Lake Tahoe 2015/16 - Year of Godzilla Baby Jesus

[TahoeJ]

FWIW - I think the odds of the sheriff's office actually arresting someone for accessing public lands are extremely low. I have several friends who are cops / deputies and they fucking *hate* paperwork and getting dragged into bullshit like this.

[LightRanger]

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.

You're right. I'm spacing out. For some reason I was thinking EDC because it's Eldorado NF. Yeah, it's Alpine and Amador--mostly Alpine.

That isn't in the lease itself. Just who would enforce trespass rules.

J, I've thought about that too. Though with Alpine County, given how small it is and how important KW is to the tax base, they might have some juice with the county...

[B__]

On Kirkwood skinning...

Here's their SUP:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6...jRjMWRTeVB5ZlE
(See the last sentence in Paragraph I.E. at the top of the second page)

Here's one of their recent ops plans:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6...3hwTmtwUE5aZW8
(Uphill Policy on page 12)

Here's the Forest Service Manual:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6...mtrUXZHcHRYTWs
(See pages 24-25)

Here's a map that shows FS land and private land:
http://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=38.68...15&b=ter&a=sma

Travel on private land--including parking--is obviously at the landowner's discretion. If they tell you not to travel there and you refuse, you can be cited by the El Dorado County Sheriff for trespassing.

Excluding the public from travel on legally-accessed Forest Service land, post-season when there are no legitimate operations issues, though, is bullshit.

As powdork suggests, contacting the Forest Supervisor is a fantastic idea. There are other folks listed in the Kirkwood Winter Ops plan too.

As previously discussed upthread a few months ago, I'd like to push this issue with KW and other ski area operators on FS land (cough, Alpine, cough). I only got a response to my FOIA request last month (and it's a still-incomplete response, at that), and then haven't had time to address it since then. The FOIA response didn't include as many public access complaints as I had assumed it would. It's possible that there simply haven't been that many, but I suspect it was more that they're hard to corral from peoples' email boxes in a FOIA response. If you've previously complained to the FS in writing about this issue, I'd be curious when, to whom, and how. Because there were very few public complaints in the FOIA response. There were some emails related to travel within the permit area at China Peak, and then some stuff from Snowlands related to continued free public access along the PCT through Sugar Bowl's permit area (which was a mitigation requirement for the Judah expansion in the late 90s). But that's about it.

If anybody has anything to add or questions or anything, feel free to PM me or whatever.

This post is worth bumping, these are the documents that actually matter. KW may be interpreting their Special Use Permit and the associated operations plan in a way that is counter to USFS policy and to the permit itself. It would not be the first time a resort operator treated public land as their own and overstepped their actual authorities in an attempt to protect their interests. They do hold a lease of sorts, but that does not allow the land to be treated as a private holding; far from it. The next two lines are taken from Section E (Nonexclusive Use) of the Permit.

"The use and occupancy authorized by this permit are not exclusive."

"Except for any restrictions that the holder and authorized officer agree are necessary to protect the installation and operation of authorized improvements, the permit area shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes."

KW has wide latitude on the privately owned land and buildings at the base, but it is a whole different ball game once that Forest boundary is crossed, regardless of what KW would like you to believe. They do have the ability to protect their permitted improvements (such as lifts and buildings) on Forest grounds within their permit area. Skinning, however, is certainly a lawful purpose, and it does not by any reasonable interpretation threaten the installation and operation of KW's authorized improvements. This seems especially true once the lifted skiing is done for the season.

The Forest Supervisor, Amador District Ranger, Public Services Staff Officer, Recreation Officer, and the Special Use Permit Administrator for KW's specific permit are among the ones worth contacting if you feel unjustly discouraged from recreating on your National Forest lands. You might be surprised how responsive they can be if a legitimate complaint is presented in a focused, clear and professional manner. KW's operations plans are reviewed and edited annually.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/eldorado/

[SchralphMacchio]

^ Yeah if a bunch of us all email the Amador District Ranger Office and Forest Supervisor I think that will start raising awareness for the issue.

Case in point, this coming weekend there could be a reasonable storm that would make skiing in the alpine areas pretty "un-fun." And there are not so many areas below treeline that have existing snow coverage, minus Kirkwood. It would be a great place to ski this coming weekend, if legal parking and access were resolved. It's not like KW is going to be doing equipment or terrain improvements during a storm.

I basically emailed the contact at the Amador Ranger District office asking the following:
"I would like to confirm whether Kirkwood Mountain Resort’s current Special Use Permit and Operating Plans allow the resort to prevent public recreational access to snow-covered areas when the Resort is not actively operating? I would also like to receive clarification regarding legal ways for members of the public to recreate in the Eldorado National Forest mountain terrain in the general area where Kirkwood Mountain Resort also runs winter ski resort operations."

I also pointed out a bunch of specifics about how I saw no active or interrupted operations, stayed more than 200' from all snow making and snow moving equipment, didn't see any timber or land moving equipment, didn't degrade water quality with my activities, didn't contribute to erosion with my activities, didn't observe or interact with wildlife, etc.

[LightRanger]

^^^ Post up the reply...

[meter-man]

The Forest Supervisor, Amador District Ranger, Public Services Staff Officer, Recreation Officer, and the Special Use Permit Administrator for KW's specific permit are among the ones worth contacting if you feel unjustly discouraged from recreating on your National Forest lands. You might be surprised how responsive they can be if a legitimate complaint is presented in a focused, clear and professional manner. KW's operations plans are reviewed and edited annually.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/eldorado/

^ Yeah if a bunch of us all email the Amador District Ranger Office and Forest Supervisor I think that will start raising awareness for the issue.

