OWNF Draft Forest Plan Revision and Editorial

Before any of us should get too strung out in rationalizing our positions, I learned the following at the Mountaineers' hosted OWNF presentation of the Forest Plan.  1.  Though the forest plan addresses motorized, mechanized and non mechanical travel through discussions about the various areas and their classifications, I understand the plan to do nothing specific in changing, altering, expanding or deleting any of these travel methods.  It also only addresses summer usage.   Instead, 2. a separate Travel Management Plan, currently in the pre-draft, formative stage, will address travel by almost every method through the Forests.  3. However, the Travel Management Plan will not address winter snowmachine use.  The F.S. is not yet ready to discuss, on a Forest-wide, District-wide or Drainage-wide basis, snow machine use.  This is not by reason of neglect or failure to recognize the various public positions, but instead because a) they're not mandated in the current planning to discuss snow machines, b) they don't have the budget for considering and planning for it, and c) have no budget for enforcement of such plans - whether such a plan eases or restricts any usage.  That being said, they understand there may be problems with the current use patterns.

In general the presentation was pretty non-offensive - unless you're a private in-forest landowner, leaseholder or forest business user.  Increased stream buffers and flexible land use designations (for example to identify and modify owl habitat which might cease to exist, change or move) were several such inclusions.
 
Among forest uses, sightseeing is recognized is one of the largest forest use categories, and managing for this use is a part of the plan. I've always thought that sightseeing is one of the major objectives and benefits to backcountry skiing!!

Wilderness expansion is also a part of the plan, with approx. 225,000 acres added to the already existing 1.4 million acres of wilderness within  the OWNF.  I didn't have time to look at many of the shaded areas as proposed for wilderness, but it did appear that those OWNF areas proposed for inclusion in the North Cascade National Park (ie along Hiway 20, Silver Star area etc., were included.  And, of the different forest use classifications, wilderness is cheapest to administer and maintain. Depending on your point of view, this bears watching. I wouldn't expect the FS to object to the expansion for any known reason.

Gerry H   

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?

Agreed with the other GerryH post above. In truth nothing has changed from the perspective of the OWNF in regard to winter recreation or to snowmobile management. There is within the DFPR mention of creating several new winter non-motorized areas on the "south half" (meaning Wenatchee Forest). Also in the DFPR the task has been passed back to the Districts. Unfortunately we already have the refusal letter from the Cle Elum District Ranger to do anything for winter recreation management. As far as Wilderness, it is a matter for Congress. There could be 20 years of status quo, snowmobile riders all over the Teanaway-Ingalls crest. Perhaps action will be taken by interested entities to require Designated Wilderness be managed as is Wildernesss, as is currently done in USFS Region 1. Or our Senators and public could possibly get on board and lobby for the Wilderness. Actually, we are doing our best to make winter recreation management on the Forest a current matter for Congress to address!

Rob (Yammadog), yours and other snomo folks' understanding of these issues appears to be quite shallow, and consists what seems to be a message of "all mine, not giving up anything for anyone else." Will you please direct us to the documents showing the process that makes these offroad areas available for snowmobile riding? Show us where on any USFS map or document a designation for snowmobile riding in the extensive pristine and unroaded areas of the Wenatchee Mountains crest? There are none to our knowledge, we would be even more pleased to find such- without NEPA process done since USFS folks freely admit such has not been done on the Wenatchee! NEPA dates to 1969, so no chance of claiming previous use. USFS will avoid clearly acknowledging a designation for snowmobile riding, and just turns its collective head to the snomo freeforall offroad on the Forest. In the end, this will harm the sport of snowmobiling beyond your current fears. WMC and others in this advocacy do not wish to ban snowmobiles, however when evaluated as not has been done yet, according to Law and Regulation, snowmobile riding will shrink back to the roads then folks will need to lobby to expand the allowable riding under the NEPA process.

Clearly my communication is very singular and unchanging, and strong. It will remain so. This is a place for discussion, not for personal attack, a website intended for backcountry skiers. Rob (Yammadog), you are not a backcountry skier, and how much do you go to the mountains on your snomo- 6 days per year? And then you hit jumps? Is this 'nature-based recreation" per the announced primary purpose in the Draft Forest Plan Revision? Have you ever been in the Teanaway, ever, on snow? Some seem to want to disparage individuals in order to interfere with the discussion. Again, many posts here seem intended only to derail discussions. Some approaches by individuals even claiming to be skiers but so contrary to discussion of these issues to benefit Forest use for skiers, some folks rant in a fashion perhaps characterized as sociopathic.

WMC is here and continues here because we hear from individuals who read about these issues here. WMC is now insignificant, the visible tip of the iceberg that is the collection of large and important Organizations taking on these very issues. Thanks for all interested and supporting this advocacy!

