Title change perhaps?
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
California/Nevada Understanding Tahoe Travel Restrictions
- Thread starter raytseng
- Start date
It would be pretty useful to hear about restrictions specific to the Tahoe region. Discussion so far has mostly been about California in general and the Bay Area. (Of course, if you live in Tahoe and the slopes are open, there isn't much question about whether you're allowed to ski.)
The reason it worked in central and western Europe is that unofficial parties filled with young, careless people happen late at night. What we used to call raves back in the day.
. Those are superspreader events on steroids. Not sure if that is as prevalent here as it is there or not.
Note when the 150 mile limit was first announced, NBC KNTV channel 11 used driving distances on a state map during a report. Since the Santa Clara health document doesn't specify what that means, days ago I sent a FAQ asking for a clarification that got a "they will respond" reply email I'm still waiting for so will post whatever when that arrives. Hope it says air miles haha so I could ski KW or DR but do not expect such. In any case, as noted it is misplaced and will suggest skiers send email to the county before they kill our ski season once snow hopefully begins piling up.
Last edited:
Unless KNTV went out of their way to get the shortest directions, chances are their numbers weren't even quite accurate for driving. (Frequently, "fastest" and "shortest" are two different things.) I expect they just didn't give it much thought, though. The order could certainly stipulate driving distance if it chose, but that just doesn't make much sense as a distance metric — hence the comment about driving in circles. Nevertheless, I'd be curious if you get a response from Santa Clara.
This is pretty much what I read the intent of the order to be, though one has to wonder how much of an additional effect the curfew had over simply banning that sort of party in the first place — and then actually enforcing the ban. Realistically, I'm not sure we actually know, unless someone's managed to tease meaningful statistics out of data from regions that either implemented a curfew or didn't.
The reason it worked in central and western Europe is that unofficial parties filled with young, careless people happen late at night. What we used to call raves back in the day.
This is pretty much what I read the intent of the order to be, though one has to wonder how much of an additional effect the curfew had over simply banning that sort of party in the first place — and then actually enforcing the ban. Realistically, I'm not sure we actually know, unless someone's managed to tease meaningful statistics out of data from regions that either implemented a curfew or didn't.
Actually it had quite an effect according to friends in France and Germany. Because if you ban them, you still have to find them. With a curfew, you just target any and everybody you find out and about after a certain hour. If they don't have a really good story, you cite them. That is what the curfew gets you. Not arguing for or against. And I question whether its effect will be as much in the US as Europe. OTOH, much of the transmission here in Sonoma COunty (and I don't think we are atypical) come from smaller, informal gatherings in people's homes. Which a curfew would, I think, at least diminish.
Exactly the way I read it. No shortage of great and healthy outdoor recreations here for me in the Bay Area. Sadly, no skiing. Hope you Tahoe-area residents are taking advantage of things!
I'm not saying it didn't have an effect, but just to be pedantic, this is anecdotal and there's no way to tell just from these accounts how much of this was actually due to the curfew.
Either way, this justification doesn't work unless you enforce the rule. If you don't, all you're doing is asking people who were already, presumably, being safe to further restrict their activity for no actual benefit.
This hasn't really been my experience, unfortunately, which is where a lot of my frustration comes from. This may have improved, but I've seen parking lots for trails at many local and state parks either fully or partially closed for no clear reason.
Back to the topic, there's also the niggling, annoying fact that as long as you're carrying a pass, if the slopes are open and you're not using it, you're just subsidizing those who are. Right now that doesn't bother me too much, but that will definitely change when there's more snow.
I look at this as "Just because you can travel 150 miles....does not mean you should". Be smart and be respectful of the people where you are considering going to.
There is a lot of room for interpretation of these rules unfortunately which is both a blessing and a curse. Personally, I am taking a slightly selfish approach. I am allowing myself solo day trips from the bay, no overnights, no carpooling with friends. My fortunate personal situation grants me almost 0 covid exposure: live alone, work from home, easy grocery delivery, all relatives on the other side of the country. In this case I personally do not really see the difference between driving 30 minutes to a park for a solo activity in the bay vs driving 3 hours to meadow skip on touring gear in the Sierra. Overnight/with others is definitely a different story. I also understand most people are not as crazy and as willing to do day trips as me. Am I being selfish? Yup. Am I following the spirit of the law? No. But am I following the letter of the law? Technically. And am I putting anyone else or myself in more COVID danger? No. - That last part is what is most important to me. I've skied a few days this year, haven't entered a lodge once or went inside while traveling (did stop for gas of course), there was 0 possible covid transfer situations (unless masked in a lift line counts, in-which case the ski season won't be very long anyway).
