WMC Update 2012

What if the ski community chipped in and bought a snowmobile that the Cle Elum ranger district could use for patrol work? Would the bureaucracy be able to handle that? Do they have rangers working in the winter who could do that job?  Just a thought ...

Well, living in the town with the OWNF HQ and having four District offices within an hour's drive, I can say that there are a lot of FS employees laid off or working reduced hours in the winter months. I don't know if they have the budget for a mounted winter ranger. There are very few FS LEOs on the entire OWNF, 3 or 4?

Scroll to the bottom of the Ellensburg XC Ski Club's site for a list with links to maps of the voluntary non-motorized sites -

ellensburgskiclub.yolasite.com/

Scroll to the bottom of the Ellensburg XC Ski Club's site for a list with links to maps of the voluntary non-motorized sites -

ellensburgskiclub.yolasite.com/

Thanks for the link, but those don't show the terrain that is adjacent to the roads and trails that the voluntary closure areas contain.

I found some decent maps of areas here.... www.parks.wa.gov/winter/trails/mapdownlo...torized/Teanaway.pdf

In the Beverly/Bean triangle that connects to the wilderness, how many trips would it take to cover the area or how much area could be covered in a day trip, assuming you don't go in to wilderness?

Aaron, I'm guessing you know that "most of the areas are non-motorized" is also misleading based on the above link. So, welcome to the club, although I know that gates block access to areas that are listed as non motorized...very few legal riding areas for atv's and dirt bikes. From North Bend I have to travel on the order of 100 miles to the nearest "legal" spot for my boys.

The area to the west, towards Van epps is one of the most popular riding areas around and will be more than a tough fight let alone getting compliance, enforced or not. As I understand it, much of the wilderness violation in that area happens out of the scotty creek access and as I understand it there's not much good riding over there anyway. A few of the people that are known to violate have been called out in the sledding 4m and their response has been that of local legacy, before the established boundaries were made. I would think that would be the place to effect enforcement.

As for equity, I see far more snowparks as non-motorized in the blewett area, yet no sledders only spots, and I'm sure everyone is aware of the crowding a the blewitt summit parking area.

the proposed map for the teanaway area is far reaching for so few BC users for skiing only. IMO.

Maybe contact Todd Stiles at the Cle Elum FS office? Sledders routinely travel in the Wenatchee Ridge and Iron Creek voluntary non-motorized areas.

Todd's not working at Cle Elum anymore -- you'll want to get in touch with Tim Foss.

Aaron, I'm guessing you know that "most of the areas are non-motorized" is also misleading based on the above link. So, welcome to the club, although I know that gates block access to areas that are listed as non motorized...very few legal riding areas for atv's and dirt bikes. From North Bend I have to travel on the order of 100 miles to the nearest "legal" spot for my boys.

I'm sorry, I don't remember saying anything about most of the areas being non-motorized. I made a statement that some of the areas in the WMC proposal already had "Voluntary Non-Motorized" status. I don't know what you are alluding to. As far as I know there are no legal riding areas for ATVs on FS land. Vehicles need to be licensed and street legal to use FS roads. You can use non-street legal dirt bikes on FS trails that are multi-use if they are transported to the trailhead. I think you would probably agree that having ATVs on multi-use single track would be impracticle and dangerous. I guess if you could get a licensed street legal ATV you could use it on FS roads. As far as I know, trail bikes are allowed in any of the winter voluntary non motorized areas. I'm sorry you have to travel so far for dirt biking. I have legal multi-use single track on FS land 5 minutes from my house, we all make choices on where to live.

