Forest Service Required to Examine Wildlife Impacts of Snowmobiling in CA

[kidwoo]

In the lawsuit at issue, Snowlands co-plaintiffed with the Center for Biological Diversity, an organization concerned with species protection and not concerned with user conflict. Was that a bad thing to do, or a disingenuous thing? If you actually read any of the legal documents, you will see that the user conflict issues were a big part of the lawsuit...but it was a joint effort bringing a combination of arguments.

Hold on. You guys have/had two lawsuits pending correct? It was the second one, with the CBD that is getting settled currently, not the first one that dealt more with user conflicts right?

The reason I asked my previous question is because that second one is the NEPA violation suit, the one that has little to do with a vail pass correlation. You're mixing them up a little (but also making very clear why you're doing any of this in the first place). The original suit is still pending correct?

You guys depend upon your public facade, no question. It's just really hard to give a lot of merit to proclamations like the following from your statement on the first suit, not the NEPA one:

The objectives of the lawsuit are to ensure that skiers and snowshoers, who can be a significant contributor to winter tourism in mountain communities, are afforded recreation opportunities. Snowlands Network believes that skiing, snowshoeing and snowmobiling can be accommodated if appropriate measures are taken to reduce user conflicts and protect wildlife, plants and water quality.

I mean hey, that sounds great........to anyone who goes along with the assumed premise that 'opportunities' are threatened.

I know I keep coming across as some serious hard core sledder here but I use the thing for skiing. I'm just as much a skier as anyone on this website and anyone who would align themselves with snowlands. And when I don't want to take the sled out, I have no problem finding plenty of really really good sled free 'opportunities'. Neither do most people. They're everywhere. And when it comes to Wilderness in CA, that's where the best skiing is by far. Other than sonora and tioga passes (both bordered on the north and south by wilderness areas), there's nothing south of tahoe that ISN'T closed to sleds along the crest. And most of those boundaries stretch way beyond the crest proper east and west. That's unless you count mammoth mountain as the crest but there are some other things going on there that make it less than ideal for recreational sledding and sled skiing. Then there's the park of lassen with bordering wilderness off the road, shasta with wilderness everywhere but the old ski area........I mean really, that's most of the snow covered acreage in this state. So when you claim you have no or few 'opportunities' you have to expect the response I'm sure you're very used to at this point. It's not opportunity you really want. It's exclusion.

You can't keep going to the relatively few places that sleds congregate and think you have a snowmobile problem. We went down this list already for the basin, we can do the state park website too. But just be ready for the shocking information that snow doesn't only fall at snowparks that provide trailer parking.

But it's not just sledders you're going after. It's skiers who use sleds. And most of those also use skins and know your arguments are a little hollow.


You guys have a fact sheet or a compilation list of 'winter access points' and ones that allow vs. prohibit sleds? Could you send me that in a PM or email if so? I'll admit my focus is on the places I go along the eastside from about Quincy to Bishop and that there's a world of the western slope I'm not privy to. I'd love to know more about what drives you guys to approach things the way you do. What zones specifically are you hiking to ski that are riddled with sled tracks? Iron mountain and castle peak are about all I can come up with that's even worth skiing (as in enough pitch to actually ski). Most of the other stuff......no one in their right mind is hiking to because there's better skiing for the effort somewhere else. And if you're wondering, yes doing something like that is how you 'bring people to the table'.

[Hugh Conway]

I know I keep coming across as some serious hard core sledder here but I use the thing for skiing. I'm just as much a skier as anyone on this website and anyone who would align themselves with snowlands. And when I don't want to take the sled out, I have no problem finding plenty of really really good sled free 'opportunities'. Neither do most people. They're everywhere. And when it comes to Wilderness in CA, that's where the best skiing is by far. Other than sonora and tioga passes (both bordered on the north and south by wilderness areas), there's nothing south of tahoe that ISN'T closed to sleds along the crest. And most of those boundaries stretch way beyond the crest proper east and west. That's unless you count mammoth mountain as the crest but there are some other things going on there that make it less than ideal for recreational sledding and sled skiing. Then there's the park of lassen with bordering wilderness off the road, shasta with wilderness everywhere but the old ski area........I mean really, that's most of the snow covered acreage in this state. So when you claim you have no or few 'opportunities' you have to expect the response I'm sure you're very used to at this point. It's not opportunity you really want. It's exclusion.

