|
|
|
|
|
|
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 29538 times)
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
when WMC can't answer direct questions you know he has not thought this out and will have a hard time "communicating"...he'll just continue to repeat, over and over, the same line he starts with...We've poked huge holes in his dam and he doesn't understand the water is leaking out....if the rest of the user group wants to discuss this openly, then it can be productive, but WMC is a non-issue to me from this point forward.
he? It is a committee.. Why do I always think about the star wars movie, where Han Solo says to Leia, "There is not time to discuss this with the committee" and Leia responds, "I am not a committee!".. ha ha
I find it interesting the WMC has not contacted any snowmobile clubs at all about this issue. This shows an unwillingness to work with other users on the subject. Snowmobilers do recognize the rights of others, though it seems skiers only methods of communicating their needs is through threats of restricting the snowmobile user groups. I think skiers need to become better organized, in a matter to represent their use, not in a manor to represent their thoughts of restricting others uses.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
excellent. A motorhead love fest on a backcountry skiing forum. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
excellent. A motorhead love fest on a backcountry skiing forum.
LOL...you should see us around a campfire we start out in the mountains while we're drinking our beer.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
Is the 151,000 number limited to backcountry skiers plus snowshoers? Counting resort skiers when discussing the expected use of backcountry terrain would be like counting mall walkers when estimating the need for hiking trails.
I posted those on page 10. The numbers were taken from a WA state winter recreation report and do not include downhill ski area visitors.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Me too. The promise of a plowed road up the Teanaway would really motivate me, and probably many others, to put major energy into limiting snowmobiles in the area. Right now I have no real stake in the issue, as I can't get there until the roads melt out anyway. I could see myself spending many winter weekends if there were a plowed road. I'll bet this puts the fear in many a motor head.
Good discussion about access, it would be great to have more high country road access in winter. Unfortunately keeping a gravel Forest Road open in winter, such as on a logging job, is a continuous daily task. And the Road may get soft and muddy. And the driving may be difficult, narrow one lane, and numbers of the general public on the Road could lead to problem scenarios.
Day trips to the Teanaway section of the Wenatchee Mountains crest are long, but are done by some skitourers from 29 Pines- probably not the average day tour. From Blewett Pass the WMC proposal adds terrain that is accessible from the car, for example to the Lillian summit and then getting the Tronsen Head summit on the trip back would be about a 4-5 hour trip on skis.
If the area is designated as non-motorized, trips to the Teanaway section of the Wenatchee Mountains crest would accommodate a great number of skiers. Weekend trips would be enjoyable to this now quiet area with a significant amount of skiable open slopes of all angle of steepness, much of it moderate. The area connects to Wilderness, thus is the corridor to the drainages of Ingalls Creek and beyond to Mt. Stuart and the Enchantments.
Thanks for the discussion!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
pulling "facts" from a known hard line environmental group is like asking a child rapist if he can babysit your kids....
The WWA got those facts from the WA State Winter Recreation Report 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
The WWA got those facts from the WA State Winter Recreation Report 2008.
then he should have stated that...would have made it more believable...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
then he should have stated that...would have made it more believable...
I'm not sure he knew thats where the data came from, I had to do a fair bit of searching to get it. That's where I got the original 150,000 to 98,000 numbers. I'm still having a hard time with that being 50/50 as ruffy posted.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline
Posts: 1227
|
I want to consider your desire to not be in the wooded valleys and not be in the trench of sleds, but it takes both sides to acknowledge the other and WMC needs to acknowledge that we don't want to be there either.
I and others have given this acknowledgement, even if WMC has not. Yet I repeatedly see you and ruffy ignore key aspects of the skier POV regarding practicality of day access to wilderness and regarding the practical fact that sledders win in "shared" areas. Emulating WMC does not strengthen your arguments.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/28/10, 09:25 AM by Jim Oker »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
I and others have given this acknowledgement, even if WMC has not. Yet I repeatedly see you and ruffy ignore key aspects of the skier POV regarding wilderness and regarding the practical fact that sledders win in "shared" areas. Emulating WMC does not strengthen your arguments.
Some skiers and snowshoers enjoy traveling wooded valleys, it is part of the whole Forest experience. Users of non-motorized winter recreation areas vary in uses. Some are looking for open slopes and summits, some are traveling in Forest, some travel a mile, some travel 8 miles to and from a climb of a peak, some go overnight, on and on. Whenever possible consideration of various uses is important.
As far as high alpine areas, Mt Baker and Mt St Helens appear to be heavily used by snowmobiles in winter. According to reports WMC has received, the heavy snowmobile use degrades skiing and non-motorized use in those areas.
