Vail Pass fee increase proposal

[rhalloran]

so, in a nutshell, because YOU don't like the rules in place, it is OK to ignore those rules, no matter how it affects other people? Is that the basic gist?

How on earth does that help? That's REALLY hypocritical, FWIW.

You've spent ten whole years "fighting" for what? To get in a dumb internet argument with me? It sounds like you've had some success, and that's great. Not kidding. Bragging about how much work you've done in the same breath as how much "they" keep "illegally" closing strikes me as odd, but...eh.

My point is simple, though. For all of you people who have been "fighting" for use of public lands, why is it difficult to see my point of view?

Remember, in context:

Vail Pass Winter Recreation Area has areas where OHV use is limited to established routes.

I want you, and AndrettiDog, and whoever else, to follow those rules.

That's all. I was out and about today in Summit County, saw some wonderful stuff to ski, a couple of the shots had sled tracks, and that's OK - because it there are no restrictions in that area.

All the work you've done, CO Powder, has resulted in what we've CURRENTLY GOT. All of the people who worked hard for our rights (thank you!) over the past ten years has gotten us "hybrid use" areas at Vail Pass.

Riding offtrail IN THE AREAS SET ASIDE FOR HYBRID ACCESS SKIING does NOTHING to further the sport, and it ticks off brainwashed idiots like me, who have an education, are well spoken and the time to go to "the meetings."

Do you REALLY think that ticking "me" off is going to make a POSITIVE IMPACT? This is not a veiled "keeping it real" threat of any kind, I'm specifically referring to the idea that it is not smart to inspire people LIKE me (and there are plenty) to get involved, go to meetings, do all the things "the greenies" do. Seriously. Think about it. It is a bad idea.

He!!, *I* don't want a bunch of "mes" going to meetings and writing letters! I don't want more "hybrid use" areas, I just want the ones we've got. A bunch of "mes" going to meetings/getting involved is SCARY. Even I think that.

There are two places in the STATE that have sectioned off areas for "hybrid access skiing." Vail Pass, Buff Pass.

What's so bad about staying out of those, oh, 20 square miles(WAG) of terrain? Why is that bad?

I fully admit I don't know everything about the process.

I am fully convinced that willfully disobeying the "hybrid access" closures will NOT benefit snowmobiling long term.

That's _all_ I'm talking about, if you read my first post, which is the second post in this thread. I'd pay an increase if it helped keep the snowmobiles out of the skiing areas. Plain and simple. Reading between the lines, "more signs." More signs take more money. I get that. I'd help pay for them.

You clearly don't like that there ARE "skiing areas," OK, fine, maybe you need ten more years to work on it.

Irritating those of us who DO like "skiing areas" no es intelligento. This discussion, for what it is worth, is not irritating me - giant sidehill trenches across the lower half of the shot out Lime Creek are what irritates me.


thatisall.

 

[CO Powder]

Once again you help make my point, Thank You.

Do you see what the over abundance of 'rules' has gotten us? It turns users against each other needlessly. NONE of the rules you want help anybody with anything other than feeling entitled to a small piece of public land.

Everybody these days wants to be catered too, skiers, hybrid users, sledders. Now reconcile that with the 3.5 million acres of wilderness designations in Colorado and you quickly run into the problem we have today, bottlenecks at access points that cause conflict.

My personal solution is easy, I ride in much less popular areas so I can avoid these types of issues. I have also completely divested myself of fighting for land use rights. I worked the program because I thought at the time that, it was the right thing to do. I was wrong, it was a huge waste of time resources and energy.

I simply enjoy my days in the backcountry now and do not worry much about lines in the snow. I understand the risks involved if I cross one of those imaginary lines and hedge my bets accordingly. I do not go out and purposely screw with people unless of course they want to make those rules, I can play either way. Skiers as a group have actively fought to take away my rights for decades. You want me to feel bad because somebody trenched out your line? Not likely to happen.

I also do not care if you and ten thousand like you go to meetings to continue to try and take away my freedoms. Just know that when you have gone too far, there are likely to be consequences. That is history and human nature, not a threat. This notion that you cling to, the one where we can make enough of the right kind of rules and the skies turn to rainbows making everybody happy, is where you are going wrong. That will never happen as long as the inequality that exists today continues to prevail.

