WMC Update 2012

Well sir, that would be where allowed outside of Closed or non-motorized areas and outside of Wilderness. We have been over this extensively here- "Yes, sir you are indeed claiming it all for your use- snowmobile riding. Do you ski? We are familiar with your posts on Snowest as an avid snowmobile rider and see that you are going on there and here right now.

As far as Sno Parks, a vehicle that has displayed a valid Permit may park there. Perhaps sir you could share here some of the sentiment on this topic that is expressed on your usual forum? Sharing, eh?

WMC is seeking areas for non-motorized winter use so that skiers (etc) may have a shot at quiet recreation on untracked snow in some reasonable balance of the Forest total area. WMC has never stated that we seek prohibition or regulation of snowmobiles outside of non-motorized areas."

Does WMC agree that the wilderness and designated non-motorized areas are non-motorized and fit the description as you state above? Does WMC agree that the remaining areas are for mixed use which includes snowmobiles? Does WMC acknowledge that nowhere in the state do we have snowmobile only recreation or parking? All areas used in sledding can also be used by non-motorized users? At what point does WMC state where snowmobiles can ride in the alpine areas of the wenatchee forest, since you are suggesting that most all the areas with open aspects are being restricted to snomobile use and added to the existing wilderness areas already designated non-motorized.

With regard to shared parking in the snow parks that are traditional snowmobile access points, many non-motorized users park extremely close and disregard the ability to load and unload or even in some cases give the ability to exit your rig from the parking spot, and quite often will park in the turn around areas which in most cases are clearly signed. Yet, does WMC acknowledge that there are non-motorized parking areas for their use only? No shared parking in those spots.

As for my participation on both forums, I am here on this one to better understand the desire by your group to limit access to a large portion of the best riding in the state to motorized users and to see if there is any compromise in the idea of shared use of the areas you describe. I have not mentioned the conversation on this forum, yet. At this point, I will be yelling at the top of my lungs to put forth the effort and fight your selfish motivations. 1000 sledders will be the small number fighting this movement. You're creating a conflict. Good job.

I have yet to hear your answer with regard to where you would accept snowmobiles enjoying the similar terrain as you describe that won't someday be asked to close for your convenience.

Below is another illustration of this problem that has been communicated to WMC (names and locations omitted, in WA):

"... we have a beautiful north facing meadow ... that is near the groomed snomo trail.  Sled heads access it via the summer trail (illegal!).  It makes a great place to take beginning ski tourers for safe, low angle skiing.  This year, I was leading a party of four there...  We were almost there, it was untouched since the last storm, when four "gladiators" roared up our uptrack on the summer trail.  All they wanted to do was yell at me when I motioned them to stop, saying we needed to "share".  How do you share a restaurant with someone who wants to throw up on your table?  They stayed there for 20 minutes or so and ruined the fine low angle slope for us before heading off to thousands of other acres they had access to.  (We did manage to move on to steeper slopes and thicker trees).  I'm sure they saw our machines parked and followed our track with intent.  I know they do not like skiers as we try to limit their access..."

I'll say it again, if someone is breaking the law by using illegal areas/access, then they should get the full punishment by law. If you are complaining because someone got to the goods before you...cry to your mom. I get just as frustrated to see people getting in to my stash spots, but that's the name of the game, I don't think the forest should be managed to only allow me and my certain type of useage in that area. And AGAIN..the wildersness is the complete and unfiltered area that you can access legally all day long! try it out and leave the shared use areas as shared.

"Executive Order 11644 also required the Forest Service and other land managers to designate specific areas on which the use of off-road vehicles may and may not be permitted. According to the order, designation of motorized areas or trails will be based upon the protection of natural resources, promotion of the safety of all users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among various user groups. " See  www.winterwildlands.org/grassroots/regulations.php  We are asking that the appropriate authority address this problem and implement changes on the Forest before November 1st, 2010.

That order was issued by Nixon and amended by Carter, good luck on the November 1st implementation

Hi yammadog,

First, I would like to thank you for you contributions to this thread. Even if we can't resolve all (or any) of our differences, I think it is good that the different user groups have polite interactions so that views and opinions can be shared.

Second, I would like to add my comments to a couple of ideas you have brought up. Regarding your suggestion that there be some snomo-only areas in which pedestrian traffic is banned, I would like to say, as a human-powered recreationalist, that I would be open to the establishment of some reasonable moto-only areas as part of an agreement that expanded non-moto areas. I'm not sure if the desire for pedestrian free areas is genuine, or if you are simply using it as a rhetorical device to highlight the perceived asymmetry in the management of motorized and non-moto rec. I'm serious about this. I have wondered, while skiing out of snomo sno-parks, if I am negatively impacting the sledders. We always try to be considerate, stay out of the way, etc., but still we are there (and I know my experience would be better if the snomos weren't there).

