National Forest Snowmobile lawsuit

Andy Dappen wrote a nice "how this came about" explanation here:

www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/24084

Good perspective.

A bit one sided perspective

What if all easily road accessible terrain was closed to snowmobiles, and some remote alpine areas that were not frequently accessed by skiers were then opened up to snowmachines?

For instance- close down snowmobile access to Blewett pass or Smithbrook but open up Spider Meadow or Poe Mountain from December 15 to March 21 when it would require a 30+ mile slog to get into the area on skis. Snowmobile crowd would get their alpine terrain, skiers would get easy access with no smell or sounds.

Other than on wilderness/religious principal level, what would this hurt? Seems like it would give everyone what they want.

Just a thought I've had as a skier who doesn't mind sleds, but isn't particularly interested in owning one. I tried it for a while and it's not really my thing.

What if all easily road accessible terrain was closed to snowmobiles, and some remote alpine areas that were not frequently accessed by skiers were then opened up to snowmachines?

For instance- close down snowmobile access to Blewett pass or Smithbrook but open up Spider Meadow or Poe Mountain from December 15 to March 21 when it would require a 30+ mile slog to get into the area on skis. Snowmobile crowd would get their alpine terrain, skiers would get easy access with no smell or sounds.

Other than on wilderness/religious principal level, what would this hurt? Seems like it would give everyone what they want.

Just a thought I've had as a skier who doesn't mind sleds, but isn't particularly interested in owning one. I tried it for a while and it's not really my thing.

I would be OK in principle with that. However, there are legal issues (Wilderness boundaries). There may be other examples, though, of areas closed to snowmobiles but not within a Wilderness area. The only ones I know about are on logging roads (Jolly mountain, for example).

I'm afraid other folks would be opposed to that, even if didn't require a change in the law. If you have a dream trip in mind, and it takes several days to get there, then you would hate to see snowmobiles that far in there.

The yearly tradeoff thing might work. In other words, open up Spider one year, but close Park Butte the same year. Then reverse. That would give someone a chance to plan that big yearly trip, but only on the appropriate year. The only drawback to that approach, of course, is that some dream trips (like ones that Skoog and Hummel go one) are only available when the weather is just right (and that doesn't happen every year).

Again, for Spider that proposal would be purely hypothetical. There is no way that is going to happen (ever). You would be much better off trying to get the private property owners east of Baker to allow sled access.

A yearly trade-off between, say, Park Butte and Jolly Mountain, on the other hand, seems feasible. The only problem there is that these are two very different areas. There probably aren't too many sledders that go to both. In other words, it would simply be a case of Salmon La Sac sledders rejoicing one year, while Skagit Valley sledders frown the same year.

A bit one sided perspective

... funny thing about being an advocate...

What if all easily road accessible terrain was closed to snowmobiles, and some remote alpine areas that were not frequently accessed by skiers were then opened up to snowmachines?

That is the irony of this issue. Non-motorized users have the wilderness to recreate in all by themselves, but the majority of them can't access it in the winter time.

Yet snowmobilers that can travel great distances fairly easily are competing with non-motorized users in areas that are easily accessible.

Ideally (from a winter usage point of view only) the wilderness should be opened up for motorized use, and the areas close to roads / snoparks should be restricted for non-motorized use.

That way everyone gets easy access to the goods..

I see a future where rules are in place to keep a majority of folks out of the public lands, and the public stops caring about the lands and opens them up to industry / private parties. Especially if sold as a large creator of jobs in rural areas...

All great ideas but a bit early to start talking about where and when areas should be divided. The sad truth is that the land managers will stall and default to claims of not having the resources to do their job or what is required of them.
Ultimately however we will come to the point where the land will have to be shared and there is ample room for all groups to find their nirvana. I just hope this comes sooner than later.
It is very ironic that the areas close in and accessible are mostly currently used by sledders and although we would love to use the wilderness areas in the winter most are inaccessible for the average skier much less the snowshoer, or family that seeks an accessible, quiet winter outing. Had we been able to see into the future some 25 years ago we would have designated some hard to get to remote areas specifically for motorized users and reserved some of the near road areas for those on foot. A wilderness for motorized users if you will.
The Forest Service has been taken to court and lost. It is sad that we have to manage public lands through the courts.

Snomos should be barred from traveling off road or outside designated(low elevation) parks that are set aside specifically for the quad and snomo crowd. Period.

Yes! I agree wholeheartedly!
Additionally, we should recognize that "Designated Wilderness" was not created with USE or ACCESS as priorities.  It was certainly not created to keep snowmobilers and skiers apart!  Areas not designated as "Wilderness" are regulated with regards to use and access elsewhere and need to be so here also.  Man has every right to invent new machines and devices but not to use them (especially on public lands) without ample thought and regulation as to their impact on others. Yes, period.

I think a bigger issue that everyone is ignoring could be easily regulated at this juncture.

Skiers, what don't you like about snowmobiles?  Is it that someone laid a track?  That someone exists?  That someone is going to fast? 

Or is it the NOISE and SMELL?

I'm guessing the later, and those are easy to fix and easy to regulate.  Just have "special use" areas that are only open to snowmobiles that can effectively demonstrate a low dBa and low emissions.  Basically a modern 4-stroke without any mods, or perhaps even a "FS Special Use Area" additional catalytic converter/muffler combo slip-fit extension.

Snowmobiles would sell more brand new snowmobiles to sledders looking to access these areas, so they'd love it.
Aftermarket would sell cat/muffler combos so they'd love it.
It would be significantly quieter and smell better so skiers in mixed use areas would love (okay tolerate) it.
Also, it would reduce the amount of (relatively speaking) horrifically polluting two-strokes so it fits FS enviro mission statements better.

I think you're actually wrong in your "easy to regulate" assessment here. The current system is very simple: There's a pie slice on one side of Baker open to sleds of any kind. And yet the riders routinely violate the boundary (St. Helens and elsewhere, too), with no consequence, because there is zero enforcement. And what I've been told is that there is zero enforcement because "it's too difficult".

So I don't see how a more complicated rule could be easier to enforce than the existing simple rule, which isn't enforced at all.

My issues recreating around snowmobiles, in no particular order:

- Noise
- Stink
- Litter
- Speed/safety (this is true of any two activities with order of magnitude speed differentials trying to share space)
- The attitude about parking: I need enough room to park my giant rig and trailer so I can drive my sleds off and leave everything as-is for my return. So don't you DARE park too close to me.