TAHOE: LAND OF THE SNOWFLAKES -- 17/18 STOKE

[TahoeBC]

Pretty good over the lake last night also




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TahoeJ]

Any thoughts on the raging sled access debate?

https://www.sierrasun.com/news/sport...-restrictions/

Also - completely unrelated, can someone recommend a particular shuttle service for Downieville laps?

[kidwoo]

Any thoughts on the raging sled access debate?

https://www.sierrasun.com/news/sport...-restrictions/

I have lots.

What are your thoughts? What is the debate?

Also - completely unrelated, can someone recommend a particular shuttle service for Downieville laps?

1. Downieville Outfitters
2. Yuba Expeditions

[TahoeJ]

^^ Thanks.

I don't really have any thoughts re: sled access debate - haven't been paying close enough attention to have a valid opinion. Was surprised it hadn't come up in this thread yet.

[teledad]

I prefer using YE since they're a non-profit (Sierra Buttes Trail Stewardship) and use proceeds to develop trails in the area. I'm sure DO are good folks too though.

[old goat]

That Truckee Sun article was the most one sided piece of "journalism" presented as a news piece that I've ever seen. Not even a pretense of presenting both sides of the issue. I see two issues--the environmental, which I don't know enought about the science of as far as damage to the land; and the issue of peace and quiet in the wilderness. There oughta be places you can find that, winter or summer. That I feel pretty strongly about. To me it comes down to this--ski tourers and snowshoers don't bother anyone; snowmobiles do. I'd like to see snowmobiles restricted to places where motorized vehicles, or at the very least bicycles can go in the summer. We're inundated with noise in our daily lives. Most people cannot tolerate silence; I think they're afraid of what's in their own heads. Maybe I should become a Trappist monk.

I'm biased by personal experience. XC skiing near Ann Arbor back in the day we were accosted by snowmobilers who meant to do us harm on general principle. Since my friend was a 6'5" ex-Marine Seal they changed their minds. (RIP Karl).

[kidwoo]

the issue of peace and quiet in the wilderness There oughta be places you can find that, winter or summer. .

There are.

Lots. You probably know where they are.

I'd like to see snowmobiles restricted to places where motorized vehicles, or at the very least bicycles can go in the summer.

They are. At least in terms of areas. Restrictions to roads however make about as much sense as limiting skiing to dirt trails that exist in the summer. It's kind of the magic of snow.

Your assertions that skiers and snowshoers don't bother anybody is also debatable. We do. Ask the owners of the houses at the bottom of the lake run from sugar bowl about it some time. You being annoyed years ago in the midwest isn't what we're talking about here either. I bet you've met some assholes on skis too. I sure have.

But this is the problem with discussing this here. Your points are already addressed. The issue at hand is not a large general philosophical one. It's about details. We're in the state with the second largest percentage of Wilderness in the US. It's also the second largest state period, so that's a lot of land. And that's not taking into account Wilderness Study Areas, non-motorized winter designations, state parks which don't allow sleds etc. The difference is in more of it in preferential favoritism to only one specific way to enjoy the outdoors, entitlement, and who can wrangle the best legal case in a war of the 5013c brigades. That kind of sucks. And it's very much how the instigator(s) of this situation operate. They also do it by misrepresenting their own actions to gain support. But you need to know the details. And most people don't care enough to seek them out.

[mcski]

Why should snow mobiles be allowed where dirt bikes are not? As a kid, we could ride pretty much any where we wanted. Not any more, why should snow machines be different?

[TahoeBC]

If you can’t find a place to ski in Tahoe where snowmobiles are not already restricted your doing it wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[old goat]

Kidwoo and Tahoe BC--yes there are quiet places to ski, for now. The point is that snowmobilers want to get access to those quiet places.

As far as "entitlement" and "favoritism"--that is the ad hominem response of someone who doesn't have an answer to the argument. What is or isn't allowed is not based on either of those but on impact--the impact on the environment and the impact on other users. Snowmobiles cause more impact than skiers. That's pretty simple.

[kidwoo]

Kidwoo and Tahoe BC--yes there are quiet places to ski, for now. The point is that snowmobilers want to get access to those quiet places.

