|
|
|
|
|
|
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 29625 times)
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
I know it sux that the areas are no longer "exclusively skier"... but there are HUGE amounts of land, directly adjacent to major roads that are "skier-only"... now that may take car-pool shuttles to get to, but don't you think that is worth the effort? Where exactly are there huge amounts of land in the OWNF, directly adjacent to major roads that are "skier only"? Major roads to me are US 2 and 97, I live in Wenatchee so that's what they are to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Offline
Posts: 552
WWW
|
Where exactly are there huge amounts of land in the OWNF, directly adjacent to major roads that are "skier only"? Major roads to me are US 2 and 97, I live in Wenatchee so that's what they are to me.
Go to Snoqualmie Pass via I-90. It is a fairly major road and not a long drive from Wenatchee. All the land behind Hyak is skier only such as Mt Catherine, Silver Mtn, Humpback Mtn, etc... as well as all of the Alpental BC.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
Dang... the WMC has given up on this discussion it seems... that sucks..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Dang... the WMC has given up on this discussion it seems... that sucks..
No ruffy I was in your neighborhood writing this, posted at Snowest-
OK back for more discussion here. Like I said lots of this is covered at the 23 page TAY thread, but I will try to give some quick answers since you all are kind enough to discuss these issues, thank you.
OK, the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition is about management of winter non-motorized recreation on the general non-Wilderness Forest of the Wenatchee Mountains. WMC is not against snowmobiles, we use some old ones on Roads and a little offroad, to go out to ski tour, as many as say 40 days per year, I skitour 80 days or so from Nov-August, my two WMC Executive partners skitour less and do some snowshoeing. We refers to the WMC Executive and what we have discussed. My two partners will not go online, one tried and gave it up right away. There is some decent discussion to be had here sometimes in my opinion. WMC is not interested in prohibiting snowmobiles we are not against offroad snowmobiling in general. WMC is asking USFS to manage the Forest in the area of our interest so that there are new and significant winter non-motorized areas for skiing and snowshoeing. We have about 300 or so folks on our email lists, it is a pretty informal and unfunded Coalition asking for citizens to ask USFS to manage for their use.
OK, stipulations to our point of view are:
For reasons discussed at length on TAY, many and likely most skiers and snowshoers consider their activity to be incompatible on the same slope as snowmobiles. WMC thinks it is fine for snowmobiles to have their place to go highmark and have fun, likewise we want our own places not rutted and full of snowmobiles to go do our quiet stuff (other than Wilderness which is usually too far away except for long trips).
Wilderness is not easily accessed so we ask for areas that are accessible for various non-motorized winter uses- xc ski to snowshoes to tele and AT skitouring. We are sure that compared to snowmobile riders there are many many more Forest users who own at least some snowshoes or a pair of xc skis up to someone like me who has $10k worth of touring ski setups and other gear and $1000 snowmobiles.
There is background to why we chose the area which is in two sections. The east portion is the small area of pristine Wenatchee Mountains crest that joins to the existing small non-motorized area beside Blewett Sno Park on the west end and joins to the Mission Ridge Ski Area on the east end. There is a major Road through there that is groomed and we are not seeking to shut down any of the Road. This area has parts with the closest access to the car. The opinion of the snowmobile industry person that WMC Executive met with yesterday was that the east portion would not be a great sacrifice for riders, there is so so much more similar and even better riding next to that area.
The west portion of our proposal is the south slope of the Teanaway-Ingalls divide, the divide being the Wilderness Boundary. Now all you snomo folks are gonna love it perhaps when I tell you that a USFS person explained to me today that USFS does not create "buffers" to Wilderness...but...USFS manages lands close to Wilderness to be compatible uses to the Wilderness nearby. Clear (probably not)? But I know that you guys are smiling that I got schooled about the buffer thing (grin!). It is true that USFS never planned for that area to be for snowmobiles, it was just not considered and technology has outrun the USFS management. Snowmobile riders value using that area and feel strongly about losing it, understandable. Wilderness does come into the discussion because that Boundary gives what, 8 miles or so of open access to Wilderness, and we are learning that a lot of good folks perhaps do not know the Boundary (you should though) so anyway there is a lot of snowmobile traffic in the Wilderness there. USFS knows, locals here who never go in the mountains know because when they fly over they see the snowmobile tracks climbing the flanks of Mt Stuart and other places in the Wilderness. In the end, USFS needs to get a handle on this, lots say just enforce it, but they cannot. As a result, other than providing the area for skiing/ snowshoeing area that we ask for, the winter non-motorized setback to the Road would allow enforcement from that Road. There are very limited access opportunities from the Road where the crest Boundary is very open. Yes we understand that this is the controversial part of the proposal. It is great that snowmobile riders here are talking about policing the Wilderness trespass, that would have been great during the past 10 years. Other issues we hear about with the area are several resource and wildlife considerations including goats- they live where we all like to go to that high alpine.
