National Forest Snowmobile lawsuit

Found this link about the decision rendering the Forest Service's over snow vehicle (OSV) use rules that did not regulate snowmobiles illegal.

The ramifications are obvious.


www.king5.com/news/business/200935461.html

Good start!

This is great news.  I am sure that it will take years to sort out but the pendulum is starting to swing towards a more thoughtful, evenhanded approach to winter recreation in our National Forests.  In my opinion, the 2005 ruling created a free for all in the snowmachine recreationists favor that would not last long with the public.  It is sad to say but the snowmobile community has much of the blame for this.  I think most of us know first hand what the outcome was out in the hills without cataloging it here.

My hope is that all parties can work this out regionally without litigating this to death. 

This quote sums it all up:

"Many of our members use snowmobiles more and more to get to certain places, so we're not in any way asking the forest service to ban them," Menlove told The Associated Press on Monday. "But we are asking for some balance there, where our constituents can go and find peace and powder snow in the backcountry."

This ruling will have huge impacts for sure!   Hopefully they (USFS) will get some user input, unlike the proposed wilderness in the forest plan that benefits a relatively small group (sled access skiers) and does nothing towards its claimed purpose of reducing snowmobile trespass.  There must have been a very squeaky wheel in their ear to get those lines drawn on the map...   :  I'm still mostly a sledder,  but am starting to get some time on AT gear.  I know I have my biases, but I'm really trying to look at this from both perspectives.

So, what are some areas you'd like to see designated  winter non-motorized?  This isn't a trick question.  There have to be options much better than what's in the forest plan.

I'm most familiar with the central Cascades, so I'll start there.  Teanaway has Bean-Beverly already,  but that gets very little use mid-winter due to access distance.  Like I've stated before, I think the best solution there is to convince USFS to move the snowpark up to Beverly or beyond.  That would open up a bunch of existing terrain to day trips.  It would make the existing non-motorized area day useable for the average skier without a snowmobile.

Blewett:  I'd be surprised if there wasn't some non-motorized expansion around Blewett.  Enforcement will be the challenge there.  I would surprised to see them shut down the motorized snowpark at Blewett.  That means a motorized corridor through any new non-motorized areas. 

Mission Ridge:  Stuff around Mission is mostly State land, if I understand correctly.  I'm part of the DNR Naneum recreation committee as a motorized representative.  We are working to come up with some new non-motorized terrain that is acceptable to both camps.  I think there is good opportunity there.

The Passes:  What options are there around Snoqualmie or Stevens?  I can't think of much motorized conflict in the immediate vicinity of Snoqualmie.  At least not for backcountry skiers.  I know there is some cross-country skier conflict in the vicinity of the Stampede snowpark.  That's the most popular snowmobile access in the State, so I'd be surprised if they made big changes there.  The Silver Peak side doesn't have much motorized conflict, does it?  I don't know anything about skiing or sledding around Stevens.

Salmon La Sac:  Scatter and Hawkins are generally sled access.  Red Mountain doesn't get snowmobile traffic.  Polallie Ridge doesn't get sled traffic.  Is there anything that makes sense in the vicinity of Jolly, Sasse, Hex? 

The next question for me is how the USFS will enforce any new boundaries.  The only method that I've seen work anywhere is to start with a cooperative agreement; get both parties at the table and try and come up with boundaries that both parties can stand behind.   You're never going to make everyone happy, but it's pretty clear that the USFS doesn't have the resources to get people out on the snow.  We have to look at alternatives that will be self-enforcing.

Who knows, maybe these decisions will be made entirely behind closed doors; only with input from the gilded few.  I think there is a much better chance of a successful end result if there is some involvement from the user groups. 

So, what are some areas you'd like to see designated  winter non-motorized?  This isn't a trick question.  There have to be options much better than what's in the forest plan.

My first choice (by far) would be Park Butte. I would settle for it being available every other year. It is such a great place for snow recreation. It has a wide mix of terrain that would be extremely popular for skiers and snowshoers of all abilities. I think it would quickly become extremely popular (perhaps rivaling Kendall) if it became a non-motorized sno-park (along with some plowing). There isn't a place this close to Seattle that has those kind of views and that kind of nice, easy terrain.

