WMC Update 2012

The Need for More Non-Motorized Winter Recreation Areas

In winter, the National Forests in Washington winter have become motorized playgrounds. Very few areas of the Forest outside of Wilderness are closed to snowmobiles. Because most Wilderness Areas are relatively inaccessible in winter to skiers and snowshoers, the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition believes that there is an important need for more non-motorized areas, outside of Wilderness, in our multi-use National Forests.

Sadly, even significant portions of Wilderness have been used as snowmobile playgrounds regularly and intentionally on a large scale for a decade. The Forest Service has not rallied to deter Wilderness snowmobile use. In summer, however, non-motorized adjacent lands have been created as buffers to Wilderness. In winter some of these same buffers could enhance Wilderness protection and at the same time provide non-motorized recreation areas.

To address these issues and the need for new, significant areas for non-motorized winter recreation in the Wenatchee National Forest, a group of backcountry skiers and snowshoers formed the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition. We invite other winter recreationists to help us and to join the ‘Thousand Skiers Project,’ (described below).

Additional Background

Non-motorized and motorized winter visitors of our National Forests travel at dramatically different speeds and seek different experiences from their visit. Mixing these groups creates experiential, aesthetic, and safety incompatibilities. Historically steeper, unroaded slopes, ridges, and bowls were places where non-motorized users could naturally separate and recreate without the need of designated non-motorized areas.

Today, however, skiers and snowshoers, are increasingly discovering that even if they travel far, they are likely to find themselves competing directly with snowmobiles on mountain slopes, ridges, and alpine bowls, as well as on roads, in meadows, and in forests. Advances in snowmobile technology means that, each year, more terrain can be visited quickly and frequently by snowmobiles. With the capabilities of modern snowmobiles no longer creating a natural separation, there’s a modern need for the USFS to facilitate separation by designating new non-motorized areas.

What the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition (WMC) asks for is parity. There are significant numbers of non-motorized winter recreationalists, yet the non-wilderness portion of the Wenatchee National Forest allows a disproportionate amount of the Forest to be monopolized by one use - snowmobiles. We do not wish to prohibit snowmobiles on the Forest (some of us are also snowmobilers), but because motorized and non-motorized uses are incompatible on the same terrain, we ask for more non-motorized terrain. We invite all winter recreationalists to share their thoughts about this issue and this need with the Forest Supervisor (email address below).


About the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition

Purpose: Advocacy for non-motorized winter recreation on Forest Lands.
Goal: Designation of USFS Non-Motorized areas for winter recreation. Specifically, we seek non-motorized status for the pristine unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.
Initial action -- the Thousand Skiers Project: One thousand skiers/snowshoers/Forest users will write (email) the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Supervisor and request designation of new non-motorized areas on the Wenatchee Mountains. The ‘significant’ area we are targeting is the unroaded Wenatchee Mountains ridge crest from Van Epps Pass to Three Brothers (mountain). This encompasses Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers and the Wenatchee Mountains Crest from Rd 9716 to the west of Diamond Head across Tronsen Head, Mt. Lillian including down to the Old Ellensburg trail to Mission Peak and on to the Mission Ridge Road including Lake Clara, Mission Peak, and surrounding areas. This area would offer many short day-tours, long day tours, overnight self-powered ski tours, and snowmobile road-assist tours. We hope to generate a thousand comments by August 15, 2010.

Contact information: Mail, email, or call
Rebecca Heath, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters
215 Melody Lane
Wenatchee, WA 98801
(509) 664-9200
Email:  Rebecca Heath, OWNF Supervisor, and the Forest Plan Revision Team:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Carbon Copy Us: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. We need to track our support and to capture additional thoughts and ideas of non-motorized recreationalists. Your privacy is paramount, we will not share your contact information or reveal your identity.
Help us Succeed. Please forward this message to your skiing/snowshoeing friends. Ask for their involvement.
.

The skier in the photo is in the NE bowl of Navaho Peak in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in February 2010. Below the skier and on the ridge are snowmobile tracks.

Is there an official website with more information about this?

There is no website. No budget, no funds, just some skiers advocating for non-motorized winter recreation. We have the email address. We have informal discussions and email communications. We talk to USFS personnel and we write to USFS as individual citizens. The WMC core are acquainted with each other.

