telemark skiingbackcountry skiingPacific NorthwestWashington and Oregonweather linksThe Yuki AwardsMt. Rainier and Mt. Adams
Turns All Year
www.turns-all-year.com
  Help | Search | Login | Register
Turns All Year Trip Reports
Backcountry Skiing and Snowboarding

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
03/26/17, 09:51 PM

Support Snohomish County's
Helicopter Rescue Team
 
Trip Reports Sponsor
American Alpine Institute
American Alpine Institute
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.
 
FOAC Snow
Info Exchange


NWAC Avalanche
Forecast
+  Turns All Year Trip Reports
|-+  2011 Backcountry Trip Reports
| |-+  May 2011 Backcountry Trip Reports
| | |-+  May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
:
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All | Go Down Print
Author Topic: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds  (Read 56762 times)
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline

Posts: 2019


WWW
Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #50 on: 06/07/11, 09:12 AM »

There is a basic issue of fairness here.

I agree.

You mentioned 200+ people lined up on the Muir Snowfield last weekend, all of them climbing under their own power.  No machines.  As we all know, this is routine.  Just another sunny day on Mt Rainier.

Imagine all those people riding snowmobiles.  Heck, imagine just ten percent of those people riding snowmobiles.  It would have been a mess.  When you see the Muir Snowfield on a sunny day in June you realize how vastly outnumbered snowmobilers are in Washington's mountains.

Now consider Mt Baker's non-wilderness wedge, an area roughly the size of the Nisqually, Muir, Paradise and Cowlitz Glaciers on Mt Rainier combined.  Twenty snowmobiles can cover more acreage on Mt Baker in a single day than 200+ hikers on Mt Rainier.  And because of this fact, many hikers and skiers stay away from Mt Baker in spring.  It's unfair.  You could even say it's a travesty.

Snowmobilers have the same access rights to alpine summits as everyone else.  Just leave the machine below and walk up.  Machines, on the other hand, don't have rights.  Basic fairness says that the interests of a machine-using minority should not trump the interests of the non-motorized majority. The alpine zone of Mt Baker should be non-motorized.
« Last Edit: 06/07/11, 09:31 PM by Lowell_Skoog » Logged
Jeff Huber
Member
Offline

Posts: 771


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #51 on: 06/07/11, 11:28 AM »

I have never seen a hiker show up to help a snowmobiler,  but we always goto the rescue of hikers, and skiers.
See the below story (which Paul Russell posted in reply #4 of this thread):
http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=1439.0
Logged

Scotsman
Member
Offline

Posts: 3385


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #52 on: 06/08/11, 12:33 PM »

I agree.

You mentioned 200+ people lined up on the Muir Snowfield last weekend, all of them climbing under their own power.  No machines.  As we all know, this is routine.  Just another sunny day on Mt Rainier.

Imagine all those people riding snowmobiles.  Heck, imagine just ten percent of those people riding snowmobiles.  It would have been a mess.  When you see the Muir Snowfield on a sunny day in June you realize how vastly outnumbered snowmobilers are in Washington's mountains.

Now consider Mt Baker's non-wilderness wedge, an area roughly the size of the Nisqually, Muir, Paradise and Cowlitz Glaciers on Mt Rainier combined.  Twenty snowmobiles can cover more acreage on Mt Baker in a single day than 200+ hikers on Mt Rainier.  And because of this fact, many hikers and skiers stay away from Mt Baker in spring.  It's unfair.  You could even say it's a travesty.

Snowmobilers have the same access rights to alpine summits as everyone else.  Just leave the machine below and walk up.  Machines, on the other hand, don't have rights.  Basic fairness says that the interests of a machine-using minority should not trump the interests of the non-motorized majority. The alpine zone of Mt Baker should be non-motorized.


I don't agree.
 It's a compromise.. although not ideal for you and people with the same ideology regarding snowmobiles.... the Baker wedge provides snowmobilers with a short window to access some spectacular terrain. Given the fact that from the summit of Baker the eyes can see vast areas of the north cascades that are not legally available to snowmobilers.. its seems a fair compromise.

