WMC Non-Motorized Advocacy

www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/21163

I've forwarded this article to all the snowmobile clubs and websites I know of  in the hope that they will write in to the USFS and defeat this proposal.

If anybody has other any other snowmobile groups that will help , post them up or e-mail me.
thanks.

I find it ironic that BC skiers will rant about their right to ski with resort/sidecountry skiers( who have bought season passes or expensive day passes) for untracked powder adjacent to recent ski area expansions ( WP and BB at Crystal) and complain loudly if one-way passes or access to these areas are either restricted or denied but the same BC skiers will try and exclude snowmobile users who pay fees to use their machines to compete with them for the untracked powder.

In one case BC skiers want to restrict the access of another group and in the other case they don't want their access restricted.......mmmmmh

Saturday a women in the Tronsen Meadows non motorized area told us where we could find the tracks of a moose that had been browsing in the area. Later, when we skinned up to the ridge line, all we could hear was the echoing whine of engines from the next valley over.

To me this isn't about who gets which bit of powder (or wet crud) on the weekend, its about leaving some areas remote, quiet and hard to get to.

Here is a copy of an e-mail I just sent the 20 avid snowmobilers that work in my company. If you support defeating this proposal please do the same to your snowmobile friends.
Thank you.

Quote] Please see the attached article that describes an attempt by a group of backcountry skiers to restrict access by snomobilers into various areas where legal snowmobile use is currently allowed. If you want to retain your current access rights you MUST express your opinions to the USFS or you will lose them.
Please not think that your voice is unimportant as in many cases only a few people write in during these periods both for and against and it doesn't take many to sway the vote one way or another.

So please do not be apathetic, write in as follows;

Please weigh-in by Emailing, mailing, or calling: Rebecca Heath (Forest Supervisor) and the Forest Plan Revision Team: Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Headquarters, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, WA 98801,  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., (509) 664-9200.
Add your full name, city of residence, and phone number to the note so that the Forest Service can verify you're a real person.] End quote

its about leaving some areas remote, quiet and hard to get to. 

Here's some suggestions for you... Olympic National Park, Mount Rainier National Park, North Cascades National Park...... all are remote, quiet and hard to get to.

What I find ironic is that a snowmobile annual registration cost $40, and includes a seasonal Snow Park Permit.

The same snow park permit for a non-polluting user group cost the same $40 per season (with no registration paperwork, sled stickers, etc required).

In previous winters, the permit for snowmobiles was LESS than skiers/snowshoers/etc.

Snow machines cover FAR more ground than human powered sports.  The registrations should be commensurately higher.

Or better yet, lets base the annual registration fees on a threefold combination of fuel economy/MPG, tailpipe emissions, and db level readings from a specific distance.

And $12 for a "vintage snowmobile"?!? They're the worst when it comes to air quality.

Yes I've some some sledding, but I agree with and support the concept of updated designations.  We all know technology is far superior to what it was decades ago when the rules were written, and machines now days can go farther, faster, higher, steeper...it's a whole new ballgame. 

Good point.
I would personally agree with an increase in snowmobile users fees assuming no further restrictions on access.
Nice photo, I'm kinda digging her post apocalypse look.

Mentioned on Wildsnow.com this AM-

www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/21163

Thanks for the update. I've emailed Rebecca supporting the three proposals.

Thanks for the update.  I've emailed Rebecca supporting the three proposals.

Thank you very much! We appreciate your support and hope that others would read the article to see what has been done to secure some new non-motorized areas for skiers, snowshoers, and winter campers.

For anyone else interested the article contains links to the three professionally-made maps, as well as photos of some of the areas, and information about the initiative. The article is based on the Proposal that was presented to the relevant USFS Districts, to the Forest Supervisor and her staff, and also has been presented to State and Federal elected officials.

Thank you!

There is a need for equal and shared access to these areas that belong to ALL USERS not just the snowmobilers. I am sorry to all you sledders but the time has come for you to share the forest with the majority (non-motorized users). There is plenty of available land for both user groups and they must be seperate but equal. If I was a snowmobiler I would come to the table now and reach an agreement with the BC skiers because federal regulation is coming soon for the winter landscape and it will not be favorable to motorized use.

It is only a matter of time before the overall general public, from New York to California, speaks out in a very large, collective voice to the public land managers and asks for change. It will come to pass and soon.

p.s. It would behoove you greatly to stay out of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area before you go and plead your case to the Forest Service about YOUR need to protect your rights when you clearly disregard those rules governing snowmobiles in non-motorized areas.

