|
|
|
|
|
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here. |
|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: WMC Update 2012 (Read 29601 times)
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
The proposal, not the group... jeez....
FYI, Scotsman I don't think even snowmobiles. Many people who are against this proposal don't either. They are against the proposal because it isn't needed, because during their many backcountry visits, there is no conflict that can be found. I believe Scotsmans point was that it is not appropriate for one special interest group (WMC) to make a proposal on its own without having input from the rest of the user group. The public land is just that, public. All peoples opinions and considerations should be heard and acknowldged. This is something that the WMC has consistently failed to do, and the reason for the statement above..
This is OUR land, we ALL should have a say in how it is used, not just one small group, pretending to speak on the behalf of all non-motorized users, especially when their methodology is to get everything that they can.
Oh yeah, understood, our group is basically an idea, an idea that we find is very common and has support even without WMC. Scotsman stated that he wanted to get a snowmobile but yes, I think that is correct.
As far as the other comments, WMC has repetitively asked for input to USFS- any citizen. We of course have our cause and want skier support, and we are getting some.
OK, thanks, I am still laughing about your statement about all of the big help we are getting!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
OK, thanks, I am still laughing about your statement about all of the big help we are getting!
I am not...
It was help from big players, not big help from players. Please take care in reading others responses before posting.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/12/10, 07:49 PM by ruffryder »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
In your opinion, what would be the best route to access the wilderness and existing non-motorized areas from new snopark/routes without closing the alpine areas in your proposal. Again, these are questions with the access concept in mind and realignment of non-motorized areas/access.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
AK is simply pointing out, and I agree, If you had easier access over these roads to the Existing Massive Human powered only Wilderness areas would get more of your fellow skiers to low traffic, motor excluded, Wilderness POW RUNS extraordinaire!!
that's not quite good enough. Getting over the crest and into the wilderness in the winter is not practical for most skiers, even with the road accessible to the trailheads. In addition to access, there must be non-motor areas on the road side of the crest. You guys keep referring back to these "massive lands, AKA wilderness". You're not listening. Skiers can't get to them in the winter. The areas adjacent to the road up to the crest are really the prime winter play areas. Ideally the wilderness boundary should have been extended to the road, but hey, that's compromise.
I don't know anything about keeping roads open in the winter, but I'd gladly pay a fee to be able to get close to Bean Crk. How about a new snow park further up the road? And could someone fix all those damn potholes?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/14/10, 11:58 AM by md2020 »
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
AKsnowrider: I have read it all..and once again the simple answer is the same..the wilderness area is open to nonmotorized use..which means you can access it..which gives you the access you are wanting..without disturbing other users right of use..
the time you have spent on here alone if spent getting sponsors would already have this issue taken care of..rather then make excuses, why not try ?
what do you have to lose by making a few phone calls/ sending a few emails to local snow removal/construction companies and to ski gear manufacturers/dealers to ask for help?
Why not ask the forest service if you can come up with funding/equipment if this is a viable alternative?or is it simpler to get others rights denied?
Is it to limit/end other public users rights to enjoy the same country as you want to?bottom line is compromise by all users so all have as equal of access as possible..and this solution does that for all users...
Yammadog:In your opinion, what would be the best route to access the wilderness and existing non-motorized areas from new snopark/routes without closing the alpine areas in your proposal. Again, these are questions with the access concept in mind and realignment of non-motorized areas/access.
WMC... I have read all the posts on the SnoWest thread and the Posts here on TAY... I see you skirting and redirecting questions.
I would like to see an answer to AK's proposal.
You say that Non-motor users need areas that are not able to be used by snowmobilers... AND that those areas need to be easier to access than an "all day Hike" or an "overnighter"...
I get that... and can see the value in that as a fellow backcountry skinner.
There are Massive lands, AKA Wilderness, that are available and Legal for Human Powered use Directly adjacent to the areas in your proposal. (In fact you call these "buffer" areas)
You state that Wilderness areas are too far away to be accessed by less capable skiers or "family's with kids"...
I get that too... and understand the value in that as a fellow backcountry skinner.
AND... As AK and Yammadog suggest;
Question 1: Why are you opposed to working WITH snowmobilers, Human Powered Users and the USFS to establish Plowed road access to a Non-motorized OHV, Human Powered Only access, parking lot(s) that is near the Wilderness area so that you will have your goal of skiing unfettered by snowmobiles rather than your current segregation plan?
