WMC Update 2012

Has it ever been considered to maybe look at trying to get more winter access for Non-motorized usage without taking area away from a specific user group?  Snowmobilers would probably support this, and if there is enough support for something like this from ALL or MOST winter users it would have a higher likelyhood of being done.

Thanks for commenting here. Ruffryder is a familiar name on Snowest and on Backcountry Rebels and he sounds like a great guy!

We believe that snowmobile riding on the same terrain as is used by skiers makes it largely unsuitable for skiing because of the rutting and packing of the snow. And also the noise really ruins the experience for skiers and snowshoers. Then are safety issues, snowmobiles' performance is very very impressive, but very scary and potentially hazardous to the pedestrian when a snowmobile passes a skier on a climb or fast.

Terrain designated for non-motorized use is the only way to provide for skiing and snowshoeing recreation.

Thanks Ruffy!

Thanks for commenting here. Ruffryder is a familiar name on Snowest and on Backcountry Rebels and he sounds like a great guy!

We believe that snowmobile riding on the same terrain as is used by skiers makes it largely unsuitable for skiing because of the rutting and packing of the snow. And also the noise really ruins the experience for skiers and snowshoers. Then are safety issues, snowmobiles' performance is very very impressive, but very scary and potentially hazardous to the pedestrian when a snowmobile passes a skier on a climb or fast.

Terrain designated for non-motorized use is the only way to provide for skiing and snowshoeing recreation.

Thanks Ruffy!

When you make your map, would you also indicate the areas that you would not be interested in eliminating snowmobiles and even perhaps for your safety, show the areas that you would not visit...say, a skier safety zone, where sledders don't need to worry about a skier being in "danger"?

Terrain designated for non-motorized use is the only way to provide for skiing and snowshoeing recreation.

If that is your stance then fine, but you did not answer my question.

Why is the emphasis on taking motorized access and making it Non-motorized? Why is the emphasis not on getting NEW access for Non-motorized use that does not impact motorized access?

Why is the emphasis on taking motorized access and making it Non-motorized?  Why is the emphasis not on getting NEW access for Non-motorized use that does not impact motorized access?

OK, I'll bite. Can you provide an example of what you're talking about?

I always figured that the important thing about real estate is that they aren't making any more of it.

On what lands would new access for non-motorized use be possible? Don't be cagey, tell us what you're referring to.

On what lands would new access for non-motorized use be possible? Don't be cagey, tell us what you're referring to.

I guess I should have clarified by stating new access for DAY use. As I understand from this discussion, it isn't an issue of the TOTAL AMOUNT of area that is available to skiers, the issue is the AMOUNT that can be utilized for SINGLE DAY adventures.

Correct?

As I understand from this discussion, it isn't an issue of the TOTAL AMOUNT of area that is available to skiers, the issue is the AMOUNT that can be utilized for SINGLE DAY adventures.

Correct?

Yes, I think that's the main focus of this WMC project.