What is important is for individuals to write to USFS with their views and requests, which we ask to support the above. We believe in the influence of individual non-motorized winter recreationists who communicate with the Forest Supervisor. At this point we will advocate from the email address.

We are avoiding putting names out in public because of the immediate and aggressive tactics used by individuals who state that they are motorized advocates. Some of us who have advocated have experienced the foul language, threatening language, phone calls to homes, email messages. Some of those opposing non-motorized advocacy seem to want to intimidate anyone advocating for non-motorized recreation. On some motorized Forums names and addresses of non-motorized advocacy folks are posted, stories told of intimidating 'skiers,' vandalizing 'skiers' cars, even a story of snowmobile riders punching a skier in order to properly educate him. We will not be intimidated, but will not give easy opportunity for their foolish behaviors.

Thanks.

I am a lifelong skier and more recently a sledder and while I support your objective, I totally disagree with your approach. Seems to me that asking the FS to ban sledding in areas where it has been historically permitted based on the actions of a few scofflaws is like asking to close a public road because some drunken teenagers used it as a drag strip. In my experience, the vast majority of sledders respect the boundaries and disapprove of illegal poaching of closed areas. Should the majority be punished for the actions of a few bad apples? As a BC skier, I value the current snomo access rights in the very areas you are seeking to close, specifically because it permits me to ski tour in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in winter. How else would anybody gain access to the W side of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in winter (e.g., Van Epps, Solomon Peak, Harding Mountain, etc., which is where I ski practically every weekend) if sled access to those areas is closed? It also strikes me as shortsighted to ask for new closures, when the FS is currently doing absolutely nothing to enforce existing boundaries. How do you envision these buffer zones improving the situation if the FS continues to shirk their policing responsibilities? Rather than seeking to close new areas to sleds, why not advocate for/assist in the enforcement of the current boundaries? We BC skiers and boarders can help the FS do its job by reporting snomo incursions into closed areas. Those reports would become much more meaningful if the FS actually did something about them. We could probably also help raise enough money to assist the FS in purchasing some decent sleds (as has been done for SAR many times before), so that they could actually do some enforcement.

WMC,
Like Good2Go, I'm a bit confused by your aim!
I'm not a sledder but I intend to be soon and I am not familiar with the area in question.
AND
Sledding in Wilderness areas= no question shouldn't be allowed AND it should be enforced!
BUT
YOU want more non-motorized areas because when you tour there you find it tracked out by THEM( your words) and because there are more non-motorized users than motorized users( in your opinion) , YOU should get a bigger part of the untracked pie ( paraphrasing your argument)?

YOU therefore want an area that YOU love changed in designation so that THEY cant use it even though BOTH of you are currently allowed access.!

Problem I have is that even when areas are designated non-motorized, skiers still go to areas (and bitch and moan when they go) that do allow access to snowmobiles. There never seems to be an area where skiers can just accept snowmobile access without bitching and your group just always seems to want more and more areas free from snowmobiles.

Now what if areas where designated non-motorized( no 'bilers) and some areas motorized only( no skinners or hikers). Would you accept  that.??Seems only fair.

BTW: WenatcheeOutdoors.org promotes "muscle powered outdoor sports" ( their tag line) so it's a good guess they are affiliated, maybe the same people who formed WMC?????

The majority of skiers won't bother to access the areas you are describing. It's just too far of an approach in winter and into the spring. Are you proposing road plowing as well? How will the non-motorized users you describe access these areas and how often?? The wilderness line currently exists along the crest you describe. North facing is wilderness, South facing is not. This is a skiers dream!!! We skied Mount Stuart twice in two days this weekend and I wouldn't have done it without sled access to the wilderness border (call me lazy). We parked at Longs Pass and saw no snowmobile tracks North of the ridge extending from Ingalls to Earl. I agree with Good2Go. Buy the USFS some sleds and have them enforce the law. I disagree with your approach, and FYI North facing slopes are better to ski anyway. By the time the snow melts enough to access Bean/Beverly, there will be no sledders there. When the creeks are running and snowbridges are gone, sledding ends.

Maybe they won't punch you if you volunteer no skiing areas.

Your precious recreation on public lands isn't more special than others.

Why is this a sticky?

