OWNF Draft Forest Plan Revision and Editorial

Understand that when you disagree with Rob/WMC you're being "aggressive and difficult."  I find his my way or you're aggressive and difficult approach counterproductive.  More wilderness designated because your're upset about some wilderness poaching?  Good luck with that.  A Sno-Park at Beverly Creek?  I'll have whatever you're having(no money plus the issues of plowing a gravelled/dirt road way beyond the hardtop.  Is there a Sno-Park like that anywhere?).

I've lived and skied in Kittitas County for 30+ years now, often encountering my snowmobiling brothers and sisters.  There are protocols.  On their routes, prudence dictates when you hear them coming you get to the side to smile and wave.  Catch them in a closed area or, God forbid, wilderness, politely educate or give 'em hell.

We have saying down South about getting more flies with honey than vinegar.  Maybe try getting together with that community to resolve issues.  The WMC approach just pisses people off.  Every time I get the stink-eye from a snowmobiler I think of you, Rob.  And please, don't ever call me at work or home again.  Thanks.

This is an example of why WMC did not just throw out our names all along- since some would rather make it personal to take attention from the issues.

No worries. Since you had introduced yourself to me in the mountains and skied with me I did call to talk to you resulting from that acquaintance. It is called listening and trying to understand.

So "30 years"-well 20+ years ago to now I did not run into you skiing the high Teanaway country, nor were there any snomos far off of the road back then from Earl to Brothers in my 45 days there one winter. I am aware that some were riding, according to their account "across Ingalls Lake first in 1984," that area was pioneered first on a Ski Doo Tundra I was told. Another guy I spoke to claimed to get into Brothers and Navaho down the summer trail first in 1993. I did not realize that you had ridden a snomo- "brothers and sisters." I rode my new snomo close to 700 miles as I recall last winter. I also drive a Jeep and a Honda dirt bike, but not cross country on the Forest, to 7000+ ft summits, and not in a manner that disturbs hikers and campers, not through creeks and wetlands, not breaking small tree tops, running over Whitebark Pine, certainly not in the Wilderness. That is the simple issue- the snomo free-for-all on the Wenatchee Mountains. We are not debating snomos on Roads in the least- we are talking about for example the 2700 vert south slope of Three Brothers looking like a giant plowed field from the snomo trenches. How about the snomo highway along Etienne Cr and crossing the side streams, breaking brush. The snomo highway up the narrow ridge to the summit of Navaho, and the broken trees along there. And the habitual riding along the the basins in the Wilderness from Navaho to Earl, even the tracks that Glenn reported in Turnpike. Snomos in Headlight and across Stuart Pass. No plan, no designation, still, no NEPA process to allow dispersed offroad snowmobile riding like other uses on the Forest with the potential to damage nature and displace other citizens who use the Forest. Snomo riders openly discuss current and past Wilderness riding in this thread- www.backcountryrebels.com/showthread.php?t=15270&page=9

Some, and probably you Glenn, are aware of the arrangements and efforts to try to talk with the other side formally, in fact until just last week when I introduced myself to WSSA Officers in person (emailed last summer the same).

Glenn please tell us more about why you want to surrender the Forest to one use in winter. WMC did not ask for Wilderness, we have and continue to ask for management of winter recreation, multiple use management- that is places for snowmobile riding, and places for quiet use by skiers, snowshoers, campers, dog sledders, skijorers, citizens. Hmm, examples of this are as close as Hwy 20 on the Okanogen, other Forests such as the Gallatin and etc in several states. So Glenn, calm down and give your input as a citizen. And please, skiers do give input to the Draft Forest Revison Plan.

This is an example of why WMC did not just throw out our names all along- since some would rather make it personal to take attention from the issues.

So now to disagree with Rob/WMC is making it personal? Whatever....

Most of my Teanaway skiing(6 tours this year) is done in the spring as the road melts out and the snowmo's have largely quit. Otherwise, it's just too far to go, as are most of the closures WMC proposes. Alas, I do not have a sled. Full of surprises, I have ridden them before.

WMC should be careful what he wishes for. This is a guy who sleds up peaks to ski down. Fair enough but he then decries other snowmo's on the peaks he rides up like Navaho. Sleds riding up Etienne(Negro) Creek? Et tu, Brute? Now he's got me weeping for the vegetation ravaged by less sensitive riders than himself and the pow he didn't get to shred on the legal side of 3 Brothers.