The Silver Peak side doesn't have much motorized conflict, does it? 

Everytime I've been up there, including last Friday, I see machine tracks. But I never see the machines. They don't generally seem to make it far up into the bowl from what I've seen. So to me there isn't "conflict".

Careful folks, don't make your decisions on whether there is "conflict" now. If off-road motorized access is allowed, they will eventually get there. Think of the future and those who come after us.

Also, as addressing these issues progresses, don't ever accept (and don't allow the FS to accept) the argument "we have been sledding up here for 30 years". HUMAN powered came first!!!!

Good thread, there will need to be plenty of input, thought and action and this is a start.

Everytime I've been up there, including last Friday, I see machine tracks.  But I never see the machines.  They don't generally seem to make it far up into the bowl from what I've seen.  So to me there isn't "conflict".

Silver gets hit by snow-machines as soon as the Summit Nordic Center closes and until the road melts out lower down.  I've been buzzed by snow-machines in the NE basin -- I haven't ever see tracks over the N ridge and down toward Lake Annette, but there is no legal reason why they couldn't do that and with today's powerful machines I'm sure a skilled rider could do it.  One of the frequent riders in the area has a house in Hyak and also happens to be a WSP.

Also Regulations and boundaries of where snow-machines can operate are all well and good -- but given how few resources the forest service has for enforcement, it's a mystery to me how they will get implemented in an effective manner. Sleds routinely "stray" across wilderness boundaries on Mt Baker and in the Teanaway with little consequences. (except when they fall in a crevasse on the Easton)

Oh, I would also ban snowmobiles on Amabalis. Unlike some of the proposals, I don't think there are many sledders who would complain. It gets very few, but they are annoying. You have to pay for a groomed pass if you go up the standard route, but the sleds come in from the side. Amabalis is one of the easiest ways to get great views and an opportunity to do a little off road skiing. This makes it great for beginners and intermediate skiers. Sometimes they groom it all the way to the top. Either way, a skier who is comfortable on groomed snow can go to the end of the groomed and then (at a minimum) try a little road skiing. The snow tends to be better up there, so if the skier is still OK with that, then there are lots of moderate angle (as well as some steep) open terrain to explore.

Silver gets hit by snow-machines as soon as the Summit Nordic Center closes and until the road melts out lower down.  I've been buzzed by snow-machines in the NE basin -- I haven't ever see tracks over the N ridge and down toward Lake Annette, but there is no legal reason why they couldn't do that and with today's powerful machines I'm sure a skilled rider could do it. 

I've seen snowmobile tracks high on the south ridge of Silver Peak in February. I was surprised to see them there, since it seems like that spot is well guarded by steep forest. I don't know what route they took to get there.

The last time I was at Yodelin we saw some sledders in the normal ski spot on the north (highway) side. This would be a great candidate for a non-motorized zone, especially given the long, documented historical skier use (e.g. former ski area).

Smith Brook Road is another good place for non-motorized designation. If it isn't already, Heather/Skyline Ridge should also be non-motorized.

I've seen snowmobile tracks high on the south ridge of Silver Peak in February. I was surprised to see them there, since it seems like that spot is well guarded by steep forest. I don't know what route they took to get there.

I've seen them there too, as we came up from the Tinkham side, April 9, 2011. I don't think the trees are too tight to block access. Once to the ridge, it was easy travel for both skis and snowmobile; almost felt like a little bit of a road on the ridge?

Also Regulations and boundaries of where snow-machines can operate are all well and good -- but given how few resources the forest service has for enforcement, it's a mystery to me how they will get implemented in an effective manner.  Sleds routinely "stray" across wilderness boundaries on Mt Baker and in the Teanaway with little consequences.  (except when they fall in a crevasse on the Easton)

Good point about enforcement difficulties.  And we skiers are pretty powerless to do anything about it if we witness the infraction from the field.  But that isn't a good reason not to create some boundaries. 

Enforcement is part of a well crafted travel management plan, budgeting for enforcement is part of such a plan.

I've seen snowmobile tracks high on the south ridge of Silver Peak in February. I was surprised to see them there, since it seems like that spot is well guarded by steep forest. I don't know what route they took to get there.

