|
|
|
|
|
|
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 29626 times)
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Caution in using the more extreme comments as part of your proposal, both sides have plenty of that to offer. And we have worked hard behind the scenes to have posts deleted and conviced folks to not post in support of good communications. After all, you could use Scotsmans comments of stopping this movement and writing your legislators....
I'm thinking we should be picking the person that represents our points in these discussions. Unless you wish to identify the person or at what level they are within the sledding community, then I find it hard to support your position in the meeting without some level of confidence that we will be properly represented and not pushed over by your fervor. After all, you wouldn't vote for a representative in your government without knowing who they are.....right?!
Show us your good faith in posting your complete and modified proposal, the connection to this snowmobile person from our point and when the public meeting is to be held and then I think it could move forward with support.
You will need to remember that the folks involved in this discussion total maybe 30 on the forums to help shape anything. Although each of us is involved with the clubs, associations and industry at some level, this proposal or suggestion has not made it beyond these forum walls to the greater population. If you wish for us to support and advocate this position to the greater group, then we will need that information. Who, what, where, when as they say. Still need a revised map and descriptions of the "wish" list.
Show us the good faith you have been suggesting you stand behind....
The idea is discussed above and incorporated newtrouts suggestion. We have a map for the envisioned meeting. In the description above WMC discussed conceding significant parts of the WMC proposal, and the most important areas for snowmobile riding to the Teanaway crest. The discussion in exchange is that snowmobile interests would agree to assist in protecting the Wilderness from incursion and recognize the need for some new winter non-motorized areas in the area that has been described by snowmobile riders as less desirable than the area of Long Pass and Van Epps, which are discussed as possible concession to snowmobile riders.
We believe that our snowmobile contact would be recognized as a significant person in the snowmobile world. We ask for that person's involvement if willing by contacting the appropriate persons in the snowmobile interests. WSSA has sent a letter of Rebuttal of the WMC proposal that does not address the proposal, but puts WSSA at odds immediately with WMC and our discussion. We will hope that our snowmobile industry contact can mediate and set up a meeting for colllaboration.
Clearly, both sides are prepared to continue on their own competing efforts, but our sincere hope is that both sides may sit down and concede some part to the other's legitimate use of the Forest.
Thank you, please let's continue in a spirit of collaboration.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
The idea is discussed above and incorporated newtrouts suggestion. We have a map for the envisioned meeting. In the description above WMC discussed conceding significant parts of the WMC proposal, and the most important areas for snowmobile riding to the Teanaway crest. The discussion in exchange is that snowmobile interests would agree to assist in protecting the Wilderness from incursion and recognize the need for some new winter non-motorized areas in the area that has been described by snowmobile riders as less desirable than the area of Long Pass and Van Epps, which are discussed as possible concession to snowmobile riders.
We believe that our snowmobile contact would be recognized as a significant person in the snowmobile world. We ask for that person's involvement if willing by contacting the appropriate persons in the snowmobile interests. WSSA has sent a letter of Rebuttal of the WMC proposal that does not address the proposal, but puts WSSA at odds immediately with WMC and our discussion. We will hope that our snowmobile industry contact can mediate and set up a meeting for colllaboration.
Clearly, both sides are prepared to continue on their own competing efforts, but our sincere hope is that both sides may sit down and concede some part to the other's legitimate use of the Forest.
Thank you, please let's continue in a spirit of collaboration.
Lay it out here for all to see, say in a final rough draft. I'm certain that the changes will be noticed and more refinement could be made. I'm also certain that the WSSA letter was in response to the first version of your proposal.
The resason for the completed "rough draft" is to encapsulate your proposal without reading endless pages from 2 forums and trying to piece together the modifications. This could be used as the tool to continue refinement and get out to the interested parties before a meeting with usfs, so the burden on their shoulders is reduced to a rubber stamp effect, although we still have yet to see the public comment response.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
Lay it out here for all to see, say in a final rough draft. I'm certain that the changes will be noticed and more refinement could be made. I'm also certain that the WSSA letter was in response to the first version of your proposal.
The resason for the completed "rough draft" is to encapsulate your proposal without reading endless pages from 2 forums and trying to piece together the modifications. This could be used as the tool to continue refinement and get out to the interested parties before a meeting with usfs, so the burden on their shoulders is reduced to a rubber stamp effect, although we still have yet to see the public comment response.
Sure, a reasonable request. For the sake of this discussion:
The original proposal for winter non-motorized designation-
This encompasses Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers in the Teanaway crest area. From Blewett Pass, 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.
