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

[MTT]

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?

I am not to sure many are using noise as a reason. Once the machines get back into the forest, mountains. You cannot hear them, unless you are out there with them. Ad that is never many people.
In the Tahoe Basin when there is no snow you hear the roar from Street bikes on the roads and the sound of big power boats on the Lake.

There will always be those who retire in the basin and complain about everything. They bitch about the noise kids make playing outside.

[skysos]

Logic never prevails in these conflicts. A lot of XC skiers are fundamentally different from snowmobilers and don't want to see them anywhere, ever. It's the same as the blanket ban on E-Bikes on single track the forest service implemented which makes no logical sense. I'm an avid XC skier and don't really give a shit if a couple of sleds pack out a nice fast track for me and my dog. It really sucks breaking trail on those skinny skis.

[bodywhomper]

User conflicts, perception of user conflicts, expected recreational experiences, and safety.

[bodywhomper]

There will always be those who retire in the basin and complain about everything. They bitch about the noise kids make playing outside.

Wait until the government starts doing prescribed fire in the basin. Then the complaints will roll in.

[kidwoo]

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?

Stock sleds these days are pretty damn quiet. But the exhaust mufflers (cans) weigh a lot so people put lighter and hence louder cans on. Those can range anywhere from a little louder than stock to I want fucking punch you in the face for riding that thing near me.

Like most activities, snowmobiling has evolved both in who uses them and what the rider and tool can actually do with better technology. Getting out into the woods to play in snow is a lot more reason people own sleds now rather than just a loud ass fast thing that you can ride in the winter. Unfortunately the latter still rules the mindsets of people like snowlands. But loud sleds don't do anyone any favors, I'll be the first to admit it. I'd totally be down with enforcing epa noise regs. But then you'd have to chase down harleys and cigarette boats I'd think.

We have pretty good mixed use in the area as a whole and most people who get out by whatever means on a regular basis know it. Like I keep saying, it's an entitled mindset and the ensuing lawsuits demanding that a wilderness experience be granted wherever a snowshoer sees a place to park. The FS does a pretty crappy job letting visitors know where they can go to get away from sleds. They're out there, just not being advertised. Winter Wildlands and snowlands aren't interested in solving that problem. They're just painting with the wide brush of as much land closure as they think they can get away with.

[RogueRider]

you'd have to chase down harleys and cigarette boats I'd think.

We have pretty good mixed use in the area as a whole and most people who get out by whatever means on a regular basis know it.

Agreed. I think things are actually working quite well between the groups as is, and I've never had an issue. I commented as much on the EIR. This is mostly because its actually quite easy to find your own zones if you just do a little research and exploring, and MOST people are really considerate and respectful of others. I have friends on both the sierra snomo foundation and the Tahoe backcountry alliance (or both) and we all get along quite well and have had some grand times with sled accessed bc skiing.

Don't get me started on the cigarette boats, I live in KB and they are definitely one of my pet peeves.

[kidwoo]

I have friends on both the sierra snomo foundation and the Tahoe backcountry alliance (or both) and we all get along quite well and have had some grand times with sled accessed bc skiing.

Just fyi part of the reason the sierra snowmobile foundation formed was because of a meeting some of them had with the Tahoe backcountry alliance where they were kind of lied to. They literally formed the next day. TBA and winter wildlands are essentially the same entity in this whole ordeal. You'll notice that the mailers from TBA linked to a form letter on winter wildlands' website. I can go into details but TBA is no neutral entity in this by a long shot.

[TahoeJ]

It's the same as the blanket ban on E-Bikes on single track the forest service implemented which makes no logical sense.

Fuck e-bikes. While I don't really have a problem with them in theory, the reality is those damn things are going to make us regular mountain bikers start losing access under the argument that you can't tell the difference and therefore it's "safer" to just ban them all. It's already happened in a few places (not Tahoe).

[mcski]

Fuck e-bikes. While I don't really have a problem with them in theory, the reality is those damn things are going to make us regular mountain bikers start losing access under the argument that you can't tell the difference and therefore it's "safer" to just ban them all. It's already happened in a few places (not Tahoe).

QFT. Especially if they get into mtb rental fleets. Tourists using them on the gg bridge are a scud missile hazard. I can't imagine them on single track w novice users. Most importantly though, the powers that be will just ban all bikes cause they can't tell the difference

[TahoeBC]

I have no skin in the snowmobile game as I'm not a sledder, but have never had an issue with them, actually seek out there trails in some cases. But I just absolutely hate this vocal minority that hates and wants to ban everything that does not fit into there view of how the outdoors should be played in. There are plenty of places to go where snowmobiles are not allowed and you know what, limit them more and you will certainly see the poaching increase.

As far as e-bikes are concerned I have no issue with them, I would just prefer them not to be classified the same as a regular bike. Let the land managers decide if they are allowed or not which should kill the arguments on general bike access. There here to stay and not going away, the genie is out of the bag so to speak.

