WMC Update 2012

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?

Uncalled for. Uncivil, offensive to the people of integrity in USFS, offensive to the good folks that we meet with to talk about the issues and about our concerns. This is a public process. We are here talking about it. You apparently want to fling accusations and say "no."

Any of you folks may similarly contact USFS, they are wanting input! WMC is doing the work, we are talking to snowmobile riders, we are here saying that we are good with snowmobile riders having your highmark fun but we want areas without snowmobiles. We are reaching out, you yammadog are just flinging unfounded comments from the start without substantive ideas. Step up and be a citizen, defend your rights and try to think about the rights and uses of others. Try to share.

Unfortunately on Forums folks with nothing invested endlessly and sometimes pointlessly criticize, make demands, criticize the efforts done to satisfy demands, ask questions, criticize the answers then on an on without substantive conversation. We are here trying to have meaningful and civil discussion. USFS desires to get meaningful and civil input from Forest users, we are told directly that USFS appreciates the effort to keep a civil tone in the discussion.

We hope that skiers give input to the USFS planning process in regard to areas of traditional use for skiing and snowshoeing, and winter camping. And of course, aside from that WMC is advocating for new and significant winter non-motorized areas along the pristine, unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.

Thank you.

Cut and pasted from Scotsman's post.....





Cut this movement off at the knees.
Prevent the FS from making a unilateral decision without public discussion , mandate or funding to enforce.
WMC has shown absolutely no intention to negotiate or reach a mutual user agreement.

Contact your senatorial candidates and tell them that if they support this proposal you will take your vote elsewhere.
The public lands are for all to decide how they are managed not just this group who won't compromise.

murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe

www.dinorossi.com/

Uncalled for. Uncivil, offensive to the people of integrity in USFS, offensive to the good folks that we meet with to talk about the issues and about our concerns. This is a public process. We are here talking about it. You apparently want to fling accusations and say "no."

Any of you folks may similarly contact USFS, they are wanting input! WMC is doing the work, we are talking to snowmobile riders, we are here saying that we are good with snowmobile riders having your highmark fun but we want areas without snowmobiles. We are reaching out, you yammadog are just flinging unfounded comments from the start without substantive ideas. Step up and be a citizen, defend your rights and try to think about the rights and uses of others. Try to share.

Unfortunately on Forums folks with nothing invested endlessly and sometimes pointlessly criticize, make demands, criticize the efforts done to satisfy demands, ask questions, criticize the answers then on an on without substantive conversation. We are here trying to have meaningful and civil discussion. USFS desires to get meaningful and civil input from Forest users, we are told directly that USFS appreciates the effort to keep a civil tone in the discussion.

We hope that skiers give input to the USFS planning process in regard to areas of traditional use for skiing and snowshoeing, and winter camping. And of course, aside from that WMC is advocating for new and significant winter non-motorized areas along the pristine, unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.

Thank you.

wait...I feel it coming on......LMAO.......there, it's out....talk about sharing, you have yet to answer any direct questions, you have only offered closure. After dealing with you over the last month or so, I'm getting more humor out of your "position" than actual productive "conversation". The main problem in the "discusssion" with you is that you don't listen and respond to questions. And fortunately, I'm being rather civil given your unwillingness to acknowledge anything but your white noise statements.

As a citizen, I'm stating that your selfish view of the fabricated conflict is just that...made up to get a rise without facts or support other than from a few "followers". Even your "fellow" skiers think there is abundant land and access to the wilderness and even workable solutions to this WMC generated controversy.

Now, if you want to answer direct questions, then we can be "civil" and converse openly and BI-DIRECTIONAL....I'm not going to stand for you to make your statements and not participate in the give and take without calling you out on it. So, really it's your choice....I can get more abusive, easily, but prefer to work on a real strategy given I care for the BC user of any form to enjoy the area as much as I do and hopefully my kids will.

If the meetings with FS are formal and an actual comment period then I think it should be widely known. Is it a comment period?

You are fighting for your "history" and I'm fighting for my kids future. The ball is in your court.

Mr yammadog, what is your point other than to try to stop the discussion?

WMC is reaching out to various folks on all sides including snowmobile folks, on Forums, in meetings, with the managing authority USFS, with elected officials.

WMC is learning more examples of the result of your strategy, snowmobile interests, resisting without any compromise, trying to stop discussion, trying to play the victim. WSSA and other $$ organizations pay to throw down roadblocks to the legitimate process, then find more bitter defeat that was only temporoarily delayed. Yet time and again decisions and management go against unregulated use of snowmobiles on the general Forest. Are you guys creating you own tragic outcomes? Should you try to engage in the discussion as a citizen, respect other's concerns, complaints, uses, try to hold out for as much of what is important to you as possible? Yes you should, as WMC is doing for our interests.