I am a lifelong skier and more recently a sledder and while I support your objective, I totally disagree with your approach.  Seems to me that asking the FS to ban sledding in areas where it has been historically permitted based on the actions of a few scofflaws is like asking to close a public road because some drunken teenagers used it as a drag strip.  In my experience, the vast majority of sledders respect the boundaries and disapprove of illegal poaching of closed areas.  Should the majority be punished for the actions of a few bad apples?  As a BC skier, I value the current snomo access rights in the very areas you are seeking to close, specifically because it permits me to ski tour in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in winter.  How else would anybody gain access to the W side of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in winter (e.g., Van Epps, Solomon Peak, Harding Mountain, etc., which is where I ski practically every weekend) if sled access to those areas is closed?  It also strikes me as shortsighted to ask for new closures, when the FS is currently doing absolutely nothing to enforce existing boundaries.  How do you envision these buffer zones improving the situation if the FS continues to shirk their policing responsibilities?  Rather than seeking to close new areas to sleds, why not advocate for/assist in the enforcement of the current boundaries?  We BC skiers and boarders can help the FS do its job by reporting snomo incursions into closed areas.  Those reports would become much more meaningful if the FS actually did something about them.  We could probably also help raise enough money to assist the FS in purchasing some decent sleds (as has been done for SAR many times before), so that they could actually do some enforcement.   

Thanks for commenting here. WMC is asking that non-motorized winter recreationists are allowed to share the Forest, not asking to shut down snowmobile riding on the entire Forest. The uses are incompatible. Non-motorized winter recreationists have an equal right to that powder snow, in fact it is not hard to imagine that there are many more non-motorized winter recreationists than there are snowmobile riders.

More non-motorized winter recreation near plowed highways is needed. There is very little of that, and snowmobiles are pushing into more and more areas and will continue to do so. This commenter has used a snowmobile to access ski touring since the 1980s, so it has been observed every year that snowmobile riders find and ride new areas on increasingly capable machines. Some great places that many here ski could be used by snowmobile riders currently, and may be with the advancing technology and exploring riders. We are not asking for Wilderness enforcement here although that would be great, there are organizations for that. We are asking for parity in designated use for non-motorized winter recreation on the general Forest outside of Wilderness. The argument that skiers have the "Wilderness" is disingenuous and also a mockery given the snowmobile speedways through the Alpine Lakes Wilderness these days. Most do not have the time and opportunity or ability for frequent overnight trips into the Wilderness for skiing or snowshoe trips and why should we? Snowmobile riders have instant access many places to good riding. Skiers need more areas set aside where there is decent ski touring from the car. The pristine areas at Mt Lillian and around Mission Peak are accessible for day touring without a snowmobile.

What is outlined above does not exclude snowmobile access on the roads leading to the areas that you describe- "Areas include the unroaded Wenatchee Mountains ridge crest from Van Epps Pass to Three Brothers (mountain) Including Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers". There is not a road to the crest, which is also the Wilderness Boundary, along the described area. That area along with Van Epps is well known by skiers and USFS personnel as an area of regular and intentional snowmobile trespass into the Wilderness. Van Epps will continue to allow close access to the Wilderness Boundary, but the other proposals would draw the line back from the Wilderness Boundary at the Stafford Cr Road and the Etienne Cr Road (formerly Negro Cr. Rd).

As far as historical use more than one of us in WMC skied those areas (and know others who have) before there was snowmobiling off of the roads.  Some WMC members skitoured many times in Stafford, Earl, Navaho and Brothers and saw no snowmobile use there in the early 1990s, so the historical snowmobile use is from that time. Can one imagine walking on skis in the powder snow 5 miles up Stafford Trail from the parked snowmobile, not any snowmobiles heard, no one else around? That is how it was, now it is a snowmobile speedway in that huge area. This commenter has discussed with some snowmobile riders their early rides into "Navaho" back in the day. That has not always been done.

The USFS will tell you directly when asked that it cannot enforce the snowmobile Wilderness trespass. USFS sent messages that were posted on snowmobile Forums, those messages said the same. Again, if the land area buffer is miles from the Wilderness Boundary that will enhance Wilderness protection, as is the reality on the Forest in summer. Reporting of Wilderness trespass by snowmobiles occurs frequently, USFS actually is aware already.