Wilderness trespass across the Teanaway divide is unfortunate but exaggerated, I think, by him. Read the snowmo thread he links to - the violators are largely condemned, strongly, by their own community.

Now, because I disagree with WMC I'm surrendering? No, I just find your wildly provocative plan way overreaching and your adversarial approach counterproductive.

Now that I've calmed down a bit, try this - maybe revisit the process that led to the voluntary closures in the Cle Elum District a decade or so ago. Snowmobilers and non-motorized users got together in a room, looked at maps and talked, facilitated by Forest Service's Tim Foss. The Kittitas County grooming council ultimately agreed to new non-motorized zones on Red and Jolly Mtns plus Howson Creek up the Cle Elum, Bean and Jungle Creeks in the Teanaway, Iron Creek and Wenatchee Ridge's Road 800 in the Swauk and ski trails around the Ellensburg XC ski club's hut on Table Mtn. I was there. Where were you, WMC?

So now to disagree with Rob/WMC is making it personal?  Whatever....

Most of my Teanaway skiing(6 tours this year) is done in the spring as the road melts out and the snowmo's have largely quit.  Otherwise, it's just too far to go, as are most of the closures WMC proposes.  Alas, I do not have a sled.  Full of surprises, I have ridden them before.

WMC should be careful what he wishes for.  This is a guy who sleds up  peaks to ski down.  Fair enough but he then decries other snowmo's on the peaks he rides up like Navaho.  Sleds riding up Etienne(Negro) Creek?  Et tu, Brute?  Now he's got me weeping for the vegetation ravaged by less sensitive riders than himself and the pow he didn't get to shred on the legal side of 3 Brothers. 

Wilderness trespass across the Teanaway divide is unfortunate but exaggerated, I think, by him.  Read the snowmo thread he links to - the violators are largely condemned, strongly, by their own community.

Now, because I disagree with WMC I'm surrendering?  No, I just find your wildly provocative plan way overreaching and your adversarial approach counterproductive.

Now that I've calmed down a bit, try this - maybe revisit the process that led to the voluntary closures in the Cle Elum District a decade or so ago. Snowmobilers and non-motorized users got together in a room, looked at maps and talked, facilitated by Forest Service's Tim Foss.  The Kittitas County grooming council ultimately agreed to new non-motorized zones on Red and Jolly Mtns plus Howson Creek up the Cle Elum, Bean and Jungle Creeks in the Teanaway, Iron Creek and Wenatchee Ridge's Road 800 in the Swauk and ski trails around the Ellensburg XC ski club's hut on Table Mtn.  I was there.  Where were you, WMC? 

Most of my Teanaway skiing(6 tours this year) is done in the spring as the road melts out and the snowmo's have largely quit.  Otherwise, it's just too far to go, as are most of the closures WMC proposes.  Alas, I do not have a sled.  Full of surprises, I have ridden them before.

Don't worry, at this time the task was passed to Cle Elum RD, and the letter went out that nothing would be done to address the WMC Proposal. There is a glaring lack of consideration of winter Forest users other than snowmobile riders. Ther is an alarming lack of concern in Cle Elum RD for the effects of snowmobiles offroad on others, the concern is in the other direction. That is comical since, how can a skier interfere with such a large and powerful machine ridden aggressively? There is talk of economic impacts- again incredibly uninformed considering the clear majority of citizens who do not ride snomos and use the Forest, and also spend money, and support the economy. Status quo snomo free-for-all,  some folks may continue to sit in their armchair and cheer the taking of fantastic public resources by one use, one group- snowmobile riding. No sharing, except of compacted. oily snow, noise, and rutted mountain slopes in formerly pristine areas.

