WMC Update 2012

... If you proposed that sno-parks have half the parking reserved for snowmo trailer rigs, and half (by square footage) for vehicles w/o trailers, I'd likely jump at the offer. I won't hold my breath.

As for all those acres, as noted above, a key issue is how few of them are accessible to day-touring skiers.

In regard to the Blewett Sno Park there has been brief discussion with USFS personnel in previous years about enlarging the parking. Perhaps that discussion should continue. The summer lot for the Forest Discovery Trail above the current Blewett Sno Park as a suggestion to use if the approach were plowed could offer a nearly doubling of parking. If that were done perhaps a division with designation of cars and snowmobile haul vehicles would be worthwhile.

There are four areas along Hwy 97 where skiers park just to the north of Blewett Pass summit. Skier/ snowshoer access from the Upper Tronsen Rd. allows the route to the Mt. Lillian summit via the Tronsen Meadow Trail then across Haney Meadow in the direction of the Old Ellensburg Trail, and finally to the Mt Lillian 6191' summit. This would require a 2 to 3 hour climb to the Mt Lillian summit, depending on individual pace, and perhaps faster by some. Snowshoe hikers use this route and seek the summits of Mt. Lillian, Tronsen Head, and Diamond Head which are on the "Wenatchee Mountains Backcourt 100" list. There is a rough historical hunting cabin at Haney Meadow, and if the area were to become non-motorized the use of the cabin and area by skiers and snowshoers would be a quieter (Road motor traffic only) winter experience in a pristine area. In the past, a local Leavenworth Guide used the area for ski trips in this fashion. The XC 15 blue diamond (marked) Trail from above the Blewett Sno Park was cut in the early 1960s to go to Haney Meadow from that direction. To the north of Haney Meadow is Tronsen Head, currently open to snowmobiles except on the blue diamond trails. Tronsen Head borders the  current Tronsen Non-Motorized Area to the north, and has open meadow slopes and forest to the south aspect down to Haney Meadow to be included in the non-motorized proposal.

From the Mt. Lillian summit are open ridges and natural gladed terrain with aspects to the south through the SE with nearly 1000 vertical feet of long ski runs with gentle angles less than what is required for avalanching in many places. On the east aspect of Mt. Lillian is a band of bowls with shorter open vertical that may be combined with tree openings for about 700 vertical feet of falline skiing on shaded and wind-protected east-facing bowls and more exposed SE to east aspects. The expansive views in all directions from Mt. Lillian are tremendous, given the position to the east of the main Cascade Range. While on Mt. Lillian 6191' one may see expansive views of Mt. Rainier, along the Cascade Crest, Mt. Stuart and the Enchantments, and the range of the proposed area from Ingalls Peak through Three Brothers, mountains surrounding the Icicle, the Entiat Mountains, the Chelan Mountains, Glacier Peak, etc.

In regard to proximity to the car, the Mission Peak and Lake Clara area of the proposal have the closest access. That area borders Mission Ridge Ski Area, and there is a summer trail Trailhead to access the area  from near the entrance to the Mission Ridge Parking lot. The proximity to Wenatchee for this area enhances the value of this area for non-motorized winter recreation. The area offers east and north aspect open slopes with perhaps 400 vertical feet to ski, but in a very pristine and beautiful area for winter recreation.

As far as what defines a "day trip," several have posted on TAY about skiing Earl Peak starting from the Teanaway 29 Pines Sno Park. Given some of the TAY posted marathon trips such as around Mt Stuart in a day from Icicle etc., the definition and future of a "day trip" is evolving. All of the terrain within the WMC proposal for non-motorized designation is accessed by Forest Road by the simplest and least expensive snowmobile. The Roads border much of the proposed non-motorized area and would offer access to 2000 to 2700 vertical ft. of ski terrain from Road to summit, aspect from south to east. From a snowmobile parked near Van Epps Pass a skier would quickly access north-facing terrain into the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.