My response after reading the WMC proposal and reviewing most of the posted comments:

As a backcountry skier living in Leavenworth, I usually ski the Cascade Eastern Slope and have experienced the affects of new technology snow machines, especially in the Mission Peak area (west of Mission Ridge) and near Earl Peak along the main crest of the Wenatchee Mtns.  These machines are changing the winter recreation scene faster than any of us could have guessed 10 years ago, especially in the more open terrain of the Wenatchee Mtns.  A typical rider can climb almost anything I can skin-up, even through narrow slots between dense forest.  Their deep tracks left after a half-hours play make trying to ski an alpine slope--or even a gladed area--a lesson in futility and frustration.  Without significant day-use areas set aside for non-motorized use, the average skier and snowshoer could soon find themselves with few options, except for true wilderness multi-day treks.  Machines will simply dominate the more accessible terrain.

Count me as a supporter of the WMC's strategy of lobbying the USFS to create selected non-motorized areas for winter recreation.  How their goals could be reached--even in part--is an open question.  The 1000 skiers e-mail campaign is a good concept, but I suggest the proposal be clarified by breaking it into logical segments--perhaps the Mission Peak/Marion and Clara Lks. could be one.  Another might be the existing Tronsen non-motorized area but with expanded boundaries to include Mt. Lillian.  A 3rd could be the higher summits along the west part of the Wenatchee Mtns.  I encourage specificity.  

It will not be easy to explain to the USFS and to the public-at-large that the winter recreation scene is being fundamentally altered by technology, and that a growing conflict in use justifies restrictions and land-use allocations.  But I see no alternative if we are to avoid having much of the day-use terrain in the Wenatchee Mtns. become unusable for skiing.    

That looks about right Lowell, but like I stated a few posts back most of this terrain is already designated "Voluntary Non-Motorized"

AW....Let me help you remember....

I guess I'm alluding to the idea that tons of land is already blocked off for too many users or would be users, so to push for even more seems greedy. And yes, we all have choices on where to live, I recently gave up a 6 figure job requiring me to move to Oregon where land use is even more restrictive to stay in NB. And I chose to live in WA vs Kansas City for the same reasons  as many of you, I like being in the mtns.

I would think that riding a dirt bike, you'd feel the pressure of land closures by the non-motorized crowd. Or is this about protecting your personal stash and not really about equality? I think the latter....

AW....Let me help you remember....

I guess I'm alluding to the idea that tons of land is already blocked off for too many users or would be users, so to push for even more seems greedy. And yes, we all have choices on where to live, I recently gave up a 6 figure job requiring me to move to Oregon where land use is even more restrictive to stay in NB. And I chose to live in WA vs Kansas City for the same reasons  as many of you, I like being in the mtns.

I would think that riding a dirt bike, you'd feel the pressure of land closures by the non-motorized crowd. Or is this about protecting your personal stash and not really about equality? I think the latter....

Yammadog, As I've already pointed out, voluntary non-motorized status is meaningless, there is no way to enforce regulations if none are violated. So, currently that area is open to motorized traffic despite the voluntary closure. I'm happy to share the trails over here with motor bikes, hikers, mtbs and horses, it's all legal and there are many hundreds of mile of trails to share. There aren't very many miles of trail outside of the Wilderness Areas that are closed to dirt bikes. There are no secret stashes as all the trails are on FS maps. I don't believe that the current winter travel plan considers extensive off route travel by snowmobiles. A good analogy would be if you were hiking cross country in summer and there were dirt bikes riding all over the place off trail. That wouldn't be a very good idea and not very safe for hikers.

Great continuing discussion all!

Thank you, Lowell. There is a Road system that crosses from N  Shaser Cr between Iron Mountain and Miller Peak, west down to the Etienne Cr. valley far past Miller Pk to the base of Three Brothers 7303'. The Road then turns back east and climbs into Gold Creek Basin. That road would be proposed as open for snowmobiles. There is significant snowmobile play terrain left out of the Proposal that is on Iron Mountain and over to King Cr on Hwy 97. The valuable ski terrain surrounds the extremity of that Road into Etienne Cr., both sides of the valley, and also there is great skiing to the east aspect of Brothers 7303' facing east, and open slopes from Brothers 7169'. We ski Miller Peak, it has open terrain to all sides, a steep east face, and north facing powder terrain in mixed open forests that have a lot of Larch. The south aspect from Brothers 7303' has a very fine corn run of about 2700' falline, Gold Cr has perhps 2400 ft east facing skiing. Navaho Peak has an excellent NE bowl, shown in the photo of the original post.


