|
|
|
|
|
|
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 29539 times)
|
hurleyboarder21
5Member
Offline
Posts: 10
|
if you want to trade analogies i believe my point of view has a limitless number!!
from mr rational micah
So if someone showed up at your fishing hole and installed a bunch of nets and started using dynamite to harvest fish you would just shrug your shoulders and say, 'oh well, it was good while it lasted.' and move on?
if it was legal.....as that is what happens with more population..more people getting out...hittin favorite spots. then that is just the way it goes. stop whining. it happens to us REGULAR folks everyday.
i just have to move on... kinda like gettin up at 4 am, hittin the road, workin my ass off to get to a favorite pow area ..only to see it ripped up by someone else that got there first. it sucks but it is the way it goes and i move on.
all you skiers know that it is getting harder and harder to always have first tracks.....same for us snowmobilers
especially when we have a continuosly smaller and smaller are to ride with more riders in this smaller area.
thanks
hurley
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
So if the proposal as it sits and won't be discussed for change is submitted, what position does that put the less staunch of your group? do you generate a new proposal or support the only one offered? Or not support it? Is the WMC getting to speak for all of you?
Those are excellent questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
.....same for us snowmobilers
especially when we have a continuosly smaller and smaller are to ride with more riders in this smaller area.
thanks
hurley
It's already been established that there have been no major closures to snowmobiles since the early 1980s and that snowmobile use has remained constant for at least a decade, this according to the number of registered snowmobiles. I think with the upcoming forest plan revision we will see the legality of off route snowmobile travel in most areas outside wilderness questioned regardless of WMC's proposal. I think you will see areas closed to motorized use in winter that are currently used by snowmobiles and with input from non-motorized and motorized users areas identified as suitable for motorized off route travel. This is my opinion of what will happen given the current user conflicts and past history of FS policy on off trail/route motorized use. WMC's efforts are really an avenue to get people thinking about how they want the forest to be used for recreation in winter, if it gets people fired up on both sides I think that's a good thing and will help when the FS ask for public input during the upcoming Forest Plan Revision.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
Quote from: yammadog on Yesterday at 12:19:41 PM
So if the proposal as it sits and won't be discussed for change is submitted, what position does that put the less staunch of your group? do you generate a new proposal or support the only one offered? Or not support it? Is the WMC getting to speak for all of you?
Those are excellent questions.
I imagine that the Supervisor will take the proposal under consideration and with information and input that she currently has access to will make a decision about non-motorized use for the upcoming winter or she could ignore it. While I support the efforts of WMC, the Supervisor will make the decision ultimately with consideration of all winter forest users. I really don't see why sledders are so upset about a group of citizens using a valid method to reach a goal for their use of public lands, isn't this what WSSA and other motorized lobbying groups do all the time?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Quote from: yammadog on Yesterday at 12:19:41 PM
So if the proposal as it sits and won't be discussed for change is submitted, what position does that put the less staunch of your group? do you generate a new proposal or support the only one offered? Or not support it? Is the WMC getting to speak for all of you?
Those are excellent questions.
I imagine that the Supervisor will take the proposal under consideration and with information and input that she currently has access to will make a decision about non-motorized use for the upcoming winter or she could ignore it. While I support the efforts of WMC, the Supervisor will make the decision ultimately with consideration of all winter forest users. I really don't see why sledders are so upset about a group of citizens using a valid method to reach a goal for their use of public lands, isn't this what WSSA and other motorized lobbying groups do all the time?
Not upset at the process what so ever, it's the exclusionary attitude. The selfish, elitist midset of wiping out one of the most popular and prime alpine riding areas available to a large user group. It's the frustrastion of not also being recognized or looked down upon for our choice of recreation. It's the willingness to ignore the fact of already having half of the forest designated non-motorized. It's the idea that fewer people will enjoy the off roaded areas of the forest, for a handful of special interest users.
I say write away, I knew that WMC had no intentions of having a good discussion only looing for justification of his view. That's fine, my goal was to make a connection with the less extreme of the user group. One of my favorite things to do is sit back with a cold one watching some crazed boarder or skier take a line that is way beyond my skill.
Exposing my kids to the back country for the appreciation of the space as they grow will be eliminated and they can take the attitude of many city folk...cut it all down..it grows back...which we as current BC users know is not the way it works.
