Snomo in couloir

I appreciate your input and everyone else's subjects for that matter..thanks!

Individuals who read WMC threads send WMC copies of their support letter. There are many more folks doing that than there are folks who will discuss it here in a post. A few individuals here do their best to derail a legitimate discussion and are aggressive, and immediately want to turn it personal with name-calling and bad-faith diatribes. Some folks have told WMC that is why they do not want to post on TAY- because of that tone and aggression here, and the same folks question why WMC would bother to post here. TAY is recognized as a website that is important to the backcountry skiing community, another reason that WMC is here.

We have started to build a website, but see that as less important as is soliciting the more important individual voices to comment to the USFS about these issues. Most folks think for themselves and are not swayed by loud bully voices.

WMC posts here with permission of the Administrator. To our dismay, we find him not really very supportive of our cause, but he has the integrity to allow the discussion with some referee action sometimes. Only one of us at WMC is silly enough to post here. We cannot really say if the good result has outweighed the bad, but at least this site gets the message out to the backcountry skiing community. Our other networks behind the scene have actually built the most support.

Thanks TAY.

Allowing this kind of post, whether I agree with the topic at hand or not, is a bit of an experiment. There's a reason why Charles didn't let this sort of thing get posted and I think it's because it's exceedingly difficult to keep it from becoming personal.

As usual, I'd appreciate it if this doesn't become another shouting match between WMC and anyone that doesn't agree. The particulars of this proposal (and alternatives) have been thoroughly discussed here, so if there's nothing else to add beyond that we can probably just leave it alone for a while.

Allowing this kind of post, whether I agree with the topic at hand or not, is a bit of an experiment.  There's a reason why Charles didn't let this sort of thing get posted and I think it's because it's exceedingly difficult to keep it from becoming personal. 

As usual, I'd appreciate it if this doesn't become another shouting match between WMC and anyone that doesn't agree.  The particulars of this proposal (and alternatives) have been thoroughly discussed here, so if there's nothing else to add beyond that we can probably just leave it alone for a while.

Thanks Marcus. This particular post introduced significant information about report of snowmobile Wilderness trespass. That is an important discussion. EDIT to add- There were several discussions about these issues in the history of TAY that are similar to what WMC is attempting.

I'm willing to declare cautious support for some of WMC's proposals.

What I do support: Enforceable regulation limiting snowmo access.
Don't support: Drawing boundaries based on personal agenda.

Comparing snowmo to ORV is a little misleading. You would have to consider "if there were a trail in this area, would ORV use be allowed?" If an area would have ORV use except for the lack of a trail, why not allow sleds? Climbing a couloir looks like a hell of a lot of fun. I may not choose to own one but if you handed me a helmet at the bottom and pointed, I'm all for it. We need dramatic terrain for sledders to play. Areas that require a long valley approach to reach higher terrain would offer little conflict with skiers. I believe WMC would suggest snowmo approach and then self-powered only to the ridges. I disagree because if you are tring to limit machine access, part of the solution is to designate challenging area for all users.

In some areas where there is a trail that is not restricted due to Wilderness or Park status, increasing pedestrian use may lead to a ban that formerly had none. I agree with this even though I have been on the receiving end of the ban (mountain and dirt bike). I think Baker and St Helens are both areas that would be appropriate as self-powered only.

Snowmos have access to many areas that are very lightly travelled by skiers due to travel time. Areas that have been traditionally frequented by skiers and are now available to snowmos due to tech improvements should be considered for restricted access. Areas that receive a lot of pedestrian visits should be closed to snowmo use along with enough of the surrounding area to preserve the quiet. Claiming that all users are equal is a fallacy, one machine can diminish the experience of hundreds of self-powered users.

The enforceability issue might be easier with a zero tolerance, Wilderness confiscation policy. By the time the FS racked up a fleet of 50 machines, I think the message would be heard.

WOW- there are occasional posts here that I occasionally disagree with but I don't expect these folks to drop their input because I might not agree with their point of view at the time. I feel grown up enough to realize I don't have to read their posts and I never feel put out seeing that they have posted (after all, some times I learn of other valid ways of looking at an idea by reading their posts...).