I would say that is an acknowledgement of off road.

We are asking for sharing and compromise here, words familiar to this discussion.

Are you sure you don't want to rephrase this statement? You are looking to lock out a "significant" area to lots of motorized users without acknowledging the equal compliment of terrain for sledding, while at the same time denying that you already have the lions share of upper alpine terrain available to you in the wilderness areas. Rejecting the idea that greater access could and would address your goals.

With a compromised solution, do you think it's possible to give up a non-motorized location to gain something in another spot? basically a realignment? Perhaps to gain a more seperated terrain?

With a compromised solution, do you think it's possible to give up a non-motorized location to gain something in another spot? basically a realignment? Perhaps to gain a more seperated terrain?...Seems to me, again, that the creation of non-motorized voluntary areas happened in the late 90's with technology capable of going far of road, so I would say that is an acknowledgement of off road.

Changing Wilderness would require an Act of Congress. Again, we chose the area next to Wilderness for the many reasons stated previously. Perhaps the implicit point not yet realized here is that if an area away from the crest Wilderness Boundary were to be designated now for winter non-motorized use, then in a few years the bigger organizations may or will advocate and achieve winter non-motorized status anyway later for the WMC proposal area, along the Wilderness Boundary. As an example, old logging Roads that go close to Wilderness, used by locals for summer hiking or climbing access, are likewise becoming part of summer non-motorized setbacks to Wilderness steadily every year- closed except non-motorized. It is not likely at all that the creation of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness intended the use of snowmobile motorized travel on the Wenatchee Mountains crest Wilderness Boundary, nor intended such an opportunity for easy Wilderness snowmobile trespass into wilderness. At some time this situation will be corrected, in WMC's view and advocacy, that will happen soon.

You are correct that if there were high access to Wilderness from a plowed Road, that would serve skiers' needs. However, that is not the situation and is not forseeable for implementation.

Some new to snowmobiling and skiing here fear losing something, that is understandable. A consideration is that if they may ride a snowmobile on terrain that they also ski, others may lawfully ride snowmobiles on all of the skiable snow and reduce it to undesirable for skiing quickly. Some of the links to videos posted here show snowmobiles climbing steep chutes on cliffy terrain, another illustration that it is an illusion that skiers can ski where snowmobiles cannot go in most situations.

And you made a good point about the Voluntary Non-Motorized Areas. It does largely appear however that such widespread snowmobile riding on the Forest is a result of omission in Management that was overtaken by greatly increased snowmobile capability.

But again, thanks for the continuing and civil discussion!

You are correct that if there were high access to Wilderness from a plowed Road, that would serve skiers' needs. However, that is not the situation and is not forseeable for implementation.

Why not? Too expensive? Not the right terrain (at least near Wenatchee)?

I'm primarily a skier but I feel like this sort of improved access might serve me better. It wouldn't be easy but writing it off doesn't sound like a step forward for me as a skier. I'd like to know why its not on the table for WMC.

Why not? Too expensive? Not the right terrain (at least near Wenatchee)?

I'm primarily a skier but I feel like this sort of improved access might serve me better. It wouldn't be easy but writing it off doesn't sound like a step forward for me as a skier. I'd like to know why its not on the table for WMC.

Good question, sir! We would support such an idea. It would be great even to pay for a plowing fee to get access. However, not feasible or at least not considered by USFS, so we bought snowmobiles in the '80s in order to access more terrain. If it were feasible we would advocate for more plowed roads! Past experience in discussion with USFS demonstrated resistance and perceived problems in regard to a simple idea of plowing the Road from the Blewett Sno Park a few hundred yards to the large Discovery Trail summer parking lot. That would create a lot of Sno Park parking, but the idea did not generate interest. Don't forget about Environmental Impact Studies and etc. that cause many things to be complicated.

Even with plowed Roads, or expanded Sno Parks, without USFS management for multiple-uses then one use, snowmobile riding, would dominate the snow.