The whole thing is so strange especially when there is NOTHING else to do there right now.
Some friends of mine slayed the Cirque this weekend, not sure where they began their skinning however.
Printable View
The whole thing is so strange especially when there is NOTHING else to do there right now.
Some friends of mine slayed the Cirque this weekend, not sure where they began their skinning however.
A couple of grampas I know are going to SV next few days. They can hang. Any other old farts willing to show them around?
Way to get on it, Alex! I think you should organize a mini summit rebellion at KW.
They don't own the parking area behind 7800
Alex, I meant to post up on Friday that when I pulled into the valley with my son, there were two SECURITY suv parked next to each other. As I passed, they checked us out, and one pulled out and tailed me all the way to red cliffs and basically stunk eyed me as he passed. We were just there to take pics and love the perfect top to bottom coverage. That place looked so much better than Squaw. I bet those runs were pretty good.
Why does Vail need to make the place suck? I don't get it.
Alex I have no problem parking my car there to go skiing, or getting arrested for it. But we should leave your car nearby to avoid the long hitch back. And as meghan mentioned we can always park behind 7,800. Although my experience is the sheriff doesn't give a fuck.
And how is it from the same company that has such a cool policy at heavenly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottime
It's just what they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottime
Maximize shareholder value, minimize risk and eliminate any fun they can't monetized.
I've been told that Mickey Smith is the contact at the Amador Ranger District office who would be able to talk about Kirkwood's use permit and access rules. I haven't been able to get a hold of her or gotten an email address yet. Will report back with findings.
The turns off the top definitely were great. It wasn't a hard freeze the night before but there was constant cold wind keeping the upper mountain very supportable and the wet snow on top was smoove. Coverage at the resort is fantastic. It's more filled in now than mid-March last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottime
If you talk to her, make sure to mention the lack of proper signage regarding access to public lands, as stated as a requirement in their lease terms.
This is what baffles me about the Kirkwood-Vail situation. Their policy at Heavenly, and at Vail Mountain itself, is totally different...Quote:
Originally Posted by powdork
Schralph, I just emailed you Micki Smith's address.
Can you pm me her email as well. Thanks.
Attachment 182496
Kw this morning. And yeah, great coverage
as in better than mammoth...
I think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottime
I asked Tram dude this morning if it was ok to download with ski gear after 2.30 & he said no problem
(Lifts close at 2.30. Hot tub is from 11:00 until 4:00. Tram runs until 4.00).
They closed Mtn Run today - they had a "soft closure" before coz of a hike out at bottom.
The skiing was way better today than last nights rain had led us to expect.
If anyone out there is interested CP skied well today. Had to refresh my memory to the fact that the crescent is pretty hairy at the top. Highly variable in the upper section (among other things). Other than that pretty nice corn mid chute down and in to the main bowl. The other two chutes were getting more sun and looked far better from a pure skiing standpoint (especially in hindsight). Also, skied the main shot on E Back around 1 oclock and that skied pretty well also. That run probably would have been better a bit earlier (no surprise) but my no means was it "too soft" for my taste.
Oh and a big fat BOOOOOOOOOOO to Vail. I dont know what the deal is but its not ok in my opinion. As a tangent thought to that I dont think the gate that is now at Lighthouse Beach giving access only to Tahoe Keys folks is ok either. Restricting access to our natural lands is just crap and I'm against it across the board.
Meh.Quote:
Originally Posted by otto parts
Mammoth has plenty of snow up top, and unlike KW, it usually freezes at night, which makes the snow WAY better. Sunday was outstanding pretty much all day after the hard freeze.
And Mammoth isn't run by a bunch of Nazis, who actually know how to run a resort late in season, yes the salt cats were running.
I just moved to California for a new job, I'm in orange county but I have Friday afternoon off and am thinking of driving up to Tahoe for the weekend. From reading the thread it seems like mammoth is looking a little better than squaw for something lift served if I'm solo but I'd be interested if anyone is looking for a partner for backcountry or uphilling at a closed resort on Saturday or Sunday morning. Feel free to message me.
I think this debate about Kirkwood has gone on long enough. If in fact we can establish that their behavior is in contravention of the law, we have the ability to do something about it:
1) step 1 - call sheriff to understand local interpretation of law
2) step 2 - call lawyer to understand legal standing
3) step 3 - if we can establish that there IS a legal way to access Kirkwood, we arrange a group to do so very LOUDLY (ie we get 25 maggots to show up on the same day...but do NOTHING illegal. If you have to access from above 7800, post a volunteer in all other access points to direct traffic away from any potential illegal activity).
