|
|
|
|
|
|
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 29607 times)
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
have a good weekend everyone..thank a vet for our ability to have this discussion!!
I'm a veteran and that's what Veteran's Day is for, Memorial day is to honor those killed in battle. These thing bother me more than a little at times. Of course thanking a vet for his service any day is welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Ruffy....I"ve decided you can't have a give and take conversation with a zealot. Parity in his mind is just that....only in his mind...
pulling "facts" from a known hard line environmental group is like asking a child rapist if he can babysit your kids....
,,,
Since such despicable language as above is allowed here, WMC will ask please for decent and civil discussion here. WMC recognizes that others have opposition to some concepts, that is their right. In response to those in opposition, WMC will strongly state its case and disagree, argue, but will endeavor to not characterize or name-call any individual taking a different or opposition viewpoint. We ask for proper language, civil behavior, and good faith discussion and debate. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Ruffryder and Yammadog
...
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.
As an example, for 37 years snowmobile riders are violating a closure in the Yakama Nation's Mt. Adams Area-
"For nearly 37 years illegal snowmobiling has been occurring on the Yakama
Nation’s Mt. Adams area. This snowmobiling has been steadily increasing. These
activities are having a detrimental impact on our wildlife such as mountain goats,
white-tailed ptarmigans, marmots, picas, and the rare wolverine. Snowmobiling has
also caused some damage to the fragile vegetation in the Bird Creek Meadows area.
It causes ruts on snowfields and glaciers that widen and deepen in the summer,
accelerating snowmelt and scarring the landscape." From the WSSA website.
http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=xGNMBuUN0o8OH3CXRY4Jog642Wqr%2bpbIeI95y1d/qb2WWnSTsMhiSw%3d%3d
Education clearly has not worked in 37 years!
The areas in the WMC proposal will provide clear Boundaries that are enforceable. The WMC proposal will provide significant new areas for winter non-motorized recreation. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
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. Really? How much has been spent? What exactly was it spent on?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
it just looks like there are fewer because the freakin trailers take up so much space.
no, I took that into account...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
As an example, for 37 years snowmobile riders are violating a closure in the Yakama Nation's Mt. Adams Area- "For nearly 37 years illegal snowmobiling has been occurring on the Yakama Nation’s Mt. Adams area. This snowmobiling has been steadily increasing. These activities are having a detrimental impact on our wildlife such as mountain goats, white-tailed ptarmigans, marmots, picas, and the rare wolverine. Snowmobiling has also caused some damage to the fragile vegetation in the Bird Creek Meadows area. It causes ruts on snowfields and glaciers that widen and deepen in the summer, accelerating snowmelt and scarring the landscape." From the WSSA website. http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=xGNMBuUN0o8OH3CXRY4Jog642Wqr%2bpbIeI95y1d/qb2WWnSTsMhiSw%3d%3dEducation clearly has not worked in 37 years! The areas in the WMC proposal will provide clear Boundaries that are enforceable. The WMC proposal will provide significant new areas for winter non-motorized recreation. Thanks.
No one is saying snowmobilers haven't gone places they shouldn't have, but it is interesting here how far some bad apples can spoil the bunch, and how it can be used by people that don't want snowmobilers in their riding areas.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
Since such despicable language as above is allowed here, WMC will ask please for decent and civil discussion here. WMC recognizes that others have opposition to some concepts, that is their right. In response to those in opposition, WMC will strongly state its case and disagree, argue, but will endeavor to not characterize or name-call any individual taking a different or opposition viewpoint. We ask for proper language, civil behavior, and good faith discussion and debate. Thank you.
zealot is what the above is about? I think the analogy was pretty good, if not extreme.
Part of the problem is the following.
The arguments for your stated purpose are inconsistent at best. There isn't much of a discussion going on with the WMC (third person?). WMC has continually brought up small examples of misbehavior of snowmiblers in order to paint all snowmobilers in that same light. WMC has constantly changed the reasoning for its purpose here and is inconsistent in its methodology. This is turning into nothing more then a land grab scenario, with the eventual purpose to make the proposed land wilderness.
If this discussion was really about skiers getting increased terrain that is day accessible, why is a lot of discussion based on how bad snowmobilers are?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
GUAVA
5Member
Offline
Posts: 12
|
Ruffryder,
Just go to any FS district office and ask them to see their winter budget and they will show you the dollars spent everyear on "education". It is there, just ask. Again, how many times does the FS have to tell snowmobilers to not tresspass into the wilderness area?