With regard to shared parking in the snow parks that are traditional snowmobile access points, many non-motorized users park extremely close and disregard the ability to load and unload or even in some cases give the ability to exit your rig from the parking spot, and quite often will park in the turn around areas which in most cases are clearly signed. Yet, does WMC acknowledge that there are non-motorized parking areas for their use only? No shared parking in those spots.

Please elaborate. I try to be courteous. I park my car all the time and hardly ever have disputes with other drivers. The only contentious parking scene I have found is at sno parks. I have to admit that I have been unable to figure out the in's and out's of parking with snomo rigs. It seems that folks want room all around their trucks and trailers. I'm never sure how close to get. On one hand I would like to conserve the shared resource. On the other hand, I'm terrified of aggravating sledders who don't appear to want me around no matter how I park. I'm also being serious here. I sometimes ask folks (if they are around) if my parking is 'OK'. They always say it is, but something tells me they probably don't honestly approve (maybe they think I should be at a non-moto snopark??). I would appreciate any advice you have. Maybe I should check out some of the snomo boards and look for rants....

As for equity in parking.... I have seen several allusions to an impression that non-moto users do not pay as much for the use of the sno parks as snowmobilers. I'm skeptical of this, although I have to say I don't know how much the motorized pass costs. If it is different (more) than the non-moto pass I think you guys (sledders) are getting screwed. I don't think it is. Last time I bought a pass (two winters ago) I think it was $35. To park at sno parks near Seattle you also have to buy the 'groomed trails' sticker (don't know exact cost, but I think it is between $40 and $50). I have been in the situation of not being able to park at a sno park because I didn't have the groomed trails sticker while sledders were filling the lot.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. And seriously, if you have tips for parking with sledders, post up!

Happy riding,
Micah

Micah,

Yes, my statement is somewhat rhetorical, in that I'm assuming since WMC wants shared area for just skiing and eliminating sleds, like in the non-motorized areas and wilderness that already exist in over 40%+ of the forest, then I would have to believe that he also means that there would be dedicated sledding area without the concern for overtaking skiers/shoers in a turn at a higher rate of speed, or dogs in path, etc....if he's being sincere in saying both have a valid right to enjoy the BC.

Yet he still has not answered the question of where he would suggest that would be comparable in terrain to what he is suggesting be taken away.

I think the whole idea of taking more land and excluding a large user group for personal gain is just simply not the way to manage public lands. Every person I know and ride with takes consideration with hikers/skiers when passing them or when playing in a bowl etc. by giving a wide gap to the non-motorized users. The existing areas are more than spacious enough to try and get fresh tracks or even untouched, as TobyT says, it would be near impossible to track out, and that was for one area only, didn't even touch on the wilderness area that it connects with. I feel that we as citizens have already let too much land get locked out from the average person.

With regard to parking, it's pretty simple and I would say that it's not the norm, but if you park next to a sledding rig, think of how much room it will take to load a 10ft long sled with the ramp extended..maybe 15-20ft min. Then the idea that we can't really parallel park with a trailer, so giving enough room to pull in or pull out with consideration of the snow/ice on the parking surface. The guys that take the entire family with a 30ft trailer needs momentum and sufficient room to turn around, so giving a wide area at the turn around is needed.

I think the whole mess is simply that some areas have been found by sledders, that used to be skier stash and they're upset and don't want to share. I also feel that the access to the non-motorized/wilderness that already exists could alleviate the conflict that WMC is creating. As stated before by regular users of the area, no real conflict exists when you are out there. I also think enforcement of the existing boundaries would do a lot to lower the pressure on the near boundary areas by those that don't want the penalty.

I think it can all be solved by educating our fellow users and perhaps user groups pow wows to cover topics of concern, versus creating conflict and eliminating the opposition. Simply being respectful of our fellow users and enthusiasts. We are all out there for similar reasons.

Good input, yammadog - thanks. The parking stuff all makes perfect sense if you spend time watching folks load/unload as well as navigate their rigs around the sno-parks. It's common sense really, but the first time a skier shows up at a shared sno-park and all the sledders are already off, it's awfully tempting to slip into those seemingly giant gaps, so I suspect it's helpful to explicitly explain this stuff here, in that it helps educate skiers who haven't spent much time and shared sno-parks. I'm pretty sure that most skiers who park in rigs to it from ignorance, not malice.

As for the sharing, I get most of your points, except when you say

If you are complaining because someone got to the goods before you...cry to your mom. I get just as frustrated to see people getting in to my stash spots, but that's the name of the game, I don't think the forest should be managed to only allow me and my certain type of useage in that area.

As noted repeatedly above, sledders are wildly more efficient at tracking out terrain than are skiers. And skiing next to whining sleds tends to be aversive enough to drive folks away even if tracking of terrain weren't an issue. Perhaps some sledders share when they see skiers on a slope, but if the sledders got there an hour before the skiers (which is of course quite easy to do on a sled), then tough luck to the skiers. So the net is that "shared use" often equates to"the forest is managed to only allow you and your certain type of useage in the area." Now I'm not in love with the exclusion described by WMC above, as it indeed seems to be an over-reach (and telling sledders "you have vast areas to the south" seems disingenuous, as I'm sure sledders appreciate the comparitive aesthetics of the Teanaway versus areas further south too). But at any rate, your argument for keeping shared access as it is heavily favors sledders at the expense of skiers. Legal sharing does not equal practical sharing. I hope you can find a way to see that, as your acknowledgement of that reality would go a long way toward enabling the sort of constructive dialog that you seem to seek.

