The Official 19/20 Tahoe Ski Snowboard Thread. Plus bonus Bootfitting Recs!

[SweetCorn]

My old ski partner, Ed Willis

Aw, man Ed reference. RIP.

[kidwoo]

Meh, Kidwoo. I had a lot more respect for snowmobilers last year before one particular instance.

come on, that sticker's funny


So you're going to write off an entire population based on 3-4 people in lamoille? You write off all skiers the first time someone did something dumb above you in avy terrain?

I know you're just now kind of discovering all the skiing out there but that place is pretty much owned by snowmobilers. There's also a long history between snowmobilers, the FS and the heli ski company that's created a lot of animosity in that population that just does not care any more. Not saying it's right or wrong but it's just kind of the way it is in that drainage. You already said you've seen pretty good compliance around mt rose, but you just assume all snowmobilers are the same? Are all skiers like those dorks that got washed on the side of the palisades at sugarbowl two seasons ago and were dumb enough to film it?

That lamoille scene is only in that one single canyon, there's a lot of mountain range there that's not just the paved melted out road you can conveniently drive up.

You know the upper reaches of that drainage you're in isn't wilderness right? Is that where they came in from?


Edit: looks like you still had lots of fun on fresh snow eh?
The feeling of completing a descent I'd been dreaming about for five years, was absolutely amazing. Almost nothing can compare, and I really owe it to Theresa for being game to try the line, and to share that moment with me! We were all smiles.

https://www.nvbackcountry.com/single.../15/Mt-Gilbert

[NorCalNomad]

(7) Tahoe backcountry is so crowded. When I invented backcountry skiing many decades ago, things were so much better, and I think that it's the Internet's fault that things have changed. Let's argue about it.#AOLkilledskiing

(8) Who has the best post-ski burgers/tacos/sushi in Tahoe?

7)I thought it was getting crowded until I came out to the Front Range. Never seen 2ft of snow on the ground so tracked out.

8)Truckee: Taco's Jalisco
Kings Beach: La Mexicana Meat Market & Taqueria

[Wobby]

You know the upper reaches of that drainage you're in isn't wilderness right? Is that where they came in from?

Thats kind of the conundrum. I'm not sure how they could possibly have gotten into the drainage without initially crossing wilderness, as the non-wilderness corridor is certainly not a route I think snowmobiles could travel (heck I'm not sure that I could find a safe route across myself: see photo).



Yeah, we did have a fun time. No, snowmobilers don't necessarily impact my winter recreation in a negative way. However, with other skiers I at least know we are on a level playing field. Other skiers will also have to struggle and stomp uphill for a while before skiing down, whereas snow machines can rip apart an entire zone in just a few minutes. As a backcountry skier, you're basically helpless to this unless for some reason the sledders want to come chat and talk to you.

Its not a big deal, but as someone who does not participate in motorized recreation -I'm of course in favor of more places that are designated for the uses I prefer.

Also, yes I am just discovering the potential NV has to offer. Been skiing the basin for 10+ years, but I'm by no means an expert at it. Would love any advice/suggestions on where to ski outside of Lamoille. So far I have only been skunked by private property, while attempting to find other access points. Chatting with the FS ranger in Wells, this seems to be a topic of many discussions and some contention. As Elko continues to grow and the Rubies get more recognized, I'd personally love to see some more access points open up, which might help to avoid some of the user conflicts. You seem to know a lot about the place. Any suggestions/advice/or thoughts?



EDIT: Yes, I looked back through some photos, and the snowmobilers in the mentioned incident did in fact trespass the wilderness to gain access to the drainage in question.

[TahoeJ]

Are all skiers like those dorks that got washed on the side of the palisades at sugarbowl two seasons ago and were dumb enough to film it?

That was a snowboarder, for the record. NTTAWWT.

[SDW]

The Rubies are hardly a model of good land use planning. Bummer the snowmobilers poach as much as they do, but it has more to do with the poor management decisions than anything else. The wilderness area was designated long after snowmobiling was established, and the process involved the heli operation and out of town wilderness advocates, but not local snowmobilers. I'm not trying to make excuses for them, but it illustrates why an inclusive process is important.

[kidwoo]

That was a snowboarder, for the record. NTTAWWT.

Good point. Scum of the earth that lot. They must be stopped!

Wobby: two friends of mine grew up in Elko/Spring Creek. One a sledder, one a mountainbiker who used to snowshoe his snowboard all over the place before splitboards existed. It's funny getting the history of when that wilderness went into place as far as implementation in the 90s from each of them. A lot of it shouldn't have been designated. Those boundaries are weird in those drainages and don't make much sense the way they were drawn in some places, including some stuff that straight up shouldn't have qualified as W character. Much of that community views that designation with a lot of disdain, certainly the snowmobilers....which as you know are a lot of people out there.

edit: sniped by SDW^!