Slippery slope here folks.

This starts with one request then leads to others.
Limiting access to one group to suit your personal agenda, when will you really be happy?
The real answer is, you won't be, because this isn't about sharing it's about excluding.

I am a skier, I own sleds as a means to ski BC terrain not easily accessed from trail heads.
My sleds hardly get off the trailer, as a mater of fact they haven't been used this season yet.
When they do they will be used as BC skiing access tools. I would fight this even if I sold them tomorrow, because your premise is flawed and there is already land set aside that meets your requirements, it's called Wilderness (not to mention the National Parks).

BTW, don't bother bringing up the "some sledders violate wilderness" argument.
While it's true, the majority of sledders despise these actions and the people responsible.
These self entitled morons that make anyone with a sled look bad, are assholes, and many (snowmobilers) would go out of their way to turn these individuals in. I encourage anyone who is in Wilderness to carry a camera and take pictures that can be used as evidence in the evnet that you see someone violating a Wilderness boundary with a sled. All that said, assholes (and genuinely nice people) come in all shapes and sizes and I've met as many on skis as I have on a sled.

Slippery slope here folks.

This starts with one request then leads to others.
Limiting access to one group to suit your personal agenda, when will you really be happy?
The real answer is, you won't be, because this isn't about sharing it's about excluding.

I am a skier, I own sleds as a means to ski BC terrain not easily accessed from trail heads.
My sleds hardly get off the trailer, as a mater of fact they haven't been used this season yet.
When they do they will be used as BC skiing access tools. I would fight this even if I sold them tomorrow, because your premise is flawed and there is already land set aside that meets your requirements, it's called Wilderness (not to mention the National Parks).

BTW, don't bother bringing up the "some sledders violate wilderness" argument.
While it's true, the majority of sledders despise these actions and the people responsible.
These self entitled morons that make anyone with a sled look bad, are assholes, and many (snowmobilers) would go out of their way to turn these individuals in. I encourage anyone who is in Wilderness to carry a camera and take pictures that can be used as evidence in the evnet that you see someone violating a Wilderness boundary with a sled. All that said, assholes (and genuinely nice people) come in all shapes and sizes and I've met as many on skis as I have on a sled.

The only definite 'group' in this discussion is the snowmobile riders who go offroad. It is that group v. the majority of citizens who use USFS Lands for winter recreation that has denied the reasonable use of the winter Forest to others. We ask for management of snowmobile riding that allows areas for the majority of offroad Forest users- areas that are free of motorized use.

There are NO "rights" for snowmobile riding on all of this terrain, it is by default of (no) management. There has never been consideration, study, or any designation for such dispersed snowmobile riding. USFS literature speaks of groomed and ungroomed routes for snowmobiles, the Road system. Similarly, it has not been specifically prohibited, which along with the lack of enforcement presence allows "anything goes" as it exists. Unfortunately the vacuum of management has set up an expectation which some wish to assume some "right". The illogic of the situation is glaring. What other example of motor vehicle use on Public Lands allows machines to be ridden which have as much power as a Subaru station wagon, ridden with scant Regulation, no enforcement, no controls, anywhere except where specifically prohibited by signage?  We must point out indeed that snowmobile riders are overwhelmingly good citizens since there is no real enforcement and a paltry few RCW regulations in general. No speed limit, few limits as to where to ride, free-for-all.

The "Wilderness" argument is worn-out as well, it would be refreshing if the snowmobile advocacy websites added some new ideas to the rhetoric that is automatically given in this discussion. Wilderness is generally not accessible for most Forest non-motorized users, the majority of citizens using the offroad Forest in winter. Wilderness was NOT designated and designed to be easily accessed or heavily used for recreation.

The slippery slope has been that the formal management of snowmobiles applies to perhaps the year 1980 when snowmobiles hardly left the Roads. In the Wenatchee Mountains specifically along the pristine crest are set aside four sections of land that comprise the excellent Tronsen Non-Motorized Area- along something like 30 miles of roadless ridge all of which has snowmobile traffic to the summit. There are some other 'Voluntary" non-motorized areas that are not Enforced and not honored by some snowmobile riders. Along the area of the Proposal the Beverly-Bean Voluntary Non-Motorized Area is routinely ridden from over the summit ridge of  Earl Peak. The traffic in to the Voluntary Non-Motorized Area is indeed much less than the snowmobile traffic along the Ingalls (and Jack Cr.) side of the Teanaway crest, the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.

