WMC Update 2012

Dang... the WMC has given up on this discussion it seems... that sucks..

Dang... the WMC has given up on this discussion it seems... that sucks..

No ruffy I was in your neighborhood writing this, posted at Snowest-

OK back for more discussion here. Like I said lots of this is covered at the 23 page TAY thread, but I will try to give some quick answers since you all are kind enough to discuss these issues, thank you.

OK, the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition is about management of winter non-motorized recreation on the general non-Wilderness Forest of the Wenatchee Mountains. WMC is not against snowmobiles, we use some old ones on Roads and a little offroad, to go out to ski tour, as many as say 40 days per year, I skitour 80 days or so from Nov-August, my two WMC Executive partners skitour less and do some snowshoeing. We refers to the WMC Executive and what we have discussed. My two partners will not go online, one tried and gave it up right away. There is some decent discussion to be had here sometimes in my opinion. WMC is not interested in prohibiting snowmobiles we are not against offroad snowmobiling in general. WMC is asking USFS to manage the Forest in the area of our interest so that there are new and significant winter non-motorized areas for skiing and snowshoeing. We have about 300 or so folks on our email lists, it is a pretty informal and unfunded Coalition asking for citizens to ask USFS to manage for their use.

OK, stipulations to our point of view are:

For reasons discussed at length on TAY, many and likely most skiers and snowshoers consider their activity to be incompatible on the same slope as snowmobiles. WMC thinks it is fine for snowmobiles to have their place to go highmark and have fun, likewise we want our own places not rutted and full of snowmobiles to go do our quiet stuff (other than Wilderness which is usually too far away except for long trips).

Wilderness is not easily accessed so we ask for areas that are accessible for various non-motorized winter uses- xc ski to snowshoes to tele and AT skitouring. We are sure that compared to snowmobile riders there are many many more Forest users who own at least some snowshoes or a pair of xc skis up to someone like me who has $10k worth of touring ski setups and other gear and $1000 snowmobiles.

There is background to why we chose the area which is in two sections. The east portion is the small area of pristine Wenatchee Mountains crest that joins to the existing small non-motorized area beside Blewett Sno Park on the west end and joins to the Mission Ridge Ski Area on the east end. There is a major Road through there that is groomed and we are not seeking to shut down any of the Road. This area has parts with the closest access to the car. The opinion of the snowmobile industry person that WMC Executive met with yesterday was that the east portion would not be a great sacrifice for riders, there is so so much more similar and even better riding next to that area.

The west portion of our proposal is the south slope of the Teanaway-Ingalls divide, the divide being the Wilderness Boundary. Now all you snomo folks are gonna love it perhaps when I tell you that a USFS person explained to me today that USFS does not create "buffers" to Wilderness...but...USFS manages lands close to Wilderness to be compatible uses to the Wilderness nearby. Clear (probably not)? But I know that you guys are smiling that I got schooled about the buffer thing (grin!). It is true that USFS never planned for that area to be for snowmobiles, it was just not considered and technology has outrun the USFS management. Snowmobile riders value using that area and feel strongly about losing it, understandable. Wilderness does come into the discussion because that Boundary gives what, 8 miles or so of open access to Wilderness, and we are learning that a lot of good folks perhaps do not know the Boundary (you should though) so anyway there is a lot of snowmobile traffic in the Wilderness there. USFS knows, locals here who never go in the mountains know because when they fly over they see the snowmobile tracks climbing the flanks of Mt Stuart and other places in the Wilderness. In the end, USFS needs to get a handle on this, lots say just enforce it, but they cannot. As a result, other than providing the area for skiing/ snowshoeing area that we ask for, the winter non-motorized setback to the Road would allow enforcement from that Road. There are very limited access opportunities from the Road where the crest Boundary is very open. Yes we understand that this is the controversial part of the proposal. It is great that snowmobile riders here are talking about policing the Wilderness trespass, that would have been great during the past 10 years. Other issues we hear about with the area are several resource and wildlife considerations including goats- they live where we all like to go to that high alpine.