You want to make it better for everybody? Fight to open ALL of the public lands to all of the public. Until such time, I do not really care what you think, I am VERY comfortable with my current state of opinion on the matter. I have spent a long, long time forming said opinion.

I don't ride VP so if you want more fee's, rules and USFS controls in place I guess you have picked your poison. I can assure you that it will blow up in your face one day because the organization you want to empower does not operate in a fair and balanced manner. In ten years I bet you are me trying to explain this same thing to some other entitled USFS groupie, warning of the dangers of putting your trust in government.

 

[AndrettiDog]

I want you, and AndrettiDog, and whoever else, to follow those rules.

Who said I didn't follow the rules? I said I don't like it and I continue to battle for people like me who believe that the back country is public domain. Not area to be put aside for specific use groups. We don't try to close it down for anyone else, we try to keep it open for everyone.

I fully admit I don't know everything about the process.

Then why do you continue to argue with people that work hard to understand the process? "Follow the rules" is your advice? Good thing people didn't always think like that.

 

[rhalloran]

Who said I didn't follow the rules? I said I don't like it and I continue to battle for people like me who believe that the back country is public domain. Not area to be put aside for specific use groups. We don't try to close it down for anyone else, we try to keep it open for everyone.

Apologies - I did not intend to infer that you specifically don't follow the rules. Was intended to be a royal "you."

I think you may have keyed into a specific difference in our thought processes. You believe public lands should be open to everyone, regardless of use.

I believe public lands should be open to everyone, but I *DO* believe that certain activities should be limited to certain areas.

I believe the segregation of motorized to non motorized should be more equitable, I'm absolutely not saying the current situation is good.

Then why do you continue to argue with people that work hard to understand the process? "Follow the rules" is your advice? Good thing people didn't always think like that.

It scares me that people DON'T think like that, though. One of my recreational pastimes involves cars. Noise issues have become an ISSUE over the years. Familiar with Second Creek Raceway and....eh, is it Colorado National? No. Forget. Out by Stapleton, there were two racetracks - an oval course, asphalt, I think, and a road course - Second Creek. Houses started getting built. These people bought houses NEXT TO A RACETRACK - uhhhhh, wait, no, next to TWO racetracks - then complained about noise?

Really?

Moving forward from that, though, all the car clubs/sanctioning bodies put sound restrictions on events. Part of me realizes that if they hear it, it is too loud.

Some people would say "eff them, I'm not putting a muffler on my car!"

Thing is, though, when they DO complain, we can go to our site owner and say "we've got this sound policy in place, XXdB at YY feet, we have rules to prevent turndowns to defeat the sound meter, we disqualify competitors who willfully try to cheat the system and here's the sound log from the last event, on the day that Neighbor X is complaining."

It works. It works SO MUCH BETTER than "screw those rules." It works SO MUCH BETTER than "you should not have bought a house next to a racetrack."

The site administrator then has to weigh options. We're revenue. They're a neighbor. Site administrator has to decide. If we give the site administrator a bunch of ammo to go back to the resident and say "look, they have X events a year, and these are the things they're doing, and maybe we can impose a restriction, say, 9am?" sometimes, the resident is placated and we don't lose the site.

We DID lose a site before we had sound rules. I DO NOT KNOW if the sound rules would have prevented the loss - no idea. Our site was between the resident and a large railyard.

Ever hear a freight train take off? The couplings slamming together as each car gets tension? And you're whining about a bunch of CARS? Come on.

Anyway.

ALL I'm after with this one is to keep the sleds out of closed areas at VP. It makes me mad, because it makes snowmobilers look bad every time they ride in a closed area, in addition to changing my user experience.

If the difference really is - ADog - if our difference really is as simple as what I stated above - you think public lands should be open to all users, all the time, and I think public lands should be segregated based on use, well, huh. Interesting. Am I correct on that one?

That's an unattainable goal, IMHO. I do think that if public lands were truly public - any recreation, any time - it would probably settle out nicely over time. I think it would. I think the skiers would find their spots and sledders would find their spots and I _think_ it would probably work.