It is not uncommon for skiers to go to the summit of Earl Peak from 29 Pines self-powered. Accessing Standup or Stafford  is similar. I have met skiers skinning the Road to the end to go on multi-day trips in recent years. Many skiers, including this one when necessary, will travel 4 to 8 miles on approach to a skitour. I have skied Brothers and Navaho mostly self-powered from the Hwy 97 side, only recently with help from other buddies have we made it in to the end of the Road using snomos in Etienne to start skitouring Brothers and Navaho. Just read TRs to see how far folks travel. Perhaps some who do not take trips of this distance or who just ride on machines without walking have trouble understanding. Many others, some in my acquaintence, and including myself, have skied that entire range self-powered before the snowmobile takeover. Clearly the Teanaway/ Ingalls crest is high-quality skitouring. Even in the 1960s mountaineers including folks such as the Praters and Bill Asplund used snowmobiles to go up the Teanaway to access the trails for snowshoe trips to Navaho, to Longs pass, etc.  We all drive cars in summer to access a TH, no different in winter to access similarly using a snowmobile.

On the other hand, plenty is available on the Teanaway/ Ingalls divide for a full-day trip or an easy overnight ski/ snowshoe outing in the midst of a plethora of peaks and slopes of all angle and aspect. However, non-motorized folks on day or overnight trips usually do not choose to go to areas that are heavily-used snowmobile speedways. Again, the issue is with the unplanned, undesignated offroad snowmobile use resulting from new snomo technology. Folks travel to other States, other Countries, for skitouring, I have. I find this area of the Teanaway-Ingalls divide to be very high-quality and of a world-class experience due to the elevation and open slopes and  beautiful summits, and partly due to the proximity of the Stuart Range which adds another giant piece of scenery and terrain.


Wilderness trespass across the Teanaway divide is unfortunate but exaggerated, I think, by him.  Read the snowmo thread he links to - the violators are largely condemned, strongly, by their own community.

Most of what WMC has sent in are reports by others of evidence of snowmobile Wilderness trespass. Just look through TAY and find plenty of reports. And it seems weak logic that suddenly the problem is not a problem, if there is no Enforcement, heck not even any USFS boots on the ground on that crest last year to see what is up. That points to the fact that a snowmobile rider may choose to cross into the Wilderness there without consequence. Even the "Ratpics" posting amounted to no consequence. A letter from USFS stated that the "Ratpics" thread amounted to no tangible evidence. I know what I saw on many trips over many years, and in the future if it continues I will document it. Even so, USFS will not be able to enforce that Teanaway-Ingalls crest Wilderness Boundary against snomo trespass short of having serious air support (and what an inappropriate circus that would be)! With all of the attention, it would be great if the Wilderness Boundary was respected by snowmobile riders, and I will thank them publicly when (if) I go to that crest and see no on-snow evidence of snomos in Wilderness.

Now, because I disagree with WMC I'm surrendering?  No, I just find your wildly provocative plan way overreaching and your adversarial approach counterproductive.

Apparently you have shown no interest in protecting or managing much of the Teanaway/ Ingalls divide. It is a tremendous skitouring opportunity throughout the winter, not just when the Road melts. The Road melting usually conicides with no snomos- what would the level of skier use be midwinter if some of the area was non-motorized- meaning one could put in the work to get there and know that it would not be a snowmobile speedway.

Now that I've calmed down a bit, try this - maybe revisit the process that led to the voluntary closures in the Cle Elum District a decade or so ago. Snowmobilers and non-motorized users got together in a room, looked at maps and talked, facilitated by Forest Service's Tim Foss.  The Kittitas County grooming council ultimately agreed to new non-motorized zones on Red and Jolly Mtns plus Howson Creek up the Cle Elum, Bean and Jungle Creeks in the Teanaway, Iron Creek and Wenatchee Ridge's Road 800 in the Swauk and ski trails around the Ellensburg XC ski club's hut on Table Mtn.  I was there.  Where were you, WMC? 


Fine, great effort. But where was the public comment? There are more stakeholders than those that you mention, the area is National Forest and users come from all over the state. Nobody ever asked me and many others what we thought of new technology snowmobiles invading the pristine areas of the Wenatchee Mountains without plan or designation. Many of the Voluntary Closures are on areas formerly logged, I logged on the Wenatchee Ridge crest as a matter of fact. I ask, why should the skiers and snowshoers be given the crumbs, the logged-over areas? Conversely, how strong is the logic that sends 150 to 200 HP machines, which dump 2-3 gallons daily of fuel/ oil mix on the ground  from the exhaust in a day (around 30%) into pristine unroaded areas that have unique vegetation, geography, and geology, and an established history of non-motorized winter travel. Except for Beverly-Bean your collaboration did not address the pristine Wenatchee Mountains crest that is the Wilderness Boundary. Bean has serious avalanche paths on the approach route. Stafford, in comparison, if non-motorized would offer a much safer and more intermediate skill-level approach for non-motorized winter recreation. Also, the Voluntary areas are used by snowmobiles, I was recently told by one snomo rider that he uses binoculars to see if there are skiers before going into Beverly to ride. That is great, somewhat unusually considerate,  but still snowmobile use ruts the snow so that one or two storm cycles would be required to restore the snow surface, if left unridden. We receive letters, one in particular about assault by a snomo rider who was upset because the group of middle-aged skiers had pointed out the fact that the three snomos riding by were in the Voluntary Non-Motorized Area.

