Please let it dump.
I'm kinda amazed there is not a access fund or surf rider foundation like entity for BC skiing
Printable View
Please let it dump.
I'm kinda amazed there is not a access fund or surf rider foundation like entity for BC skiing
There is kinda. It's Winter Wildlands Alliance. They contacted Eldo county govt to alert them to this issue and are part of the reason our user group is being listened to. They probably deserve your membership dollars or at least a thank you .Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalNomad
Had no idea about them, thanks for the heads up! Definitely will be getting a membership.
"Kinda" is an important qualifier. Folks should do their homework to decide if WWA is really what they want to support or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by lepistoir
I hate homework. Maybe you can elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by travis
http://www.tricityvoice.com/articlef...+504+++TCV.txtQuote:
Originally Posted by LightRanger
Ongoing issue for several years with some residents trying to limit/block access. Not skiing related though... Well, there's a chance of skiing a few inches on grass and rock there once in a decade.
Ahh yes. I did hear something about that a while back. Not that surprising. Sounds a bit like the issue at Rubicon that's been simmering for years. Hopefully doesn't go through.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongShortLong
Too much of a can of worms to open up here. Just check out their website and decide for yourself. You may decide it's exactly what you believe in and choose to put your life savings behind them. I'm just pointing out that the organization isn't quite the skiers' corollary to the Access Fund, Surf Rider, IMBA, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by lepistoir
The attorney? No. I work with Native American Tribes. My mentor is a senior attorney and works with her.Quote:
Originally Posted by meter-man
I cant speak to TMDLs or the lake issues but I cannot secure more funding and definitely feel for the situation. I have expressed interest in becoming placed in Tahoe and sadly we have someone placed in Carson City from my team, so it is really unlikely. More likely I could head to Elko or Ely OR east sierras. But that would be years out.
Keep an eye on this project and if anyone is out there during rain events post removal, keep a record of any impact. You can move mountains with records.
Down to work on that. I have worked a little with Surfrider in the Gulf Coast and can add some nonprofit board experience to the mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalNomad
Science based advocacy with a bg in environmental management and resource conservation.
regarding the west shore parking debacle - note it is a Caltrans project, not TRPA's. Eliminating pullouts was an oversight, not a nefarious plot to restrict public land access. As I understand it, last minute design adjustments have been made (in response to public concerns) to pave shoulder areas where possible, and most significantly State Parks has agreed to invest resources to plow the Bliss lot to accommodate winter users.
To be fair, I don't think anybody's ever found there to be a conflict between motorized climbing and human-powered climbing. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by travis
Which makes it easy for me to be a supporter of the Access Fund :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by LightRanger
Fair enough. :biggrin: (I've definitely been a member at times as well--including donating to the Black Wall purchase.)
Keeping things academic, I'm curious where IMBA goes with their e-bike stance. Also curious to see when electric sleds come out and what they're like (I suspect it would be a LONG time before they'll be capable of repeatedly highmarking a steep hill in powder on the same battery).
Since we're on the issue of ski access in the Tahoe area, if anybody has had problems with skinning within ski area boundaries in the last several years and wants something changed, feel free to PM me with general description. I recall folks having issues pre-season at Kirkwood and Alpine, post-season at Alpine, etc. Also interested in suggested thoughts on uphill access inbounds during the season too. Trying to get a general sense of where problems have been beyond my general group of people I know and ski with.
For example, I was initially stoked on SB's uphill pass idea--at least when it was free. Then they started charging for it--e.g. charging people for access to public land when those people are not using their services. (There's a lot of nuance there.) They also do not qualify that with the fact that they are legally required to allow people to skin through the Judah area to access points south of their permit area (e.g. Benson and the crest generally)--with obvious exceptions for safety/avalanche concerns. That's a mitigation requirement mandated by their Judah Expansion EIS a number of years ago based on comments from Snowlands. Their website, for example, says nothing about this. None of the public information they have put out mentions it either. I suspect that if you skinned across the upper part of Judah on the PCT and patrol stopped you without an uphill pass, they'd say OK if you told them you were going to Benson or leaving the boundary. But I honestly have no idea what patrol's been told on that.
