WMC Update 2012

Maybe they won't punch you if you volunteer no skiing areas.

Your precious recreation on public lands isn't more special than others.

Why is this a sticky?

I am a lifelong skier and more recently a sledder and while I support your objective, I totally disagree with your approach.  Seems to me that asking the FS to ban sledding in areas where it has been historically permitted based on the actions of a few scofflaws is like asking to close a public road because some drunken teenagers used it as a drag strip.  In my experience, the vast majority of sledders respect the boundaries and disapprove of illegal poaching of closed areas.  Should the majority be punished for the actions of a few bad apples?  As a BC skier, I value the current snomo access rights in the very areas you are seeking to close, specifically because it permits me to ski tour in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in winter.  How else would anybody gain access to the W side of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in winter (e.g., Van Epps, Solomon Peak, Harding Mountain, etc., which is where I ski practically every weekend) if sled access to those areas is closed?  It also strikes me as shortsighted to ask for new closures, when the FS is currently doing absolutely nothing to enforce existing boundaries.  How do you envision these buffer zones improving the situation if the FS continues to shirk their policing responsibilities?  Rather than seeking to close new areas to sleds, why not advocate for/assist in the enforcement of the current boundaries?  We BC skiers and boarders can help the FS do its job by reporting snomo incursions into closed areas.  Those reports would become much more meaningful if the FS actually did something about them.  We could probably also help raise enough money to assist the FS in purchasing some decent sleds (as has been done for SAR many times before), so that they could actually do some enforcement.   

Thanks for commenting here. WMC is asking that non-motorized winter recreationists are allowed to share the Forest, not asking to shut down snowmobile riding on the entire Forest. The uses are incompatible. Non-motorized winter recreationists have an equal right to that powder snow, in fact it is not hard to imagine that there are many more non-motorized winter recreationists than there are snowmobile riders.

More non-motorized winter recreation near plowed highways is needed. There is very little of that, and snowmobiles are pushing into more and more areas and will continue to do so. This commenter has used a snowmobile to access ski touring since the 1980s, so it has been observed every year that snowmobile riders find and ride new areas on increasingly capable machines. Some great places that many here ski could be used by snowmobile riders currently, and may be with the advancing technology and exploring riders. We are not asking for Wilderness enforcement here although that would be great, there are organizations for that. We are asking for parity in designated use for non-motorized winter recreation on the general Forest outside of Wilderness. The argument that skiers have the "Wilderness" is disingenuous and also a mockery given the snowmobile speedways through the Alpine Lakes Wilderness these days. Most do not have the time and opportunity or ability for frequent overnight trips into the Wilderness for skiing or snowshoe trips and why should we? Snowmobile riders have instant access many places to good riding. Skiers need more areas set aside where there is decent ski touring from the car. The pristine areas at Mt Lillian and around Mission Peak are accessible for day touring without a snowmobile.

What is outlined above does not exclude snowmobile access on the roads leading to the areas that you describe- "Areas include the unroaded Wenatchee Mountains ridge crest from Van Epps Pass to Three Brothers (mountain) Including Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers". There is not a road to the crest, which is also the Wilderness Boundary, along the described area. That area along with Van Epps is well known by skiers and USFS personnel as an area of regular and intentional snowmobile trespass into the Wilderness. Van Epps will continue to allow close access to the Wilderness Boundary, but the other proposals would draw the line back from the Wilderness Boundary at the Stafford Cr Road and the Etienne Cr Road (formerly Negro Cr. Rd).

As far as historical use more than one of us in WMC skied those areas (and know others who have) before there was snowmobiling off of the roads.  Some WMC members skitoured many times in Stafford, Earl, Navaho and Brothers and saw no snowmobile use there in the early 1990s, so the historical snowmobile use is from that time. Can one imagine walking on skis in the powder snow 5 miles up Stafford Trail from the parked snowmobile, not any snowmobiles heard, no one else around? That is how it was, now it is a snowmobile speedway in that huge area. This commenter has discussed with some snowmobile riders their early rides into "Navaho" back in the day. That has not always been done.

The USFS will tell you directly when asked that it cannot enforce the snowmobile Wilderness trespass. USFS sent messages that were posted on snowmobile Forums, those messages said the same. Again, if the land area buffer is miles from the Wilderness Boundary that will enhance Wilderness protection, as is the reality on the Forest in summer. Reporting of Wilderness trespass by snowmobiles occurs frequently, USFS actually is aware already.

Management Plans have been implemented in other western Forests that have divided the winter motorized and non-motorized uses.

In 20 years advances in snowmobile technology have allowed snowmobiles to take over a lot of great areas for skitouring or snowshoe trips. In the future, because Forest snowmobile use is generally unregulated, more and more areas where it is currently allowed by default will be tracked by snowmobiles and will not be reasonably used by skiers.

