National Forest Snowmobile lawsuit

Found this link about the decision rendering the Forest Service's over snow vehicle (OSV) use rules that did not regulate snowmobiles illegal.

The ramifications are obvious.


www.king5.com/news/business/200935461.html

Good start!

This is great news.  I am sure that it will take years to sort out but the pendulum is starting to swing towards a more thoughtful, evenhanded approach to winter recreation in our National Forests.  In my opinion, the 2005 ruling created a free for all in the snowmachine recreationists favor that would not last long with the public.  It is sad to say but the snowmobile community has much of the blame for this.  I think most of us know first hand what the outcome was out in the hills without cataloging it here.

My hope is that all parties can work this out regionally without litigating this to death. 

This quote sums it all up:

"Many of our members use snowmobiles more and more to get to certain places, so we're not in any way asking the forest service to ban them," Menlove told The Associated Press on Monday. "But we are asking for some balance there, where our constituents can go and find peace and powder snow in the backcountry."

This ruling will have huge impacts for sure!   Hopefully they (USFS) will get some user input, unlike the proposed wilderness in the forest plan that benefits a relatively small group (sled access skiers) and does nothing towards its claimed purpose of reducing snowmobile trespass.  There must have been a very squeaky wheel in their ear to get those lines drawn on the map...   :  I'm still mostly a sledder,  but am starting to get some time on AT gear.  I know I have my biases, but I'm really trying to look at this from both perspectives.

So, what are some areas you'd like to see designated  winter non-motorized?  This isn't a trick question.  There have to be options much better than what's in the forest plan.

I'm most familiar with the central Cascades, so I'll start there.  Teanaway has Bean-Beverly already,  but that gets very little use mid-winter due to access distance.  Like I've stated before, I think the best solution there is to convince USFS to move the snowpark up to Beverly or beyond.  That would open up a bunch of existing terrain to day trips.  It would make the existing non-motorized area day useable for the average skier without a snowmobile.

Blewett:  I'd be surprised if there wasn't some non-motorized expansion around Blewett.  Enforcement will be the challenge there.  I would surprised to see them shut down the motorized snowpark at Blewett.  That means a motorized corridor through any new non-motorized areas. 

Mission Ridge:  Stuff around Mission is mostly State land, if I understand correctly.  I'm part of the DNR Naneum recreation committee as a motorized representative.  We are working to come up with some new non-motorized terrain that is acceptable to both camps.  I think there is good opportunity there.

The Passes:  What options are there around Snoqualmie or Stevens?  I can't think of much motorized conflict in the immediate vicinity of Snoqualmie.  At least not for backcountry skiers.  I know there is some cross-country skier conflict in the vicinity of the Stampede snowpark.  That's the most popular snowmobile access in the State, so I'd be surprised if they made big changes there.  The Silver Peak side doesn't have much motorized conflict, does it?  I don't know anything about skiing or sledding around Stevens.

Salmon La Sac:  Scatter and Hawkins are generally sled access.  Red Mountain doesn't get snowmobile traffic.  Polallie Ridge doesn't get sled traffic.  Is there anything that makes sense in the vicinity of Jolly, Sasse, Hex? 

The next question for me is how the USFS will enforce any new boundaries.  The only method that I've seen work anywhere is to start with a cooperative agreement; get both parties at the table and try and come up with boundaries that both parties can stand behind.   You're never going to make everyone happy, but it's pretty clear that the USFS doesn't have the resources to get people out on the snow.  We have to look at alternatives that will be self-enforcing.

Who knows, maybe these decisions will be made entirely behind closed doors; only with input from the gilded few.  I think there is a much better chance of a successful end result if there is some involvement from the user groups. 

So, what are some areas you'd like to see designated  winter non-motorized?  This isn't a trick question.  There have to be options much better than what's in the forest plan.

My first choice (by far) would be Park Butte. I would settle for it being available every other year. It is such a great place for snow recreation. It has a wide mix of terrain that would be extremely popular for skiers and snowshoers of all abilities. I think it would quickly become extremely popular (perhaps rivaling Kendall) if it became a non-motorized sno-park (along with some plowing). There isn't a place this close to Seattle that has those kind of views and that kind of nice, easy terrain.

The Silver Peak side doesn't have much motorized conflict, does it? 

Everytime I've been up there, including last Friday, I see machine tracks. But I never see the machines. They don't generally seem to make it far up into the bowl from what I've seen. So to me there isn't "conflict".