It is pretty common now. They even have dropped into Humpback Creek in the past. They access via the groomed trail system out of Crystal Springs toward Lost lake and up to Mirror/Cottonwood lakes.
Great candidate for a winter non motorized zone that could have boundaries similar to that of the roadless area within which much of it sits. ( note: I have not read through this entire thread yet, just saw the post on this particular area.)

The last time I was at Yodelin we saw some sledders in the normal ski spot on the north (highway) side.  This would be a great candidate for a non-motorized zone, especially given the long, documented historical skier use (e.g. former ski area).

Smith Brook Road is another good place for non-motorized designation.  If it isn't already, Heather/Skyline Ridge should also be non-motorized.

These are all great and very logical ones, historically. Add Arrowhead/Henry Creek road system--I always assumed would stay geographically and logistically (parking) protected but with the snow bikes now on the bed of a P/U??

Rainy Pass could be the Smithbrook boundary. Snowmobiles have really only used Smithbrook parking for less than ten years once they figured they could bash a ramp into the hwy plowberm.

I think the key in any sort of effective management is that most snowmobile restricted areas be drainage-wide. That would allow for segregation of use. For instance no snowmobile parking being allowed in the north fork of the Teanaway, but snowmobiles being allowed in the Salmon La Sac area. If the vehicles that tow snowmobiles aren't allowed to park in certain drainages it is much less likely that the same areas are going to be violated by users who don't give a damn.

I think the key in any sort of effective management is that most snowmobile restricted areas be drainage-wide. That would allow for segregation of use. For instance no snowmobile parking being allowed in the north fork of the Teanaway, but snowmobiles being allowed in the Salmon La Sac area. If the vehicles that tow snowmobiles aren't allowed to park in certain drainages it is much less likely that the same areas are going to be violated by users who don't give a damn.

I agree. Making it easy to enforce and making the rules obvious should be the goal. For every guy that doesn't give a damn, and for every poacher, there are probably three that simply don't know that they are violating the rules. Making it obvious (as in "don't park here if you want to go snowmobiling") is the best way to handle it.

^^^ This would effectively be a non-motorized sno-park, since snowmobiles are allowed on FS roads "once there is enough snow to prevent wheeled vehicle use".
I think your buddy WMC would be against this idea, since he is seeking easy, sit-down type snowmobiling access in this very area.
Also, closing the south side of Baker (park butte) will be a fight to the end, as it is currently the only area in Whatcom Co that sleds can access alpine terrain. Yep, that's right, everything else is sub-alpine, roads, or off-limits. The idea that sleds have free reign everywhere is asinine and ignorant.

^^^ This would effectively be a non-motorized sno-park, since snowmobiles are allowed on FS roads "once there is enough snow to prevent wheeled vehicle use".
I think your buddy WMC would be against this idea, since he is seeking easy, sit-down type snowmobiling access in this very area.
Also, closing the south side of Baker (park butte) will be a fight to the end, as it is currently the only area in Whatcom Co that sleds can access alpine terrain. Yep, that's right, everything else is sub-alpine, roads, or off-limits.  The idea that sleds have free reign everywhere is asinine and ignorant.

Then how do those tracks magically appear outside of permissible boundaries and where they have never been until recently?

T. Eastman, boundary crossing is a problem, which happens most often on the nicest clear weather days of the winter, and this year we had quite a few nice days.  For this problem, enforcement and awareness programs are needed.

The 2 or 3 drainages/bowls of terrain along hwy 20 in N. Chelan Co. are what I THINK you are referring to as "never been seen in" areas. These bowls are the most sane to access on a sled, and are really the only ones people will consider going into. The Cascades Mtns topography really does a good job of keeping the BRAAP out! Honestly!

I used Whatcom Co. as my example because this is where I live and this county has one of the largest concentrations of Alpine terrain in the State. There is ONE place (Mt. Baker NRA) that I can legally access Alpine terrain on a sled. In the Nooksack Valley there are NONE! There are a few spots here to access small sub-alpine areas. Personally, I abide by the laws and know local Wilderness boundaries better than most.