Like most debates in America at this time.. it's turned into an ideological battle for some BC skiers who hate the very thought of any motorized transport in the alpine zones and wish they could regulate them into non-existence. That isn't going to happen... and instead of ideology... the answer is pragmatism.

The real issue here is snowmobile/ skier use and interaction in the hot spots that usually revolve around areas of EASY ACCESS( close to population centers and good TH).

As can be seen day after day from TR's on TAY, avoiding snowmobile interaction is easily possible in the PNW and the vast majority of tourers never see or hear a snowmobile and a lot of the time, hardly another soul.

It's the areas of EASY ACCESS( close to population centers and good TH) to the alpine for both snowmobilers and skiers where problems are occurring. Both want to use these areas because of the easy access to spectacular terrain. In these areas, some segregation is going to have to occur and compromise be made. It is IMHO going to be more and more difficult to reach a decent compromise between users groups( which I think is still the best way) if BC skiers keep up this ideological based attitude that snowmobiles shouldn't be allowed in the vast majority of the mountains, alpine areas and high volcano's such as the Baker wedge.

 Strict adherence to ones  ideology doesn't usually solve problems...( look at world and /or politics in the country for examples)... pragmatism and compromise usually does.
« Last Edit: 06/08/11, 12:40 PM by Scotsman » Logged

Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
Crystal Whore
" Scotsman may be correct"....Mikerolfs
T. Eastman
Member
Online

Posts: 435


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #53 on: 06/08/11, 02:17 PM »

Scotsman, the issue is how one activity reduces the value of the experience of other activities.  Noise, tracks that reduce ski safety and diminish the resource, and impacts on wildlife, are examples of why some skiers may not want to share terrain.  With many more non-motorized winter users than motorized ones, the onus for the snowmobile community to address bad behavior within its ranks will be imperative if they don't want to get excluded from winter recreation in these popular areas.

Separation of user groups on a wider landscape basis will be the likely outcome of the current difficulties.  Mt. Baker will get revisited at sometime in regards to the "wedge."
Logged
aaron_wright
Member
Offline

Posts: 569


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #54 on: 06/08/11, 03:16 PM »

I don't agree.
 It's a compromise.. although not ideal for you and people with the same ideology regarding snowmobiles.... the Baker wedge provides snowmobilers with a short window to access some spectacular terrain. Given the fact that from the summit of Baker the eyes can see vast areas of the north cascades that are not legally available to snowmobilers.. its seems a fair compromise.
Snowmobile users can go into the vast areas of the North Cascades National Park and other Wilderness areas. They just have to do it with human power and no wheels. I don't like the argument that snowmobilers are excluded from wilderness, they're not, their sleds are. I used to think MTBs should be allowed in Wilderness Areas, I've kind of changed that opinion. While a lot of trails are suitable, most wouldn't be good shared use trails and would be quickly degraded if open to MTBs. I also don't think horses should be allowed if not historically used in certain areas, the damage from horse traffic is far worse that MTBs. Snowmobiles in regard to WMC's proposals and their current use on the OWNF are unregulated outside Wilderness except in a few small areas, this needs to be addressed. I think for the most part this is not about getting a "fair share" but good land stewardship.
Logged
yammadog
Member
Offline

Posts: 145


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #55 on: 06/08/11, 04:06 PM »

Scotsman, the issue is how one activity reduces the value of the experience of other activities.  Noise, tracks that reduce ski safety and diminish the resource, and impacts on wildlife, are examples of why some skiers may not want to share terrain.  With many more non-motorized winter users than motorized ones, the onus for the snowmobile community to address bad behavior within its ranks will be imperative if they don't want to get excluded from winter recreation in these popular areas.

Separation of user groups on a wider landscape basis will be the likely outcome of the current difficulties.  Mt. Baker will get revisited at sometime in regards to the "wedge."

there is already plenty of separation.....4.5 million acres of seperated landscape identified as wilderness in Washington. this does not take in to account the non-wilderness areas that are restricted to snowmobiles. And I can pretty much guarantee that there is no were close to 4.5 million acreas of rideable snowmobile terrain.