Jim Oker, the close to the car stuff is added at Mt Lillian and next-to-the car near Mission Ridge ski area. That was detailed above. From Upper Tronsen Road @ 3900' one ascends to south Mt Lillian summit 6191.' Mt Lillian offers about 1000 vert falline, then one would travel back across Haney Meadow and from Tronsen Head (above the Horse Camp)  there are nice open basalt-rock slopes for about 700 to 800 vert to a road system to ski back to the highway.

Lowell, for years there have been discussions with USFS about Enforcement. There was a Grant for Enforcement and a few Citations, we are told, about two seasons ago. USFS has a tough task here, and is not insensitive to the issue or ignoring the problem. The WMC proposal would limit access to the Wilderness Boundary by set back with only Van Epps being close to the Wilderness Boundary. The closure to snowmobiles we propose would be at the ends of the Roads, Etienne Cr Rd, Stafford Cr Rd, Beverly Cr Rd, and NF Teanaway Rd. Those Closure points in our view are easier to enforce than is the current terrain that is along the Wilderness Boundary- very open terrain with many access points.

Thanks again for great discussion.

the proposed map for the teanaway area is far reaching for so few BC users for skiing only. IMO.

Are you a backcountry skier? How do you form that opinion?

Many skiers including some WMC skiers have skied much of that terrain self-powered. We have also used snowmobiles to access it on the Roads. As it is now, that beautiful range of mountains is overrun with snowmobiles and much is tracked and rutted, and the quality is altered with the noise.

This Proposed area is significant and deserved also by users other than those who push on throttles to track it. To the south areas for snowmobiling extend far. It is probably unnnoticed by motosports riders the pristine nature of the area. That range is a primary WA example of serpentine rock and ferro-magnesium soils that contribute to the open terrain. Whitebark Pine grow on the ridges, high-altitude examples of twisted trees surviving the mountain environment. In spite of the dry climate and open direct south slopes, some very large trees grow by the streams in the shaded valleys. A very large Larch stands not far upstream from the end of the Road in Etienne Cr. As we skied by that tree back to the 80's our pole held up indicated a 5 ft. + dbh Larch tree. Lately, a winding snowmobile highway is packed up and down, through many side streams, up to the summits of Brothers and Navaho, on out to the large basin between Navaho and  Earl, to the summit of Earl. Sadly, snowmobile highways also cross into the (Wilderness) Falls Creek, Cascade Creek, and Hardscrabble Creek basins which drain into Ingalls Creek. Above Chester Marler mentions a tour to Earl Peak, on a day that the skier group stood on that summit and watched seven snowmobiles in the Wilderness.

Many snowmobilers claim ignorance of the Boundaries, but so much traffic is certainly intentional and habitual, and what of personal responsibility?  Sadly, there was a Forum comment by a snowmobiler about "saving snowmobile access to Ingalls"- Ingalls Creek is far into the heart of the Wilderness, but used by snowmobiles.

The WMC proposal will add significant and high-quality non-motorized areas for skiing and quiet recreation. Those areas will be in proximity from right by the car, to 2 hours from the car, to a major day trip, or an easy snomo on the road approach. Importantly, if the terrain of the high Wenatchee Mountains crest is left untracked by machines it will offer miles of beautiful mountain range just across from with views of the Stuart Range, terrain very suitable for weekend overnight trips by self-powered winter recreationists.