On Page 15 WMC discussed some estimates of size and use. Again, simply put out the Wenatchee NF map and observe all of the area to the south of the Wenatchee mountains crest open to snowmobiling (from the Cascade Crest nearly to the Columbia River), that could not covered on that map by outstretched hands, compared to the primo-skiing Wenatchee Mountains crest area at the current Tronsen Non-Motorized area at Blewett Pass- which on the map would be covered by a Quarter coin.
Thanks for all the discussion!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/28/10, 09:58 AM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
I'm not sure he knew thats where the data came from, I had to do a fair bit of searching to get it. That's where I got the original 150,000 to 98,000 numbers. I'm still having a hard time with that being 50/50 as ruffy posted.
Didn't we say snowshoers aren't really in this argument from a terrain perspective? I mean, I don't see snowshoers running up and down the open glades very much.
So that drops the number down to 115,000 of skiers. Also, I stated CLOSER to 50/50 then previously assumed. Correct, it is not 50/50. Skiers do take the advantage, but not by the 3 or 4 times that it seemed was originally though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
I and others have given this acknowledgement, even if WMC has not. Yet I repeatedly see you and ruffy ignore key aspects of the skier POV regarding practicality of day access to wilderness and regarding the practical fact that sledders win in "shared" areas. Emulating WMC does not strengthen your arguments.
Jim, i've repeatedly stated and think a real solution IS to make those areas accessible day trips. thus my reason for asking the questions of how long a day trip would be and how much effective territory could be "tracked" out. I also think that realigning and educating sledders to create non-motorized cooridors to these areas need to be looked at also. And I've also stated that I can understand the desire to not get caught up a sled trench.
Getting caught up in useless unmoving debate with WMC is over for me. He/they won't answer my questions, continues to bring up how it "used" to be and I'd rather speak to someone like yourself to get a better give and take, so I can understand more of your concern. I haven't had the conflicts in my experience so the only way I can get the information is to ask you guys. I've been trying to understand the mindset of the exclusion position vs a compromise position.
I say, let's have a pow wow, pull out a map and figure it out....not to simply exclude any groups...and the wilderness has to be part of that equation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Didn't we say snowshoers aren't really in this argument from a terrain perspective? I mean, I don't see snowshoers running up and down the open glades very much.
So that drops the number down to 115,000 of skiers. Also, I stated CLOSER to 50/50 then previously assumed. Correct, it is not 50/50. Skiers do take the advantage, but not by the 3 or 4 times that it seemed was originally though.
It would interesting to be able to pull data that shows the back country useage, since that is what this debate is about. How many people actually use the area in question.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
I and others have given this acknowledgement, even if WMC has not. Yet I repeatedly see you and ruffy ignore key aspects of the skier POV regarding practicality of day access to wilderness and regarding the practical fact that sledders win in "shared" areas. Emulating WMC does not strengthen your arguments.
It is correct that it can be difficult to share a slope that is easily utilized for snowmobile use, especially Alpine areas where snowmobiles have very little to limit their abilities. I do not disagree with this point. As stated by skiers on here before, many of the lines they like and ski, a snowmobiler would be unable to use. Does snowmobilers tracking up 1/2 of a mountain face make the whole mountain not feasible for skiers? Would there not be lines still available to skiers? It has been stated before (by skiers) that their would and are still available lines.
I am sorry if I have come across as otherwise. It is a correct statement that a skier going down a slope that is tracked up by snowmobilers is no fun. I snowboard a lot, and I can completely understand what you are talking about.
As to practicality of day access, do you mean that it is too far to get to? Or that it is impossible to increase the access to make it easier to get to? I do agree that for many, it is too far to get to. You know, I wonder if a shuttle system would be something to consider. Probably not likely, but a snowcat and a yearly operator would be much cheaper then plowing a road.. yah, I can dream, can't I? ha ha.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
It would interesting to be able to pull data that shows the back country useage, since that is what this debate is about. How many people actually use the area in question.
Agreed, but I think to find out the numbers in an accurate manor could / would be quite expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline
Posts: 1227
|
ruffyrider - it is both a question of tracking of the slope (and as machines grew more powerful in the late '90s, I started coming across slopes I'd hoped to ski that were more like 100% tracked out, so in some cases the 50% notion is merely a wonderful dream despite there being other cases where a creative skier can still eke out a decent line...), as well as that skiing near speeding, whining sleds can be rather aversive and quite contradictory to the point of getting out for many skiers, as well as feeling hazardous to us as well as our dogs if we have them with us. This has all been discussed multiple times above, but perhaps this repetition will help the points sink in fully.
