Early Season Pow Day, Jakes, Lake Tahoe Backcountry, CA
To the greater Tahoe area backcountry community, I received a message today and it sounds as though something we all take a little bit for granted-local backcountry skiing parking access-may be reduced, altered, and/or changed in a manner not in line with what I feel most of us would like to see.
If you clicked on this post, have a quick read below, and take another minute and make sure your voice is heard. Think about what’s happened at Tallac in the past few years, and imagine if there was no parking at Jake’s this year?!?
Here’s the message:
Where do you backcountry ski/board in Tahoe? And where do you park? You may not be able to park there in the future. The US Forest Service is creating a new Forest Plan that will guide the local USFS for years to come. “Fee parking and reduction of roadside parking would encourage use of transit” is intended for summer, but would also impact winter parking.
Please send an email and let the USFS know that roadside parking in the winter is vital for access, and the new Forest Plan should encourage collaboration with state, county and city snow removal to provide more parking, not less!
Email: [email protected]
Use subject: “Draft Land Management Plan”
These comments will be accepted until 8/30/12
Details: http://tinyurl.com/LTBMUplan
If all you do is send an email to the address above, with the specified title, and copy and paste:
Roadside parking in the winter is vital for access, and the new Forest Plan should encourage collaboration with state, county and city snow removal to provide more parking, not less!
Then you’ve done our community a service! And of course feel free to elaborate in any way you deem fit. Every voice counts.
Thanks everyone!
Yikes heard about this as well. This would be the suck of the suck.
BraaaaP…..braaaaaaaap…..
NOOO!!! I would cry.
Done.
Email sent…thanks for the info as usual Brennan
because after hiking and skiing all day I want to wait on the side of 89 and hope the bus picks me up…
Message dropped! Another fine example of the Forest Circus mismanaging public lands and ecosystems that they claim to understand, yet have little, if any, comprehension about the actual dynamics and interrelations of the socioeconomic and natural systems at work in the Basin.
Hey choda boy,
Get a life you dousche!!!!!
You should get in there and manage it then.
great idea, but i think they drug test…
socioeconomic
lol
a little note here. There are 4 alternatives that the USFS is looking @. The one that is most likely doesn’t change anything & actually may increase usage in certain areas.
BUT & it’s a Big ol BUT. With out public comments stating your disagreement to the specific plans, they could be swayed by other groups (sierra club etc.) Please review all plans & voice an intelligent response. No hearsay or slander (makes us look bad). In S. shore one of the plans is to close off a common snowmobile use area & turn it into a Wilderness Area.
Check out http://www.facebook.com/TahoeBackyardSledders.
We are trying to become one organized voice to combat the environmental groups that want to close down access & motor vehicle use.
There is a fine line between John Muir and Gifford Pinchot.
email sent…..this would not be good
Don’t think they won’t do it. Roadside parking is disappearing all over the basin rapidly. Thanks for the hedz up Brennan!
This is the thin edge of the wedge. In Australia, ‘parking’ was a token amount to cover snow clearing. Now it is $40 a day as a huge bureaucracy grew up to regulate (and charge) everything. Red tape and Green tape followed, with costs passed on. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Nuthon – Plan B is the “preferred alternative” and states specifically, “Fee parking and reduction of roadside parking would encourage use of transit.” Alternatives B, C, and D all contain this language. And it should be understood that the final plan may look like a picky eater’s menu choice; with a little bit of A, a little of D, etc. We all need to be that picky eater, and ask the Forest Service for what we want! Please ACTUALLY WRITE AN EMAIL. “Liking” and “sharing” this on facebook will help spread the word among your friends, but the word needs to get to the USFS!!!
yeah let’s just make an “Adventure Mountain” out of everything.
Done and done. with a little schmoozing thrown in.
vote no !These enviro people ruin the fun for everyone .We need to stop this power play by the enviro people.
ya! fuck lake tahoe! who needs environmental regulations… the lake is blue enough already!!
Keep voting for Obama and you’ll get this bullshit nonstop. There’s never enough regulation to “protect” the environment for these clowns.
