Any groups out there dedicated to preserving sled access skiing?

[goldenboy]

GB check in with Ochs as the Fat Bike crowd has some similar concerns with the Nordic folks approach to limiting access to some of those areas.

Oh yeah, they're going to be part of our process for sure since the nordic center hates them almost as much as snowmobiles. Website, FB page should be up soon. A lawyer and accountant have offered their services for free, and we're probably going to go the 501(c)3 route. We're in this for the long haul.

Thanks for the support, everyone.

[capulin overdrive]

This (and I'm a sled owner...)

I would like to see better winter access by car to many wilderness areas though. Maybe the quiet lands people would stop trying to fucking close areas to sleds if they could access the plethora of non-motorized areas that already exist.

Finding places that could even be kept open would be tough, but maybe working on the ones that could would be a start. And somewhere along the way, the non-motorized users should have to pony up some money for parking or plowing. Instead of leaching off the sledders.

There's a reason so many passes are closed in the winter.


Sledders would and should do their sport a favor and not be Harley Fags! Love sleds, but not a fan of loud cans, and even though I want one, holly fucking hell on a straight piped 2 stroke turbo.

[TG]

so how do you distinguish between the "responsible" sled access skier who uses a snowed-in summer road to access the goods & park at the bottom, versus the lazy cunt who sleds in to the skiing and then uses that sled to climb up and ghost ride down for each of his noisy pussy laps?

Fuck that latter type, and if you sled skiers can't self police enough to ostracize those douchebags & not have them instantly brought to mind whenever the subject of sled access skiing is raised, then I have no problem with curtailing all sled access.

[capulin overdrive]

so how do you distinguish between the "responsible" sled access skier who uses a snowed-in summer road to access the goods & park at the bottom, versus the lazy cunt who sleds in to the skiing and then uses that sled to climb up and ghost ride down for each of his noisy pussy laps?

Fuck that latter type, and if you sled skiers can't self police enough to ostracize those douchebags & not have them instantly brought to mind whenever the subject of sled access skiing is raised, then I have no problem with curtailing all sled access.

Shouldn't have to distinguish between the types of sled skiers! Terrain does that for us. Who are you to decide what's responsible?

If you're skiing terrain that can be ghost rode, then I'd say it's you who's masculinity should be called into question.


You one of the Silent Tracks jackasses who made a propaganda video crying about the sled skiing on Vail Pass?

[BFD]

Thanks for all the info in this thread, I work with HBC in Hokkaido, Japan, and we are facing similar issues.

www.hokkaidobackcountryclub.com

Our club is a type of meeting place both online and off-line for Japan's growing backcountry ski, snowboard, snowmobile, snowcat and Heli community.

I think you misunderstood what the OP was posting about. I believe he is trying to keep existing access to areas they already have for the purpose of recreation. You on the other hand are talking about screwing previous users for monetary gain.

[Dhelihiker]

so how do you distinguish between the "responsible" sled access skier who uses a snowed-in summer road to access the goods & park at the bottom, versus the lazy cunt who sleds in to the skiing and then uses that sled to climb up and ghost ride down for each of his noisy pussy laps?

Fuck that latter type, and if you sled skiers can't self police enough to ostracize those douchebags & not have them instantly brought to mind whenever the subject of sled access skiing is raised, then I have no problem with curtailing all sled access.

Youre a cunt, I would like to run you over. Thats all

[kidwoo]

You one of the Silent Tracks jackasses who made a propaganda video crying about the sled skiing on Vail Pass?

I had to look that one up.

The winning still shot




He needs to drop the bar risers.

So 2007.

[GPP33]

Oh yeah, they're going to be part of our process for sure since the nordic center hates them almost as much as snowmobiles. Website, FB page should be up soon. A lawyer and accountant have offered their services for free, and we're probably going to go the 501(c)3 route. We're in this for the long haul.

Thanks for the support, everyone.

When you get it set up you can count on my donation. It's a shame to see this elitist attitude making it all the way to CB. I live near Boulder so I'm used to it but it sucks to see the attitude spreading to the few gems left in Co.

Good luck in your fight.

[hick]

Welcome to the party! The Gallatin NF started fucking us in 2005 and we are slated for our next boning here shortly as that travel plan will be revised. Don't worry though, the FS likes to make lots of rules and does not have money left over for enforcement. I feel for you guys down in CB, best of luck (seriously), trying to work out some sort of agreement with a bunch of kook organisations. Oh,and FUCK WWA!!!

Wow! I just re-read my own post, not helpful at all to OP, but I do feel a little better

[topwater]

I will not be contacting the WWA. The group we are fighting is aligned with the WWA.