Maybe they won't punch you if you volunteer no skiing areas.

Your precious recreation on public lands isn't more special than others.

Why is this a sticky?

Thanks for the comment. General use Forest Regs place hardly any restriction on snowmobile riding. Unless skiers ride snowmobiles out to find touring, they may not be aware of the expansion of snowmobile riding to new areas. We have WMC folks who use snowmobiles, and some do not. We are not stating our purpose as against snowmobiling. We are asking for more areas designated as non-motorized. The above proposal will greatly enhance skitouring from a snowmobile, and will add some areas for day trips. Some WMC members skied back in the day when more skitouring was available from a parked snowmobile.

With the growing number of winter recreation users, both non-motorized and motorized, it is of paramount importance that areas designated Wilderness be protected from non-authorized use, namely snowmobile access.

There are a few snowmobiler scofflaws who frequently break Wilderness rules and cross the boundary into Wilderness areas.

There are also groups that want to enlarge non-motorized use areas without any regard to enforcement of the existing Wilderness areas or a detailed study of the appropriate fairness to both groups.

Aim: Write to the following address and send a letter demanding stronger enforcement of the wilderness boundaries by the USFS and a STOP to the designation of further non- motorized areas until effective enforcement of existing areas is accomplished and a full study is undertaken as to a FAIR allocation of the USFS  lands to  both non-motorized and motorized users.

Write or e:mail to:

Contact information:
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters
Rebecca Heath, Forest Supervisor
215 Melody Lane
Wenatchee, WA 98801
(509) 664-9200
Email: blheath@fs.fed.us

COULD YOU STICKY THIS MARCUS ?: THANKS

Thanks for the comment. General use Forest Regs place hardly any restriction on snowmobile riding. Unless skiers ride snowmobiles out to find touring, they may not be aware of the expansion of snowmobile riding to new areas. We have WMC folks who use snowmobiles, and some do not. We are not stating our purpose as against snowmobiling. We are asking for more areas designated as non-motorized. The above proposal will greatly enhance skitouring from a snowmobile, and will add some areas for day trips. Some WMC members skied back in the day when more skitouring was available from a parked snowmobile.

But some people don't want to ski-tour from a snowmobile, they want to use the snowmobile to reach the top and either "ghost ride" it down and do laps or go tandem and take turns. You are right the increased performance of snowmobiles is changing the game. Snowmobile skiing using the snowmobiles to get to the top of the run and not just as a road and pass access vehicle is an increasing and exciting aspect of the sport. There is a whole lot of area out there for both to occur and if you happen to be both in the same area, legally, tough luck. Why do you need more and more areas for your chosen mode of travel at the expense of theirs?

The majority of skiers won't bother to access the areas you are describing. It's just too far of an approach in winter and into the spring. Are you proposing road plowing as well? How will the non-motorized users you describe access these areas and how often?? The wilderness line currently exists along the crest you describe. North facing is wilderness, South facing is not. This is a skiers dream!!! We skied Mount Stuart twice in two days this weekend and I wouldn't have done it without sled access to the wilderness border (call me lazy). We parked at Longs Pass and saw no snowmobile tracks North of the ridge extending from Ingalls to Earl. I agree with Good2Go. Buy the USFS some sleds and have them enforce the law. I disagree with your approach, and FYI North facing slopes are better to ski anyway. By the time the snow melts enough to access Bean/Beverly, there will be no sledders there. When the creeks are running and snowbridges are gone, sledding ends.

That is very cool that you got Stuart twice in two days. Three of us looked over from Earl on a day trip in March and saw seven snowmobiles with their riders parked in the Wilderness for lunch or repairs.  USFS employees have stated that they are aware and some have observed the snowmobile riding from Van Epps into (Wilderness) Jack Cr, over Stuart Pass, in Ingalls, up Goat Pass, in the various drainages above Ingalls Cr. One could ride much closer than Longs Pass to access Stuart without consequences apparently currently.

As was stated above, some WMC skiers have used snowmobiles since the 1980s to go ski touring and currently do so.
The real purpose here with WMC and TSP is to ask for parity of non-motorized use in winter with the unregulated use of snowmobiles on the Forest in winter.

As explained above, some of the proposal will add day skitouring, some will enhance overnight or snowmobile approach skitouring.

If any here have a powder stash, as we have, imagine one day skiing out of the trees to a road, then see almost immediately the newer snowmobiles arrive and climb right up your downhill ski track into your former stash. Your former stash is now on the list for snowmobile riders, and is not just packed, but left with deep ditches in the snow on all open areas and even in trees. Currently, most of the Forest is subject to no regulation of snowmobile riding, and the example given here will be seen increasingly in the future. A balance of areas for motorized v non-motorized winter use is what we ask.