Opinion: More wilderness designations bad for Tahoe basin
To the community,
We are very concerned as we follow the dialogue focused on the U.S. Forest Service Draft Management Plan. Some of the proposals could possibly ban assorted recreational use or allow for increased logging and mining in the Tahoe basin.
For more than 30 years, have enjoyed the incredible beauty of the areas slated to be turned into “wilderness” – funny, we thought much of it was already pretty wild. The lands in question have never needed special signage or designation in order to be enjoyed by those who mountain bike, snowmobile, snowshoe and/or cross country ski. For those who live here, these spectacular areas are our “backyards”. They exist as public lands for all.
Nonetheless, areas have previously been closed without opportunity for public input; eliminating snowmobiling in High Meadows is a perfect example. To think that current and future generations may lose the opportunity to experience these unique areas is truly upsetting. Isn’t that why many of us have chosen to live in this incredible place?
Call us spoiled, but we realize how lucky we’ve been to be able to get on a bike (in town) and ride to many of these trails without ever having to get in a car. There’s enough room for everyone to enjoy these places and it is ludicrous to consider restricting access to the tax-paying public who live and visit here unless they’re willing and able to hike or ride a horse to these areas. Although we’ve become more limited in our own ability to “power ourselves” to some of these remote areas, the proposed restrictions could prohibit us from ever enjoying these places again.
Let’s not forget that in many cases, it has been “locals” contributing their time and sweat equity to create and maintain these trails. We thank you.
No one needs to be reminded that in these challenging economic times, our community must do all it can to support the visitors who come to enjoy the outdoor experience of the Tahoe basin. Like them or not, these same visitors ultimately help support all of us. It is interesting to note that Joanne Marchetta, executive director of the TRPA recently commented (read column on LTN from July 22, 2012) on the various positive impacts of biking in our community. As for motorized sports, one only has to look to our Mammoth Lakes neighbors to see how they have embraced snowmobiling and cross country skiing/snowshoe enthusiasts by developing an incredible system of shared and single use trails.
It requires minimal effort for those who support quiet and/or “no tracks” activities to access thousands of acres of beautiful terrain (think Desolation Wilderness). For those “proponents of increased wilderness designation” who visit Tahoe, do you travel by public transportation to do so? Seems quite hypocritical to say you wish to protect the environment and natural habitats, yet use mass paper mailings to support the cause.
Should a wilderness designation be granted, those who do not or cannot hike or ride a horse will not only have to travel even greater distances than we do now to access the ever-shrinking motor and bike-friendly recreation areas, it will also concentrate too many people in too small an area: how do these actions protect and respect the environment in the long term?
Placing a wilderness designation on more areas in the Tahoe basin will sorely impact recreational enthusiasts of all abilities and interests. It would be foolish to deny that there is a minority who do not respect back country etiquette but please don’t create a situation that would criminalize the majority of us who wish to continue enjoying our “backyards” as we’ve done for many years.
Eddie and Susy Walker, South Lake Tahoe
Couldn’t have stated the situation better myself. Thanks for publishing about such an important topic. Hopefully there will be many well written factual statements sent to the forest service during the comment period ending this month for the new basin plan. Public land should be available to as many people as possible within reason.
The new Star Lake trail built from High Meadows to Star Lake (built last summer), seems to me to be built as much for bicycles as for hikers. And it’s an awesome trail!
Thank you so very much, Eddie and Susie Walker for bringing this up! We are currently doing all we can, as concerned locals as well as representatives of all groups that would be banned from these areas if they were to become wilderness. Everyone, please send your comments to the Forest Service before August 30th, this Thursday! You can find all the information you need at http://www.tahoesierrasnowmobiling.org/?p=1133
You can also support the cause and follow the ongoing discussion at http://www.facebook.com/tahoebackyardsledders
Thank you for your support!
Hanna Bernard, South Lake Tahoe
If a designated widerness area keeps out motorized vehicles, I’m all for it. There is nothing more disgusting than being out crosscountry skiing or snowshoeing and encountering noisy, polluting and fast moving snowmobiles. Although the tone of your letter tries to be all inclusive you are really promoting your own agenda as snowmobilers.
The more area they shut down to snowmobilers the more cross country skiers will encounter them. Open up area miles in, snowmobilers and dirtbikers want to ride miles out not within skiers or hikers reach. The more area thats closed the more congested the open areas will become.
Art, wilderness keeps everyone with a wheel out. That is bikes and even baby strollers. I got busted with our stroller going into Winnemucca Lake and nearly got a ticket.
This is not a statement supporting just snowmobiles in the Tahoe Basin, this article points out that in other areas of the Sierra Nevada range that multi-use trail users can exist together when the needs of all groups are brought to the table and a collaborative solution is worked out – as in the Mammoth Lakes area.
How many of the non-motorized winter recreationists actually travel to the wilderness area that we currently have? Based on my on experience with XC and snowshoes I’m going to say very few. If new areas within the Tahoe Basin were designated as Wilderness I highly doubt that those areas would see a significant increase in non-motorized recreation use. What the no-motorized recreation supporters would prefer to see is areas close to neighborhoods with easy access have motorized use bans. The Wilderness designations are being abused!
We currently have State Parks and meadows of high-use already restricting motorized-use. The real problem is enforcement and better outreach of these area use bans. Instead of fighting we should learn by the example of other communities that have worked out a solution collaboratively. That would be a win-win for everyone who has a stake in the recreation of Lake Tahoe.