Aside from WMC or our proposal, the USFS here is working on the Plan that will divide up the Forest outside of Wilderness between skiers and snowmobiles. Skiers and WMC did not invent Wilderness and we did not invent the Planning process. WMC is asking for roughly 26000 acres out of 400,000 acres in that County that are open for snowmobles. WMC is advocating for new and significant areas for winter non-motorized use in on the pristine crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.
OK, I tried to discuss this straight up, many here do not like it or agree. We hope that we may better understand each other, and maintain a civil discussion. The best scenario of course is that if we could agree to anything and take that together to USFS. But we respect the fact that many will not agree.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/10/10, 09:56 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
No ruffy I was in your neighborhood writing this, posted at Snowest
cool, I was worried you wouldn't be able to handle the rapid fire questions that were being thrown your way...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Discussion with the snowmobile folks at Snowest:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainhorse
Another direct, easily answered question...
Does WMC (any/all of the 3 execs you offer up in your opinion above) feel that ANY changes to what you have proposed is acceptable?
What mechanisms do YOU have in place to entertain mutual crafting of a proposal that both parties would be proud to present to USFS together?
Skibreeze had a very well presented question which you seem reticent to answer simply.
Please answer his question simply.
I access a lot of snowboarding in the backcountry without a sled... I too feel that the "conflict" is grossly exaggerated in your presentation... If you can provide some more concrete, verifiable sources to your claims (studies, polls, petitions) as well as solid numbers of Users .... total skiers and total snowmobilers, you will help forward a truthful discussion.
Random statistics aside.
Without revealing your source, please tell us what you are talking about.... "snowmobile industry person"??.... service? Dealer? Regional? Corporate level (mfg)? or Snowmobile support services?.... How are they qualified to evaluate the area discussed here and make comments on appropriateness?
That will help you to qualify your claims at least.
That, sir, would have to be a VERY low flying plane for the passengers to see tracks that could be conclusively determined to be snowmobile tracks. I'm very dubious of your claim... I fly over mountain ridges from the Sierras to the Monashies in winter ... so I'm not off base in this observation. Often people see what they want to see, this... IMO... MAY be the case here .
What you are saying is that the illegal "poaching" of lines within the Wilderness areas that are exclusively open to non-motorized enthusiasts is so bad that they have become unusable to you?? Really?
BTW, I have carved some pretty sweet downhill lines side by side with skiers/snowboarders on my snowmobile... 1000 vert of linked, graceful turns on steeper terrain than most alpine skiers are comfortable on... we had a blast, shared lunch and parted as friends... which is the way it should be.
I agree with Susie Rainsberry, you need to be a bit more transparent if your presentation is to be considered as sincerely looking for parity.
WMC reply:
Yes, we are open to changes that would work given the considerations and what is stated above two posts ago. That is why we are here talking, that is why we talked to a snowmobile industry person, that is why we are talking with USFS folks at various levels and jobs. There are various considerations. First, suppose a smaller area is carved out for quiet untracked winter recreation, but the geography makes the Boundary unclear or impossible to enforce? Answer, the new area does not serve anyone's purpose.The big question here is the long open ridge terrain that allows snowmobiles to easily duck over into Wilderness, we are learning that perhaps many are not really aware where they go into Wilderness, anyway an end run is made that way around any small area so that the new area remains surrounded by snowmobile riding. The result is that there is no corridor to travel to Wilderness without snowmobile traffic, and it would remain as we have found, a snowmobile-tracked Wilderness after we walk on skis for hours to get there. If there is a solution other than the area that we mapped that actually works we would like to see it. Most folks in this conversation just say "Enforcement" or "Education." Fine, but we are skeptical given the decade problem here and also the example on the WSSA website from the Yakamas in regard to the "37 years" of "illegal snowmobiling" on the Yakamas Mt Adams Area. Our idea is that the WMC proposal gives a solution to the our non-motorized boundary and the Wilderness incursion which would actually allow snowmobiles into any smaller area made for non-motorized. enforcement- a drastic and controversial solution, sorry, but we are waiting to hear of something else that would be effective.
No, when we get to Wilderness we find great skiing, but the fact that snowmobiles are there with the noise and intrusion transforms the Wilderness into something else. Wilderness is created by Federal Law, like it or not, with strict regulations to manage it. Are we a nation of Laws or shall we behave as some third world nation that enforces Law only when easy or convenient and so as not to anger any significant interest group?
The question above was about our use of the 40% of Wilderness. This was discussed a lot at TAY. But you all are kind to discuss it here so I will answer again. A lot of that Wilderness is accessible only after a full day approach or overnight. We do that, but we cannot do that a lot. Here snowmobilers complained about driving an extra 1 1/2 hours to the alternative areas that we suggested. Imagine having to lug a 40 lb backpack while walking on skis to go overnight to the Wilderness. We do it, just not a lot. So we seek areas in the accessible general Forest. In our meeting with the snowmobile person, we were told how poorly snowmobile sales are for several reasons, and we were told that some Puget Sound snowmobile dealers are quitting business. On the other hand, we are certain that there are a lot of folks with snowshoes, xc skis, tele skis, snowboards, AT skis, all these folks want to park the car and go nearby for on-snow winter recreation. Wilderness was not created by WMC or by skiers and snowshoers, Wilderness was NOT created for WMC or skiers and snowshoers. By intention Wilderness should have less human-use and little human impact- that is the design. We would like to use Wilderness more, but by design that use is not made easy to access.
