Wenatchee World Articles and USFS talking points.

I don't know about the other spots you mentioned, but Mission Peak is a legal spot to ride snomos, and there is quite a bit of terrain in that vicinity that is only good for skiers (the steep drainages crossing the 9712 come to mind).  The N facing aspects that drain into Devil's Gulch are also killer for skiing, and sleds can't go down there either.  I have never personally had any difficulty finding spots to ski around sledders, but I agree that some historically popular skiing spots should be reserved for skiers (like Diamondhead at Blewett or maybe even Cutthroat Creek and the areas around the hairpin at WA Pass).  I disagree, however, that current user conflicts necessitate closing huge swaths of terrain that will never be accessed by skiers on foot, like all of the land proposed by WMC for closure in the Teanaway.   Very few skiers actually use the current set asides in the Teanaway as it is.  What will more land closures actually accomplish, besides making it more difficult for me and my friends to ski the N facing slopes in that area?

Yes, you present your own version of what should be closed to snowmobiles based on your experience.

The areas of the Wenatchee crest offer much terrain that is of gentle angle, open-slope, and some without avalanche potential or less avalanche potential than main areas of the Cascades. The weather is much better than the crest. When I began doing a lot of skiing along the crest of the Wenatchee Mountains in the '80s, I was getting away from where I worked and lived, the crest at Stevens Pass. This type of terrain in the Wenatchee Mountains is unique and rare to find in the Cascades. These attributes as well allowed for snowmobiles to overrun the Wenatchee Mtns crest while USFS was ignoring the management or even planning and designating to allow it. Our three WMC Proposals are ideas which would allow for some of the areas to be winter non-motorized much like you propose in your own paragraph above.

The "set-asides" in Teanaway, "Voluntary Non-Motorized Areas" are some favorite snowmobile riding areas for some of the regulars. There is absolutely no legal status for these areas, we actually had to explain the existence of these areas to some of the USFS Officials in charge of the Forest!

Skiers access, at times, all of the Teanaway self-powered. Read TAY, folks travel far self-powered. And even further on overnight trips. But who would want to go overnight or even dare pitch a tent on areas that are snowmobile speedways? If some drainages were free of snowmobiles, then a quiet corridor to Wilderness would be available, and a weekend trip could include a quiet campsite and surrounding terrain of all angle for skiing or snowshoeing.

This is not ruled by numbers, it should be and will be ruled by law, regulation and Executive Order. Simply because some individuals can invest $14k or more in a snowmobile, as well as a big pickup and trailer, does not bestow any greater right to take the use of the Forest from others. One snowmobile has the impact of easily one hundred skiers- who knows- and can track an entire mountain in 1/2 day, while filling miles of mountain air with unreasonable decibels, and ear-piercing screech too often of unlawful decibels from turbo snomo engines. Whatever the argument may be, the founding purpose of the Forest, without question, was NOT to provide terrain for motorsports. We do not obnject to travel and access of the Forest by citizens on snowmobiles, find no reason to go after all Forest Roads to close to snowmobiles. However, the offroad snowmobile free-for-all that spills into Wilderness is the problem that denies the use of the Forest to the majority of citizens and has impacts to nature that are not fully considered, studied, or defined.

Thanks rlsg, newtrout and aaron for the discussion. Reasonable discussion often gets passed over too quickly.

Newtrout is an honest advocate for snowmobile riding in the Teanaway. I personally appreciate him and his civility and good citizenship. Newtrout and some of his buddies have made a big difference in controlling the Wilderness snowmobile trespass, bravo! Thanks.

Thanks for your input WMC.  A lot of passive/aggressive around these days.  I might get a machine in a few years but will  only ride in the legal areas and will be sure that it has a very quiet muffler.

Here around Bachelor and Tumalo mountain we are still getting good ski areas-- that are for non-motorized--trashed by snowmobiles....  Sucks to do all skinning  and ultimately find this!

Hearing of wilderness infractions too around here also..

Good words, thanks rlsg.

It is a fine distinction here to ask for management of snowmobiles while also preserving access using Forest Roads for snowmobiles. WMC supports continued snowmobile use to access the Forest, and supports snowmobile recreation. Such must be managed according to law, regulation, and Executive Order. In light of the current unmanaged free-for-all, such changes cause great consternation for some.

WMC does not take issue with using snowmobiles to access the Forest, we all use vehicles to access the Forest, we all drive some of the Roads in summer that are used by snowmobiles in winter. However, none of us for example drive our car or dirt bike across Haney Meadow or to the summit of Longs Pass, areas which receive heavy snowmobile traffic in winter. Sadly, areas with many summer regulations to control hikers and even dogs, and Wilderness areas, get heavy snowmobile traffic in winter.

In all seriousness, I completely agree that lack of access is the biggest hurdle that needs to be overcome, especially non-motorized access to Wilderness (I know I've preached here about this before).  The area that started all of this, the North Fork of Teanaway, has more than enough terrain for skiers and snowmobilers.  There are entire basins (Bean, Standup, Hardscrabble, Fourth, Turnpike) with tons of great skiable terrain and no snowmobiles.  The problem is that they are 10+ miles from the trailhead.  If we could all work together to push for the road to be plowed to the Beverly campground, it would completely change the dynamic of the Teanaway. 

We might be surprised what the USFS would go for if both sides of the table were requesting the same thing.

