WMC Update 2012

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread, but WMC's stance has been fairly firm (which is fine) and I think that's becoming frustrating for some of the folks that are looking for a more collaborative approach.

Carry on!

Yes, a more collaborative approach is what, IMO, will make most users of this area happy.

A cooperative relationship with ALL backountry users is what I, Yammadog, md2020, Ruffrider, Scottsman and many others want. This cooperation is what I support.

I agree with Marcus that it is frustrating ...but, IMO, certainly not "unworkable" .

WMC: In regard to Question 4, the best non-motorized Wilderness access corridor would start from a (theoretical to your discussion) Sno Park at Beverly Creek. WMC would support that, please let us know when you will get that approved and funded and we will write letters and lobby for that.

My take on this statement...Please correct me if I am not being accurate.

The user named "WMC" would support plowed road access ONLY on the condition that another group ("YOU") makes the arrangements for the implementation and cost of this plan.

I agree more with md2020's position that he, as a backcountry skier/skinner, would be willing to pay for access to areas that already exist that are for Human-Powered-Only use.

I see no reply from WMC that a Beverly Creek NON-Motor staging area, if funded and implemented, would meet his/her goal of better access and that the repeated, to coin a phrase from Marcus (TAY admin) "BOILERPLATE", appeals to shut down motor access to the current Shared lands would subside.

What I DO see, IMO, is many backcountry users... both Motorized and Non-motor... wanting to cooperate for a common good, in good faith, where all parties are able to enjoy these great lands in their preferred method of recreation in the Backountry.... outside of the extreme, "Boilerplate", demands of the user named "WMC"

WMC:The glaring problem remains, what would happen if just a part of the crest were closed to snowmobiles- would the traffic on the rest of the crest continue into Wilderness and defeat the purpose of the new non-motorized area?

I'm confused WMC... I HAVE read all 25 pages of this thread...

Please, WMC, help to clarify.

In some posts you say that the areas to be changed from the current shared it is to simply provide areas for non-motor use, unbothered by snowmobiles and their operators.

In some posts you say that the areas to be changed from the current shared use is to provide a buffer that will help protect the wilderness from motorized intrusion and that the only way to keep snowmobiles out of the Wilerness areas is to create these buffer zones.

In some posts you say that the areas to be changed from the current shared use is so that others with less time or athletic abilities or children can access them more easily as opposed to others, like WMC with a snowmobile, that can access the Wilderness with ease.

WMC, Please tell us.

What is the purpose of the proposed new Non-motor areas?

To be crystal clear.

I do not encourage or support any motorized users, outside of official USFS or SAR purposes, to intrude upon any designated Wilderness areas.

Further:
It is ILLEGAL for recreational Motorized Vehicle use of designated Wilderness areas.

Anyone found intentionally violating the boundaries of the Wilderness areas should suffer the full consequences of the law through tickets, arrest, and impounding of their vehicle.

As a backcountry splitborder/skinner, snowshoer and AT person, I DO enjoy the pristine Wilderness areas  that are available to me in abundance in locations across the United States.... and especially in the West.

Most of these Wilderness areas I have skinned/snowshoed into are not even spoiled by another ski track or Hut!

It is also troubling to me to see your accusations of me and others as being uncivil or full of hyperbole when there are posts like #36 that are certainly WAY over the line if civility... that, in fact, you support in your following post (#37).

It seems to me that you only laud uncivil behavior when it suits your position.

I would like to see a bit more balance from ALL in this thread.

Of course there are other outbursts on this thread... I only use this as a direct example of my point.

WMC
Questions 2 and 3 are unclear, again if you had read this thread extensive discussion about that topic is already here. On Snowest WMC has stated that it would be great to have more high-elevation access which now is limited to Highway mountain passes, MRNP, ski areas.

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?

I have read this entire thread (all 25 pages) and see this being discussed, YES... though I do not see any answers or participation with suggestions in this topic.

Acting in good faith I will attempt to clarify questions 2 and 3.

Question 2: If Human Powered "staging areas" were to be established, with the cooperation of Human-Powered-Only (HP) users, snowmobilers and the USFS, that are close to the Wilderness areas that are Illegal for snowmobiles to access... Would this meet your goals of access and quell your appeal to current and future calls to close currently shared, mixed use, areas to Snowmobiles?

Question 3: If these HP "staging areas" were established, close to the Designated Wilderness, would the goals of the user named WMC be met in regards to access to lands "unspoiled" by snowmobiles?


In context with these questions I reiterate my point that the small amount of I Purposeful illegal intrusion into Wilderness areas by snowmobilers needs to stop and should be a goal of all users of the neighboring areas to police and report. There is NO ROOM in the Wilderness designation for recreational use of motorize vehicles.