WMC Update 2012

ruffyrider - it is both a question of tracking of the slope (and as machines grew more powerful in the late '90s, I started coming across  slopes I'd hoped to ski that were more like 100% tracked out, so in some cases the 50% notion is merely a wonderful dream despite there being other cases where a creative skier can still eke out a decent line...), as well as that skiing near speeding, whining sleds can be rather aversive and quite contradictory to the point of getting out for many skiers, as well as feeling hazardous to us as well as our dogs if we have them with us. This has all been discussed multiple times above, but perhaps this repetition will help the points sink in fully.

I love the snowcat notion. Won't work, of course, for giving day access to the majority of acreage in Wilderness areas, simply due to the fact of how much of said acreage is w/in a reasonable day tour of the spots on the edge of the wilderness that could be accessed by cat. Plus, that's a pretty spendy way to get your tours in that would rule out many skiers. On top of that, I know of a member of this forum who owns a cat (couldn't resist an amazing deal) who has found since the purchase that NFS will prevent most practical use of the cat. Yes, one could perhaps get permits with enough organized support from ski clubs etc, but it's still going to remain a bit of an elitist option.

And to be clear, it is recurring comments such as:

Including wilderness, I would say that skiers have a larger amount of skiable area then snowmobiles.  Skiers have 100% of the forest to utilize.  Snowmobilers have at most 40-50%.  hmm....

along with repeatedly saying that mixed use areas are equally shared (when to a skier, that sounds like the big brother telling the little brother that they can share the cookies after the big brother has pushed the little one aside and eaten them all). I get that you don't like seeing the "let them eat clearcuts" style responses that one or two folks have posted, but reactive responses that ignore reasonable skier POV aren't going to help either...

ruffyrider - it is both a question of tracking of the slope (and as machines grew more powerful in the late '90s, I started coming across  slopes I'd hoped to ski that were more like 100% tracked out, so in some cases the 50% notion is merely a wonderful dream despite there being other cases where a creative skier can still eke out a decent line...), as well as that skiing near speeding, whining sleds can be rather aversive and quite contradictory to the point of getting out for many skiers, as well as feeling hazardous to us as well as our dogs if we have them with us. This has all been discussed multiple times above, but perhaps this repetition will help the points sink in fully.

I have said that I agree with you many times.  The percentage depends heavily on the slope.  There are many slopes with trees on them were the 50% is more likely.  Though there are many slopes above tree line where it is possible to be much greater then 50%.   As to the skiing near speeding and whining sleds.  As said before, if I see skiers on a slope, I move on. Many people I know do as well.  As yammadog has stated, we need to help inform the rest of the snowmobilers that they should not do that.   I am not sure why you think repitition is necessary, as I believe I have said this many times already.

I love the snowcat notion. Won't work, of course, for giving day access to the majority of acreage in Wilderness areas, simply due to the fact of how much of said acreage is w/in a reasonable day tour of the spots on the edge of the wilderness that could be accessed by cat. Plus, that's a pretty spendy way to get your tours in that would rule out many skiers. On top of that, I know of a member of this forum who owns a cat (couldn't resist an amazing deal) who has found since the purchase that NFS will prevent most practical use of the cat. Yes, one could perhaps get permits with enough organized support from ski clubs etc, but it's still going to remain a bit of an elitist option.

Correct, it was a pie in the sky thought..

And to be clear, it is recurring comments such as:along with repeatedly saying that mixed use areas are equally shared (when to a skier, that sounds like the big brother telling the little brother that they can share the cookies after the big brother has pushed the little one aside and eaten them all). I get that you don't like seeing the "let them eat clearcuts" style responses that one or two folks have posted, but reactive rsponses that ignore skier POV aren't going to help either...

No body is ignoring them, but when the issue is simplified and generalized to "parity" then I will argue using that generalization. The account you make is seperate from this "parity" statement and the statement needs to, and should be clarified.

The problems are the inconsistencies and generalizations as to the problem.  There are many of them as to this argument here.

I also think that realigning and educating sledders to create non-motorized cooridors to these areas need to be looked at also. And I've also stated that I can understand the desire to not get caught up a sled trench.

I haven't had the conflicts in my experience so the only way I can get the information is to ask you guys. I've been trying to understand the mindset of the exclusion position vs a compromise position.

