WMC Update 2012

Given the topic, this has gone pretty well.  Trying to keep it civil would be excellent.  ruffryder and yammadog have been doing a pretty good job at that (though comparing WMC's position/tactics to a child rapist is pure, offensive hyperbole).  Motorheads, haters, click-clicks, whatever -- we won't stand a chance of coming to a common ground if we go down that road (or continue down it, I guess).

I think that an assumption that everyone in the thread is participating in good faith will go a long way toward that.  Lumping an entire user group into one description will never get us anywhere and it's clear that there is thoughtful, intelligent reasoning to be had with either group, just as it's clear that each group has its fair share of folks that would rather just throw stones.

agreed

So sending the flier out to WSSA after 37 years validates that education isn't effective for 37 years?

What does this have to do with increasing ski access to terrain for day use?

Two pages back in this thread this was covered as it had been discussed several times. Happy to repeat it here-

The Teanaway- Wenatchee Mountains crest portion of the WMC proposal provides new and significant non-motorized winter recreation areas, and provides a non-motorized corridor to Wilderness for skiers and snowshoers. This and the east portion of the proposal are the primary intent of the WMC.

Possible benefits but not the primary intent of the WMC include the buffer to Wilderness that is the usual USFS practice, opportunity for effective Enforcement from a Road that is a clear Boundary with a few points only to allow unlawful access (compared to miles of unenforceable open terrain next to Wilderness open terrain), and resource protection in a roadless area with plant species and wildlife habitat that are unique to the specific area.

Here is copied the USFS message that was copied and posted on Snowest Forum on 3/23/2010 and also on BackcountryRebels.com. The message alludes to the possible concept of buffer areas to Wilderness, and Enforcement problems-

(QUOTE from Snowest Forum)
"March 23rd Letter from Cle Clem Forest Service Supervisor Tim Foss:

Dear fellow snowmobilers,

Once again, the issue of snowmobilers riding in wilderness is rearing its head. This is not a new issue, as you know, but it seems to be on the increase again. We are getting more and more letters from backcountry skiers who are really unhappy about seeing and hearing snowmobiles in wilderness, and once again the drumbeats for closing routes that get close to wilderness are getting louder. As you know, we (the Forest Service) are completely unable to patrol these boundaries with any degree of effectiveness. We will be putting up signs, and flyers at sno-parks, but I'm also asking for your help in getting on top of this. If you could pass this message on to your riding buddies, clubs, and especially folks you see in the woods who may be inclined to ride in wilderness:
"RIDING IN WILDERNESS LEADS TO CLOSURES OUTSIDE WILDERNESS". Or as I like put it "Every time you put a track in wilderness, you hand a box of ammunition to those who want to shut down our sport" Also, if you are aware of an incursion point that could use a sign, contact me and I'll get you one. You guys have always been helpful , and I'd appreciate any continued help in getting the message out. I'm also not very computer savvy, so if anyone would like to post something on Sno-West or other appropriate forums, that would be great.. Thanks in advance for your help!


Tim Foss
Trails, Wilderness, ORV, and Winter Recreation Manager
Cle Elum Ranger District"

(END QUOTE)

Possible benefits but not the primary intent of the WMC include the buffer to Wilderness that is the usual USFS practice, opportunity for effective Enforcement from a Road that is a clear Boundary with a few points only to allow unlawful access (compared to miles of unenforceable open terrain next to Wilderness open terrain), and resource protection in a roadless area with plant species and wildlife habitat that are unique to the specific area.

Gotcha. So this isn't just about getting increased access for day users then?

It seems like based on your arguments that this is more then a side benefit, and a large driving force to this proposal. Just what it seems though.

Gotcha. So this isn't just about getting increased access for day users then?

It seems like based on your arguments that this is more then a side benefit, and a large driving force to this proposal. Just what it seems though.

OK, here is the discussion from one page back. This was also discussed many times, happy again to repeat it-

"Day trips to the Teanaway section of the Wenatchee Mountains crest are long, but are done by some skitourers from 29 Pines- probably not the average day tour. From Blewett Pass the WMC proposal adds terrain that is accessible from the car, for example to the Lillian summit and then getting the Tronsen Head summit on the trip back would be about a 4-5 hour trip on skis.

If the area is designated as non-motorized, trips to the Teanaway section of the Wenatchee Mountains crest would accommodate a great number of skiers. Weekend trips would be enjoyable to this now quiet area with a significant amount of skiable open slopes of all angle of steepness, much of it  moderate. The area connects to Wilderness, thus is the corridor to the drainages of Ingalls Creek and beyond to Mt. Stuart and the Enchantments."

Also, although WMC was founded for advocacy of winter non-motorized recreation, the other issues are related and will be affected, in a positive fashion.

Thank you.

Weekend trips would be enjoyable to this now quiet area with a significant amount of skiable open slopes of all angle of steepness, much of it  moderate. The area connects to Wilderness, thus is the corridor to the drainages of Ingalls Creek and beyond to Mt. Stuart and the Enchantments.

Isn't the wilderness already available for weekend trips?

Isn't the wilderness already available for weekend trips?

Sure, and how many times has this been discussed here and in response to your questions several times? But glad to help here.

First, any fair evaluation of the numbers would indicate that there is disparity between one user group, snowmobile riders, and  all other user groups combined in total Forest acreage and especially in acreage outside of Wilderness.

Secondly, much Wilderness, in fact most, is often characterized by more avalanche hazard and fewer safe approaches. Also much Wilderness is steep, cliffy on the north slopes or has thick vegetation on the north slopes. So there is not necessarily a plethora of terrain and vegetation type available in Wilderness.

Thirdly, as discussed several times- many times- here. Pedestrian access to Wilderness is problematic.

And yes we do go overnight on skis into Wilderness. However in this example one would need to walk for most of a day or at least for hours through groups of buzzing snowmobiles, unless non-motorized winter status is secured for the area.

Last February while walking on skis into Wilderness for two hours we frequently stepped aside for groups of snowmobiles. Then, as we skied into Wilderness, we never actually got away from snowmobile tracks that were all through the Wilderness area. Several times from the Wilderness valley we looked up at groups of snowmobiles and riders parked on high points above 7000 ft on the Boundary looking down at us- we could hear them talking, cranking up their motors. Probably a description that makes the advocates and defenders of Wilderness quite livid.

So, as we have alluded, this is not the best area for snowmobile use for many reasons, but it is prime terrain for winter non-motorized recreation. Does the opposition to winter non-motorized recreation think it wise to oppose such a non-motorized area that is on the hit list for several major organizations to prohibit snowmobile riding? Also an area identified for grizzly habitat, potential Lynx habitat, other wildlife, home to rare flowers endemic to the Wenatchee Mountains, high wild ridges with gnarled old Whitebark pines clinging to rocks through the subalpine weather, the wet valley, now overrun in winter with cross country snowmobile routes winding, breaking brush and trees, through the lateral draining creeks that flow into Etienne Cr, an area that contains large old growth forest including some impressive Western Larch nearly 5 ft dbh. In other words, would it be better to defend other areas for snowmobiling? Or does the opposition firmly believe that nothing will change, that snowmobiles will indefinitely have the run of the Forest by default of omission in management?

Thanks again. Out for now.