As for sledder-only areas, I'm open to proposals that woudl net me something bback in return ((again, keeping in mind that sled technology has granted you an awful lot of terrain at the practical expense of skiers in the past two decades). However, I'd assume that even if you did'nt need to worry about hitting a skier or a dog, you would still need to worry about hitting another snowmobiler who may have stopped their rig for some reason (or an animal), and that responsible sledding dicates that you don't commit to travel into any space you can't see (or that a spotter you're in radio contact wth can't see). Let me know if I'm off base there.

Micah,

Yes, my statement is somewhat rhetorical, in that I'm assuming since WMC wants shared area for just skiing and eliminating sleds, like in the non-motorized areas and wilderness that already exist in over 40%+ of the forest, then I would have to believe that he also means that there would be dedicated sledding area without the concern for overtaking skiers/shoers in a turn at a higher rate of speed, or dogs in path, etc....if he's being sincere in saying both have a valid right to enjoy the BC.

Yet he still has not answered the question of where he would suggest that would be comparable in terrain to what he is suggesting be taken away.

I think the whole idea of taking more land and excluding a large user group for personal gain is just simply not the way to manage public lands. Every person I know and ride with takes consideration with hikers/skiers when passing them or when playing in a bowl etc. by giving a wide gap to the non-motorized users. The existing areas are more than spacious enough to try and get fresh tracks or even untouched, as TobyT says, it would be near impossible to track out, and that was for one area only, didn't even touch on the wilderness area that it connects with. I feel that we as citizens have already let too much land get locked out from the average person.

With regard to parking, it's pretty simple and I would say that it's not the norm, but if you park next to a sledding rig, think of how much room it will take to load a 10ft long sled with the ramp extended..maybe 15-20ft min. Then the idea that we can't really parallel park with a trailer, so giving enough room to pull in or pull out with consideration of the snow/ice on the parking surface. The guys that take the entire family with a 30ft trailer needs momentum and sufficient room to turn around, so giving a wide area at the turn around is needed.

I think the whole mess is simply that some areas have been found by sledders, that used to be skier stash and they're upset and don't want to share. I also feel that the access to the non-motorized/wilderness that already exists could alleviate the conflict that WMC is creating. As stated before by regular users of the area, no real conflict exists when you are out there. I also think enforcement of the existing boundaries would do a lot to lower the pressure on the near boundary areas by those that don't want the penalty.

I think it can all be solved by educating our fellow users and perhaps user groups pow wows to cover topics of concern, versus creating conflict and eliminating the opposition. Simply being respectful of our fellow users and enthusiasts. We are all out there for similar reasons.

Well sir, what is the "conflict?" This is a discussion. WMC has some ideas in advocacy, we are very clear about them, we believe that they are the right approach to manage the limited recreational resource, to share the resource. We are glad that yammadog adds to this discussion, thank you. We see that yammadog is asking on Forums for snowmobile riders to send in their emails. That is great, let this discussion hear all sides, all points, and let various users- fellow citizens- express their views as well. The job of allocating the resource is the responsibility of USFS, as is the enforcement.

We are pleased with your civility, thanks. We do see on Snowest and BackcountryRebels names, addresses, phone numbers, photos, in other examples of persons opposing motorized use or snowmobile use where it is believed by some that it is not acceptable. And there are aggressive words and ideas directed toward these folks who dare to oppose snowmobile riding on any level. We read tales related on Snowest about vandalism of 'skiers' cars, intimidation or assault of 'skiers' or whatever the name used is. The thread on BackcountryRebels listing derogatory names for anyone who wants to limit snowmobiles is quite interesting. We do not approve of skiers being hostile toward snowmobile riders either -this poster rides snowmobiles on roads with friends and has unfortunately experienced uncivil skiers in that situation.  WMC does point to the problem of aggressive words perhaps designed to intimidate similar to what we see on snowmobile Forums, and we make the point that we all need to be civil in this discussion and recognize that there are others' valid points to be heard.

As far as other areas for snowmobile riding, we will encourage snowmobile riders to speak to that, we are concentrating on a proposal for areas for designated winter non-motorized use. We have stated that we believe that USFS needs to manage this recreation by non-compatible user groups and WMC asks for that. We are starting advocacy directed at our local area in the Wenatchee Mountains. We make no secret of the fact that we believe that throughout Washington there is a serious need for management of the incompatible uses by the designation of winter non-motorized areas. We have no intention of advocating to generally prohibit on or off-road snowmobile riding as will be managed by USFS, and outside of Wilderness and areas Closed to snowmobiles. We are certain that the Forest area used by snowmobiles is much larger than non-motorized areas outside Wilderness, and that area is growing constantly with new technology machines. We are certain that there is an inequity in use of the available resource, powder snow, between snowmobiles and skiers, snowshoers, etc.