Here are some numbers to chew on from Camping Life Magazine and the Outdoor Industry Association:
In 1994 440,000 snowshoes were purchased in the USA.
In 1996 more than 1 million snowshoes were purchased.
In 1998 there were 2.9 million snowshoers in the USA.
In 2007 there were 5.5 million snowshoers in the USA.
42% of all snowshoers have children under the age of 18.
So where are all of these individuals supposed to go with their families to snowshoe? We don't have access to the wilderness areas in this area (OWNF). Outside of wilderness the Okanogan-Wenatchee NF, and all national forests for that matter, are dominated by one user group - snowmobiles. The current situation on the National Forests outside of wilderness is open to motorized users. What snowmobilers have is a defacto motorized play area on the vast majority of the forest. I support WMC in trying to find equality between the user groups, as it stands now. These figures above do not even include skiers, snowboarders, dog sledders, etc.
I hope and expect the FS to provide us with both access and acreage to be able to enjoy the forest in the same way that snowmobiles are allowed access and acreage to enjoy their sport. I would like to be able to drive to a FS road and step out to a non-motorized plyaground just as like you do.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
zealot is what the above is about? I think the analogy was pretty good, if not extreme.
This is turning into nothing more then a land grab scenario, with the eventual purpose to make the proposed land wilderness.
you've got the land grabbing part right, but the motorheads have already done the land grabbing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
Ruffryder,
Just go to any FS district office and ask them to see their winter budget and they will show you the dollars spent everyear on "education". It is there, just ask. Again, how many times does the FS have to tell snowmobilers to not tresspass into the wilderness area?
About as many times as they have to tell hikers to pack their garbage out? lol
Here are some numbers to chew on from Camping Life Magazine and the Outdoor Industry Association:
In 1994 440,000 snowshoes were purchased in the USA.
In 1996 more than 1 million snowshoes were purchased.
In 1998 there were 2.9 million snowshoers in the USA.
In 2007 there were 5.5 million snowshoers in the USA.
42% of all snowshoers have children under the age of 18. I am not sure what that has to do with anything.. How about we focus on the local area.
So where are all of these individuals supposed to go with their families to snowshoe? We don't have access to the wilderness areas in this area (OWNF). Outside of wilderness the Okanogan-Wenatchee NF, and all national forests for that matter, are dominated by one user group - snowmobiles. The current situation on the National Forests outside of wilderness is open to motorized users. What snowmobilers have is a defacto motorized play area on the vast majority of the forest. I support WMC in trying to find equality between the user groups, as it stands now. These figures above do not even include skiers, snowboarders, dog sledders, etc.
I hope and expect the FS to provide us with both access and acreage to be able to enjoy the forest in the same way that snowmobiles are allowed access and acreage to enjoy their sport. I would like to be able to drive to a FS road and step out to a non-motorized plyaground just as like you do.
This statement makes it sound like snowmobilers can and do ride everywhere, every single acre of forest land that is not wilderness. Is that what you are stating here?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
you've got the land grabbing part right, but the motorheads have already done the land grabbing.
Motorheads? Do you even know any snowmobilers? If you are going to say motorheads, does that mean I can call skiers click-clicks? Or are we trying to keep this civil? Just curious what the ground rules are.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcus
Administrator
Offline
Posts: 2236
WWW
|
Given the topic, this has gone pretty well. Trying to keep it civil would be excellent. ruffryder and yammadog have been doing a pretty good job at that (though comparing WMC's position/tactics to a child rapist is pure, offensive hyperbole). Motorheads, haters, click-clicks, whatever -- we won't stand a chance of coming to a common ground if we go down that road (or continue down it, I guess).
I think that an assumption that everyone in the thread is participating in good faith will go a long way toward that. Lumping an entire user group into one description will never get us anywhere and it's clear that there is thoughtful, intelligent reasoning to be had with either group, just as it's clear that each group has its fair share of folks that would rather just throw stones.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/29/10, 11:28 AM by Marcus »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
37 years? I thought snowmobiling has only been able to get around in the last 10 years? Education? How has this been addressed to the snowmobiling public?
No one is saying snowmobilers haven't gone places they shouldn't have, but it is interesting here how far some bad apples can spoil the bunch, and how it can be used by people that don't want snowmobilers in their riding areas.