Name one place that's ever been opened to snowmobiles that previously wasn't. It doesn't happen. And no, there's no concerted effort to open longstanding closures. What you see is protesting further ones, over and over and over again. Because that's what keeps happening.

As far as "entitlement" and "favoritism"--that is the ad hominem response of someone who doesn't have an answer to the argument. What is or isn't allowed is not based on either of those but on impact--the impact on the environment and the impact on other users.

You obviously haven't read very much about what's going on right now. Not newspaper article 'summaries', the legal documents. There's nothing ad hominem about what I said. And you'd be pretty impressed with the volume of solutions I and other skiers have presented. But as I learned a few years ago, the instigators of this situation aren't interested in solutions. They're interested in one thing and one thing only.

Like I said. No one who's not affected wants to dig into the details but certainly have strong opinions. And it turns out it's not about conflict, at least not one that even exists. Here's a bit of Winter Wildlands' objection letter to the Lassen National Forest after they issued a final decision on their management plan.

6. Lack of current conflict in an area is not a justification for designating that area open to OSVs.
Throughout the draft ROD the Forest Service defaults to a rationale that leaves areas open to OSVs – areas that don’t necessarily even provide quality OSV recreation experiences – because there is currently no conflict between user groups in the area or no known conflict between OSV use and wildlife. This rationale, however, is insufficient justification for designating areas as open for OSV use and violates the OSV Rule requirement that the forest be closed to OSV use unless designated open. We object to relying on this justification as a reason to designate areas for OSV use. In our comments throughout the OSV planning process, we emphasized repeatedly that OSV area designations should be justified based on the quality of the experience they provide, in addition to the minimization criteria, rather than designating areas by default just because the Forest Supervisor sees no pressing reason to designate those areas closed (see Objectors RDEIS comments pages 3-9 and DEIS comments pages 2-5).



So a couple things there. I thought this was about conflict but apparently it doesn't even need to exist. And how does Winter Wildlands, a group based in Boise, ID, coauthoring a complaint with someone who lives in the south bay area and doesn't own a snowmobile know what or where quality snowmobiling happens? Now keep in mind, we're talking about areas with hydroelectric dam projects, hundreds of miles of jeep roads, and tens of miles from any plowed road in the winter. So very 'motorized' in the summer, and not exactly where anyone is hiking. Not by a long shot.

Here's a bit from the form letter they prepared for the Tahoe National Forest
Castle Peak is by far the most popular and highly-valued area on the Tahoe for backcountry skiers and
splitboarders. The Sierra Buttes are also popular backcountry ski and snowboard areas. Meanwhile, crosscountry
skiers and snowshoers enjoy traveling on quiet trails and snow-covered roads near Boca reservoir,
Sardine Lakes Basin, and in the Lakes Basin from the Gold Lake Highway. These areas should not be
designated for over-snow vehicle use.

So because an area is popular for skiers it should be closed to snowmobiles. It also happens to be popular snowmobile (and even more than both), popular for sled skiing. Yet it should be closed. That's absolutely favoritism over one user group and is born from a sense of entitlement to it. Because there are plenty of people hiking in both places that don't really care about sleds. Some of them care about tracked up snow but skiers do that too. Yet it's the 'other' user group that needs to be kicked out. You ever been to boca reservoir in the winter? I am frequently. The idea that snowmobiles are some sort of problem is a joke. Again, it's not about solving problems, it's about serving an ideology.

There are about 13,600 snowmobiles registered in the entire state of California. Michigan has 189,000. You've been to concerts with more than 13,000 people. Unextinguished camp fires burn down thousands of acres of forest every year but I don't hear you screaming to ban camping or backpacking. You think 13,600 snowmobiles are a bigger enviromental problem? I see people building fires all the time under fire restrictions. Shouldn't we just remove this user group from the forest since they can't follow the rules? That's the logic Snowlands likes to use with snowmobiles.