Obviously pre-season at Alpine Meadows has been an issue. Post-season they were fine with it when that big storm came in on closing day Easter Sunday. There were a ton of people out there that week, especially with the massive lines at Squaw that one day where people had to hike out of Shirley. They've been restricting access pre-season under the premise of not wanting people to interfere with their pre-opening operations and are worried about skiers cutting snow-making hoses, etc. I would say that sounds perfectly reasonable but it didn't seem to be an issue for all of those years prior.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightRanger
Does that not hold up legally under their USFS permit? Is that where you're going with this? Because if they're not going to open until December 12th again it would be nice to have the option like we used to before the unfortunate instructor incident a few years back. Plus being able to stick it to KSL would be fun just for the hell of it.
Hasn't this topic been hashed and then re-hashed? Uphill access is not automatically granted merely because a resort is on public lands. The insurance policy and the lease from NFS are the two primary reasons uphill travel is restricted at resorts. Add in things like safety and screwing up operations and you have several legitimate reasons to bar skinning.
I know with our recent lean seasons many times the resorts were the only thing going for skinning. I get it. Some resorts are fine with it if a few rules are followed. Is there some new angle in this argument I'm not privvy to?
For the record, I'd love to be able to skin at more resorts. It's probably worth our time to pay attention to when leases are being re-written and make an attempt to get uphill travel included. I don't know how often this is done though but I but it's not that often.
Save for the employee who died after hitting her head on a rock skiing a preseason storm.Quote:
Originally Posted by TahoeJ
^^ That was the "unfortunate instructor incident" I referred to in my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe Bromide
Unfortunately, my understanding is that most of the leases were renewed in the 90s and mid-2000s. I believe they are 30-year leases. I'm finding that out.
There's a difference, however, between their long-term leases and their yearly winter-operating plans. Their operating plans are subject to change and can address such issues. The sense I've gotten from the Forest Service is that they're receptive to this issue.
In certain places it may be that the ski area is already cool with it as long as everybody is chill. But management changes, and, as we just saw with the Jakes parking issue, having a concrete (heh) long-term solution, rather than relying on informal ad-hoc "this is how it's always been" approaches, is probably the better way to go. For example, I seem to recall that Kirkwood used to not care, and then started to tell people to leave after Vail bought the area. But I don't ski that area regularly (once or twice a winter at most), so I'm not that familiar with the issues there.
At this point, I'm basically in information-gathering mode. I want to have a more complete view of the issue before deciding what the best approach is, and where (we're talking several different forest management units with different staffs). And, yes, all the other points you make are well-taken. But there's definitely been a good amount of arbitrariness about barring public access beyond the obvious legitimate concerns about people skinning under patrol running A/C.
Edit to add: I should note that I have no idea how successfully such an effort might be, but I think it's worth trying. And, as far as I know, nobody has pushed back on the issue in any comprehensive manner anywhere else in the country. Winter Wildlands tried to get something into the Ski Area Enhancement Act a couple years back, but nothing came of it. There's a few places that have formal policies (e.g. Crested Butte comes to mind), but not many. Sugar Bowl does as well, but as I stated above, they've been something of a disappointment to me. Well-intentioned, though. I'll give them that.
^^ Have you managed to pull any of the USFS lease documents yet? I assume those are public record. I think it's worth looking into all of this - everyone just assumes the resorts know the intricate details of what they can and cannot do but my guess is they're just winging it and hoping no one calls bullshit. I don't think it's a big deal compared to all of the parking access stuff going down, but it can't hurt to find out the facts.
Heheh. Based on my and various siblings' experiences working in different positions at several different North Lake/Truckee ski areas, I strongly suspect you're right. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by TahoeJ
All the money constantly going in these roadside improvements to improve the clarity of the lake is a colossal waste. It's been proven time after time that the biggest threat to keeping tahoe blue is the keys reroute of the truckee river. They tried to restore it but it will never work as it should and the keys aren't going anywhere so the lakes clarity continues to get worse. So they make folks put in bmp's and spend millions on curbs and drains because they can't do anything about the real problem. The whole thing is a fucking joke. It started with the winter closure of spring creek/tallac and has continued with this bullshit all in the name of keeping tahoe blue.