Question 2: If you have easy access to the Wilderness areas that are abundant in the area that are ALREADY ILLEGAL to snowmobile in, how is that not a means to an end for you?
Question 3: How and/or why would having exclusive Human Powered staging areas close to Wilderness which is off-limits to snowmobilers, NOT meet the stated goals of your proposal?
Please don't continue to "redirect" by talking about the few rotten apples making ALL the wilderness unusable... Those people snowmobiling in the Wilderness ARE illegal and are being dealt with by USFS, human and motorized friends of the Wilderness... ... this point only further clouds your presentation.
Question 4: In your opinion, what would be the best route to access the wilderness and existing non-motorized areas from NEW snopark/routes without closing the alpine areas in your proposal. Again, these are questions with the access concept in mind and realignment of non-motorized areas/access.
The snowmobilers posting on this thread, Including me, feel repeat, deliberate, Wilderness area non-motorized intruders should be arrested and their snowmobiles should be impounded.. ANY trespasser should be ticketed by the USFS.
As a reminder... these are the same "snow covered roads" that you say you ALREADY ride your own snowmobile on to get deeper into the backcountry... your non snowmobile owning fellow Human powered enthusiasts would probably really like to have this access on plowed roads to the same areas you already use with your snowmobile as a staging area.
AK is simply pointing out, and I agree, If you had easier access over these roads to the Existing Massive Human powered only Wilderness areas would get more of your fellow skiers to low traffic, motor excluded, Wilderness POW RUNS extraordinaire!!
..
..
md2020: (TAY site) The areas adjacent to the road up to the crest are really the prime winter play areas.
This would exclude snowmobilers from these Prime areas if they were changed from the current "Shared system" that seems to be free from conflict by many skiers and Nordic groups, even from Ski users on this thread.
The point is Human Powered (HP) users DO have this exclusive access that is unique to HP recreation method... The law excludes snowmobiles in the Wilderness... That has been taken care of. HP users have some great areas to use that are exclusively for the use by HP means.
The words that keep popping up are "segregation", "seperation", "exclusion" etc...That has already been done... With the Wilderness areas, that are adjacent to the areas that this proposal, already available to HP Recreation ... this will EXPAND the effective size of the "exclusion" for many people that enjoy the current shared areas.
md2020: (TAY site) You guys keep referring back to these "massive lands, AKA wilderness". You're not listening. Skiers can't get to them in the winter
"You guys" .... are words that generate conflict... as I have said before, I'm an avid backcountry skinner/snowboarder/snowshoer... as well as a snowmobiler.
I AM Listening...BELIEVE ME!!
What I am saying is that it would be worth while to put effort into gaining access to certain "gateways" to the Wilderness...with easy access (plowed) parking lots close to the HP-only Wilderness.
If access to the Wilderness were to be made "easier" by plowing to HP-only parking lots closer to Wilderness areas:
Will you be able access "Human Powered ONLY" Wilderness areas that already exist in this region easily... Yes
Would you be able to access ALL of the Wilderness without effort... NO.
Would that "expansion" of EASILY accessed "NON-Motor only" areas (the current Wilderness areas that would be made more available with less effort) be at least equal in size to areas that are proposed to be eliminated as shared use ... YES
Some areas will still require more effort to get to...Deeper into the BC/Wild... which is the reward for those that are willing to "Earn their turns" and have truly fresh tracks.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/15/10, 11:34 AM by mountainhorse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
If I can ask a favor of my fellow posters on this thread, WITH MUCH SINCERE RESPECT...could you please hold further posts in Que until WMC has a chance to answer these 4 questions, contained in the single post immediately preceding this one, directly.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcus
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 2236
WWW
|
If everyone could stop deleting their old posts and re-posting the same material so that it's the newest in the thread, that'd be great. I've asked WMC to stop the boilerplate appeals for contact to the Forest Service.
Good questions, Mountainhorse, they deserve some thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
WMC... I have read all the posts on the SnoWest thread and the Posts here on TAY... I see you skirting and redirecting questions.
I would like to see an answer to AK's proposal.
You say that Non-motor users need areas that are not able to be used by snowmobilers... AND that those areas need to be easier to access than an "all day Hike" or an "overnighter"...