Aside from WMC or our proposal, the USFS here is working on the Plan that will divide up the Forest outside of Wilderness between skiers and snowmobiles. Skiers and WMC did not invent Wilderness and we did not invent the Planning process. WMC is asking for roughly 26000 acres out of 400,000 acres in that County that are open for snowmobles. WMC is advocating for new and significant areas for winter non-motorized use in on the pristine crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.

OK, I tried to discuss this straight up, many here do not like it or agree. We hope that we may better understand each other, and maintain a civil discussion. The best scenario of course is that if we could agree to anything and take that together to USFS. But we respect the fact that many will not agree.

Thank you.

No ruffy I was in your neighborhood writing this, posted at Snowest

cool, I was worried you wouldn't be able to handle the rapid fire questions that were being thrown your way...

Discussion with the snowmobile folks at Snowest:


Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainhorse
Another direct, easily answered question...

Does WMC (any/all of the 3 execs you offer up in your opinion above) feel that ANY changes to what you have proposed is acceptable?

What mechanisms do YOU have in place to entertain mutual crafting of a proposal that both parties would be proud to present to USFS together?

Skibreeze had a very well presented question which you seem reticent to answer simply.

Please answer his question simply.



I access a lot of snowboarding in the backcountry without a sled... I too feel that the "conflict" is grossly exaggerated in your presentation... If you can provide some more concrete, verifiable sources to your claims (studies, polls, petitions) as well as solid numbers of Users .... total skiers and total snowmobilers, you will help forward a truthful discussion.

Random statistics aside.

Without revealing your source, please tell us what you are talking about.... "snowmobile industry person"??.... service? Dealer? Regional? Corporate level (mfg)? or Snowmobile support services?.... How are they qualified to evaluate the area discussed here and make comments on appropriateness?

That will help you to qualify your claims at least.



That, sir, would have to be a VERY low flying plane for the passengers to see tracks that could be conclusively determined to be snowmobile tracks. I'm very dubious of your claim... I fly over mountain ridges from the Sierras to the Monashies in winter ... so I'm not off base in this observation. Often people see what they want to see, this... IMO... MAY be the case here .

What you are saying is that the illegal "poaching" of lines within the Wilderness areas that are exclusively open to non-motorized enthusiasts is so bad that they have become unusable to you?? Really?

BTW, I have carved some pretty sweet downhill lines side by side with skiers/snowboarders on my snowmobile... 1000 vert of linked, graceful turns on steeper terrain than most alpine skiers are comfortable on... we had a blast, shared lunch and parted as friends... which is the way it should be.

I agree with Susie Rainsberry, you need to be a bit more transparent if your presentation is to be considered as sincerely looking for parity.


WMC reply:

Yes, we are open to changes that would work given the considerations and what is stated above two posts ago. That is why we are here talking, that is why we talked to a snowmobile industry person, that is why we are talking with USFS folks at various levels and jobs. There are various considerations. First, suppose a smaller area is carved out for quiet untracked winter recreation, but the geography makes the Boundary unclear or impossible to enforce? Answer, the new area does not serve anyone's purpose.The big question here is the long open ridge terrain that allows snowmobiles to easily duck over into Wilderness, we are learning that perhaps many are not really aware where they go into Wilderness, anyway an end run is made that way around any small area so that the new area remains surrounded by snowmobile riding. The result is that there is no corridor to travel to Wilderness without snowmobile traffic, and it would remain as we have found, a snowmobile-tracked Wilderness after we walk on skis for hours to get there. If there is a solution other than the area that we mapped that actually works we would like to see it. Most folks in this conversation just say "Enforcement" or "Education." Fine, but we are skeptical given the decade problem here and also the example on the WSSA website from the Yakamas in regard to the "37 years" of "illegal snowmobiling" on the Yakamas Mt Adams Area. Our idea is that the WMC proposal gives a solution to the our non-motorized boundary and the Wilderness incursion which would actually allow snowmobiles into any smaller area made for non-motorized. enforcement- a drastic and controversial solution, sorry, but we are waiting to hear of something else that would be effective.