That is pretty much a justification for me being selfish, but I really do believe there is a difference between what I am doing and a group of 4 friends carpooling up to their parents cabin to party on a long weekend. I am taking advantage of a little bit of leeway in the confusing rules - but lets be, real nothing will be enforced anyway.
That is pretty much a justification for me being selfish, but I really do believe there is a difference between what I am doing and a group of 4 friends carpooling up to their parents cabin to party on a long weekend. I am taking advantage of a little bit of leeway in the confusing rules - but lets be, real nothing will be enforced anyway.
The ship model towing basin at my former work had to correct for the curvature of the earth. The rails had to stay at the
exact same height above the water but the water surface curves several inches over a half mile !
This is likely to be my approach, but only after we've had a little more time to prove out the lift situation and there's enough terrain open to really spread out. I'll add to this that even an overnight trip doesn't increase exposure if you're staying at a private house, alone.
Hospital capacity in the case of incidental injuries is still a concern, but at least in my case I don't see that the risk of skiing is significantly more or less than, say, biking, and I'm not sure the risk of a traffic accident is enough to justify concern — especially if you shave a little off your usual speed. The main factor here seems to simply be that the Bay Area is doing better overall for the moment, so if you do wind up with an injury, you're better off being there. Either way, this isn't going to be a season for pushing boundaries.
FWIW, I don't see this approach as any more selfish than people who get together for small gatherings or eat at restaurants (as allowed). Probably less so, if you take the time to really think about minimizing exposure at every step.
Last edited:
So, what about second home owners/long-term renters in Tahoe? Is this considered unnecessary travel? Maybe, but people are paying real $$S to have that opportunity to use the ski resort in a responsible way. And I see zero evidence that someone who drives a car loaded with groceries from Bay Area to Tahoe without stopping, sleeps in their own home, and then goes to ski at the resort masked up the whole time (and maybe goes inside for 5 minutes to pee) is transmitting COVID. And judged by what I saw this weekend, skiing is pretty darn safe if you wear a face cover all the time and put on a good mask when you go to the bathroom. It is also pretty clear who is responsible for the current transmission spike- it is large informal gatherings of friends and families indoors where alcohol flows and masks come off. That has very little to do with ski resorts and travel to and from certain regions. So, if you come to Tahoe, ski responsibly, cook your own dinner or get a takeout, and don't go to a dinner party in your friends' house.
I am pretty annoyed by the combination of the ineptitude and knee-jerk reactions that has been the hallmark of our response to COVID all the way from the top down (no national guideline on mask wearing-check; close elementary schools, but keep the bars open- check). Add to that the hubris and the general idiocy of the public (where half does not give a damn and half is afraid of their own shadow) and we get to where we are.
I am pretty annoyed by the combination of the ineptitude and knee-jerk reactions that has been the hallmark of our response to COVID all the way from the top down (no national guideline on mask wearing-check; close elementary schools, but keep the bars open- check). Add to that the hubris and the general idiocy of the public (where half does not give a damn and half is afraid of their own shadow) and we get to where we are.
Last edited:
Aren't Reno hospitals pretty full right now? I'd say if you ski in Tahoe, ski at 80% of your ability, as this is not a great time to get an injury that requires hospitalization.
I am also really worried about them closing resorts pre-emptively. That would push a lot of inexperienced people into backcountry right at the time when the hospitals are ill-equipped to handle the inevitable flood of injuries. From the public health perspective it may be better to keep the resorts open.
I am also really worried about them closing resorts pre-emptively. That would push a lot of inexperienced people into backcountry right at the time when the hospitals are ill-equipped to handle the inevitable flood of injuries. From the public health perspective it may be better to keep the resorts open.
I live at Tahoe. In fact as I write this I am staring out the window at the backside of KT. Re hospitals: Reno hospitals are running full or near full. A week ago they were asking about sending patients to Tahoe Forest Hosp in Truckee. Usually, it is the other way around. Tahoe Forest is a very small ( 24 bed, including ICU) hospital which is currently running full with 50% or so of beds filled with COVID patients. They do an amazing ortho business during ski and Mtn bike seasons.