My response after reading the WMC proposal and reviewing most of the posted comments:

As a backcountry skier living in Leavenworth, I usually ski the Cascade Eastern Slope and have experienced the affects of new technology snow machines, especially in the Mission Peak area (west of Mission Ridge) and near Earl Peak along the main crest of the Wenatchee Mtns.  These machines are changing the winter recreation scene faster than any of us could have guessed 10 years ago, especially in the more open terrain of the Wenatchee Mtns.  A typical rider can climb almost anything I can skin-up, even through narrow slots between dense forest.  Their deep tracks left after a half-hours play make trying to ski an alpine slope--or even a gladed area--a lesson in futility and frustration.  Without significant day-use areas set aside for non-motorized use, the average skier and snowshoer could soon find themselves with few options, except for true wilderness multi-day treks.  Machines will simply dominate the more accessible terrain.

Count me as a supporter of the WMC's strategy of lobbying the USFS to create selected non-motorized areas for winter recreation.  How their goals could be reached--even in part--is an open question.  The 1000 skiers e-mail campaign is a good concept, but I suggest the proposal be clarified by breaking it into logical segments--perhaps the Mission Peak/Marion and Clara Lks. could be one.  Another might be the existing Tronsen non-motorized area but with expanded boundaries to include Mt. Lillian.  A 3rd could be the higher summits along the west part of the Wenatchee Mtns.  I encourage specificity.  

It will not be easy to explain to the USFS and to the public-at-large that the winter recreation scene is being fundamentally altered by technology, and that a growing conflict in use justifies restrictions and land-use allocations.  But I see no alternative if we are to avoid having much of the day-use terrain in the Wenatchee Mtns. become unusable for skiing.    

Thanks for the comments and support!

The proposed non-motorized areas of the WMC proposal are two separate areas. One is the high elevation pristine unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains from Van Epps Pass to Three Brothers 7169.' The other area is the non-Wilderness pristine Wenatchee Mountains crest that is crossed by Rd 9712. This area extends from Hwy 97 Blewett Pass to the Mission Ridge Road.

The area to the east would annex Mt Lillian and surrounding areas to the existing Tronsen Non-Motorized Area that contains the north-facing terrain in Chelan County. Also, the south slopes from the Tronsen Non-Motorized Area crest would be annexed down to Rd 9712 to include Tronsen Head. From the west side of and including Haney Meadow, the boundary is along the drainage along the Old Ellensburg Trail and across to Grouse Spring where the Old Ellensburg trail intersects "Bentrim" ridge. From Grouse Spring the boundary would continue across the drainage to near the top of the lift at Mission Ridge to intersect the Ski Area Boundary. The northern boundary from Mt Lillian to the east would be Rd 9712 to the intersection with the Mission Ridge Rd. Mission Peak and Lakes Marion and Clara would be within the boundary. Road 9712 would remain open to snowmobiles. As a comparable example. to the west both Rd 9716 and Rd 9712 are open to snowmobiles and pass through Non-Motorized Areas.

The areas described are pristine and offer various aspects of open slopes, forest, and open forest, along with an existing network of summer Forest Trails. It is appropriate to designate the most pristine areas for non-motorized winter recreation. To the south and also to the east on the Wenatchee Mountains crest are much larger areas for snowmobile riding.

Good points about the changing state of Forest recreation in winter. Skiers must consider the tremendous capability of modern snowmobiles that may be on any of skiers' stashes soon! Snowmobiles are a lot of fun to ride in powder, and riders continually seek out new areas. We watch the riders spread out more each season. Skiers must consider that currently, non-Wilderness Forest areas may be ridden with snowmobiles unless specifically Closed to snowmobiles. Please consider that the great ski tours along WA mountain highways are unprotected and will be ridden on by snowmobiles at some point in the future. We need to set aside snow covered Forest areas for skiers and winter recreationists!

The area to the west, towards Van epps is one of the most popular riding areas around and will be more than a tough fight let alone getting compliance, enforced or not. As I understand it, much of the wilderness violation in that area happens out of the scotty creek access and as I understand it there's not much good riding over there anyway. A few of the people that are known to violate have been called out in the sledding 4m and their response has been that of local legacy, before the established boundaries were made. I would think that would be the place to effect enforcement.