In no way do I approve of anyone crossing in to wilderness boundary on a sled, I think exceptions for emergencies should be considered. But I agree to disagree on creating more area for non-motorized use only, and  that some portion of Baker be available to motorized recreation as it is now, where more than 3/4 of it is off limits. All of rainier, most of st. helens and adams too.

As stated before, I think access to areas for non-motorized users is a beginning answer to the "conflicts" of user groups. Now, how to figure out how to get the roads groomed and parking managed by funds from non-motorized users.
Logged
WMC
Member
Offline

Posts: 263


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #56 on: 06/08/11, 04:50 PM »

 "Park Butte LO & Rage Against the Machine(s), June 3-5, 2011"

http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7991439

"All hell broke loose by 10:30 as machines crossed the Wilderness boundary    300m away to park just below the LO. One would have parked right up to the railing had I not been sitting on the snow reading (almost runn’d me over).  This went on till 5p, nonstop, posse after posse riding up, smokes & beers…  "

" for 40 hours of silence and fresh air all I had to endure was 6.5 hours of shrieking machines and 2 stroke exhaust  ; not much worse ( but worse none-the-less) than hanging out on a downtown Seattle street corner at rush-hour.  Throw in the spectacular accommodations and call it a deal I say!  "
Logged
Scotsman
Member
Offline

Posts: 3385


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #57 on: 06/08/11, 04:59 PM »

"Park Butte LO & Rage Against the Machine(s), June 3-5, 2011"

http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7991439

"All hell broke loose by 10:30 as machines crossed the Wilderness boundary    300m away to park just below the LO. One would have parked right up to the railing had I not been sitting on the snow reading (almost runn’d me over).  This went on till 5p, nonstop, posse after posse riding up, smokes & beers…  "

" for 40 hours of silence and fresh air all I had to endure was 6.5 hours of shrieking machines and 2 stroke exhaust  ; not much worse ( but worse none-the-less) than hanging out on a downtown Seattle street corner at rush-hour.  Throw in the spectacular accommodations and call it a deal I say!  "


From the same post that Randonee posted above.
quote}
Nice folks though; I enjoyed chatting with most of them.  I learned a lot about their machines (2 stroke, 4 stroke, turbo, 5000-$20,000 machines) and why it is such a special area to ride} end quote.

And
Quote}So Park Butte was it for me, right in the middle sno-mo country.  I resolved to be at peace with the bargain; for a sunny weekend on a summit I would just have to suck some fumes and trade away any expectation of quiet.  } end Quote

Seemed he knew what to expect  but wanted to do it anyway and then complain about it.
« Last Edit: 06/08/11, 05:04 PM by Scotsman » Logged

Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
Crystal Whore
" Scotsman may be correct"....Mikerolfs
sizzling carbides
Guest


Email
Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #58 on: 06/08/11, 05:05 PM »

 to park just below the LO.
Parking "just below the lookout" is where you would expect a boundary abiding snowmobiler to park, since the boundary is less that 200' from the porch of the lookout. Maybe the hiker didn't quite know where the boundary was. Doesn't sound like a violation to me, but maybe the WMC should contact the hiker and let him/her know to take pics with more substantial evidence. Otherwise, it's just hearsay. Quibbling about 200'  Cry makes me sad.
« Last Edit: 06/08/11, 05:08 PM by sizzling carbides » Logged
WMC
Member
Offline

Posts: 263


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #59 on: 06/08/11, 05:15 PM »

quote}
Nice folks though; I enjoyed chatting with most of them.  I learned a lot about their machines (2 stroke, 4 stroke, turbo, 5000-$20,000 machines) and why it is such a special area to ride} end quote.

And
Quote}So Park Butte was it for me, right in the middle sno-mo country.  I resolved to be at peace with the bargain; for a sunny weekend on a summit I would just have to suck some fumes and trade away any expectation of quiet.  } end Quote

Seemed he knew what to expect  but wanted to do it anyway and then complain about it.

