WMC Update 2012

Some more discussion from Snowest that relates to the discussion above:

Mr Mountainhorse of the bold letters,

Thanks for keeping track, actually I just returned from climbing and skiing on a glaciated peak the past few days.

Credit is due to you for stimulating the idea that a Sno Park at Beverly Creek would serve the purpose of a non-motorized corridor to the Wilderness. Good one. The problem is the costs of road construction to upgrade for winter use and EIS, planning, approval, and construction of a Sno Park. That would take years, if you want to jump into that then great. No, that is not part of the WMC agenda. However I already emailed to a USFS person this idea, and we will include it in the future as one possibility for the future.

You all sometimes seem to sit back and complain and demand that we answer all of your wants and needs. Try considering something other than trying to counter WMC. Are you guys reaching out anywhere else to your opponents, are you talking to USFS or anyone? Or do you just think nothing will change, you will have the same areas unregulated forever? The obstinate approach reminds me of loggers in small towns who were defiant and certain that logging could not be shut down, but now one cannot find a logger in some of these former logging towns, they are more rare than the Spotted Owl that ended most of it. WMC does not want to see snowmobiling prohibited Forest wide, but we want more non-motorized areas so yes we want some areas closed to snowmobiles.

As for all of your other rants and repetitive questions, they have been addressed at length previously. Please reread until you understand.

As for this thread, if you guys could reel in your tone a bit and quit trying to make WMC the monster, wrong, devious, whatever your hyperbole is all about, then we could discuss this. WMC actually spends time in discussion with officials talking about bowls for highmarking and what about snowmobile interests. Here it seems often the message to skiers is that we should ski in your trenches and fumes and enjoy it.

This is a nearly impossible discussion because what WMC asks for is shocking, insulting, whatever, to many here. WMC is trying to exchange information to explain why significant numbers of folks share these similar concerns.

Again, in person when I am out on my snowmobile and going skiing snowmobile riders that I meet are great folks, no issues. Of course I never just skied up to get in the face of a rider in Wilderness, that would not be a real positive encounter.

WMC is not trying to do anything beyond getting more areas for winter non-motorized recreation outside of Wilderness.

Thank you.

From Snowest, relates to the discussion here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainhorse 
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.



WMC comment:

Ok, yes and yes.

The other big question for you guys is can you help keep whoever it is out of the Wilderness? That issue affects what we want because the area is along the Wilderness Boundary. Please consider if we do spend hours walking to Wilderness where you say we should go, and there are snowmobiles there or on a good day, just tracks- not good. Really I have no idea what exactly will come of our effort, but for discussion if an area smaller that our proposal was made non-motorized, then you guys kept, for the sake of discussion, Van Epps and Longs Pass on the condition that snowmobile riders would patrol or whatever to stop the Wilderness riding. Could that work? That could be a win-win unless there is just opposition to any new non-motorized areas anywhere.

Good discussion. Thanks.

From Snowest related to discussion above:

Quote:
Originally Posted by yammadog
This is definitely a working discussion.....plans are being hatched to educate, mark and finding ways to enforce this intrusion!! I would like to bring the suggestion that Mr. Newtrout had with regard to non-motorized additions in the teanaway region. I'll see if I can find and repost his suggestions.

WMC comment:
USFS finds it tough to consider doing this enforcement, a huge area, not easy- just read their message posted here (on Snowest). My take is they seriously want to enforce the Wilderness Boundary, as the huge majority of snowmobile riders would agree, but also seriously want to maintain snowmobile riding- a rock and a hard place. Just to fund their one snowmobile guy is a big cost. So what if you guys worked on a plan that your Organization would enter an agreement or something to provide trained observers to stop the Wilderness incursion in exchange for keeping access to some of the problem areas- but only if trained observers were present with communication?

From Snowest related to discussion above:

Originally Posted by yammadog
WMC, I think it would be helpful to see your proposal modify as the discussion goes along so as to move forward from challenge points with the end result a proposal that all could support. Perhaps a periodic proposal post to show modifications of agreed upon points. I'm sure you would agree that a level of trust needs to grow and this would help given the repetition of your previous reposting of the first version of proposal.
...

And it may be below your effort in "working" with us, but the direct answers come about because we didn't see the answer in the previous pages on TAY or here, so direct answers to direct questions help.
---

WMC comment-

The compromise that I am seeing in this discussion is leaving the area from the existing Voluntary Non-Motorized area from Beverly/Bean out to Van Epps open to snowmobiles with the agreed monitoring and closure if Wilderness violations occur. You folks are doing the right thing to confront that, that is the most damaging aspect of this entire discussion. For the purpose of WMC, if non-motorized areas are created by the Wilderness Boundary, but then snowmobiles are nearby riding the Wilderness then the non-motorized areas are not that. That is why control of that is fundamental here.

WMC would be pleased to try to work out something that provides for both user groups. If that evolves, then we could work toward the possibility of face to face meetings to get together on an agreement in regard to some areas for skiers and snowshoers or winter camping, such as the ones identified here as not the best snowmobile riding. At the same time, we see here the real possibility of a solution to also preserve the best of the Teanaway crest for snowmobiles, the area furthest from pedestrians. USFS would prefer such collaboration. If the new approach produces a solution for Wilderness snowmobile trespass, we all will benefit. I just emailed our snowmobile industry contact that we met about this possibility of a collaboration, and asked if that person could help mediate. WMC would be pleased to meet with that person and with other snowmobile interest folks to work something out that we both would agree.

Thanks for the discussion.

WMC is moving forward in an effort for collaboration with snowmobile interests. Discussion at Snowest resulted in proposal of this collaboration on both sides of the discussion. WMC is requesting facilitation to set a meeting through a snowmobile industry person to discuss a possible collaborative solution.

WMC has engaged in many hours of meetings thus far with USFS in discussion of the issues and of the WMC proposal and has met with a prominent individual within the snowmobile industry.

WMC and USFS encourage a collaborative solution. We shall hope for a collaborative solution, but will move forward to strongly advocate for management of the Forest for all uses and for our interests, the original human-powered uses of the Forest in which the clear majority of winter Forest users participate.

Thank you.

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?

Great comments about the prime winter play areas!

The idea for a Beverly/ Bean Sno Park is brilliant. the Voluntary Non-Motorized corridor is already there for Wilderness access. As far as a Beverly Sno Park, the issues are getting the concept approved to improve the road and build the Sno Park, the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), the public comment period and expected resistance from some groups. Then if approved more EIS etc, USFS has to get the funding, contract to do the work, it could take a while. However, WMC would endorse this idea and work toward this goal!

Thank you for great ideas from a skier! Sorry that it took a while to find the skier idea sandwiched between other comments, but cool, good job!