This author has ridden snowmobiles in the Proposal area for skitouring since 1988. It was only after the early 1990s that snowmobiles went much beyond the Roads. It has been in the past few years that the new very-capable snowmobile technology has become mainstream to allow even MORE expansion of snowmobile riding into MORE Forest areas. At this time, that unique, pristine area of the Proposal is completely dominated by snowmobile riding, and taken away from the practical use of the majority of Forest users.

The time has come for management, not for prohibition, of snowmobile riding on the Forest. Many other citizens indeed have their 'right' to use the Forest taken by unmanaged snowmobile riding. Skiers, snowshoers, winter campers, the majority of citizens who own the Forest must step up and ask for their fair share of the Forest for their use.

Nice blog.
After reading all of your points of view, I still respectfully disagree regardless.

The time has come for management, not for prohibition, of snowmobile riding on the Forest. Many other citizens indeed have their 'right' to use the Forest taken by unmanaged snowmobile riding. Skiers, snowshoers, winter campers, the majority of citizens who own the Forest must step up and ask for their fair share of the Forest for their use.

Clever wording, it still adds up to exclusion of others on the basis of your own self interest.

citizens who own the Forest must step up and ask for their fair share of the Forest for their use.

With that kind of logic I should be able to walk into the White House and crack a beer whenever I feel like it.

Nice blog.
After reading all of your points of view, I still respectfully disagree regardless.

Clever wording, it still adds up to exclusion of others on the basis of your own self interest.

Exclusion? How about practical exclusion of all others by snowmobile riders? I get it that snowmobile riders and their admirers like to post about the topic of creating winter non-motorized areas that will serve the clear majority of winter offroad Forest users. This author rides snowmobiles for decades, now to go ski touring, in the past for fur trapping and for backcountry camps for skitouring. What is pertinent about our advocacy is that our discussions at many venues and levels of Gov't include discussion of all Forest users including snowmobile riders. Aside from my snowmobile, I also ride my dirt bike on the Forest, drive my Jeep on 4 x 4 Forest trails, drive my car, pickup, Jeep on Forest Roads. I do not expect to run my motorized vehicles anywhere on the Forest, through meadows, through streams, to summits of pristine peaks. Other vehicles on the Forest are managed, unlike the current free-for-all snowmobile situation.

On the snowmobile forums are talk of how much riding is available on the Forest, discussion of how lightly used are some of the areas available for snowmobile riding. Here is cc from a SAWS (Snowmobile Alliance of Western States) Rep "dave h": "SAWS stands by our organization's commitment to engage in retention and expansion of snowmobile access on national forest land." Above you speak of exclusion? It is indeed other winter Forest users being excluded from reasonable use of the Forest from a smaller group that invests considerable cash into being able to ride a machine unregulated on the Forest.

Our effort is intended to motivate that silent majority of Forest users to speak up for their use!

Slippery slope here folks.

This starts with one request then leads to others.
Limiting access to one group to suit your personal agenda, when will you really be happy?
The real answer is, you won't be, because this isn't about sharing it's about excluding.

I am a skier, I own sleds as a means to ski BC terrain not easily accessed from trail heads.
My sleds hardly get off the trailer, as a mater of fact they haven't been used this season yet.
When they do they will be used as BC skiing access tools. I would fight this even if I sold them tomorrow, because your premise is flawed and there is already land set aside that meets your requirements, it's called Wilderness (not to mention the National Parks).

BTW, don't bother bringing up the "some sledders violate wilderness" argument.
While it's true, the majority of sledders despise these actions and the people responsible.
These self entitled morons that make anyone with a sled look bad, are assholes, and many (snowmobilers) would go out of their way to turn these individuals in. I encourage anyone who is in Wilderness to carry a camera and take pictures that can be used as evidence in the evnet that you see someone violating a Wilderness boundary with a sled. All that said, assholes (and genuinely nice people) come in all shapes and sizes and I've met as many on skis as I have on a sled.

taking into consideration that the laws were written before modern capabilites of sleds made these 'issues' an issue- gravity is right on the money here. it does seem to be 'excluding' rather than a progressive adaptation considering the technology.

Rep "dave h": "SAWS stands by our organization's commitment to engage in retention and expansion of snowmobile access on national forest land.