Sorry Bro but this really wouldn’t be Obama. Believe it or not, its special congressional committees that create all the over (and under) regulations. And both sides of congress do it. Want Hope and Change? Elect a new House and Senate, not a new president
yeah this kinda thing gets its momentum from the private sector… whether its conservationists (for you) or resort and real estate developers (for us in UT), the forest service doesnt have that big of an agenda until someone starts leaning on them. the upside is that if theres enough resistance (and there is no major political push behind the changes like weve got here in UT), they will actually listen. write an email and then get your friends to do the same. also it helps to identify yourself and how you use the land. if the ski community makes a solid enough effort, regardless of the outcome it will be the “skier” that gets any concessions. weve got a campground in the wasatch that requires permits to use and a guard that actually checks….. unless you have climbing gear visible. the campground “blocks” access to a lot of popular climbing routes. climbers made their case, and essentially everyone won
The forest service is an agency and like all agencies is part of he executive branch. Regulations are proposed and adopted by the agencies, and the heads of these agencies, who set the agendas, are appointed by the President. Congressional committees have “oversight” of these agencies and can exert influence (with Eric Holder’s testimony before the House committee headed by Rep. Isa a well know recent example), but the policy is set by the agency heads who look to Obama. I’m seeing this same type of draconian over regulation by the Parks Service in the Bay Area, where they are looking to put out of business an oyster farm that has been in business for decades, arguably has beneficial environmental impacts (oyster clean the water), and provides locally produced, healthy food for the nearby SF Bay area population. This same agency is trying to ban dogs form beaches, even though the recreational areas were turned over to them with the proviso that the lands were for recreating, not returning them to their pre-human contact, natural state.
Senator Dianne Feinstein is not liking the proposed closure of the oyster farm at this time.
Which is good.
It’s not the Parks Service which is pushing this “Wilderness” designation crap, it is outside organizations which are lobbying Congress. A lot of which are fruitcakes in the Bay Area who think their pets cats should be able to survive on a vegan diet. But a few of which are going to be very wealthy, large landowners who want more privacy by living next to such a facility.
The “dogs problem” can be solved by having people who use these National Seashore areas keep THEIR dogs on a leash, just as we responsible people do. Every time someone ignores the “no dogs on this trail” or the “dogs must be on leash at this area” sign, it screws it up, badly, for the rest of us. The wildlife doesn’t need to be shagged by loose dogs chasing deer, elk, birds, ground rodents, etc. Neither do some of the other users, such as horseback riders on some trails. If you just happen to pick up the sign and it then “disappeared,” so you claim there was no “leashes” sign, you’re a freaking idiot. If you are voting for a Senator or Congressperson who keeps wanting to block or further cut National Parks funding or improvements, that isn’t helping, either.
What country are you living in?
The rise of the adminsitrative state & subsequent regulation is the exact opposite of the above 2 comments. Congress has specifically ceded legislative authority to an administrative agency to create “rules”–and in some cases you have “hearings” that take the place of judicial activity.
What you are left with is an executive branch that can push their agenda down to every level. No more branches of government, no more presentment clause, no more judicial review. Want Pot to be illegal? You don’t need a constitutional amendment (like you needed to ban alcohol ca.100 years ago)–you just need an agency to list it on a schedule.
Obama has a environmental agenda that is really a social re-engineering effort. Population consolidation into cities is one of the key tenents of this. And making it difficult to use autos and driving people to collective transportation hubs is key to this. His administration is using every idea in every agency to push this agenda. Water rights, EPA restrictions, vehicle restrictions…
So true
It,s Obama and the likes of Reid & pelosi, get rid of those liberals, other we are all screwed. I like to see Cali go for mitt Romney, but no chance, so we will get what we deserve
Dude that’s ridiculous. Do you really think that BC parking along Tahoe roadways has ever crossed Obama’s mind. More mindless election year drivel.
The USFS is *required* to provide several alternatives on every management plan. They range from draconian (e.g. wilderness everywhere, people nowhere), to laissez faire (motorcycles and snowmos tearing up meadows everywhere, plus logging and mining in the basin). The ultra-eco groups are actively lobbying to get wilderness designated anywhere they can. Wilderness areas are great, but suck for lots of outdoor recreation. Among other things, wilderness areas mean no mountain bikes because bicycles are designated the same as jeeps and motos. Even wheelbarrows are prohibited in wilderness areas because they are considered “mechanized” (which makes maintaining trails more difficult and expensive).
So make your voice heard.
No. You are ridiculous. Of course Obama doesn’t determine parking regulations for the areas around Lake Tahoe. But he does appoint the agency heads who set the policies and adopt the regulations, and those regulations have been getting tighter and tighter, at the expense of people (and their dogs) who enjoy visiting the outdoors.
EJK, pull your head out of my butt
ignorant
Stop with the politics. Work together to stop this nonsense. Here is my reply. Feel free to plagarize.