Management Plans have been implemented in other western Forests that have divided the winter motorized and non-motorized uses.

In 20 years advances in snowmobile technology have allowed snowmobiles to take over a lot of great areas for skitouring or snowshoe trips. In the future, because Forest snowmobile use is generally unregulated, more and more areas where it is currently allowed by default will be tracked by snowmobiles and will not be reasonably used by skiers.

Maybe they won't punch you if you volunteer no skiing areas.

Your precious recreation on public lands isn't more special than others.

Why is this a sticky?

Thanks for the comment. General use Forest Regs place hardly any restriction on snowmobile riding. Unless skiers ride snowmobiles out to find touring, they may not be aware of the expansion of snowmobile riding to new areas. We have WMC folks who use snowmobiles, and some do not. We are not stating our purpose as against snowmobiling. We are asking for more areas designated as non-motorized. The above proposal will greatly enhance skitouring from a snowmobile, and will add some areas for day trips. Some WMC members skied back in the day when more skitouring was available from a parked snowmobile.

With the growing number of winter recreation users, both non-motorized and motorized, it is of paramount importance that areas designated Wilderness be protected from non-authorized use, namely snowmobile access.

There are a few snowmobiler scofflaws who frequently break Wilderness rules and cross the boundary into Wilderness areas.

There are also groups that want to enlarge non-motorized use areas without any regard to enforcement of the existing Wilderness areas or a detailed study of the appropriate fairness to both groups.

Aim: Write to the following address and send a letter demanding stronger enforcement of the wilderness boundaries by the USFS and a STOP to the designation of further non- motorized areas until effective enforcement of existing areas is accomplished and a full study is undertaken as to a FAIR allocation of the USFS  lands to  both non-motorized and motorized users.

Write or e:mail to:

Contact information:
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters
Rebecca Heath, Forest Supervisor
215 Melody Lane
Wenatchee, WA 98801
(509) 664-9200
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

COULD YOU STICKY THIS MARCUS ?: THANKS

Thanks for the comment. General use Forest Regs place hardly any restriction on snowmobile riding. Unless skiers ride snowmobiles out to find touring, they may not be aware of the expansion of snowmobile riding to new areas. We have WMC folks who use snowmobiles, and some do not. We are not stating our purpose as against snowmobiling. We are asking for more areas designated as non-motorized. The above proposal will greatly enhance skitouring from a snowmobile, and will add some areas for day trips. Some WMC members skied back in the day when more skitouring was available from a parked snowmobile.

But some people don't want to ski-tour from a snowmobile, they want to use the snowmobile to reach the top and either "ghost ride" it down and do laps or go tandem and take turns. You are right the increased performance of snowmobiles is changing the game. Snowmobile skiing using the snowmobiles to get to the top of the run and not just as a road and pass access vehicle is an increasing and exciting aspect of the sport. There is a whole lot of area out there for both to occur and if you happen to be both in the same area, legally, tough luck. Why do you need more and more areas for your chosen mode of travel at the expense of theirs?

The majority of skiers won't bother to access the areas you are describing. It's just too far of an approach in winter and into the spring. Are you proposing road plowing as well? How will the non-motorized users you describe access these areas and how often?? The wilderness line currently exists along the crest you describe. North facing is wilderness, South facing is not. This is a skiers dream!!! We skied Mount Stuart twice in two days this weekend and I wouldn't have done it without sled access to the wilderness border (call me lazy). We parked at Longs Pass and saw no snowmobile tracks North of the ridge extending from Ingalls to Earl. I agree with Good2Go. Buy the USFS some sleds and have them enforce the law. I disagree with your approach, and FYI North facing slopes are better to ski anyway. By the time the snow melts enough to access Bean/Beverly, there will be no sledders there. When the creeks are running and snowbridges are gone, sledding ends.

That is very cool that you got Stuart twice in two days. Three of us looked over from Earl on a day trip in March and saw seven snowmobiles with their riders parked in the Wilderness for lunch or repairs.  USFS employees have stated that they are aware and some have observed the snowmobile riding from Van Epps into (Wilderness) Jack Cr, over Stuart Pass, in Ingalls, up Goat Pass, in the various drainages above Ingalls Cr. One could ride much closer than Longs Pass to access Stuart without consequences apparently currently.