Since the '80s we have used a snowmobile to go ski, we skied some days in the midst of snowmobiles and it was fine- because the snowmobiles were limited as to where they could go. At first, snowmobiles hardly left the road. Now, and especially the past few years, really no snow is left since the new machines even climb up a skier track from a road through the trees to go track a powder stash that we used for years that did not have any snowmobile use. So technology there has influenced the available resource of snowy Forest.
WMC may be backing off here as we are busy in contact and setting meetings with USFS folks and some elected officials.
Thanks for the discussion. It is encouraging that we may eventually have some fruitful discussion about these issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Skiers! USFS likes input, and civil discussion, I was told. WMC folks have talked to the USFS Team about where we know skiers and snowmobile riders go on the Forest. USFS is truly not on any one side- they seem very knowledgeable and honestly work to serve the multiple uses. USFS is in the planning process, the Planning Team has the job of drawing lines on Forest maps to show where there is skiing and where there is snowmobile use. USFS also appreciates civil discussion, state your case just don't fling guff and they appreciate that. At this time is an important opportunity to provide input to USFS in regard to which areas of the Forest are best or are commonly used for skitouring. There is an ongoing USFS planning process which asked for input here about winter recreation, specifically which areas of the Forest are best for skitouring. This information is sought by the Forest Planning team r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us. Also, now is a good time in the process for skiers to send comments about where they skitour and what should be preserved for skitouring to the various Districts as well of the OWNF:
For the Stevens Pass, Lake Wenatchee, and Blewett Pass/ Wenatchee Mountains areas
Wenatchee River Ranger District
Vaughan Marable, District Ranger
600 Sherbourne
Leavenworth, WA 98826
(509) 548-2550 or 548-2551
Fax: (509) 548-5817
For the Teanaway and south slope of the Wenatchee Mountains, and the Snoqualmie Pass east area-
Cle Elum Ranger District
Judy Hallisey, District Ranger
803 W. 2nd Street
Cle Elum, WA 98922
(509) 852-1100
Fax: (509) 674-3800
Other areas:
Entiat Ranger District
Janet Flanagan, District Ranger
2108 Entiat Way
P.O. Box 476
Entiat, WA 98822
(509) 784-1511 (Voice/TTY)
Fax: (509) 784-1150
Methow Valley Ranger District
Michael Liu, District Ranger
24 West Chewuch Road
Winthrop, WA 98862
509-996-4003 Voice
509-996-0000 TTY
509-996-2206 Fax
Chelan Ranger District
Robert Sheehan, District Ranger
428 W. Woodin Avenue
Chelan, WA 98816-9724
(509) 682-4900 (Voice/TTY)
Fax: (509) 682-9004
Naches Ranger District
Irene Davidson, District Ranger
10237 Highway 12
Naches, WA 98937
(509) 653-1401 (Voice/TTY)
Fax: (509) 653-2638
For more information about the Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests- Forest Plan Revision please visit the project website at: www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/forest-plan
Similar to some discussion here, WSSA (Washington State Snowmobile Association) opposes even the process of USFS consideration of winter non-motorized recreation. Please review the WSSA website and the Letter to USFS-
http://www.wssa.us/ and the WSSA letter http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=o%2bnFJXgJdQXIp1/5dhv6d3UoPrpMB/h0NMI2nPaDfg8GOAVewEjmjhIkHzDYcA45U%2byUFGvPknA%3d
Skiers need to speak up about where on the Forest is best suited to skitouring. Without management for non-motorized winter recreation on the Forest, more areas will become snowmobile-use areas as riders discover new areas and find access routes. And why not, it is fun for the snowmobile riders and currently there is no rule against snowmobile riders expanding use on the general Forest.
Aside from the above, our project below:
About the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition
Purpose: Advocacy for non-motorized winter recreation on Forest Lands.
Goal: Designation of USFS Non-Motorized areas for winter recreation. Specifically, we seek non-motorized status for the pristine unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.
Initial action -- the Thousand Skiers Project: One thousand skiers/snowshoers/Forest users will write (email) the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Supervisor and request designation of new non-motorized areas on the Wenatchee Mountains. The ‘significant’ area we are targeting is the unroaded Wenatchee Mountains ridge crest from Van Epps Pass to Three Brothers (mountain). This encompasses Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers and the Wenatchee Mountains Crest from Rd 9716 to the west of Diamond Head across Tronsen Head, Mt. Lillian including down to the Old Ellensburg trail to Mission Peak and on to the Mission Ridge Road including Lake Clara, Mission Peak, and surrounding areas. This area would offer many short day-tours, long day tours, overnight self-powered ski tours, and snowmobile road-assist tours. We hope to generate a thousand comments by August 15, 2010.
