WMC Update 2012

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!

Caution in using the more extreme comments as part of your proposal, both sides have plenty of that to offer. And we have worked hard behind the scenes to have posts deleted and conviced folks to not post in support of good communications. After all, you could use Scotsmans comments of stopping this movement and writing your legislators....

I'm thinking we should be picking the person that represents our points in these discussions. Unless you wish to identify the person or at what level they are within the sledding community, then I find it hard to support your position in the meeting without some level of confidence that we will be properly represented and not pushed over by your fervor. After all, you wouldn't vote for a representative in your government without knowing who they are.....right?!

Show us your good faith in posting your complete and modified proposal, the connection to this snowmobile person from our point and when the public meeting is to be held and then I think it could move forward with support.

You will need to remember that the folks involved in this discussion total maybe 30 on the forums to help shape anything. Although each of us is involved with the clubs, associations and industry at some level, this proposal or suggestion has not made it beyond these forum walls to the greater population. If you wish for us to support and advocate this position to the greater group, then we will need that information. Who, what, where, when as they say. Still need a revised map and descriptions of the "wish" list.

Show us the good faith you have been suggesting you stand behind....

Caution in using the more extreme comments as part of your proposal, both sides have plenty of that to offer. And we have worked hard behind the scenes to have posts deleted and conviced folks to not post in support of good communications. After all, you could use Scotsmans comments of stopping this movement and writing your legislators....

I'm thinking we should be picking the person that represents our points in these discussions. Unless you wish to identify the person or at what level they are within the sledding community, then I find it hard to support your position in the meeting without some level of confidence that we will be properly represented and not pushed over by your fervor. After all, you wouldn't vote for a representative in your government without knowing who they are.....right?!

Show us your good faith in posting your complete and modified proposal, the connection to this snowmobile person from our point and when the public meeting is to be held and then I think it could move forward with support.

You will need to remember that the folks involved in this discussion total maybe 30 on the forums to help shape anything. Although each of us is involved with the clubs, associations and industry at some level, this proposal or suggestion has not made it beyond these forum walls to the greater population. If you wish for us to support and advocate this position to the greater group, then we will need that information. Who, what, where, when as they say. Still need a revised map and descriptions of the "wish" list.

Show us the good faith you have been suggesting you stand behind....

The idea is discussed above and incorporated newtrouts suggestion. We have a map for the envisioned meeting. In the description above WMC discussed conceding significant parts of the WMC proposal, and the most important areas for snowmobile riding to the Teanaway crest. The discussion in exchange is that snowmobile interests would agree to assist in protecting the Wilderness from incursion and recognize the need for some new winter non-motorized areas in the area that has been described by snowmobile riders as less desirable than the area of Long Pass and Van Epps, which are discussed as possible concession to snowmobile riders.

We believe that our snowmobile contact would be recognized as a significant person in the snowmobile world. We ask for that person's involvement if willing by contacting the appropriate persons in the snowmobile interests. WSSA has sent a letter of Rebuttal of the WMC proposal that does not address the proposal, but puts WSSA at odds immediately with WMC and our discussion. We will hope that our snowmobile industry contact can mediate and set up a meeting for colllaboration.

Clearly, both sides are prepared to continue on their own competing efforts, but our sincere hope is that both sides may sit down and concede some part to the other's legitimate use of the Forest.

Thank you, please let's continue in a spirit of collaboration.

The idea is discussed above and incorporated newtrouts suggestion. We have a map for the envisioned meeting. In the description above WMC discussed conceding significant parts of the WMC proposal, and the most important areas for snowmobile riding to the Teanaway crest. The discussion in exchange is that snowmobile interests would agree to assist in protecting the Wilderness from incursion and recognize the need for some new winter non-motorized areas in the area that has been described by snowmobile riders as less desirable than the area of Long Pass and Van Epps, which are discussed as possible concession to snowmobile riders.

We believe that our snowmobile contact would be recognized as a significant person in the snowmobile world. We ask for that person's involvement if willing by contacting the appropriate persons in the snowmobile interests. WSSA has sent a letter of Rebuttal of the WMC proposal that does not address the proposal, but puts WSSA at odds immediately with WMC and our discussion. We will hope that our snowmobile industry contact can mediate and set up a meeting for colllaboration.

Clearly, both sides are prepared to continue on their own competing efforts, but our sincere hope is that both sides may sit down and concede some part to the other's legitimate use of the Forest.

Thank you, please let's continue in a spirit of collaboration.

Lay it out here for all to see, say in a final rough draft. I'm certain that the changes will be noticed and more refinement could be made. I'm also certain that the WSSA letter was in response to the first version of your proposal.