By not recognizing the EXISTING non-motorized areas as part of the solution and simply excluding a large user group from this area you will just create more people that will thumb their nose at the FS and skiers etc and continue riding, after all what are you going to really do about it? They can't enforce what they have, let alone adding more. And the general sentiment of the population is that of rebellion...and this land use issue is just one topic in that larger sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Not upset at the process what so ever, it's the exclusionary attitude. The selfish, elitist midset of wiping out one of the most popular and prime alpine riding areas available to a large user group. It's the frustrastion of not also being recognized or looked down upon for our choice of recreation. It's the willingness to ignore the fact of already having half of the forest designated non-motorized. It's the idea that fewer people will enjoy the off roaded areas of the forest, for a handful of special interest users.
I say write away, I knew that WMC had no intentions of having a good discussion only looing for justification of his view. That's fine, my goal was to make a connection with the less extreme of the user group. One of my favorite things to do is sit back with a cold one watching some crazed boarder or skier take a line that is way beyond my skill.
Exposing my kids to the back country for the appreciation of the space as they grow will be eliminated and they can take the attitude of many city folk...cut it all down..it grows back...which we as current BC users know is not the way it works.
By not recognizing the EXISTING non-motorized areas as part of the solution and simply excluding a large user group from this area you will just create more people that will thumb their nose at the FS and skiers etc and continue riding, after all what are you going to really do about it? They can't enforce what they have, let alone adding more. And the general sentiment of the population is that of rebellion...and this land use issue is just one topic in that larger sense.
WMC is not encouraged to continue a discussion that throws name-calling, disparages our intention which we state clearly, and see mainly responses that have few tangible concepts but plenty of disrespect. WMC would engage in respectful good-faith conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
Not upset at the process what so ever, it's the exclusionary attitude. The selfish, elitist midset of wiping out one of the most popular and prime alpine riding areas available to a large user group. It's the frustrastion of not also being recognized or looked down upon for our choice of recreation. It's the willingness to ignore the fact of already having half of the forest designated non-motorized. It's the idea that fewer people will enjoy the off roaded areas of the forest, for a handful of special interest users.
I say write away, I knew that WMC had no intentions of having a good discussion only looing for justification of his view. That's fine, my goal was to make a connection with the less extreme of the user group. One of my favorite things to do is sit back with a cold one watching some crazed boarder or skier take a line that is way beyond my skill.
Exposing my kids to the back country for the appreciation of the space as they grow will be eliminated and they can take the attitude of many city folk...cut it all down..it grows back...which we as current BC users know is not the way it works.
By not recognizing the EXISTING non-motorized areas as part of the solution and simply excluding a large user group from this area you will just create more people that will thumb their nose at the FS and skiers etc and continue riding, after all what are you going to really do about it? They can't enforce what they have, let alone adding more. And the general sentiment of the population is that of rebellion...and this land use issue is just one topic in that larger sense.
So you can't see at all how snowmobiles are creating exclusions for non-motorized users? It's not just about fresh snow, but quiet and solitude. Snowmobiles are quite noisy even in the adjacent drainage and having them buzz around you is unnerving. Why do you care if your chosen method of travel in the forest isn't recognized as valid and "looked down upon"? Almost no one has access to the more remote Wilderness in winter and I don't care, it would be nice to get out there but I'm happy it's there, I don't feel cheated because I can't use it. I don't think city folk are the ones who say "cut it all down" they are more likely to be preservation minded than rural folks who depended on the forest in part for their livelihood. I think the majority of the population would favor restricting snow mobiles to designated routes and that is the most likely path if they can't police themselves. The most logical policy is to adopt the current non-snow month's OHV travel plan if snowmobilers won't stop violating Wilderness and current non-motorized closures. Enforcement would be easy, just wait at the trailhead and ticket. The reality is that motorized recreation bothers a lot of people, I haven't heard much real complaint about hikers, snowshoers, xc skiers or bc skiers, their impact on others is insignificant. I would say it's the sledders who are being selfish and elite by refusing to recognize that their recreation actually impacts others.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
...you will just create more people that will thumb their nose at the FS and skiers etc and continue riding, after all what are you going to really do about it? They can't enforce what they have, let alone adding more. And the general sentiment of the population is that of rebellion...and this land use issue is just one topic in that larger sense.
!! Interesting!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
!! Interesting!!
Guess you got the quote you were looking for WMC...have fun.....Land use is just one area of discontent with the general gov't and special interest groups.
how about answering my questions?