The area from Van Epps to Brothers that is the unroaded crest is a logical setback from the Wilderness Boundary, and WMC takes advantage of that fact in asking for non-motorized designation there. It is possible in our view that at some point in the future some of the large, formal Organizations may lobby and secure this area as non-motorized for the purpose of Wilderness protection. WMC takes advantage of this proximity to Wilderness in asking for non-motorized designation.

We have stated many times here that a larger portion of suitable Forest outside Wilderness is defacto motorized playground at the expense of other legitimate users who do not ride snowmobiles. or do not ride snowmobiles offroad. We believe that it is unassailable fact  that snowmobile use is growing and expanding in the Forest and does very literally exclude other user groups from enjoying the resource.

Thanks everyone for the discussion here!

WMC....I had to laugh at your answering machine 3rd person reply. How about answering my question directly?

100% of all forest land is available for skiing/non-motor recreation.

As a minimum 40% is designated wilderness and cannot be accessed to the motorized user, with additional area off limits with defacto wilderness, non-motorized or other restrictions.

As a sledder I am stating a position on the area for motorized recreation, and it's the existing territory with emphasis on enforcing boundary incursions. I also advocate providing greater access to the EXISTING areas for day trip adventures in the "wilderness", so much so, that you could do it from your car and wouldn't need the stinky old machine you propose get you closer while leaving others out.

You state that no where in the forest are the 2 users compatible and the sledders need to go for safety reasons or other such reasoning. If 100% is available for skiers, then when do you stop asking for closures and in what areas would that be in?

Is this a wilderness land grab or a real effort to get skiable terrain with more access? Why not explore the access concept and have conversation about that? conversation is a give and take...you are only wanting to take and with your cardboard replies, I don't see any conversation happening.

With your comments of this being the starting point, it's pretty clear your real motivations in this "discussion". Very misleading in your rhetoric, I don't think it's about the skiing at all. Your simply a hater, of motors if not people and want additional land just for your own solitude. The sad part is, you want public land. Popular public land at that.

So, as entertaining as this has become, I'll be looking for your reply to my questions, yet again.

And just out of curiosity, what kind of skies do you run? Are you a telemarker? Free the heal, free the mind?

As for the sharing, I get most of your points, except when you say
As noted repeatedly above, sledders are wildly more efficient at tracking out terrain than are skiers. And skiing next to whining sleds tends to be aversive enough to drive folks away even if tracking of terrain weren't an issue. Perhaps some sledders share when they see skiers on a slope, but if the sledders got there an hour before the skiers (which is of course quite easy to do on a sled), then tough luck to the skiers. So the net is that "shared use" often equates to"the forest is managed to only allow you and your certain type of useage in the area." Now I'm not in love with the exclusion described by WMC above, as it indeed seems to be an over-reach (and telling sledders "you have vast areas to the south" seems disingenuous, as I'm sure sledders appreciate the comparitive aesthetics of the Teanaway versus areas further south too). But at any rate, your argument for keeping shared access as it is heavily favors sledders at the expense of skiers. Legal sharing does not equal practical sharing. I hope you can find a way to see that, as your acknowledgement of that reality would go a long way toward enabling the sort of constructive dialog that you seem to seek.

As for sledder-only areas, I'm open to proposals that woudl net me something bback in return ((again, keeping in mind that sled technology has granted you an awful lot of terrain at the practical expense of skiers in the past two decades). However, I'd assume that even if you did'nt need to worry about hitting a skier or a dog, you would still need to worry about hitting another snowmobiler who may have stopped their rig for some reason (or an animal), and that responsible sledding dicates that you don't commit to travel into any space you can't see (or that a spotter you're in radio contact wth can't see). Let me know if I'm off base there.

Jim, I'm the first to express how happy I am the new machines are much quieter and less offensive to the nose. And I also speak my piece to those that make them louder in the name of HP. I would say that the trend by all the sledders is toward quiet and less smell, and the manufacturers are listening, thankfully.

I have yet to really hear anyone connect the "management" of the forest and "wilderness" as being a part of the non-motorized management. I'll agree that skiing thru a sled trench would not be entertaining, it's not fun being on a sled and hitting some of those. But let's look at the forest as a whole, not just the "non-wilderness" area as useable terrain, then we can have a real conversation about management of the land for various uses. WMC is proposing all of the stewart range, heck, basically all of the alpine territory in that area as non-motorized. where's the compatibility in my access in winter recreation to areas such as that? parity...me and few hundred of my sledding buddies restricted to the parking lot and WMC with a few of his buddies using up entire mountain ranges, with tons of it never getting touched.

I think you are dead on in identifying WMC as being disingenuous in the real motivation of his position.