It's called the "Land of many uses" for a reason

[powdrhound]

QFT. Especially if they get into mtb rental fleets. Tourists using them on the gg bridge are a scud missile hazard. I can't imagine them on single track w novice users. Most importantly though, the powers that be will just ban all bikes cause they can't tell the difference

At Mammoth, the initial sales pitch was the rental e-bike. Claimed I would easily have 4 1/2 hours of battery.

[TahoeJ]

At Mammoth, the initial sales pitch was the rental e-bike. Claimed I would easily have 4 1/2 hours of battery.

For lift served downhill?

[old goat]

Re snowmobilers not asking for more access, just existing access, from the comments to the FS proposal:
https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...FSPLT3_2438882 see item 3)
https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...&project=45914
https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...FSPLT3_2427671 (requesting more crossing points of PCT from current)
The above comments are all from the first page of 10 of comments made to the FS about the proposal. 2 are official statements by snowmobile associations. You can read all the comments here:https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...14&List-page=1

A number of commenters noted that they see few skiers and hikers (?) when they are snowmobiling. Could it be that skiers avoid the areas snowmobiles frequent, out of annoyance or in some cases fear and intimidation? On this last point:
"Supporters of the proposal pushing for more restrictions in the 1,250-square-mile (3,238-square-kilometer) area have been the targets of the online abuse, including anti-gay slurs, foul language and references to violence." https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/...orest-service/

[kidwoo]

Re snowmobilers not asking for more access, just existing access, from the comments to the FS proposal:
https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...FSPLT3_2438882 see item 3)
https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...&project=45914
https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...FSPLT3_2427671 (requesting more crossing points of PCT from current)
The above comments are all from the first page of 10 of comments made to the FS about the proposal. 2 are official statements by snowmobile associations. You can read all the comments here:https://cara.ecosystem-management.or...14&List-page=1

A number of commenters noted that they see few skiers and hikers (?) when they are snowmobiling. Could it be that skiers avoid the areas snowmobiles frequent, out of annoyance or in some cases fear and intimidation? On this last point:
"Supporters of the proposal pushing for more restrictions in the 1,250-square-mile (3,238-square-kilometer) area have been the targets of the online abuse, including anti-gay slurs, foul language and references to violence." https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/...orest-service/

*sigh*

Let me help


Those are COMMENTS as a result of the NEPA process being imposed, a result of LAWSUITS from WINTER WILDLANDS AND SNOWLANDS. IE: NO FORMAL LEGAL INITIAL OFFENSIVE MOVE BY SNOWMOBILERS TO OPEN ADDITIONAL LAND. The entire process, of which those comments are a response, is a result of the above mentioned groups trying to CLOSE MORE LAND TO SNOWMOBILERS. What you're claiming is asking for openings, is opposing proposed closures.

That's a personal wish list, not any kind of formal motion. It's a response, exactly like I said earlier.

How many PCT crossings are there currently in the TNF? Do you know why those comments bring them up? Because the forest service asked for input.

[old goat]

*sigh*

Let me help


Those are COMMENTS as a result of the NEPA process being imposed, a result of LAWSUITS from WINTER WILDLANDS AND SNOWLANDS. IE: NO FORMAL LEGAL INITIAL OFFENSIVE MOVE BY SNOWMOBILERS TO OPEN ADDITIONAL LAND. The entire process, of which those comments are a response, is a result of the above mentioned groups trying to CLOSE MORE LAND TO SNOWMOBILERS. What you're claiming is asking for openings, is opposing proposed closures.

That's a personal wish list, not any kind of formal motion. It's a response, exactly like I said earlier.

And to further point out just how much you really don't seem to know, answer the following question: How many PCT crossings are there currently in the TNF?

You didn't ask for legal motions filed to get more access. You asked for any evidence that snowmobilers want more access. I provided it. I'm not aware of any legal actions yet. We'll see what happens after the FS comes up with a plan. My guess is that they will go with minimal if any changes. What they're going through now is the response to the lawsuit, the purpose of which was to require to FS to go through the process mandated by law, in order to arrive at the same outcome as 2015, in which case all your hysteria will be for naught. If anything the vehemence with which those who want more closures have been attacked shows the FS why skiers prefer not to be around snowmobilers and makes closures more likely, not less.

I love caps--the internet equivalent of the noise a snowmobile makes. You make my point better than I could myself.

[kidwoo]

You didn't ask for legal motions filed to get more access.

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.

...............

[TahoeJ]

Damn, I think I just unintentionally trolled the shit out of this thread.

[kidwoo]

Damn, I think I just unintentionally trolled the shit out of this thread.

I was hoping to discuss it with you because you seemed possibly interested, not someone spewing ideological generalities who's proven himself to not know shit about what's actually going on.

[TahoeJ]

I was hoping to discuss it with you because you seemed possibly interested, not someone spewing ideological generalities who's proven himself to not know shit about what's actually going on.