Here is an example of the points that I refer previously-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
WILDLANDS CPR; FRIENDS OF THE )
BITTERROOT, MONTANANS FOR ) No. CV-10-104-M-DWM
QUIET RECREATION )) Plaintiffs, )
) BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
vs. ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
) FOR SUMMARY
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; ) JUDGMENT
LESLIE WELDON , in her official capacity )
as Regional Forester, Region One; )
GLORIA MANNING and DAVE MEYER, ))
Defendants. )
and )
MONTANA SNOWMOBILE ASS’N )
and IDAHO STATE SNOWMOBILE )
ASS’N. )
-1-
Case 9:10-cv-00104-DWM Document 27 Filed 06/08/11 Page 1 of 33
Intervenor-Applicants )
INTRODUCTION
The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (Beaverhead-Deerlodge)
enacted a revised Forest Plan permitting snowmobile use on nearly 2,000,000
acres of public land. The decision was made with virtually no analysis of sitespecific
impacts of snowmobiling. Those impacts – loss of wildlife habitat,
damage to soils, air and water pollution, incompatibility with other winter
recreation – are well documented in this record. While snowmobiling is
appropriate in some places, designation of such places requires careful analysis
and compliance with both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
Executive Orders governing motorized use of public lands. Neither occurred
here, and as a result the Forest Service has made an ill-informed decision with
significant, though undisclosed, environmental consequences.
In a 2005 informal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), the Forest Service enacted the Travel Management Rule (Travel Rule)
governing the designation of trails and areas where motorized uses can occur.
Unlike its predecessor, the 2005 Travel Rule exempted snowmobile trails and
areas from minimizing adverse impacts. The Travel Rule’s snowmobile exemption
is arbitrary and capricious for two reasons. ...
-2-
Case 9:10-cv-00104-DWM Document 27 Filed 06/08/11 Page 2 of 33

Clearly my communication is very singular and unchanging, and strong. It will remain so. This is a place for discussion, not for personal attack, a website intended for backcountry skiers. Rob (Yammadog), you are not a backcountry skier, and how much do you go to the mountains on your snomo- 6 days per year? And then you hit jumps? Is this 'nature-based recreation" per the announced primary purpose in the Draft Forest Plan Revision? Have you ever been in the Teanaway, ever, on snow? Some seem to want to disparage individuals in order to interfere with the discussion. Again, many posts here seem intended only to derail discussions. Some approaches by individuals even claiming to be skiers but so contrary to discussion of these issues to benefit Forest use for skiers, some folks rant in a fashion perhaps characterized as sociopathic.

All I can say to that is wow....

Glenn, thanks for your comments, it is interesting and good to here your opinion on the matter and to also understand your involvement in these matters in the past.

Even though there are people trying to continually pit user groups against each other, it is good to see that more calm and civil minds are still able to see, understand, and appreciate each other. As the future progresses, I hope that snowmobiles and skiers can look at each other as friends in the use of the forests, instead of enemies like the picture some are continually painting.

I worry that the continual slowdown of the economy and further increases in costs for the federal government can mean large budget cuts for the management of our forests. It will take all of the forest users to help keep access at the levels they currently are when federal monies continually become reduced.

This stuff goes more poorly every time it comes up here.  I'm going to lock this.

*Edit* One more try then. Please stick to debate of the issues and not these broad stroke characterizations. If you can't, please don't post.

This stuff goes more poorly every time it comes up here.  I'm going to lock this.

*Edit* One more try then.  Please stick to debate of the issues and not these broad stroke characterizations.  If you can't, please don't post.

Oh please, could you not differentiate that the words appeared sociopathic, it was not a reference to any person?

It is debate and stating our position. In doing so, I defend what I say and do and question what others say and do, trying to avoid any personal attack. If I make a point Marcus using strong persuasive words, you seem ready to censor it. But the foaming-mouth posts of some were allowed in the past- perhaps defended by you- profanity, unfair personal characterizations-not appropriate. Indeed some were censored, thanks for that. Opposing opinions are welcome by me, and then it is my job to counter that. Is that a problem? They likewise may counter back with their persuasive arguments.

I will contrast Marcus and thank you for having integrity. Over at Snowest the Administrators last year tried to help some to identify me and post my photo, name, and address to target me. And only last week Administration at Snowest actually changed my words for their purposes on my posts, and stopped for now when I asked that they stop that.

Why are non-skitouring snomo enthusiasts allowed such a role on TAY? Really, is it that they have such legitimate points or do they really try to throw off the discussion and bait the opposition for reaction, which will then be made the discussion?

Our position was given the center of the Wenatchee World  Editorial page, quoted in the Kittitas paper, published far and wide, more in the works. We have worked very diligently reviewing the situation, learning about Policy and Law and the current situation. Our opinions, like or not, are based on fact discovered by hard work.

Again, we do hear from individuals who follow these issues here. Many do not want to discuss this stuff in a public fashion for all of the obvious reasons. For that reason WMC continues the discussion here, as long as it is allowed.