A little thread drift here, why can't snowmobilers park their rigs more efficiently and pull there rigs to the trail head to load and unload like a boat ramp? You could literally double the parking space at Blewett if this were the practice. What is wrong with a car parking in front of or in back of a truck and trailer given there is enough room to pullout and back up to the trailhead? I'm not being difficult here, I want to know. One day this winter three rigs took up the whole parking area at Devil's Spur that could normally accommodate 20 cars by pulling in and parallel parking with no room in front or back for others to park and they left their ramps down eliminating even more space. This all seems to be done in the name of convenience.

WMC is proposing all of the stewart range, heck, basically all of the alpine territory in that area as non-motorized. where's the compatibility in my access in winter recreation to areas such as that? parity...me and few hundred of my sledding buddies restricted to the parking lot and WMC with a few of his buddies using up entire mountain ranges, with tons of it never getting touched.

The Stuart Range already lies wholly within the ALW, was that a mistake or do you enjoy sledding there? The areas in the proposal are in the Wenatchee Mountains. Saying you would be restricted to the parking lot is a bit disingenuous as there are many hundreds of miles of groomed and ungroomed forest road available for your enjoyment.

A little thread drift here, why can't snowmobilers park their rigs more efficiently and pull there rigs to the trail head to load and unload like a boat ramp? You could literally double the parking space at Blewett if this were the practice. What is wrong with a car parking in front of or in back of a truck and trailer given there is enough room to pullout and back up to the trailhead? I'm not being difficult here, I want to know. One day this winter three rigs took up the whole parking area at Devil's Spur that could normally accommodate 20 cars by pulling in and parallel parking with no room in front or back for others to park and they left their ramps down eliminating even more space. This all seems to be done in the name of convenience.

Yeah, Blewett is probably the worst I've seen for parking. Most areas are a larger turn around and then parking along a road. With that configuration you don't have the ability to back down the road with other vehicles also driving in or out when it's time to leave. Yahoo's parking badly with their trailers is also a source of frustration for those of us that try to accomodate others in our efforts to park, believe me, it's not just "non-sledders" that have zero clue on parking. With regard to the ramp being left down, I know some do it for protection of the room and then other for convenience, which is fine in a parking area that has the room, like Stampede or others, but Blewett is not that place!

If there were the room, then a boat ramp parking situation wouldn't be a bad option, but usually that's not the case. Stampede is the only area that I know with ample room to park somewhat decent, I think it has 125 spots. Usually the snowparks are icey etc. so backing any real distance could create problems with some drivers. I've been to gold creek and had to park a mile up the road and it was difficult just drive forward let alone trying to back down that distance.

The Stuart Range already lies wholly within the ALW, was that a mistake or do you enjoy sledding there? The areas in the proposal are in the Wenatchee Mountains. Saying you would be restricted to the parking lot is a bit disingenuous as there are many hundreds of miles of groomed and ungroomed forest road available for your enjoyment.

I was trying to imply that this area is already secured for non-motorized recreation and the small remaining alpine area(in comparison) is the only alpine area we have in that location.

Sure I expanded on being restricted to the parking lot, but that's where it's heading, just like off road dirt bikes. Why not restrict skiers to just the ski slopes, if we are restricted to the roads?

The BC alpine should be enjoyed by all and my position that there is already territory and terrain that meet WMC's proposals without taking away from another user group. If access to that terrain is an issue, let's address it, not just take what remains from the other users.

It would be interesting to compare the alpine terrain available to motor vs non-motor. Like Newtrout mentioned, there are few for sledding. And in that comparison, lets be sure to include the wilderness areas for skiing...

I was trying to imply that this area is already secured for non-motorized recreation and the small remaining alpine area(in comparison) is the only alpine area we have in that location.

Sure I expanded on being restricted to the parking lot, but that's where it's heading, just like off road dirt bikes. Why not restrict skiers to just the ski slopes, if we are restricted to the roads?

The BC alpine should be enjoyed by all and my position that there is already territory and terrain that meet WMC's proposals without taking away from another user group. If access to that terrain is an issue, let's address it, not just take what remains from the other users.

It would be interesting to compare the alpine terrain available to motor vs non-motor. Like Newtrout mentioned, there are few for sledding. And in that comparison, lets be sure to include the wilderness areas for skiing...

Off road dirt bikes are legal on multi-use trails on the OWNF with few exceptions, street legal trail bikes are legal on all roads and most trails outside wilderness.

This is my opinion, I don't think alpine terrain was ever intended to be used by snowmobiles when the current Forest Plan was written, snow mobiles have been able to travel in alpine terrain by default because of technological advances and it wasn't expressly prohibited. Again, in my opinion, when an area is accessed by machines it ceases to be back country.