I think you’re confusing me with someone else? I said I was curious and didn’t know enough to have a valid opinion... and, umm... I’ve PM’d with you about getting a sled for more remote BC ski access!

Which is why I brought it up... will it be worth even getting one at this point?

[kidwoo]

I think you’re confusing me with someone else? I said I was curious and didn’t know enough to have a valid opinion... and, umm... I’ve PM’d with you about getting a sled for more remote BC ski access!

Which is why I brought it up... will it be worth even getting one at this point?

No no no. I'm talking about old goat, not you. You posted the sierra sun article initially so I joined in.

not griping at you at all

If you want to check out some new areas, then yeah, it's definitely worth it. Still the best singular decision I've personally ever made for skiing. Nothing is set in stone yet as far as management decisions. I'm only participating in this in a hope to inform people about what's going on. Even before I owned a sled I knew snowlands was full of shit. Hit me up this winter if you're serious. Lots of good folks sled skiing and hiking from sleds these days.

[skysos]

Fuck e-bikes. While I don't really have a problem with them in theory, the reality is those damn things are going to make us regular mountain bikers start losing access under the argument that you can't tell the difference and therefore it's "safer" to just ban them all. It's already happened in a few places (not Tahoe).

This is exactly what I was talking about. I see that it's based mostly on some fear you have of you losing your access, which is not OK, but it's OK for another group of people to lose theirs? Isn't that the definition of entitlement? This is exactly what snowmobilers are facing, but it's already happened with E-bikes.

[TahoeJ]

This is exactly what I was talking about. I see that it's based mostly on some fear you have of you losing your access, which is not OK, but it's OK for another group of people to lose theirs? Isn't that the definition of entitlement? This is exactly what snowmobilers are facing, but it's already happened with E-bikes.

It's not entitlement, it's facing the reality of trail management these days. The hikers and equestrians tend to be the entitled ones. A better comparison would be if a new type of snowmobile came out that could go further on less gas but it was three times louder... I'm pretty sure all of the existing snowmobilers would be pissed because it would be used as an excuse to limit their access even more.

[skysos]

It's not entitlement, it's facing the reality of trail management these days. The hikers and equestrians tend to be the entitled ones. A better comparison would be if a new type of snowmobile came out that could go further on less gas but it was three times louder... I'm pretty sure all of the existing snowmobilers would be pissed because it would be used as an excuse to limit their access even more.

Yeah, I get your point, and thanks for the polite response. However, in this case pedal assist E-bikes are not louder, are slower downhill, in most cases are not going significantly faster in places where it matters to other trail users (uphill on single track), and have the exact same impact on the land as a regular mountain bike. If land managers choose to overreact because of unfounded fears or pressure from other users, that's just wrong and needs fixing. It doesn't help when one use group sides with them out of fear of losing access.

I was snowboarding back in 1990 and there was a lot of the same banning and worry from skiers that snowboarding was incompatible with skiing. It happens over and over again with new technology.

The public lands are for everyone as long as their use does no harm. It's important to keep land managers from overstepping their duty to protect resources, and to encourage multi-use instead of discouraging it because it is OUR land -- all of us.

[kidwoo]

This is probably the thing that bugs me the most about these topics.......letting groups like the pcta/wilderness society etc. frame the debate. I've been mountain biking for 25 years and it's one of the big reasons I live where I do. I don't give a shit about e-bikes but because these groups are clutching their pearls and running around with their hair on fire, you've got bikers hating on other bikers. Because snowlands has people convinced there's no way to get away from sleds you've got backcountry skiers hating on other backcountry skiers who use sleds. Read the comments section on that sierra sun article and there's a guy whining and moaning about the dangers of sleds riding above skiers. I can think of quite a few examples of skiers kicking off slides on other skiers on skin tracks (craig kelly for one). And for the decades that people have been skiing and sledding in castle peak together the only close call I know of was someone from the avy center knocking off a cornice and sending a slide at a group of sled skiers at the bottom. One of them used to post here all the time. But you don't hear skiers saying they need to be separated from other skiers by law and mangement.

Backcountry etiquette is the same regardless of what you're on. But people use it as just one more avenue to start the 'you people' bullshit. It's just so telling that in these management lawsuits it's never from people who actually live in the areas they want to close. Thanks boise.



On e-bikes though, what scares me the most is when one catches on fire in california summers. But like the farcical sledders kicking off avalanches on skiers, it's just my own personal unwarranted paranoia at this point, not a demonstrated problem.

[mcski]

The problem w e-bikes is when does an e-bike become a motorcycle? Where do the land managers draw the line? That's where I see the issue w them becoming a problem resulting in bans on all bikes. So far, it hasn't been an issue. But tourists on ebikes are frightening in sf, so I can't imagine if large numbers start hitting the trails. So far it hasn't been an issue because numbers are small, but people end up wrecking everything at some point