Quote1:
but that we all, motorized, quiet or hybrid, should be on guard about the cure being worse than the disease.

I concur. Having worked as a group member involving coalitions of mixed users, I can say that I have experienced the worst the feds can offer on “multiple use” which is to completely close an area to all use.

Quote2:
I don’t think the general public has any idea how little terrain is actually open to snow machines… when you look at the FS’s Forest Plan, most of the non-wilderness land is also incompatible to snow-machines.

Agreed. Non-motorized or “muscle powered” proponents use the FS acreage on skewed graphics trying to point out the advantages or disadvantages of one user group over another. This brings me(us) back to quote#1 do not force the feds hand with biased facts.

Quote3:
If they get on a tear to close something that’s actually good snowmobile access to a much larger region of non motorized terrain, then they’re working against the interests of many backcountry skiers

True also. By demanding a complete closure to motorized we will also shoot ourselves in the foot by effectively cutting off access to sled skiing. Back to quote#2: most of the FS lands are not compatible to sled machines or skies.

Quote4:
but usually more about their own form of recreation.

We must be careful in hoping the FS is going to choose our specific recreational use, over another’s, because it is more saintly.

Quote5:
In most cases my goal is to create quiet zones close to the highway and expand access to snowmobiles beyond these zones.

Sort of agree. I have found, statistically, that a very small percentage of muscle powered backcountry users venture more than a days tour away from their vehicles (busy lives, equipment failures, ageing populace, etc). The vast majority of muscle powered users (remember I’m one too) will drive multiple hours for an hour+ of activity so quote#5 is a good start, but be aware that the diehard sled crowd is populated with the engine modder mentality that should have no place but on a racetrack. I use a smaller, newer, stock machine that is quiet and still allows access to remote terrain. So, like backcountry access at a ski area, or motorized use at an OHV park, users should have to meet some vehicle/skill/equipment requirements before being allowed remote access.

I agree with you- the compromises made in the CB area are not perfect, but they do seek to achieve a balance. As a skier, I find Gothic rd. to be the jewel that I covet, for it holds the best and most interesting skiing of any of the trailheads. I would trade closures on Slate and Wash gulch and Brush creek just to get Gothic in return. Meanwhile, Kebler is de facto closed to anything other than motorized use, unless you want to risk getting run over by a sled going 80. It’s all good, might have to check out the new cabin in Gothic for some human-powered missions.