Yeah, Blewett is probably the worst I've seen for parking. Most areas are a larger turn around and then parking along a road. With that configuration you don't have the ability to back down the road with other vehicles also driving in or out when it's time to leave. Yahoo's parking badly with their trailers is also a source of frustration for those of us that try to accomodate others in our efforts to park, believe me, it's not just "non-sledders" that have zero clue on parking. With regard to the ramp being left down, I know some do it for protection of the room and then other for convenience, which is fine in a parking area that has the room, like Stampede or others, but Blewett is not that place!

If there were the room, then a boat ramp parking situation wouldn't be a bad option, but usually that's not the case. Stampede is the only area that I know with ample room to park somewhat decent, I think it has 125 spots. Usually the snowparks are icey etc. so backing any real distance could create problems with some drivers. I've been to gold creek and had to park a mile up the road and it was difficult just drive forward let alone trying to back down that distance.

This really doesn't answer any of my question. At Blewett why can't users park closer together and at the end of the day drive out to the highway, turn around and drive back to the turnaround to load? You might have to wait your turn, but it would help ease the parking shortage. I think this is the way most non-motorized user view the parking at shared sno parks. The current custom just reinforces the opinion of non-motorized users that sledders are selfish and the only reason to park this way is for convenience. If maneuvering on icy and snow covered road os a problem, maybe users should have chains or better traction tires. These aren't personal attacks, they are observations based on personal experience and conversations with other non-motorized users.

Off road dirt bikes are legal on multi-use trails on the OWNF with few exceptions, street legal trail bikes are legal on all roads and most trails outside wilderness.

This is my opinion, I don't think alpine terrain was ever intended to be used by snowmobiles when the current Forest Plan was written, snow mobiles have been able to travel in alpine terrain by default because of technological advances and it wasn't expressly prohibited. Again, in my opinion, when an area is accessed by machines it ceases to be back country.

this is a bit of a repeat, but in my case with my young boys living in North Bend, I have to travel some distance to let them ride legally and atv/jeeping are even further.


I'm not certain of the dates, but alpine sled riding was addressed long ago, when they made the mt baker national areas. And I believe the ability of snowmobiles was addressed in the late 90's with the creation of "voluntary" non-motorized areas. I wasn't around this part of the country until 97 and didn't start sledding until 00. So some of the information is unknown to me and is part of my motivation to continue this conversation in why you want to exclude other users from this country. Education of my own mind with hopes that I can pass it on to others I know are newer to the area and work at changing attitudes of them vs us in this situation.

This really doesn't answer any of my question. At Blewett why can't users park closer together and at the end of the day drive out to the highway, turn around and drive back to the turnaround to load? You might have to wait your turn, but it would help ease the parking  shortage. I think this is the way most non-motorized user view the parking at shared sno parks. The current custom just reinforces the opinion of non-motorized users that sledders are selfish and the only reason to park this way is for convenience. If maneuvering on icy and snow covered road os a problem, maybe users should have chains or better traction tires. These aren't personal attacks, they are observations based on personal experience and conversations with other non-motorized users.

I don't disagree that users can park better, across the board! Coming up with a plan that provides turn around abilities would be a good thing and solve a lot of challenge with that parking area. It seems to me it's a small area with lots of users and it needs to be addressed. I usually avoid that access just because of the parking.

A few years ago, they made special parking areas for non-sledders at stampede, to put them closer and I thnk providing better palcement to fit more people, I'm sure something could be addressed. I think you really said what needs to happen, people need to not be selfish in their parking useage.

Funny, we keep coming back to the same solution...stop being selfish, except that one group continues to ignore the wilderness as part of the overall solution. Only to create adversaries in exclusion.

WMC is pleased to see this article today at the Wenatchee Outdoors website- www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/18996

Funny, we keep coming back to the same solution...stop being selfish, except that one group continues to ignore the wilderness as part of the overall solution. Only to create adversaries in exclusion.

C'mon yammadog. We've discussed this above, so it's not being ignored. I believe you want to have a reasonable dialog here, but ignoring the good replies above regarding why much (not all, but most) of the wilderness is practically useless to many day ski tourers isn't helping the cause of finding a meeting of the minds. A few folks may sled to ridges on the boundary, but that's not a reasonable answer for many of us, and even that leaves much of the wilderness out of reach except for the multi-night adventurer.

As for exclusion, I'll repeat that there is legal exclusion and then there's practical exclusion (as in "might wins"). I don't see any more or less selfishness, nor any less of a "land grab" in one form of exclusion or the other. The sledders have practically managed a grab that's even bigger than what WMC proposes. If you can empathize with that statement for a moment, you might see reason in some form of meeting in the middle.

Ok Jim, I'll jump in with you. And I appreciate you, Aaron, and others participation. I'm still not seeing any constructive comms with WMC, not sure if you could point it out to me, but he seems tone def to any suggestion other than complete closure to the areas suggested.

From my reading on this subject, WMC is only proposing the exclusion of sledding in this alpine area. No suggestion of where they might want to share and completely avoiding the question. Where are the areas that are similar in terrain that can be effectively off limits to future closure? As suggested by this group?