That article is posted, as stated above, on the WSSA website. Please contact your Washington State Snowmobile Association to argue the points of that specific article.
http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=xGNMBuUN0o8OH3CXRY4Jog642Wqr%2bpbIeI95y1d/qb2WWnSTsMhiSw%3d%3d
Again, the point is that we would argue that education has not been effective to enforce Closures mandated by Law.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
So sending the flier out to WSSA after 37 years validates that education isn't effective for 37 years?
What does this have to do with increasing ski access to terrain for day use?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
Given the topic, this has gone pretty well. Trying to keep it civil would be excellent. ruffryder and yammadog have been doing a pretty good job at that (though comparing WMC's position/tactics to a child rapist is pure, offensive hyperbole). Motorheads, haters, click-clicks, whatever -- we won't stand a chance of coming to a common ground if we go down that road (or continue down it, I guess).
I think that an assumption that everyone in the thread is participating in good faith will go a long way toward that. Lumping an entire user group into one description will never get us anywhere and it's clear that there is thoughtful, intelligent reasoning to be had with either group, just as it's clear that each group has its fair share of folks that would rather just throw stones.
agreed
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
So sending the flier out to WSSA after 37 years validates that education isn't effective for 37 years?
What does this have to do with increasing ski access to terrain for day use?
Two pages back in this thread this was covered as it had been discussed several times. Happy to repeat it here-
The Teanaway- Wenatchee Mountains crest portion of the WMC proposal provides new and significant non-motorized winter recreation areas, and provides a non-motorized corridor to Wilderness for skiers and snowshoers. This and the east portion of the proposal are the primary intent of the WMC.
Possible benefits but not the primary intent of the WMC include the buffer to Wilderness that is the usual USFS practice, opportunity for effective Enforcement from a Road that is a clear Boundary with a few points only to allow unlawful access (compared to miles of unenforceable open terrain next to Wilderness open terrain), and resource protection in a roadless area with plant species and wildlife habitat that are unique to the specific area.
Here is copied the USFS message that was copied and posted on Snowest Forum on 3/23/2010 and also on BackcountryRebels.com. The message alludes to the possible concept of buffer areas to Wilderness, and Enforcement problems-
(QUOTE from Snowest Forum)
"March 23rd Letter from Cle Clem Forest Service Supervisor Tim Foss:
Dear fellow snowmobilers,
Once again, the issue of snowmobilers riding in wilderness is rearing its head. This is not a new issue, as you know, but it seems to be on the increase again. We are getting more and more letters from backcountry skiers who are really unhappy about seeing and hearing snowmobiles in wilderness, and once again the drumbeats for closing routes that get close to wilderness are getting louder. As you know, we (the Forest Service) are completely unable to patrol these boundaries with any degree of effectiveness. We will be putting up signs, and flyers at sno-parks, but I'm also asking for your help in getting on top of this. If you could pass this message on to your riding buddies, clubs, and especially folks you see in the woods who may be inclined to ride in wilderness:
"RIDING IN WILDERNESS LEADS TO CLOSURES OUTSIDE WILDERNESS". Or as I like put it "Every time you put a track in wilderness, you hand a box of ammunition to those who want to shut down our sport" Also, if you are aware of an incursion point that could use a sign, contact me and I'll get you one. You guys have always been helpful , and I'd appreciate any continued help in getting the message out. I'm also not very computer savvy, so if anyone would like to post something on Sno-West or other appropriate forums, that would be great.. Thanks in advance for your help!
Tim Foss
Trails, Wilderness, ORV, and Winter Recreation Manager
Cle Elum Ranger District"
(END QUOTE)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
Possible benefits but not the primary intent of the WMC include the buffer to Wilderness that is the usual USFS practice, opportunity for effective Enforcement from a Road that is a clear Boundary with a few points only to allow unlawful access (compared to miles of unenforceable open terrain next to Wilderness open terrain), and resource protection in a roadless area with plant species and wildlife habitat that are unique to the specific area.
Gotcha. So this isn't just about getting increased access for day users then?
It seems like based on your arguments that this is more then a side benefit, and a large driving force to this proposal. Just what it seems though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Gotcha. So this isn't just about getting increased access for day users then?
It seems like based on your arguments that this is more then a side benefit, and a large driving force to this proposal. Just what it seems though.
OK, here is the discussion from one page back. This was also discussed many times, happy again to repeat it-
"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."