It's only going to get worse. The powers that be don't give a flying fuck about backcountry access here
And the wwa is not my voice either
Are algal blooms much of a problem in tahoe? As I understand it, silt is the main culprit to decreasing lake clarity. Just look at ariel photos of the south shore before and after the truckee was rerouted for the keys development. Every other contributor to decreasing lake clarity is small potatoes, including urban runoff from roads.
And calling increased bc usage a cancer is lame. Saying it will weed out people not going the extra distance might be true to an extant, but it will mostly just make it a pain in the ass for all of us. Even at packed trailheads there are always less traveled paths, so the people who are anti bc growth because their lines are getting snaked are just lazy and doing it wrong
I know Eurasian milfoil is an issue... To the point where they're talking about using an herbicide in the Keys. I don't think they'd even mention that unless it had gotten that bad. But I don't think that's a lakewide clarity issue. Could be wrong though. I know TONS of money was spent on divers to rip it out of Emerald Bay by hand.
One thing they're scared about is mussels/clams getting out of control and dramatically changing the water chemistry. That would cause algae blooms.
why would the truckee rerouting cause clarity issues? What's the actual mechanics behind that?
I'm guessing it's that the keys is in place of what used to be extensive riparian habitat that filtered the silt out.Quote:
Originally Posted by emcee
^^^ That. Keys is an environmental debacle. And the blowback from it is largely the reason TRPA exists and has such broad powers.
Just got this reply:
Supervisor Novasel is working on a solution with Caltrans and State Parks and hopes to hold a community meeting on the West Shore in October to discuss this. And, will be holding a community meeting at South Lake Tahoe on October 15th where we can bring this subject up, as well.
We appreciate your advocacy, and we will do our best to preserve parking for back country access.
Great news Rod. Thanks for keeping us informed.
Here's a new way to coordinate and perhaps a more appealing group than WWA for some of those here:
https://www.facebook.com/TahoeBackco...age_fan_invite
The spread of the anti-cancer:
http://snowbrains.com/tahoe-official...-skiing-zones/
The dirt was nice this morning. Got a little wet but the moisture is a welcomed change.
Mmmmmm. Brown pow for breakfast.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
4th Annual Backcountry Mixer & BBQ
Thu Oct 15, 5:30 PM - 8:00 PM
California Ski Company843 Gilman St., Berkeley, CA
http://www.meetup.com/snowpals/event...=2&action=rsvp
On mikes list of bc parking spots he claims that fallen leaf is plowed but gated and should be open to the public. What he doesn't say is that it's plowed these last years only because of an ill fulltime fallen leaf resident who needs access to Barton and it's plowed privately just for that purpose. It never used to be plowed and residents and skiers alike had to sled in. So while I would like to see the gate unlocked in the winter, that won't happen.
I understand it is plowed currently at the expense of a resident. Sounds like an ally! I bet they would appreciate it if county or CalTrans choose to plow for all users (bc as well as residents) and opened gate. So it IS happening right now and could potentially continue with the right appeal for resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimpy
Which I don't think most skiers would have a problem with. But like with Spring Creek, plowing and then gating a road makes ski access more difficult. I think it's completely reasonable to request that regardless of who's paying for it, if a road is going to be plowed then the public be given access. Very different than insisting that the road should be plowed in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimpy
Though some of these residents are going to fight because they want the privacy a gated road provides, even if it is cheaper. I know this was an issue with my place in sunnyside which was on a private lane with private plowing, and people using the to access paige meadows. Unreasonable, yeah, but a fact of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by lepistoir
This is going to be a way more productive forum for solving this. Headcount is really important--a small vocal minority can really direct policy discussion, especially if they are "unopposed". Can you please update with west shore meeting details when you have it? Everybody who can should mobilize for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by rod9301
Hearing that Mt Rose and Kirkwood are getting snow. Yippee
Mammoth Mountain's social media was blowing up pretty well with lots of photos of snow on the ground.
Officially more snow than all of last year...heh ;)
http://www.tr.slaythegnar.com/KW_10_01_15_02.jpg