The proposal after collaboration in exchange for agreed concession to winter- non motorized use the areas of the proposal to the east of Longs Pass, and snowmobile-group monitoring of the Wilderness Boundary-
This encompasses the existing Voluntary Non-Motorized Area (Beverly-Bean) and Earl Peak to Navaho Peak (Stafford Creek per newtrouts proposal), and Three Brothers for the Teanaway crest area.
From Blewett Pass 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.
Snowmobiles would continue to ride what we are told are the best areas at Longs Pass and Van Epps including Lake Ann. We have been told by our snowmobile contact that what we ask for from Blewett is mostly "ride through" country, the better riding is on the open slopes toward Lion Rock and into the Naneum, which connects to the Wenatchee Heights and Colockum. The area furthest east is on the border of the ski area has the best access from the Mission Ridge lot for snowshoe hikes and skiers.
Thanks for continuing the discussion.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/17/10, 10:16 AM by WMC »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
Thank you for great ideas from a skier! Sorry that it took a while to find the skier idea sandwiched between other comments, but cool, good job!
the ideas mostly came from newtrout's comments that were pasted here from another forum. It made a lot of sense.
At least for the NF Teanaway, I consider the wilderness area out of play, and mostly a distraction from what really needs to happen. I can only think of maybe 2 locations where I would ever attempt to enter the wilderness in the winter - Navaho Pass and Ingalls Pass - and really there's no way to get close to either without a snowmobile. Even in the spring I ski mostly on the non-wilderness side. I think skiers would benefit more by focussing on the development of new snowparks that snowmobilers would get behind, along with a couple adjacent non-motor areas that snowmobilers can live with. Damn, I'm starting to feel like a sellout. 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/17/10, 10:18 AM by md2020 »
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Sure, a reasonable request. For the sake of this discussion:
The original proposal for winter non-motorized designation-
This encompasses Ingalls Peak, Fortune Peak, Iron Peak, peaks surrounding Bean Creek, Earl Peak, Navaho Peak, Three Brothers in the Teanaway crest area. From Blewett Pass, 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.
The proposal after collaboration in exchange for agreed concession to winter- non motorized use the areas of the proposal to the east of Longs Pass, and snowmobile-group monitoring of the Wilderness Boundary-
This encompasses the existing Voluntary Non-Motorized Area (Beverly-Bean) and Earl Peak to Navaho Peak (Stafford creek per newtrouts proposal), and Three Brothers for the Teanaway crest area.
From Blewett Pass 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.
Snowmobiles would continue to ride what we are told are the best areas at Longs Pass and Van Epps including Lake Ann. We have been told by our snowmobile contact that what we ask for from Blewett is mostly "ride through" country, the better riding is on the open slopes toward Lion Rock and into the Naneum, which connects to the Wenatchee Heights and Colockum. The area furthest east is on the border of the ski area has the best access from the Mission Ridge lot for snowshoe hikes and skiers.
Thanks for continuing the discussion.
We need one of you computer wiz dudes to help with a map like an ealier post....please..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
We need one of you computer wiz dudes to help with a map like an ealier post....please..
We have sent our hand-marked map to a professional map guy. We WMC Executive are lame at the tech stuff, we are from a bit older generation that has not learned...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
the ideas mostly came from newtrout's comments that were pasted here from another forum. It made a lot of sense. At least for the NF Teanaway, I consider the wilderness area out of play, and mostly a distraction from what really needs to happen. I can only think of maybe 2 locations where I would ever attempt to enter the wilderness in the winter - Navaho Pass and Ingalls Pass - and really there's no way to get close to either without a snowmobile. Even in the spring I ski mostly on the non-wilderness side. I think skiers would benefit more by focussing on the development of new snowparks that snowmobilers would get behind, along with a couple adjacent non-motor areas that snowmobilers can live with. Damn, I'm starting to feel like a sellout.
md202...what's your suggestion for such a location for snoparks and adjacent non-motorized area?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
the ideas mostly came from newtrout's comments that were pasted here from another forum. It made a lot of sense. At least for the NF Teanaway, I consider the wilderness area out of play, and mostly a distraction from what really needs to happen. I can only think of maybe 2 locations where I would ever attempt to enter the wilderness in the winter - Navaho Pass and Ingalls Pass - and really there's no way to get close to either without a snowmobile. Even in the spring I ski mostly on the non-wilderness side. I think skiers would benefit more by focussing on the development of new snowparks that snowmobilers would get behind, along with a couple adjacent non-motor areas that snowmobilers can live with. Damn, I'm starting to feel like a sellout.