Why do you keep claiming all of these wilderness areas in California as prime terrain for most ski users? Jesus man, put down the TGR bong, most people day trip and day trip close to the road. That shits far away for most skiers. Always will be - I mean, a fit little fuckstick like toast2266 isn't willing to do 3hr slogs do you think most people are? How about you just pick up a meadow-skipping Libkind guide and figure it out yourself?

[kidwoo]

No. It's not.

I'm talking places that are closer or equal to the average drive to one of the ski areas from the coast. A drive that most skiers living in snow free elevations seem to think nothing of.

That's not a TGR delusion that's looking at a map and remembering places I've already skied from.

[Hugh Conway]

No. It's not.

I'm talking places that are closer or equal to the average drive to one of the ski areas from the coast. A drive that most skiers living in snow free elevations seem to think nothing of.

That's not a TGR delusion that's looking at a map and remembering places I've already skied from.

Why are you babbling about Tioga Pass then? It's a non-starter for most north coastal skiers from November-May or later; same with anything east of the crest; access from the west kinda sucks. From the Bay Area Shasta and Lassen are farther than Tahoe. High Country access in Yosemite is somewhat limited.... but hey, you've clearly got a way different perspective on everything.

[rideit]

I just KNEW it was a temporary crush!
Phew!
Your IT for the fall, Woo!

[kidwoo]

Why are you babbling about Tioga Pass then? It's a non-starter for most north coastal skiers from November-May or later; same with anything east of the crest; access from the west kinda sucks. From the Bay Area Shasta and Lassen are farther than Tahoe. High Country access in Yosemite is somewhat limited.... but hey, you've clearly got a way different perspective on everything.

And you've got a tired, lazy, and most importantly poorly informed perspective on this state.

I mentioned tioga because it's a divide. One of the few that break up the wilderness corridor. Which is evident if you read what I wrote and don't just nitpick keywords to throw a tantrum over.

You want meadow skipping? Drive up georgetown divide until you hit snow. Hike a little up the road. Peek to your left and find burn scars and even some nice old growth galore! Same to the right. You can drive to Kirkwood but can't push the extra five minutes to carson pass? You can drive to sugarbowl but can't bother to look to the right and put the skins on? Don't feel like driving to Lassen? Just head up 32 as far as you can and start looking. Sugarbowl too far? Stop in at the rainbow lodge and look ANYwhere behind it. Not into the tahoe area at all? Head up into Laporte and check out the genuinely steep terrain on the middle fork of the feather out towards Little Grass Valley Reservoir. Just don't keep going up the highway because the are sleds on that where the plowing stops. Or pop over into the northfork and look up at the terrain above the PG&E facility. Go halfway there and you're in Buck's Wilderness.

See hugh? You haven't actually tried. Can you even pick the places I listed above where you might see a sled? None of them will be on the ski terrain but you might see one on the road at a few of them. You know.....'sharing'. The real sense of the word, not what snowlands seems to think it means. And I didn't list anything that's riddled with sled traffic. Far from it. All of these are places I've parked a car, put on some skins, and gone and had a lot of fun. And in most of them, the only sign of a sled just being some tracks on a road.

[Hugh Conway]

Can you even pick the places I listed above where you might see a sled? None of them will be on the ski terrain but you might see one on the road at a few of them. You know.....'sharing'. The real sense of the word, not what snowlands seems to think it means.

So your idea of sharing is forcing skier's off to the margins? Sweet brah. I'm glad you took the time to share some top secret spots on the internet though - they reinforced, yet again, your general cluelessness regarding the coasts and everyone else. What's funny is you keep calling other people smug and superior. Yes woo, most people are stupid, lazy and clueless. Deal with it.

[kidwoo]

See you can't even respond to what I've written.

You just make shit up in order to jump down my throat. You're just pathetic.

I haven't given a single 'secret' away to anyone who can spend 5 minutes doing a little planning for their daily outing. I found all these places pretty easily and I've hardly been here compared to some natives. You know exactly what I'm referring to with snowlands' version of sharing. You think carson pass is the margins? You asked for meadow skipping and I included some. Now it's 'margins'. Your contorting reality for the sake of an argument is even more pathetic.

[Hugh Conway]

You know exactly what I'm referring to with snowlands' version of sharing.

I don't actually.

I've responded to what was written. Apparently it doesn't mean what you think it means. I still don't understand all of the great high sierra wilderness ski terrain that's easily accessible to people from the coasts in the winter.

