|
|
|
|
|
|
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 30263 times)
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
too funny. Now I see what we're up against.
He adjusted his post...
"If we are willing to do that work to get to some back bowl that nobody else rides- why cant a snowmobiling skiier?"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JimH
Member
Offline
Posts: 253
|
What does a capable 'get me and a buddy to the base of a good bowl' snow machine cost these days?
Also, what does it cost to operate one give or take?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
WMC, you figures are incorrect for the amount of snowmobilers. The number is 98k for snowmobilers, as per the Washington SCORP estimates, which are utilized in the WWA pdf that was used in YOUR posts as having important numbers. Please stop using incorrect data in this discussion.
Actually the numbers from the WSORP are visits not actual users. There are roughly 35,000 registered snowmobiles in WA and that has remained constant for about 10 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Offline
Posts: 553
WWW
|
I can guarantee there are not 151,000 non-motorized winter forest users in WA, as mentioned by WMC.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
I can guarantee there are not 151,000 non-motorized winter forest users in WA, as mentioned by WMC.
That quote was provided here by someone else, and was justified by them. And it was discussed again.
Please tell us what is your point? Do you believe that there are more snowmobile riders using the general Forest in winter? Do you believe that WMC should not ask for winter non-motorized designation areas on the Forest to be used by skiers and snowshoers? Should everyone who wants quiet winter recreation come to the your Snoqualmie stash that you described, is it large enough for everyone?
Thanks for the discussion here everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
What does a capable 'get me and a buddy to the base of a good bowl' snow machine cost these days?
Also, what does it cost to operate one give or take?
You can pick up a good late 90's early 2000 for around $2k-$4k that will get up off the road closer to the slopes....cost is registration each year then gas. Usually run premium($3.50ish/gal) and tanks are around 10gal with maybe a 1/4 used for out and back trail/play ride for some good bowl ski runs. Maintenance is maybe a $200/yr if you replace a belt with new plugs etc. Oil for the 2 strokes are $25/gal and I usually get 3 tanks of gas to a gallon of oil. Trailers can be had cheap, I've seen sleds simply in the back of a truck......or you can spend more if you like..;>)
The biggest challenge I think would be getting up some goat trail/boondocking with 2 people on board. but it gets done by lots of boarders skiers. There's a pretty good crew on snowest that get out boarding and skiing from sleds doing filming and such.
Puyallup snow show at the end of October is the place to shop them. It's also the place to get the message out about shared use.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
I can guarantee there are not 151,000 non-motorized winter forest users in WA, as mentioned by WMC.
no doubt.....and certainly not that many folks using the further reaches of the forest, let alone wilderness......
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
I can guarantee there are not 151,000 non-motorized winter forest users in WA, as mentioned by WMC.
The 151,000 skiers and snowshoers and 98,000 snowmobilers are visits annually not actual user numbers. It would stand to reason that given the numbers for visits that there would be more non-motorized users than motorized, Maybe somewhere around 60,000 non motorized users vs. around 35,000 snowmobilers?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
no doubt.....and certainly not that many folks using the further reaches of the forest, let alone wilderness......
It is a safe bet that more snowmobile riders for many years are using the Wilderness of the Ingalls Creek and Jack Creek drainages than other users.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
It is a safe bet that more snowmobile riders for many years are using the Wilderness of the Ingalls Creek and Jack Creek drainages than other users.
And they should have the crap fined out of them!! I'd donate to help pay for patrols on wilderness encroachment....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
The 151,000 skiers and snowshoers and 98,000 snowmobilers are visits annually not actual user numbers. It would stand to reason that given the numbers for visits that there would be more non-motorized users than motorized, Maybe somewhere around 60,000 non motorized users vs. around 35,000 snowmobilers?
That is incorrect, and you aren't even using the right numbers. It is 113k skiers and 98k snowmobilers. These are stated as an estimation of users. This isn't visits or anything else. Please review your sources of information.
http://www.winterwildlands.org/resources/reports/WWA_WA.pdf
Again, this has been discussed previously. Please use correct statistics and avoid random guesses.
That quote was provided here by someone else, and was justified by them. And it was discussed again.
WMC, the committee needs to be using correct figures and also take responsibility for the sources of those figures if it is going to use them for its purpose. Using random numbers (and incorrect in this case) and passing the responsibility to other people is not responsible.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/03/10, 11:05 PM by ruffryder »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
It is a safe bet that more snowmobile riders for many years are using the Wilderness of the Ingalls Creek and Jack Creek drainages than other users.
