WMC Update 2012

It is clear that there are significant numbers of current users both using and not using motorized travel in the area during winter. I don't think precise numbers are very important.

I believe that designation of additional winter non-motorized zones outside of designated wilderness will occur. Management of summer motorized use has certainly changed in the past decade (as pointed out above); I predict that winter motorized use will follow a similar path. Excluding motorized use in certain times and places is a reasonable (and legal) management policy. The specifics of future management strategy may well be taken from proposals of non-motorized users advocating as WMC is in this thread.

I am urging motorized users to come to the table in a serious way. Let's talk about what you don't want to lose. I understand you would like maximum access (who wouldn't?). I would like to see the USFS implement coherent policies that offer good treatment of all groups. I have no hope that this will happen. Working with other user groups, I think, is your best chance for the best outcome. You may not agree. I don't think blanket opposition to some form of management will be productive in the long run.

As I stated (far) above, I think the establishment of designated winter motorized zones is the best solution. Let's start by giving sledders a dominant share of roaded areas and the unroaded areas that offer the most to sledders relative to skiers and all other management considerations. I have no idea which areas these are (they may be the very areas of the WMC proposal!), b/c  I don't know anything about snowmobiling. I am not willing to stop advocating for increased non-motorized management. I am willing to work hard to make sure that management does not detract needlessly from others' responsible use of the shared resource.  

I would also like to take this opportunity to express my dismay at the divisiveness of the discourse regarding public land management. It seems to me that all of the user groups (skiers, climbers, sledders, ...) have taken up selfish rhetoric and put their own use above their responsibility to care for public lands. I will treasure our public land despite its mismanagement. I would urge everybody to try to think of the 'bigger picture' when interacting with other users.

It's easy to say and agree in general your comments of taking care of the land when you are looking at losing nothing and only gaining. You are also making the assumption that we are not stewards of public land in our chosen recreational activities. And at the same time overlooking the wilderness as part of the solution or identifying it as EXISTING non-motorized that fits into the larger puzzle.

The WMC proposal takes the best of the current area in the most populus riding area of the state. More population in the state access this corridor between snoqualmie to blewitt and around to the wenatchee/US2 terrain than any other.

As was stated by another participant in this discussion, the elimination of logging in existing riding areas in the stampede area will drive us to look for other open areas, and guess what, one of the next closest is the area in this discussion. So this is worth the battle.

I do agree that a pow wow will need to happen, but not with the likes of a proposal that WMC is offering and without any give in the stance, it only makes the opposition more inclined to stand firm. And as WMC is proposing, put out the position of each side and let the FS decide will surely create even more conflict much bigger than our simple discussions. After all, we're only a few of the people involved in this so far, I would say Ruffy and I are the moderate part of our group, although we are active on the 4m's and with SAWS and other clubs we are not the majority.

There is nothing stopping your group from going after more land if this were to move forward and in the discussions this is the suggestion by WMC. If you want to have good faith conversation, offer something other than simply keeping us on the roads, only because you want to also use them for your sport and also offer areas that have similar terrain to the proposed closure and agree that the wilderness is part of the overall non-motorized land when talking about parity.

And they should have the crap fined out of them!! I'd donate to help pay for patrols on wilderness encroachment....

Unfortunately the fine is not that significant. Enforcement of this unenforceable open Wilderness Boundary on the Teanaway-Ingalls divide would never be cost-effective. The problem of snowmobile Wilderness trespass is decades old, we see a setback and Road Boundary that allows few access opportunities for snowmobile Wilderness trespass as a possible solution, aside from our primary purpose of securing areas for non-motorized winter recreation.

As far as how much Wilderness trespass- we see it EVERY time that we are on Earl Peak, Navaho Peak. Others including our USFS acquaintances locally observe widespread snowmobile use deep in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness when they take their personal mountain trips. We do not have numbers, numbers just give chance for more argument, but we see clearly that the problem is significant!

It is great that snowmobile enthusiasts want to control snowmobile Wilderness trespass. We all know that it is a serious issue that will harm access for snowmobile riding, perhaps to shocking extent. As a comparison, at one time there was a lot of logging on the Forest that supported families in many small communities. Unresolved issues about how logging was done contributed ultimately to near-shutdown of logging on the Forest in some areas and immediate elimination of entire economies of these small communities. This happened quickly. In comparison, this discussion, these issues are in regard to Recreation, which may be managed by USFS much more easily than the larger example above. WMC is asking for reasonable management by USFS for the various recreational uses. WMC believes that the winter non-motorized designation for recreation of the areas to the south of the Teanaway divide Wilderness Boundary will also provide a buffer and and an enforceable border.

You are also making the assumption that we are not stewards of public land in our chosen recreational activities.

I am merely asserting that our 'right' to use public land is subject to consideration of communal interests. I intended the statement to apply at least as much to the non-motorized users as to sledders.

And at the same time overlooking the wilderness as part of the solution or identifying it as EXISTING non-motorized that fits into the larger puzzle.

I completely agree that the considerable designated wilderness is available for non-motorized use and not for motorized use. I am with you here. I will not argue that there is no (or no practically accesible) ski terrain. I think WA offers lots of possibilities for skiing.

The WMC proposal takes the best of the current area in the most populus riding area of the state. More population in the state access this corridor between snoqualmie to blewitt and around to the wenatchee/US2 terrain than any other.

As was stated by another participant in this discussion, the elimination of logging in existing riding areas in the stampede area will drive us to look for other open areas, and guess what, one of the next closest is the area in this discussion. So this is worth the battle.