As was stated above, some WMC skiers have used snowmobiles since the 1980s to go ski touring and currently do so.
The real purpose here with WMC and TSP is to ask for parity of non-motorized use in winter with the unregulated use of snowmobiles on the Forest in winter.

As explained above, some of the proposal will add day skitouring, some will enhance overnight or snowmobile approach skitouring.

If any here have a powder stash, as we have, imagine one day skiing out of the trees to a road, then see almost immediately the newer snowmobiles arrive and climb right up your downhill ski track into your former stash. Your former stash is now on the list for snowmobile riders, and is not just packed, but left with deep ditches in the snow on all open areas and even in trees. Currently, most of the Forest is subject to no regulation of snowmobile riding, and the example given here will be seen increasingly in the future. A balance of areas for motorized v non-motorized winter use is what we ask.

I'm going to agree with the others here, none of us really have no more right to the snow then the next person, it's like demanding your right to skin uphill on a open run at a resort because it's FS land. There is plenty of land in the Cascades for all to use without conflict.

I don't think Good2go is confused about WMC intentions, and wilderness designation does not guarantee even foot powered access, as exclusions and restrictions may apply.  While I generally agree with the pragmatism of G2G and Toby, I don't think WMC is wrong to suggest, as has been discussed for many decades, that public land be managed for multiple uses, including the exclusion of use by certain categories that detract from the use of others.  There are many, many areas that are micro managed for or against motorized traffic, and we should all be encouraged to cast our sway.  I would note that policy is not written by a Supervisory Office (like Wenatchee) but implementation is affected there at the margins.  The same would be true of the Regional Office (like R-6, Portland).  Then one realizes that the head office in Wa. DC is a bit tone deaf, and in any event USDA (USFS) and USDI (BLM/NPS) are not obligated to agree.  The two directions that matter are, one, the sensible and mannered requests of the SO and RO to continue to measure and manage, and sometimes cordon off compatible and non-compatible uses of our land, and two, seeking Congressional influence (write, own, or get elected).  My experience is that bureaucrats have  pressure coming from all directions, and that mass matters.  So do manners, well reasoned arguments, and often to our dissatisfaction, even, and especially, compromise.

But some people don't want to ski-tour from a snowmobile, they want to use the snowmobile to reach the top and either "ghost ride" it down and do laps or go tandem and take turns. You are right the increased performance of snowmobiles is changing the game. Snowmobile skiing using the snowmobiles to get to the top  of the run and not just as a road and pass access vehicle is an increasing and exciting aspect of the sport. There is a whole lot of area out there for both to occur and if you happen to be both in the same area, legally, tough luck. Why do you need more and more areas for your chosen mode of travel at the expense of theirs?

Again WMC are not asking for any general prohibition against snowmobiles on general Forest. Currently there are few non-motorized areas on the general Forest in comparison to the total. After additional non-motorized areas are established outside of them skiers may 'ghost ride' etc. in the motorized-allowable areas which will continue to have greater area. My observations, however, is that snowmobile riders want the same powder, and will not leave any for someone wanting to ski- they are not required to do so, so it is their right to track all of the snow. We are asking for more areas for non-motorized winter recreation. Yes, please study the map and it will show the majority of the Forest is unrestricted for snowmobile use. To reply, why do snowmobile riders need 75% of  non-wilderness Forest in Washington for their use?

Thanks, good comments!

why do snowmobile riders need 75% of  non-wilderness Forest in Washington for their use?

What's the source of that figure ?

Why is this a sticky?

One can only infer that the owners of this website agree with the aims of this group.
Not that there's anything wrong with that as any privately owned media outlet or website has the right to promote whatever agenda they agree with. I mean look at Rupert Murdoch and Fox news!
Never thought I'd compare Fox News to TAY but there you have it. Ha Ha. ;D

I sympathize with the "enforce wilderness boundaries" argument but I don't think it is adequate the address this problem. Messy compromises will be needed.

I haven't studied WMC's proposals enough to have an opinion about them. But I agree with the concept of creating non-motorized buffer zones between plowed roads and designated wilderness areas. The big question is where to draw the lines.