So that means that for the small group of snowmobilers that trespass into wilderness, there is even a smaller group of people that backcountry ski in the wilderness?
Obviously you were trying to imply that there is a massive amount of snowmobilers riding in the Wilderness with your statement.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/03/10, 11:26 PM by ruffryder »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
That is incorrect, and you aren't even using the right numbers. It is 113k skiers and 98k snowmobilers. These are stated as an estimation of users. This isn't visits or anything else. Please review your sources of information. http://www.winterwildlands.org/resources/reports/WWA_WA.pdfAgain, this has been discussed previously. Please use correct statistics and avoid random guesses. WMC, the committee needs to be using correct figures and also take responsibility for the sources of those figures if it is going to use them for its purpose. Using random numbers (and incorrect in this case) and passing the responsibility to other people is not responsible. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
I'm sorry, you are correct. I didn't get those numbers from WWA when I originally posted, I got them from the WSWRR(2008) and remembered incorrectly. There are an estimated 113k skiers and 98k snowmobilers, but don't forget the snowshoers(38k) that make up the 151k non-motorized users. I find it curious that there are an estimated 98k snowmobilers but only 35k registered sleds, doesn't a sled have to be registered to operate on public land?
Who knows where they pull the info from, could be out of state visitors as well. I once heard a statistics student say that "figures lie and liars figure"....most can usually be manipulated to make a point.
I think we would all be complaining of our stash being taken if there were 200k+ visitors to that area.
I think it would be interesting to get actual numbers for the areas we are talking about. Using statewide numbers does no good for the discussion at hand, unless the greater goal is to close all or more areas.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/04/10, 08:10 AM by yammadog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JimH
Member
Offline
Posts: 253
|
Some background on the usage figures, since they keep coming up (fair warning - this is clearly a dry post with low entertainment value).
There are really 3 data sources being kicked around:
1) USFS based National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) figures,
2.) WA State snowmobile registration figures, and
3.) data from The Assessment of Outdoor Recreation, 2002 - the ones from the WA Parks Winter Recreation Strategic Plan.
USFS Data - The Forest Service/NVUM figures provide the most local detail on the Wenatchee NF. But they're also the most suspect. They ought to be used with a big grain of salt for a couple reasons:
- The most recent NVUM survey for the Wenatchee NF covered the 2004-2005 winter. Remember that season? Barely any snow. Visitation was much lower than average. That creates a number of biases and makes the data more erratic, especially with smaller usage groups and sample sizes. Show up on the right day/place and you can probably double participation estimates for a small group, or visa-versa.
- On that point, the survey had just 52 responses for both groups across the entire Wenatchee NF. That sounds like just a few days of of sampling for each activity/location selected as a survey point. Its not a bad effort per se, but there should be some questions about how representative the results are and how far they can be pushed.
Here's the link to the NVUM home page, with access to the report. Interesting stuff at a national level. Locally, its tougher to use: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/
Snowmobile Registration Data - this is probably the most reliable figure in the whole discussion. Bit its really about ownership and not participation. It probably captures 'core users' pretty well but not all participants. Overall, it probably does track snowmobile ownership pretty reliably, and that's a good barometer of the growth of the sport at a state-wide level, even if it doesn't capture total particpation at all levels. At least you have a firm grip on snowmobile ownership. Leave it up to the state tax collectors to have the best data  .
WA Parks/WA Recreation Survey Data - Participation figures being used in the 2008 Winter Recreation Strategic Plan, developed by WA State Parks and cited here a lot, are actually from a 2002 state wide inter-agency Recreation Survey. A link to that underlying report is below. The results from that report are ultimately based on about 600 participants, balanced for age and for geography (east or west of the cascades mainly...), who agreed to track their recreational activity in a diary from 1999-2000. The results, while not bomb proof, especially for smaller activities, are pretty decent at a state wide level.