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.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/15/10, 04:10 PM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Discussion with the snowmobile folks at Snowest:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainhorse
Another direct, easily answered question...
Does WMC (any/all of the 3 execs you offer up in your opinion above) feel that ANY changes to what you have proposed is acceptable?
What mechanisms do YOU have in place to entertain mutual crafting of a proposal that both parties would be proud to present to USFS together?
Skibreeze had a very well presented question which you seem reticent to answer simply.
Please answer his question simply.
I access a lot of snowboarding in the backcountry without a sled... I too feel that the "conflict" is grossly exaggerated in your presentation... If you can provide some more concrete, verifiable sources to your claims (studies, polls, petitions) as well as solid numbers of Users .... total skiers and total snowmobilers, you will help forward a truthful discussion.
Random statistics aside.
Without revealing your source, please tell us what you are talking about.... "snowmobile industry person"??.... service? Dealer? Regional? Corporate level (mfg)? or Snowmobile support services?.... How are they qualified to evaluate the area discussed here and make comments on appropriateness?
That will help you to qualify your claims at least.
That, sir, would have to be a VERY low flying plane for the passengers to see tracks that could be conclusively determined to be snowmobile tracks. I'm very dubious of your claim... I fly over mountain ridges from the Sierras to the Monashies in winter ... so I'm not off base in this observation. Often people see what they want to see, this... IMO... MAY be the case here .
What you are saying is that the illegal "poaching" of lines within the Wilderness areas that are exclusively open to non-motorized enthusiasts is so bad that they have become unusable to you?? Really?
BTW, I have carved some pretty sweet downhill lines side by side with skiers/snowboarders on my snowmobile... 1000 vert of linked, graceful turns on steeper terrain than most alpine skiers are comfortable on... we had a blast, shared lunch and parted as friends... which is the way it should be.
I agree with Susie Rainsberry, you need to be a bit more transparent if your presentation is to be considered as sincerely looking for parity.
WMC reply:
Yes, we are open to changes that would work given the considerations and what is stated above two posts ago. That is why we are here talking, that is why we talked to a snowmobile industry person, that is why we are talking with USFS folks at various levels and jobs. There are various considerations. First, suppose a smaller area is carved out for quiet untracked winter recreation, but the geography makes the Boundary unclear or impossible to enforce? Answer, the new area does not serve anyone's purpose.The big question here is the long open ridge terrain that allows snowmobiles to easily duck over into Wilderness, we are learning that perhaps many are not really aware where they go into Wilderness, anyway an end run is made that way around any small area so that the new area remains surrounded by snowmobile riding. The result is that there is no corridor to travel to Wilderness without snowmobile traffic, and it would remain as we have found, a snowmobile-tracked Wilderness after we walk on skis for hours to get there. If there is a solution other than the area that we mapped that actually works we would like to see it. Most folks in this conversation just say "Enforcement" or "Education." Fine, but we are skeptical given the decade problem here and also the example on the WSSA website from the Yakamas in regard to the "37 years" of "illegal snowmobiling" on the Yakamas Mt Adams Area. Our idea is that the WMC proposal gives a solution to the our non-motorized boundary and the Wilderness incursion which would actually allow snowmobiles into any smaller area made for non-motorized. enforcement- a drastic and controversial solution, sorry, but we are waiting to hear of something else that would be effective.
No, when we get to Wilderness we find great skiing, but the fact that snowmobiles are there with the noise and intrusion transforms the Wilderness into something else. Wilderness is created by Federal Law, like it or not, with strict regulations to manage it. Are we a nation of Laws or shall we behave as some third world nation that enforces Law only when easy or convenient and so as not to anger any significant interest group?
The question above was about our use of the 40% of Wilderness. This was discussed a lot at TAY. But you all are kind to discuss it here so I will answer again. A lot of that Wilderness is accessible only after a full day approach or overnight. We do that, but we cannot do that a lot. Here snowmobilers complained about driving an extra 1 1/2 hours to the alternative areas that we suggested. Imagine having to lug a 40 lb backpack while walking on skis to go overnight to the Wilderness. We do it, just not a lot. So we seek areas in the accessible general Forest. In our meeting with the snowmobile person, we were told how poorly snowmobile sales are for several reasons, and we were told that some Puget Sound snowmobile dealers are quitting business. On the other hand, we are certain that there are a lot of folks with snowshoes, xc skis, tele skis, snowboards, AT skis, all these folks want to park the car and go nearby for on-snow winter recreation. Wilderness was not created by WMC or by skiers and snowshoers, Wilderness was NOT created for WMC or skiers and snowshoers. By intention Wilderness should have less human-use and little human impact- that is the design. We would like to use Wilderness more, but by design that use is not made easy to access.
Since the '80s we have used a snowmobile to go ski, we skied some days in the midst of snowmobiles and it was fine- because the snowmobiles were limited as to where they could go. At first, snowmobiles hardly left the road. Now, and especially the past few years, really no snow is left since the new machines even climb up a skier track from a road through the trees to go track a powder stash that we used for years that did not have any snowmobile use. So technology there has influenced the available resource of snowy Forest.