I get that... and can see the value in that as a fellow backcountry skinner.
There are Massive lands, AKA Wilderness, that are available and Legal for Human Powered use Directly adjacent to the areas in your proposal. (In fact you call these "buffer" areas)
You state that Wilderness areas are too far away to be accessed by less capable skiers or "family's with kids"...
I get that too... and understand the value in that as a fellow backcountry skinner.
AND... As AK and Yammadog suggest;
Question 1: Why are you opposed to working WITH snowmobilers, Human Powered Users and the USFS to establish Plowed road access to a Non-motorized OHV, Human Powered Only access, parking lot(s) that is near the Wilderness area so that you will have your goal of skiing unfettered by snowmobiles rather than your current segregation plan?
Question 2: If you have easy access to the Wilderness areas that are abundant in the area that are ALREADY ILLEGAL to snowmobile in, how is that not a means to an end for you?
Question 3: How and/or why would having exclusive Human Powered staging areas close to Wilderness which is off-limits to snowmobilers, NOT meet the stated goals of your proposal?
Please don't continue to "redirect" by talking about the few rotten apples making ALL the wilderness unusable... Those people snowmobiling in the Wilderness ARE illegal and are being dealt with by USFS, human and motorized friends of the Wilderness... ... this point only further clouds your presentation.
Question 4: In your opinion, what would be the best route to access the wilderness and existing non-motorized areas from NEW snopark/routes without closing the alpine areas in your proposal. Again, these are questions with the access concept in mind and realignment of non-motorized areas/access.
The snowmobilers posting on this thread, Including me, feel repeat, deliberate, Wilderness area non-motorized intruders should be arrested and their snowmobiles should be impounded.. ANY trespasser should be ticketed by the USFS.
As a reminder... these are the same "snow covered roads" that you say you ALREADY ride your own snowmobile on to get deeper into the backcountry... your non snowmobile owning fellow Human powered enthusiasts would probably really like to have this access on plowed roads to the same areas you already use with your snowmobile as a staging area.
AK is simply pointing out, and I agree, If you had easier access over these roads to the Existing Massive Human powered only Wilderness areas would get more of your fellow skiers to low traffic, motor excluded, Wilderness POW RUNS extraordinaire!!
..
..
This would exclude snowmobilers from these Prime areas if they were changed from the current "Shared system" that seems to be free from conflict by many skiers and Nordic groups, even from Ski users on this thread.
The point is Human Powered (HP) users DO have this exclusive access that is unique to HP recreation method... The law excludes snowmobiles in the Wilderness... That has been taken care of. HP users have some great areas to use that are exclusively for the use by HP means.
The words that keep popping up are "segregation", "seperation", "exclusion" etc...That has already been done... With the Wilderness areas, that are adjacent to the areas that this proposal, already available to HP Recreation ... this will EXPAND the effective size of the "exclusion" for many people that enjoy the current shared areas.
"You guys" .... are words that generate conflict... as I have said before, I'm an avid backcountry skinner/snowboarder/snowshoer... as well as a snowmobiler.
I AM Listening...BELIEVE ME!!
What I am saying is that it would be worth while to put effort into gaining access to certain "gateways" to the Wilderness...with easy access (plowed) parking lots close to the HP-only Wilderness.
If access to the Wilderness were to be made "easier" by plowing to HP-only parking lots closer to Wilderness areas:
Will you be able access "Human Powered ONLY" Wilderness areas that already exist in this region easily... Yes
Would you be able to access ALL of the Wilderness without effort... NO.
Would that "expansion" of EASILY accessed "NON-Motor only" areas (the current Wilderness areas that would be made more available with less effort) be at least equal in size to areas that are proposed to be eliminated as shared use ... YES
Some areas will still require more effort to get to...Deeper into the BC/Wild... which is the reward for those that are willing to "Earn their turns" and have truly fresh tracks.
Mountainhorse, WMC will attempt to answer questions for the sake of the discussion. WMC will point out your intentional bad-faith misrepresentations of our statements and positions, and your false pretense here that you have not seen answers which have been provided. WMC will ask for civil discussion, not screaming via bolded text, desperate attention-wanting hyperbole. WMC finally will point out that aggression in comments is boring and unimpressive, unhelpful to the discussion, and causes many gentle citizens to avoid this discussion. Clearly, some here just wish to derail this discussion and would contradict WMC at any opportunity. WMC will take exception to your last bolded post as unacceptable. We anticipate that mountainhorse and others will disagree with most WMC responses and will continue to ask a barrage of poorly-considered questions and continue criticism in bad faith. Fair enough, all allowed here, but not part of a fruitful discussion.