http://www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/other_pubs.shtml#rec_trends
Here again are the figures from that report that we might care about. There are some biases in this data to be sure, it might over or under report some groups based on the sampling plan. Plus, the data is aging and we know these sports are growing (part of why we're starting to see friction). But the report gives a feel for participation at an overall level and it was pretty broad-based, which helps to minimize question bias from any of the sponsors (this thing is used by everyone - State Parks, Fisheries, FERC re-licensing of hydro dams....its the omnibus recreation report for WA...):
Skiing (at a resort) 262,321
Sledding/Tubing/Snowplay 291,685
XC Skiing 112,942
Snowboarding (at a resort) 97,029
Snowmobiling 98,072
Snowboarding (not at an area...) 44,297
Snowshoeing 37,778
BTW, snowboarding at 'undeveloped' sites seemed like it was relevant. Of course, it could be split boarders, folks riding into the BC on a sled to snowboard, or even people building kickers near Chinook Pass (probably without a permit...). So maybe the numbers are split between the 'moto' and 'non-moto' groups, but who knows. The survey may not have been designed with those kinds of distinctions in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
JimH,
thanks for the details and information!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
It is clear that there are significant numbers of current users both using and not using motorized travel in the area during winter. I don't think precise numbers are very important.
I believe that designation of additional winter non-motorized zones outside of designated wilderness will occur. Management of summer motorized use has certainly changed in the past decade (as pointed out above); I predict that winter motorized use will follow a similar path. Excluding motorized use in certain times and places is a reasonable (and legal) management policy. The specifics of future management strategy may well be taken from proposals of non-motorized users advocating as WMC is in this thread.
I am urging motorized users to come to the table in a serious way. Let's talk about what you don't want to lose. I understand you would like maximum access (who wouldn't?). I would like to see the USFS implement coherent policies that offer good treatment of all groups. I have no hope that this will happen. Working with other user groups, I think, is your best chance for the best outcome. You may not agree. I don't think blanket opposition to some form of management will be productive in the long run.
As I stated (far) above, I think the establishment of designated winter motorized zones is the best solution. Let's start by giving sledders a dominant share of roaded areas and the unroaded areas that offer the most to sledders relative to skiers and all other management considerations. I have no idea which areas these are (they may be the very areas of the WMC proposal!), b/c I don't know anything about snowmobiling. I am not willing to stop advocating for increased non-motorized management. I am willing to work hard to make sure that management does not detract needlessly from others' responsible use of the shared resource.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express my dismay at the divisiveness of the discourse regarding public land management. It seems to me that all of the user groups (skiers, climbers, sledders, ...) have taken up selfish rhetoric and put their own use above their responsibility to care for public lands. I will treasure our public land despite its mismanagement. I would urge everybody to try to think of the 'bigger picture' when interacting with other users.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
It is clear that there are significant numbers of current users both using and not using motorized travel in the area during winter. I don't think precise numbers are very important.
I believe that designation of additional winter non-motorized zones outside of designated wilderness will occur. Management of summer motorized use has certainly changed in the past decade (as pointed out above); I predict that winter motorized use will follow a similar path. Excluding motorized use in certain times and places is a reasonable (and legal) management policy. The specifics of future management strategy may well be taken from proposals of non-motorized users advocating as WMC is in this thread.
I am urging motorized users to come to the table in a serious way. Let's talk about what you don't want to lose. I understand you would like maximum access (who wouldn't?). I would like to see the USFS implement coherent policies that offer good treatment of all groups. I have no hope that this will happen. Working with other user groups, I think, is your best chance for the best outcome. You may not agree. I don't think blanket opposition to some form of management will be productive in the long run.
As I stated (far) above, I think the establishment of designated winter motorized zones is the best solution. Let's start by giving sledders a dominant share of roaded areas and the unroaded areas that offer the most to sledders relative to skiers and all other management considerations. I have no idea which areas these are (they may be the very areas of the WMC proposal!), b/c I don't know anything about snowmobiling. I am not willing to stop advocating for increased non-motorized management. I am willing to work hard to make sure that management does not detract needlessly from others' responsible use of the shared resource.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express my dismay at the divisiveness of the discourse regarding public land management. It seems to me that all of the user groups (skiers, climbers, sledders, ...) have taken up selfish rhetoric and put their own use above their responsibility to care for public lands. I will treasure our public land despite its mismanagement. I would urge everybody to try to think of the 'bigger picture' when interacting with other users.
Thanks again Micah!
WMC has started a thread on Snowest Forum entitled "Asking for riders' input about winter non-motorized areas"
http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2301878&posted=1#post2301878
Registration is required on Snowest, and EVERYONE posting there must be civil and respect others! No attacks on snowmobile riders! Snowmobile riding is a legitimate use of the Forest as is skiing or snowshoeing, everyone please keep that in mind.
