WMC Update 2012

I wrote:

Sledders don't "self police" because any form of policing is simply antithetical to sled culture.

Then you wrote:

I report to no one but my own heart and family.

I wrote:

The sad fact of the matter is that the very nature of the sled makes it the only viable access option for the litterers, drinkers, the noisy, the destructive, and the reckless.

Then you wrote:

You'd be one of those people I would warn my boys about. And suggest they leave you some yellow snow to melt for drinking water....

Thanks for proving my point about sledding culture.

I am here simply whitewash the sledding crowd, even though my own responses, which include instructing my children to urinate in places where you might seek drinking water, prove your point about sledding culture quite nicely.

I'll be sure to print these forum pages and let everyone see what the sled culture is all about. I'm sure you'll be quite happy to take ownership of your words in a public meeting.

Aren't sled-free or wilderness buffer zones going to be a tough political sell in most cases, given that the sled heads seem more numerous and so far, better organized than backcountry skiers.  Even with bigger budgets and better equipment, it's hard to imagine ever having enough law enforcement on the snow to keep up with snowmobiling's rate of growth, even if no-go areas or buffer zones are achieved.

Wilderness boundary law enforcement and motorized closures might be much improved if State and federal agencies required permanently mounted vehicle tracking GPS technology for off-road machines such as sleds & ATVs.  Maybe it could be sold to the manufacturers as a safety/navigation aid?

I'm lucky to now live next to a National Park, but I spent a lot of time in southern BC, and Cookie is right, most places outside their Parks were tracked out, even decades ago.  Though it's not as overun as the east side of the Cascades, a friend here refers to the Gifford Pinchot NF (southern WA) as 'Snowmobile National Park'.  I hear sled & ATV incursions are pretty common in both the Goat Rocks and Mt. Adams wildernesses.  I'm also curious how that new sled-free corridor at St Helens is working out?

Even areas supposedly dedicated to skiing may not be very quiet.  Several experienced locals have called the Mount Tahoma huts "a snowmobile club posing as a ski trail system", because of all the 'grooming' and very frequent service runs to the huts by insiders.   

WMC believes that now may be a good time to advocate for more non-motorized winter recreation designation here. There are successful examples of similar division of Forest for motorized winter use and non-motorized winter use in Idaho, Montana, Colorado, perhaps others.

As we have been told by USFS personnel, unless we citizens call attention to this and define the problem, it will not be addressed. WMC and TSP are a start, many questions arise, but we must get started. Skiers have lost the competition for snow recreation on Forest land. Some of us who snowmobile out to skitour 40 days per year, and some of us who have skied this terrain in the Proposal in the '80s and one we know in the 70's, we see perhaps or understand many examples of this problem.

Let's take another dive into sled culture. If you're curious as to why WMC wants to remain as anonymous as possible, well ... here is a thread where they posted the name and address of people opposed to sledding, and where they encouraged hostile phone contact.

backcountryrebels.com/showthread.php?t=7167&page=2

Jim Oker, do you want to know why you were sprayed? A lot of sledders actively encourage what amounts to DANGEROUS and ILLEGAL mistreatment of skiers.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. YammaDog, would you care to make a comment? Perhaps you can produce similar materials from the backcountry skier side of this argument?

I like to know what land on the OWNF is being closed to snow mobiles as claimed by Yammadog?

It does no good to impugn the character of your opposition.  It hurts your credibility and makes it harder to reach any compromise.  Please stop. (CookieMonster, I'm talking to you.) 

I've posted in support of the WMC proposals, but now I'm going to shift gears.  While I agree with the ideas being suggested here, I find it hard to take this project seriously.  I don't think it can succeed as it has been presented here.  I'm going to offer a few suggestions. 

First, WMC will eventually have to shed its cloak of anonymity.  As Antonin Scalia said yesterday, "Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage." I don't think you'll be able to generate the political support you need if you stay anonymous.  I can't put my support behind an anonymous campaign.  We will all need to step forward. 

According to WMC, the new organization has no website, no funds, just an email address.  That's not going to cut it.  As I'll discuss below, you've got some serious communicating to do.  A website is a first step toward crafting your message. 

You need to document the historical use by skiers of the areas you're concerned about.  Having visited a few snowmobiling areas, I'm not so sure that backcountry skiers outnumber snowmobilers anymore.  There are a lot of sledders out there!  Unless you can prove that skiers far outnumber snowmobilers, your defense of skiing will have to be framed in terms of the traditional use of the areas you're concerned about.  You need to show that skiers have been using these areas for a long time, and that the growth and evolution of snowmobiling has been crowding them out.  This is fundamentally a conservative argument.  Respecting such traditions is a conservative value.  Use this to your advantage. 

You need to explain why federally designated wilderness does not meet the needs of the ski community.  That's the first thing that the skeptical listener is going to ask.  You need to explain that federal wilderness was established primarily with summer use in mind.  Neither snowmobiling nor backcountry skiing were given much consideration when our state's wilderness areas were designated.  Most wilderness areas are too remote for regular winter use by skiers (although they serve well for summertime use by hikers and horse riders).  You need to illustrate the problem with concrete facts and examples. 