Plowing the Road was discussed here previously, please read the thread/ WMC stated that we would support the idea and we have considered it for years. WMC also discussed the problems with it based on our knowledge and experience.
Questions 2 and 3 are unclear, again if you had read this thread extensive discussion about that topic is already here. On Snowest WMC has stated that it would be great to have more high-elevation access which now is limited to Highway mountain passes, MRNP, ski areas.
In regard to Question 4, the best non-motorized Wilderness access corridor would start from a (theoretical to your discussion) Sno Park at Beverly Creek. WMC would support that, please let us know when you will get that approved and funded and we will write letters and lobby for that. In consideration of the reality of USFS and State budgets and resources, the WMC proposal has less cost to make changes for access and to offer any idea for improved enforcement of the Wilderness Boundary.
The problem with areas smaller than the controversial WMC entire-crest proposal is that the Ingalls Creek snowmobile riding corridor provides backdoor entry to any area next to the Wilderness Boundary. Also, as we have experienced, one may walk in the south non-Wilderness slope to gain the slopes of the Wilderness, then find snowmobile tracks or snowmobiles as we have during every skitour to that crest for many years. All along the crest of the proposal are areas used for Wilderness snowmobile trespass. Wilderness snowmobile trespass is recognized as a problem here for a decade, and across Mt Baker closed areas, in the Mt Adams Wilderness for as long a period, and per the Yakama letter to WSSA, violation of the Yakama Mt Adams Area has occurred for 37 years. These and other examples question 'education' efforts and drain credibility from many counterpoints to WMC.
WMC has discussed alternatives to the entire Teanaway crest proposal more than once in meetings with officials. The glaring problem remains, what would happen if just a part of the crest were closed to snowmobiles- would the traffic on the rest of the crest continue into Wilderness and defeat the purpose of the new non-motorized area?
The question for snowmobile riders is that if a smaller part of the crest was closed to snowmobiles with an admonition for snowmobilers to police their own, would that work? Or would there be more of the same and another advocacy effort the next year to close the entire crest to protect the Wilderness Boundary and the areas including that Wilderness that should allow non-motorized winter recreation?
Thanks to others for honest and civil discussion here.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/15/10, 05:08 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcus
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 2236
WWW
|
Fair enough, all allowed here.
Just to be clear, all is not allowed here. I think this has been an interesting thread and from what I've read (here and on the SnoWest forum), WMC, you feel that TAY is a free-for-all that allows any manner of rudeness, disrespect, etc. Knowing the history of the site and, in particular, the discussions in the last few months over censorship, civility, etc, I think expectations should be adjusted a bit. Of the forums that I've spent time on and the posts I've read here and elsewhere, TAY is pretty tame. I'm also not inclined to delete posts and prefer to encourage folks to keep it polite, but as with all things internet you definitely need to have a thicker skin, even here.
For my part, I think mountainhorse is asking his questions in good faith and is genuinely interested in a dialogue. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread, but WMC's stance has been fairly firm (which is fine) and I think that's becoming frustrating for some of the folks that are looking for a more collaborative approach.
Carry on!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Just to be clear, all is not allowed here. I think this has been an interesting thread and from what I've read (here and on the SnoWest forum), WMC, you feel that TAY is a free-for-all that allows any manner of rudeness, disrespect, etc. Knowing the history of the site and, in particular, the discussions in the last few months over censorship, civility, etc, I think expectations should be adjusted a bit. Of the forums that I've spent time on and the posts I've read here and elsewhere, TAY is pretty tame. I'm also not inclined to delete posts and prefer to encourage folks to keep it polite, but as with all things internet you definitely need to have a thicker skin, even here.
For my part, I think mountainhorse is asking his questions in good faith and is genuinely interested in a dialogue. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread, but WMC's stance has been fairly firm (which is fine) and I think that's becoming frustrating for some of the folks that are looking for a more collaborative approach.
Carry on!
