• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

California/Nevada Understanding Tahoe Travel Restrictions

davjr96

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Posts
237
Location
SF Bay Area
Also not trying to argue it's a good idea, but technically outdoor recreation is "essential" under the states definition. Therefore "local" "travel" is permitted.

There's a line somewhere, and the bay area is probably over it, but I don't think anyone would argue that someone from Truckee would not be allowed to ski say Heavenly if it had better snow than Northstar, even though they would be traveling further than strictly necessary for this.
 

John Webb

mdskier
Skier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
5,779
Location
Nevada City CA
Some of the published/ website guidance re COVID restrictions around Tahoe are not necessarily current.

The other shoe has now dropped : the Tahoe area ( CA side) is will be under stay at home restrictions as of Friday . Technically skiing and resorts are allowed ,( though with no food or beverage etc) , but all non essential travel in the region is prohibited.

So all the discussions re travel to Tahoe resorts from the Bay Area, Sac, and so on are pretty much moot. The stay at home order is for three weeks min. And, hotels and lodging are supposed to accommodate COvID needs only and are theoretically not allowed to house tourists , visitors etc.

Now I guess we wait to see the response of Alterra and Vail corps. Relying on the Bay Area folks who have moved up here recently into ski rentals, newly purchased homes etc plus existing locals -all on passes - hardly would seem sufficient to justify ski operations at least in the short term .

Guess we’ll know shortly.
Sacramento Region ICU availability Just dropped to 14% triggering this "stay at home" order.
3 of the 5 CA regions now.
Nevada County (Truckee) announcement.
 
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
3,330
Location
SF Bay Area
outdoor recreation is "permitted" and not "prohibitted". But it is not "essential".

The only outdoor rec that got carved out and designated truly "essential", is the swim lessons and swim safety so kids don't end up not learning how to swim when they're still the most capable of learning; and end up drowning later.
 

Unpiste

Booting down
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Posts
586
Location
California
There's a line somewhere, and the bay area is probably over it, but I don't think anyone would argue that someone from Truckee would not be allowed to ski say Heavenly if it had better snow than Northstar, even though they would be traveling further than strictly necessary for this.
I'm not so sure. Truckee->Kirkwood, for instance, is only about double Bay Area->Kirkwood, and technically speaking, someone visiting from, say, Santa Clara county currently is at a slightly lower risk of transmitting COVID, all else being equal, than someone from Truckee. Assuming 88 is open, Santa Clara->Kirkwood may or may not even be a safer dive, since only a small portion of it will potentially be in freezing conditions. I'd say both seem like a bad idea for the moment, though.

The only real mitigating factor I see is that for Tahoe, ski resorts are going to be a primary form of outdoor recreation right now. People in other regions can still do all the same things they might in the summer, for the most part.
 

davjr96

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Posts
237
Location
SF Bay Area
I'm not so sure. Truckee->Kirkwood, for instance, is only about double Bay Area->Kirkwood, and technically speaking, someone visiting from, say, Santa Clara county currently is at a slightly lower risk of transmitting COVID, all else being equal, than someone from Truckee. I'd say both seem like a bad idea for the moment, though.

I also see it that way too, but I don't know a single Truckee local that would actually consider not BC skiing Carson pass over more local options if the conditions aligned.
 

Rich McP

H20nSnow Elsewhere
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
426
Location
Breck whenever possible
Summit Co CO (Keystone, Breck, Copper,AB) did an investigation after a recent spike.. The county found more than half the Covid cases were from locals.
To be clear, those locals weren't being good neighbors. They were doing all of the things that we are being told we shouldn't do. These folks are gathering, drinking, talking, eating, yelling, singing, maybe even caroling. These are not the folks who hole up at home and only go out masked and make an active effort to stay away from people. (And, the first two documented cases in Summit Co were tourists.)
 
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
3,330
Location
SF Bay Area
I think if you can ask the question, then that means it's not essential you had an option or a way to not to have to do that thing.

If we switch back to a true crisis and just go back to spirit of the words "essential" or not, versus asking for exact numerical definitions.
It's like asking how much do you donate to the war effort; everyone's capability is going to be different.
A kid donating his $5 allowance is not financially the same as local businessman donating $10k; but spiritually they are giving as much as they can. On the flipside, if a millionaire donates $100k that's a big chunk; but if a billionaire "only" donates $200k, he's given more than everyone else, but still hasn't sacrificed nearly the same and is still eating his steak and lobster.