Groomed trails and trail access exist because of one reason … snowmobiles. What !!! how come because everyone can use them … but OHV REGISTRATION PAYS FOR GROOMING. ONLY OFF ROAD VEHICLES FEES
FUND OHV / OSV activities. When the snowmobiles leave so does the grooming so does the winter trails and MONEY for plowing, parking, law enforcement, spring / fall and winter maintenance even funding for Search and Rescue. Several people will have no winter jobs like the groomers, forest service, law enforcement. Plus about a extra 1/3 of the budget for an area being groomed gets spent on the trails during spring and fall to “repair any damage and pollution”(typically trash from non motorized users is my experience)If you make it a wilderness it will bring in illegal activities and the future fuel for a fire which will easily grow for trails/access roads were removed because wheeled vehicles were not allowed. The “wilderness activists” need to see what other wilderness have become in other forests before this forest becomes more of a dump for illegal activities.
Maybe the anti-motor people can buy a $175 thousand dollar groomer, get liability insurasnce submit dozens of EIA each season and hire a few lawyers for the multiple EIA lawsuits for the trails and have their own area? But if one of you break the rules you all may be banned … just like they treat snowmobilers
Wilderness is easier for growing pot since aircraft can’t fly overhead. Kubby supports Alternative D, and so should the rest of us.
The plan has four alternatives, which have been developed over several years through a lengthy and rigorous public input process. Of the four alternatives, the Forest Service has a preferred alternative which serves as the Draft Forest Plan. Under the Forest Service’s preferred Plan, there would be no negative impact to mountain biking or mountain biking trails in the Lake Tahoe Basin. This preferred alternative will not close any mountain bike trails and will allow for proper management of those trails for years to come, such as rebuilding and reroutes. However, two of the four alternatives which are currently up for public review and comment could significantly impact existing and future mountain bike trails.
For more information please visit Tamba’s website.
http://mountainbiketahoe.org/forest-service-seeks-public-input-on-draft-forest-plan/
Hey Art, shut up. I have cross-country skied from Tahoe to My Whitney, I cleaned up the cold creek trail in the late 80s with the property owners permission (Roy) and also own snowmobiles. You wouldn’t even be 20 yards from a road if you were’nt on a snowmobile track ! Next time you are out skiing or hiking on a snowmobile track, thank a snowmobile, I’ve never seen one of you skiing next to a track. Make room for someone who enjoys “everything” Tahoe has to offer. There are plenty of existing wilderness areas for those who don’t like snowmobiles!!!!!!!
Thank you 33 year local for complimenting sledders. I spend a large percentage of my time educating where the money comes from and what happens when it is gone.
WILDERNESS designation for all lands not destroyed already. If a vehicle or bike hasnt been there yet than its not necessary for them to go there ever. Lock it all up and keep the wheels out!!!! Thats my vote
All of us want to preserve wilderness areas for sure! That’s what makes America so great is that we were one of the 1st countries to do this…setting aside a great # of our national forest & wild & scenic areas as wilderness. My own father was an active member of the Sierra club, and raised my brother and I with strong convictions about conservation. ( Ie. Leave no trace, pack out what you pack in.)
…There is a point where I feel the super agro- eco nuts, or what I prefer to deem eco-nazis take it too far. And these proposals are just such a case.
I for one feel that we have a forest that is serving recreation to a vast and diverse cross-section of people.
Hikers, mountain bikers, horseback riders, sight seer’s, fishermen, back-packers as well as some limited trails that allow for motorvehicle (OHV) use. (Ie. Snowmobiles, dirtbikes, and some fourwheel drive areas.) By turning these areas into wlderness designation it shall be limited to only foot traffic, crosscountry skiing, and horseback riding.
As I mentioned, this is our backyard. These mandates affect Mountain-biking trails such as Mr.Toads, The Corral loops, Big Meadow trail, Round Lake, Dardanelles, Scotts lake, Christmas Valley trail, Armstrong Pass, Star Lake, The Rim trail, and many more. Can you tell I like to mountain bike?
As mentioned that fact that in case of catastophic fire, access by firefighters and thier equipment will be drastically shut off. Also access by search and rescue groups will be limited to on foot or back-coutry skis/snowshows only, with even heli-copters being restricted to a 1000″ cieling.
Lastly, we are a tourism based community. We have already been hit hard by this prolonged recession, and the catastrophic Angora fire.
Just the other day I was in a small breakfast place in Meyers, a group of 7 japanese mountian bikers , all decked out in the latest hard-core riding suits, (LMAO), were there eating breakfaast and talking about thier week-long trip to ride many of the trails around the basin. Most importantly Mr. Toads Wild Ride.
Do we really want to lose the designation as a world class mountain biking mecca?
To Art, and the guy that wants to grow weed, I can only say, really? your selfishness is exactly the problem here! These areas belong to all of us. And the fact that you would put the lives, homes, and livelyhoods of the people who have chosen to attempt to eek out a life in Tahoe is simply absurd.
…just my feeble musings, Peace
Hey 27, That’s a very reasonable assessment of this situation that even an old hippie enviro-wacko like me thinks is an overly restrictive draconian intrusion on people’s rights to public lands. Thanks for that input.