WMC Update 2012

The proposal, not the group... jeez....

FYI, Scotsman I don't think even snowmobiles.  Many people who are against this proposal don't either.  They are against the proposal because it isn't needed, because during their many backcountry visits, there is no conflict that can be found.  I believe Scotsmans point was that it is not appropriate for one special interest group (WMC) to make a proposal on its own without having input from the rest of the user group.  The public land is just that, public.  All peoples opinions and considerations should be heard and acknowldged.  This is something that the WMC has consistently failed to do, and the reason for the statement above..

This is OUR land, we ALL should have a say in how it is used, not just one small group, pretending to speak on the behalf of all non-motorized users, especially when their methodology is to get everything that they can.

Oh yeah, understood, our group is basically an idea, an idea that we find is very common and has support even without WMC. Scotsman stated that he wanted to get a snowmobile but yes, I think that is correct.

As far as the other comments, WMC has repetitively asked for input to USFS- any citizen. We of course have our cause and want skier support, and we are getting some.

OK, thanks, I am still laughing about your statement about all of the big help we are getting!

OK, thanks, I am still laughing about your statement about all of the big help we are getting!

I am not...
It was help from big players, not big help from players. Please take care in reading others responses before posting.

Thank you.

In your opinion, what would be the best route to access the wilderness and existing non-motorized areas from new snopark/routes without closing the alpine areas in your proposal. Again, these are questions with the access concept in mind and realignment of non-motorized areas/access.

AK is simply pointing out, and I agree, If you had easier access over these roads to the Existing Massive Human powered only Wilderness areas would get more of your fellow skiers to low traffic, motor excluded, Wilderness POW RUNS extraordinaire!!

that's not quite good enough. Getting over the crest and into the wilderness in the winter is not practical for most skiers, even with the road accessible to the trailheads. In addition to access, there must be non-motor areas on the road side of the crest. You guys keep referring back to these "massive lands, AKA wilderness". You're not listening. Skiers can't get to them in the winter. The areas adjacent to the road up to the crest are really the prime winter play areas. Ideally the wilderness boundary should have been extended to the road, but hey, that's compromise.

I don't know anything about keeping roads open in the winter, but I'd gladly pay a fee to be able to get close to Bean Crk. How about a new snow park further up the road? And could someone fix all those damn potholes?

AKsnowrider: I have read it all..and once again the simple answer is the same..the wilderness area is open to nonmotorized use..which means you can access it..which gives you the access you are wanting..without disturbing other users right of use..

the time you have spent on here alone if spent getting sponsors would already have this issue taken care of..rather then make excuses, why not try ?

what do you have to lose by making a few phone calls/ sending a few emails to local snow removal/construction companies and to ski gear manufacturers/dealers to ask for help?

Why not ask the forest service if you can come up with funding/equipment if this is a viable alternative?or is it simpler to get others rights denied?

Is it to limit/end other public users rights to enjoy the same country as you want to?bottom line is compromise by all users so all have as equal of access as possible..and this solution does that for all users...

Yammadog:In your opinion, what would be the best route to access the wilderness and existing non-motorized areas from new snopark/routes without closing the alpine areas in your proposal. Again, these are questions with the access concept in mind and realignment of non-motorized areas/access.

WMC... I have read all the posts on the SnoWest thread and the Posts here on TAY... I see you skirting and redirecting questions.

I would like to see an answer to AK's proposal.

You say that Non-motor users need areas that are not able to be used by snowmobilers... AND that those areas need to be easier to access than an "all day Hike" or an "overnighter"...

I get that... and can see the value in that as a fellow backcountry skinner.

There are Massive lands, AKA Wilderness, that are available and Legal for Human Powered use Directly adjacent to the areas in your proposal. (In fact you call these "buffer" areas)

You state that Wilderness areas are too far away to be accessed by less capable skiers or "family's with kids"...

I get that too... and understand the value in that as a fellow backcountry skinner.