Forgetting for the moment the nit picking of precisely how many miles it is from SF to Squaw, lets assume the ski itch must be scratched and you do drive up regardless if the distance is restricted. Besides, no one is actually checking although if you get stopped by CHP they might ask). The sad fact is even skiing cautiously there is always the risk an edge will be caught, a weed found or whatever and a crash is possible. And if it's a crash that results in an injury that requires surgery that means an overnight stay at Tahoe Forest ...hoping there's an open bed .
Now I know what you're thinking: I'll be careful, and besides I'm a serious, advanced skier and when was the last time I had a bad wreck anyway. Pretty much what was thought by the several patients who ended up at Tahoe Forest from Northstar on opening day . One badly fractured hip, an open ( bone sticking out of skin) lower leg fracture, and at least one other who not only got first tracks on day one but also got first dibs on toboggan rides off the hill and a gurney trip to the O.R. for surgery. Yeah, stuff happens, even to the best of us. Which is OK normally except in the current environment with what's going on hospitals;/ healthcare wise is anything but normal. The risk - reward att the moment seems a bit out of whack.
And, the conditions are not exactly deluxe and terrain is still v limited ( do you really want to drive three hours to do laps on squaw creek?). No new snow for several weeks now and only a dusting or so expected next week. Add in days of thaw-freeze cycles and, well you get the picture.
I'm not trying to be a downer. It's just a note to say maybe this isn't the best time to to head up here regardless of the written rules/restrictions. And by the way; most of the locals I know are sitting things out for now. Of course that could change the moment we get the first real dump, KT opens, and then well...all bets are off.
Forgetting for the moment the nit picking of precisely how many miles it is from SF to Squaw, lets assume the ski itch must be scratched and you do drive up regardless if the distance is restricted. Besides, no one is actually checking although if you get stopped by CHP they might ask). The sad fact is even skiing cautiously there is always the risk an edge will be caught, a weed found or whatever and a crash is possible. And if it's a crash that results in an injury that requires surgery that means an overnight stay at Tahoe Forest ...hoping there's an open bed .
Now I know what you're thinking: I'll be careful, and besides I'm a serious, advanced skier and when was the last time I had a bad wreck anyway. Pretty much what was thought by the several patients who ended up at Tahoe Forest from Northstar on opening day . One badly fractured hip, an open ( bone sticking out of skin) lower leg fracture, and at least one other who not only got first tracks on day one but also got first dibs on toboggan rides off the hill and a gurney trip to the O.R. for surgery. Yeah, stuff happens, even to the best of us. Which is OK normally except in the current environment with what's going on hospitals;/ healthcare wise is anything but normal. The risk - reward att the moment seems a bit out of whack.
And, the conditions are not exactly deluxe and terrain is still v limited ( do you really want to drive three hours to do laps on squaw creek?). No new snow for several weeks now and only a dusting or so expected next week. Add in days of thaw-freeze cycles and, well you get the picture.
I'm not trying to be a downer. It's just a note to say maybe this isn't the best time to to head up here regardless of the written rules/restrictions. And by the way; most of the locals I know are sitting things out for now. Of course that could change the moment we get the first real dump, KT opens, and then well...all bets are off.
Keeping the resorts open to keep people out of the backcountry? While that might be the lesser of two evils....it is still an evil. What is not evil is people staying in place, not traveling and recreating in their own area . The people who rented ski houses had to know this was a possibility. What should also be considered is that everyone stay in place for 2-4 weeks...now...when the season quite frankly is sub par....and hopefully in a couple of weeks/month we might be on a downward trend and they we all can enjoy this sport we love.
Yes, we knew that. There is a million reasons why sitting out the season was not a viable option. And my bet is that most of the spread is evenly split between the locals and the real tourists (the ones who'd usually go to bars and party). And, please, explain to me how traveling from one house to another in your personal vehicle spreads COVID. Staying in place and drinking with your buddies (because you have nothing better to do) spreads COVID. I don't drink with my buddies when I am in Tahoe. I ski, cook dinner and go to bed (and once in a while I'd fix the core shots in between dinner and bed).
Trying to shorten a longer post, I'd just like to suggest that we hold off on trying to guess at other people's situations and at what they're thinking.
Yes, people are going to go out, do stupid things, and get themselves hurt. Don't do that. But people are also going to get hurt doing exactly what they've been told they should do. Let's not point and make an example of people who's situation we don't know.
Similarly, everyone's home situation is different. Some people live with others, have jobs that require them to work with other people, etc. Some are able to nearly completely isolate themselves. What it means to limit exposure means something different to everyone, and the orders aren't always written in such a way that they make sense for every situation. Sometimes a certain degree of interpretation is necessary, and while it's admirable to always take the most conservative approach available, that simply isn't a realistic thing to ask people to do 100% of the time, for all situations.