I say, let's have a pow wow, pull out a map and figure it out....not to simply exclude any groups...and the wilderness has to be part of that equation.

Yammadog, this is a great suggestion. I am a non-motorized forest user with a desire to improve relations with motorized user groups. I can only speak for myself. I don't want to see snowmo's excluded from alpine terrain. I agree that designated wilderness can be counted in the skiers' column.

But, I think it is silly to keep comparing numbers of acres looking for 'parity' or 'fairness', because these concepts are subjective. I am very skeptical that moto and non-moto user groups would ever agree on the fairness of a given management scheme. (In fact I know of motorized users who believe that wilderness designation is in principle unfair .... and no-moto folks who think snowmobiling should not be allowed off road.) I do think we can find better management schemes through dialog such as what is occurring here.  

I also think there is plenty to go around. Everybody can't have everything they want, but everybody should get something reasonable. I will lay out my perspective here. Before the advent of modern machines there was very little snowmobile travel in the alpine; skiers considered all alpine areas, wilderness or not, NPS or FS, their territory in the winter.  Advances in equipment on both sides have resulted in greater competition for the 'prime' slopes. Some predict the conflict will escalate. I'm not sure, but I think it could. I urge the user groups to work for compromise. In contrast to some here, I think skiers do have more good alpine areas available to them in principle than snowmobiles. For many reasons I will protest any plan that allows snowmobiling on 1/2 of the alpine terrain in the state. Most should be wilderness, as they are.

Your admissions here that wilderness poaching by snomos is a problem has gone a long way with me, personally. I am also pleased by your suggestion that conflict could be mitigated by improving access to areas that are already managed as non-motorized. I don't think this is the answer, but it is a useful suggestion that  indicates you are taking the "other side's" viewpoint into account.

What I would like to introduce to this discussion is the notion that recreation by snowmobile has more impact than non-motorized use and that serious, aggressive riding on open alpine slopes is a newcomer to the outdoor rec scene. This is the fundamental reason that comparing acreages is not helpful -- and presumably the reason that Yammadog and ruffryder insist on counting just alpine terrain not the large areas below treeline that are not contested (btw: I don't buy that these areas aren't used and appreciated -- I do so, and I see snomos when I am in the much maligned valley bottoms). I speculate that developed ski areas serve more people than bc snomo and ski use put together. That doesn't mean I think they should be expanded to the size of the bc rec areas!

Instead, I think we (all interested parties) should identify the areas in which off-road snowmobiling works 'best' (i.e. is not contested or provides good, high quality riding with good access, with as little displacement of other uses as practical). These should be designated for off-road use and have obvious boundaries. Other areas should be designated for on-trail riding only. Of course the workability of this scheme depends on which areas, how much, etc. I understand that, form the snowmobile POV, this may seem like you are losing since there currently, outside the wilderness, are basically no restrictions on snowmobile travel.

Love to hear what you guys (snowmobilers) think and how you view alpine snowmobiling in the larger land-management context. I feel that conflict with skiers is only one of issues raised by this use. I'm sure we have room for you; just need to share.

Edited for typos.

Micah, I'll buy your first round at the pow wow....

Agreed that the valleys are used, but probably not most desired except for those socked in days when you need the contrast....the conflict as created by WMC is with the alpine areas so I've been trying to address that more specifically. And I also agree that the numbers thrown out in this discussion are only useful for guideline, not for exact fairness/parity.....

As you state, a majority of the upper alpine is already designated wilderness and plenty inaccessible by sleds and this is the reason for the debate from my perspective with WMC suggesting the closure of a huge area visited by thousands of sledders each year.

Now, how much debate will we need on a meeting place? I'm not going to sit in any vegetarian joints waiting for organic bud lite long necks...;>)....how's that for a sterotype?....LOL....

I think Lowell hit on a concept in the north cascade thread with the recreation czar/comittee...

Micah, I'll buy your first round at the pow wow....

As long as it's not organic bud lite .....

+1 to Micah's comments on thinking about possible approaches to the conflicts in question.

I am not sure why you think repitition is necessary, as I believe I have said this many times already.

You've also repeatedly said things along the lines of what I quoted from you in my last post above. It's the recurrence of those comments that has led to my repetition.