I am just trying to put my perspective out there as something to consider. Ski tourers ultimately have "free reign" (just look at Kyle's recent, amazing trip) and, if you imagine yourself as having a snowmobile, look up where you could go in your local area. I'm sure it's limited, and is probably being pressured to get smaller. You could probably include most of Skagit Co. (so the majority of the N. Cascades) in my statement about off limits to snowmobiles. Up here, we are limited to roads, limited sub-alpine terrain, and a dash of Alpine. Luckily, for my interests, I support Canadian snowmobile clubs and can look forward to Alpine terrain sled-ski laps for years to come, while down here things look to be getting worse. I invite you to look at this nice Wilderness overlay map and consider where you could snowmobile vs. ski in desirable terrain.
www.wilderness.net/map.cfm?xmin=-1353746...95&ymax=6227347.8085

^^^ This would effectively be a non-motorized sno-park, since snowmobiles are allowed on FS roads "once there is enough snow to prevent wheeled vehicle use".
I think your buddy WMC would be against this idea, since he is seeking easy, sit-down type snowmobiling access in this very area.
Also, closing the south side of Baker (park butte) will be a fight to the end, as it is currently the only area in Whatcom Co that sleds can access alpine terrain. Yep, that's right, everything else is sub-alpine, roads, or off-limits.  The idea that sleds have free reign everywhere is asinine and ignorant.

I guess my first thought is so what? You can't hunt in a national park. You can't use machines (or even bicycles) inside Wilderness areas. The Wilderness line is rather arbitrary for this area. Most hikers are surprised to find that Park Butte is not in the Wilderness area, and that the lines are drawn where they are.

My second thought (after looking at a map) is that there are areas to the west of Baker that look to be alpine that you could sled to. I've never been to that area, though, as it is just too long a trip and there are surely snowmobiles in that area.

Which brings up my last point. Park Butte may be the only Alpine area available for sleds in Whatcom county, but there are only a couple areas that are available for skiers: Park Butte and Artist Point. There are other spots where one could, theoretically, access them, but it would require a very long ski trip.

Similarly, there really aren't many places like Park Butte anywhere in the state. I'm talking about relatively safe, easy, wild but easily accessible terrain. Artist Point and Paradise are the main two. Other spots around Rainier or Baker pop up in the spring and early summer, but even some of those typically require carrying skis. For the most part, a skier or snowshoer who wants a safe, easy trip sticks to logging roads. Unfortunately, many of those are filled with sleds as well. So they go to the same spots over and over.

I guess my point is that while I understand why a sledder would fight for that area, I think plenty of skiers and snowshoers would too. Like the sledder, we are fighting over a very rare and precious commodity. In this case, it would be the closest type of place to the greater Seattle area, the most populous spot in the state.

Also, closing the south side of Baker (park butte) will be a fight to the end, as it is currently the only area in Whatcom Co that sleds can access alpine terrain. Yep, that's right, everything else is sub-alpine, roads, or off-limits.  The idea that sleds have free reign everywhere is asinine and ignorant.

In 1996 I did an overnight ski trip up Church Mountain from the south. On the morning of our second day we skied to one of the summits up there and looked down the north side (Whistler Creek drainage) and saw that it was crisscrossed by snowmobile tracks. Is that off-limits now? Or is this one of the areas you consider sub-alpine terrain?

Lowell, that area has been closed for 3 years now pending "washout" of road. "Maybe next year" has become the word. If it re-opens, that would become another Alpine zone (barely) due to the elevation of Church and Bearpaw. It is probably one of the best areas to snowmobile in Whatcom Co. and definitely the Nooksack.

RossB, wow. I guess I'll respond to ignorance...ONCE.
I can't follow your first thought, but your right, Park Butte is not in the Wilderness... completely... the side that faces the Middle Fork is.

Your second thought is completely false from your "glance at a map". Please look at the one I provided and be aware of all closures (wilderness, animal closures, private property, gates).