I think the real answer is to find a way to make the existing area(wilderness) more accessible.

How do we do that and is that a workable solution in WMC's mind? The area proposed is some of the best riding in the state and used by many, what about looking at other areas to make non- motorized instead of such a popular location? I'm only hearing the same response from WMC....no compromise or even suggestion of a workable solution to provide access in comparable terrain and over all alpine type open areas.

I've tried to bring suggestion to make the situation more workable and leaving openings for WMC to participate in a give and take. I know whatever the solution, the education of the sledders and non-motorized groups will need to happen. Enforcement of the areas is going to need to happen and we know that's somewhat of a challenge with the existing aeras.

...I know whatever the solution, the education of the sledders and non-motorized groups will need to happen. Enforcement of the areas is going to need to happen and we know that's somewhat of a challenge with the existing aeras.

With the WMC proposal, enforcement will be possible by Officers sitting at the end of one of a few roads. That is a plus as far as management of the problems.

WMC is pleased that two of our Executive asked for support and answered questions today for Winter Wildlands Alliance. WWA has pledged support and help to the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition and the Thousand Skiers Project and is including us in their national emailings. Thank you Winter Wildlands Alliance! www.winterwildlands.org/index.php

I've got to admit, although I share the desire for quiet skiing destinations with no motor vehicles, I don't see much evidence from WMC's posts of any desire to work toward a solution that works for all user groups.  It's possible that non-motorized designation in certain areas could be a useful part of a solution, but WMC seems to entirely emphasize it as an end goal rather than working by any and all reasonable means toward what I think is the real skier goal: Having lots of accessible and excellent terrain to ski without motors nearby.  It's easy to confuse an actual goal with the perceived best path to that goal, and I think WMC is doing that.

With regard to the question of whether motors are allowed by default or not allowed by default on FS land, I think a default to freedom applies unless an action is expressly not allowed or known to cause harm.  Like it or not, I think it's a pretty established legal principle (must have some Latin name).  For instance, I'm sure there is no FS regulation that expressly allows you to play a clarinet while wearing a sombrero in a goofy fashion, but I'm equally sure that this is not a prohibited activity in the NF.

I've got to admit, although I share the desire for quiet skiing destinations with no motor vehicles, I don't see much evidence from WMC's posts of any desire to work toward a solution that works for all user groups.  It's possible that non-motorized designation in certain areas could be a useful part of a solution, but WMC seems to entirely emphasize it as an end goal rather than working by any and all reasonable means toward what I think is the real skier goal: Having lots of accessible and excellent terrain to ski without motors nearby.  It's easy to confuse an actual goal with the perceived best path to that goal, and I think WMC is doing that.

With regard to the question of whether motors are allowed by default or not allowed by default on FS land, I think a default to freedom applies unless an action is expressly not allowed or known to cause harm.  Like it or not, I think it's a pretty established legal principle (must have some Latin name).  For instance, I'm sure there is no FS regulation that expressly allows you to play a clarinet while wearing a sombrero in a goofy fashion, but I'm equally sure that this is not a prohibited activity in the NF.

We are beginning with very limited total areas along the Wenatchee Mountains designated as non-motorized. We are asking for a piece of the significantly larger area used by default by snowmobile riding to be designated as non-motorized. We picked the most logical areas to ask for the designation.

We understand how the area that we are familiar is used, in negotiating this we are starting out very far behind in terms of parity and equality. The Forest has largely become a defacto motorized playground in winter. Imagine if most of your skitouring areas were tracked and trenched by snowmobiles and taken from your use. Imagine being out on a bluebird powder day with your skitouring friends and you see 14 snowmobiles arrive, have pleasant conversation, then the riders on snowmobiles proceed to lap that powder slope up and down, coming within five feet of skiers climbing on skins. Imagine walking for two hours on skis and skins to the Wilderness Boundary to ski a bowl into the Wilderness, and there find snowmobile tracks across that peak, in the Wilderness. This is the situation that we advocate for management by USFS.

We see, and we see here, no compromise or sharing from the snowmobile community, and we do not expect to see that.

Here is an example comment from the counter-post on Snowest: "I think they should keep everyone outta the fresh powder till i have a chance to go get all I want. Then everyone can go ride thru MY tracks!! Oh wait, they're talkin about their clack clack tracks. Whats gonna happen when they visit their favorite Pow stash and find some other skiers already tracked it up Hitch up yur skirt, get out and get all u can. It ain't gonna be good all the time, just like for us gas powered guys.You want more access closer to the road? Try the ski areas. You want to stack the odds in your favor. Too bad , thats life. Suck it up and quit Cryin."

Well actually there are indeed small odds for non-motorized winter recreationists in competing with snowmobiles on the Forest. We advocate for equity and parity for winter non-motorized recreation on the Forest.

Ok Jim, I'll jump in with you. And I appreciate you, Aaron, and others participation. I'm still not seeing any constructive comms with WMC, not sure if you could point it out to me, but he seems tone def to any suggestion other than complete closure to the areas suggested.