Marcus you are doing a good job allowing the discussion. Thank you very much for allowing WMC to come on here to start and continue this thread!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
WMC would like to say thank you for letters that are coming in! The citizens who are writing to USFS have made an impression and the message is that this discussion is known and followed at all levels!
Again thanks to TAY and Marcus since we are seeing letters sent in that must be a result of this online discussion.
Please send all email correspondence now to Rebecca Heath, OWNF Supervisor, and the Forest Plan Revision Team: r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us
The Wenatchee Mountains Coalition is advocating for designation of new and significant winter non-motorized recreation areas.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Just to be clear, all is not allowed here. I think this has been an interesting thread and from what I've read (here and on the SnoWest forum), WMC, you feel that TAY is a free-for-all that allows any manner of rudeness, disrespect, etc. Knowing the history of the site and, in particular, the discussions in the last few months over censorship, civility, etc, I think expectations should be adjusted a bit. Of the forums that I've spent time on and the posts I've read here and elsewhere, TAY is pretty tame. I'm also not inclined to delete posts and prefer to encourage folks to keep it polite, but as with all things internet you definitely need to have a thicker skin, even here.
For my part, I think mountainhorse is asking his questions in good faith and is genuinely interested in a dialogue. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread, but WMC's stance has been fairly firm (which is fine) and I think that's becoming frustrating for some of the folks that are looking for a more collaborative approach.
Carry on!
Doing a grand job Marcus!!...one of the better mods I've seen around the sites I visit...
We are all very earnest in our desire to understand the exclusion mentality. I'm very interested in finding ways to help WMC achieve his goals without closure. He may choose to not believe that...but, it's honest.
Too late for a sound reply to WMC tonight...but just curious if the last post by WMC is also including the solicitation of support of easier access to the existing non-motorized and wilderness as an alternative to USFS?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
There has been a lot of discussion in this thread, but WMC's stance has been fairly firm (which is fine) and I think that's becoming frustrating for some of the folks that are looking for a more collaborative approach.
Carry on!
Yes, a more collaborative approach is what, IMO, will make most users of this area happy.
A cooperative relationship with ALL backountry users is what I, Yammadog, md2020, Ruffrider, Scottsman and many others want. This cooperation is what I support.
I agree with Marcus that it is frustrating ...but, IMO, certainly not "unworkable" .
WMC: In regard to Question 4, the best non-motorized Wilderness access corridor would start from a (theoretical to your discussion) Sno Park at Beverly Creek. WMC would support that, please let us know when you will get that approved and funded and we will write letters and lobby for that.
My take on this statement...Please correct me if I am not being accurate.
The user named "WMC" would support plowed road access ONLY on the condition that another group ("YOU") makes the arrangements for the implementation and cost of this plan.
I agree more with md2020's position that he, as a backcountry skier/skinner, would be willing to pay for access to areas that already exist that are for Human-Powered-Only use.
I see no reply from WMC that a Beverly Creek NON-Motor staging area, if funded and implemented, would meet his/her goal of better access and that the repeated, to coin a phrase from Marcus (TAY admin) "BOILERPLATE", appeals to shut down motor access to the current Shared lands would subside.
What I DO see, IMO, is many backcountry users... both Motorized and Non-motor... wanting to cooperate for a common good, in good faith, where all parties are able to enjoy these great lands in their preferred method of recreation in the Backountry.... outside of the extreme, "Boilerplate", demands of the user named "WMC"
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/15/10, 06:54 PM by mountainhorse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
WMC:The glaring problem remains, what would happen if just a part of the crest were closed to snowmobiles- would the traffic on the rest of the crest continue into Wilderness and defeat the purpose of the new non-motorized area?
I'm confused WMC... I HAVE read all 25 pages of this thread...
Please, WMC, help to clarify.
In some posts you say that the areas to be changed from the current shared it is to simply provide areas for non-motor use, unbothered by snowmobiles and their operators.
In some posts you say that the areas to be changed from the current shared use is to provide a buffer that will help protect the wilderness from motorized intrusion and that the only way to keep snowmobiles out of the Wilerness areas is to create these buffer zones.
In some posts you say that the areas to be changed from the current shared use is so that others with less time or athletic abilities or children can access them more easily as opposed to others, like WMC with a snowmobile, that can access the Wilderness with ease.
WMC, Please tell us.