WMC may be backing off here as we are busy in contact and setting meetings with USFS folks and some elected officials.
Thanks for the discussion. It is encouraging that we may eventually have some fruitful discussion about these issues.
Still no answer to direct questions presented. And, I'm guessing the meetings youare having with USFS are public? could it be the FS makes backroom deals with special interest groups?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Still no answer to direct questions presented. And, I'm guessing the meetings youare having with USFS are public? could it be the FS makes backroom deals with special interest groups?
Uncalled for. Uncivil, offensive to the people of integrity in USFS, offensive to the good folks that we meet with to talk about the issues and about our concerns. This is a public process. We are here talking about it. You apparently want to fling accusations and say "no."
Any of you folks may similarly contact USFS, they are wanting input! WMC is doing the work, we are talking to snowmobile riders, we are here saying that we are good with snowmobile riders having your highmark fun but we want areas without snowmobiles. We are reaching out, you yammadog are just flinging unfounded comments from the start without substantive ideas. Step up and be a citizen, defend your rights and try to think about the rights and uses of others. Try to share.
Unfortunately on Forums folks with nothing invested endlessly and sometimes pointlessly criticize, make demands, criticize the efforts done to satisfy demands, ask questions, criticize the answers then on an on without substantive conversation. We are here trying to have meaningful and civil discussion. USFS desires to get meaningful and civil input from Forest users, we are told directly that USFS appreciates the effort to keep a civil tone in the discussion.
We hope that skiers give input to the USFS planning process in regard to areas of traditional use for skiing and snowshoeing, and winter camping. And of course, aside from that WMC is advocating for new and significant winter non-motorized areas along the pristine, unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Cut and pasted from Scotsman's post.....
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/
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/11/10, 08:41 AM by yammadog »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Uncalled for. Uncivil, offensive to the people of integrity in USFS, offensive to the good folks that we meet with to talk about the issues and about our concerns. This is a public process. We are here talking about it. You apparently want to fling accusations and say "no."
Any of you folks may similarly contact USFS, they are wanting input! WMC is doing the work, we are talking to snowmobile riders, we are here saying that we are good with snowmobile riders having your highmark fun but we want areas without snowmobiles. We are reaching out, you yammadog are just flinging unfounded comments from the start without substantive ideas. Step up and be a citizen, defend your rights and try to think about the rights and uses of others. Try to share.
Unfortunately on Forums folks with nothing invested endlessly and sometimes pointlessly criticize, make demands, criticize the efforts done to satisfy demands, ask questions, criticize the answers then on an on without substantive conversation. We are here trying to have meaningful and civil discussion. USFS desires to get meaningful and civil input from Forest users, we are told directly that USFS appreciates the effort to keep a civil tone in the discussion.
We hope that skiers give input to the USFS planning process in regard to areas of traditional use for skiing and snowshoeing, and winter camping. And of course, aside from that WMC is advocating for new and significant winter non-motorized areas along the pristine, unroaded crest of the Wenatchee Mountains.
Thank you.
wait...I feel it coming on......LMAO.......there, it's out....talk about sharing, you have yet to answer any direct questions, you have only offered closure. After dealing with you over the last month or so, I'm getting more humor out of your "position" than actual productive "conversation". The main problem in the "discusssion" with you is that you don't listen and respond to questions. And fortunately, I'm being rather civil given your unwillingness to acknowledge anything but your white noise statements.
As a citizen, I'm stating that your selfish view of the fabricated conflict is just that...made up to get a rise without facts or support other than from a few "followers". Even your "fellow" skiers think there is abundant land and access to the wilderness and even workable solutions to this WMC generated controversy.
Now, if you want to answer direct questions, then we can be "civil" and converse openly and BI-DIRECTIONAL....I'm not going to stand for you to make your statements and not participate in the give and take without calling you out on it. So, really it's your choice....I can get more abusive, easily, but prefer to work on a real strategy given I care for the BC user of any form to enjoy the area as much as I do and hopefully my kids will.
If the meetings with FS are formal and an actual comment period then I think it should be widely known. Is it a comment period?
You are fighting for your "history" and I'm fighting for my kids future. The ball is in your court.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Mr yammadog, what is your point other than to try to stop the discussion?
WMC is reaching out to various folks on all sides including snowmobile folks, on Forums, in meetings, with the managing authority USFS, with elected officials.
WMC is learning more examples of the result of your strategy, snowmobile interests, resisting without any compromise, trying to stop discussion, trying to play the victim. WSSA and other $$ organizations pay to throw down roadblocks to the legitimate process, then find more bitter defeat that was only temporoarily delayed. Yet time and again decisions and management go against unregulated use of snowmobiles on the general Forest. Are you guys creating you own tragic outcomes? Should you try to engage in the discussion as a citizen, respect other's concerns, complaints, uses, try to hold out for as much of what is important to you as possible? Yes you should, as WMC is doing for our interests.