I'm confused.
After reading this several times, I'm not seeing it.
Tell me where he talks about limiting access or exclusion of others?

Additionally, how can you say that Wilderness doesn't factor into this conversation?
Seriously, the only reason you say this is because it takes the wind out of your argument.

From everything I have read, Wenatchee Mountains Coalition (WMC) seeks to exclude use of public lands to others on the basis of their own agenda.

I'm confused.
After reading this several times, I'm not seeing it.
Tell me where he talks about limiting access or exclusion of others?

Additionally, how can you say that Wilderness doesn't factor into this conversation?
Seriously, the only reason you say this is because it takes the wind out of your argument.

From everything I have read, Wenatchee Mountains Coalition (WMC) seeks to exclude use of public lands to others on the basis of there own agenda.

Yes, strongly agree with the first line.

Nearly all of the Forest in winter except the road system was non-motorized in winter before the advent of advanced snowmobile technology. That new technology is not managed in a meaningful fashion.

In the non-Wilderness Forest, snowmobile riding dominates because of lack of management. The Forest has not been designated or given to the snowmobile riders, it has been taken for snowmobile riding by accident of advanced snowmobile technology.

Please reread or have someone explain the issues of Wilderness and winter non-motorized use. We use Wilderness in winter. Most folks have few opportunities to get there. We do note that some like to thumb their nose at use of the Forest by the clear majority of winter offroad Forest users. The Forest is not and was not intended to be divided into two parts being 1) Wilderness and 2) Forest snowmobile terrain. The Forest is for all citizens, not just for motorized users. What about another favorite SAWS/ WSSA word- "share." Indeed, non-motorized users find themselves now asking for their share of the Forest, since lack of management allows snowmobiles to ride widely and unmanaged and thus remove reasonable use of the Forest from other citizens.

Unless one argues the preposterous idea that snowmobiling and pedestrian use on snowy slopes are together compatible, then logic concludes that snowmobile riding excludes the practical use of the snowy Forest by pedestrians- non-motorized Forest users.

"From what I have read"- have you read anything about this?

WMC encourages winter non-motorized Forest users to speak up for their use, the original use, of the winter Forest.

Nice little personal shot there.
Whatever.

For the record, I am not confused about your organization and it's intentions or the far reaching implications if you got your way.

I stand by my earlier statements.
Your platform is based upon the exclusion of others to suit your personal agenda.
End of story. You can type away ad nauseum here and anywhere else as long as you like, it still boils down to the same thing, Wenatchee Mountains Coalition (WMC) seeks to exclude use of public lands to others on the basis of their own agenda.

Alternate viewpoints are welcome: debate the viewpoint, not the person.

This kind of post and discussion is only okay here if it can stick to the above, WMC.  Issues like these are heated enough without taking jabs at the people that are trying to understand your proposals.

www.winterwildlands.org/resources/report...age_Report_final.pdf

This is probably a biased study in that it is from the Winter Wild Lands Alliance but I suspect that, in much of the area under discussion, the timber value of the land is a major consideration in management and I have certainly noted damage to trees from snow machines in the Wenatchee mountains...if this sort of damage is widespread I would suspect that the forest service would be legally obligated to institute a closure to preserve the value of the land and protect habitat.

Perhaps the best thing for all involved would be if the snow machining community instituted voluntary closures based on season and snow depth to limit damage to timber resources and habitat but still preserve access for part of the season? Climbers do something similar to preserve access to cliffs on which hawks nest in the Leavenworth area.

Edit: It is already happening on paper company land near spokane:

www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/nov/19/timber-trails-closed/

The WMC, you are starting this again?

Didn't you get ousted as getting caught lying about who you are on snowest?

We going to have to do the same old discussion again? We don't have to figure out the correct and accurate numbers to use in your arguments against us again do we?

You know, I see another snow user, and I think, cool man, another human being that likes being out in the snow..

The constant divisive manor in which these conversations go, creating an US vs THEM argument full of hostility does very little to help the cause.

In an age of tightening government budgets and realignment of financial importance with regards to the economy and jobs, I would think trying to group ALL snow users together would net a better result then just trying to restrict other snow users.

So is this the same WMC as before? Or as someone else taken over the reigns?

WMC wildly and provocatively overreaches in pitching non-motorized status for the entire Wenatchee Mountain divide.  Scatter Creek, Van Epps, Gallagher/Lake Ann - people aren't skiing there because of the machines - it's just too far to go without a machine.  Even Stafford is a haul for someone without a machine.  Oddly, other skiers with snowmo's(TobyT, Good2Go) who ski the "pristine" divide don't seem to be complaining.