You know what the common meaning of "essential" is; so just take it as the common use of the word for the order to do as much as you can rather than focusing on exact numbers.

Even though its an "order" it's still a request and practically impossible to enforce; and a whole bunch of people are going to get away with not following it; and it's not going to be fair that those people didn't contribute to the effort and got away with their actions and activities. Even if exact numbers were given, those folks weren't going to follow numbers anyway, so it's somewhat of a moot point to give a number. So to those that want to follow, just use your gut and heart and do as much as you can.
 

John Webb

mdskier
Skier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
5,779
Location
Nevada City CA
I want to be clear that I'm not trying to argue that driving from the Bay Area to Tahoe is a good idea, but I still find the guidance extremely confusing. Is travel to a ski resort essential, or not, and if it isn't, why would ski resorts still be operating while this is in effect? I've read and re-read that California order, and I don't see any place where it actually makes a distinction on how far one has to drive before it's considered "travel".
Conflict may be that skiing is a healthy allowed recreational activity but driving there in a sealed up virus free metal box, one person only, could be risky for virus (how?).
Also confusing is the order is at this point only voluntary -not mandatory.

Lodging at Tahoe will mostly close for 3 weeks except for owners use and "essential" workers just as at Mammoth in the Socal region.
One option is to flock to Reno motels/casinos and do 1 hour trips daily to Tahoe.
 

Unpiste

Booting down
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Posts
586
Location
California
I think if you can ask the question, then that means it's not essential you had an option not to have to do it.
The problem is that without guidance, there's no way to calibrate one's personal scale of risk, and different people's scales vary by orders of magnitude. That really doesn't work when deciding whether or not to drive up to Tahoe to ski, up to Marin for a hike, etc. isn't just a personal decision.

I'd like to recalibrate my scale to something slightly more permissive for the ski season after going out for a grand total of 5 hikes since March and otherwise staying isolated, but that's kind of hard when all anyone can tell you is to stay inside and at home as much as possible. I don't think anyone is expecting certainty, but I'm not an epidemiologist and I'm not actually qualified to judge what is risky or not. I'd like to have real guidance to fall back on from someone who is.
 

luliski

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2017
Posts
2,557
Location
California
Because of the drop in ICU capacity to lower than 15%, the Greater Sacramento Region, which includes the California side of the Tahoe area, is now under an even stricter lockdown order. Basically people are being asked to stay home except for essential activities. Outdoor exercise may be an essential activity, but you don't have to drive to a resort to ski to get outdoor exercise.
I'm wondering what the resorts will do. It's not like there's any good snow, anyway. And it's only for three weeks.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
3,330
Location
SF Bay Area
The problem is that without guidance, there's no way to calibrate one's personal scale of risk, and different people's scales vary by orders of magnitude. That really doesn't work when deciding whether or not to drive up to Tahoe to ski, up to Marin for a hike, etc. isn't just a personal decision.
I think that's my different perspective and viewpoint. You don't need to compare to other people, or outside guidance, or law and order; this decision will just come back to you and yourself.
Due to this being unique once in a century set of circumstances; it is going to end up be a series of individual personal decisions; even though technically it's as an "order" and "by law". For this unique situation I think the law and the power of "the law" and government is at the will of the people to comply.
 

Unpiste

Booting down
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Posts
586
Location
California
I think that's my different persoective and viewpoint.
You don't need to compare to other people, just to yourself.
Due to this being unique once in a century new circumstances; it is going to end up be a series of individual personal decision; even though technically it's as an "order" and law". For this unique, "the law" and the govenment is at the will of the people..
The problem is that this isn't just a series of personal decisions. I'm not staying at home because I think I'm at a high risk, I'm staying at home because I can, to protect everyone else. I don't really have a problem being stuck for the moment. I've done my laps on Kangaroo and Squaw Creek the past 3+ seasons, and it's not a big deal missing it, but I'm not really expecting the situation with COVID to change significantly in 3 weeks.
 

John Webb

mdskier
Skier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
5,779
Location
Nevada City CA
I'm wondering what the resorts will do. It's not like there's any good snow, anyway.
In the case of Sierra at Tahoe, I planned to go soon with my unused pass from last year.
It expires Dec 15 so this would violate the "stay at home" order
 

Pequenita

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Aug 5, 2017
Posts
1,613
I think part of a personal risk assessment, which the local governments are obliquely conveying, is that if you engage in a nonessential activity and wind up needing inpatient medical treatment, you may be pretty screwed,

While the likelihood of traumatic injury while driving to the resort or skiing is low, it remains possible, and if you need a bed, you may not get one. For instance, a friend was involved in a head on vehicle collision a few weekends ago while driving locally. Friend is fine. Their vehicle and the other driver is not.
 