Lamoille is like a case study in my mind. No one gives a rats ass about the boundaries around there, and the FS goes through phases of trying to enforce it and just giving up. The more places close to sleds, the more chance there is of other places becoming like that, with people just getting fed up. That's not good for anyone. It may be annoying dealing with sled tracks but skiing never gets outlawed somewhere permanently. If you're a snowmobiler, every year it's somewhere new getting closed. Lamoille is just different.....from anywhere.

There are some places in BF nevada I know pretty well but at lot more that I've just barely scratched the surface on. Point being there are plenty of mountains that aren't lamoille canyon. That place is a zoo compared to the rest of state, and I've just accepted that there are way more places out there where sleds aren't going to be if you don't want to be around them. But quit advertising that shit, man.

Just fyi
https://elkodaily.com/news/local/wil...a3321250c.html

Everyone knows access is a problem out there.

[LongShortLong]

Brappers and skiers, may I focus your attention.

The problem isn't sleds, it's overuse. If there were one snomo using an area once a week, just about nobody would care. Most users (XC, snowshoe, backcountry, another snomo) would enjoy the track laid.

Used to be (100 years back) you could do about anything you wanted in the forest, drive, mine, fish, hike, etc. Hardly anybody did so, so the impact was minimal. Now there's more people. We've closed roads, established roadless areas, wildernesses, etc. Mining is practically banned. Fishing comes with a license and manual telling how many and where. Backpacking is restricted. Even dayhikers have limits in some areas.

But it's always been open to "my activity" <-- That's a bullshit argument

I don't read snomo forums, but I bet there's bitching about too many sledders in an area and how it used to be better (i.e. sounds like TGR bitching about other skiers). Overuse is the problem and there's no easy answer. Minimize impact and carry on.

[kidwoo]

But it's always been open to "my activity" <-- That's a bullshit argument

Not with land use it ain't. NEPA requires consideration of historical use. And so does determination of wilderness suitability.


I agree with you though, we need to build some more roads into wilderness areas to spread some peeps out. All that protected™ land to the south of tahoe just crams everybody up here. I'm glad you mentioned it.

For real though...you can increase access without screwing another user group just with existing designations, doesn't need to be a highway. For all the crowded places we can think of, there still a few that see pretty much zero visitation just because no one can get there.

[bodywhomper]

Not with land use it ain't. NEPA requires consideration of historical use.

???

The agency dictating the land use may have a policy to consider historical use in its decisions for future use, but that ain't NEPA.... happy to be wrong.

[mcski]

I bet the old geezers that used to drive all over tahoe jeep trails or motorcross in the Marin headlands would disagree that historical use means anything. Like the man said, overuse. People fuck up everything eventually

[powdork]

I agree with you though, we need to build some more roads into wilderness areas to spread some peeps out. All that protected™ land to the south of tahoe just crams everybody up here. I'm glad you mentioned it

what is all the protected™ land you speak of?

[kidwoo]

???

The agency dictating the land use may have a policy to consider historical use in its decisions for future use, but that ain't NEPA.... happy to be wrong.

No you mostly hit it. I was mostly thinking about what the FS in particular has evolved the generalized nepa process into. Since most decisions like this follow a nepa framework, and historical use is definitely provided for, that's more what I meant.

what is all the protected™ land you speak of?

All the wilderness and national park south of tahoe with all the sweet potential roadside sledding hills that you can't drive to in winter.

It was a joke. But it's also the story of tahoe and why it's so crowded. This is the most built out infrastructure in CA that qualifies as the mountains, accessible in winter. Bear Valley and Pinecrest a distant third. It's just where the roads are.

mcski: a good percentage of the bike trails you've ridden around tahoe were adopted, illegally built trails. That's historical use. There are moto trails that have been adopted as well.

[bodywhomper]

All that clear cutting that you see throughout the basin, that’s historical use.... oh, wait....

[kidwoo]

Jesus christ is this really so hard for you?
It's precisely the fact that the basin has been logged to shit, that makes categorical exclusions applicable to forest thinning going on right now.
New laws supersede a specific previous use sometimes (like a ban on outright clearcutting). When there is not a legal reason to prohibit an activity, historical use is considered.

Try building a ski area in the basin on FS property next year. It's not going to happen. Yet the historical presence of the existing ones carries a lot of weight, financially, and culturally, so they remain. It's not the FS making money off of heavenly or alpine meadows. It's longstanding permits.

Every see a wilderness area with roads cherry stemmed in? One with airstrips? The concept isn't some bulletproof way of always getting around a new designation, but it's something that gets considered in the process.

[mcski]

mcski: a good percentage of the bike trails you've ridden around tahoe were adopted, illegally built trails. That's historical use. There are moto trails that have been adopted as well.