And you last "point" is from another world. In this world, the ski into Park
Butte is not "easily accessible". It would require miles of travel, thousands of feet of elevation gain, etc. Do you realize that the sno-park is usually at the first lot, about a 1-1/2 miles from Baker Lk Hwy, for most of the winter?? To plow that road would be a nightmare at best...
I do agree (been ski touring 20 years) that parking lots for easy access touring are sparse, but my original point is that sledders are restricted to few areas and SKIERS CAN GO MOST ANYWHERE!!!

Where are snowmobiles allowed up Glacier Creek road?

I don't have a sled but I know that a lot of people go up that way. I'm familiar with the summer hiking trail and the Heliotrope Ridge/Grouse Creek drainage area, I thought sleds were allowed up above the treeline in that area and I know that they go a long ways up but I don't know where the legal boundary is.

Where are snowmobiles allowed up Glacier Creek road? 

I don't have a sled but I know that a lot of people go up that way.  I'm familiar with the summer hiking trail and the Heliotrope Ridge/Grouse Creek drainage area, I thought sleds were allowed up above the treeline in that area and I know that they go a long ways up but I don't know where the legal boundary is.

I've never been up there, but I'm guessing the sled guys don't consider any legal terrain up there 'alpine'.  Although it looks like some it could be fun.

Here is a map of the area that you can scroll around. Note that it is never legal to cross Grouse Cr. on OSV since the wilderness bndry is at Grouse Cr. or to its W.

I would also point out that the point of designating land wilderness is expressly to prevent things like snowmobiling, so I'm not very moved by a 'fairness' argument. Still, Pinch's point that there are not many legal places to easily get an OSV into 'the alpine' is well taken (and has been made here before). 

Every winter-accessible alpine location is going to be somebody's favorite ski spot. The question is: 'Does the motorized crowd deserve (motorized) access above treeline?' I tend to answer in the negative, but not based on their displacement of skiers. I simply don't believe motorized travel is appropriate for high mountain areas. But I don't think a lot of current uses of public land are appropriate, and I would accept some alpine OSV use in a compromise.

How would you feel if prime ski terrain were closed to skiing (e.g. to protect some animal species or something like that)?

On another note: what about the west slopes of the Twin Sisters range?

"On another note: what about the west slopes of the Twin Sisters range?"

Fugidaboudit...

@Pinch. You make three good points, I'll respond as best I can, but not in order.

I should have been more clear about what I meant by "west of Baker". Obviously I meant outside the Wilderness area. Lookout Mountain, Groat Mountain and the north side of Grouse Ridge all look to be alpine (according to the map) and all are outside the Wilderness area. You are right about private property, though. That would be the easiest way to access some of those areas. Sometimes private land owners let you use their property, sometimes they don't. It also looks like you could access it via some of the Forest Service roads, too. But if you can't, you can't. Those sorts of things don't show up on most maps (including the Wilderness one you referenced).

I should have been a bit more clear about my vision of Park Butte. When I say "Park Butte" I meant the area, not the butte itself. In other words, everything from Schriebers Meadows all the way up. You are absolutely right, there is no way they would plow that to the trailhead in the winter. But I could easily imagine them plowing it to the turnoff (13). From there it is 6 miles to the trailhead. That puts it well within the range of most skiers. That is similar, if not easier than Kendall, Amabalis or Deer Creek. It is quite a bit less than the West Fork of the Foss River. After going those six miles, the destination is better (in my opinion). I love Kendall, but unless you are highly skilled, you have a view of a nice lake and some OK rambling. The same is true of Deer Creek. Amabalis and the West Fork have outstanding views, but there are no meadows to speak of, and it is obvious the whole time that you are in a tree farm. Schriebers Meadows, on the other hand, is an outstanding destination in its own right. The terrain is mild and easy, with views of Mount Baker. Even with the snow park as low as it is now, Schriebers is not that difficult for a good skier under good conditions. The rewards would be lovely meadow skipping in land that feels wild (even if it isn't legally designated Wilderness). This makes it extremely rare.

I'm no fan of winter camping, but that destination would simply be the best, most rewarding winter camping spot anywhere for a novice on skis or snowshoes. There are a lot of great winter camping spots, but most of them are in areas that are also easily accessible as a day trip (or are in a different skill level than what I have in mind). Artist Point, for example, is great for camping, but unless you are an expert skier, you probably won't do anything more after camping than you would on a day trip. With Schriebers Meadows as your camping destination, though, you could camp with a view of Baker, and spend the next day skiing (or snow shoeing) miles and miles of spectacular, easy terrain.