You need to be very specific about which areas you are proposing for non-motorized management.  You need to provide maps.  Verbal hand-waving with reference to topo maps is not good enough. 

You need to be specific about which areas will NOT be managed for non-motorized use.  Again, the maps must be explicit.  Snowmobile enthusiasts will justifiably distrust you unless you clearly tell them which areas will remain open to them.  They're going to disagree with you no matter what you do. Don't give them a reason to distrust you as well. Writing off these areas for skiing may be painful, but I don't see any alternative if you want people to accept the plan. 

This thread is a nice way to kick off discussion of the issue.  But the proposals that WMC has offered are much too vague.  I can't throw my support behind the proposal at this point, and I doubt that you'll get 100 letters, let alone 1000, unless you get more serious and organized about this project.  My two cents... 

It does no good to impugn the character of your opposition.  It hurts your credibility and makes it harder to reach any compromise.  Please stop. (CookieMonster, I'm talking to you.) 

I've posted in support of the WMC proposals, but now I'm going to shift gears.  While I agree with the ideas being suggested here, I find it hard to take this project seriously.  I don't think it can succeed as it has been presented here.  I'm going to offer a few suggestions. 

First, WMC will eventually have to shed its cloak of anonymity.  As Antonin Scalia said yesterday, "Running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage." I don't think you'll be able to generate the political support you need if you stay anonymous.  I can't put my support behind an anonymous campaign.  We will all need to step forward. 

According to WMC, the new organization has no website, no funds, just an email address.  That's not going to cut it.  As I'll discuss below, you've got some serious communicating to do.  A website is a first step toward crafting your message. 

You need to document the historical use by skiers of the areas you're concerned about.  Having visited a few snowmobiling areas, I'm not so sure that backcountry skiers outnumber snowmobilers anymore.  There are a lot of sledders out there!  Unless you can prove that skiers far outnumber snowmobilers, your defense of skiing will have to be framed in terms of the traditional use of the areas you're concerned about.  You need to show that skiers have been using these areas for a long time, and that the growth and evolution of snowmobiling has been crowding them out.  This is fundamentally a conservative argument.  Respecting such traditions is a conservative value.  Use this to your advantage. 

You need to explain why federally designated wilderness does not meet the needs of the ski community.  That's the first thing that the skeptical listener is going to ask.  You need to explain that federal wilderness was established primarily with summer use in mind.  Neither snowmobiling nor backcountry skiing were given much consideration when our state's wilderness areas were designated.  Most wilderness areas are too remote for regular winter use by skiers (although they serve well for summertime use by hikers and horse riders).  You need to illustrate the problem with concrete facts and examples. 

You need to be very specific about which areas you are proposing for non-motorized management.  You need to provide maps.  Verbal hand-waving with reference to topo maps is not good enough. 

You need to be specific about which areas will NOT be managed for non-motorized use.  Again, the maps must be explicit.  Snowmobile enthusiasts will justifiably distrust you unless you clearly tell them which areas will remain open to them.  They're going to disagree with you no matter what you do. Don't give them a reason to distrust you as well. Writing off these areas for skiing may be painful, but I don't see any alternative if you want people to accept the plan. 

This thread is a nice way to kick off discussion of the issue.  But the proposals that WMC has offered are much too vague.  I can't throw my support behind the proposal at this point, and I doubt that you'll get 100 letters, let alone 1000, unless you get more serious and organized about this project.  My two cents... 

Thank you for taking the time to add to the discussion.

We feel that individuals deciding to ask the Forest Supervisor for more non-motorized winter recreation areas has more importance than any organization, website, marketing, etc. There is plenty of that type of thing out there now such as Winter Wildlands Allliance and several other organizations. We are not asking for money, we are asking for skiers to advocate for themselves and recognize that as the valid influence. There is nothing else out there for Washington skiers to support for this purpose specifically, so we created this. We have good reason to believe that the Forest Supervisor may prefer to hear the heartfelt concerns and logical requests of citizens, Forest users, rather than to get another elaborate marketing packet or flashy website to view.

We are not asking anyone to endorse us personally, we are trying to illustrate the problem and trying to encourage skiers to speak up. The issue is important, skiers collective voices are important.

We would not expect, ever, any support, concession, or agreement from snowmobile riders in regard to creating new designated winter non-motorized areas.

USFS personnel are quite sharp and knowledgeable and do not need this to be explained so much, as are many skiers who understand much about these issues. We are very aware that many in USFS are knowledgeable of the extent that Wilderness is meeting the needs of unlawful Wilderness snowmobile trespassers, and the buffer concept does not need to be explained to USFS, clearly.

If the Forest Supervisor wished to implement this type of non-motorized winter recreation areas it could occur. Non-motorized designations have been done in this fashion on other Forests, as well as have been done previously on the Wenatchee National Forest. The lines that will be drawn exactly would be drawn by USFS. Currently many Boundaries are drawn on ridgetops or along drainages or roads, as we have discussed. We are not anonymous in our contact with USFS, that is what matters, we are Forest users advocating our position. We do not seek anyone's endorsement, we seek others to join in advocacy of the issue.

Great discussion, thanks all!