Aaron, I'm not in disagreement with the idea of the solitude that can be enjoyed in the BC. And yes I will say that people that do not visit the BC don't understand the impacts. I had that mentality until I moved here from the midwest and got out there to see the clear cutting for my self. Non-motorized users already have over half the forest that is designated non-motorized with legal penalty, not to mention the rest of it that needs to be somehow shared, yet the WMC proposal is looking to eliminate those few remaining areas that are in high desirable demand. So, how are skiers impacting the recreation of a large user group? Exclusion.
Aaron, how about you offer your opinion of where you see off road snowmobiling with similar terrain as the proposed closure. Since WMC won't answer....and please use the same considerations as you look for your skiing...access/time. you don't want to drive 8 hours round trip for a day neither do I.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/10/10, 10:30 AM by yammadog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
Guess you got the quote you were looking for WMC...have fun.....Land use is just one area of discontent with the general gov't and special interest groups.
how about answering my questions?
Aaron, I'm not in disagreement with the idea of the solitude that can be enjoyed in the BC. And yes I will say that people that do not visit the BC don't understand the impacts. I had that mentality until I moved here from the midwest and got out there to see the clear cutting for my self. Non-motorized users already have over half the forest that is designated non-motorized with legal penalty, not to mention the rest of it that needs to be somehow shared, yet the WMC proposal is looking to eliminate those few remaining areas that are in high desirable demand. So, how are skiers impacting the recreation of a large user group? Exclusion.
Aaron, how about you offer your opinion of where you see off road snowmobiling with similar terrain as the proposed closure. Since WMC won't answer....and please use the same considerations as you look for your skiing...access/time. you don't want to drive 8 hours round trip for a day neither do I.
It's interesting that the percentage of the forest you claim to be non-motorized continues to grow with each posting, first it's more than 40%, then it's almost half, then it's half and now it's more than half. I'm sorry you're prohibited from using your snowmobile in the wilderness, that was decided a half century ago. I made it clear in earlier posts, I think snowmobiles should be restricted to designated routes, just like other OHV users. I've never had a problem with snowmobiles on groomed or ungroomed roads, that's where I expect them to be. I don't consider myself elitist any more than you do, everyone has different opinions and ideas on how OUR public lands should be used. I understand where you are coming from with your desire to use snowmobiles in alpine terrain, I just don't agree with it. This is what makes America great, I can have that opinion even though you would try to silence it with pleas about elitism and discrimination, it's a two way street, take a look in the mirror, pot/kettle whichever colloquialism you prefer. In the end it's not up to you or I to decide, only to give input, either by voting or public comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
It's interesting that the percentage of the forest you claim to be non-motorized continues to grow with each posting, first it's more than 40%, then it's almost half, then it's half and now it's more than half. I'm sorry you're prohibited from using your snowmobile in the wilderness, that was decided a half century ago. I made it clear in earlier posts, I think snowmobiles should be restricted to designated routes, just like other OHV users. I've never had a problem with snowmobiles on groomed or ungroomed roads, that's where I expect them to be. I don't consider myself elitist any more than you do, everyone has different opinions and ideas on how OUR public lands should be used. I understand where you are coming from with your desire to use snowmobiles in alpine terrain, I just don't agree with it. This is what makes America great, I can have that opinion even though you would try to silence it with pleas about elitism and discrimination, it's a two way street, take a look in the mirror, pot/kettle whichever colloquialism you prefer. In the end it's not up to you or I to decide, only to give input, either by voting or public comment.
Excuse me for the generalization of the overall territory. 40% has been agreed to as wilderness in earlier posts, additional land is designated non-motorized with more having other restrictive designations, so my halfing description seemed to fit.
I'll agree that to each their own as for the acceptable use comment. Yet would you agree that each has a place and that effectively you have your half(generalized again) with wilderness etc and sledders have their half, yet you also have our half? When the comment, and I'm not disagreeable with it, that the 2 uses are incompatible is put out there, what protections do the other half "deserve" as WMC is illuding to? Is the wilderness not that protected terrain?
the developemnt of all our technologies was from the use in extreme situations, 4x4 vehicles, dirt bikes, skins, snowboards etc....where does this extreme performance happen if it's off limits to anyone that may want to go that route? You are not offering to limit your access or availablity to use your equipment to it's fullest ability. I posted earlier the OHV area know as Reiter Pit and the elimnation of half that area. this is the common theme amongst non-motorized advocates. It's one of the few remaining areas on the west side after the other areas have been systematically eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
In the end it's not up to you or I to decide, only to give input, either by voting or public comment.
tyranny of the majority based on an ill perceived notion of conflict? Saving the forests from evil snowmobilers?