[Baaahb]

Kidwoo, you are correct that there are places where one can recreate without sleds. Some areas of the forest are much better than others in this regard. But there are some national forests that have very few restrictions on OSVs outside of Wilderness (e.g. Plumas, Lakes Basin); there are areas where skiers have been displaced due to the growing presence of sleds (e.g. Brockway summit) and there are areas, currently open to snowmobiles, which have a very high use by skiers and where increased sled presence would displace these skiers for the sake of a few sleds chasing powder. It is all a question of balance, and Snowlands wants the Forest Service to take a hard look at the situation to see what changes are appropriate. The users who oppose such restrictions are just as vocal and represented by much larger and more powerful organizations, such as the Blue Ribbon Coalition, which is orders of magnitude better financed than Snowlands. Your voice will be heard.

Skiers using sleds to access powder present their own issues. In some areas, this demand is addressed by having upslope paths for the sleds but closing the prime ski slope to sleds. Such creative solutions allow everyone their slice of pie.

[kidwoo]

I don't actually.

I've responded to what was written. Apparently it doesn't mean what you think it means. I still don't understand all of the great high sierra wilderness ski terrain that's easily accessible to people from the coasts in the winter.

What was written was a listing of locations where I (essentially still a california foreigner) have skied and not seen a single sled. What was also written was a mention of tioga pass as one of the few corridors of NON-Wilderness south of tahoe. Not winter access to tioga pass which is what your response was based on. Go back and read it.

What was also mentioned in regards to many of those locations was that sleds may be nearby, but not on the actual ski terrain. So nothing pushing skiers to the margins. Just also potentially present at a parking area. Those activities aren't mutually exclusive. The version of the word 'sharing' for snowlands is something other than what already exists.....obviously or they wouldn't be taking the actions they are. What they mean is further limitations on sled access and permissibility. One of their spokesman has already made that clear both here and on their website. Sharing in the literal sense already exists. And opportunity for access already exists........wilderness or otherwise, in abundance. I know exactly what sharing means. I also know what exclusivity and greed sometimes masquerade as. That's what I was getting at.

As far as wintertime wilderness access........if you can drive to tahoe, you can get to wilderness areas. Old growth tree skiing along stony ridge from Jake's to Rubicon, Open bowls and mellow skipping or steeps and couloirs on Carson pass, or some January corn on anything out of Incline Village. These aren't secrets, they aren't hard to get to, and just for your Wilderness fixation, all in either Mt Rose, Desolation or Mokolumne Wilderness zones. Want to go further north? Yeah you're going to Lassen or Buck's Wilderness out of Quincy. But seriously....lassen is pretty rad mid-winter from the southside. Mellow slopes in every direction for miles and brokeoff or lassen proper if you want something bigger. I own a sled and I drive up there to put skins on. Further south, you can get right into some of the most scenic skiing on the planet out of mineral basin or off the kings canyon road. Then there's places like wright's lake, strawberry etc.....that are off roads. You might see a sled but you hit wilderness on either side pretty quickly.

I know you're just dying to jump on my case at any opportunity you can get. But I've been out in the hills a little in this state. I have very good reasons for taking claims of limited skier/snowshoe access seriously. It's one of those things that you won't really see until you've been both a skier and then a skier trying to get other places on a sled. Access via skins or scales is ALWAYS an option, steep terrain or meadow skipping. Access via sled.......not so much. So the 'preservation of opportunity' that Bob and snowlands like to hide behind only resonates so much. What they want is just literally 'sled free'. And that's fine. I completely relate to that. But that already exists. You just have to accept that snow falls in places other than the sled permitted snowparks (which not all of them are).

[~mikey b]

Bob Googled Vail Pass

[kidwoo]

Kidwoo, you are correct that there are places where one can recreate without sleds. Some areas of the forest are much better than others in this regard. But there are some national forests that have very few restrictions on OSVs outside of Wilderness (e.g. Plumas, Lakes Basin); there are areas where skiers have been displaced due to the growing presence of sleds (e.g. Brockway summit) and there are areas, currently open to snowmobiles, which have a very high use by skiers and where increased sled presence would displace these skiers for the sake of a few sleds chasing powder. It is all a question of balance, and Snowlands wants the Forest Service to take a hard look at the situation to see what changes are appropriate. The users who oppose such restrictions are just as vocal and represented by much larger and more powerful organizations, such as the Blue Ribbon Coalition, which is orders of magnitude better financed than Snowlands. Your voice will be heard.

Skiers using sleds to access powder present their own issues. In some areas, this demand is addressed by having upslope paths for the sleds but closing the prime ski slope to sleds. Such creative solutions allow everyone their slice of pie.