As for equity, I see far more snowparks as non-motorized in the blewett area, yet no sledders only spots, and I'm sure everyone is aware of the crowding a the blewitt summit parking area.

The Wilderness Boundary precedes snowmobiles in the area by two decades. We were in the area skiing on many trips before snowmobiles made it in there. We recall when motorbikes were ridden in places that are now Wilderness- legacy does not trump Law.

Stated above is the intention to ride as one pleases 'enforced or not.' More of that 'sharing'?

There is one Sno Park at Blewett Pass, either side of the summit. Areas to the north where there is parking are not regulated.

The Wilderness Boundary precedes snowmobiles in the area by nearly two decades. We were in the area skiing on many trips before snowmobiles made it in there. We recall when motorbikes were ridden in places that are now Wilderness- legacy does not trump Law.

I think you are mistaken to assume that in the late 1980's snowmobiles were not getting into areas that are now wilderness. I have heard from many people of places the used to ride in the Alpine wilderness (before it was wilderness) and how some of the best snowmobiling in the state is no longer available. Though they respect the rules and laws and no longer visit those locations. You are correct, legacy does not trump law, though it is difficult to change the minds of those that think otherwise. We are trying.

Stated above is the intention to ride as one pleases 'enforced or not.' More of that 'sharing'?

You are confusing the reasoning of people riding in wilderness with a perceived acceptance for the reasoning. This is not so. Most snowmobilers don't care that they USED to ride in areas they are NOW not allowed in. The law is the law and it is expected that EVERYONE should obey it. Most snowmobilers agree with this. Though as you point out, unfortunately some do not, and some incorrectly justify it as mentioned above.

Yammadog is just trying to point out that snowmobiling areas are LEGALLY shrinking and being reduced. Continuously through many parts of the states. To my knowledge this is not so with skiers / snoshoers.

Clearly, it depends on how you define "shrinking." Legally, or practically...

Clearly, it depends on how you define "shrinking." Legally, or practically...

For MOST snowmobilers it is shrinking. For those that think they are above the laws, then it is not.

It is troubling the continued assertion that most snowmobilers don't care about staying out or wilderness and respecting the agreed upon non-motorized areas.

Is it your opinion that the practical areas for snowmobile use have not been decreased by the defining of lands as Wilderness?

Ruffryder,

The state of Washington has 2,309 miles of groomed winter trails and only 266 miles of those are closed to snowmobiles. This doesn't include all of the forest roads that are available for your use that are not groomed but are snowmobile highways in the winter.

The pedestrian users of the winter forest (skiers, snowshoers, etc.) are constantly losing ground to the motorized users. What you fail to understand is that we are being gradually displaced from our traditional areas of use by snowmobiles. There were BC skiers and snowshoers going into the forest long before there were snowmobiles; read any historical guide book. Once a non-motorized user skis or snowshoes 3-4 hours into a bowl in the BC and finds it tracked out by snowmobiles they make a mental note to never go back to that area again. Most of us don't want to hear, smell or be put in harms way from speeding snowmobiles on a daylong tour into the BC. It is the same reason that if you want to go for a walk with your family you don't go out to the interstate highway but to a nearby park. So the more that snowmobiles branch off the groomed routes and go boondocking the more area we pedestrians are losing everyday. And the large percentage of the wilderness areas are inaccessible to those traveling on foot in the winter vs all the sno-parks for snowmobiles which are right on the road.

Is it your opinion that the practical areas for snowmobile use have not been decreased by the defining of lands as Wilderness?

No, I don't know enough to say, but will trust your take that it's shrunk. My comment referred to skiers, who are losing useful terrain as well described in multiple posts above. I suspect. but can't confirm, that skiers are losing practical terrain at a faster rate than snowmobilers (who, after all, have seen increase in practical terrain over the past 15 years thanks to more powerful sled technology becoming more common, which is an obvious "practical" increase of useful terrain, as some of us skiers have seen up close and personal).

