WMC Update 2012

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.

I would contend that it was not considered by WMC either. Simply moving to the position of closure to a large group without consideration of a compromise or discussions.

I would venture to say, if multiple options were presented with a previously agreed to plan by multiple user groups, would lead the FS to move in a win/win direction, instead of spending the constricted and strained budgets on legal fees. those same funds could be used for enforcement further helping your position of not wanting to be around motors or like minded people in general.

And when you use the words "multiple use" please clarify your intent of non-motorized multiple use. Your ongoing posts are revealing your underlying intention of turning true multiple use in to  non-motorized then  in to defacto wilderness and expanding beyond the areas currently in consideration. It will be a non-stop push to close down all areas to snowmobiling/motorized/mechanized(winter and summer), except for the areas that you want to use in the way you see fit.

I would support the effort to create non-motorized corridors to the EXISTING non-motorized  and wilderness areas covering more than 40%+ of the forest with avenues of plowed roads or additional parking along with a real enforcement of existing boundaries. And a look at realignment of exisiting non-motorized areas.

I would contend that it was not considered by WMC either. Simply moving to the position of closure to a large group without consideration of a compromise or discussions.

I would venture to say, if multiple options were presented with a previously agreed to plan by multiple user groups, would lead the FS to move in a win/win direction, instead of spending the constricted and strained budgets on legal fees. those same funds could be used for enforcement further helping your position of not wanting to be around motors or like minded people in general.

And when you use the words "multiple use" please clarify your intent of non-motorized multiple use. Your ongoing posts are revealing your underlying intention of turning true multiple use in to  non-motorized then  in to defacto wilderness and expanding beyond the areas currently in consideration. It will be a non-stop push to close down all areas to snowmobiling/motorized/mechanized(winter and summer), except for the areas that you want to use in the way you see fit.

I would support the effort to create non-motorized corridors to the EXISTING non-motorized  and wilderness areas covering more than 40%+ of the forest with avenues of plowed roads or additional parking along with a real enforcement of existing boundaries. And a look at realignment of exisiting non-motorized areas.

Thanks for that last paragraph, great!

Yes we considered what we proposed for the reasons that we stated. If the entire Teanaway Road were plowed to the end, without winter non-motorized designation snowmobile riding would continue to dominate the area at the expense of skiing or snowshoeing. It is snowmobile riding that dominates the Forest, the only compromise that may be given by skiers now is to agree to just stay in the couple of square miles of Tronsen Non-Motorized Area (not a voluntary closure). Skiers here are starting far behind snowmobile riding in use of the total resource.

We have discussed endlessly here that fact that snowmobile riding and skiing or snowshoeing are not compatible on the same terrain, so different areas are needed for each. Multiple use of the Forest. Do you say that if we wish to stay away from speeding snowmobiles then we should stay out of the Forest?

Again. look at the for Sno Parks. It is undeniable that few areas, a fraction of the total, are currently Non-Motorized.

We are trying, as you say, to realign existing non-motorized areas to connect to the WMC proposal on the east and west sections. We are, as you say, proposing non-motorized corridors to the Wilderness.

Perhaps the size of the WMC proposal seems large to some, however if one outlines the total area on the Forest map and compares that area to the areas open to snowmobile riding, the WMC proposed non-motorized winter area is relatively very small.

Thanks, good discussion!

Again, WMC....similar terrain.

You don't want to be on the flat road in the trees down in the valley, neither do we. Your proposal cuts out a large chunk of the best riding of upper alpine in the state and leaves nothing but roads and trees for sledding. Yet just over the ridge you have a territory we could only hope to ride. There is plenty for you to use without cutting the key areas for sledding enjoyment. I say we just have to get you there easier.

Again, I think you have a larger agenda than trying to say there's not enough ski territory with even the existing non-motorized areas...again consisting of over half the forest.


Almost forgot. the question....

WMC, where do you forsee riding area for snowmobiles similar in terrain and of equal (parity) acreage as what you are proposing to close and/or add to the existing non-motorized and wilderness? And what would be the total available to each group, of course counting the existing non-motorized wilderness?

Almost forgot. the question....

WMC, where do you forsee riding area for snowmobiles similar in terrain and of equal (parity) acreage as what you are proposing to close and/or add to the existing non-motorized and wilderness? And what would be the total available to each group, of course counting the existing non-motorized wilderness?

British Columbia?

British Columbia?

LOL

No doubt an amazing place!!! but, I don't want to drive that far every weekend....got a closer suggestion?

Again. look at the for Sno Parks. It is undeniable that few areas, a fraction of the total, are currently Non-Motorized.

Why do you think this is?? Why do you think there are more motorized sno-parks then non-motorized? Why do you think motorized sno-parks are put in?

I think you have a very large misconception about this issue, thinking that the government did it, and purposely made these decisions to have more motorized then non-motorized. Ever thought that it was due to snowmobilers being involved and donating time, energy, and resources to get these projects done? Ever thought that it was due to the local communities wanting these projects to be done?

How many skier clubs are there that help to maintain the areas? How many skier clubs are there that donate their equipment and services for sno-parks?