This is exactly the kind of information I am looking for. I am willing to enter into coalitions preserving snowmobile access to prime terrain given that I feel an appropriate, balanced management of off-road riding is also included. I do not know how feasible such a compromise is, but I would at least like to give it a try.

I do agree that a pow wow will need to happen, but not with the likes of a proposal that WMC is offering and without any give in the stance, it only makes the opposition more inclined to stand firm. And as WMC is proposing, put out the position of each side and let the FS decide will surely create even more conflict much bigger than our simple discussions. After all, we're only a few of the people involved in this so far, I would say Ruffy and I are the moderate part of our group, although we are active on the 4m's and with SAWS and other clubs we are not the majority.

I appreciate your and Ruffy's participation here and the reasonable manner in which you have entered the discussion. I, too, would like to present a unified opinion to the FS. I agree that simply having each side plead their case will result in bad management. This is the default and most probable outcome. What kind of give would you like to see from WMC? Do you concede that it is difficult to watch a new group displace previous users?

There is nothing stopping your group from going after more land if this were to move forward and in the discussions this is the suggestion by WMC. If you want to have good faith conversation, offer something other than simply keeping us on the roads, only because you want to also use them for your sport and also offer areas that have similar terrain to the proposed closure and agree that the wilderness is part of the overall non-motorized land when talking about parity.

I want to see all public land managed well. I am not affiliated with any group and esp. not with this proposal. I am consistently suggesting you be offered more than logging roads -- I understand (and deem legitimate) your desire for off-road sledding. I take offense at the suggestion that my motivations are selfish. I DO concede that wilderness is non-motorized (this is a simple fact). Do you concede that snowmobiling is more effective at destroying backcountry ambiance than pedestrian traffic or that the general public has an interest in way in which THEIR land is used and managed?

There is nothing stopping your group from going after more land if this were to move forward and in the discussions this is the suggestion by WMC.

Well, there is nothing stopping motorized groups from 'going after' land on which motorized travel is restricted. One of the points of establishing designated winter motorized areas would be to give (motorized) access protected by the inertia of the managing agencies. Another advantage of establishing motorized areas would be to dispel the perception by competing user groups that snowmobiles are unfairly allowed many places because the management plans have not changed as fast as snowmobile capability.

Well, there is nothing stopping motorized groups from 'going after' land on which motorized travel is restricted. One of the points of establishing designated winter motorized areas would be to give (motorized) access protected by the inertia of the managing agencies. Another advantage of establishing motorized areas would be to dispel the perception by competing user groups that snowmobiles are unfairly allowed many places because the  management plans have not changed as fast as snowmobile capability.

Yet, there is already an established, at a minimum, 40%+ non-motorized area that we have (needs enforced) have penalty for entering. So we are already stopped.... What penalty do you enforce for skiing/hiking in the proposed "motorized" areas? And from your perspective where would that location be?

Again, it seems that non-motorized areas were reviewed in the late 90's which would have in it's consideration the modern capability of sleds, I think what has changed is the ability of the riders. Much like ski and snow board recreationalist taking much more difficult lines in the most recent years.

...
I want to see all public land managed well. I am not affiliated with any group and esp. not with this proposal. I am consistently suggesting you be offered more than logging roads -- I understand (and deem legitimate) your desire for off-road sledding. I take offense at the suggestion that my motivations are selfish. I DO concede that wilderness is non-motorized (this is a simple fact). Do you concede that snowmobiling is more effective at destroying backcountry ambiance than pedestrian traffic or that the general public has an interest in way in which THEIR land is used and managed?

WMC has stated from the start that we advocate for designated winter non-motorized areas. WMC has stated consistently from the start that outside of designated non-motorized areas (including our proposed new ones, yes) we do not seek to otherwise regulate of eliminate on or off-Road snowmobiling. Any other characterizations of the WMC position are not correct.

WMC has solid plans to meet with individuals prominent within the snowmobile community. WSSA has sent a letter in opposition to something, a letter that does not discuss the details of the WMC proposal, and WSSA complained that WMC did not contact the snowmobile users. In fact, WMC has been here from the start discussing this in a very public fashion, snowmobile riders were aware and participating from the start with counter-threads posted on snowmobile forums immediately. WMC will point out that WSSA and other snowmobile riders opposed WMC before understanding or considering the proposal or the issues, and WSSA has not made contact with WMC in any fashion even not on this very public Forum discussion. The WMC proposal is entirely in regard to USFS management of areas bordering and outside of Wilderness.

In the scheduled meeting to come, WMC will approach the seemingly impossible task of finding some common ground that could lead to a consensus with snowmobile proponents to present to USFS. In two years, as far as WMC is aware from USFS sources, the USFS across the country may move toward managing snowmobiles in a fashion similar to how motorcycles are now managed. Perhaps what is coming, and per the original Executive Order stating that USFS allow ORVs to be ridden only where Designated, management similarly of snowmobiles will be specific in regard to where on the Forest snowmobiles may be ridden.

Now IS the time for winter Forest users to discuss these issues, to consider, understand, and respect the needs of other users. WMC agrees that if the impossible is achieved, if snowmobile proponents and winter non-motorized use users can understand the other, and map out areas in compromise over the Forest, not all of the General Forest for one use, then we will all have a better future on the Forest. WMC believes that we will be meeting with a person prominent in the snowmobile community who will advocate for snowmobile riding but also will consider the issues, the other users, the resources, the need for USFS Management to allocate for each use in winter. Progress can be made only in good-faith discussion where individuals respect the needs of the other users and discuss and debate in a civil manner.

Thanks everyone for the discussion here.