Some great areas would again be pristine and remote only if not overrun by snowmachine riders who stand and lean and push a throttle in order to flatten the miles of snowy Forest.

WMC worked for months and actually made formal arrangements with Officials for meetings of the 'sides.' Although the Forest Supervisor and our State Rep were willing and excited to participate and facilitate this, all of the WSSA Offficers, SAWS people, yammadog, and finally newtrout -all refused any collaboration- it would have included many more stakeholders than just WMC. Perhaps since the snowmobile riders have the run of all (except 4 Sections at Tronsen, Stevens Pass and Mission Ridge Ski Areas) of the of the non-Wilderness Forest, why would they want to talk? Perhaps now to 'save' the Teanaway, which by their own admission on Forums many times has been confirmed the avenue to snomo trespass the ALW for 15+ years!

Yes, you present your own version of what should be closed to snowmobiles based on your experience.

The areas of the Wenatchee crest offer much terrain that is of gentle angle, open-slope, and some without avalanche potential or less avalanche potential than main areas of the Cascades. The weather is much better than the crest. When I began doing a lot of skiing along the crest of the Wenatchee Mountains in the '80s, I was getting away from where I worked and lived, the crest at Stevens Pass. This type of terrain in the Wenatchee Mountains is unique and rare to find in the Cascades. These attributes as well allowed for snowmobiles to overrun the Wenatchee Mtns crest while USFS was ignoring the management or even planning and designating to allow it. Our three WMC Proposals are ideas which would allow for some of the areas to be winter non-motorized much like you propose in your own paragraph above.

The "set-asides" in Teanaway, "Voluntary Non-Motorized Areas" are some favorite snowmobile riding areas for some of the regulars. There is absolutely no legal status for these areas, we actually had to explain the existence of these areas to some of the USFS Officials in charge of the Forest!

Skiers access, at times, all of the Teanaway self-powered. Read TAY, folks travel far self-powered. And even further on overnight trips. But who would want to go overnight or even dare pitch a tent on areas that are snowmobile speedways? If some drainages were free of snowmobiles, then a quiet corridor to Wilderness would be available, and a weekend trip could include a quiet campsite and surrounding terrain of all angle for skiing or snowshoeing.

This is not ruled by numbers, it should be and will be ruled by law, regulation and Executive Order. Simply because some individuals can invest $14k or more in a snowmobile, as well as a big pickup and trailer, does not bestow any greater right to take the use of the Forest from others. One snowmobile has the impact of easily one hundred skiers- who knows- and can track an entire mountain in 1/2 day, while filling miles of mountain air with unreasonable decibels, and ear-piercing screech too often of unlawful decibels from turbo snomo engines. Whatever the argument may be, the founding purpose of the Forest, without question, was NOT to provide terrain for motorsports. We do not obnject to travel and access of the Forest by citizens on snowmobiles, find no reason to go after all Forest Roads to close to snowmobiles. However, the offroad snowmobile ferr-for-all that spills into Wilderness is the problem that denies the use of the Forest to the majority of citizens and has impacts to nature that are not fully considered, studied, or defined.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that me and my friends have been going to the Teanaway very frequently in winter over the past 6 years and haven't seen any of the snomo-related impacts you are describing. We are backcountry skiers WMC. If it was happening the way you described, we would likely be in your camp. But it's not. You can try to minimize our voice, by claiming our perspective is limited or conflicted, but the truth is we are the ones actually observing the situation regularly and you are not. As for conflict, I admittedly love my sled and want to keep access rights to the areas in question, but I am also a liberal, W-side lawyer, who believes that competing interests for limited public resources need to be managed. I would be willing to vote away my access rights if I thought there was a meaningful negative impact made by snomos in that area, but I haven't seen it. Truth is, there are rarely any other skiers out there (most of whom use sleds for access) and every time it snows, pretty much all evidence of snomos disappear. And we ski on the wilderness side of the boundary all the time, from Longs Pass to Van Epps and have only rarely seen any signs of boundary encroachment. So, instead of repeating the same inflammatory claims over and over, how about you start actually providing some evidence to support your claims? And by evidence, I mean recent proof of the "lawless, snomo free for all" you claim is happening in the Teanaway. You can be sure that I will be providing evidence to the contrary to the FS and on trip reports on this site.

WMC, I do admit that the one area I don't ski tour much is the Wenatchee crest. And I can see how someone who does tour there may be frusterated that good ski terrain is used for slednecking. I can relate, having ski toured in the Beartooth Mountains a bit around Cook City, where sleds often track out prime ski terrain.

That said, I think there are three points worth considering:

1) This issue seems to be endemic to a few areas in the Wenatchee crest and not a region-wide epidemic of mega proportions that you make it out to be.

2) Sledneckers have a right to use the forest with their 14k snowmobiles just as much as ski tourers, as long as they respect  closures and boundaries. Snowmobiling is a pretty popular sport in Wenatchee. Ski touring unfortunately, not so much.

3) 2-3 sleds can track out an area a lot quicker than 2-3 skiers but I'm not aware of any long-term environmental damage or harm to wildlife caused by snowmobiles.


Some of the points brought up by Scotsman and others are very good. Changes to the status quo can perhaps be affected more successfully by concensus building, not by villifying snowmobilers and trying to forcefully regulate their use. Moreover, winter access across the state needs to be improved.

And just for the record, I do own a loud obnoxious snowmobile, which I ride (albeit very poorly) solely for the purposed of accessing ski touring.