WMC Update 2012

Quote from: yammadog on Yesterday at 12:19:41 PM
So if the proposal as it sits and won't be discussed for change is submitted, what position does that put the less staunch of your group? do you generate a new proposal or support the only one offered? Or not support it? Is the WMC getting to speak for all of you?
Those are excellent questions.

I imagine that the Supervisor will take the proposal under consideration and with information and input that she currently has access to will make a decision about non-motorized use for the upcoming winter or she could ignore it. While I support  the efforts of WMC, the Supervisor will make the decision ultimately with consideration of all winter forest users. I really don't see why sledders are so upset about a group of citizens using a valid method to reach a goal for their use of public lands, isn't this what WSSA and other motorized lobbying groups do all the time?

Not upset at the process what so ever, it's the exclusionary attitude. The selfish, elitist midset of wiping out one of the most popular and prime alpine riding areas available to a large user group. It's the frustrastion of not also being recognized or looked down upon for our choice of recreation. It's the willingness to ignore the fact of already having half of the forest designated non-motorized. It's the idea that fewer people will enjoy the off roaded areas of the forest, for a handful of special interest users.

I say write away, I knew that WMC had no intentions of having a good discussion only looing for justification of his view. That's fine, my goal was to make a connection with the less extreme of the user group. One of my favorite things to do is sit back with a cold one watching some crazed boarder or skier take a line that is way beyond my skill.

Exposing my kids to the back country for the appreciation of the space as they grow will be eliminated and they can take the attitude of many city folk...cut it all down..it grows back...which we as current BC users know is not the way it works.

By not recognizing the EXISTING non-motorized areas as part of the solution and simply excluding a large user group from this area you will just create more people that will thumb their nose at the FS and skiers etc and continue riding, after all what are you going to really do about it? They can't enforce what they have, let alone adding more. And the general sentiment of the population is that of rebellion...and this land use issue is just one topic in that larger sense.

Not upset at the process what so ever, it's the exclusionary attitude. The selfish, elitist midset of wiping out one of the most popular and prime alpine riding areas available to a large user group. It's the frustrastion of not also being recognized or looked down upon for our choice of recreation. It's the willingness to ignore the fact of already having half of the forest designated non-motorized. It's the idea that fewer people will enjoy the off roaded areas of the forest, for a handful of special interest users.

I say write away, I knew that WMC had no intentions of having a good discussion only looing for justification of his view. That's fine, my goal was to make a connection with the less extreme of the user group. One of my favorite things to do is sit back with a cold one watching some crazed boarder or skier take a line that is way beyond my skill. 

Exposing my kids to the back country for the appreciation of the space as they grow will be eliminated and they can take the attitude of many city folk...cut it all down..it grows back...which we as current BC users know is not the way it works.

By not recognizing the EXISTING non-motorized areas as part of the solution and simply excluding a large user group from this area you will just create more people that will thumb their nose at the FS and skiers etc and continue riding, after all what are you going to really do about it? They can't enforce what they have, let alone adding more. And the general sentiment of the population is that of rebellion...and this land use issue is just one topic in that larger sense.

WMC is not encouraged to continue a discussion that throws name-calling, disparages our intention which we state clearly, and see mainly responses that have few tangible concepts but plenty of disrespect. WMC would engage in respectful good-faith conversation.

Not upset at the process what so ever, it's the exclusionary attitude. The selfish, elitist midset of wiping out one of the most popular and prime alpine riding areas available to a large user group. It's the frustrastion of not also being recognized or looked down upon for our choice of recreation. It's the willingness to ignore the fact of already having half of the forest designated non-motorized. It's the idea that fewer people will enjoy the off roaded areas of the forest, for a handful of special interest users.

I say write away, I knew that WMC had no intentions of having a good discussion only looing for justification of his view. That's fine, my goal was to make a connection with the less extreme of the user group. One of my favorite things to do is sit back with a cold one watching some crazed boarder or skier take a line that is way beyond my skill. 

Exposing my kids to the back country for the appreciation of the space as they grow will be eliminated and they can take the attitude of many city folk...cut it all down..it grows back...which we as current BC users know is not the way it works.

By not recognizing the EXISTING non-motorized areas as part of the solution and simply excluding a large user group from this area you will just create more people that will thumb their nose at the FS and skiers etc and continue riding, after all what are you going to really do about it? They can't enforce what they have, let alone adding more. And the general sentiment of the population is that of rebellion...and this land use issue is just one topic in that larger sense.