How much new Wilderness acreage has been added on the OWNF since 1984?

The pedestrian users of the winter forest (skiers, snowshoers, etc.) are constantly losing ground to the motorized users.

You aren't loosing ground. There are not legal restrictions as to where you can go. What you are loosing is the availability of close by powder stashes due to increased competition from other winter recreation users, mainly snowmobiles. It isn't that you can't go there, it is that you just don't want to. I think that is an important distinction.

What you fail to understand is that we are being gradually displaced from our traditional areas of use by snowmobiles.

Nope, I understand this completely. Which is why I am for increasing YOUR access into wilderness and other non-motorized areas.

There were BC skiers and snowshoers going into the forest long before there were snowmobiles; read any historical guide book.

As stated before, legacy does not mean legality.

And the large percentage of the wilderness areas are inaccessible to those traveling on foot in the winter vs all the sno-parks for snowmobiles which are right on the road.

For one, snoparks are right off the road because there isn't enough money to keep a road plowed that is miles long into the woods and it doesn't need to be.

Maybe skiers could pull their resources and get one done? Maybe charge daily parking fees like they do in Canada to help pay for it? It would be nice if options were focused on that didn't take from one user group and give to another.

No, I don't know enough to say, but will trust your take that it's shrunk. My comment referred to skiers, who are losing useful terrain as well described in multiple posts above. I suspect. but can't confirm, that skiers are losing practical terrain at a faster rate than snowmobilers (who, after all, have seen increase in practical terrain over the past 15 years thanks to more powerful sled technology becoming more common, which is an obvious "practical" increase of useful terrain, as some of us skiers have seen up close and personal).

Has it occured to anyone that maybe you should view yourselves as lucky for being able to ride in a designated motorized area for so long for such a high quality?  Why is it that when snowmobilers can finally take advantage of the area DESIGNATED for  them to use that it is now taking away from non-motorized users?

Oh, and I do realize that this is a very, shall we say, interesting, point of view... Just a different perspective for people to think about.

For MOST snowmobilers it is shrinking. For those that think they are above the laws, then it is not.

It is troubling the continued assertion that most snowmobilers don't care about staying out or wilderness and respecting the agreed upon non-motorized areas.

Is it your opinion that the practical areas for snowmobile use have not been decreased by the defining of lands as Wilderness?

We commented that there is obviously significant and continuous volume of snowmobile traffic in Wilderness. We do not believe all snowmobilers 'don't care.' We have pleasant encounters with virtually all of the snowmobilers that we meet. We say goodbye, they go off and have fun tracking the powder. Quickly. We do not expect compromise nor do we expect concern for our uses from snowmobile riders- we have not seen that.

In the thread on Snowest "Ruffy Makes it up Lookout"- was that a new experience for Ruffy or is that a mostly unknown route? Anyone wanting to view the thread will need to register on Snowest -  www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=216329 (Washington Riding Areas) Viewing this thread would be instructive for skiers in regard to the type of terrain on which snowmobiles are ridden.

We understand the challenge, the fun, of finding new terrain on a snowmobile, we observe that happening continually. The reality is that the amount of the resource of snowy Forest for recreation is limited. The capability and mobility of snowmobiles has reduced and dominated the resource of snowy Forest. We skiers and human-powered recreationists want areas set aside that may be enjoyed untracked and in quiet.

Has it occured to anyone that maybe you should view yourselves as lucky for being able to ride in a designated motorized area for so long for such a high quality?  Why is it that when snowmobilers can finally take advantage of the area DESIGNATED for  them to use that it is now taking away from non-motorized users?

Oh, and I do realize that this is a very, shall we say, interesting, point of view... Just a different perspective for people to think about.