No, when we get to Wilderness we find great skiing, but the fact that snowmobiles are there with the noise and intrusion transforms the Wilderness into something else. Wilderness is created by Federal Law, like it or not, with strict regulations to manage it. Are we a nation of Laws or shall we behave as some third world nation that enforces Law only when easy or convenient and so as not to anger any significant interest group?

The question above was about our use of the 40% of Wilderness. This was discussed a lot at TAY. But you all are kind to discuss it here so I will answer again. A lot of that Wilderness is accessible only after a full day approach or overnight. We do that, but we cannot do that a lot. Here snowmobilers complained about driving an extra 1 1/2 hours to the alternative areas that we suggested. Imagine having to lug a 40 lb backpack while walking on skis to go overnight to the Wilderness. We do it, just not a lot. So we seek areas in the accessible general Forest. In our meeting with the snowmobile person, we were told how poorly snowmobile sales are for several reasons, and we were told that some Puget Sound snowmobile dealers are quitting business. On the other hand, we are certain that there are a lot of folks with snowshoes, xc skis, tele skis, snowboards, AT skis, all these folks want to park the car and go nearby for on-snow winter recreation. Wilderness was not created by WMC or by skiers and snowshoers, Wilderness was NOT created for WMC or skiers and snowshoers. By intention Wilderness should have less human-use and little human impact- that is the design. We would like to use Wilderness more, but by design that use is not made easy to access.

Since the '80s we have used a snowmobile to go ski, we skied some days in the midst of snowmobiles and it was fine- because the snowmobiles were limited as to where they could go. At first, snowmobiles hardly left the road. Now, and especially the past few years, really no snow is left since the new machines even climb up a skier track from a road through the trees to go track a powder stash that we used for years that did not have any snowmobile use. So technology there has influenced the available resource of snowy Forest.

WMC may be backing off here as we are busy in contact and setting meetings with USFS folks and some elected officials.

Thanks for the discussion. It is encouraging that we may eventually have some fruitful discussion about these issues.

Skiers! USFS likes input, and civil discussion, I was told. WMC folks have talked to the USFS Team about where we know skiers and snowmobile riders go on the Forest. USFS is truly not on any one side- they seem very knowledgeable and honestly work to serve the multiple uses. USFS is in the planning process, the Planning Team has the job of drawing lines on Forest maps to show where there is skiing and where there is snowmobile use. USFS also appreciates civil discussion, state your case just don't fling guff and they appreciate that. At this time is an important opportunity to provide input to USFS in regard to which areas of the Forest are best or are commonly used for skitouring. There is an ongoing USFS planning process which asked for input here about winter recreation, specifically which areas of the Forest are best for skitouring. This information is sought by the Forest Planning team  r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us. Also, now is a good time in the process for skiers to send comments about where they skitour and what should be preserved for skitouring to the various Districts as well of the OWNF:



For the Stevens Pass, Lake Wenatchee, and Blewett Pass/ Wenatchee Mountains areas

Wenatchee River Ranger District

Vaughan Marable, District Ranger
600 Sherbourne
Leavenworth, WA 98826
(509) 548-2550 or 548-2551
Fax: (509) 548-5817

For the Teanaway and south slope of the Wenatchee Mountains, and the Snoqualmie Pass east area-
Cle Elum Ranger District

Judy Hallisey, District Ranger
803 W. 2nd Street
Cle Elum, WA 98922
(509) 852-1100
Fax: (509) 674-3800

Other areas:

Entiat Ranger District

Janet Flanagan, District Ranger
2108 Entiat Way
P.O. Box 476
Entiat, WA 98822
(509) 784-1511 (Voice/TTY)
Fax: (509) 784-1150

Methow Valley Ranger District

Michael Liu, District Ranger
24 West Chewuch Road
Winthrop, WA 98862
509-996-4003 Voice
509-996-0000 TTY
509-996-2206 Fax


