EISPIRATEN

I came up on a Friday about a month ago. Ample room. FWIW, my car was not broken into.

HJ

Thanks for the info!

My family wants to try their luck up Timber tomorrow. Anybody been up Icehouse this week? Is there significant snow on the trail? They don't have micro spikes.

We opted for a pleasant stroll to Sunset Peak rather than fighting the crowds in Icehouse today, so this is complete speculation based on the view from miles away, but you are probably pretty safe. In general, the Mount Baldy area seemed to have patchy snow on shaded / north-facing slopes starting at about 6500 feet. The bottom of ice house canyon is shady but also pretty low (4,800 at the trail head I think) and by the time you get to the switchbacks it is completely exposed to the sun. And even at night the freezing level has been pretty high this week. Between that and the amount of people that have gone up the trail since the most recent snow last Friday, the trail should be pretty clear. At worst I would think you hit some muddy slush. If you are worried maybe bring some poles for balance but you should be OK.

@andthewalrus

you were absolutely right, icehouse was free and clear. I didnt go with them after all but they made it up to Timber Mountain and described the conditions exactly as Uncle Rico describes in his post. Thanks for the tip! I'm a little devastated that the snow is gone already but I did get one super good day in recently so it was better than nothing.

You're not the only one devastated by the briefness of our winter this year; but at least it was better then the extended fall season of 2012. I was up at Little Jimmy yesterday and there is more exposed soil and rock then snow now, although there is supposed to be another storm later this week so we may get a touch more of the white. Although I do have to admit it feels more like spring everyday and less like winter.

The San Gabriel Trailbuilders are working in Icehouse Canyon rebuilding the section of trail near the creek crossing that collapsed a few years ago. Thanks, guys!!



The forest service has put up a new sign at the Icehouse Saddle. It's about 10 years late, but better late than never I guess.

We were in Icehouse Canyon Saturday. We met a volunteer ranger on the trail wearing a San Bernardino National Forest uniform. He said that SBNF would be patrolling Icehouse Canyon. Interagency co-operation? At any rate, we had a nice discussion about over use of the trail and switchback cutting. He said he had placed logs across some of the cuts only to find them removed. I informed him that removal of such barriers was commonplace by the cutters.

Just before the 2 mile post, the trail looks re-arranged. Was there an avalanche here last winter that moved a lot of rocks around?

Not that I am aware of.

On Jan 24 we went up Falling Rock Canyon and Cherry Canyon to Ontario Peak, then returned along the route of the summer trail.

Falling Rock and Cherry Canyons, which are north-facing, had pretty good snow cover. It was enough to allow us to go up steep slopes using crampons rather than groveling up the scree, but it wasn't enough to completely cover the manzanita and chinquapin. There's about a foot of snow above 6000'.

There was a well established boot track going back to Icehouse Saddle.

A member of our group had called the ranger station in Baldy Village a couple of days before to ask about conditions. They gave him a ridiculous description of needing snowshoes at Icechouse Saddle to avoid postholing in 3' of snow. Luckily we ignored their advice and didn't carry along our snowshoes, which would have been totally useless. I've seen this happen before with that ranger station. They must see it as their job to scare people off by wildly exaggerating the conditions.

bcrowell wrote: ↑A member of our group had called the ranger station in Baldy Village a couple of days before to ask about conditions. They gave him a ridiculous description of needing snowshoes at Icechouse Saddle to avoid postholing in 3' of snow. Luckily we ignored their advice and didn't carry along our snowshoes, which would have been totally useless. I've seen this happen before with that ranger station. They must see it as their job to scare people off by wildly exaggerating the conditions.

It's usually because they have no idea. The Forest Service hasn't had enough money to have employees that actually hike the trails in almost 20 years.

The Forest Service itself has money, but over the years the budget has slowly drained away from the land management side to the fire side. In 1995, only 16% of the Forest Service's budget went to fire operations. Today it's 52% - a 43% decline in funding for land management. Fire operations are projected to be 67% of the Forest Service's budget by 2025. To make matters worse, revenue raised by campground fees, OHV fees, and Adventure Passes do not get allocated to those places. Instead, the money is sent to Washington, who often doesn't give the money back to the Angeles. The only way this can change is literally an act of Congress.

The result is that there are no Forest Service employees out on the trails except for exceedingly rare special occasions. If you see a uniform, they're a volunteer.

SGBob is totally right on, which is unfortunate.