Any citizens may comment to USFS:
Public Involvement
"We’ve been hearing from you at public meetings, collaboration efforts, and through your written comments. Please click on one of the links below to hear what people have to say."
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/forest-plan/
r6_ewzplanrevision@fs.fed.us
WMC is asking skiers to comment to USFS about traditional areas for backcountry sking, snowshoeing and camping. The Planning Team is seeking this information, and also is seeking informatin about snowmobile use and other winter uses on the Forest for planning purposes.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/11/10, 09:54 AM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
wait...I feel it coming on......LMAO.......there, it's out....talk about sharing, you have yet to answer any direct questions, you have only offered closure. After dealing with you over the last month or so, I'm getting more humor out of your "position" than actual productive "conversation". The main problem in the "discusssion" with you is that you don't listen and respond to questions. And fortunately, I'm being rather civil given your unwillingness to acknowledge anything but your white noise statements.
As a citizen, I'm stating that your selfish view of the fabricated conflict is just that...made up to get a rise without facts or support other than from a few "followers". Even your "fellow" skiers think there is abundant land and access to the wilderness and even workable solutions to this WMC generated controversy.
Now, if you want to answer direct questions, then we can be "civil" and converse openly and BI-DIRECTIONAL....I'm not going to stand for you to make your statements and not participate in the give and take without calling you out on it. So, really it's your choice....I can get more abusive, easily, but prefer to work on a real strategy given I care for the BC user of any form to enjoy the area as much as I do and hopefully my kids will.
If the meetings with FS are formal and an actual comment period then I think it should be widely known. Is it a comment period?
You are fighting for your "history" and I'm fighting for my kids future. The ball is in your court.
I think we are all thinking of our and our kids future, don't try and play a sympathy/family values game. Veiled threats of how you could be more abusive do nothing to help your cause and only reinforce to anyone already not sympathetic to your view to side with non-motorized supporters. You can always make comments to the FS and they solicit your input online at their website and in writing. Suggesting that there is some back door deal making is uncalled for. It may be a long way to go, but you could try and contacting FS personnel at the OWNF HQ in Wenatchee to try and arrange a meeting if it's important to you. I don't think they will be coming to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Copy of a post by Mr. Newtrout on SW, what is your opinion of his suggestions listed below?
WMC, I'll restate my main concerns with your proposal, in case they were buried too deeply in previous threads to get noticed.
First, the skier/snowmobile conflict in this area is fabricated. It just doesn't exist. There is a ridiculous amount of prime skiable terrain that will NEVER have snowmobile tracks, and skier traffic in the winter is almost non-existant. I've spent dozens of days in the legal sledding areas of the Teanaway over the past few years and there is almost no skier traffic! 95% of the time, skiers have their choice of several entire basins that are untouched in the Teanaway. The problem for skiers is accessibility. Banning sleds from this area will not help accessibility. I use this area summer and winter. Skier traffic doesn't pick up until the North Fork road melts and snowmobile use is done for the year.
The area proposed for snowmobile closure by WMC would eliminate snowmobile access to the North Fork of the Teanaway, as well as Lake Ann and Van Epps areas. This is one of the few alpine areas in the state accessible by snowmobile. From Teanaway Peak to the west, I would estimate snowmobile use outnumbers skier use by 100:1; probably much more before mid-May. East of Teanaway Peak are several basins that are very difficult or legally impossible to access by snowmobile. Even taking into account the occasional snowmobiler in the Wilderness, there is more skiable terrain than could be tracked up by 50 skiers a day all winter long.
Compromise? I'll throw some ideas out there:
(1) Stop sled use in the North Fork of the Teanaway when the road melts out to Stafford Creek. That is when skiers use the area, and that is when sledders are done. Make it official. I can live with that.
(2) Addition to voluntary non-motorized area: The Beverly non-motorized area is a waste. It isn't used by skiers. Bean, on the other hand, has some really nice skiable terrain. It is very difficult to access from the bottom on sleds, and you can only come in the top by riding through Wilderness. Likewise, Stafford is hard to access from the bottom by sled. You can get in the top over Navaho, but it is also the prime access point for the Wenatchee gang to get into Wilderness. Add Bean Creek basin and Stafford Creek basin to the voluntary non-motorized areas. These are prime ski basins used by a minority of sledders.
(3) Improve skier access: What are the real options here? Realistically, you're not going to improve access much from the North Fork; too much snow and road that can't be maintained. What about from the Blewett side? How much closer to the crest could a road be plowed? We'd still be talking about pretty serious dollars to keep a road like that maintained; but banning sleds doesn't help skier access!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
Compromise? I'll throw some ideas out there:
(1) Stop sled use in the North Fork of the Teanaway when the road melts out to Stafford Creek. That is when skiers use the area, and that is when sledders are done. Make it official. I can live with that.
(2) Addition to voluntary non-motorized area: The Beverly non-motorized area is a waste. It isn't used by skiers. Bean, on the other hand, has some really nice skiable terrain. It is very difficult to access from the bottom on sleds, and you can only come in the top by riding through Wilderness. Likewise, Stafford is hard to access from the bottom by sled. You can get in the top over Navaho, but it is also the prime access point for the Wenatchee gang to get into Wilderness. Add Bean Creek basin and Stafford Creek basin to the voluntary non-motorized areas. These are prime ski basins used by a minority of sledders.