Areas are not designated as 'motorized' in winter for snowmobiles in WA on Forest other than groomed roads. Such offroad snowmobile use has occurred by default, without intention or plan or with the realization that snowmobiles would be ridden in places that are now routinely ridden. The lack of clear management of snowmobile use is the culprit.

In asking for designated non-motorized winter recreation areas, we are asking for management of snowmobile use on the Forest.

Is it your opinion that the practical areas for snowmobile use have not been decreased by the defining of lands as Wilderness?

The Alpine Lakes Wilderness area was established in 1976.

I believe the establishment of this wilderness area predates the development of snowmobiles that could travel off-road in the typical alpine terrain of the central Cascades.

The next major wilderness act in Washington was in 1984. The following document summarizes the wilderness areas established by this act:

alpenglow.org/ski-history/notes/misc/usfs-1984-wmaps.html

As summarized in the above document, the 1984 Washington Wilderness Act made no changes in the areas the WMC is addressing.

The only Washington wilderness established since 1984 were inside existing National Parks (the Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988) and in the Wild Sky area west of Stevens Pass (2008).

Areas are not designated as 'motorized' in winter for snowmobiles in WA on Forest other than groomed roads. Such offroad snowmobile use has occurred by default, without intention or plan or with the realization that snowmobiles would be ridden in places that are now routinely ridden. The lack of clear management of snowmobile use is the culprit.

In asking for designated non-motorized winter recreation areas, we are asking for management of snowmobile use on the Forest.

Thanks, I pointed this out earlier but it always gets ignored by snowmobilers. The current language on snowmobile use talks about groomed and ungroomed routes and states noting about off route travel, this needs to be addressed. Historically motorized use on FS land has been restricted to roads and trails, why should winter be any different? I think a reasonable compromise would included certain areas where off route travel is prohibited, such as the areas in the proposal put forward by WMC.

Has it occured to anyone that maybe you should view yourselves as lucky for being able to ride in a designated motorized area for so long for such a high quality?  Why is it that when snowmobilers can finally take advantage of the area DESIGNATED for  them to use that it is now taking away from non-motorized users?

WMC's reply was excellent and deserves to be enlarged and pasted up on the wall:

Areas are not designated as 'motorized' in winter for snowmobiles in WA on Forest other than groomed roads. Such offroad snowmobile use has occurred by default, without intention or plan or with the realization that snowmobiles would be ridden in places that are now routinely ridden. The lack of clear management of snowmobile use is the culprit.

To reinforce WMC's post, I'd like to reply to ruffryder: Has it occurred to snowmobilers that maybe you should view yourselves as lucky for being able to ride in any off-road/off-trail areas of the Forest? None of these areas have been DESIGNATED for mechanized use. The capabilities of today's snowmobiles were undreamed of by Forest managers 30 years ago. Pushing the use of snowmobiles into areas that were traditionally non-motorized is bound to trigger a backlash. People have rights, machines don't.

WMC's reply was excellent and deserves to be enlarged and pasted up on the wall:

To reinforce WMC's post, I'd like to reply to ruffryder: Has it occurred to snowmobilers that maybe you should view yourselves as lucky for being able to ride in any off-road/off-trail areas of the Forest? None of these areas have been DESIGNATED for mechanized use. The capabilities of today's snowmobiles were undreamed of by Forest managers 30 years ago. Pushing the use of snowmobiles into areas that were traditionally non-motorized is bound to trigger a backlash. People have rights, machines don't.

Thank You.

I believe that restricting snowmobiles to roads and clearcuts would be more than reasonable, and snowmobilers should be thankful that they're even allowed that much.

  If 40+10=50 (%, ie. 'parity', a premise I do not accept), what do you do in the areas where Wilderness density is much less than on the OWNF?

No amount of gamesmanship changes the fact that off trail sleds are the smoker in the restaurant ~ only one compromises the other (parking excepted). 