It might be worth a phone call or two to talk to the opposition and maybe even move WWA more towards your side of the issue. It probably won't work, but it certainly cannot hurt to have a conversation with those who are pushing rules against your interests. If they never hear from those opposed, they may believe there is no real opposition.

Good luck.

[goldenboy]

sharetheslate.com for anyone who wants to get involved.

[kidwoo]

sharetheslate.com for anyone who wants to get involved.

Looking good man!

Good luck.

Become an expert at this really quickly and then I'll hire you as a consultant to come to another state.

[GPP33]

Good start. Signed up and shared.

The whole user conflict argument is so played out and gets me so fired up. I've never met a motorized user who gets pissed at a hiker, it's almost always the other way around. Shouldn't the one who can't act like a grown up be the one who gets excluded? Come up with a valid reason already....

[ski_it]

Good start. Signed up and shared.

The whole user conflict argument is so played out and gets me so fired up. I've never met a motorized user who gets pissed at a hiker, it's almost always the other way around. Shouldn't the one who can't act like a grown up be the one who gets excluded? Come up with a valid reason already....

The reason is simple- there are people who want to recreate without the noise and smell of motorized vehicles. There is a huge asymmetry in these approaches. For example- places with no restrictions and that are heavily used by snowmobiles are basically useless for people who ski tour that want either quiet or decent skiing. The opposite isn't true, except for the fact that high density non-motorized and motorized use could be a bit dangerous if speeds/high-marking are involved.

If this asymmetry isn't understood by someone on a 500b, 200hp machine capable of high speed, shouldn't they be excluded since they could put other users at risk? I've been in situations where I wasn't able to communicate with the person next to me with high-markers a 1/2-mile or so away. I think it boils down to - yes there should be places human powered only, how big and where, are the real questions. How much is enough etc. If someone wants to be completely away from the noise of snowmobiles (especially high marking sleds), you need a huge area. The sound probably travels at least 10 miles. Maybe this is an unreasonable expectation- yes or no?

Also non-motorized areas DON'T restrict access, only how. Likewise heavily used motorized areas don't restrict access, only how they might be experienced: I can enter a heavily used motorized area on foot, but it won't be the experience that I want, just like anyone can enter a non-motorized area but the experience might not be what they want. Not sure why this is hard to understand. I've also met many motorized users that get pissed at non-motorized users, but it's a bit irrelevant.

[Shredhead]

At over 180,000 acres, the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness area is huge and close by.

[toast2266]

I've been in situations where I wasn't able to communicate with the person next to me with high-markers a 1/2-mile or so away.

I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit. A normal conversation volume is around 60-70 decibels. For a noise 1/2 mile away to exceed that level, it'd have to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 140dB, which is roughly the volume of a jet engine at full blast.

If someone wants to be completely away from the noise of snowmobiles (especially high marking sleds), you need a huge area. The sound probably travels at least 10 miles. Maybe this is an unreasonable expectation- yes or no?

1) Again, bullshit. There is no way snowmobile engine noise carries 10 miles, especially not in mountainous terrain. A piped sled at full throttle is maybe 110dB. At a 1 mile distance, assuming perfectly flat ground, that noise level will be down to somewhere around 40dB, which is roughly a whisper. In the mountains, the sound is likely not discernible at much over a mile.

2) I understand the desire to get away from noisy vehicles. I also agree that there are inherent safety and logistical concerns with motorized and non-motorized uses coming from a single access point. But by virtue of living in a society with lots of other people, you can't just unilaterally declare that you have the right to be completely free from even the slightest noise or motorized intrusion. It's reasonable to carve out areas for non-motorized access, but at the same time, it's unreasonable to insist on such a large area that, under no circumstances will you ever hear or come into contact with a motorized user.

[BDKeg]

At over 180,000 acres, the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness area is huge and close by.

not to mention the raggeds, collegiate peaks, west elk, and fossil ridge wildernesses...basically the whole valley is surrounded by wilderness.

[ACH]

Good start. Signed up and shared.
I've never met a motorized user who gets pissed at a hiker, it's almost always the other way around. Shouldn't the one who can't act like a grown up

IDK man, have you ever read some of he stuff that gets posted in sledhead forums or overheard a post ride conversation over beers by slednecks that share a similar position of entitlement?
It goes both ways, but it's my experience that it's also the minority...

The reason is simple- there are people who want to recreate without the noise and smell of motorized vehicles.

While this (your entire post - not just the quoted part) might summarize the conflict from a non motorized view, it doesn't justify poor, anti social behavior like stereotyping, yelling, name calling and pole swinging, etc…

I've been on the receiving end of anger and rage from non motorized users while out sled access skiing. In the limited cases this happened it was not provoked by anything specifically that we were doing in that moment.