My point was that the off roaders and motocross guys have lost way more access in the past few decades, but they got over it or maybe they just didn’t have the internet. At any rate, it’s kinda of inevitable because of too many people. That’s the historical use I was referring too

In Tahoe, it seems like way more trails were old jeep or hiking trails than illegally built trails, but there are certainly those as well

[kidwoo]

My point was that the off roaders and motocross guys have lost way more access in the past few decades, but they got over it or maybe they just didn’t have the internet. At any rate, it’s kinda of inevitable because of too many people. That’s the historical use I was referring too

In Tahoe, it seems like way more trails were old jeep or hiking trails than illegally built trails, but there are certainly those as well

Historical use is also largely why places like moab are the offroad/mtb recreation hub that they are. It was proven long ago that people travel and spend money to drive jeeps around there. That doesn't mean every route gets legitimized. That financial component for the community something that IS part of a nepa analysis. All I said was that historical use is a consideration that the FS does have to consider in new designations (usually through a NEPA process), barring any legal compulsion to go one way or the other. That's true.

That doesn't mean "things don't ever change because a thing happened here once", and that's not what I said.

Loss of motorized trails and users 'getting over it' or not has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. There were FS and BLM rules that went into place with a legal framework to start removing illegal or never sanctioned trails or roads that were just a byproduct of logging. And yes, most of the ones that still exist are there largely because of........wait for it..........historical use being considered. Some forests recognized it more than others obviously. But when there's gray area and a designation can go either way, use patterns have be considered. That's a procedural component, if not spelled out explicitly in nepa.

Missing link was never anything but an illegally built bike trail to join up tahoe city to western states. Same with some of the stuff around tahoe city with now fancy names that tamba has had trail days on to bring up to fs standards. Yes lots of them were based off old logging roads but not all.

[bodywhomper]

Jesus christ is this really so hard for you?
It's precisely the fact that the basin has been logged to shit, that makes categorical exclusions applicable to forest thinning going on right now.
New laws supersede a specific previous use sometimes (like a ban on outright clearcutting). When there is not a legal reason to prohibit an activity, historical use is considered.

Try building a ski area in the basin on FS property next year. It's not going to happen. Yet the historical presence of the existing ones carries a lot of weight, financially, and culturally, so they remain. It's not the FS making money off of heavenly or alpine meadows. It's longstanding permits.

Every see a wilderness area with roads cherry stemmed in? One with airstrips? The concept isn't some bulletproof way of always getting around a new designation, but it's something that gets considered in the process.

haha. found a button.

frankly, it's not about "historical" use, it's about existing use (i.e., existing condition), an existing ski resort, an existing "illegal" trail, etc.

The logging CE is utilized because that's a category of action that has been created (at a national level) by the USFS (via the healthy forest initiative under Bush II). if that CE was not created by the USDA/USFS, then USFS would not be able to use a CE for forest thinning. it has nothing to do with the fact that the area was historically clearcut. it's also a category of project that the USFS is currently stretching a bit in CA because they are generally being considered "white hat" projects. i can discuss NEPA with you all day, but i'll need to send an invoice to you at some point. :P

[kidwoo]

frankly, it's not about "historical" use, it's about existing use (i.e., existing condition), an existing ski resort, an existing "illegal" trail, etc.

Kinda one in the same in the manner I was using it. Existing use strengthened by a timeline. And before using the CE example, it was specifically in the context of recreation plans since that's what started this hole. You ever get any form letters from the save the whatever crews? You ever notice the abundance of the world 'historical?' That's in there for a reason. I picked bike trails as an example just because I know mcski rides the bikes and know a little bit of history with some of them.

Admittedly I'm usually dealing with trail or recreation stuff and not logging, but I do see plenty of proposed actions involving thinning that forego the full monty under a CE. Maybe in those examples I'm connecting dots that aren't there. But with something like this recreation plan, which should fall under nepa under an EA or an EIS, historical use is something the FS always addresses.

check's in the mail

[hercule33]

If the weather pattern continues as is, ski resorts will need change their existing use as year round mountain biking resorts. Let it snow!!!

[bodywhomper]

my memory is that the initial successful challenge to the overuse of the CE was related to the development of roads for forestry vehicles. road development is not covered by the CE. the challenge was related to work proposed in Oregon.

[mcski]

Kinda reminds me I haven’t ridden missing link all this year. Maybe that will this afternoons historic activity. Something good has come of this whirlpool!

[kidwoo]

If the weather pattern continues as is, ski resorts will need change their existing use as year round mountain biking resorts. Let it snow!!!

That would be better than alpine slide parks

my memory is that the initial successful challenge to the overuse of the CE was related to the development of roads for forestry vehicles. road development is not covered by the CE. the challenge was related to work proposed in Oregon.

Easier to trigger a CE on previously logged lands with existing roads vs. non..... Makes sense. That's what I said in a completely roundabout substituting clearcut for road presence kind of way right?

[Wobby]

Kinda reminds me I haven’t ridden missing link all this year. Maybe that will this afternoons historic activity. Something good has come of this whirlpool!

Is that trail good? I mostly ride stuff in Reno

[mcski]

It was a go to back in the day. Like kidwoo said, it was the only way to link up in a fun way with western states. It can be rowdy and had some steep features but other trails have taken over as my go to In the past couple years. I think the new chief trail is actually rowdier now than ML, but doesn’t complete a TC loop