To make my case that such buffer zones are needed, I refer everybody to this 2006 thread about snowmobiles on Heather/Skyline ridge above Stevens Pass:

www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboardi...dex.php?topic=3871.0

If anybody thinks this is an appropriate place for snowmobiles, I'd like to hear it. (I seriously doubt that anybody does.) So, if you agree that Heather/Skyline ridge is inappropriate for snowmobiles, then you agree with the buffer concept in principle. The big question, then, is where else should these buffers be created?

I'm going to agree with the others here, none of us really have no more right to the snow then the next person, it's like demanding your right to skin uphill on a open run at a resort because it's FS land. There is plenty of land in the Cascades for all to use without conflict.

Yes, please study the map and see the few areas where snowmobiles are not allowed on the general Forest. Why should snowmobiles be allowed on 75% of the non-wilderness Forest? Study the non-Wilderness areas where one skis but does not see snowmobiles, and then realize that the day may come sooner than one anticipates that snowmobiles will find a way to get on your powder stash. We have watched this very thing occur for many years.

Day by day in winter more and more snow is tracked by snowmobiles, in more and more new areas. Increasingly it is done at the expense of skiers and there no longer remains much to go around. Snowmobile riders want powder just as skiers do.

There is more demand than there is supply, and skiers (etc) have been allocated very little of the Forest. Again, we seek parity of non-motorized use areas with motorized use areas.

What's the source of that figure ?

Can you please state the number of areas and acreage outside Wilderness that is designated as non-motorized, and also the same for snowmobile riding? Thanks.

Yes, please study the map and it will show the majority of the Forest is unrestricted for snowmobile use. To reply, why do snowmobile riders need 75% of  non-wilderness Forest in Washington for their use?

Thanks, good comments!

Now there's a clever reply. I like it, and its a good argument but as someone once " statistics, damn statistics."
The problem with your statistic ( and you know it) is that much of the land you say is available for snowmobile access is NOT because the terrain is too steep or forested for motorized access. It is however accessible by non-motorized users who can navigate the rugged terrain and tight trees.
Your argument could actually be used against you:
If you determine the actual area that could be reasonably be used by snowmobilers even with their increased performance and compare it to the areas that can be reached by hikers, climbers and skiers, you will find a completely different statistic ( if you are being fair).
This would lead one to the conclusion that areas that can reasonably be reached and enjoyed by snowmobile skiers is quite a small percentage of the whole and probably in line with the demographics  of non-motorized versus motorized and would then suggest these areas need to be protected for use by motorized users.

Can you please state the number of areas and acreage outside Wilderness that is designated as non-motorized, and also the same for snowmobile riding? Thanks.

www.parks.wa.gov/winter/trails/?TrailType=motorized

The problem with your statistic ( and you know it) is that much of the land you say is available for snowmobile access is NOT because the terrain is too steep or forested for motorized access. It is however accessible by non-motorized users who can navigate the rugged terrain and tight trees.

This too is a misleading argument.

Both motorized and non-motorized users prefer to play in open, alpine country.

It's true that motorized use is constrained by tight forest. But that's not where they want to play. They want to play in the alpine, same as skiers. And as long as they have one navigable corridor into the alpine, then the entire alpine is open to them. It doesn't matter how far the corridor is from the play area. Snowmobiles are not limited by distance.

I've seen snowmobile tracks in places (like the south shoulder of Silver Peak) where I thought they could never get. But they did, somehow. It just takes one corridor, and I imagine that the more challenging the access, the more fun it is for them.

This thread needs this....

www.deschutesbrewery.com/brews/seasonal-...ir-nwpa/default.aspx

Now there's a clever reply. I like it, and its a good argument but as someone once " statistics, damn statistics."
The problem with your statistic ( and you know it) is that much of the land you say is available for snowmobile access is NOT because the terrain is too steep or forested for motorized access. It is however accessible by non-motorized users who can navigate the rugged terrain and tight trees.
Your argument could actually be used against you:
If you determine the actual area that could be reasonably be used by snowmobilers even with their increased performance and compare it to the areas that can be reached by hikers, climbers and skiers, you will find a completely different statistic ( if you are being fair).
This would lead one to the conclusion that areas that can reasonably be reached and enjoyed by snowmobile skiers is quite a small percentage of the whole and probably in line with the demographics  of non-motorized versus motorized and would then suggest these areas need to be protected for use by motorized users.