What is the purpose of the proposed new Non-motor areas?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
To be crystal clear.
I do not encourage or support any motorized users, outside of official USFS or SAR purposes, to intrude upon any designated Wilderness areas.
Further:
It is ILLEGAL for recreational Motorized Vehicle use of designated Wilderness areas.
Anyone found intentionally violating the boundaries of the Wilderness areas should suffer the full consequences of the law through tickets, arrest, and impounding of their vehicle.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/15/10, 07:24 PM by mountainhorse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
As a backcountry splitborder/skinner, snowshoer and AT person, I DO enjoy the pristine Wilderness areas that are available to me in abundance in locations across the United States.... and especially in the West.
Most of these Wilderness areas I have skinned/snowshoed into are not even spoiled by another ski track or Hut!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/15/10, 07:21 PM by mountainhorse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
It is also troubling to me to see your accusations of me and others as being uncivil or full of hyperbole when there are posts like #36 that are certainly WAY over the line if civility... that, in fact, you support in your following post (#37).
It seems to me that you only laud uncivil behavior when it suits your position.
I would like to see a bit more balance from ALL in this thread.
Of course there are other outbursts on this thread... I only use this as a direct example of my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
WMC
Questions 2 and 3 are unclear, again if you had read this thread extensive discussion about that topic is already here. On Snowest WMC has stated that it would be great to have more high-elevation access which now is limited to Highway mountain passes, MRNP, ski areas.
Question 2: If you have easy access to the Wilderness areas that are abundant in the area that are ALREADY ILLEGAL to snowmobile in, how is that not a means to an end for you?
Question 3: How and/or why would having exclusive Human Powered staging areas close to Wilderness which is off-limits to snowmobilers, NOT meet the stated goals of your proposal?
I have read this entire thread (all 25 pages) and see this being discussed, YES... though I do not see any answers or participation with suggestions in this topic.
Acting in good faith I will attempt to clarify questions 2 and 3.
Question 2: If Human Powered "staging areas" were to be established, with the cooperation of Human-Powered-Only (HP) users, snowmobilers and the USFS, that are close to the Wilderness areas that are Illegal for snowmobiles to access... Would this meet your goals of access and quell your appeal to current and future calls to close currently shared, mixed use, areas to Snowmobiles?
Question 3: If these HP "staging areas" were established, close to the Designated Wilderness, would the goals of the user named WMC be met in regards to access to lands "unspoiled" by snowmobiles?
In context with these questions I reiterate my point that the small amount of I Purposeful illegal intrusion into Wilderness areas by snowmobilers needs to stop and should be a goal of all users of the neighboring areas to police and report. There is NO ROOM in the Wilderness designation for recreational use of motorize vehicles.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/15/10, 07:43 PM by mountainhorse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Some more discussion from Snowest that relates to the discussion above:
Mr Mountainhorse of the bold letters,
Thanks for keeping track, actually I just returned from climbing and skiing on a glaciated peak the past few days.
Credit is due to you for stimulating the idea that a Sno Park at Beverly Creek would serve the purpose of a non-motorized corridor to the Wilderness. Good one. The problem is the costs of road construction to upgrade for winter use and EIS, planning, approval, and construction of a Sno Park. That would take years, if you want to jump into that then great. No, that is not part of the WMC agenda. However I already emailed to a USFS person this idea, and we will include it in the future as one possibility for the future.
You all sometimes seem to sit back and complain and demand that we answer all of your wants and needs. Try considering something other than trying to counter WMC. Are you guys reaching out anywhere else to your opponents, are you talking to USFS or anyone? Or do you just think nothing will change, you will have the same areas unregulated forever? The obstinate approach reminds me of loggers in small towns who were defiant and certain that logging could not be shut down, but now one cannot find a logger in some of these former logging towns, they are more rare than the Spotted Owl that ended most of it. WMC does not want to see snowmobiling prohibited Forest wide, but we want more non-motorized areas so yes we want some areas closed to snowmobiles.
As for all of your other rants and repetitive questions, they have been addressed at length previously. Please reread until you understand.
As for this thread, if you guys could reel in your tone a bit and quit trying to make WMC the monster, wrong, devious, whatever your hyperbole is all about, then we could discuss this. WMC actually spends time in discussion with officials talking about bowls for highmarking and what about snowmobile interests. Here it seems often the message to skiers is that we should ski in your trenches and fumes and enjoy it.