[bodywhomper]

Is this the “bad apple” argument? With snowmobile users, how does one catch the bad apples? I’ve encountered snowmobilers in a banned area in the wasatch. High lining nearby on a Considerable day. I had no interest in getting close enough to them to engage. I sometimes use a snowmobile track as my ascent line in my own little slice of paradise in a snowmobile-restricted zone. There’s even a sign about access restrictions that they buzz bye at the base of the ascent line. I’ve also been buzzed at high speed on a snow covered FS road with lots of blind corners near that zone. However. almost all folks on the snowmobiles in that area are traveling at a more reasonable speed and respectably slow down when they encounter others on the road. All in Tahoe NF. Bad apples. Not sure what to do about them....

How many snowmobiles are registered in NV?

[old goat]

Like I said before--I don't know enough to comment on the environmental issue to comment on that--I'm not making an environmental argument other than quiet.

As far as people building fires where or when they're not supposed to so we should ban ban camping.--ridiculous analogy, in fact it's not even an analogy, which would imply that the two examples are similar. I'm not saying snobmobiles should be banned period because some snowmobilers go where they're not supposed to. The issue we're discussing, I thought, was the rules. What to do about people who break them is a separate issue. There will always be people who break the rules. Those are the people who are responsible for more rules and restrictions. If snowmobilers want to keep trails open the best place to start is by policing their own--not because they have a responsibility to do so but out of self interest.

I'm happy with the current snowmobile openings and closures in this area as I understand them. I'm not advocating more closures. It's the snowmobilers who are asking for more--that's how I read the situation. ( It's been a couple of years since I skied into Castle Valley, but my recollection is that snowmobiles can go up to Andesite but not Castle Pass--to top out Castle Pass and descend into Castle Valley they have to go on the PCT which is closed to bicycles in the summer. If that area has since been opened to snowmobiles it shouldn't be.)

What happened 40 years ago in Michigan is not relevant to the current situation; I was just trying to acknowledge my bias. What's yours?

And whatever your position on the issue--a more one-sided "news" article is hard to imagine.

[teledad]

No snowmobiles in Castle Valley (south of the pass) or Round Valley (north of the pass where Peter Grubb Hut is). They can go down the jeep road to the south/west side of Andesite (the left turn after the gate on the way in), and also hit up Castle Peak from the NE. Not sure what area of the PCT is at issue with the proposed new rules, maybe Basin Peak? Or up by Jackson Meadows?

I don't mind the occasional snowmobiler (they're allowed in most of the areas I BC ski but I don't see them very often) but I wish they stayed off the skin track in warmer conditions. Though they're better than the snowboarders postholing up the track.

[old goat]

First place I toured in the Sierra was in to Round Valley. 3 feet of fresh. I was first on the trail, coming from Sacramento. After a while I look back see a couple of guys. I stop. They stop. I start up, after a while I look back. 10 people. I stop, they all stop. I wound up breaking trail the whole way. They were all smart enough not to get close enough to me to get yelled at. And the fucking snowshoers had done a number on my track when I went back. No snowboarders though--they didn't exist at the time.

[BeardMech]

Fucking pussies for not just skinning up to you and sharing the load if they are poaching your fresh skin tracks.

[kidwoo]

Old goat: The topic at hand is a direct result of lawsuits against the Forest Service by winter wildlands and snowlands. Do you think those are snowmobile groups? Trying to open more land to snowmobiles?

[TahoeBC]

Kidwoo and Tahoe BC--yes there are quiet places to ski, for now. The point is that snowmobilers want to get access to those quiet places.

Completely false statement

[old goat]

Completely false statement

The snowmobile community has been a strong advocate for increased access in many places for many years. In the case of the TNF this hasn't been the case--because virtually all the public land outside of the PCT and environs is already open. Note that the TNF has large areas of "checkerboard" --alternating public and private plots of land and usage on private land is up to the landowner. Note that virtually all discussion of this issue considers only the most restrictive alternative. One alternative would not change access, one would actually increase it.
This article has a nice map showing current access and the most restrictive access (and also shows how actual journalists write an article on a controversial topic).
http://www.capradio.org/articles/201...ccess-in-half/

[kidwoo]

In the case of the TNF this hasn't been the case--because virtually all the public land outside of the PCT and environs is already open.

You do live here right? (serious question)

Pole creek
Deep creek
Granite chief wilderness
Independence lake
The headwaters of the north fork of the murkin river (Southwest backside of sugarbowl)
Castle Valley
Squaw Valley
Alpine Meadows
Sugarwbowl

All closed to sleds in the TNF. That's a good bit of real estate. Especially the 'consistently snow bearing' real estate in the TNF.