Realistically speaking, though, it won't happen, if you ask me. I don't think there are enough people who could visualize that - open it ALL, let the cards fall where they may. It'd work out. A few places would be busy, the rest would be unused, the motivated would find their happy spot. But yeah, that won't work with current culture/mindset.

I know for SURE I don't like backcountry skiing - actual, human powered BC skiing - where there are snowmobiles. I don't like mountain biking where there are dirtbikes. I just don't like hiking. heh. But....yeah. I certainly believe segregation is necessary. Fantasy libertarianland, no....but we don't live there.

And...every time a snowmobiler puts a track in a closed area, it is another black mark on our game, and IMHO, it hurts ALL of us.

 

[CO Powder]

And...every time a snowmobiler puts a track in a closed area, it is another black mark on our game, and IMHO, it hurts ALL of us.

I know this fits your personal agenda but, it is no more true now than it was when the discussion started...

Closed areas are dictated by politics, not disobedient sledders. It has been over 30 years since the many of the wilderness areas were established in CO, closures then didn't have a thing to do with sleds then either.

I would continue to caution you when it comes to trusting the USFS or any govt agency with your freedoms. The "I am paying for them to provide an area for my experience" plan WILL backfire on you. It will backfire because just like your track analogy, you are willing to compromise to keep the peace. That is exactly what they are counting on. You lose, "they" win. The great part is, they convince people like you that it was the "right" thing to do and you agree. Pretty soon you have nothing left because you gave it all away in compromise after compromise. They call that incrementalism. The simple fact that you want to accept todays set of rules and want to move forward is proof that this works.

 

[rhalloran]

So let me get this straight.

You're mad that the FS and "greenies" are taking away your recreational opportunities. You're mad that land set aside for your use is not available the way you see fit, because it is closed, or designated a "sensitive wildlife habitat" or some other nonsense. Correct?

I can SEE your eyes rolling, COP! Hah - laughing with, not at you. I agree, this has gotten ridiculous, but we're really mad _for the same reason_. There are differences - you believe that too much land has been closed to motorized use, as do I.

By closing land, other people are affecting YOUR ability to recreate negatively, and you're rightfully mad.

By riding in closed areas, other people are affecting MY ability to recreate, and I should not be mad at THOSE people, but I should be mad at the SYSTEM?

By that logic, you should not be mad at the skiers, you should be mad at the bureaucrats. I know that many times in this thread "skiers" have been targeted as the group that works to get things shut down. I can say with certainty that the VAST majority of skiers don't do a damned thing related to land use, they just go to REI and buy a guidebook.

I'd bet that percentage-wise, snowmobilers are FAR more active than skiers when it comes to land advocacy, especially if you count club memberships.

I can speak with some legitimate authority on skiing/skiers/ski industry, too, FWIW, not just speculating.

Like I've said many times, I'm not for land closure. I don't want more closures. I am a public lands user, and when I see snowmobiles doing things they should not, based on the current rules in place, it irritates me.

But it has electrolytes!

 

[capulin overdrive]

This is giving me headache reading this!


Thank God there's maybe some snow coming to the south, maybe we could talk about that!

 

[AndrettiDog]

Yep, we're to the point where we need cliff notes.

 

[CO Powder]

So let me get this straight.

You're mad that the FS and "greenies" are taking away your recreational opportunities. You're mad that land set aside for your use is not available the way you see fit, because it is closed, or designated a "sensitive wildlife habitat" or some other nonsense. Correct?

I can SEE your eyes rolling, COP! Hah - laughing with, not at you. I agree, this has gotten ridiculous, but we're really mad _for the same reason_. There are differences - you believe that too much land has been closed to motorized use, as do I.

By closing land, other people are affecting YOUR ability to recreate negatively, and you're rightfully mad.

By riding in closed areas, other people are affecting MY ability to recreate, and I should not be mad at THOSE people, but I should be mad at the SYSTEM?