Chelan Ranger District

Robert Sheehan, District Ranger
428 W. Woodin Avenue
Chelan, WA 98816-9724
(509) 682-4900 (Voice/TTY)
Fax: (509) 682-9004

Naches Ranger District

Irene Davidson, District Ranger
10237 Highway 12
Naches, WA 98937
(509) 653-1401 (Voice/TTY)
Fax: (509) 653-2638


For more information about the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests- Forest Plan Revision please visit the project website at:  www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/forest-plan  

Similar to some discussion here, WSSA (Washington State Snowmobile Association) opposes even the process of USFS consideration of winter non-motorized recreation. Please review the WSSA website and the Letter to USFS-

  www.wssa.us/    and the WSSA letter  documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx...cA45U%2byUFGvPknA%3d

Skiers need to speak up about where on the Forest is best suited to skitouring. Without management for non-motorized winter recreation on the Forest, more areas will become snowmobile-use areas as riders discover new areas and find access routes. And why not, it is fun for the snowmobile riders and currently there is no rule against snowmobile riders expanding use on the general Forest.


Aside from the above, our project below:

About the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition

Purpose: Advocacy for non-motorized winter recreation on Forest Lands.
Goal: Designation of USFS Non-Motorized areas for winter recreation. Specifically, we seek non-motorized status for the pristine unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.
Initial action -- the Thousand Skiers Project: One thousand skiers/snowshoers/Forest users will write (email) the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Supervisor and request designation of new non-motorized areas on the Wenatchee Mountains. The ‘significant’ area we are targeting is the unroaded Wenatchee Mountains ridge crest from Van Epps Pass to Three Brothers (mountain). This encompasses Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers and the Wenatchee Mountains Crest from Rd 9716 to the west of Diamond Head across Tronsen Head, Mt. Lillian including down to the Old Ellensburg trail to Mission Peak and on to the Mission Ridge Road including Lake Clara, Mission Peak, and surrounding areas. This area would offer many short day-tours, long day tours, overnight self-powered ski tours, and snowmobile road-assist tours. We hope to generate a thousand comments by August 15, 2010.

Contact information: Mail, email, or call
Rebecca Heath, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters
215 Melody Lane
Wenatchee, WA 98801
(509) 664-9200
Email: Rebecca Heath, OWNF Supervisor, and the Forest Plan Revision Team: r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us
Carbon Copy Us: wenatcheemountainscoalition@hotmail.com. We need to track our support and to capture additional thoughts and ideas of non-motorized recreationalists. Your privacy is paramount, we will not share your contact information or reveal your identity.
Help us Succeed. Please forward this message to your skiing/snowshoeing friends. Ask for their involvement.


Thank you.

Discussion with the snowmobile folks at Snowest:


Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainhorse 
Another direct, easily answered question...

Does WMC (any/all of the 3 execs you offer up in your opinion above) feel that ANY changes to what you have proposed is acceptable?

What mechanisms do YOU have in place to entertain mutual crafting of a proposal that both parties would be proud to present to USFS together?

Skibreeze had a very well presented question which you seem reticent to answer simply.

Please answer his question simply.



I access a lot of snowboarding in the backcountry without a sled... I too feel that the "conflict" is grossly exaggerated in your presentation... If you can provide some more concrete, verifiable sources to your claims (studies, polls, petitions) as well as solid numbers of Users .... total skiers and total snowmobilers, you will help forward a truthful discussion.

Random statistics aside.

Without revealing your source, please tell us what you are talking about.... "snowmobile industry person"??.... service? Dealer? Regional? Corporate level (mfg)? or Snowmobile support services?.... How are they qualified to evaluate the area discussed here and make comments on appropriateness?

That will help you to qualify your claims at least.



That, sir, would have to be a VERY low flying plane for the passengers to see tracks that could be conclusively determined to be snowmobile tracks. I'm very dubious of your claim... I fly over mountain ridges from the Sierras to the Monashies in winter ... so I'm not off base in this observation. Often people see what they want to see, this... IMO... MAY be the case here .