This is a nearly impossible discussion because what WMC asks for is shocking, insulting, whatever, to many here. WMC is trying to exchange information to explain why significant numbers of folks share these similar concerns.
Again, in person when I am out on my snowmobile and going skiing snowmobile riders that I meet are great folks, no issues. Of course I never just skied up to get in the face of a rider in Wilderness, that would not be a real positive encounter.
WMC is not trying to do anything beyond getting more areas for winter non-motorized recreation outside of Wilderness.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/16/10, 07:16 AM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
From Snowest, relates to the discussion here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainhorse
I have read this entire thread (all 25 pages) and see this being discussed, YES... though I do not see any answers or participation with suggestions in this topic.
Acting in good faith I will attempt to clarify questions 2 and 3.
Question 2: If Human Powered "staging areas" were to be established, with the cooperation of Human-Powered-Only (HP) users, snowmobilers and the USFS, that are close to the Wilderness areas that are Illegal for snowmobiles to access... Would this meet your goals of access and quell your appeal to current and future calls to close currently shared, mixed use, areas to Snowmobiles?
Question 3: If these HP "staging areas" were established, close to the Designated Wilderness, would the goals of the user named WMC be met in regards to access to lands "unspoiled" by snowmobiles?
In context with these questions I reiterate my point that the small amount of I Purposeful illegal intrusion into Wilderness areas by snowmobilers needs to stop and should be a goal of all users of the neighboring areas to police and report. There is NO ROOM in the Wilderness designation for recreational use of motorize vehicles.
WMC comment:
Ok, yes and yes.
The other big question for you guys is can you help keep whoever it is out of the Wilderness? That issue affects what we want because the area is along the Wilderness Boundary. Please consider if we do spend hours walking to Wilderness where you say we should go, and there are snowmobiles there or on a good day, just tracks- not good. Really I have no idea what exactly will come of our effort, but for discussion if an area smaller that our proposal was made non-motorized, then you guys kept, for the sake of discussion, Van Epps and Longs Pass on the condition that snowmobile riders would patrol or whatever to stop the Wilderness riding. Could that work? That could be a win-win unless there is just opposition to any new non-motorized areas anywhere.
Good discussion. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/15/10, 09:56 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
From Snowest related to discussion above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by yammadog
This is definitely a working discussion.....plans are being hatched to educate, mark and finding ways to enforce this intrusion!! I would like to bring the suggestion that Mr. Newtrout had with regard to non-motorized additions in the teanaway region. I'll see if I can find and repost his suggestions.
WMC comment:
USFS finds it tough to consider doing this enforcement, a huge area, not easy- just read their message posted here (on Snowest). My take is they seriously want to enforce the Wilderness Boundary, as the huge majority of snowmobile riders would agree, but also seriously want to maintain snowmobile riding- a rock and a hard place. Just to fund their one snowmobile guy is a big cost. So what if you guys worked on a plan that your Organization would enter an agreement or something to provide trained observers to stop the Wilderness incursion in exchange for keeping access to some of the problem areas- but only if trained observers were present with communication?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
From Snowest related to discussion above:
Originally Posted by yammadog
WMC, I think it would be helpful to see your proposal modify as the discussion goes along so as to move forward from challenge points with the end result a proposal that all could support. Perhaps a periodic proposal post to show modifications of agreed upon points. I'm sure you would agree that a level of trust needs to grow and this would help given the repetition of your previous reposting of the first version of proposal.
...
And it may be below your effort in "working" with us, but the direct answers come about because we didn't see the answer in the previous pages on TAY or here, so direct answers to direct questions help.
---
WMC comment-
The compromise that I am seeing in this discussion is leaving the area from the existing Voluntary Non-Motorized area from Beverly/Bean out to Van Epps open to snowmobiles with the agreed monitoring and closure if Wilderness violations occur. You folks are doing the right thing to confront that, that is the most damaging aspect of this entire discussion. For the purpose of WMC, if non-motorized areas are created by the Wilderness Boundary, but then snowmobiles are nearby riding the Wilderness then the non-motorized areas are not that. That is why control of that is fundamental here.