Any citizens may comment to USFS:

Public Involvement

"We’ve been hearing from you at public meetings, collaboration efforts, and through your written comments. Please click on one of the links below to hear what people have to say."

www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/forest-plan/

r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us

WMC is asking skiers to comment to USFS about traditional areas for backcountry sking, snowshoeing and camping. The Planning Team is seeking this information, and also is seeking informatin about snowmobile use and other winter uses on the Forest for planning purposes.

Thanks.

wait...I feel it coming on......LMAO.......there, it's out....talk about sharing, you have yet to answer any direct questions, you have only offered closure. After dealing with you over the last month or so, I'm getting more humor out of your "position" than actual productive "conversation". The main problem in the "discusssion" with you is that you don't listen and respond to questions. And fortunately, I'm being rather civil given your unwillingness to acknowledge anything but your white noise statements.

As a citizen, I'm stating that your selfish view of the fabricated conflict is just that...made up to get a rise without facts or support other than from a few "followers". Even your "fellow" skiers think there is abundant land and access to the wilderness and even workable solutions to this WMC generated controversy.

Now, if you want to answer direct questions, then we can be "civil" and converse openly and BI-DIRECTIONAL....I'm not going to stand for you to make your statements and not participate in the give and take without calling you out on it. So, really it's your choice....I can get more abusive, easily, but prefer to work on a real strategy given I care for the BC user of any form to enjoy the area as much as I do and hopefully my kids will.

If the meetings with FS are formal and an actual comment period then I think it should be widely known. Is it a comment period?

You are fighting for your "history" and I'm fighting for my kids future. The ball is in your court.

I think we are all thinking of our and our kids future, don't try and play a sympathy/family values game. Veiled threats of how you could be more abusive do nothing to help your cause and only reinforce to anyone already not sympathetic to your view to side with non-motorized supporters. You can always make comments to the FS and they solicit your input online at their website and in writing. Suggesting that there is some back door deal making is uncalled for. It may be a long way to go, but you could try and contacting FS personnel at the OWNF HQ in Wenatchee to try and arrange a meeting if it's important to you. I don't think they will be coming to you.

Copy of a post by Mr. Newtrout on SW, what is your opinion of his suggestions listed below?


WMC, I'll restate my main concerns with your proposal, in case they were buried too deeply in previous threads to get noticed.

First, the skier/snowmobile conflict in this area is fabricated. It just doesn't exist. There is a ridiculous amount of prime skiable terrain that will NEVER have snowmobile tracks, and skier traffic in the winter is almost non-existant. I've spent dozens of days in the legal sledding areas of the Teanaway over the past few years and there is almost no skier traffic! 95% of the time, skiers have their choice of several entire basins that are untouched in the Teanaway. The problem for skiers is accessibility. Banning sleds from this area will not help accessibility. I use this area summer and winter. Skier traffic doesn't pick up until the North Fork road melts and snowmobile use is done for the year.

The area proposed for snowmobile closure by WMC would eliminate snowmobile access to the North Fork of the Teanaway, as well as Lake Ann and Van Epps areas. This is one of the few alpine areas in the state accessible by snowmobile. From Teanaway Peak to the west, I would estimate snowmobile use outnumbers skier use by 100:1; probably much more before mid-May. East of Teanaway Peak are several basins that are very difficult or legally impossible to access by snowmobile. Even taking into account the occasional snowmobiler in the Wilderness, there is more skiable terrain than could be tracked up by 50 skiers a day all winter long.

Compromise? I'll throw some ideas out there:
(1) Stop sled use in the North Fork of the Teanaway when the road melts out to Stafford Creek. That is when skiers use the area, and that is when sledders are done. Make it official. I can live with that.

(2) Addition to voluntary non-motorized area: The Beverly non-motorized area is a waste. It isn't used by skiers. Bean, on the other hand, has some really nice skiable terrain. It is very difficult to access from the bottom on sleds, and you can only come in the top by riding through Wilderness. Likewise, Stafford is hard to access from the bottom by sled. You can get in the top over Navaho, but it is also the prime access point for the Wenatchee gang to get into Wilderness. Add Bean Creek basin and Stafford Creek basin to the voluntary non-motorized areas. These are prime ski basins used by a minority of sledders.

(3) Improve skier access: What are the real options here? Realistically, you're not going to improve access much from the North Fork; too much snow and road that can't be maintained. What about from the Blewett side? How much closer to the crest could a road be plowed? We'd still be talking about pretty serious dollars to keep a road like that maintained; but banning sleds doesn't help skier access!