The resason for the completed "rough draft" is to encapsulate your proposal without reading endless pages from 2 forums and trying to piece together the modifications. This could be used as the tool to continue refinement and get out to the interested parties before a meeting with usfs, so the burden on their shoulders is reduced to a rubber stamp effect, although we still have yet to see the public comment response.

Lay it out here for all to see, say in a final rough draft. I'm certain that the changes will be noticed and more refinement could be made. I'm also certain that the WSSA letter was in response to the first version of your proposal.

The resason for the completed "rough draft" is to encapsulate your proposal without reading endless pages from 2 forums and trying to piece together the modifications. This could be used as the tool to continue refinement and get out to the interested parties before a meeting with usfs, so the burden on their shoulders is reduced to a rubber stamp effect, although we still have yet to see the public comment response.

Sure, a reasonable request. For the sake of this discussion:

The original proposal for winter non-motorized designation-

This encompasses Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers in the Teanaway crest area. From Blewett Pass, the Wenatchee Mountains Crest from Rd 9716 to the west of Diamond Head across Tronsen Head, Mt. Lillian including down to the Old Ellensburg trail to Mission Peak and on to the Mission Ridge Road including Lake Clara, Mission Peak, and surrounding areas.



The proposal after collaboration in exchange for agreed concession to winter- non motorized use the areas of the proposal to the east of Longs Pass, and snowmobile-group monitoring of the Wilderness Boundary-

This encompasses the existing Voluntary Non-Motorized Area (Beverly-Bean) and Earl Peak to Navaho Peak (Stafford Creek per newtrouts proposal), and Three Brothers for the Teanaway crest area.

From Blewett Pass the Wenatchee Mountains Crest from Rd 9716 to the west of Diamond Head across Tronsen Head, Mt. Lillian including down to the Old Ellensburg trail to Mission Peak and on to the Mission Ridge Road including Lake Clara, Mission Peak, and surrounding areas.

Snowmobiles would continue to ride what we are told are the best areas at Longs Pass and Van Epps including Lake Ann. We have been told by our snowmobile contact that what we ask for from Blewett is mostly "ride through" country, the better riding is on the open slopes toward Lion Rock and into the Naneum, which connects to the Wenatchee Heights and Colockum.  The area furthest east is on the border of the ski area has the best access from the Mission Ridge lot for snowshoe hikes and skiers.

Thanks for continuing the discussion.

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!

the ideas mostly came from newtrout's comments that were pasted here from another forum. It made a lot of sense.

At least for the NF Teanaway, I consider the wilderness area out of play, and mostly a distraction from what really needs to happen. I can only think of maybe 2 locations where I would ever attempt to enter the wilderness in the winter - Navaho Pass and Ingalls Pass - and really there's no way to get close to either without a snowmobile. Even in the spring I ski mostly on the non-wilderness side. I think skiers would benefit more by focussing on the development of new snowparks that snowmobilers would get behind, along with a couple adjacent non-motor areas that snowmobilers can live with. Damn, I'm starting to feel like a sellout.

Sure, a reasonable request. For the sake of this discussion:

The original proposal for winter non-motorized designation-

This encompasses Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers in the Teanaway crest area. From Blewett Pass, the Wenatchee Mountains Crest from Rd 9716 to the west of Diamond Head across Tronsen Head, Mt. Lillian including down to the Old Ellensburg trail to Mission Peak and on to the Mission Ridge Road including Lake Clara, Mission Peak, and surrounding areas.



The proposal after collaboration in exchange for agreed concession to winter- non motorized use the areas of the proposal to the east of Longs Pass, and snowmobile-group monitoring of the Wilderness Boundary-

This encompasses the existing Voluntary Non-Motorized Area (Beverly-Bean) and Earl Peak to Navaho Peak (Stafford creek per newtrouts proposal), and Three Brothers for the Teanaway crest area.

From Blewett Pass the Wenatchee Mountains Crest from Rd 9716 to the west of Diamond Head across Tronsen Head, Mt. Lillian including down to the Old Ellensburg trail to Mission Peak and on to the Mission Ridge Road including Lake Clara, Mission Peak, and surrounding areas.

Snowmobiles would continue to ride what we are told are the best areas at Longs Pass and Van Epps including Lake Ann. We have been told by our snowmobile contact that what we ask for from Blewett is mostly "ride through" country, the better riding is on the open slopes toward Lion Rock and into the Naneum, which connects to the Wenatchee Heights and Colockum.  The area furthest east is on the border of the ski area has the best access from the Mission Ridge lot for snowshoe hikes and skiers.

Thanks for continuing the discussion.

We need one of you computer wiz dudes to help with a map like an ealier post....please..