If I am the only BC skier, I still expect to readily find public space free of noise and stink and reasonably natural ~ and that this should be the norm.   Buffers areas to designated wilderness areas are a logical choice, as part of the whole, and frankly, the default should be that off trail public space is non-motorized

If I'm a sledder, I expect to reasonably find where I can have my responsible fun without having to answer to every pseudo environmentalist or individual or group that doesn’t appreciate my activity.  “Islands” , with fall lines, should be part of this just like some sand dunes, etc, are available for motorized activity.

The motorized community will only harm their objectives until they accept that their activities, by their very nature, and absent of personal behavior,  trespass on the experience of other BC users.  Some ‘get it’, which is why voluntary non-moto zones exist.  I am a bit surprised that public land agencies have done so little to date to manage these concerns, but it will be coming.  The best thing the motorized community can do for itself is to police its’ abusers and probably offer up further voluntary non-motorized zones.

Areas are not designated as 'motorized' in winter for snowmobiles in WA on Forest other than groomed roads. Such offroad snowmobile use has occurred by default, without intention or plan or with the realization that snowmobiles would be ridden in places that are now routinely ridden. The lack of clear management of snowmobile use is the culprit.

In asking for designated non-motorized winter recreation areas, we are asking for management of snowmobile use on the Forest.

Thank You.

WMC's reply was excellent and deserves to be enlarged and pasted up on the wall:

To reinforce WMC's post, I'd like to reply to ruffryder: Has it occurred to snowmobilers that maybe you should view yourselves as lucky for being able to ride in any off-road/off-trail areas of the Forest? None of these areas have been DESIGNATED for mechanized use. The capabilities of today's snowmobiles were undreamed of by Forest managers 30 years ago. Pushing the use of snowmobiles into areas that were traditionally non-motorized is bound to trigger a backlash. People have rights, machines don't.

Thank You.

Thanks, I pointed this out earlier but it always gets ignored by snowmobilers. The current language on snowmobile use talks about groomed and ungroomed routes and states noting about off route travel, this needs to be addressed. Historically motorized use on FS land has been restricted to roads and trails, why should winter be any different? I think a reasonable compromise would included certain areas where off route travel is prohibited, such as the areas in the proposal put forward by WMC.

Thank You.

Thank You.

I believe that restricting snowmobiles to roads and clearcuts would be more than reasonable, and snowmobilers should be thankful that they're even allowed that much.

Thank You.

If 40+10=50 (%, ie. 'parity', a premise I do not accept), what do you do in the areas where Wilderness density is much less than on the OWNF?

No amount of gamesmanship changes the fact that off trail sleds are the smoker in the restaurant ~ only one compromises the other (parking excepted).

If I am the only BC skier, I still expect to readily find public space free of noise and stink and reasonably natural ~ and that this should be the norm. Buffers areas to designated wilderness areas are a logical choice, as part of the whole, and frankly, the default should be that off trail public space is non-motorized

If I'm a sledder, I expect to reasonably find where I can have my responsible fun without having to answer to every pseudo environmentalist or individual or group that doesn’t appreciate my activity. “Islands” , with fall lines, should be part of this just like some sand dunes, etc, are available for motorized activity.

The motorized community will only harm their objectives until they accept that their activities, by their very nature, and absent of personal behavior, trespass on the experience of other BC users. Some ‘get it’, which is why voluntary non-moto zones exist. I am a bit surprised that public land agencies have done so little to date to manage these concerns, but it will be coming. The best thing the motorized community can do for itself is to police its’ abusers and probably offer up further voluntary non-motorized zones.

Thank You.

To those readers seeing only the most recent pages, we will ask you to be sure to see the original posting of this thread.

"We must ask USFS to manage this conflict of recreational uses and to create significant and new non-motorized winter recreation areas. To this end some backcountry skiers formed the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition, and we invite skiers and winter non-motorized recreationists to join the Thousand Skiers Project."

We thank the many posters who have commented thus far and especially enjoy seeing posted comments in support. Thank you!