AND... As AK and Yammadog suggest;

Question 1: Why are you opposed to working WITH snowmobilers, Human Powered Users and the USFS to establish Plowed road access to a Non-motorized OHV, Human Powered Only access, parking lot(s) that is near the Wilderness area so that you will have your goal of skiing unfettered by snowmobiles rather than your current segregation plan?

Question 2: If you have easy access to the Wilderness areas that are abundant in the area that are ALREADY ILLEGAL to snowmobile in, how is that not a means to an end for you?

Question 3: How and/or why would having exclusive Human Powered staging areas close to Wilderness which is off-limits to snowmobilers, NOT meet the stated goals of your proposal?

Please don't continue to "redirect" by talking about the few rotten apples making ALL the wilderness unusable... Those people snowmobiling in the Wilderness ARE illegal and are being dealt with by USFS, human and motorized friends of the Wilderness... ... this point only further clouds your presentation. 

Question 4: In your opinion, what would be the best route to access the wilderness and existing non-motorized areas from NEW snopark/routes without closing the alpine areas in your proposal. Again, these are questions with the access concept in mind and realignment of non-motorized areas/access.

The snowmobilers posting on this thread, Including me, feel  repeat, deliberate, Wilderness area non-motorized intruders should be arrested and their snowmobiles should be impounded.. ANY trespasser should be ticketed by the USFS.

As a reminder... these are the same "snow covered roads" that you say you ALREADY ride your own snowmobile on to get deeper into the backcountry... your non snowmobile owning fellow Human powered enthusiasts would probably really like to have this access on plowed roads to the same areas you already use with your snowmobile as a staging area.

AK is simply pointing out, and I agree, If you had easier access over these roads to the Existing Massive Human powered only Wilderness areas would get more of your fellow skiers to low traffic, motor excluded, Wilderness POW RUNS extraordinaire!!

..
..

md2020: (TAY site) The areas adjacent to the road up to the crest are really the prime winter play areas.

This would exclude snowmobilers from these Prime areas if they were changed from the current "Shared system" that seems to be free from conflict by many skiers and Nordic groups, even from Ski users on this thread.

The point is Human Powered (HP) users DO have this exclusive access that is unique to HP recreation method... The law excludes snowmobiles in the Wilderness... That has been taken care of. HP users have some great areas to use that are exclusively for the use by HP means.

The words that keep popping up are "segregation", "seperation", "exclusion" etc...That has already been done... With the Wilderness areas, that are adjacent to the areas that this proposal, already available to HP Recreation ... this will EXPAND the effective size of the "exclusion" for many people that enjoy the current shared areas.

md2020: (TAY site) You guys keep referring back to these "massive lands, AKA wilderness". You're not listening. Skiers can't get to them in the winter

"You guys" .... are words that generate conflict... as I have said before, I'm an avid backcountry skinner/snowboarder/snowshoer... as well as a snowmobiler.

I AM Listening...BELIEVE ME!!
What I am saying is that it would be worth while to put effort into gaining access to certain "gateways" to the Wilderness...with easy access (plowed) parking lots close to the HP-only Wilderness.

If access to the Wilderness were to be made "easier" by plowing to HP-only parking lots closer to Wilderness areas:

Will you be able access "Human Powered ONLY" Wilderness areas that already exist in this region easily... Yes

Would you be able to access ALL of the Wilderness without effort... NO.

Would that "expansion" of EASILY accessed "NON-Motor only" areas (the current Wilderness areas that would be made more available with less effort) be at least equal in size to areas that are proposed to be eliminated as shared use ... YES

Some areas will still require more effort to get to...Deeper into the BC/Wild... which is the reward for those that are willing to "Earn their turns" and have truly fresh tracks.

If I can ask a favor of my fellow posters on this thread, WITH MUCH SINCERE RESPECT...could you please hold further posts in Que until WMC has a chance to answer these 4 questions, contained in the single post immediately preceding this one, directly.

Thank you.