I love the snowcat notion. Won't work, of course, for giving day access to the majority of acreage in Wilderness areas, simply due to the fact of how much of said acreage is w/in a reasonable day tour of the spots on the edge of the wilderness that could be accessed by cat. Plus, that's a pretty spendy way to get your tours in that would rule out many skiers. On top of that, I know of a member of this forum who owns a cat (couldn't resist an amazing deal) who has found since the purchase that NFS will prevent most practical use of the cat. Yes, one could perhaps get permits with enough organized support from ski clubs etc, but it's still going to remain a bit of an elitist option.
And to be clear, it is recurring comments such as:
Including wilderness, I would say that skiers have a larger amount of skiable area then snowmobiles. Skiers have 100% of the forest to utilize. Snowmobilers have at most 40-50%. hmm....
along with repeatedly saying that mixed use areas are equally shared (when to a skier, that sounds like the big brother telling the little brother that they can share the cookies after the big brother has pushed the little one aside and eaten them all). I get that you don't like seeing the "let them eat clearcuts" style responses that one or two folks have posted, but reactive responses that ignore reasonable skier POV aren't going to help either...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/28/10, 11:16 AM by Jim Oker »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
ruffyrider - it is both a question of tracking of the slope (and as machines grew more powerful in the late '90s, I started coming across slopes I'd hoped to ski that were more like 100% tracked out, so in some cases the 50% notion is merely a wonderful dream despite there being other cases where a creative skier can still eke out a decent line...), as well as that skiing near speeding, whining sleds can be rather aversive and quite contradictory to the point of getting out for many skiers, as well as feeling hazardous to us as well as our dogs if we have them with us. This has all been discussed multiple times above, but perhaps this repetition will help the points sink in fully. I have said that I agree with you many times. The percentage depends heavily on the slope. There are many slopes with trees on them were the 50% is more likely. Though there are many slopes above tree line where it is possible to be much greater then 50%. As to the skiing near speeding and whining sleds. As said before, if I see skiers on a slope, I move on. Many people I know do as well. As yammadog has stated, we need to help inform the rest of the snowmobilers that they should not do that. I am not sure why you think repitition is necessary, as I believe I have said this many times already.
I love the snowcat notion. Won't work, of course, for giving day access to the majority of acreage in Wilderness areas, simply due to the fact of how much of said acreage is w/in a reasonable day tour of the spots on the edge of the wilderness that could be accessed by cat. Plus, that's a pretty spendy way to get your tours in that would rule out many skiers. On top of that, I know of a member of this forum who owns a cat (couldn't resist an amazing deal) who has found since the purchase that NFS will prevent most practical use of the cat. Yes, one could perhaps get permits with enough organized support from ski clubs etc, but it's still going to remain a bit of an elitist option. Correct, it was a pie in the sky thought..
And to be clear, it is recurring comments such as:along with repeatedly saying that mixed use areas are equally shared (when to a skier, that sounds like the big brother telling the little brother that they can share the cookies after the big brother has pushed the little one aside and eaten them all). I get that you don't like seeing the "let them eat clearcuts" style responses that one or two folks have posted, but reactive rsponses that ignore skier POV aren't going to help either...
No body is ignoring them, but when the issue is simplified and generalized to "parity" then I will argue using that generalization. The account you make is seperate from this "parity" statement and the statement needs to, and should be clarified.
The problems are the inconsistencies and generalizations as to the problem. There are many of them as to this argument here.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/28/10, 11:29 AM by ruffryder »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
I also think that realigning and educating sledders to create non-motorized cooridors to these areas need to be looked at also. And I've also stated that I can understand the desire to not get caught up a sled trench.
I haven't had the conflicts in my experience so the only way I can get the information is to ask you guys. I've been trying to understand the mindset of the exclusion position vs a compromise position.
I say, let's have a pow wow, pull out a map and figure it out....not to simply exclude any groups...and the wilderness has to be part of that equation.
Yammadog, this is a great suggestion. I am a non-motorized forest user with a desire to improve relations with motorized user groups. I can only speak for myself. I don't want to see snowmo's excluded from alpine terrain. I agree that designated wilderness can be counted in the skiers' column.
But, I think it is silly to keep comparing numbers of acres looking for 'parity' or 'fairness', because these concepts are subjective. I am very skeptical that moto and non-moto user groups would ever agree on the fairness of a given management scheme. (In fact I know of motorized users who believe that wilderness designation is in principle unfair .... and no-moto folks who think snowmobiling should not be allowed off road.) I do think we can find better management schemes through dialog such as what is occurring here.