From my reading on this subject, WMC is only proposing the exclusion of sledding in this alpine area. No suggestion of where they might want to share and completely avoiding the question. Where are the areas that are similar in terrain that can be effectively off limits to future closure? As suggested by this group?

I think the real answer is to find a way to make the existing area(wilderness) more accessible.

How do we do that and is that a workable solution in WMC's mind? The area proposed is some of the best riding in the state and used by many, what about looking at other areas to make non- motorized instead of such a popular location? I'm only hearing the same response from WMC....no compromise or even suggestion of a workable solution to provide access in comparable terrain and over all alpine type open areas.

I've tried to bring suggestion to make the situation more workable and leaving openings for WMC to participate in a give and take. I know whatever the solution, the education of the sledders and non-motorized groups will need to happen. Enforcement of the areas is going to need to happen and we know that's somewhat of a challenge with the existing aeras.

Snowmobile riding these areas has occurred long after skiers used these areas as well. One of our Executive and some of our friends were skiing or snowshoeing in this area in the 1970s, another in the late '80s and onward. WMC is not focusing on Wilderness protection nor on resource and wildlife protection, however we are aware of and in contact with some larger significant organizations who have invested considerable work into these issues and therefore into the limiting of snowmobile riding in these areas. Aside from the management of incompatible recreational uses, there are the questions of protection of Wilderness, resources, and wildlife from snowmobiles as well.

We see, and we see here, no compromise or sharing from the snowmobile community, and we do not expect to see that.

Here is an example comment from the counter-post on Snowest: ....

It is always easy to find an example of some other (opposing viewpoint) person who does not want to cooperate, and to use that as a basis to justify not cooperating with others. It's as unproductive as it is easy. I suspect WMC's posts are fulfilling the same role on the opposite side of the equation. Interesting symmetry.

Good luck,

It is always easy to find an example of some other (opposing viewpoint) person who does not want to cooperate, and to use that as a basis to justify not cooperating with others.  It's as unproductive as it is easy.  I suspect WMC's posts are fulfilling the same role on the opposite side of the equation.  Interesting symmetry.

Good luck,

Yes. How may skiers compromise when the terrain that they hope to ascend at a rate of 1000 to 2000 vertical feet per hour quietly, when that terrain is invaded by snowmobiles that climb 1000 to 2000 vertical feet per minute? The majority of the resource is taken by snowmobiles but not by intentional USFS plan or designation. That taking of the resource results secondarily to technology advancement in snowmobiles and the fact that enough Forest motorized users have the discretionary income to spend $8000 to $10000 for the snowmobile to use to rapidly consume the resource and thus deny the use of the resource to other users.

How is it that if skiers attempt to balance Forest use toward human-powered quiet recreation, toward the more natural condition, how is this a "land grab" and lacks "compromise?" When given knowledge of the current extent of offroad snowmobile use in the Forest and in Wilderness, most folks and even those not familiar with winter recreation on the Forest would likely be appalled! How is it that pedestrians who recreate on the Forest are elitist compared to the few numbers of snowmobile riders required to consume overwhelmingly the resource after spending $10000 for a snowmobile, more for a trailer perhaps $1000 to $5000, more for a tow rig up to $45000- all in order to range unimpeded using 150 HP to track most of the Forest simply by pushing on a throttle and leaning! In response to our advocacy for a share of the Forest to use quietly arguments arise in defense of the downtrodden, the innocent Forest users, when actually those riding snowmobiles offroad all over the Forest during the past decade have transformed the Forest in a manner not seen since timber trespass of a century ago removed much of the east slope timber without permission or payment.

Again, WMC is asking for a fair portion of the resource for non-motorized users.

Thank you for the discussion and for the nice sentiment, and good luck to you as well!

In reviewing some of the news releases from the WWA website, a common theme in the success stories was that of collaboration and compromise between motorized and non. WMC's attitude af, "there is no compromise because both pursuits are incompatible," would not lend itself to successful collaboration it seems. If/when the forest officials tell us forest users to sit down at the table and hash out an equitable plan, we all have to approach each other in the spirit of collaboration in protecting our precious powder, rather than it's my way or no way!

In reviewing some of the news releases from the WWA website, a common theme in  the success stories was that of collaboration and compromise between motorized and non. WMC's attitude af, "there is no compromise because both pursuits are incompatible," would not lend itself to successful collaboration it seems. If/when the forest officials tell us forest users to sit down at the table and hash out an equitable plan, we all have to approach each other in the spirit of collaboration in protecting our precious powder, rather than it's my way or no way!

Thank you, my point exactly. WMC is coming across as a zealot at this point.

And we can't over look the wilderness as part of the overall user area for non-motorized. We just have to find a way to make it more of a day trip to use it.

Y-dog, careful with extreme comparisons. WMC is passionate about his/her forest experience, as are you I'm sure. We just have to review what's worked in other states so we have a solid foundation for collaboration between users.