Great arguments and thanks. For many years some WMC folks have accessed skitouring by snowmobile, and continue to do so. We support the use of snowmobiles to approach backcountry ski touring- and hope to preserve some untracked terrain upon which to do that after the snowmobile is parked. If one goes to the mountains where snowmobiles are ridden it is possible to observe the fantastic performance of the snowmobiles and their riders. Modern machines are ridden easily on angles of 20 to 40 degrees, by men and women, a casual thing. Modern snowmobiles can sidehill traverse very impressively. And this is now mainstream.

Clearly not all skiing terrain is ridden by snowmobiles but a significant amount that is detrimental- or exclusive- to other uses. And that is increasing continually, snowmobiles may find your personal ski stash soon. We have experienced plenty of ski touring, currently, in areas where snowmobiles are ridden We relate from our experiences.

Again we ask for parity of uses- whatever the numbers. There are significant numbers of non-motorized winter recreationists. The Forest outside of Wilderness in winter allows a disproportionate amount of area to be tracked by one use- snowmobiles. We do not wish to prohibit snowmobiles on the Forest, some of us use them. We ask for more areas to be designated as non-motorized. We began by requesting non-motorized status in winter for areas that we are familiar, in the Wenatchee Mountains.

Other areas outside the Wenatchee Mountains would be reasonable for parity of uses and suited to non-motorized status. We are attempting this goal using this model. In the future, other areas in Washington may be advocated for non-motorized status in winter.

Thanks, great discussion!

This too is a misleading argument.

Both motorized and non-motorized users prefer to play in open, alpine country.

It's true that motorized use is constrained by tight forest. But that's not where they want to play. They want to play in the alpine, same as skiers. And as long as they have one navigable corridor into the alpine, then the entire alpine is open to them. It doesn't matter how far the corridor is from the play area. Snowmobiles are not limited by distance.

I've seen snowmobile tracks in places (like the south shoulder of Silver Peak) where I thought they could never get. But they did, somehow. It just takes one corridor, and I imagine that the more challenging the access, the more fun it is for them.

Well, a good argument  but a bit misleading as well. There are many alpine areas that cannot be accessed by snowmobile skiers even if there is a corridor because the area is too steep or rocky or requires a climb, couloir or bootpack to get to.

Extremely experienced and ballsy snowmobilers can get to some pretty gnarly places just as experienced and skilled ski mountaineers like you can reach places I will never be able to. Why should they be denied the same satisfaction to demonstrate their hard earned skill and courage that I'm sure you experience.

There are only a few of these corridors compared to the areas that can be reached by determined , skilled climbers and skiers.

For every ski slope or ridge example that you give that could be accessed by a snowmobile I'm pretty sure somebody could give you 100 examples of areas they can't.

What's needed is a proper study taking into consideration all the points above, terrain, buffer zones, demographics etc, not just some unilateral decision by the USFS just because a thousand skiers write them a letter. Hell, post this thread onto a snowmobile site and I bet they'll get more than a thousand letters from snowmobilers as BC skiers are an unorganized , apathetic group( original poster excluded of course) as I've said before.

The government should do a comprehensive study before designating more non-motorized access and ensure its' fair. That should buy the snowmobilers another 10 years.!!! HA HA

Well, a good argument  but a bit misleading as well. There are many alpine areas that cannot be accessed by snowmobile skiers even if there is a corridor because the area is too steep or rocky or requires a climb, couloir or bootpack to get to.

Extremely experienced and ballsy snowmobilers can get to some pretty gnarly places just as experienced and skilled ski mountaineers like you can reach places I will never be able to. Why should they be denied the same satisfaction to demonstrate their hard earned skill and courage that I'm sure you experience.

There are only a few of these corridors compared to the areas that can be reached by determined , skilled climbers and skiers.

Not all skiers, not all trips are to gnarly inaccessible terrain. Same for snowmobiles. Why should one use have all of the terrain close to the car, all of the open slopes, all of the good skiing right up to the Wilderness Boundary?

Please consider the amount of powder snow that a snowmobile packs, then trenches, in one day- or one hour. Stock snowmobiles are available with 155 HP, long tracks, great suspension, capable of highway speeds. When one says share and share alike how many runs can a skier get in a day on that snow slope compared to the snowmobiler? And this may only be imagined iff that wonderful, kind, citizen on that snowmobile stops riding that great snow slope and offers it to you, the skier who wants to share and share alike. Oh yeah, then there are 50 other snowmobile riders in the area who would track and trench your ski stash in minutes- because it is powder (!).