I also think there is plenty to go around. Everybody can't have everything they want, but everybody should get something reasonable. I will lay out my perspective here. Before the advent of modern machines there was very little snowmobile travel in the alpine; skiers considered all alpine areas, wilderness or not, NPS or FS, their territory in the winter. Advances in equipment on both sides have resulted in greater competition for the 'prime' slopes. Some predict the conflict will escalate. I'm not sure, but I think it could. I urge the user groups to work for compromise. In contrast to some here, I think skiers do have more good alpine areas available to them in principle than snowmobiles. For many reasons I will protest any plan that allows snowmobiling on 1/2 of the alpine terrain in the state. Most should be wilderness, as they are.
Your admissions here that wilderness poaching by snomos is a problem has gone a long way with me, personally. I am also pleased by your suggestion that conflict could be mitigated by improving access to areas that are already managed as non-motorized. I don't think this is the answer, but it is a useful suggestion that indicates you are taking the "other side's" viewpoint into account.
What I would like to introduce to this discussion is the notion that recreation by snowmobile has more impact than non-motorized use and that serious, aggressive riding on open alpine slopes is a newcomer to the outdoor rec scene. This is the fundamental reason that comparing acreages is not helpful -- and presumably the reason that Yammadog and ruffryder insist on counting just alpine terrain not the large areas below treeline that are not contested (btw: I don't buy that these areas aren't used and appreciated -- I do so, and I see snomos when I am in the much maligned valley bottoms). I speculate that developed ski areas serve more people than bc snomo and ski use put together. That doesn't mean I think they should be expanded to the size of the bc rec areas!
Instead, I think we (all interested parties) should identify the areas in which off-road snowmobiling works 'best' (i.e. is not contested or provides good, high quality riding with good access, with as little displacement of other uses as practical). These should be designated for off-road use and have obvious boundaries. Other areas should be designated for on-trail riding only. Of course the workability of this scheme depends on which areas, how much, etc. I understand that, form the snowmobile POV, this may seem like you are losing since there currently, outside the wilderness, are basically no restrictions on snowmobile travel.
Love to hear what you guys (snowmobilers) think and how you view alpine snowmobiling in the larger land-management context. I feel that conflict with skiers is only one of issues raised by this use. I'm sure we have room for you; just need to share.
Edited for typos.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/28/10, 01:36 PM by Micah »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Micah, I'll buy your first round at the pow wow....
Agreed that the valleys are used, but probably not most desired except for those socked in days when you need the contrast....the conflict as created by WMC is with the alpine areas so I've been trying to address that more specifically. And I also agree that the numbers thrown out in this discussion are only useful for guideline, not for exact fairness/parity.....
As you state, a majority of the upper alpine is already designated wilderness and plenty inaccessible by sleds and this is the reason for the debate from my perspective with WMC suggesting the closure of a huge area visited by thousands of sledders each year.
Now, how much debate will we need on a meeting place? I'm not going to sit in any vegetarian joints waiting for organic bud lite long necks...;>)....how's that for a sterotype?....LOL....
I think Lowell hit on a concept in the north cascade thread with the recreation czar/comittee...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/28/10, 01:46 PM by yammadog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
Micah, I'll buy your first round at the pow wow....
As long as it's not organic bud lite .....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jim Oker
Moderator
Offline
Posts: 1227
|
+1 to Micah's comments on thinking about possible approaches to the conflicts in question.
I am not sure why you think repitition is necessary, as I believe I have said this many times already. You've also repeatedly said things along the lines of what I quoted from you in my last post above. It's the recurrence of those comments that has led to my repetition.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
have a good weekend everyone..thank a vet for our ability to have this discussion!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
...I don't want to see snowmo's excluded from alpine terrain. I agree that designated wilderness can be counted in the skiers' column.
...I am very skeptical that moto and non-moto user groups would ever agree on the fairness of a given management scheme. (In fact I know of motorized users who believe that wilderness designation is in principle unfair .... and no-moto folks who think snowmobiling should not be allowed off road.) I do think we can find better management schemes through dialog such as what is occurring here.
... Everybody can't have everything they want, but everybody should get something reasonable...Advances in equipment on both sides have resulted in greater competition for the 'prime' slopes. Some predict the conflict will escalate. I'm not sure, but I think it could. I urge the user groups to work for compromise. In contrast to some here, I think skiers do have more good alpine areas available to them in principle than snowmobiles. For many reasons I will protest any plan that allows snowmobiling on 1/2 of the alpine terrain in the state. Most should be wilderness, as they are.