Can you show me one instance where sledders have pushed for opening areas that are anything beyond trying to rescind a very recent closure? Legal motions or legit petitions, not just some random saying he'd like to ride in wilderness. Even better try to find somewhere where it actually happened on public land. It doesn't and contrary to what you claimed a few posts above, that is most certainly not what's happening in the TNF. At least it sounds like you realize that now.

The alternative that 'adds' acreage fills in two square miles of checkerboard that the FS recently found out they actually own instead of SPI in an area already open to sleds. That alternative also treats the PCT like a mostly impassible barrier with a handful of weirdly placed designated crossings. This includes where the thing is 12 miles from a plowed road and I'll give anyone 100 bucks if they can even find it in a 'normal' winter. It's a joke.

That NPR story is funny. Where Jim Gibson (a founding member of snowlands) says he'd like to know there's a place where he can go......... He's deliberately misleading. He knows exactly where those places are in the TNF and elsewhere, which includes every state park and every other wilderness area and closure in the region. He was involved getting some of them designated that way. They didn't get the forest service to 'rethink' anything, they with Winter Wildlands sued them and got a court order. Which is clearly stated in both articles, including the one in the sun you don't like. It's costing the forest service nationwide about 2.8 million dollars of money they don't have. He's also misleading people when he describes "We are not trying to get rid of snowmobiling altogether," said Jim Gibson, vice president and secretary of Snowlands. "We just think the current 85/15 split . needs more balance.". It's more like 73/17, and a lot of that 73% is below 4k. But of course when I point these things out you just call it ad hominem attacks.

Just for grins, is that you commenting on that article saying the same thing? That this is sledders demanding more? Genuinely curious because a coworker heard that from someone else today.

I'm happy with the current snowmobile openings and closures in this area as I understand them.

As are most. And that's exactly what snowmobilers are pushing for in the TNF. A misunderstanding which seemed to kind of spark your ire. So good news!

Like I said before, it helps to know the details.

[kidwoo]

How many snowmobiles are registered in NV?

I've been trying to find this. Because Reno obviously. They only recently started requiring vehicle registrations which means tracking. Before it was just a green sticker deal and they didn't keep track of sales.

Probably a few hundy in reno? And whatever the total male population is in Elko.

[old goat]

You do live here right? (serious question)

Pole creek
Deep creek
Granite chief wilderness
Independence lake
The headwaters of the north fork of the murkin river (Southwest backside of sugarbowl)
Castle Valley
Squaw Valley
Alpine Meadows
Sugarwbowl

All closed to sleds in the TNF. That's a good bit of real estate. Especially the 'consistently snow bearing' real estate in the TNF.

Can you show me one instance where sledders have pushed for opening areas that are anything beyond trying to rescind a very recent closure? Legal motions or legit petitions, not just some random saying he'd like to ride in wilderness. Even better try to find somewhere where it actually happened on public land. It doesn't and contrary to what you claimed a few posts above, that is most certainly not what's happening in the TNF. At least it sounds like you realize that now.

The alternative that 'adds' acreage fills in two square miles of checkerboard that the FS recently found out they actually own instead of SPI in an area already open to sleds. That alternative also treats the PCT like a mostly impassible barrier with a handful of weirdly placed designated crossings. This includes where the thing is 12 miles from a plowed road and I'll give anyone 100 bucks if they can even find it in a 'normal' winter. It's a joke.

That NPR story is funny. Where Jim Gibson (a founding member of snowlands) says he'd like to know there's a place where he can go......... He's deliberately misleading. He knows exactly where those places are in the TNF and elsewhere, which includes every state park and every other wilderness area and closure in the region. He was involved getting some of them designated that way. They didn't get the forest service to 'rethink' anything, they with Winter Wildlands sued them and got a court order. Which is clearly stated in both articles, including the one in the sun you don't like. It's costing the forest service nationwide about 2.8 million dollars of money they don't have. He's also misleading people when he describes "We are not trying to get rid of snowmobiling altogether," said Jim Gibson, vice president and secretary of Snowlands. "We just think the current 85/15 split . needs more balance.". It's more like 73/17, and a lot of that 73% is below 4k. But of course when I point these things out you just call it ad hominem attacks.