Also, although WMC was founded for advocacy of winter non-motorized recreation, the other issues are related and will be affected, in a positive fashion.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/29/10, 12:11 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
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.
Isn't the wilderness already available for weekend trips?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Isn't the wilderness already available for weekend trips?
Sure, and how many times has this been discussed here and in response to your questions several times? But glad to help here.
First, any fair evaluation of the numbers would indicate that there is disparity between one user group, snowmobile riders, and all other user groups combined in total Forest acreage and especially in acreage outside of Wilderness.
Secondly, much Wilderness, in fact most, is often characterized by more avalanche hazard and fewer safe approaches. Also much Wilderness is steep, cliffy on the north slopes or has thick vegetation on the north slopes. So there is not necessarily a plethora of terrain and vegetation type available in Wilderness.
Thirdly, as discussed several times- many times- here. Pedestrian access to Wilderness is problematic.
And yes we do go overnight on skis into Wilderness. However in this example one would need to walk for most of a day or at least for hours through groups of buzzing snowmobiles, unless non-motorized winter status is secured for the area.
Last February while walking on skis into Wilderness for two hours we frequently stepped aside for groups of snowmobiles. Then, as we skied into Wilderness, we never actually got away from snowmobile tracks that were all through the Wilderness area. Several times from the Wilderness valley we looked up at groups of snowmobiles and riders parked on high points above 7000 ft on the Boundary looking down at us- we could hear them talking, cranking up their motors. Probably a description that makes the advocates and defenders of Wilderness quite livid.
So, as we have alluded, this is not the best area for snowmobile use for many reasons, but it is prime terrain for winter non-motorized recreation. Does the opposition to winter non-motorized recreation think it wise to oppose such a non-motorized area that is on the hit list for several major organizations to prohibit snowmobile riding? Also an area identified for grizzly habitat, potential Lynx habitat, other wildlife, home to rare flowers endemic to the Wenatchee Mountains, high wild ridges with gnarled old Whitebark pines clinging to rocks through the subalpine weather, the wet valley, now overrun in winter with cross country snowmobile routes winding, breaking brush and trees, through the lateral draining creeks that flow into Etienne Cr, an area that contains large old growth forest including some impressive Western Larch nearly 5 ft dbh. In other words, would it be better to defend other areas for snowmobiling? Or does the opposition firmly believe that nothing will change, that snowmobiles will indefinitely have the run of the Forest by default of omission in management?
Thanks again. Out for now.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 05/29/10, 01:01 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
And again, does the opposition to winter non-motorized recreation think it wise to oppose such an area that is on the hit list for several major organizations to prohibit snowmobile riding? In other words, would it be better to defend other areas for snowmobiling? Or does the opposition firmly believe that nothing will change, that snowmobiles will indefinitely have the run of the Forest by default of omission in management?
Wow, those sure are some interesting statements.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Jim Hill, Arrowhead, Tunnel Creek, Wellington, Skyline Ridge, Lichtenberg, Smithbrook, Rock Mountain, Nason Ridge. All are well known for skitouring, snowshoeing, snow camping, quiet non-motorized winter recreation. All are areas that may be lawfully accessed by snowmobiles, many of those areas and also other areas from Smithbrook Road and even into the Wilderness there are already incurring snowmobile use. In the future, these areas not currently heavily used or not used, by snowmobile riders, will need winter non-motorized designation if skiers wish to reasonably continue their use. Otherwise, these areas will be as is much of the Forest, single-use of snowmobile riding in winter, not multiple-use at all.
Skiers must consider areas that are favorite ski tours that are non-Wilderness but not yet accessed by snowmobiles. Eventually it is very likely for those areas to be used for snowmobile riding. This further illustrates the need for USFS to designate which areas of the Forest outside Wilderness are appropriate for motorized use in winter, and which areas are appropriate for winter non-motorized recreation. As discussed at length here, modern snowmobile capability allows snowmobile riding now on nearly any slope that would be useful for skiing! For example, this thread http://www.snowandmud.com/forum/f14/mmm8-invitational-krazy-chutes-castlegar-bc-30234.html shows extreme terrain that is used by snowmobile riders in Canada.
WMC is attempting to inform and mobilize skiers to this issue and ask for skiers to comment to USFS in regard to the need for management for areas designated for winter non-motorized recreation. WMC is proposing in the area familiar to us for USFS to manage new and significant appropriate areas of the pristine crest of the Wenatchee Mountains (Van Epps Pass to Mission Ridge, west and east of Blewett Pass) to be designated as non-motorized winter areas. We see this as a new model of citizen activism directly to the Forest Supervisor, otherwise in privacy, so as not to incur the usual aggressive replies and actions of opposition to non-motorized recreation advocacy.