The Wenatchee Mountains Coalition has proposed non-motorized designation for skitouring terrain in the Wenatchee Mountains that will provide considerable terrain for ski touring and other non-motorized winter recreation. The terrain proposed greatly enhances opportunities for day touring, snowmobile-accessed ski touring, and large quiet and untracked-by-snowmobiles areas across the mountain range including Ingalls Peak, Iron Peak, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, and Three Brothers.

Well, sir, we are certain that there is no argument, justification, demographic. sense of fairness or ethics, anything that will convince Yammadog or nearly all snowmobile enthusiasts to consider another user group. There is no evidence that any snowmobile rider is interested in leaving one square foot of untracked snow for skiers or for snowshoers.

I have personally held a conversation on a powder day with gung-ho snowmobilers who were not interested in tracking up our lines, despite the fact that they could have done so. The very fact that Yammadog and Ruffryder have signed up on TAY and joined in the conversation here is clear evidence that they're considering backcountry skiers.

Absolutist positions are very hard to defend.

Ruffryder has an excellent point. Non-motorized sno-parks in traditionally non-motorized areas would give skiers better access to excellent terrain. The I-90 corridor is fairly played out in that regard, but there are a few places along US-2 that would benefit from plowed parking (and sno-parks that aren't a long flat road away from steeper slopes). I've not skied or studied maps along 97. Expanded and advertised human access to the mountains has its own downsides.

Even simply adding a few non-motorized sno-parks in areas where snowmobiling is legal and the skiing is good might go a long way toward getting more people out and playing in the snow instead of telling others what to do on the Internet and in the legislature.

Ruffryder has an excellent point. Non-motorized sno-parks in traditionally non-motorized areas would give skiers better access to excellent terrain. The I-90 corridor is fairly played out in that regard, but there are a few places along US-2 that would benefit from plowed parking (and sno-parks that aren't a long flat road away from steeper slopes).

That is a great idea. Non-motorized sno parks are needed in areas that are already non-motorized, but have no winter road access. How about using some of those snopark dollars to plow access to new non-motorized terrain? If sno-park pass purchasers could designate where they wanted their money spent (beyond the current grooming add-on fee) this could be done somewhat democratically.

As for places, route 2 could use some more parking, especially east of the Stevens Pass touring center.  Along I-90, the Lake Kachess road could be plowed to the campground (or more ambitiously, Box Canyon), and so could the Cooper Lake road. Both would put the Wilderness within day trip range in winter and would not affect snowmobile access to non-wilderness alpine terrain. And what about highway 20? How out of the question is it to stay open year round? Skagit and Methow valley economies would benefit, and a massive amount of non-motorized terrain would be opened up.

I have personally held a conversation on a powder day with gung-ho snowmobilers who were not interested in tracking up our lines, despite the fact that they could have done so. The very fact that Yammadog and Ruffryder have signed up on TAY and joined in the conversation here is clear evidence that they're considering backcountry skiers.

Absolutist positions are very hard to defend.

Ruffryder has an excellent point. Non-motorized sno-parks in traditionally non-motorized areas would give skiers better access to excellent terrain. The I-90 corridor is fairly played out in that regard, but there are a few places along US-2 that would benefit from plowed parking (and sno-parks that aren't a long flat road away from steeper slopes). I've not skied or studied maps along 97. Expanded and advertised human access to the mountains has its own downsides.

Even simply adding a few non-motorized sno-parks in areas where snowmobiling is legal and the skiing is good might go a long way toward getting more people out and playing in the snow instead of telling others what to do on the Internet and in the legislature.

Thanks for more comments here. In the field as described in detail above we have had pleasant encounters with great folks who ride snowmobiles, we chat with them and enjoy meeting them. Some of us ride snowmobiles out Roads to start ski tours quite frequently. And as we stated, we watched other snowmobile riders track up the powder beside us on skiable slopes, because it is fun, and it is there right to do so! Of course, snowmobiles can track the snow quickly. Even though we have had many positive encounters, other than when snowmobilers obey Voluntary Closures we do not see snowmobilers leaving any untracked snow for skiers. Do skiers leave snow untracked if they have the opportunity to ski it? Again, both have a right to the powder snow, we ask for a fair chance for each use to get it.