Yes, snowmobile enthusiasts are mostly regular folks, the folks I meet face to face are good folks.  I have ridden snowmobiles since 1980 and owned my own since '89. Some of the posters arguing points are, well, hmmm.

The guy was talking about the quality of his experience while snowmobiles were around and contrasting it to when snowmobiles were not around.  http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7991439

So the discussion is about having more areas where non-motorized Forest users get away from snowmobiles. That goal does not ban snowmobile recreation, the recreational resource needs management, and current non-motorized areas need Enforcement. And the point of that post is an example of impacts on other people of snowmobile riding.
« Last Edit: 06/09/11, 09:24 AM by WMC » Logged
Scotsman
Member
Offline

Posts: 3385


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #60 on: 06/08/11, 05:28 PM »

Yes, snowmobile enthusiasts are mostly regular folks, the folks I meet face to face are good folks.  I have ridden snowmobiles since 1980 and owned my own since '89. Some of the posters arguing points are, well, hmmm.

The guy was talking about the quality of his experience while snowmobiles were around and contrasting it to when snowmobiles were not around.  http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7991439

So the discussion is about having more areas where non-motorized Forest users get away from snowmobiles. That goal does not ban snowmobile recreation, the recreational resource needs management, and current non-motorized areas need Enforcement. And the point of that post is an example of impacts on other people of snowmobile riding.

Well I agree is does have some relevance to the original thread. In both cases people went to areas where they knew snowmobiles were going to be and then complained about it when they could have chosen to avoid them.
As you yourself has said in the past:

Quote{At times it would appear that some self powered bc users assume a selfish, superior, arrogant attitude. A disrespectful bc skier is no less annoying that a disrespectful snowmobiler. The joy of being self powered is that one can travel away from snowmobiles, other people, noise, etc.- I can easily travel out of hearing range of all the whiners rather quickly. End quote

BTW, welcome back to TAY.
Logged

Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
Crystal Whore
" Scotsman may be correct"....Mikerolfs
aaron_wright
Member
Offline

Posts: 569


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #61 on: 06/08/11, 05:30 PM »

Parking "just below the lookout" is where you would expect a boundary abiding snowmobiler to park, since the boundary is less that 200' from the porch of the lookout. Maybe the hiker didn't quite know where the boundary was. Doesn't sound like a violation to me, but maybe the WMC should contact the hiker and let him/her know to take pics with more substantial evidence. Otherwise, it's just hearsay. Quibbling about 200'  Cry makes me sad.
So it's OK to violate the Wilderness boundary because it's only a few hundred feet? He said they were 300 meters inside the boundary btw. This is the kind of attitude that will eventually get snow mobiles banned from most of the forest. Like the guys sitting atop the ridge on the boundary to ALW, "No one is here, it won't hurt to high mark this bowl a few dozen times". IME it's not a few bad apples that violate Wilderness boundaries, it's a handful of law abiders getting the shaft from their(majority) outlaw brothers.
Logged
sizzling carbides
Guest


Email
Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #62 on: 06/08/11, 05:43 PM »

"he said 300m" Yup, but the lookout is only 150-200' in the boundary, so how is it 900'+?  It's estimation and hearsay. "Outlaws"=LOL.  Sad, sad, quibbling. IMO, the boundary should be shifted to include the Lookout. Also, the apex of the baker NRA "wedge" should be shifted to include the saddle between Sherman Peak and Pooch Peak, rather than at an apex at the summit of Sherman.
« Last Edit: 06/08/11, 06:00 PM by sizzling carbides » Logged
Scotsman
Member
Offline

Posts: 3385


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #63 on: 06/08/11, 07:09 PM »

Scotsman, the issue is how one activity reduces the value of the experience of other activities. 
T.E. I understand your point but sometimes we have to share even if it may not be ideal in certain areas of the mountains.
Lets take your point and turn it around ( admittedly not as serious an issue and somewhat flippant, however).
Skinners and BC skiers in resort ski areas.
Example:
A group of 3 TAYers defiantly skinning up the middle of a groomed run on a busy day at Crystal
They are a minority user in a resort but affect a lot of the resort skiers.
They are on USFS land and are legally allowed to do so.
Resort skiers have to avoid them and that diminishes their run.
Resort skiers have to put up with the noise of their panting.
Resort skiers have to put up with the aura of smugness and entitlement emanating from them.
Resort skiers have their coveted upper lot C parking area taken by them.