In fact, in all cases we were riding slowly by, out of respect to the non-powered users utilizing the same access, obviously geared up for sled access skiing, not sport sledding/roosting around, and riding contemporary product in good tune that was not smoking or creating undue noise pollution.

What we were on the receiving end of felt like a manifestation of entitlement and self righteous indignation, coupled with emotional immaturity and lack of self control.

OK, they don't like us being there, don't agree with how we utilize a resource that is on public land, I accept that. However, they are responsible for their own actions and behavior and just like anyone else posses options in terms of how they choose to interact and relate with others.

Obviously this does not represent the bulk of XC skiers, hikers and snowshoers we have run into over time. We have way more positive experiences than bad, people smiling and waving, some times thanking us for idling by, other times we bump them with a ride further in…

[kidwoo]

If this asymmetry isn't understood by someone on a 500b, 200hp machine capable of high speed, shouldn't they be excluded since they could put other users at risk?

That's a good point. Part of why I started using a snowmobile to get away from people was because of too many morons doing stupid things above me. I should just get other skiers banned from where I want to go. I mean they could kick off a cornice on me. Shouldn't they be excluded since they put other users at risk?

And coming across other ski tracks in the backcountry doesn't represent my desired experience™ anyway. I really think we're onto something!

[goldenboy]

Looking good man!

Good luck.

Become an expert at this really quickly and then I'll hire you as a consultant to come to another state.

Thanks! And no thanks! I hate controversy, it's hard for me not to get overly worked up about this subject. Losing the Slate would be losing everything.

[The Gnarwhale]

I second the notion that you should reach out to WWA.

For whatever it's worth, my understanding is that WWA's lawsuit isn't meant to stop snowmobile access. It's meant to force the FS to include winter motor sports in their multi-use planning. Boating, biking, dirt biking, and 4x4 driving are all activities that the USFS allows and there's regional management plans that guide what areas are open to who, where/when there's permit systems, etc. But the USFS has avoided doing travel management plans for motorized winter recreation, everything's open for brapping. The lawsuit isnt about which areas are appropriate for motorized winter travel, it's about forcing the FS to adopt the same planning for winter use that they have for all summer user groups.

[ACH]

I second the notion that you should reach out to WWA.

For whatever it's worth, my understanding is that WWA's lawsuit isn't meant to stop snowmobile access.

This would seem to contradict your understanding of WWA.

Thus, conservation groups under the umbrella of Winter Wildlands Alliance have run a long lasting battle to legally exclude snowmobiles from public land. Now they’re ramping it up with a petition drive and scheduled meetings with the USFS to ask them to change their OSV rules.

[LightRanger]

There is no way snowmobile engine noise carries 10 miles, especially not in mountainous terrain. A piped sled at full throttle is maybe 110dB. At a 1 mile distance, assuming perfectly flat ground, that noise level will be down to somewhere around 40dB, which is roughly a whisper. In the mountains, the sound is likely not discernible at much over a mile.

FWIW, I could hear sleds at 2.5-3 miles while on a skintrack last winter. I was curious how far away they were (they were small specks from my vantage, but clearly visible), so I measured the distance on CalTopo when I got home. The noise wasn't particularly bothersome to me at that distance on that day, but it was there. Left my decibel meter at home.

This would seem to contradict your understanding of WWA.

Given that The Gnarwhale is a WWA "Ambassador," I'd think he would have a bit better understand of what they're about than a five year-old post from Lou. Could be wrong though...

[toast2266]

For whatever it's worth, my understanding is that WWA's lawsuit isn't meant to stop snowmobile access. It's meant to force the FS to include winter motor sports in their multi-use planning.

Well, the lawsuit itself isn't meant to limit snowmobile access, but it's pretty obviously a step in the process with that end result as the goal.

It's that kind of shit that makes me really, really dislike working with Wilderness advocates and their ilk. Don't try to beat around the bush and act like the actions taken by the group are something other than what they are. And don't pull the whole "we're not limiting access - everyone can still go there on foot" bullshit. If the group wants to exclude someone from public lands, that's fine, and its their right to advocate for that position. Just be up front about it and tell it like it is.

[ski_it]

Well, the lawsuit itself isn't meant to limit snowmobile access, but it's pretty obviously a step in the process with that end result as the goal.

It's that kind of shit that makes me really, really dislike working with Wilderness advocates and their ilk. Don't try to beat around the bush and act like the actions taken by the group are something other than what they are. And don't pull the whole "we're not limiting access - everyone can still go there on foot" bullshit. If the group wants to exclude someone from public lands, that's fine, and its their right to advocate for that position. Just be up front about it and tell it like it is.

I think this demonstrates what I was trying to convey.