It has been stated many times from people on BOTH sides that there is little conflict compared to what the WMC preaches about. Yet this seems to be inconsequential to the theoretical arguments about the different user groups. Many people don't see this as an issue. Many people don't see other users as the opposition. Many people learn how to get along with each other.
Not here, not now, not by these people, it seems.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
First let me preface this in that I am also a backcountry snowboarder... I use a splitboard w/skins, snowshoes or a snowmobile for BC access... and ride all over the Pacific NW, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, WYO, MT and British Columbia. I travel with Ski Patrollers, touring groups and other AVID back country enthusiasts.
Also, I have been exposed to WMC ( Wenatchee Mountains Coalition ) in the past and they appear to be a level headed group of people that are passionate about their sport.
The WE part should include the sharing of the current open areas IMO... not excluding one group in preference of another.
As indicated above by WMC ... The massive Wilderness areas ARE available for Ski touring/snowboarding/snowshoeing to the exclusion of motorized vehicles.
Why should the current shared areas be further divided and exclude the snowmbiles?
WMC... What are the main reasons for you to NOT want to Share the current lands we BOTH enjoy and specify them to exclude snowmobiles?
I can see and respect as well as enjoy the need for "peace and quiet" in pursuing a BC ski experience outside of snowmobile co-mingling. That is currently available to us as skiers/snowboarders... we just have to work to get it... and I feel that that "work" is worth it... nothing is the same as a full day skin with packs on... Post-holeing for a good line and dropping some great steep pow lines... I get that. And that is currently available to us in the wilderness areas.
What is WMC's Official position on the the use of Backcountry snowmobiles? Does WMC actively promote awareness and education of the members in the value of Snowmobiles in the backcountry other than for SAR missions?
I would like to participate in an open discussion of the topic... In a non inflammatory way in both directions... It is good to have you here... Lets be as transparent in our motives as possible... both parties.
It would be nice, for a change to ditch the "Us vs. Them" that both groups here seem to be developing and cooperate so that we both can enjoy these wonderful areas TOGETHER!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
WMC.. you also state in your TAY post
today, however, skiers and snowshoers, are increasingly discovering that even if they travel far, they are likely to find themselves competing directly with snowmobiles on mountain slopes, ridges, and alpine bowls, as well as on roads, in meadows, and in forests.
What do you find them "competing" for ... a pristine line down the center of a slope?
Please elaborate.
I've also read your position on compatibility
but because motorized and non-motorized uses are incompatible on the same terrain
Being a Backcountry snowboarder who also travels with Teli and Touring skiers... I do not understand this "incompatibly and competition" position you have presented.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/10/10, 11:58 AM by mountainhorse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
WMC... you also have to entertain this idea if you are going to have a more complete picture of backcountry use:
In the past, Backcountry access to skiers was pretty limited untill the modern Teli, Rondi and Touring skis have come to the fore. Before that, there were very limited numbers of Skiers in the "Pristine backcountry" as well.
Ski touring Technology has advanced, prices have dropped on the gear and it is readily available at most sporting outlets (eg REI, Sportsbarn, Mountain Gear etc). Also instruction clinics for BC ski access and BC ski/snowboard clubs have been growing in numbers as well as numerous BC Touring books and maps for skiers. Sure, Franz Klahmer may have been ski touring in the late sixties... but he would have been pretty alone in the BC.
In the last 6-8 years, BC snowmobile equipment, education, availability and awareness have caught up with the initial wave of ski touring expansion in the backcountry.
I often see the reticence of the ski groups to share what they feel is their "staked claim" in public lands and the bad sentiments towards snowmobilers that they feel are "poaching or intruding" upon.
I have been on plenty of overnight touring outings where some of the others in the group did not know that I am also a snowmobiler... The attitude from many in the group (Not all) was a "We were here first" let them find their own places to ride!" was adamantly voiced.
It is more work to get to the Wilderness in SOME areas, not so hard in others.
I feel that both groups (I belong to both) of Snomobilers and Skiers/Snowboarders need to recognize the access rights of either one... and SHARE the lands that they both currently enjoy.
So that you might understand You have also proposed a closure to what is already a greatly shrinking snowmobile access-ability of snomobilers in the BC. There is a reason that snowmobilers feel that the Public Lands that they currently enjoy is under siege from groups that keep "inching thier way" into closing down more and more areas to our way of enjoying the backcountry beauty and expansiveness.
New Wilderness areas are being proposed that will exclude motorized access or as the new phraseology states..."mechanized access" which includes mountain bikes. There are also proposals to increase the size of or merge current wilderness areas like the ones in the maps shown above.