One recent comment there by WMC "If there is common ground to be found between our user groups, we hope to identify it, that is why we are here."
Other meetings are in the works or scheduled between WMC and stakeholders such as elected officials and snowmobile folks.
This thread is on NW Hikers-
http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=614229#614229
This article allows approved comments, there are some from opposing views-
http://www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/18996
Thanks everyone for the meaningful discussion!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/04/10, 10:27 AM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
It is clear that there are significant numbers of current users both using and not using motorized travel in the area during winter. I don't think precise numbers are very important.
I believe that designation of additional winter non-motorized zones outside of designated wilderness will occur. Management of summer motorized use has certainly changed in the past decade (as pointed out above); I predict that winter motorized use will follow a similar path. Excluding motorized use in certain times and places is a reasonable (and legal) management policy. The specifics of future management strategy may well be taken from proposals of non-motorized users advocating as WMC is in this thread.
I am urging motorized users to come to the table in a serious way. Let's talk about what you don't want to lose. I understand you would like maximum access (who wouldn't?). I would like to see the USFS implement coherent policies that offer good treatment of all groups. I have no hope that this will happen. Working with other user groups, I think, is your best chance for the best outcome. You may not agree. I don't think blanket opposition to some form of management will be productive in the long run.
As I stated (far) above, I think the establishment of designated winter motorized zones is the best solution. Let's start by giving sledders a dominant share of roaded areas and the unroaded areas that offer the most to sledders relative to skiers and all other management considerations. I have no idea which areas these are (they may be the very areas of the WMC proposal!), b/c I don't know anything about snowmobiling. I am not willing to stop advocating for increased non-motorized management. I am willing to work hard to make sure that management does not detract needlessly from others' responsible use of the shared resource.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express my dismay at the divisiveness of the discourse regarding public land management. It seems to me that all of the user groups (skiers, climbers, sledders, ...) have taken up selfish rhetoric and put their own use above their responsibility to care for public lands. I will treasure our public land despite its mismanagement. I would urge everybody to try to think of the 'bigger picture' when interacting with other users.
It's easy to say and agree in general your comments of taking care of the land when you are looking at losing nothing and only gaining. You are also making the assumption that we are not stewards of public land in our chosen recreational activities. And at the same time overlooking the wilderness as part of the solution or identifying it as EXISTING non-motorized that fits into the larger puzzle.
The WMC proposal takes the best of the current area in the most populus riding area of the state. More population in the state access this corridor between snoqualmie to blewitt and around to the wenatchee/US2 terrain than any other.
As was stated by another participant in this discussion, the elimination of logging in existing riding areas in the stampede area will drive us to look for other open areas, and guess what, one of the next closest is the area in this discussion. So this is worth the battle.
I do agree that a pow wow will need to happen, but not with the likes of a proposal that WMC is offering and without any give in the stance, it only makes the opposition more inclined to stand firm. And as WMC is proposing, put out the position of each side and let the FS decide will surely create even more conflict much bigger than our simple discussions. After all, we're only a few of the people involved in this so far, I would say Ruffy and I are the moderate part of our group, although we are active on the 4m's and with SAWS and other clubs we are not the majority.
There is nothing stopping your group from going after more land if this were to move forward and in the discussions this is the suggestion by WMC. If you want to have good faith conversation, offer something other than simply keeping us on the roads, only because you want to also use them for your sport and also offer areas that have similar terrain to the proposed closure and agree that the wilderness is part of the overall non-motorized land when talking about parity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
And they should have the crap fined out of them!! I'd donate to help pay for patrols on wilderness encroachment....
Unfortunately the fine is not that significant. Enforcement of this unenforceable open Wilderness Boundary on the Teanaway-Ingalls divide would never be cost-effective. The problem of snowmobile Wilderness trespass is decades old, we see a setback and Road Boundary that allows few access opportunities for snowmobile Wilderness trespass as a possible solution, aside from our primary purpose of securing areas for non-motorized winter recreation.
As far as how much Wilderness trespass- we see it EVERY time that we are on Earl Peak, Navaho Peak. Others including our USFS acquaintances locally observe widespread snowmobile use deep in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness when they take their personal mountain trips. We do not have numbers, numbers just give chance for more argument, but we see clearly that the problem is significant!