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
3,330
Location
SF Bay Area
The problem is that this isn't just a series of personal decisions. I'm not staying at home because I think I'm at a high risk, I'm staying at home because I can, to protect everyone else. I don't really have a problem being stuck for the moment. I've done my laps on Kangaroo and Squaw Creek the past 3+ seasons, and it's not a big deal missing it, but I'm not really expecting the situation with COVID to change significantly in 3 weeks.

I think we agree, but just some miswordings. The "personal decision" maybe is better worded as "individual decisions" and is what you choose to do including and incorporating whether you care about others. But it's personal in that you can't control other's decisions who may have another view including "F this order, and F everyone else, I'm getting mine".

For the aspect of guidance, unfortuantely I think you have to accept that given people are making individual decisions including very selfish ones, and impractical for this to be enforced; there's still going to be a whole range of behaviors; so for your own decision you'll just have to incorporate that risk is going to be unknown.
You may subconsciously take cues from what you observe other people are doing, but taking social cues may not be the best idea.
 

Unpiste

Booting down
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Posts
586
Location
California
For the aspect of guidance, unfortuantely I think you have to accept that given people are making individual decisions including very selfish ones, it's a whole range of behaviors; so for your own decision you'll just have to incorporate that risk is going to be unknown.
This is why guidance is important. People aren't making selfish decisions in a vacuum. (Or, perhaps more accurately, the problem is that they are.)

I don't want to be one of those people, but on the other hand, I've already well explained why I don't see that traveling, with appropriate caution, to ski is actually a significant risk — in terms of COVID. I haven't actually seen a counterargument. If anything, the concerns @Pequenita pointed out are a larger factor in my decision not to ski, and they're hardly mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
3,330
Location
SF Bay Area
Just my 2cents:

Lol, where we are now, I think the guidance is clear: which is to stay at home and don't do anything non-essential. And that is the clear guidance to those that would listen to it.

Looking for different guidance and fishing for details on is 10miles allowed, is 50miles allowed, 150miles or 200miles or 215.15 miles is allowed is trying to ask for permission to do something for which you should just evaluate the extra risk and nobody is going to stop you, nor outright bless you to go do either.

Note: Even if you stay at home and be an lockdown hermit and only do essential things; this is just reducing the risk; there is still a probability to either catch or spread the virus so there's no absolute magic number in the guidance for zero or a guarentee either.

[I also will note see the order is bundling risk advisory +request for behavioral change together; and there is mixed messaging there and likely political lobbying and carveouts for certain economic and industries too and not just pure covid-reduction health guidance]
 

Unpiste

Booting down
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Posts
586
Location
California
Lol, where we are now, I think the guidance is clear…
No, the problem is that the guidance isn't remotely clear. According to the letter of both state and local orders, there's maybe just the slightest problem with someone driving ~200 miles to ski right now.

And after isolating rigorously for 9+ months, I hardly think it's unreasonable to wonder whether maybe it's okay to take just a little more risk — because according to all guidance the risk is indeed minimal — to engage in my favorite outdoor activity. I'm not expecting answers here, but downplaying the problem doesn't help.
 
Thread Starter
TS
raytseng

raytseng

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Posts
3,330
Location
SF Bay Area
No, the problem is that the guidance isn't remotely clear. According to the letter of both state and local orders, there's maybe just the slightest problem with someone driving ~200 miles to ski right now.

And after isolating rigorously for 9+ months, I hardly think it's unreasonable to wonder whether maybe it's okay to take just a little more risk — because according to all guidance the risk is indeed minimal — to engage in my favorite outdoor activity.

Well, I think if you go back and re-read, the guidance is clear, don't travel unless essential.

The requests for specific distances, were people wanting to get an exemption and do the thought experiement of hey if I were to NOT to follow the underlying guidance and go travel or to reclassify in their own interpretation that that skiing "essential" to me; and should this travel came to light; what's the most I can get away with without triggering some bureaucratic paperwork, quarantine processes, fines, or other potential issues.
 

Sponsor

Top