Example.
BC skier skinning up Silver Basin ( Crystal sidecountry)on a day the South Back is open.
All the above for the resort skinner, plus
We all had to wait for him to complete his zig zag ascent before we could safely launch.
His skin track marred the pristine fall line.
He put in three sets of tracks and reduced the untracked pow.

Based upon your logic that the activity of a minority reduces the value of the experience for others etc., and that sharing does not override that ,can we get skinners banned from the Crystal resort and sidecountry areas by the USFS please???
« Last Edit: 06/08/11, 08:00 PM by Scotsman » Logged

Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
Crystal Whore
" Scotsman may be correct"....Mikerolfs
Scotsman
Member
Offline

Posts: 3385


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #64 on: 06/08/11, 07:42 PM »

"he said 300m" Yup, but the lookout is only 150-200' in the boundary, so how is it 900'+?  It's estimation and hearsay. "Outlaws"=LOL.  Sad, sad, quibbling. IMO, the boundary should be shifted to include the Lookout. Also, the apex of the baker NRA "wedge" should be shifted to include the saddle between Sherman Peak and Pooch Peak, rather than at an apex at the summit of Sherman.

I support Sizzlings initiative on redrawing these boundary lines. Both these make sense. Now what are you willing to concede in terms of territory Mr sizzling Carbide, I wonder?
« Last Edit: 06/08/11, 07:58 PM by Scotsman » Logged

Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
Crystal Whore
" Scotsman may be correct"....Mikerolfs
sizzling carbides
Guest


Email
Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #65 on: 06/08/11, 08:26 PM »

Like I said, a "shift". The apex of the wedge would take away the Sherman summit area, directly below it, and a taper of the Squak Glacier, while putting the top at a logical, safe spot for riding. The lower parts of the wedge would start at the same spots. So, giving up 500' on the East to have it 500' West at the apex. This would take care of the majority of violations. People only ride to that high point because it is the safest way up and fear for the crevasses. http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&latitude=48.8469353675&longitude=-121.735509874&zoom=11 The Lookout situation could include an "easement" access to the lookout (currently 150-200' inside the boundary), while taking away an equal portion along the ridge to the North. Snowmobile riders want to access the lookout (and do) all winter for the purpose of shelter and a rest spot with a beautiful view.
Logged
Scotsman
Member
Offline

Posts: 3385


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #66 on: 06/08/11, 08:50 PM »

Makes sense and as you say it would stop all the hysteria from BC skiers regarding crossing arbitrary wilderness boundary lines that were drawn without any regards to the natural terrain and logical turnaround or tour end points.
Being 200 ft or 25' from the hut makes no difference in reality, only in ideology.
And the Baker redraw looks absolutely logical.
I like it.
Of course... never happen and I'm sure the response will be " You'll have to pry 500ft of wilderness  boundary shift from my cold dead hands. " I think Amar already said something like that above.
Logged

Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
Crystal Whore
" Scotsman may be correct"....Mikerolfs
T. Eastman
Member
Online

Posts: 435


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #67 on: 06/08/11, 09:43 PM »

Scotsman, if you want to take on the issue of skinning at ski areas that is your prerogative.  That tangental subject is not my concern and is not in any way tied to the issue regarding the separation of skiers and snowmachiners in road accessible locations.

If people object to sharing the landscape with other users that negatively impact their use of the resource, it is their right to state their position and try to use the public process to shape policy.