When did I ever state that you shouldn't be mad a sledders for ruining your experience? You have every right to be frustrated. I think the disconnect comes when you factor in the closures to motorized users. The skiers are simply too lazy to go to the areas closed for them. Why do the conflicts always occur where access is easy? I used to tell them at meetings if they wanted first tracks they needed to get up earlier. It is just selfishness turned into public policy. There would be enough accessible land if we didn't have all of these closures. Can't you see by now that the closures only make things worse?

By that logic, you should not be mad at the skiers, you should be mad at the bureaucrats. I know that many times in this thread "skiers" have been targeted as the group that works to get things shut down. I can say with certainty that the VAST majority of skiers don't do a damned thing related to land use, they just go to REI and buy a guidebook.

I'd bet that percentage-wise, snowmobilers are FAR more active than skiers when it comes to land advocacy, especially if you count club memberships.

I can speak with some legitimate authority on skiing/skiers/ski industry, too, FWIW, not just speculating.

The actual skiers are probably the wrong target. Libtards probably better describes thee problem group. You have them as skiers, as rangers, as politicians, all trying to further their personal, misguided agenda rather than really working to try and solve conflict.

Sledders may have clubs and organizations but they have proven essentially worthless against the onslaught of money from the libtards. I gave up on the club after about 5 years, it no longer exists. Five out of fifty actually cared about land use issues, the other 45 were there for the beer and social time. We are way outnumbered and out funded by the libtards. I have one libtard neighbor that I have verified donates around $250k from her trust every year to groups like Winter Wildlands, and Great Old Broads for Wilderness and a dozen other groups fighting against my rights. I can not compete with that. My whole community can not hope to compete with that. So the skiers have huge benefactors that the sledders do not. When they go into REI and buy that trail map they donated, whether they like it or not because REI is part of the closure agenda team, like Cliff bars and Fat Tire beer. Sledders do not have this monetary support network, that is why we lose so often, because they had more money to fund the politicians that make these idotic rules.

Like I've said many times, I'm not for land closure. I don't want more closures. I am a public lands user, and when I see snowmobiles doing things they should not, based on the current rules in place, it irritates me.

But it has electrolytes!

What I can't figure out through all of this is why, having a sled, you don't just go out in the back country and find a private secluded place to hybrid? Why would you want and area that a bunch of people use?

I am pretty sure you don't need cliffs note to know how I feel about the current rules in place... When the rules become equitable, I will respect them. Until such time, if I rode VP, I would probably be one of those sledders that had trouble seeing the lines placed in the snow by the government. What do you really expect from a user group completely disenfranchised by those in power? I have been bent over and raped by those people enough times to know it is pointless to try and fight them when they are making the rules of the game.

I am not necessarily MAD, I just now choose to ignore them and their stupid rules. If you want that to change, you need to stop targeting sledders as the problem and face the land closure folks as the problem.

The reason it wont ever work itself out is because we as a society have become incredibly selfish and greedy. I would not expect that or this conflict to change anytime soon.

 

[rhalloran]

What I can't figure out through all of this is why, having a sled, you don't just go out in the back country and find a private secluded place to hybrid? Why would you want and area that a bunch of people use?

Thanks for the reply; that makes sense. I got the impression that you were of the opinion that my distaste for trenches in the no-sled areas was unwarranted.

As to the above - that's a great question & there's a good answer. Vail Pass/Buff Pass/Chicago Ridge are _easy_. Not all of my friends are competent on sleds, and surprisingly enough, it is hard to find people who want to ski off sleds. Going to a place out by ourselves (and we have a few) is _great_ with the right group of people, but it takes the RIGHT group of people to go poke a hole up that drainage & beat a road into that shoulder, and then once that's done, tandeming people up said road, well, often times, the people need to be at least "ok" sledders.

Most skiers are not even "ok" sledders. So, when those people want to go ski, we go to places with groomed roads. When the group has SOME skill - not talking monster-sticker-sledneck-skill, but solid intermediate - we go to the more interesting places.

*I* like those places far more. I like snowmobiling enough that I enjoy putting the roads in AS WELL AS skiing.

but...when they're tipping over getting out of the parking lot, those days get LONG.

 

[CO Powder]

My advice is to give up on the skiing. Hook up with a good group of sledders and start really enjoying the back country.