WMC Non-Motorized Advocacy

The WMC, you are starting this again?

Didn't you get ousted as getting caught lying about who you are on snowest?

We going to have to do the same old discussion again?  We don't have to figure out the correct and accurate numbers to use in your arguments against us again do we?

You know, I see another snow user, and I think, cool man, another human being that likes being out in the snow..

The constant divisive manor in which these conversations go, creating an US vs THEM argument full of hostility does very little to help the cause.

In an age of tightening government budgets and realignment of financial importance with regards to the economy and jobs, I would think trying to group ALL snow users together would net a better result then just trying to restrict other snow users.

So is this the same WMC as before? Or as someone else taken over the reigns?

The WMC Proposal has gone where stated from the start, and has received much individual and Organizational support. We are here on TAY in order to talk with non-motorized enthusiasts so that they may speak to these issues.

WMC wildly and provocatively overeaches in pitching non-motorized status for the entire Wenatchee Mountain divide.  Scatter Creek, Van Epps, Gallagher/Lake Ann - people aren't skiing there because of the machines - it's just too far to go without a machine.  Even Stafford is a haul for someone without a machine.  Oddly, other skiers with snowmo's(TobyT, Good2go) who ski the "pristine" divide don't seem to be complaining.

I'm unfamiliar with the Mission Ridge area but things do work relatively well around Blewett with the mix of shared routes along with voluntary and official closures.  WMC should revise his maps to show the  Pipe Creek non-motorized area and the voluntary closure along Wenatchee divide toward Old Blewett Pass.  Somehow the voluntary closure up Jungle Creek in the Teanaway was also omitted.

WMC is addressing the pristine unroaded area of the Wenatchee Mountains Crest. That is the area along the Wilderness Boundary, thus it has a role in the widespread ongoing and intentional snowmobile Wilderness trespass that is well known in USFS and widely by many folks. That is clearly stated from the start. Please read the Proposal more carefully and you will see that Road access in all Proposals is preserved. As well, unlike the opposition, WMC has considered other viewpoints and the result is presenting now three Proposals based on input from others, gathered here and on Snowest. These three Proposals have been presented(and discussed) to the OWNF USFS Forest Plan Revision Team, OWNF Supervisor Heath and her Staff, and to State and Federal elected officials.

Alternate viewpoints are welcome: debate the viewpoint, not the person.

This kind of post and discussion is only okay here if it can stick to the above, WMC.  Issues like these are heated enough without taking jabs at the people that are trying to understand your proposals.

I agreed with what he stated, then provided restatement and clarification.

It is not clear that he has read the Proposal or other information, he does not refer to it, thus that question is asked.

Yes, Marcus, sir, I am glad that you will be looking for name calling as there was quite a bit here on the previous thread that was allowed. Some of it was uncivil and outrageous, and is already back again.

www.winterwildlands.org/resources/report...age_Report_final.pdf

This is probably a biased study in that it is from the Winter Wild Lands Alliance but I suspect that, in much of the area under discussion, the timber value of the land is a major consideration in management and I have certainly noted damage to trees from snow machines in the Wenatchee mountains...if this sort of damage is widespread I would suspect that the forest service would be legally obligated to institute a closure to preserve the value of the land and protect habitat.

Perhaps the best thing for all involved would be if the snow machining community instituted voluntary closures based on season and snow depth to limit damage to timber resources and habitat but still preserve access for part of the season? Climbers do something similar to preserve access to cliffs on which hawks nest in the Leavenworth area.

Edit: It is already happening on paper company land near spokane:

www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/nov/19/timber-trails-closed/

Yes, thanks Ryan for some good points!

Yes, I had followed the original thread, and I'm clear on who your organization is and what your platform boils down to.

The WMC, you are starting this again?

This topic has a long history here and I know it was frustrating for a folks on both sides of the issue last time it came up.  The debate needs to be about the proposal and other alternatives, not about the people behind them.