OWNF Draft Forest Plan Revision and Editorial

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.

Our entire effort is to ask the public to comment in order to compel USFS to manage the winter Forest according to Executive Order, Policy, and Law. We do not go to meetings to speak loudly and aggressively, we listen and learn about Policy and Planning, and direct our comments appropriately.

Lack of USFS management has and will favor the snomo freeforall. We seek a balance of uses, some areas for snowmobile riding, some for other uses in winter.

The economy is helped much more by those engaged in self-powered winter recreation. I believe that most folks who recreate in the mountains understand this. Snowmobile riders do have a huge negative impact on the Forest and other Forest users, and have possibly affected public policy by loudmouth tactics that overstate their numbers and importance. This tactic in fact has caused OWNF to AVOID dealing with these issues in the DFPR out of intimidation, the history being aggressive communication and actions by some supporting motorized uses. We are working to show the reality of the situation, to demonstrate that although loud and intrusive, and some individuals are aggressive, snowmobile riders are the minority of citizens.

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

This seems profoundly unhelpful. If it's in bounds to advocate limiting use of land by a user group, it's reasonable to also have responses to that advocacy. I'm not aware of any threshold for a person to post on TAY (must ski, or hike, or something), just standards for what's posted. In the department of what's standards for what's posted, any content that essentially says "Go way, you have no right to post here" is at or over the edge of acceptable, and certainly at odds with achieving any kind of dialog.

I found a comment by the FS person about moving boundary lines to help firefighting interesting. she mentioned moving them to the crests as it's hard to identify a boundary in the middle of a slope and changes their options on "tools" to fight those fires. This was a response to a question about why, although she skirted the answer the person was asking for. The current beverly/bean area already has the boundary at the crest, so why the move down to the valley? Wouldn't that make it harder for fighting the fire as it climbed up the side of the hill? With that said, she also said that the FS can only recommend INCREASED wilderness for this effort, they can't move the line up to the crest, only down.

We seek a balance of uses, some areas for snowmobile riding, some for other uses in winter.

...loudmouth tactics that overstate their numbers and importance...

What's your suggestion of the EXISTING wilderness balance for multiple uses? What exactly is your suggestion for balanced use for motorized users that doesn't reduce riding area?

As for the other part of your statement...eh, what's WMC consist of 3 people? I have yet to see anyone else on TAY be as repetative as you for the cause of shutting down public land to a large user group, which the FS data says will increase by 350%. And if I had used the terminalogy to describe your group, you would be screaming about personal attacks....lame.

This seems profoundly unhelpful.  If it's in bounds to advocate limiting use of land by a user group, it's reasonable to also have responses to that advocacy.  I'm not aware of any threshold for a person to post on TAY (must ski, or hike, or something), just standards for what's posted.  In the department of what's standards for what's posted, any content that essentially says "Go way, you have no right to post here" is at or over the edge of acceptable, and certainly at odds with achieving any kind of dialog.

Yes, you are correct. The point is - is it obvious that some just fling crap to disrupt any decent conversation? Or perhaps that is the only thought process and verbage that they are capable?

JamesWells you have in the past taken one side of the debate. You approach this in the fashion that snowmobile domination of the Forest is the baseline. We take exception to that. The Forest was never given to offroad snowmobile riding. Therefore it is not to be 'taken.' By your previous argument, likewise marijuana growing on the Forest would be a legitimate use worthy of protection as you argue undesignated snowmobile freeforall is something to be protected- not at all! Please review previous posts. It is acknowledged by USFS folks on the OWNF that no NEPA process has been done for all of the offroad snowmobiling on the Wenatchee. Please review NEPA and the Law, that is the authority . My opinion, your opinion, and the various noise is not authoritative, it is Law and Regualtion and the management of our Public Land by Federal officials per Congress.

Dialogue, real, meaningful airing of concepts and competing interests, is what is sought, and would be valuable.

Look above at the punk heckling, directed personally. These snomo guys are not even discussing this on Snowest and BCR right now- they are just here on TAY. Few of them have had the integrity or courage to speak to me face to face in a civil fashion, or at all, at  public venues where we both were present, they would prefer to fling crap online. I sought out snowmobile riders in a friendly civil fashion at three meetings and had civil discussion. At least some gave up the online  personal messages hinting at violence toward me personally. Yammadog thought he would string this effort along last year with promises of meetings, which never happened, he made claims of representing snowmobilers, on the Snowest forum that seems discredited. Just punk hecklers most of the time, no intelligent debate or dialogue most of the time.

The thoughts of opposing ideas are welcome, it tests my own and our own concepts and has focused and sharpened our effort. We are putting serious effort into finding the right thing per Law, Executive Order, and Regulation. We spend considerable time with over a dozen important Organizations, elected and Federal Officials. This is contrasted to the punk heckling- allowed too much.

Again, we have it from a reliable informed source that intimidation of our USFS officials by this motorized lobby aggressiveness is contributing to the reluctance to manage the winter Forest. We find this to be a sad situation. We all must support our proper civil function against hoodlum-intimidation. WMC will stand and will seek the right management of the winter Forest through the appropriate Officials, according to Law, Executive Order, and Regulation.

I guess I am confused, why don't snowmobilers want to discuss this issue with you?