What you are saying is that the illegal "poaching" of lines within the Wilderness areas that are exclusively open to non-motorized enthusiasts is so bad that they have become unusable to you?? Really?

BTW, I have carved some pretty sweet downhill lines side by side with skiers/snowboarders on my snowmobile... 1000 vert of linked, graceful turns on steeper terrain than most alpine skiers are comfortable on... we had a blast, shared lunch and parted as friends... which is the way it should be.

I agree with Susie Rainsberry, you need to be a bit more transparent if your presentation is to be considered as sincerely looking for parity.


WMC reply:

Yes, we are open to changes that would work given the considerations and what is stated above two posts ago. That is why we are here talking, that is why we talked to a snowmobile industry person, that is why we are talking with USFS folks at various levels and jobs. There are various considerations. First, suppose a smaller area is carved out for quiet untracked winter recreation, but the geography makes the Boundary unclear or impossible to enforce? Answer, the new area does not serve anyone's purpose.The big question here is the long open ridge terrain that allows snowmobiles to easily duck over into Wilderness, we are learning that perhaps many are not really aware where they go into Wilderness, anyway an end run is made that way around any small area so that the new area remains surrounded by snowmobile riding. The result is that there is no corridor to travel to Wilderness without snowmobile traffic, and it would remain as we have found, a snowmobile-tracked Wilderness after we walk on skis for hours to get there. If there is a solution other than the area that we mapped that actually works we would like to see it. Most folks in this conversation just say "Enforcement" or "Education." Fine, but we are skeptical given the decade problem here and also the example on the WSSA website from the Yakamas in regard to the "37 years" of "illegal snowmobiling" on the Yakamas Mt Adams Area. Our idea is that the WMC proposal gives a solution to the our non-motorized boundary and the Wilderness incursion which would actually allow snowmobiles into any smaller area made for non-motorized. enforcement- a drastic and controversial solution, sorry, but we are waiting to hear of something else that would be effective.

No, when we get to Wilderness we find great skiing, but the fact that snowmobiles are there with the noise and intrusion transforms the Wilderness into something else. Wilderness is created by Federal Law, like it or not, with strict regulations to manage it. Are we a nation of Laws or shall we behave as some third world nation that enforces Law only when easy or convenient and so as not to anger any significant interest group?

The question above was about our use of the 40% of Wilderness. This was discussed a lot at TAY. But you all are kind to discuss it here so I will answer again. A lot of that Wilderness is accessible only after a full day approach or overnight. We do that, but we cannot do that a lot. Here snowmobilers complained about driving an extra 1 1/2 hours to the alternative areas that we suggested. Imagine having to lug a 40 lb backpack while walking on skis to go overnight to the Wilderness. We do it, just not a lot. So we seek areas in the accessible general Forest. In our meeting with the snowmobile person, we were told how poorly snowmobile sales are for several reasons, and we were told that some Puget Sound snowmobile dealers are quitting business. On the other hand, we are certain that there are a lot of folks with snowshoes, xc skis, tele skis, snowboards, AT skis, all these folks want to park the car and go nearby for on-snow winter recreation. Wilderness was not created by WMC or by skiers and snowshoers, Wilderness was NOT created for WMC or skiers and snowshoers. By intention Wilderness should have less human-use and little human impact- that is the design. We would like to use Wilderness more, but by design that use is not made easy to access.

Since the '80s we have used a snowmobile to go ski, we skied some days in the midst of snowmobiles and it was fine- because the snowmobiles were limited as to where they could go. At first, snowmobiles hardly left the road. Now, and especially the past few years, really no snow is left since the new machines even climb up a skier track from a road through the trees to go track a powder stash that we used for years that did not have any snowmobile use. So technology there has influenced the available resource of snowy Forest.

WMC may be backing off here as we are busy in contact and setting meetings with USFS folks and some elected officials.

Thanks for the discussion. It is encouraging that we may eventually have some fruitful discussion about these issues.

Still no answer to direct questions presented. And, I'm guessing the meetings youare having with USFS are public? could it be the FS makes backroom deals with special interest groups?