Just for grins, is that you commenting on that article saying the same thing? That this is sledders demanding more? Genuinely curious because a coworker heard that from someone else today.



As are most. And that's exactly what snowmobilers are pushing for in the TNF. A misunderstanding which seemed to kind of spark your ire. So good news!

Like I said before, it helps to know the details.

Of your list--3 are ski resorts and one is a Wilderness, so it's a pretty short list and a fraction of the list of designated, groomed snowmobile trails in addition to the huge amount of ungroomed terrain. But people can look at the map and decide for themselves. Here's a list of the trails in the Sierraville RD alone: https://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/f...telprdb5229266

As far as complaining about banning snowmobiles below 5K--mother nature is increasingly doing that without any help from the FS, or hadn't you noticed.

The snowmobile lobbyists sound a lot like the NRA--tell their members that the evil liberals want to completely take away their rights, exaggerate the restrictions on their rights, strike fear into the hearts of their members to raise money. Not that the other side isn't guilty of exaggeration also.

Personally, I'd ban snowmobiles, leaf blowers, jet skis, motor boats, etc, etc, but I don't think you have to worry about the FS agreeing with me. Noise sucks; it drives every thought out of your head, which might explain a lot that's going on in this country.

As far as ad hominem attacks--I didn't say pointing out facts was an ad hominem attack; I said accusing people who disagree with you of entitlement and favoritism was an ad hominem attack. Snowmobilers are going to argue for more access for snowmobiles; ski tourers and the like are going to argue for less. That's natural; that's how the process works. Getting butthurt that people on the other side express their opinions adds heat but no light to the process. You can make your points without doing it.

Anyway, I don't think a whole lot of people here give a shit one way or the other--so go ahead and make your last point and I'll leave it at that.

[kidwoo]

As far as ad hominem attacks--I didn't say pointing out facts was an ad hominem attack; I said accusing people who disagree with you of entitlement and favoritism was an ad hominem attack.

Thinking you have a right to a wilderness experience™ anywhere and everywhere you can get out of a car and suing for it, even though it already exists, just not everywhere, is entitlement. And demanding the FS to remove one user group in favor of the desires of another is asking for favoritism. Not ad homimem either, that's literal definitions of the words.


Again, can you show one case where snowmobiles have taken an offensive (not defensive) stance on lands opening? It seems to be the basis for a lot of what you're bringing up. You didn't do that.

[MTT]

I hope Muti use wins. There are already to many restrictions.
I rode Snowmobiles in the 70's I worked for the one dealer in Incline Village when I was 16 , 17.
The owner was the same guy who ran the snowmobile rental concession @ Squaw Valley. i was one of the people out there every weekend packing the trails and putting up the on't go past here cones.

When it snowed you could ride the streets and into open land everywhere. I remember hitting 60mph right on ski Beach.
When I returned to Tahoe after the Military, early 80's there were already many restrictions that had not been in-place. It's felt to me that snowmobiling in the basin was ruined then. And ohh how wrong I was, it has gotten much worse over the years.

Nevadans who own sleds. Just in Verdi you can drive around and count past a hundred sleds rotting next to the garage on trailers. They are all the best there was 10 - 15 years ago. But there are very few new ones. The access has gotten so restrictive that most have given up on enjoying Sledding in winter. - It's fucked up.
Snowmobiles do NO HARM to the environment the snow melts and you would never know we were there.

The endless campaign to close access to open space is unrelenting and twisted.
This is what Kidwoo is referring to. It's an unending assault on access to open land by a small well funded group of people. People who do not even live in the basin.

[RogueRider]

I'm just curious, but since most of the issue other user groups have is noise, is there any way to add noise reduction to sled design? Mufflers, etc. (not to mention the electric one posted earlier) I get that some may argue that there is a loss of performance, but isn't that better than the loss of area to ride? Doesn't make much sense to have a smoking fast machine with nowhere to ride it.

With the only impact removed by setting noise levels (like automobiles have) doesn't seem like the USFS would have any other justification for restricting use right?