Furthermore, like any logging road trip, the snow levels vary. Half the trip descriptions in the ski books I have contain the phrase "the mileage starts here, but drive to the snow level". Likewise with this area. My guess is that you can get to the turnoff right now, probably further. But even if it was the full six miles, that isn't that hard this time of year. On a sunny spring day (like Easter) I could have easily skied up to the top of Park Butte from the turnoff. Keep in mind that I'm fifty years old and use skinny skis (no metal edges).

My first point was rather harsh, so it is understandable if you didn't understand it. It is harsh because I know you like your sport, and there are very few places to enjoy your sport the way you want to enjoy it (on alpine terrain). My (admittedly rude, and now quite snarky) response is so what? I would love to hunt buffalo in Yellowstone (how primal -- and how American can you get) but it isn't allowed. I own a motorcycle, but I can't find any alpine trails to ride. I own a jet ski, but they won't allow me to use it in any of the alpine lakes around here. Hell, they won't allow me to use it on many of the sub-alpine lakes. Lake Dorothy would be fantastic for jet skiing, but you guessed it, it is in a Wilderness area. These are all sacrifices we make for the greater good. It is why I have to win a lottery (a lottery!) just to camp in the Enchantments or to even hike in some areas (like Coyote Buttes). It is unfortunate, but just one of those things you have to deal with. I don't think you can assume that you will be able to use your snowmobile in an alpine area any more than I can assume that once I bought a tent I could camp anywhere in a National Park that I want. But I sure do understand why you want to fight for the right to do so. It is a very special area.

Again, I'm a bit sympathetic, because it is one of the few left. But had the road washed out, you would still be out of luck. I do have more sympathy with bikers, though. They aren't allowed in Wilderness areas, despite the fact that their mode of transport is quiet and doesn't pollute.

Which brings me to a suggestion and possible compromises. First off, I would be fine -- no thrilled -- if the Park Butte area become a "four stroke" snowmobile area. By "four stroke" I don't mean that every machine would have to be four stroke, but that every machine would have to abide by noise and exhaust regulations (similar to the ones they put on cars). I know some folks still wouldn't like this (because they hate losing the pristine tracks to sledders) but most would consider it a big improvement.

Another compromise would be to alternate years. Allow snowmobiles into the area on odd years, for example. They do something similar to this for biking on the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie. In that case, though, it is every day that they alternate (bikers are allows on odd days). Alternating years makes more sense for a ski area because skiers would get the added benefit of fewer snowmobile tracks (at least, some would consider it an added benefit).

Either compromise would be fine by me. Of course, both of these mean that sledders are giving up something, and getting nothing in return. I'm not sure what to do about that. I don't know of any area that could be traded in exchange. If so, then it could alternate with the Park Butte area.

I think a bigger issue that everyone is ignoring could be easily regulated at this juncture.

Skiers, what don't you like about snowmobiles?  Is it that someone laid a track?  That someone exists?  That someone is going to fast? 

Or is it the NOISE and SMELL?

I'm guessing the later, and those are easy to fix and easy to regulate.  Just have "special use" areas that are only open to snowmobiles that can effectively demonstrate a low dBa and low emissions.  Basically a modern 4-stroke without any mods, or perhaps even a "FS Special Use Area" additional catalytic converter/muffler combo slip-fit extension.

Snowmobiles would sell more brand new snowmobiles to sledders looking to access these areas, so they'd love it.
Aftermarket would sell cat/muffler combos so they'd love it.
It would be significantly quieter and smell better so skiers in mixed use areas would love (okay tolerate) it.
Also, it would reduce the amount of (relatively speaking) horrifically polluting two-strokes so it fits FS enviro mission statements better.

edit: Apologies to RossB, who had roughly the same idea above. I admit I didn't read the entire thread before posting :-[

Andy Dappen wrote a nice "how this came about" explanation here:

www.justgetout.net/Wenatchee/24084

Good perspective.