WMC Non-Motorized Advocacy

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.

Thank you Marcus. WMC as stated has incorporated input from TAY and from Snowest Forums in what is now actually three proposals. Aside from these Forums, much has occurred and is ongoing on this topic and our Proposal. We cannot claim 1000 individuals that wrote to USFS, but we are gratified at considerable and growing support. Some very significant Organizations support this initiative, letters from Organizations representing over 40.000 persons were sent  to USFS, and we anticipate more.

Sorry to report that today the website hosting the current article is down. It will be back, if necessary I could repost the article here. There may be more in the media soon as well.

The WMC Proposal has brought out the interest and support of solid, professional middle class folks. We are here solely to try to reach and involve winter non-motorized Forest users in this discussion and effort. Thank you.

WMC

I understand the principle reasons for drafting the proposals and submitting them to the USFS. I also relate to them. However I personally feel it sets a bad precedent if adopted by the USFS. For this reason I am apposed to what you are proposing at this time.

The way I see it, it breaks down like this.
You (WMC) represents a specific user group (non motorized) that seeks to limit access to public land to another user group (motorized or specifically snowmobile) through multiple proposals drafted from your point of view and presented to the USFS.

While you say that you have taken feedback from all parties, you are still representing an "us vs. them" situation. Consider for a moment, If the USFS chose to adopt one of your proposals, it sets a president wherein any special interest group can petition to exclude others in the name of their own self interest without due process. More importantly these proposals while drafted in the guise of a specific area would likely have a much further reaching effect that would potentially have an impact on resource management in neighboring areas within and or even outside of the region.

My personal feeling on this is that you haven't worked in good faith with the snowmobile community. Perhaps I'm wrong however I do not see any evidence of this short of going onto Snowest to solicit feedback on a forum, then spin it in a way that looks like you are reaching out to that user group to involve them in the process. I would happy admit that I'm wrong about this (if I am), however I've yet to see any proof that is contrary to that.

Again, nearly everything you (WMC) stand for I can relate to, I find many of your concerns valid, however where it ends for me is the means by which you intend to have your needs met, which from everything you have presented appears to involve exclusion.

What is needed is a larger review process within the USFS regarding Winter use that involves all parties at the ground level, all talking and working together toward a mutually beneficial outcome, not one petitioning to exclude another.

WMC

I understand the principle reasons for drafting the proposals and submitting them to the USFS. I also relate to them. However I personally feel it sets a bad precedent if adopted by the USFS. For this reason I am apposed to what you are proposing at this time.

The way I see it, it breaks down like this.
You (WMC) represents a specific user group (non motorized) that seeks to limit access to public land to another user group (motorized or specifically snowmobile) through multiple proposals drafted from your point of view and presented to the USFS.

While you say that you have taken feedback from all parties, you are still representing an "us vs. them" situation. Consider for a moment, If the USFS chose to adopt one of your proposals, it sets a president wherein any special interest group can petition to exclude others in the name of their own self interest without due process. More importantly these proposals while drafted in the guise of a specific area would likely have a much further reaching effect that would potentially have an impact on resource management in neighboring areas within and or even outside of the region.

My personal feeling on this is that you haven't worked in good faith with the snowmobile community. Perhaps I'm wrong however I do not see any evidence of this short of going onto Snowest to solicit feedback on a forum, then spin it in a way that looks like you are reaching out to that user group to involve them in the process. I would happy admit that I'm wrong about this (if I am), however I've yet to see any proof that is contrary to that.

Again, nearly everything you (WMC) stand for I can relate to, I find many of your concerns valid, however where it ends for me is the means by which you intend to have your needs met, which from everything you have presented appears to involve exclusion.

What is needed is a larger review process within the USFS regarding Winter use that involves all parties at the ground level, all talking and working together toward a mutually beneficial outcome, not one petitioning to exclude another.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

We are asking for management of snowmobile riding on the Forest because it eliminates from a practical standpoint the non-motorized use of the same snowy terrain. For some reason, there seems less of this type of management in WA than on Forests in other states. What we ask is done commonly on other Forests. Here is one example of a Circuit Court decision overturning a Forest Plan that did not provide for cross country skiing- www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/05/30830.htm

Our view is that since snowmobiles are allowed to dominate the Wenatchee Mountains, and not even enforced to protect the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, is is tough to find any compromise from a practical point of view. Yet we have attempted to offer compromise Proposals in exchange for meetings and cooperation from the other side- but we see no cooperation or agreement to meet and discuss issues. What we see is the widespread exclusion of other users by snowmobile riding. In regard to winter non-motorized users, except on Forums, we find general and specific agreement to what we seek.

We have contacted all sort of Officials listed for snowmobile organizations. We also asked an elected official to facilitate meeting with those folks. We get no reply except for one person whose identity we keep in confidence since there is risk letting some know that a discussion by a snowmobile person with non-motorized advocates occurred. That interest group will not tolerate talk or compromise for non-motorized use according to what we have seen. We had two productive meetings with a person of significance in the snowmobile world, that person also spoke to the same USFS folks with whom WMC met.

WMC has been talking to another from the opposition for quite some time, asking for meetings. USFS OWNF Supervisor Heath asked that we include USFS in any such meetings. We have an elected Official who has agreed to host such a meeting. Yet, we can get no one from the snowmobile side to the table. Why should they, they have most of it, and there are not even consequences for Wilderness snowmobile trespass and for other issues. And in our view, many skiers and USFS folks are intimidated by some aggressive snowmobile advocates and the powerful well-funded lobby.

WMC represents an issue. We have no "members" other than the few carrying this effort and going to meetings, Our entire stated purpose has been to ask citizens to speak up about their non-motorized winter activities on the Forest, to speak up in regard to our Proposal, and that has occurred. If no support or interest occurred, WMC would be history, but that is not the case. Interest is constantly growing, education is occurring. We believe that we will eventually see implemented some of what we seek, not because of our effort or argument, but because this is the right thing.

The larger review is occurring with the Forest Plan revision being circulated internally to USFS. We expect a Draft to the public this year. We are trying to encourage non-motorized users to be aware and give their input. Thanks.

The article is again available on the website: www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/21163

It appeared to be down today.

I took WMC's advice and actually called the USFS and tried to talk to Rebecca Heath.
I left a message and they called me back a few days later. The woman who called me back was very nice and she was one of the people dealing with the issue.
We had a nice conversation and I explained my position as a BC skier who opposed further restrictions on motorized use.
On my visit to Mission Ridge with Aaron I got a good idea of the snowmobile use of adjacent bowls to the ski area and although I understand and actually sympathize with them I personally can't agree with further restrictions when so much terrain is already non-motorized.
Based upon what she said I don't think this proposal is going anywhere soon and one of the issues that she raised ( not me) was that she thought it fairly ironic that the people proposing the idea where also snowmobilers... which caused me to chuckle and her.

Based upon what she said I don't think this proposal is going anywhere soon and one of the issues that she raised ( not me) was that she thought it fairly ironic that the people proposing the idea where also snowmobilers... which caused me to chuckle and her.

Irony is people bitching about more restictions inside ski areas but believing more are needed outside ski areas