What ski terrain are you referring to off brockway that's being disturbed by sleds? The SPI plot towards martis isn't forest service and until you get the 5 mile stretch to martis peak there's hardly a slope back there over 15 degrees that's more than 50 feet long. I've run into a longtime local guy on teles back there who hits rifle peak from that side for some reason but other than him it's folks on scales just going to the lookout. You want sled free? Take 10 steps away from the road. It's a road that you're not going to get vehicle free on a summer hike either. Or just drop onto the FS land towards the lake where the sled company doesn't have their permit. There might be some tracks on the dirt roads but that's hardly sled riddled. Heading west is kind of the same deal pitch-wise until you get to watson peak. Are you really walking all the way to watson peak from brockway? I know that northside towards northstar has some steeper tree skiing but there are easier ways to get there. If all you want to do is get away from sleds, go hit that north facing stuff you can see from 89. But the road.....yeah.....it's a road. Just like it is in the summer.....with vehicles. And you're kind of picking the one spot where a sled company has had a tour business located for what must be two decades by now. There are other ways into that zone that are really close by and don't cross their loops. I've done the random pre-worday skin up and ski on a few of them. No sleds. As far as just xc skiing.........you're either paying the same permit to SPI as the full throttle does for the east side for the same respect, or yes you'll see tour groups on the west side.


The lakes basin is one of the few groomed sled access points around but granted, the buttes are incredible. I get the draw. But other than the few nutjobs that drop into young america lake, the good ski terrain is absolutely sled free. You just might see them on the road (which is the crappy way to get up there anyway IMO). But what do you mean by 'displaced?'. It's not like you can't ski there on untracked terrain. In fact it's like you're deliberately going to the places where you know sleds will be just to gripe about them.

If you want FS supplied groomed areas that are sled free JUST SAY IT. Stop with the 'sharing' and the 'opportunity' stuff. Just say it. I for one would be more than willing to join the conversation. It's the cagey language that turns people off. Displaced makes it sound like there are sledders with machine guns threatening your mating pattern.

But that's why I asked if you guys had an info sheet. I would like to see some numbers and not this objective back and forth of what's 'good' or worth doing. Because right now it seems like you're bringing up the handful of staging places where sleds are allowed, while never acknowledging the plethora of other places where they're not. We should be able to talk numbers. If not here than through snowlands or email or PM or whatever. I really would appreciate that.

[Hugh Conway]

But that's why I asked if you guys had an info sheet.

Didn't you jump the fuck down my throat because you knew more than I could ever fathom about Snowlands? It wasn't my hardon for Wilderness - you kept mentioning it. And now you keep ignoring the ones I asked about focusing on somewhere else. So whatever woo-douche, at least wendy showed up to cheer you on, and telemikes on your team now too. I'm sure y'all can commiserate about "normal people" or whatever the fuck

[~mikey b]

I'm not on any team you idiot.

GDI

[FrankZappa]

TL;DR - It's like an impact statement. I just stopped in to rate this thread - cause nobody does that anymore - doesn't even show up. But if it helps, IMO, it sure would've (Would be) been nice to see WILDERNESS I-5 to I-25, Top to bottom.

[mattyj]

Kidwoo, you said much of what I wanted to say but better. Not that it really matters in terms of the USFS and their settlement, but I'd really like to know where in norcal people actually feel there are significant skier v. snowmobile conflicts at this point.

Obviously if your idea of "conflict" is that you have to share the trailhead with sleds and you can hear them until you get half an hour into the woods, you're going to be able to dredge up issues. And if you really insist on snowshoeing or X-C skiing into one of the only sled-access peaks in Tahoe, you're going to see sleds - not sure how it's possible to compromise on that one.

From my limited personal experience, I can't think of a single multi-use area that's actually full of skiers fuming and bitching about sleds. And that includes some very high traffic spots, like Shasta, Castle and Mt Rose. Getting chewed out by self-righteous snowshoers, chased by dogs and dodging little kids on saucers isn't most sledders' idea of a good time, and where there are genuine conflicts, I think they're more willing to work out an agreement than Snowlands realizes. But if you want to complain about getting "displaced" from Brockway onto Donner, Castle, Mt Rose, Tallac and Jake's . . . don't expect people to take your concerns seriously.

[Baaahb]

But that's why I asked if you guys had an info sheet. I would like to see some numbers and not this objective back and forth of what's 'good' or worth doing. ... We should be able to talk numbers. If not here than through snowlands or email or PM or whatever. I really would appreciate that.

That's exactly the dialogue we want, with all sides and the land manager, the Forest Service.

You seem to totally discount the x-c /x-c-d skier/snowshoer (a.k.a. meadowskipper) who wants to travel on moderate slopes and for whom unplowed forest service roads provides the exact terrain they want.