Your admissions here that wilderness poaching by snomos is a problem has gone a long way with me, personally. I am also pleased by your suggestion that conflict could be mitigated by improving access to areas that are already managed as non-motorized. I don't think this is the answer, but it is a useful suggestion that indicates you are taking the "other side's" viewpoint into account.
What I would like to introduce to this discussion is the notion that recreation by snowmobile has more impact than non-motorized use and that serious, aggressive riding on open alpine slopes is a newcomer to the outdoor rec scene...
Instead, I think we (all interested parties) should identify the areas in which off-road snowmobiling works 'best' (i.e. is not contested or provides good, high quality riding with good access, with as little displacement of other uses as practical).
These should be designated for off-road use and have obvious boundaries. Other areas should be designated for on-trail riding only. Of course the workability of this scheme depends on which areas, how much, etc. I understand that, form the snowmobile POV, this may seem like you are losing since there currently, outside the wilderness, are basically no restrictions on snowmobile travel.
Love to hear what you guys (snowmobilers) think and how you view alpine snowmobiling in the larger land-management context. I feel that conflict with skiers is only one of issues raised by this use. I'm sure we have room for you; just need to share...
Excellent prose, great ideas Micah! Thank you! Keep it up and WMC can just take a break, I am sure to everyone's relief! 
A suggested addition to this discussion is that snowmobiles are allowed on significant alpine terrain on Mt. Baker and on Mt. St Helens. Near the entire WMC proposal area are significant open slopes remaining for the snowmobiles. On the east section clearly many miles- more than in the proposal- of open slopes are left for snowmobiles. On the Teanaway crest, WMC feels that the area should be contiguous against the Wilderness Boundary, for the many reasons previously discussed.
As far as the WMC proposal, we are in the phase of discussion and coalition-building. We are attempting to demonstrate with the "Thousand Skiers Project" that a significant user group- skiers and snowshoers- is affected by the issues that are raised and by the WMC proposal. When the time is right, we will have a more formalized proposal and yes, a WMC map to present to USFS. So the folks making comments here are helping to influence or forge the idea. If USFS decides that this is an issue for action, perhaps then there will be official processes with comments and meetings of various user groups.
Again, thanks for all of the great discussion. WMC would like to see a variety of various folks comment here, and of course WMC is asking for support and individual advocacy through the Thousand Skier Project. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/28/10, 03:48 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GUAVA
5Member
Offline
Posts: 12
|
Ruffryder and Yammadog
I am a snowshoer and a bc skier, I don't own a snowmobile but I used to ride almost daily about 15 years ago for a period of about two years straight.
What you need to understand is that I desire the same access you have to the winter playground. As a snowshoer, and going out to snowshoe with my family (dog, 12 year old daughter, wife) I can't get to the wilderness boundary that you keep saying is so available to us non-motorized users. There is no where I can park my car and step out to a wilderness boundary. On the other hand, every snowmobiler in the state can simply drive to the nearest sno-park or Forest Service road and have immediate access to the snow country. Since I can't access the wilderness I try to find perhaps a quite FS road near my home - guess what? These FS roads all allow snowmobiling and so where do you propose I go to experience the winter forest like you do? There are only one or two non-motorized areas on the entire Oknanogan-Wenatchee NF that exclude snowmobiles and they can be snowshoed in about 2-3 hours! You can bet that I will not go to the so called "multiple use" areas because that would be like going for a walk on the highway. We have summer parks where you can't ride or drive a motor vehicle so why can't we have non-motorized areas for the pedestrians that use the forest in the winter?
Regarding the constant reference to educating the snowmobilers to respect the skiers and the snowshoers, well that has been the method used by the FS for the last 25 years and a lot of money has been spent educating. How hard is it to learn that you can't use snowmobiles in the wilderness? This has been proven to not work because they still trespass. So lets not talk about spending more money on education please.
the
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
The sno parks that I am talking about have specific locations for non-motorized users that do not share any areas with motorized. Also, the amount of non-motorized users that are using the motorized locations a very very small as well. As for stats, it is only what I have seen and perceived.
snowparks near easily accessed quality non-motorized terrain get plenty of non-motorized users. Check out the Salt Crk snowpark near Wing Ridge outside of Joseph Oregon. There are always more vehicles on the non-motorized side, it just looks like there are fewer because the freakin trailers take up so much space.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
|
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 0.623 seconds with 20 queries.
|
