[Ski]

[Ski]

[Randito]

[DIYSteve]

Some people on this thread conflate wilderness areas (a relatively small subset of public lands) with all public lands. Do you also advocate motorized travel at Green Lake and on the Burke Gilman trail? National Parks? Publicly owned cemeteries? If not, then you necessarily acknowledge a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Some big tough guy motoheads will always play the victim. See, e.g., many of the posts in this thread. Victimhood is a big part of American culture.

[MtnGoat]

Of course lines need to be drawn. I like the alpine lakes just fine, for example. And 'conflating' these lands with others is perfectly legitimate when the correct conflations are drawn. Such as, public lands are public lands...a valid 'conflation'. You seem to be trying to de-legitimize comparisons regardless of the validity of those comparisons. Is it somehow illegitimate to 'play the victim' when you are in fact going to lose access to recreation you prefer? Tell us how this is an illegitimate position, please.

[treeswarper]

[MtnGoat]

The dang near religious component of some folks outdoor recreation preferences makes it's strongest showing on threads concerning any form of mechanized recreation, IMO. And that's fine, so long as we're clear about it's arbitrary and subjective nature.

[Anne Elk]

From the KUOW website article:

[Kim Brown]

Washington state's NOVA program re: gas tax and recreation funds. I don't think the majority of us have a problem with motorized use, but rather we understand some areas aren't conducive to motorized use, and in some cases, it's not possible to manage it from an agency standpoint. This is different from not wanting to share with motorized users. Please understand that. The reasons against motorized use cited in the Plan - please read it - tell why there aren't NEW motorized trails planned in the Teanaway Community Forest. Among the reasons includes LOCAL landowner concerns.It was considered; you can bet motorized communites were included in the process. DNR does a LOT of good work with the motorized community, and the knee-jerk insult to DNR's Doug McClelland, based on this project alone, is arbitrary, uninformed and incorrect. Follow what DNR does for recreation in this region and you'll find that Mr.McClelland is not prejudiced in his work. The Teanaway Community Forest Plan is a collaboration, not dictated by McClelland. I will comment about the building of more sustainable bike and hiker paths in some locations I have recently visited. There are no formal trails in some visited locations, and the braided messes are tearing up fragile vegetation. This includes damage by people who walk and bicycle to these locations.

[Randito]

[thxII38]

[treeswarper]

Meanwhile, in my part of the world where people must be different, we have this. I don't think we understand that we can't share and that it doesn't work.

We also failed to find something to whine about on the shared part of the Rails to Trails by Republic. Those terrible motorized people slowed down and waved too much. Dammit! I wanted to be sprayed by gravel so I could start a thread about banning all motorized contraptions in the world from everywhere.

[DIYSteve]

[Ski]

I thought I was paying attention here, but apparently I missed that part about "libs". What page was that on?

[Randito]

Here is a link to the actual plan. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_sepa_other_teanaway_recplan_drp.pdf?iq7n8t Looks like existing Snowmobile usage out of the 29 pines sno-park is unchanged. A new sno-park is being added up the West Teanaway drainage with added xc trails. Comparing the proposed winter usage map to the existing Snowmobile groomed trail map. I'm not finding any loss of groomed Snowmobile trails. Any actual Snowmobile riders want to weigh in on how much Snowmobile usage the area of the proposed xc trails has been getting? https://parks.state.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/194