I am writing with my concerns regarding the proposed limitation/ elimination of parking spaces at access points to National Forest areas, especially in the winter. Back country skiing and boarding is not like taking a trip to the mall. Because of weather or your own itinerary, it would be near impossible to get in and and out at an scheduled bus departure time. (Is the proposal to have service on the half hour 24/7?) There have been many times that I have ended up coming back out to the car late in the evening because of having to trudge through several feet of unexpected new snow that fell overnight. (I can only Thank God that my car was there to provide shelter while we warmed ourselves up again with one last pot of soup.) Also the amount of equipment, skis, boards, backpacks, dogs, etc. would not be possible to carry on the bus. Also the added safety factor of having a car available to get an injured party out or act as a bivouac during heavy snows or avalanche dangers is invaluable. The notion that any bus service could be a servicable option for getting into the back country is laughable as well as ludicris. It had to be a bureaucrat that has never gone into the backcountry to think up such a goodie two shoes approach to minimizing the impact of cars at access points. PLEASE let us continue to buy the winter access parking passes and we promise to be extra vigilent in recycling or some other green program that might come to mind. There is too much at risk safety wise, to be endangering peoples lives in this thoughtless and frivolous plan to be a little more ‘green’. Thank You for your attention.
What if I only sidecountry , slackcountry, frontcountry, lamecountry ski? I don’t backcountry ski so will this affect me? I don’t really ski either, I freeride, so will this effect me too?
I support reduction in parking IF…
Mass transit is greatly improved, more acceible, and timely
I do not support pay to park, but would consider alternatives. Paying to park just makes it available to those with more money. Access is access and is not a country club, where only the wealthy can (or at least do) pay outrageous parking fees. I would however, support parking for carpooling. I do not know how this would work as far as enforcing, as you can’t tell from an empty car in a parking lot. However, this would cut down on overall cars, and of course encourage backcountry travel in groups which is safer. I don’t have suggestions for how running shuttles would work in a point to point trip.
What about having a season pass for parking for a “reasonable” prices, perhaps 3-5 times the cost of a day parking pass.
FWIW, I’m on the east coast now, and aren’t writing in, but I just wanted to throw some ideas out there.
Here’s a response I worded if anybody else wants to adapt / use:
‘m an avid backcountry skier and I’m writing because I’m concerned about the possible implications of a reduction of roadside parking in the winter. Many of the locations and areas that I like to go touring at have limited parking as is and unfortunately taking some form of public transit to them in the winter just isn’t feasible. I encourage you to the at least maintain the current level of parking for future use and enjoyment by the public and consider ways in which additional parking might be added. The state, county, and cities of Tahoe should work together to develop a plan that facilitates both public transit and the enjoyment of Tahoe’s natural beauty for outdoor winter recreation. I’m afraid that reducing parking will likely result in more problems than it would solve!
This land grab has been happening all over Nevada for the last three years.
It comes and goes with the left wing nut cases in the USFS hiding in there closets until They see the right (read left) president.
During Clintons years it was the Roadless plan in Elko County, now with Obama it is the Forest Travel Plan.
Don’t rest easy vote!!
This “land grab” has been happening in CALIFORNIA for the last 8 years starting with Gov. GAS Grab- Bag trying to privatize and sell off/deny access to the state parks and continued to the current era with the Dems using the Republicans for “cover” and vice versa.
Gov. proposes to close parks. Gov. finally terms out, replacement candidate Whitman does not get elected because its consultants are actively working against the state prop that would have funded state parks. (at least that was one of the reasons.) New (old, recycled) Gov. Brown proposes to let state parks close, much to the horror of peeps who thought maybe he wouldn’t be such a **** on this subject. Tells private non profits and volunteers to pony up the money to “save” the parks. One of the ways to “save” the parks is to reduce hours, close access points, close access points in winter which they define as 6 months of the year Oct-April, ban parking near access points, and now charge at least $10 just to park in the lots at the access points.
“Parks are Saved!” with reduced access and prohibitive fees. McMansion – type people who live near parks are thrilled that they have managed to kick the dirty commoner hoi-polloi out of their “private reserves” which they still have access to 365 days a year. You are still technically allowed to use some of the parks during the day, you just are not allowed to park anywhere near them.
Parks are saved from total annihilation, (oh lookie, we “found” the missing $22 million State Parks was hoarding, after this ) only because it is repeatedly pointed out that parks are frequently on rivers, and that if you sell off the land next to a river you just screwed yourself over on water point of origination rights. You could then see the great political bureaucracies in the northern part of the state slowly coming to the realization that maybe their complicity in this self – immolation was not the SMARTEST thing to do.