It is great that snowmobile enthusiasts want to control snowmobile Wilderness trespass. We all know that it is a serious issue that will harm access for snowmobile riding, perhaps to shocking extent. As a comparison, at one time there was a lot of logging on the Forest that supported families in many small communities. Unresolved issues about how logging was done contributed ultimately to near-shutdown of logging on the Forest in some areas and immediate elimination of entire economies of these small communities. This happened quickly. In comparison, this discussion, these issues are in regard to Recreation, which may be managed by USFS much more easily than the larger example above. WMC is asking for reasonable management by USFS for the various recreational uses. WMC believes that the winter non-motorized designation for recreation of the areas to the south of the Teanaway divide Wilderness Boundary will also provide a buffer and and an enforceable border.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
You are also making the assumption that we are not stewards of public land in our chosen recreational activities.
I am merely asserting that our 'right' to use public land is subject to consideration of communal interests. I intended the statement to apply at least as much to the non-motorized users as to sledders.
And at the same time overlooking the wilderness as part of the solution or identifying it as EXISTING non-motorized that fits into the larger puzzle.
I completely agree that the considerable designated wilderness is available for non-motorized use and not for motorized use. I am with you here. I will not argue that there is no (or no practically accesible) ski terrain. I think WA offers lots of possibilities for skiing.
The WMC proposal takes the best of the current area in the most populus riding area of the state. More population in the state access this corridor between snoqualmie to blewitt and around to the wenatchee/US2 terrain than any other.
As was stated by another participant in this discussion, the elimination of logging in existing riding areas in the stampede area will drive us to look for other open areas, and guess what, one of the next closest is the area in this discussion. So this is worth the battle.
This is exactly the kind of information I am looking for. I am willing to enter into coalitions preserving snowmobile access to prime terrain given that I feel an appropriate, balanced management of off-road riding is also included. I do not know how feasible such a compromise is, but I would at least like to give it a try.
I do agree that a pow wow will need to happen, but not with the likes of a proposal that WMC is offering and without any give in the stance, it only makes the opposition more inclined to stand firm. And as WMC is proposing, put out the position of each side and let the FS decide will surely create even more conflict much bigger than our simple discussions. After all, we're only a few of the people involved in this so far, I would say Ruffy and I are the moderate part of our group, although we are active on the 4m's and with SAWS and other clubs we are not the majority.
I appreciate your and Ruffy's participation here and the reasonable manner in which you have entered the discussion. I, too, would like to present a unified opinion to the FS. I agree that simply having each side plead their case will result in bad management. This is the default and most probable outcome. What kind of give would you like to see from WMC? Do you concede that it is difficult to watch a new group displace previous users?
There is nothing stopping your group from going after more land if this were to move forward and in the discussions this is the suggestion by WMC. If you want to have good faith conversation, offer something other than simply keeping us on the roads, only because you want to also use them for your sport and also offer areas that have similar terrain to the proposed closure and agree that the wilderness is part of the overall non-motorized land when talking about parity.
I want to see all public land managed well. I am not affiliated with any group and esp. not with this proposal. I am consistently suggesting you be offered more than logging roads -- I understand (and deem legitimate) your desire for off-road sledding. I take offense at the suggestion that my motivations are selfish. I DO concede that wilderness is non-motorized (this is a simple fact). Do you concede that snowmobiling is more effective at destroying backcountry ambiance than pedestrian traffic or that the general public has an interest in way in which THEIR land is used and managed?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
There is nothing stopping your group from going after more land if this were to move forward and in the discussions this is the suggestion by WMC.
Well, there is nothing stopping motorized groups from 'going after' land on which motorized travel is restricted. One of the points of establishing designated winter motorized areas would be to give (motorized) access protected by the inertia of the managing agencies. Another advantage of establishing motorized areas would be to dispel the perception by competing user groups that snowmobiles are unfairly allowed many places because the management plans have not changed as fast as snowmobile capability.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Well, there is nothing stopping motorized groups from 'going after' land on which motorized travel is restricted. One of the points of establishing designated winter motorized areas would be to give (motorized) access protected by the inertia of the managing agencies. Another advantage of establishing motorized areas would be to dispel the perception by competing user groups that snowmobiles are unfairly allowed many places because the management plans have not changed as fast as snowmobile capability.
Yet, there is already an established, at a minimum, 40%+ non-motorized area that we have (needs enforced) have penalty for entering. So we are already stopped.... What penalty do you enforce for skiing/hiking in the proposed "motorized" areas? And from your perspective where would that location be?