You are not a sellout, neither is TobyT who wants hybrid-use to Longs Pass. Neither are the folks here questioning the size of the proposal. Other ideas are in play. Check out the possible modification for collaboration with snowmobile folks that serves yours and TobyT uses.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
We need one of you computer wiz dudes to help with a map like an ealier post....please..
Not a 'wiz' in any sense of the word, but I will try and produce a google map of the 'new area' to give people something to discuss when I get home tonight. You posted a google map showing the wilderness areas somewhere above. What was the source of that map? I would like to show the wilderness, but drawing it in by hand will take time .....
I am very heartened by the useful discussion here and over at snowest!
Micah
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
WMC has called our contact and is waiting for a possible response in order to set up a collaborative meeting.
WMC is out of here for mountain biking, then WMC will be elsewhere for 5 days so there may be few or no posts for a while.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
md2020
Member
Offline
Posts: 377
|
md202...what's your suggestion for such a location for snoparks and adjacent non-motorized area?
the beverly/bean crk suggestion seems like a good start.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mike Metz
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Not a 'wiz' in any sense of the word, but I will try and produce a google map of the 'new area' to give people something to discuss when I get home tonight. You posted a google map showing the wilderness areas somewhere above. What was the source of that map? I would like to show the wilderness, but drawing it in by hand will take time .....
I am very heartened by the useful discussion here and over at snowest!
Micah
Copied and pasted from someone on snowest.....
WMC, could you please have your sources identify the entire state wilderness/non-motorized with the inset showing the local area of your porposal?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Kyle Miller
Member
Offline
Posts: 535
WWW
|
WMC has called our contact and is waiting for a possible response in order to set up a collaborative meeting.
WMC is out of here for mountain biking, then WMC will be elsewhere for 5 days so there may be few or no posts for a while.
Thank you.
Glad to hear you're taking a much needed vacation!
Thank You
KMC
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ditch the splitboard, bring skis and some guns then we'll invite you!
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Offline
Posts: 552
WWW
|
I see issues with someone who claims to be talking for many when he is only one person. I've seen this type of thing many times where a single person pretends to be an organization of many people when in fact they are actually an army of 1.
If you go back to the very first message on this thread started by WMC it shows a photo of a skier on a ridge in a wilderness area with snowmobile tracks in the distance. This does not warrant a need for more wilderness, or non-motorized terrain but simple patrolling of existing non-motorized areas to resolve.
I will bet the farm that there is no group of folks but one man behind a name and acronym. It does not take money to run a website if there is a real need, and if there were a real group of people called the WMC there would be a presence on the web in some form.
This same person calling himself WMC has been posting all over forums on the web and referring back to TAY and his other posts as proof of his mission giving the impression of multiple people with a cause when it is just one guy. If there were a real group called WMC there would be contact information, meeting places, names and so forth. There is nothing.
FWIW.....
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/18/10, 02:40 AM by Hyak_Jack »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
I see issues with someone who claims to be talking for many when he is only one person. I've seen this type of thing many times where a single person pretends to be an organization of many people when in fact they are actually an army of 1.
If you go back to the very first message on this thread started by WMC it shows a photo of a skier on a ridge in a wilderness area with snowmobile tracks in the distance. This does not warrant a need for more wilderness, or non-motorized terrain but simple patrolling of existing non-motorized areas to resolve.
I will bet the farm that there is no group of folks but one man behind a name and acronym. It does not take money to run a website if there is a real need, and if there were a real group of people called the WMC there would be a presence on the web in some form.
This same person calling himself WMC has been posting all over forums on the web and referring back to TAY and his other posts as proof of his mission giving the impression of multiple people with a cause when it is just one guy. If there were a real group called WMC there would be contact information, meeting places, names and so forth. There is nothing.
FWIW.....
I know for a fact that WMC is not one person, but several with many supporters in the Wenatchee area. Like most things web related, there are more people involved in this that don't spend an inordinate amount of time on the web or use it at all. For the time being the principals want to remain anonymous because of past issues with harassment and threats. I'm not part of WMC but support their effort with the "1000 skier project" and know many more as well as the core of WMC.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
hyak.net
Member
Offline
Posts: 552
WWW
|
If you do a websearch on "wenatchee mountains coalition" you come up web forum messages that start in April, hitting maybe 6 or 7 forums and they all point to one another to verify facts and numbers. A real group or movement doesn't hide, and has contact information to build support.