4) When Vail tries to pull their land-grab move, sue for harassment.
5) Profit (and ski).
That would be EPIC*
Oh shit, they own that.
That would be SUPER COOL!
Bcohen - Mammy. More terrain, open till 4.
Squaw - $19 buddy tix if you can find a pass holder.
I would actually participate.
Top section the day before you did it, did not look appealing to me :smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by somethingclever...
Attachment 182503
Does Vail own the base area's at Heavenly, if not I wonder if that is the difference in policy?
And take video to document, especially if you can get a security guard to say something like they did to Alex that clearly contradicts KW / Vail's lease rights. Put a video camera in someone's face and you'd be surprised how much less cocksure they act. I bet they threaten to call the sheriff, then back down when everyone says "Go ahead."Quote:
Originally Posted by mogul5480
There are lawyers already commenting in this thread btw - the problem is some of the language in the lease and operating docs is really vague and open to interpretation (some of it is not, however). The sheriff's office probably isn't even familiar with any of those specifics, I'm guessing. What might be a good idea is to call them in advance to tell them exactly what you're doing and explain why.
Anyway, depending on the day, I'd be up for it.
On the face of their lease, as it's currently constructed, they can have you cited by EDCSO for trespassing within their lease area, even if you're on FS land. That's how I read it at least. Might be one of those things that you could get a judge to throw out. Dunno. <---That's not legal advice.
I'd be curious, given how much of a hard-on that Sheriff has for the "constitutional/sovereign" sheriff BS, if he'd be willing to help people give Kirkwood--and by extension, the Forest Service--the finger and not cite people for trespassing on The People's forest. Kind of doubtful, because it seems like that only applies to ranching, mining, shooting, and 4wheeling. But maybe.
As far as I've been able to tell, the best option on this stuff is to start harassing the Forest Service to get resorts to start complying with the Forest Service's own written policy (which was posted upthread). Maybe there's an federal Administrative Procedure Act claim against the Forest Service that they're not forcing lessees to comply with their own policy manual, but I'd think it'd be pretty weak because they have a lot of discretion on that stuff. Hard to say though. I haven't really looked at it that closely.
Anybody know an Eldorado County Superior Court judge who likes to skin? That'd be entertaining...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kirkwood is on the El Dorado NF, while Heavenly is managed by the LTBMU, which have different Forest Supervisors (top dog in the local office) and are separately managed. Right? As a result, it makes sense that the policies may be implemented differently. More importantly, I bet that the lease holder (Vail) worked out different understandings or agreements with the Forest Supervisor for the Heave and Kirkwood, hence the different results.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightRanger
All that said, Forest Supervisors are certainly susceptible to public input -- particularly, when that input is focused, actionable, and representative of lots of voices. If the leaseholder and the Forest Supervisor are both hearing from the public that they want access and that there are no reasonable safety concerns, they may change their policy. But as LR said, the law affords the FS with lots of discretion here. I'm skeptical that there is any "case" that could be litigated or won. See his upthread post for more info.
Is there any advocacy group that addresses ski area access issues (e.g. sidecountry access, post-operations access, etc.) a la the Access Fund for climbing? (And I don't mean the free-the-Alta snowboarders...)
As a non lawyer, I must admit being a bit disappointed by the degree of gray here. I would have assumed there is a pretty bright line between private property (i.e. My tenant leases an apartment and that is his property, whose total sovereignty over that property can only be circumvented by very specifically delineated circumstances as described in his lease contract) or its public property, with certain access rights as governed by whatever government agency has jurisdiction. This whole idea of vail creating facts on the ground just strikes me as very third world. No value to add here. Just ranting.
That's an excellent point, MM. It's possible that the LTBMU (Jeff Marsolais) has pushed Heavenly on the issue a bit. There are other players too. In September, I spoke with Jonathan Cook-Fisher, Special Uses Program Manager at the LTBMU. He said that the FS was open to modifications to specific operating permits to facilitate public access. But he was at the LTBMU, not Eldorado.
And, yeah, I wish there was a stronger/slam dunk legal argument to point to. But there isn't, AFAIK. Still, it seems that the FS recognizes the issue in their policy manual change and the few conversations I've had with people. It's just actually pressuring them to push their leaseholders on it.
I have not read the lease and am not a lawyer, but are you sure that El Dorado County has juridsiction? Google maps shows El Dorado County is the N-side of Hwy 88 and in many places way N. Chairs 7 and 9 are in Amador County and most of Kirkwood is in Alpine County - the CA county with the lowest population. I'm thinking it's Alpine County when you see the sheriff drive through Kirkwood.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightRanger