That sucks about hell hole. Sled use up Oneidas makes walking the dogs a snap all winter. Not sure if that will be the case any more. And like you said it rarely gets any human powered visits. I live as close as you possibly could and have only been back there once. What is the species?
Bonus ski strap for now...Quote:
Originally Posted by lepistoir
Tell the LTMBU that.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdork
I asked around and apparently they found a yellow-legged frog up in hellhole a few years ago. A species that's only active in summer and hibernates at the bottom of lakes in winter. In the LTBMU forest plan revision they specifically refrained from designating the Freel roadless area as recommended wilderness because of the hellhole area for sledding, and because of the rim/armstrong/star lake trails that mountainbikes use. I was paying attention because of the bike issue. Now they're renigging on that just 3 years later for a seasonally active amphibian tens of feet below snow. I don't ride snowmobiles back there but I know lots of south lake folks do. Seems dumb to close it now, since they found a frog after decades of sled use and were unaware of them before.
Also.....what has TBA accomplished exactly in the last 4 years? Wasn't schwartz from the backcountry the one who got the hidden peak stuff plowed back?
All they've done is try to get more sledding closed on the Tahoe National forest from what I've seen. I still have their form letter emails they sent out last year. Zero regarding parking there. I asked the TNF recreation guy when we were discussing some mountainbike trails. Zilch about parking, just snowmobile closures. The guy who started TBA is a winter wildlands board member for crying out loud. That's kind of their thing.
Mountain yellow legged frog and rare/sensitive bog habitat.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdork
KW, is there a sledder access group?
TBA's website does say "human-powered" winter recreation. Hadn't noticed that before...
Schwartz was a member of the TBA board at the time the Hidden Peak plowing was addressed, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
Also, just pulled this from the TBA website:
"TBA’s official stance is to support the USFS preferred “Alternative #2” with some minor adjustments in a couple zones and within the process.
- Castle Peak Zone – Create a non-motorized area on the north and east slopes of Castle Peak to enhance user safety and decrease user conflicts. Donner Lake Interchange and the surrounding area should remain motorized so motorized users retain access to Coon Canyon and an access bottleneck is not created at Castle Peak/Boreal.
- Infrastructure Improvements – Drive investment to improve access at impacted and/or popular trailheads such as Castle Peak and Donner Lake Interchange.
- Working Group – We think it makes a lot of sense to convene a broadly representative collaborative working group of stakeholders and organizations to assist in the effort to find workable compromises in these and other areas, and to ensure that all users have appropriate access to the experiences they love without impinging on the experience of others.
- Motorized Access – We support inclusion of specific zones like the Sagehen Access Rd, Andesite western zone and potentially other options depending on their location. as open to motorized vehicles. These agreements can be worked out during the Final EIS phase with input from the Working Group mentioned above."
Their stance doesn't strike me as glaringly anti-snowmobiling but I definitely fall within the realm of human powered so I obviously have my own bias.
That's because it didn't say 'human-powered' for the first few years when they were telling everyone they were going to fix parking. That just came about when the forests started doing snowmobile travel management last year when winter wildlands won a court settlement. Coincidence I'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by meter-man
A novel idea I learned from mountainbiking: enhance your recreation of choice without just removing recreation opportunities from other people.
sled groups: Sierra access coalition, sierra snowmobile foundation, california offroad vehicle association. Those are the still active ones that I've seen.
Lot's of sled skiers in the foundation one. Seems like most of the older sled orgs have kind of aged out.
goldenboy and mtnbikerskierchick on here started share the slate in crested butte.
Goslowgofar: "supporting alternative 2" involved closing the north fork of the american river, portions of coldstream, babbitt peak, part of andesite ridge, boca hill, and the access to snow mountain to snowmobiles. In addition to closing part of castle peak. That's a lot of closures. When I asked people at the TNF if the TBA had approached them about parking......well....yeah, not so much.
Thanks for the background. That's too bad there isn't an advocacy group pushing for winter access for all users - BC skiers, sledders, snowshoes, ice skaters, ice climbers (I guess?), polar bear plungers, snowkiting, etc. Lots of the projects and interests being pushed by the Sierra Snowmobile Foundation and TBA overlap or at least aren't in conflict with each other - maybe 80% agreement. That's pretty close.
Sierra Snowmobile Foundation
Tahoe basin: https://sierrasnowmobilefoundation.com/basin/
Tahoe north: https://sierrasnowmobilefoundation.com/tahoe/
TBA
https://tahoebackcountryalliance.org/current-projects/
Ya, I had noticed that and recognize that there are losses on the OSV side of things. However, at looking at all of the proposed alternatives going from the Snowland's recommended plan of reducing the total OSV acreage to 257,00 acres, the "wildlife friendly" alternative of reducing use to 302,000 acres, to the Blue Ribbon Coalitions plan of essentially no change in total acreage. Alternative 2, which resulted in 410,000 acres being designated for OSV use, does seem like a middle ground(ish) on paper at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
I obviously can't speak to TNF staff and their conversations with TBA but it does seem that outside of public comments regarding the TNF OSV Plan they've been more involved in trying to address issues on the west shore.
A year in to the TBA's existence and they still weren't talking about closing terrain to snowmobilers: https://backcountrymagazine.com/stor...-first-season/
They don't like to advertise themselves as being anti-access, but they got quite a few people to submit an anti-access form letter during the OSV planning process for the Tahoe National Forest. This had arguably a bigger impact than anything else they've done.
Too bad they did this bait-and-switch. A lot of winter enthusiasts use multiple tools to access the backcountry, and we probably would have been better served by an organization that unites instead of divides.
Here's a question, does advocating for human-powered access inherently make a person/group anti-osv access?Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW
Somehow I missed that there was a threat made against Alpenglow/Brendan M. That's fucked up.Quote:
Originally Posted by lepistoir
Thanks to the groups working hard to get us access.
Here's some Tahoe stoke
https://vimeo.com/362944129
Not sure why no posty? Tyler Curle season edit: https://vimeo.com/362944129
Losing Hellhole is a huge loss to the South lake sled community and for a reason thats total bullshit, I'd bet money not a single frog has ever died back there due to sled access. Guess what this is just gonna encourage more poaching and for those that wont poach, instead of sledding from there backyard they got to drive the sled to a legal zone, really fucking sad state of affairs, guess no one teaches there kids to share anymore, mine mine mine, if you dont play like me fuck you GTFO.
I don’t think so. Just like most things in life, it’s about sharing and compromise. I know that I would prefer no OSVs in my backcountry spots but I also understand that it’s not realistic. They have a right to enjoy the snow too, just like resort skiers. I don’t see backcountry skiers calling on eliminating resorts and returning them to “pristine” backcountry destinations and I don’t think that backcountry skiers should be inherently anti OSV.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar
Getting people to submit anti-access form letters does.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar
Coming in hot with the straw man there...Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW
Given the temps this week (50s - 60s during the day, 20s - 30s during the night) it could very well be a nice weekend of corn snow.
Mt. Lola is holding.
Basin Peak is holding.
Carson Pass area (Blue Lakes Road, Winnemucca Lake, Roundtop Lake, etc) is still holding.
Great time to get out and make some turns, work out the ski leg kinks, get those rock skis primed for early season, and enjoy nature.
Also, given the time of year, there shouldn't be any sleds to contend with (for those of you opposed to them).
Probably won't be a lot of other skiers (so no lift lines) or even that many mountain bikers out at the spots I listed, either.
Log them October turns, yo!
:)
What's the straw man?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar
They actually did that.
A straw man argument is when someone argues against a persons viewpoint or the question at hand but they aren’t actually addressing the actual question or statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
What did the letter say? Because everything I’ve seen says “we would like a non-motorized area at point a, but would like to keep a motorized area at point b” which to me says they’re advocating for non-motorized use while not being anti-osv. Anyway, I’m done detracting from the thread and think these sort of conversations should have their own thread.
I always took the part about 'human powered' on their web site as a marketing point to help make the cause sound better politically within the basin, rather than shutting the door on snowmobilers, but I could be wrong.
Continuing to discuss while saying you're done discussing is always fun. Meh, it ain't snowing so nothing else going on. And this is relevant for everything outside of a ski area in the basin. If you want a different thread make one. I know what a straw man is, and SDW's point was not one, it was real example answering your question. Advocating FOR a particular use is one thing. When that becomes advocating against another use, it becomes something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlowGoFar
I've already explained some of the inherent closures in the alternative they supported, which you said you saw. There are more I didn't mention that only affect sledders that you probably don't know very well. Most of those were in the alternative to begin with because of snowlands, who the TBA has tried to distance themselves from, but then intentionally or not, supported. That alone is enough, because it's stuff no one even skis, yet they were advocating for closing it. That's not something minor you can just brush off. Lot's of people in Loyalton and Sierra Valley ride sleds around Babbitt peak but the TBA didn't even care enough to look into it.
I just looked through my emails. The form letter they sent out was linked to something on winter wildlands' page which has been taken down since the comment period expired last year. You've mostly got it though on that page you quoted. In addition to the places I already mentioned, they wanted the north bowls of castle peak and sierra buttes closed. Most of the buttes area is owned by a land trust put together by sierra county locals who acquired the land specifically to keep it open to snowmobiles. They wanted the FS parcels closed which is basically a big screw you to that group who had the foresight to keep it open to everyone.