I'm unfamiliar with the Mission Ridge area but things do work relatively well around Blewett with the mix of shared routes along with voluntary and official closures.  WMC should revise his maps to show the  Pipe Creek non-motorized area and the voluntary closure along Wenatchee divide toward Old Blewett Pass.  Somehow the voluntary closure up Jungle Creek in the Teanaway was also omitted.

The WMC, you are starting this again?

Didn't you get ousted as getting caught lying about who you are on snowest?

We going to have to do the same old discussion again?  We don't have to figure out the correct and accurate numbers to use in your arguments against us again do we?

You know, I see another snow user, and I think, cool man, another human being that likes being out in the snow..

The constant divisive manor in which these conversations go, creating an US vs THEM argument full of hostility does very little to help the cause.

In an age of tightening government budgets and realignment of financial importance with regards to the economy and jobs, I would think trying to group ALL snow users together would net a better result then just trying to restrict other snow users.

So is this the same WMC as before? Or as someone else taken over the reigns?

The WMC Proposal has gone where stated from the start, and has received much individual and Organizational support. We are here on TAY in order to talk with non-motorized enthusiasts so that they may speak to these issues.

WMC wildly and provocatively overeaches in pitching non-motorized status for the entire Wenatchee Mountain divide.  Scatter Creek, Van Epps, Gallagher/Lake Ann - people aren't skiing there because of the machines - it's just too far to go without a machine.  Even Stafford is a haul for someone without a machine.  Oddly, other skiers with snowmo's(TobyT, Good2go) who ski the "pristine" divide don't seem to be complaining.

I'm unfamiliar with the Mission Ridge area but things do work relatively well around Blewett with the mix of shared routes along with voluntary and official closures.  WMC should revise his maps to show the  Pipe Creek non-motorized area and the voluntary closure along Wenatchee divide toward Old Blewett Pass.  Somehow the voluntary closure up Jungle Creek in the Teanaway was also omitted.

WMC is addressing the pristine unroaded area of the Wenatchee Mountains Crest. That is the area along the Wilderness Boundary, thus it has a role in the widespread ongoing and intentional snowmobile Wilderness trespass that is well known in USFS and widely by many folks. That is clearly stated from the start. Please read the Proposal more carefully and you will see that Road access in all Proposals is preserved. As well, unlike the opposition, WMC has considered other viewpoints and the result is presenting now three Proposals based on input from others, gathered here and on Snowest. These three Proposals have been presented(and discussed) to the OWNF USFS Forest Plan Revision Team, OWNF Supervisor Heath and her Staff, and to State and Federal elected officials.

Alternate viewpoints are welcome: debate the viewpoint, not the person.

This kind of post and discussion is only okay here if it can stick to the above, WMC.  Issues like these are heated enough without taking jabs at the people that are trying to understand your proposals.

I agreed with what he stated, then provided restatement and clarification.

It is not clear that he has read the Proposal or other information, he does not refer to it, thus that question is asked.

Yes, Marcus, sir, I am glad that you will be looking for name calling as there was quite a bit here on the previous thread that was allowed. Some of it was uncivil and outrageous, and is already back again.

www.winterwildlands.org/resources/report...age_Report_final.pdf

This is probably a biased study in that it is from the Winter Wild Lands Alliance but I suspect that, in much of the area under discussion, the timber value of the land is a major consideration in management and I have certainly noted damage to trees from snow machines in the Wenatchee mountains...if this sort of damage is widespread I would suspect that the forest service would be legally obligated to institute a closure to preserve the value of the land and protect habitat.

Perhaps the best thing for all involved would be if the snow machining community instituted voluntary closures based on season and snow depth to limit damage to timber resources and habitat but still preserve access for part of the season? Climbers do something similar to preserve access to cliffs on which hawks nest in the Leavenworth area.

Edit: It is already happening on paper company land near spokane:

www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/nov/19/timber-trails-closed/

Yes, thanks Ryan for some good points!

Yes, I had followed the original thread, and I'm clear on who your organization is and what your platform boils down to.

The WMC, you are starting this again?

This topic has a long history here and I know it was frustrating for a folks on both sides of the issue last time it came up.  The debate needs to be about the proposal and other alternatives, not about the people behind them.