I see no language in the proposal that states that these lands will NOT, in the future, be incorporated into the Wilderness areas or further expanded upon... or that this is the ONLY area in the region that will be "non motorized" in the future. I hate to draw on a cliche' ... but "give em an inch and they will take a mile" has held true for much of the access issues in snowmobile areas across the country.
Also, snowmobile registration numbers have grown, but not as much as the population percentage... that number, in relation to pop size has diminished.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/10/10, 12:05 PM by mountainhorse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
Along the same vein of reasoning...If an incompatibility actually exists.
What areas should be Closed to access for skiers/snowboarders and declared Motorized Access Only?
Remember, I am also a fellow backcountry tourer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
Along the same vein of reasoning...If an incompatibility actually exists.
What areas should be Closed to access for skiers/snowboarders and declared Motorized Access Only?
Remember, I am also a fellow backcountry tourer.
if it's an area where snowmobiles frequent then I don't go there. The area is already closed to me. It would be like fishing in an area where dynamite is permitted.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
How or why is that area "Closed to you"?
Because it has tracks in it??
I'm a snowboarder (and sometimes skier)... I find lines to snowboard in all the areas we are discussing here... and ones that have even higher snowmobile traffic....Weather I have skinned in, snowshoed or used my snowmobile to access this terrain.
Are you saying it is an "All or nothing" concept for you?
Md2020 and WMC...
I'll ask this direct question.
In YOUR opinion, should snowmobiles be allowed to run off piste (or road) in the majority of the Non-wilderness area backcountry? (Please take into account that the above presentation states that this will have little impact on the massive amounts of land that you state is open to use by snowmobiles.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
Please (and I mean this sincerely)....So that I can better understand.
Md2020, tell me the description that comes to mind when you are talking to other backcountry non-motorized users when one of them asks you for your opinion on backcountry snowmobilers?
WMC... Please answer this as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
Hi Hurley,
Thanks for the reply.
if you want to trade analogies i believe my point of view has a limitless number!!
I believe you could come up with more and funnier analogies than me. If you care to do so, post away! I'm always looking for a laugh and additional insight into the motorized point of view.
if it was legal.....as that is what happens with more population..more people getting out...hittin favorite spots. then that is just the way it goes. stop whining. it happens to us REGULAR folks everyday.
i just have to move on... kinda like gettin up at 4 am, hittin the road, workin my ass off to get to a favorite pow area ..only to see it ripped up by someone else that got there first. it sucks but it is the way it goes and i move on.
all you skiers know that it is getting harder and harder to always have first tracks.....same for us snowmobilers
especially when we have a continuosly smaller and smaller are to ride with more riders in this smaller area.
I really do not mind sharing. There are lots of folks out and about in WA, esp. on powder days, but I think there is plenty of room for everybody. But, for me, it is much easier to share with 100 non-motorized users than one snomo. I reject the 'survival of fittest' picture of competition for resources. Instead, I would like to see mutual respect and allowance for other groups. WMC is simply competing for the resource on the regulatory playing field.
(kinda like gettin up at 4, getting on the computer, busting my ass to write a letter to the forest supervisor only to find that a RMP was already published excluding me from my favorite areas, ..... i would just move on.) I reject this model, too. I want to forge a reasonable compromise between moderates on both sides that could be offered to the FS with backing from organized groups. I fear this hope is too naive.
We will not agree in detail on which actions constitute reasonable use and management of the forest. I hope that, despite this, we will be able find a compromise that most find tolerable. In particular, I think the motorized user should be given good areas managed for motorized rec. I would like help in identifying these areas. Yammadog and Ruffy have asked a few times what areas skiers would set aside for motorized use. It is a fair question (and one I ducked); I think the answer should come from motorized users. Make a list in order of desirability. Skiers should make a list of places they want non-motorized as well. I think there is sympathy among moderate skiers for your plight and you might be able to get political support from them for the 'protection' of motorized access. You would have my support if I felt the approach was balanced and (most importantly) took good care of the forest.
Best,
Micah
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Offline
Posts: 552
WWW
|
How or why is that area "Closed to you"?
Because it has tracks in it??
I'm a snowboarder (and sometimes skier)... I find lines to snowboard in all the areas we are discussing here... and ones that have even higher snowmobile traffic....Weather I have skinned in, snowshoed or used my snowmobile to access this terrain.
Are you saying it is an "All or nothing" concept for you?
Md2020 and WMC...