WMC would be pleased to try to work out something that provides for both user groups. If that evolves, then we could work toward the possibility of face to face meetings to get together on an agreement in regard to some areas for skiers and snowshoers or winter camping, such as the ones identified here as not the best snowmobile riding. At the same time, we see here the real possibility of a solution to also preserve the best of the Teanaway crest for snowmobiles, the area furthest from pedestrians. USFS would prefer such collaboration. If the new approach produces a solution for Wilderness snowmobile trespass, we all will benefit. I just emailed our snowmobile industry contact that we met about this possibility of a collaboration, and asked if that person could help mediate. WMC would be pleased to meet with that person and with other snowmobile interest folks to work something out that we both would agree.
Thanks for the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
WMC is moving forward in an effort for collaboration with snowmobile interests. Discussion at Snowest resulted in proposal of this collaboration on both sides of the discussion. WMC is requesting facilitation to set a meeting through a snowmobile industry person to discuss a possible collaborative solution.
WMC has engaged in many hours of meetings thus far with USFS in discussion of the issues and of the WMC proposal and has met with a prominent individual within the snowmobile industry.
WMC and USFS encourage a collaborative solution. We shall hope for a collaborative solution, but will move forward to strongly advocate for management of the Forest for all uses and for our interests, the original human-powered uses of the Forest in which the clear majority of winter Forest users participate.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
that's not quite good enough. Getting over the crest and into the wilderness in the winter is not practical for most skiers, even with the road accessible to the trailheads. In addition to access, there must be non-motor areas on the road side of the crest. You guys keep referring back to these "massive lands, AKA wilderness". You're not listening. Skiers can't get to them in the winter. The areas adjacent to the road up to the crest are really the prime winter play areas. Ideally the wilderness boundary should have been extended to the road, but hey, that's compromise.
I don't know anything about keeping roads open in the winter, but I'd gladly pay a fee to be able to get close to Bean Crk. How about a new snow park further up the road? And could someone fix all those damn potholes?
Great comments about the prime winter play areas!
The idea for a Beverly/ Bean Sno Park is brilliant. the Voluntary Non-Motorized corridor is already there for Wilderness access. As far as a Beverly Sno Park, the issues are getting the concept approved to improve the road and build the Sno Park, the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), the public comment period and expected resistance from some groups. Then if approved more EIS etc, USFS has to get the funding, contract to do the work, it could take a while. However, WMC would endorse this idea and work toward this goal!
Thank you for great ideas from a skier! Sorry that it took a while to find the skier idea sandwiched between other comments, but cool, good job!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Great comments about the prime winter play areas!
The idea for a Beverly/ Bean Sno Park is brilliant. the Voluntary Non-Motorized corridor is already there for Wilderness access. As far as a Beverly Sno Park, the issues are getting the concept approved to improve the road and build the Sno Park, the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement), the public comment period and expected resistance from some groups. Then if approved more EIS etc, USFS has to get the funding, contract to do the work, it could take a while. However, WMC would endorse this idea and work toward this goal!
Thank you for great ideas from a skier! Sorry that it took a while to find the skier idea sandwiched between other comments, but cool, good job!
Caution in using the more extreme comments as part of your proposal, both sides have plenty of that to offer. And we have worked hard behind the scenes to have posts deleted and conviced folks to not post in support of good communications. After all, you could use Scotsmans comments of stopping this movement and writing your legislators....
I'm thinking we should be picking the person that represents our points in these discussions. Unless you wish to identify the person or at what level they are within the sledding community, then I find it hard to support your position in the meeting without some level of confidence that we will be properly represented and not pushed over by your fervor. After all, you wouldn't vote for a representative in your government without knowing who they are.....right?!
Show us your good faith in posting your complete and modified proposal, the connection to this snowmobile person from our point and when the public meeting is to be held and then I think it could move forward with support.
You will need to remember that the folks involved in this discussion total maybe 30 on the forums to help shape anything. Although each of us is involved with the clubs, associations and industry at some level, this proposal or suggestion has not made it beyond these forum walls to the greater population. If you wish for us to support and advocate this position to the greater group, then we will need that information. Who, what, where, when as they say. Still need a revised map and descriptions of the "wish" list.
Show us the good faith you have been suggesting you stand behind....
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/17/10, 08:15 AM by yammadog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you to our sponsors!
|
Contact turns-all-year.com
Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved
The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
|
Page created in 5.296 seconds with 19 queries.
|
