Any groups out there dedicated to preserving sled access skiing?

[Gone Skiing]

limiting snowmobile usr in the slate absolutely limits use. I'm sorry, but even Uber rando dudes would be very hard pressed to get out to poverty gulch, hike 4k to the ridge, spin 3 laps, and get home. 99% of non motorized users in the valley don't even get as far out as the first major sled access parking area (Pittsburgh).

[ACH]

Given that The Gnarwhale is a WWA "Ambassador," I'd think he would have a bit better understand of what they're about than a five year-old post from Lou. Could be wrong though...

Could be - OTOH, this isn't the only place that I have read this. It seems like I also read something on the WWA website a few years ago that more or less took the same position. I'll hit the wayback machine and see if I can track it down...

It's that kind of shit that makes me really, really dislike working with Wilderness advocates and their ilk. Don't try to beat around the bush and act like the actions taken by the group are something other than what they are. And don't pull the whole "we're not limiting access - everyone can still go there on foot" bullshit. If the group wants to exclude someone from public lands, that's fine, and its their right to advocate for that position. Just be up front about it and tell it like it is.

This sums up my view of WWA perfectly and why I don't trust that they are advocating for anyone beyond their stated platform:

Winter Wildlands Alliance is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting and preserving winter wildlands and a quality human-powered snowsports experience on public lands.

[goldenboy]

Look, the goal of the WWA is to limit snowmobiling as much as possible in as many places as possible. Worst thing that ever happened to backcountry skiing, as far as I'm concerned.

[Bronic]

Nice site goldenboy. I wish you guys luck. Sucks that this will consume your time and energy but I appreciate your efforts. I love CB and could imagine settling there someday and it sucks to hear of this.

I agree with the reality of all the surrounding designated wilderness. There is already so much in colorado its a shame to shut down more motorized access. And in this case it renders the valley useless to backcountry skiers because of how far out the goods are. So their argument of well you can still go in on foot is bogus. Shouldn't be rocket science to understand that.

[capulin overdrive]

How's the braap conditions shaping up around CB?


Still plowing to the Y, are the Anthracite sled ski guys trying it yet?


Sounds like Wolf Creek is getting close, will be a few out this weekend. Figured I'd wait and see how much crap they break, and maybe go up next week or weekend.

[GPP33]

The reason is simple- there are people who want to recreate without the noise and smell of motorized vehicles. There is a huge asymmetry in these approaches. For example- places with no restrictions and that are heavily used by snowmobiles are basically useless for people who ski tour that want either quiet or decent skiing. The opposite isn't true, except for the fact that high density non-motorized and motorized use could be a bit dangerous if speeds/high-marking are involved.

If this asymmetry isn't understood by someone on a 500b, 200hp machine capable of high speed, shouldn't they be excluded since they could put other users at risk? I've been in situations where I wasn't able to communicate with the person next to me with high-markers a 1/2-mile or so away. I think it boils down to - yes there should be places human powered only, how big and where, are the real questions. How much is enough etc. If someone wants to be completely away from the noise of snowmobiles (especially high marking sleds), you need a huge area. The sound probably travels at least 10 miles. Maybe this is an unreasonable expectation- yes or no?

Also non-motorized areas DON'T restrict access, only how. Likewise heavily used motorized areas don't restrict access, only how they might be experienced: I can enter a heavily used motorized area on foot, but it won't be the experience that I want, just like anyone can enter a non-motorized area but the experience might not be what they want. Not sure why this is hard to understand. I've also met many motorized users that get pissed at non-motorized users, but it's a bit irrelevant.

I have no idea what you are trying to say but I'm pretty sure you just talked around in about 5 circles.

Bottom line, there is really only a very small % of the land a sled can actually access, whether it be by law (designated wilderness) or physics. If you can't find a way to get away from them then that's not their problem. I can see your point about not wanting to be anywhere near the high mark guys, so go somewhere else! I don't sled so I go places they can't. If I see them on the road on the way in I step out of their way and wave as they pass by. If I didn't want to see them on the road then I'd skin off to the side through the trees. To each their own.

[the_big_lepowski]

The reason is simple- there are people who want to recreate without the noise and smell of motorized vehicles. There is a huge asymmetry in these approaches. For example- places with no restrictions and that are heavily used by snowmobiles are basically useless for people who ski tour that want either quiet or decent skiing. The opposite isn't true, except for the fact that high density non-motorized and motorized use could be a bit dangerous if speeds/high-marking are involved.

If this asymmetry isn't understood by someone on a 500b, 200hp machine capable of high speed, shouldn't they be excluded since they could put other users at risk? I've been in situations where I wasn't able to communicate with the person next to me with high-markers a 1/2-mile or so away. I think it boils down to - yes there should be places human powered only, how big and where, are the real questions. How much is enough etc. If someone wants to be completely away from the noise of snowmobiles (especially high marking sleds), you need a huge area. The sound probably travels at least 10 miles. Maybe this is an unreasonable expectation- yes or no?

Also non-motorized areas DON'T restrict access, only how. Likewise heavily used motorized areas don't restrict access, only how they might be experienced: I can enter a heavily used motorized area on foot, but it won't be the experience that I want, just like anyone can enter a non-motorized area but the experience might not be what they want. Not sure why this is hard to understand. I've also met many motorized users that get pissed at non-motorized users, but it's a bit irrelevant.

Excellent point there in the last paragraph. They should not be able to get what they want, if it affects what you want.

[capulin overdrive]

What's up with this?

Heard the douchebags got Gothic closed to sleds, and more taken away in Washington???

[adrenalated]

Bump.
http://sharetheslate.com/2016/02/4-a...are-the-slate/