That being said, it kind of depends on the volunteer. Some of them are really good asking everyone who comes through what conditions they encountered and get information that way (but of course that info is only as reliable as the people they talk to). The Baldy Ranger station used to be a pretty good spot for information. But I think now that you don't need to stop there for permits anymore, they're not getting as good information from hikers. But I remember picking up a permit there and them saying to stop back in on the way out and let them know about conditions.

Over the summer, every time I'd stop in Chilao, the Ranger there would ask me about conditions and the number of people I saw in the campgrounds and things like that.

But it just kind of depends who you are talking to, who they talked to, and whether they worked the last couple days....

It looks like it is still up in the air to close off Icehouse Canyon
http://www.pe.com/articles/trail-793958 ... mount.html

UPDATE
ALL TRAILS ARE NOW OPEN
http://www.pe.com/articles/feb-794179-friday-mount.html

There are so many people that the FS declared war on its hard to tell who has em thinking. Clearly, telling the ski run that their business was finished forever had to anger some people...but who knows.

There was a lawsuit awhile back that was mistimed. A lady sued Caltrans after slipping on ice, trying to go to a bathroom near the side of Hwy 2. The lawsuit was dismissed because it was ANF property. Now the FS thinks that she has a case?...after all if it was icy it should be closed right? There was no sign warning to bring crampons and helmets to visit said bathroom, and even if there were, they were probably racist in being written in english.

And for all the mountaineers laughing at this group of clowns, they are coming for you too. Wait till they close the Tetons or Whitney because someone might get injured.

They don't have the legal standing to charge parking fees, yet they can shut down trails?

I guess this one will eventually find its way to court as well.

One reason they give for shutting down trails is that rescues endanger the lives of the SAR members. Which is true, but by that logic we should shut down civilization. Because protecting city-dwellers from accidents and criminals also endangers the lives of emergency responders.

Leave logic out of this. Gives it a bad name.

Sean wrote: ↑They don't have the legal standing to charge parking fees, yet they can shut down trails?

Yes, they do have legal authority to shut down trails. See 36 CFR 261.50:

(a) The Chief, each Regional Forester, each Experiment Station Director, the Administrator of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and each Forest Supervisor may issue orders which close or restrict the use of described areas within the area over which he has jurisdiction. An order may close an area to entry or may restrict the use of an area by applying any or all of the prohibitions authorized in this subpart or any portion thereof.

(b) The Chief, each Regional Forester, each Experiment Station Director, the Administrator of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and each Forest Supervisor may issue orders which close or restrict the use of any National Forest System road or trail within the area over which he has jurisdiction.

If I were the supervisor of the ANF, I would feel a moral obligation to close trails that were killing people. I fail to see what demonizing the forest service accomplishes.

RichardK wrote: ↑I fail to see what demonizing the forest service accomplishes.

I agree. I am not overly fond of our land managers, but I sympathize with their predicament. For liability and public relations reasons, they must be seen to be doing something.

But closing trails has its own built-in problem. Sooner or later, you must open them, and then some people are going to take that as evidence that they are now 'safe'. There is no sharp line between safe and unsafe. A brochure on winter hiking and mountaineering and a multi-level warning system might be more effective, and by placing more responsibility on users, less of a problem for the FS.

Sean wrote: ↑ I guess this one will eventually find its way to court as well.

Probably not...only kangaroo courts left since they have rebuffed lawsuits on regulations. A lawsuit to force the govt to follow their own rules is likely to end up dismissed since they just say its their rules and they decide how their rules are interpreted as we go along. Including who gets a throne issued waiver.

Just called this morning. Trails are still closed. The person I spoke with has no information on when they'd be open. Ridiculous. You wait all year for snow and ice to use your gear and then they close the trails.

I agree that we should cut the FS some slack. Can you imagine having to make that call? The situation escalated to the point where it exceeded SAR's ability to handle the volume of accidents. It's also important to understand that SAR is predominantly done by volunteers. Their resources were getting stretched way too thin.

I imagine that the trails will remain closed through the holiday weekend and open next Tuesday.

I appreciate the impact the day had on SAR. Pretty apparent by Lisa Woll's account, who was one of the people who found Dong Xing Liu and his wife. They waited for hours and were told they had already been picked 3 times. Yikes. I met a couple volunteers in San Jacinto who tried to "recruit" my friend and I. Maybe when I'm retired, and hopefully not too old. Later in the day they were looking for guy who may have drank too much at the tram station and wandered off.