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: r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us
Carbon Copy Us: wenatcheemountainscoalition@hotmail.com. 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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/15/10, 04:06 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
Cut this movement off at the knees.
Prevent the FS from making a unilateral decision without public discussion , mandate or funding to enforce.
WMC has shown absolutely no intention to negotiate or reach a mutual user agreement.
Contact your senatorial candidates and tell them that if they support this proposal you will take your vote elsewhere.
The public lands are for all to decide how they are managed not just this group who won't compromise.
http://murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe
http://www.dinorossi.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Cut this movement off at the knees. Prevent the FS from making a unilateral decision without public discussion , mandate or funding to enforce. WMC has shown absolutely no intention to negotiate or reach a mutual user agreement. Contact your senatorial candidates and tell them that if they support this proposal you will take your vote elsewhere. The public lands are for all to decide how they are managed not just this group who won't compromise. http://murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMehttp://www.dinorossi.com/
Indeed we support US citizens in contacting their elected officials, and we have from the start asked for citizens to comment to the legitimate authority at USFS. We have had as much or more discussion here with those who state they are snowmobile riders as with any. Are we now discussing writing to our elected officials with a poster who is not a US citizen, or do you actually vote? We ride snowmobiles and skitour (for decades)- are we seeing someone who does not ride snowmobiles advocating on their behalf? If, as we believe, snowmobiles are dominating the Forest at the expense of non-motorized users what is there to be given up in negotiation? WMC asks for new and significant Forest areas for winter non-motorized use, it does not ask for regulation or prohibition of snowmibile riding outside of non-motorized areas.
We are proposing our solution to a set of problems and trying to create support after describing the issues. This is a great discussion on TAY, we have seen discussion that added to this issue in new directions.
WMC does not believe that it or any group will dictate to USFS, we are presenting our views and asking for Forest management that includes our uses. We have not attempted to stifle or falsely characterize any other's views. We have stated that we have had communication with other snowmobile riders in the past in regard to these issues and as a result do not expect compromise or concern for other's uses from the opposition, but we would be happy to see that from the opposition. We have never stated that we are unwilling to meet at the appropriate time, this has been discussed. WMC has not yet finalized a map and has not yet sent a final and formal proposal, all of which are being produced.
The point of reaching out to the snowmobile groups is valid, has been discussed here, and has been considered by WMC. Thus far, aside from TAY, no interest or fair discussion has been directed at us by snowmobile riders or by their Organization. In fact, before snowmobile riders and Scotsman knew what WMC was about, when the discussion was not even started, opposition was presented.
Thanks for continuing the discussion, there is much discussion yet to come among stakeholders in these issues.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/02/10, 10:11 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3174
|
Are we now discussing writing to our elected officials with a poster who is not a US citizen, or do you actually vote?
Is this Arizona now? Do you want to see my papers???
This group wants an expansion of wilderness to specifically exclude other legal users so they can get their their powder turns in the area they want.
They constantly talk about being snowmobile riders as well but its clear they see snowmobiles as logging road tools only. They don't want to sit down with the snowmobile groups and try and negotiate a mutual user agreement similar to what has been done in other areas. To do so would be messy and at times uncomfortable but then democracy can be messy.
They want the USFS to unilaterally declare huge areas of land inaccessible to current legal users without study and in their favor based upon their concept of fairness and their inherent dislike of motorized recreation.
If they succeed, they won't stop there, they will want more and more.
When you try and reach some common ground with them.. it doesn't work.. they aren't really interested in any compromise.
As I have said , see this for what it is.... not a bunch of ski-tourers complaining about not getting enough untracked powder... but an attempt to fundamentally alter the current legal public land use ..forever.. and without study.
Their argument that parity in demographics shouldn't count because of increased area coverage by snowmobilers is philosophically flawed,
"My vote should be worth more than a snowmobiler's when divvying up the territory". Really ?
Write to your officials, legislators, senatorial candidates, the USFS and anybody who will listen and stop them in their tracks ( or in this case their lack of tracks)
http://murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactMe
http://www.dinorossi.com/
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/02/10, 10:55 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
|
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 0.303 seconds with 21 queries.
|