And to restate, we are asking for a share of the Forest, a fair share, parity, for non-motorized uses. We are not asking to ban snowmobiles or place regulations on snowmobiles outside of winter non-motorized areas.

The Wenatchee Mountains have considerable open terrain, therefore perhaps we see more and more being tracked by snowmobiles. Outside of Wilderness, which by the way is also getting tracked by snowmobiles, there is significant disparity in the amount of Forest set aside for winter non-motorized winter use and that available by default- lack of regulation-  for snowmobiles. Each year snowmobile riders on their increasingly capable machines push into more new terrain for riding. In other words, snowmobiles are now going to places that not long ago were not used by snowmobiles nor were considered places to be possibly ridden by snowmobiles. Please take a look at the posting above with the link which has video of snowmobiles being ridden in very steep and cliffy terrain, in chutes.

As far as more Sno Parks, we would support that. However, realize that unless the Forest land served by the new Sno Park has winter non-motorized designated areas, snowmobiles may very well get in and ride folks' favorite ski tours.

We started the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition to add to years of work done by others on behalf of the same goal for winter non-motorized users, there was an existing base of support. We came on here with permission to invite skiers to advocate for themselves, and ask them to support what we are advocating, which will result in a significant increase of quality areas for skiing and snowshoeing.

We have spent time communicating with the snowmobile community, and feel that what is offered from that group is an invitation to ski on the same terrain on which snowmobiles are also ridden. We believe that for quality of experience reasons and for safety reasons, skiers and snowshoers uses are incompatible with snowmobile use.

That is a great idea. Non-motorized sno parks are needed in areas that are already non-motorized, but have no winter road access. How about using some of those snopark dollars to plow access to new non-motorized terrain? If sno-park pass purchasers could designate where they wanted their money spent (beyond the current grooming add-on fee) this could be done somewhat democratically.

As for places, route 2 could use some more parking, especially east of the Stevens Pass touring center.  Along I-90, the Lake Kachess road could be plowed to the campground (or more ambitiously, Box Canyon), and so could the Cooper Lake road. Both would put the Wilderness within day trip range in winter and would not affect snowmobile access to non-wilderness alpine terrain. And what about highway 20? How out of the question is it to stay open year round? Skagit and Methow valley economies would benefit, and a massive amount of non-motorized terrain would be opened up. 

That is a great point about about parking on the Stevens Pass Highway. What is now the Stevens Pass Nordic Center was previously a Sno Park. That would do well to be replaced. More plowing of roads for access is a frequent discussion also, a valid idea to advocate.

Wenatchee Mountains Coalition affiliates have the goal of providing opportunites for non-motorized winter recreation on the Forest. We have here described the first project of the WMC. It is very likely that WMC also can or will get behind issues such as more Sno Park parking.

And to restate, we are asking for a share of the Forest, a fair share, parity, for non-motorized uses. We are not asking to ban snowmobiles or place regulations on snowmobiles outside of winter non-motorized areas.

I take great issue with your continued use of the word parity and fair share.  Of all the mountain riding terrain available for use in the winter, snowmobilers have a very limited amount in comparison to areas accessible for skiers and snowshoers. Your negation of including wilderness is, IMO an error.  It seems, in looking at the maps, a large majority of land that isn't being used for motorized access is wilderness. 

I don't have a problem with skiers and snowshoers wanting more access for day use. Not at all. I do have a problem with trying to justify it based on YOUR definition of parity. This simplistic comparison of motorized vs. non-motorized use of only FS and SP land leads to an interpretation of the importance of rights of other uses as hollow.

It almost seems that ideally skiers and snow shoers (sp?) would use land close to main roads and access points, while snowmobilers should be allowed to use the land that is further away.  Unfortunately, that land further away is currently wilderness and therefore is not available for use by snowmobiles.  You guys want to make a switch?  lol I am pretty sure that EVERY SINGLE snowmobiler would gladly ride and extra 5-10 miles to get to the better riding areas that are currently wilderness.  I know it isn't likely, but it seems like this would be ideal in this PARTICULAR scenario / issue.

edited for clarity, or at least I tried to make it more clear... ha ha