Too bad they can't be more selective about the closure and just require people to have the right gear, much like what is done when regulating winter mountain road conditions, requiring people to have chains or 4WD. Those prepared may proceed, those that aren't can't continue.

bschmalz wrote: ↑I agree that we should cut the FS some slack. Can you imagine having to make that call? The situation escalated to the point where it exceeded SAR's ability to handle the volume of accidents. It's also important to understand that SAR is predominantly done by volunteers. Their resources were getting stretched way too thin.

I imagine that the trails will remain closed through the holiday weekend and open next Tuesday.

Its an easy call once all the facts are in. No one got injured on any trail. No closure. The trails are not fatal. Anytime you go off a trail, the mitigation of risk ends and its a personal responsibility. Asking for slack is asking to accept a lie and have the FS plan my outdoors experience. Not going to happen....nor should the land grabbers assume it would be different.

The argument that people such as myself are immoral evil death celebrators is.....whatever. I suppose you'll be getting around to call to close everything soon enough. The....Oh, I didnt know about MtHigh medical aid...close it....oh, I didnt know about that mountain biker on the Altadena trail. Close all those trails and ban mountain biking....oh, I didnt know about that hiker near Hermit Falls stumbling off the trail. Close all those trails and close Hermit Falls. Close all waterfalls and waterholes....oh, people died in the past on Baldy? Close the whole mountain. They've died elsewhere in the forest? Close the whole forest.
Oh...there was a guy who drown in the beach last year who was used to the ANF, and who only went there because the forest roads was closed? In other words, closing a forest doesnt stop risk taking and nothing has been prevented? Close the beach too.

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

bschmalz wrote: ↑what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

You mean you , the hypocritical inconsistent person, says Im the evil immoral death celebrator? Care to point out any false statements I made?

Your side has insisted these were trail accidents. So where on the trail itself did these happen? You have the side that is rambling nonsense.
We have one death where someone slipped 100+ ft and was heard calling down to trail level. The topo location shown by the knowledgeable person showed they were on trail and heard cries from above. Are you saying the victim was on trail and the woman off-trail?

The Backbone death was someone going to help someone who slipped. I dont need to bother to look up if the backbone part of is a certified forest trail, because we know he went to help someone who slipped.

Or maybe you can point out the difference the mountain biker or Hermit Falls guy and the Baldy deaths...and why one calls for closure but the other doesnt. Feel free to argue that a recent death is a call for closure vs a past death. Or argue with something that proves people stop taking risk because you closed some trail.

Evidence points to both deaths and the near death on timber from being falls while on trail. The article I read about icehouse made it seem like the women were hiking on the canyon floor, off trail, when they heard the cries for help above (between the trail and the bottom of the canyon).

The amount of anger you are expressing here seems really unhealthy. Especially when you consider the fact that it's being levied towards volunteers and civil servants who get paid pennies on the dollar. I recommend therapy.

bschmalz wrote: ↑what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

"Okay, a simple 'wrong' would've done just fine."

bschmalz wrote: ↑Evidence points to both deaths and the near death on timber from being falls while on trail. The article I read about icehouse made it seem like the women were hiking on the canyon floor, off trail, when they heard the cries for help above (between the trail and the bottom of the canyon).

The amount of anger you are expressing here seems really unhealthy. Especially when you consider the fact that it's being levied towards volunteers and civil servants who get paid pennies on the dollar. I recommend therapy.

The Icehouse death was at approx 7800ft, after slipping 100+ ft. In the video, the woman collaborates the official account and points out the location on the topo map where they were found...Bighorn NE ridge. She was travelling on the Ontario Peak trail.



I guess I should backtrack on the Backbone death and conclude it was more likely than not it was off-trail....but since a nice location isnt given, we dont know for sure. According to the maps I see, there is a trail 7w05.01 that ends before the Devils backbone. There is another trail 7w04.02 that ends on the Devils backbone section of the topo on the downside of Harwood ridge.

I've already stated my opinion, that I am not fond of our land managers, but sympathize with their predicament, and am not sure trail closures are the best solution.

But I agree that AW is ranting and raving. Mainly he advances his views by extreme hypotheticals that don't occur. And whether or not the accidents occurred on 'trails' is not a major issue in itself. A trail covered with hard, slippery snow on a steep slope is not Class 1, it is more like Class 3. It makes little difference whether or not there is a trail under the snow. And the trails provide access to off-trail trekking and climbing.

UPDATE
All trails are now open.

http://www.pe.com/articles/feb-794179-friday-mount.html