So you can't see at all how snowmobiles are creating exclusions for non-motorized users? It's not just about fresh snow, but quiet and solitude. Snowmobiles are quite noisy even in the adjacent drainage and having them buzz around you is unnerving. Why do you care if your chosen method of travel in the forest isn't recognized as valid and "looked down upon"? Almost no one has access to the more remote Wilderness in winter and I don't care, it would be nice to get out there but I'm happy it's there, I don't feel cheated because I can't use it. I don't think city folk are the ones who say "cut it all down" they are more likely to be preservation minded than rural folks who depended on the forest in part for their livelihood. I think the majority of the population would favor restricting snow mobiles to designated routes and that is the most likely path if they can't police themselves. The most logical policy is to adopt the current non-snow month's OHV travel plan if snowmobilers won't stop violating Wilderness and current non-motorized closures. Enforcement would be easy, just wait at the trailhead and ticket. The reality is that motorized recreation bothers a lot of people, I haven't heard much real complaint about hikers, snowshoers, xc skiers or bc skiers, their impact on others is insignificant. I would say it's the sledders who are being selfish and elite by refusing to recognize that their recreation actually impacts others.

...you will just create more people that will thumb their nose at the FS and skiers etc and continue riding, after all what are you going to really do about it? They can't enforce what they have, let alone adding more. And the general sentiment of the population is that of rebellion...and this land use issue is just one topic in that larger sense.

!!  Interesting!!

!!  Interesting!!

Guess you got the quote you were looking for WMC...have fun.....Land use is just one area of discontent with the general gov't and special interest groups.

how about answering my questions?

Aaron, I'm not in disagreement with the idea of the solitude that can be enjoyed in the BC. And yes I will say that people that do not visit the BC don't understand the impacts. I had that mentality until I moved here from the midwest and got out there to see the clear cutting for my self. Non-motorized users already have over half the forest that is designated non-motorized with legal penalty, not to mention the rest of it that needs to be somehow shared, yet the WMC proposal is looking to eliminate those few remaining areas that are in high desirable demand. So, how are skiers impacting the recreation of a large user group? Exclusion.

Aaron, how about you offer your opinion of where you see off road snowmobiling with similar terrain as the proposed closure. Since WMC won't answer....and please use the same considerations as you look for your skiing...access/time. you don't want to drive 8 hours round trip for a day neither do I.

Guess you got the quote you were looking for WMC...have fun.....Land use is just one area of discontent with the general gov't and special interest groups.

how about answering my questions?

Aaron, I'm not in disagreement with the idea of the solitude that can be enjoyed in the BC. And yes I will say that people that do not visit the BC don't understand the impacts. I had that mentality until I moved here from the midwest and got out there to see the clear cutting for my self. Non-motorized users already have over half the forest that is designated non-motorized with legal penalty, not to mention the rest of it that needs to be somehow shared, yet the WMC proposal is looking to eliminate those few remaining areas that are in high desirable demand. So, how are skiers impacting the recreation of a large user group? Exclusion.

Aaron, how about you offer your opinion of where you see off road snowmobiling with similar terrain as the proposed closure. Since WMC won't answer....and please use the same considerations as you look for your skiing...access/time. you don't want to drive 8 hours round trip for a day neither do I.

It's interesting that the percentage of the forest you claim to be non-motorized continues to grow with each posting, first it's more than 40%, then it's almost half, then it's half and now it's more than half. I'm sorry you're prohibited from using your snowmobile in the wilderness, that was decided a half century ago. I made it clear in earlier posts, I think snowmobiles should be restricted to designated routes, just like other OHV users. I've never had a problem with snowmobiles on groomed or ungroomed roads, that's where I expect them to be. I don't consider myself elitist any more than you do, everyone has different opinions and ideas on how OUR public lands should be used. I understand where you are coming from with your desire to use snowmobiles in alpine terrain, I just don't agree with it. This is what makes America great, I can have that opinion even though you would try to silence it with pleas about elitism and discrimination, it's a two way street, take a look in the mirror, pot/kettle whichever colloquialism you prefer. In the end it's not up to you or I to decide, only to give input, either by voting or public comment.