If it is actually more then one person then it is just a group of friends, but it sure is not a force the snowmobile community needs to worry about IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
aaron_wright
Member
Offline
Posts: 356
|
A real group or movement doesn't hide, and has contact information to build support.
If it is actually more then one person then it is just a group of friends, but it sure is not a force the snowmobile community needs to worry about IMO.
wenatcheemountainscoalition@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
yammadog
Member
Offline
Posts: 145
|
Didn't want to quote, so that you could have the opportunity to delete the post WMC...WWA is not an organization that you want any affiliation with if you are to get any support from the sled group in your proposal area. All this talk would have been wasted.....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
Didn't want to quote, so that you could have the opportunity to delete the post WMC...WWA is not an organization that you want any affiliation with if you are to get any support from the sled group in your proposal area. All this talk would have been wasted.....
It doesn't matter, as the WWA support the proposal. No sense hiding this fact from the people, especially other snowmobilers.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 06/18/10, 09:16 PM by ruffryder »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
It doesn't matter, as the WWA support the proposal and are behind it. No sense hiding this fact from the people, especially other snowmobilers.
WWA does not tell WMC what to do. WWA posted our article on their Facebook and asked skiers to support WMC/ TSP. WMC states here and on Snowest its only goals. If we can collaborate, WMC wants to move on to Sno Parks as we discussed, and maintain our respective areas for use as discussed.
WMC does not seek and will not support any proposal for new Wilderness in the area that we describe.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ruffryder
Member
Offline
Posts: 125
|
I edited my post. I didn't not intend to imply that the WWA are "behind the scenes" of the WMC, just supporting the proposal. I edited for clarity... It was not my intention to misrepresent the WWA support. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
I edited my post. I didn't not intend to imply that the WWA are "behind the scenes" of the WMC, just supporting the proposal. I edited for clarity... It was not my intention to misrepresent the WWA support. Sorry for the confusion.
No worries, did not take it that way. WMC has its own views, its own agenda. WMC was created so that it could have the single purpose, no overlying agenda or view.
Ruffryder and yammadog, I wish you all the luck in trying to get a meeting mediated my the industry person that we have met with. We can make this a win-win on several levels.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WMC
Member
Offline
Posts: 263
|
WMC has received cc letters of suppport for designated USFS winter non-motorized areas and also has received more letters in support of the proposal below. Letters of support cc to WMC have come from both sides of the Cascades, and from five states. Please consider your support of designated winter non-motorized areas on the Forest and send a message to the OWNF Supervisor. Thank you.
The Need for More Non-Motorized Winter Recreation Areas
In winter, the National Forests in Washington winter have become motorized playgrounds. Very few areas of the Forest outside of Wilderness are closed to snowmobiles. Because most Wilderness Areas are relatively inaccessible in winter to skiers and snowshoers, the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition believes that there is an important need for more non-motorized areas, outside of Wilderness, in our multi-use National Forests.
Sadly, even significant portions of Wilderness have been used as snowmobile playgrounds regularly and intentionally on a large scale for a decade. The Forest Service has not rallied to deter Wilderness snowmobile use. In summer, however, non-motorized adjacent lands have been created as buffers to Wilderness. In winter some of these same buffers could enhance Wilderness protection and at the same time provide non-motorized recreation areas.
To address these issues and the need for new, significant areas for non-motorized winter recreation in the Wenatchee National Forest, a group of backcountry skiers and snowshoers formed the Wenatchee Mountains Coalition. We invite other winter recreationists to help us and to join the ‘Thousand Skiers Project,’ (described below).
Advances in snowmobile technology means that, each year, more terrain can be visited quickly and frequently by snowmobiles. With the capabilities of modern snowmobiles no longer creating a natural separation, there’s a modern need for the USFS to facilitate separation by designating new non-motorized areas.
There are significant numbers of non-motorized winter recreationalists, yet the non-wilderness portion of the Wenatchee National Forest allows a disproportionate amount of the Forest to be monopolized by one use - snowmobiles. We do not wish to prohibit snowmobiles on the Forest (some of us are also snowmobilers), but because motorized and non-motorized uses are incompatible on the same terrain, we ask for more non-motorized terrain. We invite all winter recreationalists to share their thoughts about this issue and this need with the Forest Supervisor (email address 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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 07/05/10, 10:27 AM by WMC »
|
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 0.2 seconds with 21 queries.
|