(3) Improve skier access: What are the real options here? Realistically, you're not going to improve access much from the North Fork; too much snow and road that can't be maintained. What about from the Blewett side? How much closer to the crest could a road be plowed? We'd still be talking about pretty serious dollars to keep a road like that maintained; but banning sleds doesn't help skier access!
See, that's not so hard. This seems pretty reasonable too me. I don't use a sled to access ski terrain so for me it's really about access. Bean and Stafford Creeks are the best shot I would have in the winter, and that is quite a haul. Too bad the road couldn't be plowed at least to Stafford Crk in the winter. I like his #1 proposal, as that's when I spend most of my time in the Teanaway. I don't know much about the Blewett Pass area, but I'm pretty sure there's some additional terrain over there that skiers would like to be non-motorized.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
md2020...
I'm was pleasantly surprised to see your reply.
I apologize for my comment of insinuating that you were closed-minded... your one comment here has shown me that you can be open to others points of view.
Your ability to Civil on this page of post speaks volumes as opposed to WMC's posturing and sweeping accusations.
In contrast to the verbose and skirting replies that WMC has made to direct questions, your openness to a true two way discussion is a breath of fresh air that I believe represents US as skiers/snowboarders/snowshoers etc as a group rather than a minority better.
NewTrout makes some great valid points... points that may not give WMC all that He wants in his proposal to increase exclusive land use. But it is glad to see that people on both sides of he proposal can find common ground.
Kudos!!
BTW, does the user WMC actually represent the entire WMC group with his presentation here?
Who are the Principals of WMC? Is that public record?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
Veiled threats of how you could be more abusive do nothing to help your cause and only reinforce to anyone already not sympathetic to your view to side with non-motorized supporters.
Aaron, there was nothing "Veiled" nor did his comment contain a "threat"...
Rather than than threatening HE ACTUALLY SAID "but (I) prefer to work on a real strategy given I care for the BC user of any form to enjoy the area as much as I do and hopefully my kids will"
Lets DO keep the this non inflammatory on both parties.
I, as a backcountry Splitboarder expect no less. (I am also a backcountry snowmobiler as is WMC)
I will help all in both direction to this end.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/11/10, 06:19 PM by mountainhorse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
WMC...
Rather than saying
WMC: Skiers! USFS likes input, and civil discussion,
Don't you think you should say "Fellow users of the Backcountry"
So that the majority voice is ENCOURAGED to to speak out.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
I apologize for my comment of insinuating that you were closed-minded...
I'm pretty sure you got the closed- minded part right. I try to be practical though.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/11/10, 11:49 AM by md2020 »
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
I'm pretty sure you got the closed- minded part right. I try to be practical though.
LOL...maybe not so much as you think...
We should go skinning sometime together...Get some good tree lines (my favorite)... you might just meet another that person that surprises you.
Anyway... Kudos to you for your pragmatic attitude (and to NewTrout as well!!)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
WMC: ... when we get to Wilderness we find great skiing, but the fact that snowmobiles are there with the noise and intrusion transforms the Wilderness into something else. Wilderness is created by Federal Law, like it or not, with strict regulations to manage it. Are we a nation of Laws or shall we behave as some third world nation that enforces Law only when easy or convenient and so as not to anger any significant interest group?
I have spoken to many USFS officials and have NOT found ONE that is saying that the WHOLESALE poaching that YOU are stating happens... actually IS happening.
If this is anything more than just posturing and hyper-inflation of SMALL or INFREQUENT intrusions into wilderness areas by excluded parties, which could be non intentional ... Then I invite you to provide that information which is verifiable.
And what I mean by that is actual USFS reports or the name of a USFS official that will go on record to state that this WHOLESALE intrusion, YOU are claiming, exists.
Until you bring this information forward, please refrain from making these unsubstantiated claims, which I believe are, to coin a word, Veiled attempts to generate momentum for YOUR cause based on an inaccurate presentation.
Again... Make sure that you present a BODY of information that will substantiate a WHOLESALE intrusion as you have presented here.
There is enough mud-slinging and inflammatory posturing in the national political debates lately... Lets not repeat it here.
I do not operate in ANY designated non-motorized areas and work hard to promote understanding and cooperation amongst people in both of my favorite Backcountry sports... Both Non-motor and Motorzed.
I actively monitor the Wilderness boundaries in the areas I ride (both on skinz and snowmobile) for unauthorized MV use , and help to educate the people to what those boundaries are.
I HAVE seen snowmobile tracks go into a Wilderness area that I later found were from SAR personnel working with the USFS to recover an avalanche injured skier.
I also support programs that are involved in the marking of Wilderness boundaries...Does WMC participate in or support any such programs?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/11/10, 12:13 PM by mountainhorse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
I have spoken to many USFS officials and have NOT found ONE that is saying that the WHOLESALE poaching that YOU are stating happens... actually IS happening.