Fairness is a matter of perspective.  My concern is effective policy.  Effective planning can address the concerns of most stakeholders and result in better recreation for most users.
Logged
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline

Posts: 2019


WWW
Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #68 on: 06/08/11, 10:37 PM »

In the long run, effective policy will encourage separation of motorized and non-motorized users.  Sharing terrain is never going to work well.  Snowmobiling and skiing are not compatible, much like jet-skiing and swimming are not compatible.  It may not seem like a problem to the motorized user, but it will always be a problem to the non-motorized user.  The power mismatch is too great.  Still, I don't expect administrative changes in the near term, and I don't have time and energy to push for changes at present. 

For what it's worth, I suggest that snowmobilers think about what they gain AND what they lose on Mt Baker.

Mt Baker and Mt St Helens probably account for 90+ percent of the conflicts between snowmobilers and non-snowmobilers in western Washington over the course of a year.  My impression is that St Helens is used by snowmobilers over a longer season than Baker.  It seems that Baker is used mainly in spring, and the season favored by snowmobilers largely overlaps the season favored by backcountry skiers.  So I wonder if snowmobilers have given much thought to how much damage they are doing to themselves by insisting on riding at Mt Baker.  If not for Mt Baker, they would have much fewer conflicts with non-motorized recreationists and would generate much less ill will.  Riding Mt Baker is burning up political capital that could be valuable for other things snowmobilers care about.  Is it worth it?
Logged
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline

Posts: 2019


WWW
Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #69 on: 06/09/11, 07:30 AM »

The vast majority of BC skiers in the PNW are liberal leaning urbanites( NTTAWWT) who consider the mountains and especially the alpine regions as spirituous places and are usually proponents of non-motorized mountain travel ( against  snowmobiles, dirt bikes etc) Many consider recreational snowmobiling " blue collar" and" redneck".

And later:

Like most debates in America at this time.. it's turned into an ideological battle for some BC skiers who hate the very thought of any motorized transport in the alpine zones and wish they could regulate them into non-existence.

Scotsman would have us believe that backcountry skiers dislike snowmobiles because of ideology or maybe even class hatred.  Let me offer an alternative explanation.  I object to snowmobiles not because of my ideology but because of my senses.  When I go to the mountains, there are certain things that I value, and these things are revealed to me through my senses.  The problems I have with snowmobiles are revealed the same way.

I value silence when I go to the mountains.  Snowmobiles disrupt the silence with their high-pitched whining.

I value the sight of nature.  Snomobiles have an unequalled ability to mark up the landscape.  Admiring a mountain covered by snowmobile tracks is like admiring a painting covered with graffiti.

I value the smell of spring.  When snowmobiles pass me I instead get the smell of motor oil and exhaust.

I value the feel of natural snow when I ski on it.  Snowmobile tracks alter the snow so it feels like skiing over railroad tracks.

I value the sense of space that I feel in the mountains.  This sense develops from the time and effort it takes me to get there.  When I awake at a campsite after a day spent climbing and I'm visited before breakfast by snowmobilers who had their morning coffee in town, my sense of space is destroyed.

To say that ideology drives my objections to snowmobiles is really clueless.  It's my senses that bother me.  Maybe you need to get off the machine and let your senses clear in order to understand.
« Last Edit: 06/09/11, 07:33 AM by Lowell_Skoog » Logged
sizzling carbides
Guest


Email
Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #70 on: 06/09/11, 07:46 AM »

  Maybe you need to get off the machine and let your senses clear in order to understand.
You should have left this sentence out. It detracts from the personal points made earlier and makes you sound pompous.

Any input on my comments about the boundary shift? Before it gets buried.
Logged
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline

Posts: 2019


WWW
Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #71 on: 06/09/11, 08:38 AM »

You should have left this sentence out. It detracts from the personal points made earlier and makes you sound pompous.

Point well taken. I found Scotsman's posts offensive.  I shouldn't have responded in kind.

Quote
Any input on my comments about the boundary shift? Before it gets buried.