Meanwhile, the greedheads in the blatantly anti – environmental party in the state legislature in one of these districts that was going to try to close NorCal area parks that were getting a million visitor- users a year, is now getting the vapors, and calling for investigations and audits. Meanwhile, she and her hubbie in the state senate, who were pushing “Think Big” and the “Olympics at Squaw Tahoe” and the new basketball arena in the old Superfund site downtown, and privatizing Sacramento’s city parking by leasing off their public garages, have had this success at least screwing up access and making parking expensive for the state parks, a partial success from their point of view.
Because certainly when you cut hours, close access points half the year, and raise fees, you will decrease the number of customers/users. Then these smarmy crooks can say, see, fewer users, so parks don’t need the funding, so let’s cut their funding further. They may also propose to privatize and use vendors instead of state workers under the pretend guise that charging more for the same thing is more efficient and cheaper, it gets them more campaign contributions and kickbacks. It also makes the Los Angeles contingent of the other party happy, that they might be able to stick it to the pesky NorCal contingent.
What you really ALSO need to be concerned about is that currently the state legislatures are passing these “privacy” laws which, incredulously, under the guise of “security” concerns, prohibit regular people from easily finding out who the actual property owners are of land, if said land is owned by someone in law enforcement or in the judicial system, active or retired. Some counties now charge a huge fee for an inquiry and the data on who the landowners are for these properties, instead of it previously being free public data, and still some of the information may be redacted. You can see how the system of accountability and tax fairness, based on ownership, and public land access could easily be horribly abused by such “secret” ownership.
As to the forest service plans, there are 4 options, and people ought to be looking at what the 4 options are, as 2 of them are very unlikely to happen, before they are blaming this party or that party – or somebody who was president back when they were in grade school or riding around in the car seat waiting for a diaper change. It is not either party, per se, I can (and did) just point at politicians in both, who are working to put a money-collection meter between you and the great outdoors under the guise of “if you use it, we are going to fee you some more for it, on top of the taxes you already pay.”
It would be best if the Forests were State run rather than Federal. We’d have much more say then in our backyards.
this literally has nothing to do with ANY president, past or present. This also has literally nothing to do with being “right” or “left”. But being an election year, that’s all they’ve been feeding you the past few months and you have clearly been soaking it up like a braindead sponge. change the channel and get a fucking clue… then vote…
PUBLIC lands are just that, PUBLIC. these plans are the slow demise of the complete end of use by skiers/snowboarders of backcountry routes over time
In the 4 full years I have lived ion the Tahoe basin I have RARELY seen non-locals at spots like Jake’s or Hidden peak. The parking areas are always available even on days when the POW is coming down. Most get 1-2 runs in before or after work and jet on outta there.
Once again big brother is forcing our hands, and telling us all it’s for our own good
less parking at jakes = less people skiing at jakes = more untracked. Seems like a good thing to me…
Can anyone direct me to WHERE in the plan (link, sec #, whatever) I can find this proposed plan detail(s)? Letter writing to the powers that be can be much more fruitful if it addressed concerns specifically.
Seth – try the Draft Plan, pg 66: “Reduce roadside parking in areas of high density use and provide for managed parking. Prioritize transit or alternatives to the private automobile where parking capacity is reduced.”
Also in the draft EIS, chapter 2, under the “Access and Travel Management” heading of each alternative. Alternative A simply states “Use of transit is promoted where possible.” Alternatives B, C and D state “Fee parking and reduction of roadside parking would encourage use of transit.”
This wasn’t intended to reduce winter access, but certainly could if enough winter users don’t write comments.
It,s Obama and the likes of Reid & pelosi, get rid of those liberals, other we are all screwed. I like to see Cali go for mitt Romney, but no chance, so we will get what we deserve
fuckn crock of shit
EJK cut it out with the political bullshit
Hey All,
Email is good, and they do read it all. However, a hand written or typed letter is best along with a phone call. It really has more impact.
U.S. Forest Service
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Forest Supervisor’s Office
35 College Drive
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Voice: (530) 543-2600
Do it. Do it!
I hope everyone has taken the time to write a thoughtful, educated, and constructive comment – no matter your stance on the several issues at stake.
If not, do it now – or forever bite your tongue!
Thanks Brennan, for getting the word out on this.
Great information. , What motivated you to call this blog “ttention Tahoe Area Backcountry Skiers and Riders | This Could Impact All Of US | Make Your Voice “, not that the title does not go with the content, I am just wondering.