Myself, I don't care about grooming, One of the beauties about classic x-c skiing is that three people travelling across fresh snow on the same route create the best track one could want.

My maps show Martis Peak Road travelling across TNF and then LTBMU lands.

[mattyj]

^^^ Bit of a non answer. BTW, when I'm out 3-pin gear, I hate all those snowmobiles in Martis, Castle Valley, Deep+Pole Creeks, the south side of 431, sugar pine point . . . X-C skiers probably have more sled-free options than anyone.

[kidwoo]

fuck
hardon
douche,
fuck

Thank you for that well formulated and coherent response Hue! (I go with Hue because you use such colorful language!)
Your very reasoned civil retort has forced me to completely reevaluate my position on this matter.

[kidwoo]

That's exactly the dialogue we want, with all sides and the land manager, the Forest Service.

You seem to totally discount the x-c /x-c-d skier/snowshoer (a.k.a. meadowskipper) who wants to travel on moderate slopes and for whom unplowed forest service roads provides the exact terrain they want.

Myself, I don't care about grooming, One of the beauties about classic x-c skiing is that three people travelling across fresh snow on the same route create the best track one could want.

My maps show Martis Peak Road travelling across TNF and then LTBMU lands.

That's why I asked about the xc/snowshoe side, it's the only group I could see having an interest in somewhere like brockway because it gets groomed on both sides. I'm not discounting them at all. I was trying to think of anywhere I've been where there's grooming but sleds are prohibited. The only place I know of is the north tahoe P.U.D. park in Tahoe Vista. Free grooming and no sleds there. It's a good place to know about if you don't already.

The road to the martis peak lookout is pretty much the divider between SPI property and LTBMU. SPI on climber's left, Forest Service on the right. And It's the sled rental company that does the grooming on that side for their own business, not a public entity. He also pays SPI for the right to operate there. You'll notice on that side he doesn't groom up the main paved road because that easement is FS and has nothing to do with his permit. Next time you're out there look for the little white diamond shaped signs all over the trees on the north side with the spi logos. I know old USGS topo maps still have that listed as TNF but it's definitely not. It's bounced between two or three timber companies for decades. It's actually about to go in a sale to the truckee donner land trust if they get their funding.

The west side towards brockway is where you have an argument with the FS. How amenable would snowlands be in a situation like that where half the groomed road is designated human powered and the other half is for motorized? For just the first three miles if not the whole thing? That's the only northshore grooming I can think that's public and not in one of the xc ski facilities. But for every sled that comes into CA, sales taxes are paid on them just like a full blown car, and then there's the annual registration that's almost as much as your car tags. So there's money put into the state coffers for things like that. I'm not saying people on xc skis and snowshoes have no right to some sled free grooming but you're going to get the argument about green stickers or some equivalent financial input from the sled crowd.



But I really would like to see the state or federal trailheads broken down if you guys have done that. Because I and a lot of other people still don't think some of the claims that snowlands makes bears out in the numbers. You might change some minds or at least get the conversation going with some hard facts. Have you guys done that? Come on man, this is the third time I've asked now. Does that exist? If not, want to work on one with me? I'm geniunely curious and it definitely seems like someone as active as you've been on this subject that would have been an early step.

[Hugh Conway]

Your very reasoned civil retort has forced me to completely reevaluate my position on this matter.

Nothing changes man. Only a GDI would think people here would. You've your intractable position (as years of posts show). Baaahb has his own intractable position (as years of posts on ttips show). Civil or not, nothings going to change with you two turds.

[MTT]

I see almost no discussion on what the study is supposed to be about.

How do Snow machines affect Bunnies and Bears in the Winter.

We all know this is a non issue. This is about a militant group that wants to restrict any motor vehicle of any type from going anywhere at any time ever.

I do not even know why? The people funding this shit do not even go to these places.

When you are suing the USFS to do more studies with the intent of a finding that creates even more restrictions on use, Something stinks.

[LightRanger]

The people funding this shit do not even go to these places.

The president of the organization published a four volume guidebook set to ski touring in the Sierra. The books are now out of print and he's making all of the tour descriptions available for free on the internet: http://www.backcountryskitours.com/

So... try again.

[~mikey b]

^quick edit^

does not matter what side you are on, any NEPA analysis related to winter recreation on those % NF's is certainly going to require something like kidwoo is asking for - that sort of inventory would be just a small part of it and probably pretty easy to come up with

clearly, a lot of people don't understand what's going on here, but a few do