Again, it seems that non-motorized areas were reviewed in the late 90's which would have in it's consideration the modern capability of sleds, I think what has changed is the ability of the riders. Much like ski and snow board recreationalist taking much more difficult lines in the most recent years.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/04/10, 04:01 PM by yammadog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
...
I want to see all public land managed well. I am not affiliated with any group and esp. not with this proposal. I am consistently suggesting you be offered more than logging roads -- I understand (and deem legitimate) your desire for off-road sledding. I take offense at the suggestion that my motivations are selfish. I DO concede that wilderness is non-motorized (this is a simple fact). Do you concede that snowmobiling is more effective at destroying backcountry ambiance than pedestrian traffic or that the general public has an interest in way in which THEIR land is used and managed?
WMC has stated from the start that we advocate for designated winter non-motorized areas. WMC has stated consistently from the start that outside of designated non-motorized areas (including our proposed new ones, yes) we do not seek to otherwise regulate of eliminate on or off-Road snowmobiling. Any other characterizations of the WMC position are not correct.
WMC has solid plans to meet with individuals prominent within the snowmobile community. WSSA has sent a letter in opposition to something, a letter that does not discuss the details of the WMC proposal, and WSSA complained that WMC did not contact the snowmobile users. In fact, WMC has been here from the start discussing this in a very public fashion, snowmobile riders were aware and participating from the start with counter-threads posted on snowmobile forums immediately. WMC will point out that WSSA and other snowmobile riders opposed WMC before understanding or considering the proposal or the issues, and WSSA has not made contact with WMC in any fashion even not on this very public Forum discussion. The WMC proposal is entirely in regard to USFS management of areas bordering and outside of Wilderness.
In the scheduled meeting to come, WMC will approach the seemingly impossible task of finding some common ground that could lead to a consensus with snowmobile proponents to present to USFS. In two years, as far as WMC is aware from USFS sources, the USFS across the country may move toward managing snowmobiles in a fashion similar to how motorcycles are now managed. Perhaps what is coming, and per the original Executive Order stating that USFS allow ORVs to be ridden only where Designated, management similarly of snowmobiles will be specific in regard to where on the Forest snowmobiles may be ridden.
Now IS the time for winter Forest users to discuss these issues, to consider, understand, and respect the needs of other users. WMC agrees that if the impossible is achieved, if snowmobile proponents and winter non-motorized use users can understand the other, and map out areas in compromise over the Forest, not all of the General Forest for one use, then we will all have a better future on the Forest. WMC believes that we will be meeting with a person prominent in the snowmobile community who will advocate for snowmobile riding but also will consider the issues, the other users, the resources, the need for USFS Management to allocate for each use in winter. Progress can be made only in good-faith discussion where individuals respect the needs of the other users and discuss and debate in a civil manner.
Thanks everyone for the discussion here.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/04/10, 04:27 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
WMC has solid plans to meet with individuals prominent within the snowmobile community. WSSA has sent a letter in opposition to something, a letter that does not discuss the details of the WMC proposal, and WSSA complained that WMC did not contact the snowmobile users. In fact, WMC has been here from the start discussing this in a very public fashion, snowmobile riders were aware and participating from the start with counter-threads posted on snowmobile forums immediately. WMC will point out that WSSA and other snowmobile riders opposed WMC before understanding or considering the proposal or the issues, and WSSA has not made contact with WMC in any fashion even not on this very public Forum discussion. The WMC proposal is entirely in regard to USFS management of areas bordering and outside of Wilderness.
It is combative comments like these that hurt your stance. Details of the WMC proposal? Where is your map with the details? Once you put together a professional proposal (something more then random thoughts on a forum) then maybe you would get a response from professional organizations.
WSSA has not made contact with WMC? Have you made contact with WSSA? You have only been around for what, a month? Your profile shows only a little more then a month, and you demand that other groups fly to this ANONYMOUS COMMITTEE to discuss your needs? As of two weeks ago, no one even knew about the WMC, and yet they are at fault for the lack of communication?
I find it interesting that the WMC committee demands that everyone come to them for discussion, when it seems that WMC has not gone out of its way to discuss this issue with snowmobile clubs, both local and state. IMO, internet discussions are good and healthy, but this is not the correct means for discussing proposed policy with various groups. That involves discussion at real places with real people.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