Sorry to tell you, but this is coming to your ski stash soon. We need parity of designated winter uses between motorized and non-motorized. Parity means to share fairly, it does not mean to exclude the other use.

Extremely experienced and ballsy snowmobilers can get to some pretty gnarly places just as experienced and skilled ski mountaineers like you can reach places I will never be able to. Why should they be denied the same satisfaction to demonstrate their hard earned skill and courage that I'm sure you experience.

I don't want to deny snowmobilers that experience. As I wrote in my initial post in this thread, the key question is where do you draw the buffer zones.

To reiterate the question that I asked before, how many of us think that snowmobile access to Heather/Skyline Ridge at Stevens Pass is appropriate? Let's see a show of hands. If you think snowmobiles should not go there, because it is such an accessible non-wilderness location used by skiers, then you are in favor of the non-wilderness buffer principle. So my question (which WMC is asking as well) is where else should we create these buffers?

---
Edited to update link to my initial post, following thread replacement by Marcus.

Not all skiers, not all trips are to gnarly inaccessible terrain. Same for snowmobiles. Why should one use have all of the terrain close to the car, all of the open slopes, all of the good skiing right up to the Wilderness Boundary?

Please consider the amount of powder snow that a snowmobile packs, then trenches, in one day- or one hour. Stock snowmobiles are available with 155 HP, long tracks, great suspension, capable of highway speeds. When one says share and share alike how many runs can a skier get in a day on that snow slope compared to the snowmobiler? And this may only be imagined iff that wonderful, kind, citizen on that snowmobile stops riding that great snow slope and offers it to you, the skier who wants to share and share alike. Oh yeah, then there are 50 other snowmobile riders in the area who would track and trench your ski stash in minutes- because it is powder (!).

Sorry to tell you, but this is coming to your ski stash soon. We need parity of designated winter uses between motorized and non-motorized. Parity means to share fairly, it does not mean to exclude the other use.

Well it does no matter how you spin it. Snomobilers can't go into non-motorized areas without breaking the law but skiers CAN go into motorized access areas, so there IS exclusion of one group.
If you are promoting the concept of parity based upon no skiers, hikers or climbers in motorized areas and the areas designated fairly based upon demographics, quality areas for both and then I'm right with you as that's fair. BUT you aren't.

Your arguments , at least to me, make it very clear that what you want is for the snowmobile to be constricted to an access vehicle and not allowed into  the powder skiing area to track up the slope. Whenever you mention that your group uses snowmobiles you emphasis the word "for access" inferring that they only be used to get to a buffer zone or a "parking" area.  This is your agenda

You are absolutely right, the new machines are changing the game but your approach to just ask the USFS to simply designate more areas based upon a letter writing campaign without a proper study to determine fairness to both sides is wrong (but you're entitled to try, and I respect that).

Me, I'm getting one and will be in your stash soon.

As far as historical use, plenty of motorbikes were ridden into what is now Wilderness back in the day. The Tote Goat was a minibike with a 4 HP motor manufactured outside Leavenworth and designed for local trails into the high country- as related by an old-timer who had a job there welding them together. Some old timers around here have great stories about riding small trailbikes to high lakes, etc. It is hard to imagine in this day and age that this was done.

The current reality is that we have legitimate uses that are incompatible. Three of us got first tracks in January down a slope in an area open to snowmobiles. At the bottom we met fourteen snowmobile riders, mostly middle aged and into their 60s. We enjoyed chatting, like other snowmobile riders they were just normal good folks. They were after powder, they had an equal right to it. We took 45 minutes to walk up the deep powder, but it was made a bit easier as the fourteen riders packed it and enjoyed lapping it up and down on either side of us. They were just having fun, we met them again on top and chatted. But it is daunting to have that much mass and horsepower zipping up and down the powder slope that you are climbing. I think they were friendly and meant nothing ill toward us, but it was daunting to be a pedestrian in that traffic, and I do not believe that a rider realizes the effect when passing a skier.

We need USFS Management of the limited resource- powder snow and open slopes. We need USFS Management of incompatible winter recreational uses.