Dave Hurwitz of SAWS  (Snomo Alliance of Western States) is writing that he claims to have offered a 1/3 plan in the past- 1/3 Wilderness, 1/3 motorized. 1/3 non-motorized. Looking at the map it looks like even with the (often-violated) Voluntary Non-Motorized areas perhaps 6% of non-wilderness area in that District is non-motorized outside Wilderness. Please, bring on the 1/3 split, if done in parity, not by giving the old logged and roaded  areas to non-motorized and the cream of the pristine high-elevation areas to snomos. By the way, go to the WSSA (Washington State Snowmobile Association) and SAWS websites and read, you will find that their doctrine is no-compromise, yield no land to other use, all others must be happy using the snowy Forest that has been rutted and oiled by snomos on their free-for-all offroad.

We are seeing increased interest and activity from citizens and important Organizations in regard to winter recreation and travel issues. This clear majority, when aroused, may yield proper and significant influence on these issues, justly so. A small group of elite snomo riders who make it to the Teanaway-Ingalls crest, because they have spent perhaps $6k to $15k on just their snomo, because they push a throttle, dominate a mountain in a few hours with more impact than hundreds of skiers present would exert. None of this gives this small elite-use, damaging use, group, the ownership of any of the Forest.

Skiers and snowshoers are the original users of the winter Forest, displaced by new-technology snowmobiles from their reasonable and safe use of the winter Forest. Please, skiers, send your input to USFS about your use and for the need to have significant areas of the Forest set aside for winter non-motorized use.

Skiers and snowshoers are the original users of the winter Forest, displaced by new-technology snowmobiles from their reasonable and safe use of the winter Forest. Please, skiers, send your input to USFS about your use and for the need to have significant areas of the Forest set aside for winter non-motorized use.

Not so sure about those groups being the "original" users as even your technology has allowed extended use. You continue to forget the EXISTING wilderness areas as non-motorized use areas. Your most recent posts really show the guteral nature of your hatred for motorized usage. I enjoy your continued effort to include yourself as a snomo user, with "our" interests in mind. your entire arguement has been a fabrication from day one and now it's really showing through.

I found it interesting at the FS meeting in Cle Elum, that the FS can only recommend more wilderness, they cannot recommend a movement of any boundary that would reduce or encroach on existing boundaries, no matter is the "habitate moving" would dictate such a change.. I say, one sided mis-managment is what that looks like.

Not so sure about those groups being the "original" users as even your technology has allowed extended use. You continue to forget the EXISTING wilderness areas as non-motorized use areas. Your most recent posts really show the guteral nature of your hatred for motorized usage. I enjoy your continued effort to include yourself as a snomo user, with "our" interests in mind. your entire arguement has been a fabrication from day one and now it's really showing through.

I found it interesting at the FS meeting in Cle Elum, that the FS can only recommend more wilderness, they cannot recommend a movement of any boundary that would reduce or encroach on existing boundaries, no matter is the "habitate moving" would dictate such a change.. I say, one sided mis-managment is what that looks like.

Other than to interrupt discussion by folks who ski or hike, why are you here? Send in your comments like anyone else.

Other than to interrupt discussion by folks who ski or hike, why are you here? Send in your comments like anyone else.

hahaha......why so testy rob? don't like being exposed for what your real mission is? If you weren't trying to interrupt my legal lifestyle on PUBLIC land, that is not part of the millions of acres of NON-MOTORIZED WILDERNESS, then I'd be off doing something a bit more entertaining. I've already sent my comments as I'm sure you have, so why are you here?