(I agree with the above)
I have mentioned something similar before, that if it really is "first tracks" a bc skier is looking for then there is plenty of non-motorized forest out there to find this. I am not a snowmobiler and have not been on one for at least 20 years, but I do ride dual sport motorcycles and the same people are out there trying to push me out of the forest as well.
If you are going to go bc in areas that are dual purpose then just learn to share. There is much more terrain available for the hiker then there is for the motorized folks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
How or why is that area "Closed to you"?
Because it has tracks in it??
I'm a snowboarder (and sometimes skier)... I find lines to snowboard in all the areas we are discussing here... and ones that have even higher snowmobile traffic....Weather I have skinned in, snowshoed or used my snowmobile to access this terrain.
Are you saying it is an "All or nothing" concept for you?
Md2020 and WMC...
I'll ask this direct question.
In YOUR opinion, should snowmobiles be allowed to run off piste (or road) in the majority of the Non-wilderness area backcountry? (Please take into account that the above presentation states that this will have little impact on the massive amounts of land that you state is open to use by snowmobiles.
WMC has no issue with snowmobiling in general or offroad snowmobiling, we just do not want to be on the same slope as is the opinion here. Please read this thread to get answers so that they do not have to be asked and answered repeatedly.
Thanks everyone for the mutual respect and continuing discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
I have mentioned something similar before, that if it really is "first tracks" a bc skier is looking for then there is plenty of non-motorized forest out there to find this. I am not a snowmobiler and have not been on one for at least 20 years, but I do ride dual sport motorcycles and the same people are out there trying to push me out of the forest as well.
If you are going to go bc in areas that are dual purpose then just learn to share. There is much more terrain available for the hiker then there is for the motorized folks.
Please read this thread in regard to many of the points, already discussed by various folks here.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
How or why is that area "Closed to you"?
Because it has tracks in it?
No, it's the same reason I don't go hiking on trails that allow dirt bikes.
Are you saying it is an "All or nothing" concept for you?
Pretty much. I can handle the same parking lot, but after that I don't want to see you guys.
In YOUR opinion, should snowmobiles be allowed to run off piste (or road) in the majority of the Non-wilderness area backcountry? (Please take into account that the above presentation states that this will have little impact on the massive amounts of land that you state is open to use by snowmobiles.
Yes, clearcuts. Motors generally don't belong in the alpine.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Hi Hurley,
Thanks for the reply.
I believe you could come up with more and funnier analogies than me. If you care to do so, post away! I'm always looking for a laugh and additional insight into the motorized point of view.
I really do not mind sharing. There are lots of folks out and about in WA, esp. on powder days, but I think there is plenty of room for everybody. But, for me, it is much easier to share with 100 non-motorized users than one snomo. I reject the 'survival of fittest' picture of competition for resources. Instead, I would like to see mutual respect and allowance for other groups. WMC is simply competing for the resource on the regulatory playing field.
(kinda like gettin up at 4, getting on the computer, busting my ass to write a letter to the forest supervisor only to find that a RMP was already published excluding me from my favorite areas, ..... i would just move on.) I reject this model, too. I want to forge a reasonable compromise between moderates on both sides that could be offered to the FS with backing from organized groups. I fear this hope is too naive.
We will not agree in detail on which actions constitute reasonable use and management of the forest. I hope that, despite this, we will be able find a compromise that most find tolerable. In particular, I think the motorized user should be given good areas managed for motorized rec. I would like help in identifying these areas. Yammadog and Ruffy have asked a few times what areas skiers would set aside for motorized use. It is a fair question (and one I ducked); I think the answer should come from motorized users. Make a list in order of desirability. Skiers should make a list of places they want non-motorized as well. I think there is sympathy among moderate skiers for your plight and you might be able to get political support from them for the 'protection' of motorized access. You would have my support if I felt the approach was balanced and (most importantly) took good care of the forest.
Best,
Micah
Don't encourage Hurly ....it's a dark tunnel that can't be escaped...much like a black hole, but it goes in one ear and out the other...;>)...
With regard to identifying "conflict free" areas, the proposal WMC has is too far reaching given the terrain and location. Since the sledders did not see a conflict I think it's on the shoulders of the folks creating the conflict to answer the question of their vision. It has been stated by WMC that he could be at the wilderness boundary in 1/2hour, which theoretically has no machines encroaching(this is another topic and needs to be addressed and we are discussing the subject now), and if the proposal was thought out resonably it shouldn't be too hard to answer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you to our sponsors!
|
Contact turns-all-year.com
Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved
The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
|
Page created in 0.744 seconds with 20 queries.
|