I don't think minor boundary shifts will improve the situation much.  They might reduce the basis for formal complaints to the Forest Service, but they wouldn't solve the basic problem as I see it.
Logged
aaron_wright
Member
Offline

Posts: 569


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #72 on: 06/09/11, 09:07 AM »

I don't think minor boundary shifts will improve the situation much.  They might reduce the basis for formal complaints to the Forest Service, but they wouldn't solve the basic problem as I see it.

Shifting the boundary will only cause sledders to move their incursion further into the closure. Most don't care where the boundary line is. Observe any closure or wilderness boundary and they are commonly crossed. Like in Amar's original post in this great TR, only one in a group cared. I think that's representative of the user group IME. Everywhere I've been along the boundary of Wilderness or a closure(like Tronsen) there are sled tracks crossing into the closure every time.

If people want to talk ideology, it's the ideology of ME, ME, ME, and it's not just the sledders it's skiers too. It's just that sledders impact other users more than the other way around, and they don't care. This really isn't about one group vs. the other, it's about people not caring about other people. ALL recreational pursuits are selfish.

Just like OHVs are restricted to certain trails and OHV areas, sleds should be too. It's for the greater good, not for non-motorized users.
« Last Edit: 06/09/11, 09:36 AM by aaron_wright » Logged
WMC
Member
Offline

Posts: 263


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #73 on: 06/09/11, 09:22 AM »

And later:

...  I object to snowmobiles not because of my ideology but because of my senses.  When I go to the mountains, there are certain things that I value, and these things are revealed to me through my senses.  The problems I have with snowmobiles are revealed the same way.

I value silence when I go to the mountains.  Snowmobiles disrupt the silence with their high-pitched whining.

I value the sight of nature.  Snomobiles have an unequalled ability to mark up the landscape.  Admiring a mountain covered by snowmobile tracks is like admiring a painting covered with graffiti.

I value the smell of spring.  When snowmobiles pass me I instead get the smell of motor oil and exhaust.

I value the feel of natural snow when I ski on it.  Snowmobile tracks alter the snow so it feels like skiing over railroad tracks.

I value the sense of space that I feel in the mountains.  This sense develops from the time and effort it takes me to get there.  When I awake at a campsite after a day spent climbing and I'm visited before breakfast by snowmobilers who had their morning coffee in town, my sense of space is destroyed.

To say that ideology drives my objections to snowmobiles is really clueless.  It's my senses that bother me.  Maybe you need to get off the machine and let your senses clear in order to understand.


Good words.Lowell. (edit to add) And good words Aaron. Likely common ideas to most backcountry skiers, another example here-
 http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7991439

Perhaps skiers with concerns could please step up and speak up about their concerns and assert their legitimate use of the Forest- quiet, winter non-motorized recreation. On the Mt. Baker District contact the Winter Rec Manager Otis Allen 360 854-2610, email oallen@fs.fed.us
« Last Edit: 06/09/11, 10:39 AM by WMC » Logged
yammadog
Member
Offline

Posts: 145


Re: May 29, 2011, Mt Baker, Easton Above the Clouds
« Reply #74 on: 06/09/11, 01:30 PM »

Perhaps skiers with concerns could please step up and speak up about their concerns and assert their legitimate use of the Forest- quiet, winter non-motorized recreation. On the Mt. Baker District contact the Winter Rec Manager Otis Allen 360 854-2610, email oallen@fs.fed.us

And just to make sure you don't look selfish or elitist, be sure to include the already established millions of acres of wilderness and non motorized territory as part of the recreation plan in your suggestions.

there will always be boundaries and someone to violate them, it's incumbent on all of us to educate those people and if they continue to offend, do our part to help the FS enforce and penalize the offenders.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All | Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Thank you to our sponsors!
click to visit our sponsor: Feathered Friends
Feathered Friends
click to visit our sponsor: Marmot Mountain Works
Marmot Mountain Works
click to visit our sponsor: Second Ascent
Second Ascent
click to visit our sponsor: American Alpine Institute
American Alpine Institute
click to visit our sponsor: Pro Guiding Service
Pro Guiding Service
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.