Also, again, while I know this is a somewhat contentious topic, there are very real financial considerations. Most of us had to make a choice this year between preemptively sitting out what could turn out to be a decent season or paying up and hoping for the best. And while resorts pretty much universally adopted policies to offer refunds in the event of shutdowns, none that I'm aware of apply when only travel is restricted.
Part of the reason I'm making noise here is to make the point now, as resorts are evaluating how their policies are working so far, that this isn't a viable solution for the year if things continue as they've started. To put this in perspective, Squaw/Alpine have been actively advertising their masters program, which is also a season pass and costs on the order of $3000. Families with their kids in race programs face a similar situation. People paying for these services (myself not included in this specific case) do reasonably have some expectation that they'll be able to make use of what they've been sold by resorts whose management was also well aware of the situation going into the season, and kids do not necessarily have the luxury of simply sitting the year out.
Yes, people are going to go out, do stupid things, and get themselves hurt. Don't do that. But people are also going to get hurt doing exactly what they've been told they should do. Let's not point and make an example of people who's situation we don't know.
Similarly, everyone's home situation is different. Some people live with others, have jobs that require them to work with other people, etc. Some are able to nearly completely isolate themselves. What it means to limit exposure means something different to everyone, and the orders aren't always written in such a way that they make sense for every situation. Sometimes a certain degree of interpretation is necessary, and while it's admirable to always take the most conservative approach available, that simply isn't a realistic thing to ask people to do 100% of the time, for all situations.
Also, again, while I know this is a somewhat contentious topic, there are very real financial considerations. Most of us had to make a choice this year between preemptively sitting out what could turn out to be a decent season or paying up and hoping for the best. And while resorts pretty much universally adopted policies to offer refunds in the event of shutdowns, none that I'm aware of apply when only travel is restricted.
Part of the reason I'm making noise here is to make the point now, as resorts are evaluating how their policies are working so far, that this isn't a viable solution for the year if things continue as they've started. To put this in perspective, Squaw/Alpine have been actively advertising their masters program, which is also a season pass and costs on the order of $3000. Families with their kids in race programs face a similar situation. People paying for these services (myself not included in this specific case) do reasonably have some expectation that they'll be able to make use of what they've been sold by resorts whose management was also well aware of the situation going into the season, and kids do not necessarily have the luxury of simply sitting the year out.
This is why: The points that @migdriver said in post 55 because you are not just going from one house to another in your car. You are going to the hill and in the lift lines and on chairs that other people have used..these "tourists" that went to bars and parties. Also what happened to another member here, you could be Doing all the right things and still getting covid. As they say, "It's not a problem, until it's a problem".
Along with hoping for the best, we also need to plan for the worst. Right now it is bad...and actually could get worse if the resorts do shut down. Part of that shut down could be from people traveling from different regions and when they do shut down..restarting will be all that more difficult.
You have to go deep into Epic Coverage | Epic Season Pass (epicpass.com), but they do allow you to apply for a refund in May due to local stay-at-home order (see below). Refund will be reduced for each day your pass has been used and goes away if you use 7 days.
Does Santa Clara County shutdown from 10 PM on 12/6 to 1/4 count as thirty consecutive or is it 29.1 since it only covered 2 hours on 12/6? It does cover more than seven days during the "Core Season" which starts today.
I had reservations for 12/2 and 12/3 at Heavenly and 12/4 (opening day) at Kirkwood last week, but canceled. My wife had strong objections to me going, even though I think going solo to family cabin that had not been used since Oct. and trying to avoid going to grocery stores while there is not much more dangerous than going to grocery store (where I haven't been since before Thanksgiving) and Home Depot (too many recent trips and still need to do another).
Section F
Personal Event REFUNDS
- Refund Eligibility. You may be eligible for a “Personal Event Refund” if you are prevented from using your Pass during the Core Season due to a “Qualifying Personal Event”.
A Qualifying Personal Event is one or more of the following: - Stay-at Home Order. You are unable to use your Pass during the Core Season because the municipality, county, state, province, or country in which your Permanent Residence is located is subject to a “quarantine,” “stay-at-home,” “shelter-in-place” or other comparable mandatory governmental order lasting thirty (30) or more consecutive days, at least seven (7) days of which are during the Core Season. Your “Permanent Residence” refers to your fixed, permanent and principal home for legal and tax purposes.