Email is a good start. Next step is the focused, clear, and professional complaint. Emailing may raise the issue, but it's not gonna change anything. To push permanent change, we will need (at a minimum) a letter signed by a lot of people, and cc'd to all the important decision-makers (Sheriff, USFS Regional, Vail Co., etc.) along with the El Do NF folks B noted above PLUS continued focused advocacy. Thanks for getting the ball rolling Schralph.

And as to "gray areas" and third world stuff, look at this as an opportunity: it's not written in stone and we can chance their minds and the policy.

[SchralphMacchio]

Depending on the reply I get, I think it would lead to either a formal complaint or an escalation of action with Kirkwood.

If they say, "the resort has its policies and we agree with them" or "we don't know," well then that's grounds for a formal complaint because KW is claiming to the public that it has exclusive use of this part of the NF, and only for paid customers, at all times of year. I think at that point we'd create a formal letter and get it signed by various groups (Tahoe Backcountry Alliance for one) and individuals.

If they say, "feel free to go skiing from X location", then that's grounds to take that statement to the resort and go skiing, see what security says, show them the letter, ask them to call the District Ranger, etc.

[somethingclever...]

Yes that would be the source of the variability. At the time I got there the shadow was still all the way across save one little sliver. I hear multiple refrozen booters on a narrow, steep and icy slope are the ideal conditions for such a thing.

RLP skied well today. Hit the ESE gully in good shape but the schwack out looked most unappealing so we just went back up for another lap in the crater bowl for easier access back to the car. The road is driveable to the bench below the lake so its not all that hard to get up there and on the snow.

Also, if someone is actually going to put together a petition or set up a group skin up the hill (a "skin in" if you will) or what have you count me in.

Top section the day before you did it, did not look appealing to me

Attachment 182503

Does Vail own the base area's at Heavenly, if not I wonder if that is the difference in policy?

[mogul5480]

Totally agree Alex. About time we at least got clarity. Even if they say we can't ski there, that creates a starting point for debate. Looking forward to hearing the response and writing whatever needs to be written.

[powdork]

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...

This is all Alpine County we're talking about. kFactor did know one of the judges there but i don't know if he's still judging or if he is an outdoorsy type (you kind of have to be to live in Alpine County though)

[powdork]

We should also consider that someone from Kirkwood monitors this thread, and arrange any skin in through private message or other means.

[mcski]

Good point. Maybe start a private discussion of all this before they can put sticks in front of any further discussions

[somethingclever...]

Damn! Censorship, and counterintelligence. That's really be upping the ante eh? Maybe they really are evil?

Good point. Maybe start a private discussion of all this before they can put sticks in front of any further discussions

We should also consider that someone from Kirkwood monitors this thread, and arrange any skin in through private message or other means.

[Ottime]

AFAIK, they do monitor this thread or at least have in years past. Although, both their social media guys are on vacation right now.

On a totally different note, toward the end of the season I was in The EK office. I was told that the people at the top of Dangberg who were restricting parking and access to spur zone were full of shit. He also noted that KW failed to have a clear BC access policy during the season, as well as access in general in the off season. So there are managers within the corp who see that an issue exists. He also made it sound like the policies were not being controlled locally. He may have been a she.

[TahoeJ]

No need to hide anything behind the scenes - the whole point is our right to access this public land when they aren't using it under their lease terms (and even when they are, which is a whole other side-discussion). It doesn't matter if they know a bunch of people are coming - if they restrict access, that's all that's needed to file a complaint and get the process started. I guess this is already happening, but a larger turnout event may have more impact.

Anyone want to give it a go this Saturday morning? It might be snowing........ or raining... so may not be ideal. On the other hand it won't be 75 degrees like it was today in Truckee.

[powdork]

I'd be down for saturday. The only concern would be that a lack of visibility would make the whole thing less visible.

[powdrhound]

Friend Doug posted this today. So much snow on the Wall that they can dig a road.

[SchralphMacchio]

FS administrator replied that KW cannot restrict access after they close for season, as long as ingress/egress is not via their base area/property. I'll put up the quote later. Watching the weather, still undecided about MTB or skiing.

[mogul5480]

If mtb, I am thinking of a quick spin at JMP at like 7 am Saturday if you want to join.

[TahoeJ]

FS administrator replied that KW cannot restrict access after they close for season, as long as ingress/egress is not via their base area/property. I'll put up the quote later. Watching the weather, still undecided about MTB or skiing.

Curious at which point it's considered accessing public land and at which point you're in their base area? For example, you ski down from the wall and maybe cut over by chairs 5 / 6 towards the bottom. Where do you go? How can you access that terrain without at least crossing their property or "base area" ? Or is it only in terms of parking I wonder...

Not too optimistic about the skiing with thunder / lightning possible in the forecast. More snow on Friday though, maybe.

[LightRanger]

^^^ See Caltopo link I posted up earlier.

I was thinking of skiing Squaw for a couple hours this weekend if they don't close due to electrical activities. First day testing out the heeled calcaneus.

[~mikey b]

I see what you did there...

[LightRanger]

[SchralphMacchio]

Here's a map that shows FS land and private land:
http://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=38.68...15&b=ter&a=sma

Travel on private land--including parking--is obviously at the landowner's discretion. If they tell you not to travel there and you refuse, you can be cited by the El Dorado County Sheriff for trespassing.

I don't know if the FS Administrator carefully reviewed the border of the inholding when I got her response. I would like to review it in further detail. I am curious about whether that map linked above accurately depicts the border of the inholding, and also how the parcels of land within the inholding are owned. Interesting corner at the far back of the upper parking lot ...

[powdork]

In my view from looking at zillow or trulia maps both danburg and behind 7800 are open game. not sure who owns the lot just to the south of 7800 but it has a for sale sign out there for a while. but who cares really? what we want is an easement through kirkwood's land.