The castle peak thing addresses what's essentially a non-issue. There's not a whole lot of sled traffic going up and down the face of that place. It does happen but it's mainly in one spot/one gully. In years like last year with a huge snowpack, guys using sleds to ski were using that as a tandem route. Just one track up, in one gully. This would have made that very limited usage illegal, and ruin what's probably a pretty good memory for the guys able to use that route last year. It's just dumb. Plus how the hell would that even be marked......some random line on the slope that no one can see, no one is going to sign, and even if they did, whatever poles they used would be buried every significant storm, most likely just leading to trash in there. I've skied out there for two decades, hiking there for the first and using sleds and hiking for the last 10-12 years. If you don't like sleds, Donner Peak and Trestle peak are right there, and cold stream and deep creek are just down the road. Plus all the other places in the basin that sleds aren't allowed. Plus the month or so every year when castle fills in and there's no snow at the sled staging spots yet. For me personally, this wouldn't affect what I do because I'm just there to ski. But it's not just about me me me. And hey you could even just ski your line just like everyone else back there and crack a beer with some of the sled skiers at the bottom and make a new friend. Crazy, I know.
That's the problem with assuming to speak for multiple user groups. Sure lots of that sounds fine to a skier. But that skier has no point of reference for how it's truly going to affect the other user group who knows their activity way better, and knows the magnitude of what they're losing. It's the same thing as hikers always telling mountainbikers they can just 'go somewhere else' when that hiker has no idea what else is actually available or not to go to. Advocating for another "non-motorized area" is a closure. It's just a coward's way of saying it.
I asked if advocating for non-motorized/human powered access inherently makes a person/group anti-osv access. Stating that a letter was sent out making recommendations to create non-motorized areas doesn't at all answer the question I asked, so yes, it is a straw man.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
So is advocating for a motorized area a coward's way of saying piss off to non-motorized users that want to enjoy that same area? Because that argument can go both ways. More so, it isn't very conducive to productive dialogue between the two groups. Have you sat down with the TBA board to speak with them? It seems like you have some valuable insight that could benefit both user groups moving forward and from my limited interactions they're all pretty approachable people that are open to discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidwoo
Well to answer your original question: It doesn't seem to me that advocating for non-motorized use is inherently anti-motorized. Getting some real parking at tallac again would be an example of something awesome, that doesn't screw with another user group. But like powdork alluded to, it tends to be a soft way of covering for anti-motorized actions these days. The way I see it, the broad collaborative group of backcountry users that TBA calls far in that bit you quoted could be even stronger if it just included everyone using the backcountry. That would be really be an informed group. But then they went ahead and started the 'human-powered' thing and by doing so specifically alienated some good potential allies. It's the same thing the sierra club did with mountainbikers in the 80s.
To your second question: It depends on what you're talking about. Advocating for a hill climb snowmobile course straight up houglass? Yes that would pretty much be telling skiers to piss off. But that's not what's being discussed. What in that plan did you ever see proposed as open to sleds that currently isn't? There was none. It's only stuff being closed. So no, there was no motorized user or group looking to do that, just people moving the other way to close things to sleds. It was completely one-directional. You know as well as I do how many guide books, websites, and stores serve backcountry skiing around here. It seems to be doing just fine. And motorized use allowed doesn't mean you can't ski there. Go up to sonora pass midwinter sometime, the place is full of skiers and boarders right in the middle of the sled zones. Motorized legal doesn't inherently mean skiing incompatible.
I did meet with at the time two board members of the TBA with a bunch of snowmobilers who ride sleds full time. They pretty much ignored what most of the long time snowmobilers brought up as their own concerns, stuff I hadn't even noticed in the Tahoe plan at the time. One of the guys isn't on the board anymore, the other still is. I don't need to air dirty laundry or get personal but just know that I have my stances for a reason, and it's not from staying isolated in my little bubble of talking to people that only do what I do. Plus my skiing never feels threatened, at least in the way that it's illegal to do. My sled access always does. If I come across as one-sided, that's why.
February 2019
Attachment 297336
Could be a long season for Sugar Bowl. Most of the Tahoe ski areas are serviced by Liberty Utilities or NV Energy but not Sugar Bowl. All of Donner Summit are PG&E customers.
Very little and nowhere close to the forecasted high winds up here this week, but Soda Springs had no power Wed, Thu, or Fri, it finally came back on about 5PM yesterday.
Sugar Bowl better have a big stock of diesel for backup. With PG&E's itchy trigger finger, just no telling when they'll go into irrational panic mode and kill the power.