If this is anything more than just posturing and hyper-inflation of SMALL or INFREQUENT intrusions into wilderness areas by excluded parties, which could be non intentional ... Then I invite you to provide that information which is verifiable.
And what I mean by that is actual USFS reports or the name of a USFS official that will go on record to state that this WHOLESALE intrusion, YOU are claiming, exists.
Until you bring this information forward, please refrain from making these unsubstantiated claims, which I believe are, to coin a word, Veiled attempts to generate momentum for YOUR cause based on an inaccurate presentation.
Again... Make sure that you present a BODY of information that will substantiate a WHOLESALE intrusion as you have presented here.
There is enough mud-slinging and inflammatory posturing in the national political debates lately... Lets not repeat it here.
I do not operate in ANY designated non-motorized areas and work hard to promote understanding and cooperation amongst people in both of my favorite Backcountry sports... Both Non-motor and Motorzed.
I actively monitor the Wilderness boundaries in the areas I ride (both on skinz and snowmobile) for unauthorized MV use , and help to educate the people to what those boundaries are.
I HAVE seen snowmobile tracks go into a Wilderness area that I later found were from SAR personnel working with the USFS to recover an avalanche injured skier.
I also support programs that are involved in the marking of Wilderness boundaries...Does WMC participate in or support any such programs?
You are late to the discussion so there is a lot here that you have not read- maybe you should. Several of my friends have been with me on skitours on the Teanaway crest. Lately, we see no snowmobiles in the Voluntary Closure, but one day saw seven snowmobiles then in the Wilderness from our summit that day.
Just today I noticed statements from back in 2004 on the Forest Plan website that talk about the snowmobile Wilderness intrusion, consideration of non-motorized areas, other interesting comments and documents. Check it out here-
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/forest-plan/
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mountainhorse
5Member
Offline
Posts: 38
|
Aaron,
I actually CAN see where you might take this perspective. Please read below, and reply with your comments.... it may help you to see the whole picture... it may help ME to see the whole picture.
I believe that in his myopic fervor to present his point of view, WMC is "playing both sides against the middle" and if the pragmatic, and non-extremist views on both sides are presented... ALL users of the areas presented will benefit.
aaron_wright; Suggesting that there is some back door deal making is uncalled for.
It was actually WMC that stated that there were "public meetings"... Yammidog and others are simply bringing to the fore the point that none of these public meetings are known.
If this was a "drop in" discussion ... or a phone call.... well that cannot be construed as a "public meeting" and should not be presented as such.
If it was indeed a "public meeting" please indicate the forum and date/time in the presentation to avoid confusion... and any conclusions to be made in this dearth of information.
On the SnoWest forums, where WMC is participating the following exchange was presented... with no answer....
THIS is where the propagation, by WMC through non responsiveness, of "clandestine" rumors was generated.
Originally Posted by WMC
USFS is in a Planning process to determine where on the Forest outside Wilderness should be designated for non-motorized and which should be for snowmobile use. Oregongirl: Is this an active Planning process? I wasn't aware that any of the Washington forests, outside of The Blues were in an active comment period.
There was no reply this question in the MANY posts that WMC made following Oregongirls question.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Aaron,
I actually CAN see where you might take this perspective. Please read below, and reply with your comments.... it may help you to see the whole picture... it may help ME to see the whole picture.
I believe that in his myopic fervor to present his point of view, WMC is "playing both sides against the middle" and if the pragmatic, and non-extremist views on both sides are presented... ALL users of the areas presented will benefit.
It was actually WMC that stated that there were "public meetings"... Yammidog and others are simply bringing to the fore the point that none of these public meetings are known.
If this was a "drop in" discussion ... or a phone call.... well that cannot be construed as a "public meeting" and should not be presented as such.
If it was indeed a "public meeting" please indicate the forum and date/time in the presentation to avoid confusion... and any conclusions to be made in this dearth of information.
On the SnoWest forums, where WMC is participating the following exchange was presented... with no answer....
THIS is where the propagation, by WMC through non responsiveness, of "clandestine" rumors was generated.
There was no reply this question in the MANY posts that WMC made following Oregongirls question.
Now you are simply stating unsupported rants. Try to read what has been stated, of course you will use it for your purpose- fine, but try to do that from what was stated not from excited mistatement. Please take the time to read before haranguing and bolding your text.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
You are late to the discussion so there is a lot here that you have not read- maybe you should. Several of my friends have been with me on skitours on the Teanaway crest. Lately, we see no snowmobiles in the Voluntary Closure, but one day saw seven snowmobiles then in the Wilderness from our summit that day. Just today I noticed statements from back in 2004 on the Forest Plan website that talk about the snowmobile Wilderness intrusion, consideration of non-motorized areas, other interesting comments and documents. Check it out here- http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/wenatchee/forest-plan/
Repetative, but I would donate to fund enforcement. Not one person has condoned such actions as acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
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 0.497 seconds with 21 queries.
|
